January 14, 2018


News and Views


SO, SENATOR CORY BOOKER SAYS THAT THE “REPORTED” WORDS USED -- “SHITHOLE NATIONS” -- IS “UNACCEPTABLE,” AND “UNBECOMING” (HOW PRIGGISH CAN BOOKER GET), BUT THAT WE SHOULD JUST “MOVE ON.” I TRANSLATE THAT TO MEAN THAT WE SHOULD SAY (NOT TO HIS FACE) THAT HE IS A BAD BOY, BUT MAKE NO EFFORT TO GET THE BLACKGUARD OUT OF OFFICE. YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED THAT I REALLY LOVE THE OLD VICTORIAN WORD “BLACKGUARD.”

I AGREE WITH HIM THAT WE NEED TO MAKE THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN WHO CAME HERE WITH THEIR PARENTS A PART OF OUR LAW, BUT I DON’T AGREE THAT THIS RIGHTFUL COMPLAINT ABOUT TRUMP’S LANGUAGE SHOULD BE DIMINISHED BY CALLING IT “POLITICS.” TRUMP SAID A FEW DAYS AGO THAT MAYBE HE’LL START RECORDING ALL MEETINGS. I PERSONALLY THINK THAT WOULD HELP, BUT EACH AND EVERY ATTENDEE SHOULD BE ABLE TO BRING HIS OWN SMART PHONE IN AND RECORD THE MEETING, ALSO. WE DON’T NEED CLOSED DOOR MEETINGS IN WHICH “UNACCEPTABLE” THINGS OCCUR AND THE ACT IS EFFECTIVELY CONDONED BY A FAILURE TO PUNISH IT.

BY “PUNISH” I MEAN SOMETHING LIKE A FORMAL SANCTION IN THE HOUSE OR THE SENATE, AND BETTER STILL, A WRITTEN NOTICE THAT THIS WILL BE COLLECTED WITH OTHER PERTINENT THINGS IN A FILE TO BE USED IF NECESSARY AS A CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT. WE ARE CURRENTLY LACKING DETAILED AND CODIFIED PROCEDURES FOR REMOVING A HIGH OFFICIAL – NOT JUST THE PRESIDENT – FROM OFFICE. THAT’S WHY THERE IS SO MUCH UNFAIRNESS AND BULLYING OF ALL KINDS. PEOPLE WON’T STAND UP AGAINST IT – THE “BYSTANDER EFFECT.”

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sen-cory-gardner-on-trump-immigration-comments-whats-been-reported-is-unacceptable/
By EMILY TILLETT CBS NEWS January 14, 2018, 11:56 AM
Sen. Cory Gardner on Trump immigration comments: "What's been reported is unacceptable"

Republican Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado says President Trump's reported use of vulgar language to describe immigrants from African countries, Haiti and El Salvador was "unacceptable."

Transcript: Sen. Cory Gardner on "Face the Nation"

Gardner told CBS News' "Face the Nation" on Sunday that the comments were "unbecoming" and that he hoped to "move beyond" it.

"I'm not going to get into the who-said-what-said, but what was reported is unacceptable. But what we have to do is not let that define this moment," said Gardner. "We can't let this moment's politics defeat the important policy choices ahead of us. Look, we put together a very responsible plan, and if people want to better that, if people want to improve that, then let's do that."

While meeting with lawmakers about a potential immigration deal, Mr. Trump questioned why the U.S. accepts immigrants from what he called "sh*thole countries," according to Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, who was at the meeting.

"Why are we having all these people from sh*thole countries come here?" the president said Thursday afternoon in the Oval Office. Two Republican senators present at the meeting have disputed Durbin's account.

Gardner said that, despite the president's remarks, he hoped Americans would see that "Republicans and Democrats [are] coming together, not to fight politics, but to actually come up with a solution to address this challenge before us."

The senator went so far as to say that Mr. Trump was "sincere" on providing a solution to DACA, the program that protects undocumented immigrants who were brought the U.S. as children.

"To the president's credit, every time I've had a conversation with him in recent months, he's talked about a need to find a solution on this DACA population, you know this-this hundreds of thousands of people in America that are a part of DACA right now," said Gardner.

He added, "He's talked about the need to bring a solution for the Dreamers. He's talked about working to do it, so I have no reason to doubt him, even today, despite the blow up that we had this past week."

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.



THIS ARTICLE GOES INTO DETAIL ON THE MATHEMATICAL PREDICTIONS OF VOTER BEHAVIOR, ON WHICH THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS IS BASED, AS MANDATED WHENEVER THERE IS A NEW CENSUS. THE GOAL IS TO BREAK UP POWER CLUMPS, BUT THE USUAL RESULT IS DIFFERENT. THIS ARTICLE AND VIDEO GO INTO HOW THE MATH WORKS NOW. IT IS COMPOSED OF THE WRITTEN STORY, PLUS COMMENTARY BY MO ROCCA AND INTERVIEWS WITH CITIZENS AND PROFESSIONALS ON THE HOW AND WHY THAT IT IS DONE. IT’S THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR MAKING SAUSAGE. PER THE STORY, THIS SUBJECT OF GERRYMANDERING IS COMING UP BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT SOON (AGAIN).

GERRYMANDERING HAS BEEN A A PERENNIAL PROBLEM SINCE OUR NATION BEGAN, AND IT COMES FROM ALLOWING LOCAL AREAS TO DEFINE HOW THEIR ELECTIONS WILL BE HANDLED -- WITH THE RESULT THAT REDISTRICTING INTO THESE CREATIVE BUT UNFAIR “SALAMANDERS,” ETC. -- IS NOT STOPPED. STATES ALSO ARE ALLOWED TO DEFINE ON THE LOCAL LEVEL WHICH CITIZENS WILL BE GIVEN THE RIGHT TO VOTE, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, AT THE POLLS. NO PERSON SHOULD BE UNABLE TO VOTE MERELY BECAUSE HE COMMITTED A FELONY IN HIS PAST, IF HE HAS PAID THE PENALTY; OR BECAUSE HIS VOTE HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY BY SOME DECEITFUL AND UNACCEPTABLE SUBTERFUGE, SUCH AS VOTER PURGING. IT IS CLEAR WHEN WE EXAMINE THOSE CASES THAT THE GOAL IS TO DELETE BLACK OR LATINO VOTERS OR VERY POOR WHITES, ALL OF WHOM FOR PRACTICAL REASONS, DON’T USUALLY VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS IF THEY ARE INTELLIGENT. THE COMMON PRACTICE, USED PARTICULARLY BY REPUBLICANS, OF “VOTER CAGING” IS ONE MEANS TO THAT END. THESE THINGS, IN EFFECT, AMOUNT TO A LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP.

THERE IS ALSO THE INDISPUTABLE TENDENCY FOR BLACKS TO BE JAILED ON THE BASIS OF BEING UNABLE TO PAY A FINE ON A BROKEN TAILLIGHT. WHITE PEOPLE ARE STOPPED, YES, BUT THEY ARE GIVEN A WARNING AND TOLD TO GET THEIR TAILLIGHT FIXED. IF WHEN THEY GET TO COURT THEY CAN’T PAY, IN MANY AREAS THEY ARE JAILED; WHILE IN OTHER PLACES, JAIL OR PRISON TIME IS NOT BASED ON INABILITY TO PAY. THAT PRACTICE IS BEING QUESTIONED NOW AS A FORM OF DEBTORS PRISON, WHICH HAS BEEN DECLARED ILLEGAL MORE THAN ONCE, BUT STILL GOES ON. AS LONG AS STATES ARE ALLOWED TO DEFINE THEIR OWN LAWS, UNFAIRNESS WILL RULE. IT ISN’T JUST THE REPUBLICANS WHO DO IT, OF COURSE, BUT IS A PRACTICE CAUSED BY THE IMBALANCE OF POWER THAT EXISTS IN THOSE LITTLE INGROWN PLACES.

“STATES RIGHTS” IS ONE OF THE MOST DAMAGING DOCTRINES THAT OUR CONSTITUTION SUPPORTS IN MY VIEW, AT LEAST IN REGARD TO THE RIGHTS AND NEEDS OF PEOPLE. ALL CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS SHOULD BE FEDERAL IN NATURE, AND ADMINISTERED IN THAT WAY. NO, I DON’T MEAN SENDING THE NATIONAL GUARD IN TO SUPERVISE AN ELECTION WITHOUT JUST CAUSE; BUT THAT WHEN THOSE IRREGULARITIES DO OCCUR, THE CASE SHOULD BE TAKEN TO FEDERAL COURTS AS A CRIME, IF PROVEN, AND NOT BE DEFINED MERELY AS GROUNDS FOR A LAWSUIT.

IF AN UNFAIR SITUATION DOES CONTINUE AFTER THAT, THEN A LAWSUIT ALSO SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS IT IS NOW. THE PROBLEM WE HAVE NOW IS THAT A LAWSUIT MAY BE THE ONLY RECOURSE, BECAUSE FEDERAL LAW DOESN’T HAVE JURISDICTION THERE ON MANY ELECTION ISSUES; AND THE BIG BOYS SO OFTEN AREN’T PLAYING FAIR UNLESS THEY ARE FORCED TO DO SO. BESIDES, THE POOR SIMPLY CAN’T PAY LAWYERS FOR FILING A SUIT, ANOTHER UNFAIR SITUATION. WE DO GET A COURT APPOINTED LAWYER WITHOUT FEE WHEN WE ARE CHARGED WITH A CRIME, BUT A SYSTEM OF FREE LAWYERS TO BRING SUITS FOR THE POOR ISN’T ALWAYS AVAILABLE. SOME PEOPLE WHO CAN’T AFFORD VERY IMPORTANT THINGS MAY STILL NOT BE “POOR ENOUGH.” SO, IN THAT WAY TOO, IT’S UNFAIR. CONSERVATIVES WILL SAY, “IT ISN’T POSSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING TO BE FAIR,” BECAUSE THAT’S THE WAY THEY VIEW COMPETITION, BUT WE COULD DO A GREAT DEAL MORE TO APPROACH THAT GOAL IN THIS COUNTRY.

LIFE ISN’T A GAME. IN FOOTBALL IF YOU LOSE, YOU LOSE, AND THAT’S FAIR TO ME. THAT’S BECAUSE THE PROBLEMS OF LOSING IN THAT SITUATION ARE NOT REALLY A SERIOUS MATTER, UNLESS WE HAVE BET TOO MUCH MONEY ON THE GAME. SO, WATCH THE GAME WITHOUT BETTING. BEING UNABLE TO EAT, HOWEVER, IS SERIOUS. THIS POOR LADY JUST LAST WEEK WHO WAS LITERALLY “DUMPED” ON THE STREET BY A MAJOR CITY HOSPITAL – WHOSE MANAGEMENT HAVEN’T ADMITTED YET WHAT THE NATURE OF THE SITUATION ACTUALLY WAS. BUT WHATEVER IT WAS, AFTER CARING FOR HER HEALTH, THEY DID SOMETHING WHICH COULD EASILY HAVE GIVEN HER PNEUMONIA. WHITE PEOPLE WHO COULD EASILY SUE THE HOSPITAL WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE BEEN TREATED BETTER, EVEN IF THE HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT DIDN’T WANT TO DO IT.

JIM CROW EXISTED – AND STILL ISN’T DEAD YET – DUE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S HAVING LIMITED TO NO CONTROL AT ALL OVER WHAT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS DO. PRESIDENT OBAMA’S ATTORNEYS GENERAL ERIC HOLDER AND LORETTA LYNCH, PUT SOME REAL PRESSURE ON LOCAL CRIME SITUATIONS, ESPECIALLY IN THE POLICE KILLINGS OVER MINOR ISSUES – SUCH AS “FAILED TO OBEY A COMMAND.” THERE HAS BEEN IMPROVEMENT IN A NUMBER OF CITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY, WHO SUBMITTED TO DETAILED STUDIES OF THEIR PROCEDURES AND HAVE PUT IN REFORMS. THOUGH LOCALS WON’T LIKE IT AT FIRST, WE NEED CLEARLY WRITTEN, COMPREHENSIVE NATIONWIDE LAWS. NO MORE “WHISTLIN’ DIXIE!”

ABOUT HOW TO DO REDISTRICTING, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE VOTING DISTRICTS IN REGULAR SHAPES SPECIFICALLY SQUARES OR RECTANGLES, AND DRAWN BASED STRICTLY ON POPULATION IN A WAY THAT BREAKS UP THOSE ENCLAVES OF ONE GROUP OR ANOTHER, BUT DOESN’T GIVE EQUAL WEIGHT TO A SPARSELY POPULATED AREA; AS OPPOSED TO CONSCIOUS GROUPINGS OF VOTERS BY PARTY, RACE, ETHNICITY, RELIGION, POLITICAL LEANING, PER CAPITA WEALTH, OR ANY OTHER MATTER THAT PURPOSEFULLY SKEWS AN EGALITARIAN ONE VOTE PER RESIDENT SITUATION.

BETTER STILL, THE VOTES IN ELECTIONS SHOULD GO INTO THE SAME POOL AND BE COUNTED, WITH ALL CANDIDATES COMPETING AGAINST ONE ANOTHER FOR A SEAT; AND SHOULD THEN BE COUNTED NOT BY DISTRICT BUT EN MASSE. THAT WOULD “HOMOGENIZE” THE CLUMPINGS THAT CREATE UNFAIRNESS. THOSE WHO DO GET THE MOST VOTES COULD SIMPLY BE RANGED ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER THEY GOT, WITH THE CANDIDATES BEING SELECTED FROM THOSE WHO EARNED THE LARGEST NUMBER, STARTING AT THE TOP. IN THAT WAY, WHERE A CITIZEN LIVES – EVEN IN A SLUM DISTRICT -- WOULD NOT DEFINE WHO HE GETS TO VOTE FOR, NOR WHETHER HIS VOTE “WILL COUNT.” IT’S MORE COMPETITIVE AND FAIR. SO, LET THE BEST WOMAN WIN!

SAME SUBJECT, TWO ARTICLES – SEE BELOW.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/12/supreme-court-texas-racial-gerrymandering-338733
Supreme Court to hear Texas case on racial gerrymandering
By CRISTIANO LIMA 01/12/2018 04:18 PM EST

The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear arguments on whether federal and state district maps discriminate against people of color, the third legal bout over gerrymandering picked up by the court this term.

The justices opted to take up an appeal by Republican lawmakers in the state, who had sought to overturn two lower-court rulings that would have required them to redraw portions of Texas’ maps in order to address alleged infractions of voting rights. The move will delay immediate action on redistricting in the state, a victory for GOP officials in Texas.

The high court, in a split 5-4 vote along ideological lines in September, had blocked a lower-court ruling that the state’s maps, adopted in 2013, were partially a product of intentional racial discrimination. The lower ruling would have required state officials to redraw the maps or face the prospect of having the Supreme Court settle the matter.

The case becomes the third gerrymandering dispute on the docket, with the justices picking up cases on political redistricting in Wisconsin in October and Maryland in December. The case in Texas is the first to thrust racial discrimination in state maps — and its impact on voters of color — onto the high court’s schedule this term.

The Supreme Court also faces the prospect of making decisions on two additional redistricting cases, in North Carolina and Pennsylvania, where legal battles over state maps are brewing.

Federal judges in Pennsylvania, in a 2-1 vote on Wednesday, upheld a ruling that the state’s congressional district map is constitutional. Attorneys for the plaintiffs, however, have indicated they plan to appeal to the Supreme Court.

In North Carolina earlier this week, a panel of federal judges tossed out the state’s congressional map, citing unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering, a move that gave officials just two weeks to adopt a new map. Republican officials in the state indicated they would seek an appeal to the Supreme Court.

State authorities in North Carolina on Friday asked the high court to stay the federal judges’ ruling, though the court has yet to act.


GOOFY KICKING DONALD ( I MEAN DONALD DUCK, OF COURSE.)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/drawing-the-lines-on-gerrymandering/
CBS NEWS January 14, 2018, 9:32 AM
Drawing the lines on gerrymandering

News video with Mo Rocca and interviews

Federal judges this past week ordered a redrawing of the lines between Congressional Districts in North Carolina, while the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of a similar ruling in Texas. And then there's Pennsylvania -- which features a Congressional map that, some critics say, looks like a cartoon. Our Cover Story is reported by Mo Rocca:

"Goofy's over there, and he's kickin' Donald," said Bonnie Marcus.

This is not a Rorschach test -- and these are not patients. They're suburban Philadelphia voters who live next door to Pennsylvania's 7th Congressional District, nicknamed "Goofy kicking Donald Duck" for its absurd shape:

pennsylvania-7th-cd-map-620.jpg
A map of Pennsylvania's 7th Congressional District, encompassing parts of five counties in the Philadelphia suburbs. CBS NEWS

"His ears are flapping!" Marcus said.

"But wait a minute: Would Goofy ever kick Donald?" Rocca asked.

"Not and stay in the Disney World," Marcus replied.

This district is one of the most gerrymandered in America. It is, said Bill Wells, "a disgrace, a political disgrace. There's no reason for that kind of gerrymandering. Here it is, folks, right in front of you."

Welcome to Gerrymandering 101!

"Gerrymandering" is the manipulation of voting district lines, usually to give one party an advantage over the other.

The word comes from Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry, who in 1812 signed off on a salamander-shaped district, hence the term "gerrymander" (which sounds a lot better than "garry-mander").

There are 435 Members in the House of Representatives. Pennsylvania has a lot of people, so it gets 18 of those House seats.

Some of these shapes -- not just the 7th -- are pretty wacky.

mo-rocca-gerrymandering-wacky-shapes-of-pa-districts-620.jpg
Mo Rocca with a map of Pennsylvania's Congressional Districts. CBS NEWS
Now, you may ask: Why not just lay a nice rectangular grid over Pennsylvania? Problem solved, right?

Well, you can't do that, because people don't live evenly spread out, and each district has to have the same number of people. For that reason (and others we'll get to later) the shapes of districts are almost never going to be perfect squares.

But how these shapes got to be so wacky is the issue here. Pennsylvania Democrats say the Republican-controlled State House drew these lines -- or gerrymandered them -- to create as many safe Republican seats as possible.

Last election, Republicans won a little more than half (54%) of the statewide vote, but the lion's share of seats -- 13 out of 18, more than two-thirds.

"We're not getting the representation that we were intended to get," Wells told Rocca. "And the politicians just jiggle it around to meet their needs, not our needs."

They're angry because they say their Democratic-leaning communities were deliberately kept out of the 7th, and lumped into the heavily-Republican 16th District, ensuring that both went red.

"It causes people, I think, to wonder why should they even go out to vote," said Brenda Mercomes. "Is my vote gonna count?"

"It was done to us, personally," said Wayne Braffman. "And there is no rational justification for that other than lying, naked power."

Both parties are guilty of gerrymandering, and both parties have long decried it.

Arnold Schwarzenegger takes on partisan gerrymandering (CBS News, 09/05/17)
But increasingly the discussion around gerrymandering has been about the threat it poses to American democracy itself.

Judges order redo of North Carolina's partisan congressional districts (CBS News, 01/09/18)
Federal judges find Texas gerrymandered maps on racial lines (CBS News, 03/11/17)
Math experts try to tackle the issue of gerrymandering (CBS News, 08/18/17)
Few current representatives want to talk about it. Iowa's Rod Blum does: "We shouldn't have to rig the system in our favor, or the Democrats shouldn't have to rig the system in their favor."

Blum is a Tea Party Republican who represents Iowa's 1st, a Democratic-leaning district. Blum says he can't afford to ignore any of his constituents. "With gerrymandering, the politician knows that they can be extreme right or extreme left and get reelected," he said. "If the district was more like mine, split evenly, then you're looking at every bill -- 'What's a Republican think of this? What's a Democrat think of this? What's an Independent think of it?'"

His is not a typical district. Nationwide, gerrymandering is one reason that the number of competitive Congressional seats -- those where both parties have a good shot at winning -- has plunged over the last twenty years, from 164 to just 72.

District lines are redrawn every ten years, right after the census, usually by the state legislature, in a process known as redistricting.

Get a load of how the Pennsylvania 7th has changed over the years:

gerrymandering-pa-7th-cd-from-1940s-to-today-620.jpg
The changing shape of Pennsylvania's 7th, from the 1940s to today. CBS NEWS

Few know this process better than Kim Brace. For more than 40 years, he's been hired (mostly by Democrats) to help draw Congressional Districts. He was the only mapmaker we identified that was willing to talk to "Sunday Morning" on camera.

Rocca said, "You've got a lot of power in your pen."

"That's true. [But] it's not your pen; it's now a mouse," Brace replied.

And armed with mountains of voter data, it's become more science than art.

"Theoretically, you could say to a Republican incumbent, 'Listen, the 5300 block of River Road is a lot more Democratic now. Let's cut that out when we draw the map'?" Rocca asked.

"Sure, sure. That's possible," Brace said.

But he says there are a lot of factors that have to be considered -- for instance, districts have to be contiguous, communities of interest should be kept together.

And how about this one? "Incumbent requests and incumbent protection -- there's something that the courts have recognized is a fact of redistricting life," Brace said.

"'Incumbent protection' -- like they're spotted owls?"

"Or something along that line, yes."

But this was precisely the rationale back in 2001 when, to protect the seat of Democratic Congressman Bobby Rush, Brace cut out a residential block, home to a young primary challenger named Barack Obama.

"You gerrymandered the future President of the United States out of a Congressional District?" Rocca asked.

"Right. So he then went for U.S. Senate, and used that elevation to then become president."

"Not even a president could do what you did!"

"Probably not, I guess!"

While the general perception may be that gerrymandering is bad for democracy, Brace says that's not always the case. "One person's gerrymander is another one's beautiful art creation."

There may be no better example of this than Brace's most famous (or infamous) creation: Illinois' 4th, better known as "the Earmuffs."

It was drawn to comply with the Voting Rights Act, which mandates that racial minorities be able to elect "one of their own." And so, he connected two Latino neighborhoods on Chicago's West Side by a narrow highway corridor:

illinois-4th-cd-map-620.jpg
CBS NEWS

And on each side of that narrow highway? The Illinois 7th, and the Illinois 5th.

Back in the '90s, it was racial gerrymandering like this that dominated the discussion. Then, in 2010 the GOP launched an ambitious campaign to win control of state governments and redraw the lines in their favor.

They succeeded in a big way.

"It was a sea change," Brace said. "We've now seen Congress being in control by the Republicans for this entire decade."

While Republican House candidates won about half (49%) of the nationwide vote in 2016, they captured 55% of the seats -- 241 to the Democrats' 194.

But -- and this is important -- even if lines were not being drawn to favor Republicans, Democrats would still be at something of a disadvantage, says Stanford political scientist Jonathan Rodden. That's because of where they live.

"Democrats have been clustered in cities in the industrialized states every since the New Deal, ever since FDR," Rodden said. "Cities have become more Democratic, and rural areas more Republican."

Rodden studies how increasingly Republicans are spread across rural areas and Democrats packed into urban areas. Consider the influence on a state like Missouri: "The Democrats are highly concentrated in St. Louis and Kansas City," Rodden said. "The gubernatorial elections are always very close. It's a place that Democrats can win statewide. But the best they can hope for in an eight-seat Congressional delegation is three seats, and the current outcome is two."

So, is the issue gerrymandering or geography? "It's geography and gerrymandering," said Rodden. "In order to understand the outcomes we see, we have to understand how those two things interact."

The issue of gerrymandering is before the Supreme Court right now, and a decision is expected this spring.

What you need to know about the Supreme Court gerrymandering case (CBS News, 10/04/17)
Gill v. Whitford (SCOTUSblog)

And Iowa's Rod Blum is willing to risk any advantage gerrymandering currently gives his party.

Rocca asked, "If putting curbs on partisan gerrymandering meant ceding control of the House to the Democrats, how would you feel about that?"

"I'm okay with it," Blum replied. "We need to recruit good candidates and we need to get out there and we need to do a good job of governing and we need to sell our message to the voters."

"Losing an election is no small thing!"

"And I think the opposite. I think if you lose an election, it's okay. That's the way our government was set up -- not to have these people be here 30, 40, 50 years."

As for our voters in Pennsylvania, the state court there is considering re-drawing the map. For them, a decision can't come soon enough.

"Everyone wants to be treated fairly," said voter Nancy Murphy. "Gerrymandering isn't fair. It's cheating. It's taking our votes and putting them where it won't make a difference."

For more info:

Rep. Rod Blum, Iowa's 1st Congressional District
Jonathan Rodden, Stanford University
Kimball Brace, Election Data Services
© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.


HAWAII ON THE HOT SEAT

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hawaii-false-ballistic-missile-alert-fcc-chairman-ajit-pai-investigation/
CBS/AP January 14, 2018, 2:56 PM
FCC chairman Ajit Pai slams "absolutely unacceptable" Hawaii missile false alarm

HONOLULU -- Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), says it appears the government of Hawaii didn't have reasonable safeguards in place that would have prevented a false alert about an imminent missile strike from being sent.

Pai said in a statement Sunday that an FCC investigation is under way into the false alert that sounded on hundreds of thousands of cell phones across Hawaii, sending residents and tourists scrambling for cover ahead of an expected attack in a state on edge about the threat from North Korea.

"The false emergency alert sent yesterday in Hawaii was absolutely unacceptable. It caused a wave of panic across the state -- worsened by the 38-minute delay before a correction alert was issued," Pai said.

Vern Miyagi, the administrator for the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency (HI-EMA), took responsibility for the mistake. Miyagi said the error happened during a shift change around 8 a.m., stating "the wrong button was pushed" during the internal drill.

"BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT INBOUND TO HAWAII. SEEK IMMEDIATE SHELTER. THIS IS NOT A DRILL," the alert said. The agency sent a corrected alert 38 minutes later.

Cindy McMillan, communications director for Hawaii Gov. David Ige, told reporters on Sunday that the employee who sent the false alert had a chance to catch the mistake but pressed the wrong button twice. McMillan said testing of the emergency system has been suspended for the time being. Once testing resumes, two people will be required to be involved in a test in order to avoid a false alert.

Pai said information collected so far shows it appears Hawaii didn't have safeguards or process controls in place to prevent the mistake.

"Moving forward, we will focus on what steps need to be taken to prevent a similar incident from happening again. Federal, state, and local officials throughout the country need to work together to identify any vulnerabilities to false alerts and do what's necessary to fix them," Pai said in the statement.

David Begnaud contributed to this report.

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.


YET ANOTHER DISCUSSION OF THE S-HOLE MATTER.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/faith-salie-on-when-potus-uses-shithole-language/
CBS NEWS January 14, 2018, 10:22 AM
Faith Salie on when POTUS uses "$#!?hole" language

A word rarely heard in polite company ricocheted around the world this past week, attracting the notice of our Faith Salie:

I'm sorry to use this kind of language on "Sunday Morning," but I'm only quoting our president. This week, he reportedly called Haiti, El Salvador, and places in Africa "sh*thole countries."

On Friday, a few hours before signing a proclamation to honor Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Mr. Trump offered a vague and confusing statement, saying his language was "tough" but "this was not the language used by me."

He did not explicitly deny calling these countries sh*tholes.

The White House did not deny it, either.

Trump questions why U.S. welcomes people from "sh*thole" countries (CBS News, 01/11/18)
"Sh*thole countries" respond to Trump's rhetoric (CBS News, 01/12/18)
Bob Schieffer: Trump's immigration remarks are racist ("CBS This Morning," 01/12/18)
Here's what we're left with, thanks to our President's "tough" talk: journalists on many networks, including this one, right now, uttering the phrase "sh*thole countries."

cbs-evening-news-shthole-countries.jpg
CBS NEWS
We heard it from the usually dulcet tones of NPR hosts, who'd probably prefer a euphemism like "fecal crater."

Thanks to our President -- our president! -- that word is scrawled across screens for our children to read. It's like we're living in an episode of "South Park."

faith-salie-shthole-language-promo.jpg
Faith Salie. CBS NEWS
What would Walter Cronkite have done?

What is ANY polite, DECENT American to do?

Here's a proposal.

If you're going to use derogatory, profane and arguably racist language to describe another country and its people, how about some ground rules:

You have to be able to find it on a map and spell it as fast as you can say "sh*thole."
And as far as holes go, don't worry too much. In today's politics, this comment will be sucked into a bigger one: the news cycle black hole.
We'll be dealing with different crap by next week.

Also by Faith Salie:

Some frank words about profanity
How art can help shape our New Year's resolutions
What will be the aftermath of the sexual harassment firestorm?
Who's the snowflake? A chilly riposte to political insults
2017's contenders for Word of the Year
Hugh Hefner's complicated legacy
Faith Salie has her say on "mansplaining"
For more info:

faithsalie.com
© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.



THIS IS A POLL ON HOW AMERICANS FEEL ABOUT THE TRUMP SITUATION AFTER THE FIRST YEAR. IT ISN’T FOR THE REPUBLICANS, I’M SURE.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nation-tracker-americans-weigh-in-on-trump-immigration-remarks-first-year-in-office/
CBS NEWS January 14, 2018, 10:30 AM
Nation Tracker: Americans weigh in on Trump immigration remarks, first year in office
Last Updated Jan 14, 2018 12:59 PM EST
By Anthony Salvanto, Jennifer De Pinto, Kabir Khanna and Fred Backus

Video – Face the Nation

Trump's first year

One year into Donald Trump's presidency, Americans feel more positive about the economy but not as good about the state of the country overall – and the latter is closely tied to views of the president.

By a two to one margin, more say that the country is doing well economically than that it isn't. But three in four Americans say the country is divided, six in 10 don't have much confidence in the U.S. political system and six in 10 say racial tensions have increased. The president's strongest backers believe things are going well, but his opponents – who have grown increasingly opposed to the president over the year – say things are not. Overall, the number of Americans who say having Donald Trump as president makes them feel "pessimistic" is higher than it was a year ago.

tracker-better-off-1.jpg
A year ago, this study began analyzing four groups: the strongest of Trump backers (whom the study labeled "believers"); another set of those who support the president on the condition that he delivers what they want (the "conditionals"); a group opposing the president for now but willing to back him if things change, (the curious) and those who are firmly opposed (whom the study labels the "resisters.")

Overall, the movement we have seen over the year is a slow shift away from Mr. Trump, and we have that movement across the four groups: the believers, the conditionals, the curious and the resisters.

tracker-trump-support-trend.jpg
The number of believers has shrunk (from 22 percent to just 18 percent) and the number of strong opponents "resisters" has grown – from 35 percent to 41 percent now. In that regard, President Trump's first year in office looks a bit like a tale of what might have been, as those who began the year looking for a reason to support him have instead become increasingly opposed.

tracker-four-groups.jpg
The president's supporters now believe the country is "run for the benefit of all the people." Two-thirds of his strongest supporters now feel like they have more of a voice in what happens in America. But opponents say the country is being run "for the benefit of a few elites."

tracker-elites.jpg
The president's approach and how he handles himself appeals to his supporters as much as economic matters. Mr. Trump's supporters back him more for "being a different kind of president" and for "taking on the establishment" than for cutting their taxes. Three in four supporters like the way he conducts himself personally. The president's strongest backers prioritize political fights, such as investigating Hillary Clinton, as one of their top things he should do in 2018, but this is the only group that thinks so, and his more conditional backers do not agree. Only the president's strongest backers view him as a role model – more than eight in 10 do. More than half of his conditional supporters do not see him that way.

For Mr. Trump's opponents, 70 percent say a big reason they don't support the president is that he's disrespected people like them, and most don't like his policies. Support and opposition to the president connects to whether or not people feel like they have a voice in what happens in the country. Mr. Trump's strongest supporters feel they do, and his most ardent opponents (the "Resisters" – who make up four in 10 Americans) feel they have less of a voice now than they did. Fifty-five percent of Americans think Donald Trump's response to criticism is that he just argues with those who disagree, but the resisters (73 percent) view Trump as trying to suppress the views of those who disagree with him.

A majority of Americans -- whether they like or dislike the president's behavior -- feel that what you see is what you get with Mr. Trump: most say he acts the same way behind the scenes as he does in public.

On foreign policy, most Americans would prefer the U.S. work and negotiate with other countries, while Mr. Trump's strongest backers say the president should do what's best for the U.S. no matter what others think, rather than compromise with other countries. Conditional supporters are more mixed on this. His backers believe that threatening North Korea makes the North afraid to attack the U.S., whereas others think doing so only provokes North Korea into a war.

Overall, most Americans say that building infrastructure like roads and bridges should be the highest priority for the Trump administration in 2018. This is the case across all four support groups.

Looking far ahead to the 2018 elections, most Trump detractors, perhaps unsurprisingly, say they would consider voting for a Democrat for Congress this November. However one-third would also consider voting for a Republican who is independent of the president.

Three in four Americans think if the Democrats took Congress, their priority would be to impeach Mr. Trump, as opposed to cut deals with him. But people who think Democrats would work with President Trump are more inclined to vote for a Democrat than people who think they would prioritize trying to impeach the president.

Trump's immigration comments called "inappropriate" by most

A year ago, this study began analyzing four groups: the strongest of Trump backers (whom the study labeled "believers"); another set of those who support the president on the condition that he delivers what they want (the "conditionals"); a group opposing the president for now but willing to back him if things change, (the curious) and those who are firmly opposed (whom the study labels the "resisters.")

On the issues looming now, most Americans -- 70 percent -- favor DACA. Among Mr. Trump's backers, a slim majority support it. But in a sign of how much they want the border wall built, most of his backers are in favor of cutting a deal on DACA to get the wall funded. Resisters are overwhelmingly opposed to such a deal.

tracker-daca.jpg
The wall and deportation of illegal immigrants remain top priorities of his strongest backers. Fewer of his conditional supporters see these as top priorities.

More than eight in 10 Americans, re-contacted for this survey after Mr. Trump's comments about U.S. immigration from African countries and Haiti, said they had heard about them, and three-quarters (76 percent) say the remarks were inappropriate. Almost all Democrats, nearly 8 in 10 independents and 45 percent of Republicans say so as well.

tracker-trump-for-against.jpg
Race plays a role in explaining views of the president. Many African Americans feel the president works directly against people of their racial group, and many feel like they have less of a voice in what happens in America now. Large percentages of Mr. Trump's opponents -- and African Americans in particular -- feel he has disrespected people like them. Two-thirds of Trump backers think he works for their racial group.

The CBS News 2018 Nation Tracker is conducted by YouGov using a nationally representative sample of 2,164 U.S. adults between January 10–12, 2018. All respondents were recontacted January 12–13, 2018 for two follow up questions about the President's recent comments on immigration, and 1,654 responded. The margin of error was +/- 2.6.

Poll toplines

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.