From FiveThirtyEight:

Let’s take two fairly obvious data-driven conclusions from the 2016 election and see if there’s any link between them.

The first conclusion: Education was almost everything in explaining the results of the race. Donald Trump substantially improved on Mitt Romney’s performance among voters without college degrees — especially white voters without college degrees. Hillary Clinton somewhat improved on President Obama’s performance with college-educated voters. The link between education levels and the shift in the vote is robust, even when controlling for other factors, such as income levels.

Read the rest of Nate’s column here.

Continue reading

From Vox:

After the election, I had the amazing opportunity to travel to Mexico to ask Mexicans about their views on America, post-election. Instead of going in with my own set of questions, I decided to crowdsource them from Facebook and Twitter. Many users suggested interesting topics (the wall, anyone?), but Mexican native Dan Pichardo’s suggestion stood out: “Ask them for advice on how to deal with authoritarian presidents and governments,” she wrote. “We have a loooong history of surviving oppression and normalizing violence.”

Watch Liz’s video here.

Continue reading

From The Washington Post:

Professional politicians, think-tankers and pundits have the wacky notion that candidates tell voters what they intend to do and voters choose the candidate whose plans they like the best. That happens to be the premise of representative democracy and the basis for much of political advertising, speechmaking and polling. The problem is that it appears not to be a realistic assessment of modern politics.

President-elect Donald Trump’s key campaign issues — protectionism, mass deportation and repealing Obamacare — do not appear to be in the cards. In some cases, voters would be delighted to see Trump abandon his campaign promises.

Read the rest of Jennifer’s post here.

Continue reading

From Time:

There are far too few examples of good government these days. That’s why Peru, a small commodity-driven economy with an already accomplished new President, deserves more of the world’s attention. Since taking office in July, Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, an economist and technocrat uninterested in political ideology, has advanced reform with real support from an opposition-led legislature, in part because he has focused on investments that can directly improve the lives of ordinary people. “If we reduce crime, take strong anticorruption measures, reactivate our economy and invest in quality health, education and basic infrastructure,” he assured me during a recent interview, “people will see that favorably.”

Read Ian’s entire column here.

From The New York Times Magazine:

One of the strangest episodes in Donald Trump’s very weird campaign was the appearance of an Englishman looking rather pleased with himself at a rally on Aug. 24 in Jackson, Miss. The Englishman was Nigel Farage, introduced by Trump as “the Man Behind Brexit.” Most people in the crowd probably didn’t have a clue who Farage — the leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party — actually was. Yet there he stood, grinning and hollering about “our independence day” and the “real people,” the “decent people,” the “ordinary people” who took on the banks, the liberal media and the political establishment. Trump pulled his face into a crocodile smile, clapped his hands and promised, “Brexit plus plus plus!”

Brexit itself — the decision to withdraw Britain from the European Union, notwithstanding the almost universal opposition from British banking, business, political and intellectual elites — was not the main point here. In his rasping delivery, Trump roared about Farage’s great victory, “despite horrible name-calling, despite all obstacles.” Quite what name-calling he had in mind was fuzzy, but the message was clear. His own victory would be like that of the Brexiteers, only more so. He even called himself Mr. Brexit.

Read the rest of Ian’s feature here.

Continue reading

From Vox:

Jose Andres isn’t just a chef. He’s a force. All that talk of how DC is now a hot dining scene? Andrés deserves more than a bit of the credit. He’s popularized Spanish tapas through Jaleo, brought El Bulli-style molecular gastronomy to America through MiniBar, and racked up some Michelin stars and James Beard awards along the way.

Andrés has hosted television shows, taught courses on the science of cooking at Harvard, extended his restaurant empire to Las Vegas and South Beach, set up a nonprofit in Haiti, and launched a fast-casual chain focused on vegetables. He’s been named “Man of the Year” by GQ and one of the world’s 100 most influential people by Time.

I’ve know Andrés for a couple of years, and I’ve never met a better storyteller, or seen anyone who thinks harder about the component parts of creativity. We talk about that, as well as:

-What Andrés learned from his father
-Why the most important job when making paella is tending the fire
-Why cooking at home is important but not essential
-What he makes of Americans eating out of the house more than ever before
-Why we need to be pragmatic about sourcing food
-How he applies what he learned in the Spanish navy to his restaurants
-What he learned from Ferran Adrià, the founder of molecular gastronomy
-How he takes ideas from other disciplines and applies them in his kitchens
-How important hiring is to him and why immigration policy is so crucial to the American restaurant business
-Why his fast-casual restaurants called Beefsteak are nearly meatless
-How he’s managed to run an empire while remaining focused on the creative side
-What he thinks we might lose by eating synthetic food or silent
-The one dish he thinks people should learn to cook

Do you eat? Do you think? Then listen to this.

Listen to the entire episode here.

Continue reading

From The Ringer:

Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, and Tommy Vietor reflect on their failed efforts to avoid Twitter on Thanksgiving, and then cover Trump’s conflicts of interest (4:05), the unprecedented campaign against Mitt Romney for secretary of state (18:45), and Trump’s (latest) tantrum over election results (33:09).

Listen to the entire episode here.

Continue reading

From The Atlantic:

Last week, Donald Trump advisor Stephen Moore, who has built his career advocating tax cuts for the rich and the privatization of America’s welfare state, said something startling to congressional Republicans. He said Republicans are no longer the party of Ronald Reagan. “Just as Reagan converted the GOP into a conservative party,” Moore reportedly declared, “Trump has converted the GOP into a populist working-class party.”

What does that mean? On its face, it seems fairly clear. Trump says he opposes NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership and will prevent companies from leaving the US. During the campaign, he came out against overhauling Medicare and Social Security. He’s called for new spending on infrastructure. In each case, he ostensibly supports government intervention in the economy, which runs counter to the gospel of Reagan.

Read Peter’s entire column here.

From The Daily Beast:

When a five-decades-long dictator dies, it is customary to hear analysts offer up the following kind of balanced blather: “He was neither as bad as his opponents believed nor as beloved as his supporters insisted.”

Cuba’s communist dictator Fidel Castro certainly enjoyed a cult of personality courtesy of self-styled humanists who still contort themselves to overlook his horrific record of human rights abuses, murder and repression.  But his detractors almost always had more direct experience in dealing with his radius of damage than his defenders.

History will not absolve Castro for repeated assaults on freedom clothed in populist garb. Whether it was torturing and executing political opponents, rounding up homosexuals, creating neighborhood networks to spy on fellow citizens, or encouraging the Soviet Union to nuke the United States, he was a bully and a thug: the latest in a long line of self-interested opportunists who rule through fear and pretend that it is love.

Read John’s entire column here.

From Earwolf:

For Thanksgiving, we’re revisiting a conversation David had with Patty Stonesifer. She had a successful career at Microsoft, but Stonesifer gave it all up to run a not-for-profit in Washington, D.C.

In this episode, she talks to David about how her organization is trying to increase access to food – and how we can do the same around the country.

Listen to the entire episode here.

Continue reading

From Vox:

There are few episodes of this show that people loved as much as my conversation with Heather McGhee, president of the think tank Demos. Our first discussion focused on race, class, populism, and the sometimes toxic ways the three interact. It’s a topic I wanted to revisit in the aftermath of Trump’s election, and so I asked Heather back to the show. After this conversation, I’m very, very glad I did. Among other things, we discussed:

-The three factors that explain the election results
-Why race is a more complex force in politics than either liberals or conservatives assume
-The dangers of Democrats convincing themselves that populism and racial justice are either/or
-Her experience talking with a white man who realized he was prejudiced, and asked her help in changing
-Why Clinton lost states Obama won
-Why Clinton didn’t outperform Obama among nonwhite voters
-Why the core of modern racism is seeing some races as made of individuals and others as collectives
-Whether the very language around race and racism makes empathy more difficult
-How Democrats should think about cooperating — and not cooperating — with Trump

And, as always, much more. Heather is brilliant on these topics, and this is worth listening to.

Also, a lot of you have asked for an episode where I answer your questions, and we’re going to make it happen. So send your questions for me to [email protected].

Listen to the entire episode here.

Continue reading

From The Atlantic:

Americans talk about democracy like it’s sacred. In public discourse, the more democratic American government is, the better. The people are supposed to rule.

But that’s not the premise that underlies America’s political system. Most of the men who founded the United States feared unfettered majority rule. James Madison wrote in Federalist 10 that systems of government based upon “pure democracy … have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.” John Adams wrote in 1814 that, “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.”

Read Peter’s entire column here.

Continue reading

Scroll to top