Mediaboss Marketing

Perhaps as many as 670,000 American jobs have been lost since 1993 thanks to the introduction of automation in manufacturing, according to new analysis from the National Bureau of Economic Research. The places most affected by that boom in automation that introduction of robots, if you will were also places that in 2016 were more likely to support Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton.

The NBER analysis, conducted by MITs Daron Acemoglu and Yales Pascual Restrepo, determined estimates of the number of robots introduced to a region between 1993 and 2007 for every 1,000 workers. Unsurprisingly, the region where that happened the most was Michigan, where the automotive industry in particular heavily automated its production processes.

(Our thanks to Acemoglu and Restrepo for sharing their data.)

That Michigan is so dominant in that map means that we can miss some more subtle gradations. By depicting the robot metric in buckets, we can see broader trends: The relatively large introduction of robotic workers throughout the Midwest and Rust Belt and along the Gulf Coast.

The NBER paper determined its figures using commuting zones, clusters of counties that share a common labor market. We went back and compiled numbers from the 2016 election for those counties, allowing us to correlate robot-introduction with 2016 voting patterns. Interestingly, the average number of robots introduced per every thousand workers over the 14-year period being considered was higher in areas where the 2016 vote was closer.

But that doesnt tell the whole story.

If we compare the number of robots introduced per 1,000 workers with the margin between Trump and Clinton in each of those 700-plus clusters, we notice that most of the zones where more than one robot was introduced for every thousand workers ended up backing Trump over Clinton. The most notable exception is in the commuting zone at the center of Michigan, where nearly five robots were introduced for every 1,000 workers but aided by the results in the home county of the University of Michigan ended up backing Clinton.

As is usually the case with election data thats linked to counties, all zones are not created equal. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote thanks to there being a lot more voters in the zones she won. Below, weve scaled the data points according to the total number of votes cast in each zone.

If we take this electoral data and relate it to the buckets we introduced in that second map, the effect is clear. Theres a correlation between the extent to which robots were introduced in a commuting zone and the extent to which the zone voted against Hillary Clinton.

Below, pitting Clinton against Trump, with data points again sized relative to the number of votes cast in each zone. The diagonal line is the trend in the data up and to the right, meaning that as a zone had more robots introduced from 1993 to 2007, it was also more likely to vote for Trump in 2016.

It holds true for the primary, as well. While data from the primary is a bit flukier, given that many states use low-turnout caucuses or may only offer results by congressional district. But again that diagonal line, up and to the right.

This is a very good example of the old saying correlation does not equal causation that is, just because theres a link between the number of robots introduced and the 2016 results doesnt mean that the robots led to those results. But given that the NBER research links automation to job loss each robot per 1,000 workers cost an estimated 6.7 jobs and given that job loss (particularly in the Midwest) has broadly been cited as a driving factor for support for Clintons opponents, these findings are at least logically consistent.

This study also reinforces another point that complicates President Trumps stated desire to bring manufacturing back to the U.S.: Manufacturing job loss stems to some significant degree from automation, not outsourcing. (The Brookings Institution looked specifically at that point.) It will be a lot easier, one can safely assume, to convince Ford or Chevy to build a new plant in Michigan instead of Mexico. It will likely be harder to convince them to staff it with humans instead of robots and if they dont, there might be political implications for Trump moving forward.

Visit link:
Places that saw more job loss to robots were less likely to support Hillary Clinton - Washington Post

Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonCheney: Russian election interference could be act of war Conservatism's worst enemy? The Freedom Caucus. The Hill's 12:30 Report MORE will return to Washington, D.C., this Friday to speak at Georgetown University and give awards to four individuals who promoted Colombian peace efforts.

Her speech will focus on the important role that women can play in international politics and peace building efforts, according to a Georgetown press release.

The former secretary of State and Democratic presidential nominee is expected to make remarks at the annual Hillary Rodham Clinton Awards ceremony and honor four Colombians. Humberto De la Calle, Maria Paulina Riveros, Elena Ambrosi and Jineth Bedoya helped achieve a historic peace agreement that ended over 50 years of conflict in Colombia, according to the university.

Secretary Clinton has been a strong advocate for the role of women in peace processes as an important means to end hostilities and achieve sustainable peace, Georgetown said.

The Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security has a endowed the Hillary Rodham Clinton Fellowship Program, which provides annual fellowship awards to master's graduates who plan to spend a year working at the institute. The institute describes its mission as examining and highlighting the roles and experiences of women in peace and security efforts worldwide through cutting edge research, global convening and strategic partnerships.

Friday's event is open to members to the press and the Georgetown community.

Read the original here:
Hillary Clinton to speak at Georgetown University this week - The Hill (blog)

Peter Daou, an adviser to Hillary Clintons 2008 presidential campaign, got a lesson in basic constitutional law Sunday after he suggested that President Donald Trump be overthrown and replaced with Clinton.

Daou made the suggestion as the 23rd tweet in a 25-tweet rant, where he attempted to lay out the case that last years presidential election was hacked by Russia to benefit Trump over Clinton, making it the biggest political scandal in US history.

A hostile power helped elect our president, Daou alleged.

Daou said that if the investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign yields evidence, then the scandal will become a full-blown Constitutional crisis. Its Daous suggestion on what to do next that has people on social media mocking him.

At that point, the only fair and just resolution is to have popular vote winner Hillary Clinton take office. Or to hold a new election, Daou tweeted.

However, the Constitution, in the 25th Amendment, already addresses the fair and just process in which the president is succeeded and its not the way Daou suggests.

In addition to the process, the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 addresses who succeeds the president and its not who Daou suggests.

Naturally, Daou became a laughingstock on Twitter for his suggestion:

Federal investigators are currently investigatingthe Trump campaign for potential ties to Russia and are searching for evidence of collusion, FBI Director James Comey confirmed last week. What they have found or if they have found any evidence at all has not been made public.

More:
Former Clinton adviser suggests Trump be overthrown and Hillary made president - TheBlaze.com

Several unanswered questions remain In the Hillary Clinton State Department email scandal. For instance, there was never an official government report detailing if and how her illegal email practices damaged national security.

Now, Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit to find an answer to that question.

In the critical matter of Hillary Clintons illegal email practices, the Director of National Intelligence simply ignored a directive requiring a damage assessment and a report, Judicial Watch said in a statement.

As such, they have filed a lawsuit in federal court to force the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Department of State to comply with the law.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, cites the requirement in Intelligence Community Directive (ICD) 732, issued on June 27, 2014, that a damage assessment be conducted whenever there is an actual or suspected unauthorized disclosure or compromise of classified national intelligence that may cause damage to U.S. national security ICD 732(D)(2) (Judicial Watch v. Office of the Director of National Intelligence et al. (No. 1:17-cv-00508)).

Since the election is over, and because President Trump has declined to prosecute the case against Clintons mishandling of classified information, the story has fallen out of the news. It is important to remember that Clintons actions werent scandalous merely because she was a presidential candidate, but because her actions might have enabled Americas enemies to access classified State Department intelligence.

With all the suspicion over suspected Russian hacking, one would assume there would be bipartisan support for determining how Hillary Clinton may have compromised Americas security. If nothing else, there should be interest in preventing such gross negligence from happening again.

Judicial Watch says this new lawsuit presents the Trump administration with the opportunity to hold Clinton and others responsible for compromising national security to account.

Chris Pandolfo is a staff writer and type-shouter for Conservative Review. He holds a B.A. in Politics and Economics from Hillsdale College. His interests are Conservative Political Philosophy, the American Founding, and Progressive Rock. Follow him on Twitter for doom-saying and great album recommendations @ChrisCPandolfo.

See the original post:
Will Trump take advantage of this new lawsuit to hold Hillary Clinton accountable - Conservative Review

HillaryClintonhasnt made any comments on the Republican Partys effort to repeal Obamacare. The closest thing she has said on the topic isatweetasking her followers to read a book on healthcare that her daughter Chelseawrote with the chair of Public Health at the University of Edinburgh Medical School. Despite being completely absent during Democrats fight to keep Obamacare intact, Hillary Clinton tweeted out a statement and a series of crafted anecdotes to capitalize on the Republican Party failing to pass their healthcare billon March 24.

Today was a victory for all Americans,Clintonsaid in the statement, citing the healthcare rallies and town hall meetings that mobilized opposition to the Republican Partys efforts, which she participate in. The fight isnt over yetwe will have to push back on future bad ideas and embrace good ones to make healthcare more affordable. However, Clintondidnt push back on Obamacare repeal efforts until a victory emerged that she could align herself with.

Clinton concluded her series of tweet series saying, Lets not be distracted. Lets continue to stand up, organize, resist, put forth good ideas to improve the existing system & peoples lives.Clintonfailed to put forth good ideas to improve peoples lives during her campaign; instead she focused on manufacturing outrage toward DonaldTrump. She tells her supporters not to be distracted, yet her and her staffers have focusedon Russian election interference allegations over discussing good policy.

Despiteonce supportingsingle-payer healthcare andpollsshowing that most Americans support replacing Obamacare with a single-payer healthcare system, Clintonclaimedduring the campaign, It will never, ever happen. Meanwhile, Chelsea Clintonovertly liedabout Sen.Bernie Sandershealthcare plan ata campaign event, claiming that Sanderswould empower Republican governors to take away Medicaid.

Clintons current criticism of a single-payer healthcare system is symptomatic of theDemocratic Partysoverall politics, which have shifted to a centrist, more pragmatic positionone that happens to cater to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry. SeveralDemocrats, including Sen. Ted Kennedy,have previously arguedthat a single-payer healthcare system would be the best solution.

As she attempts to portray her brand of politics as successful,Clintonnever fails to miss an opportunity to exploit any semblance of victorydespite often having no role in the fight.In line with this trend, Clinton triedto steal credit from Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Sen. Bernie Sanders in their announcement ofplans to try to bring free public college tuition to New York, though her campaign strongly pushed back on Sanders supporters fromincludingit in theDemocratic Partysplatform.

Similarly, when Trumps Muslim travel ban was knocked down by a federal court,Clintonand her campaign stafferstried to alignherwith the victory, despite herrecord on contributing to perpetual unrest in the Middle East, propagating Islamophobic views in The War on Terror, and allyingherself with powerful figures that have overtly spread Islamophobia.

Hillary Clintondoesnt fight for policies that benefit working, middle class and low income Americans. If she did, she would haveengaged with communities that were hurting across the United Statesas former President BarackObamadid in 2008 and 2012 and asSandersis currently doingand she would likely be president instead of Trump. Instead of learning this valuable lesson, theDemocratic Partyhas maintained its out-of-touch leadership and billionaire donors, while blaming the partys election loss on a variety of scapegoats.

More:
After Ignoring the Fight, Hillary Clinton Exploits Obamacare Win for Personal Gain - Observer