There’s an interesting article at CityLab by Sarah Holder on how Tulsa is luring young workers away from California and New York to Oklahoma:

Ukabam is a member of the first inaugural class of Tulsa Remote, an initiative launched in November 2019 that pushed people untethered by office jobs to pack up and move to Oklahoma. Those like Ukabam who work remotely and got through the competitive application process were promised $10,000 in installments over the course of a year, plus cheap housing and an upgraded social infrastructure.

The program reflects a new economic development strategy that Tulsa is among the first to pilot. Traditionally, cities looking to spur their economies may offer incentives to attract businesses. But at a time when Americans are moving less frequently than they have in more than half a century, and the anticlimactic race to host an Amazon HQ2 soured some governments on corporate tax breaks, Tulsa is one of several locales testing out a new premise: Pay people instead.

Similar programs are being tried in Vermont, northwest Alabama, and most recently Topeka, Kansas, each with their own variations.

The rate at which people are moving for jobs is now the lowest in the post-war period. There will need to be a lot more successes and a lot more creative problems like Tulsa Remote to stem the hollowing-out of the country that’s presently occurring.

Well, it’s here. A third of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention will be elected today.

Here’s Ryan Lizza’s summary of the situation at Politico:

LOS ANGELES — On Sunday night, Bernie Sanders was endorsed by Chuck D in Los Angeles and Joe Biden was endorsed by Terry McAuliffe in Norfolk, Virginia. Chuck D is the 59 year-old founder of Public Enemy, self-described raptivist, and longtime supporter of left causes. He compared Trump to Hitler, warned the crowd of mostly millennials about corporate America, and sang the group’s most famous song, “Fight the Power.” McAuliffe, a Bill Clinton acolyte, is the former governor of Virginia and a prolific Democratic Party fundraiser. Speaking of Sanders, he told the crowd, “We don’t need a revolution, we need Joe Biden in the White House.”

Bernie Sanders is expected to do well today. What does that mean? Sen. Sanders frequently rails against the “corporate wing of the Democratic Party”. That’s about 90% of elected Democratic officials. It includes the mayor of Chicago, the president of the Cook County Board, the governor of Illinois, both of Illinois’s senators, and my Congressional representative.

I think the biggest question that may be answered today is whether Sen. Sanders will be able to garner a majority of delegates anywhere. To date his support has not extended materially beyond his support in 2016.

Yesterday Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar ended her campaign for the nomination for president of her party. In one sense it’s a shame. I probably would have voted for her when the late-arriving Illinois primary takes place on March 17. Illinois’s primaries are close primaries, by the way. In a statesmanlike move, she has endorsed Joe Biden for president.

Now the remaining candidates are Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren. As I’ve said before, I will cast my vote for a Democrat.

I agree with the point that the editors of the Washington Post are making here:

The Supreme Court hears one of its most important oral arguments of the current term on Wednesday, and much more is at stake than policy on the perennially divisive issue — abortion rights — at the heart of the litigation. The court’s integrity itself will be on trial. All Americans, and certainly all nine justices, should favor a ruling consistent with precedent — and the vital principle that constitutional rights do not vary according to which party gets to nominate members of the court.

but there’s something that you should notice in the editorial. Here’s how they characterize a recent decision of the 5th Circuit:

Nevertheless, in January 2019 the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, dominated by Republican appointees, finalized a ruling upholding a Louisiana law nearly identical to the recently rejected Texas one.

The phrase “dominated by Republican appointees” is an interesting one and contrasts with their characterization of Justice Anthony Kennedy:

Now you can see why the technical legal issues in the case, complex and weighty as they are, pale in comparison to the real question: whether the Supreme Court will reverse a freshly minted pro-choice precedent after the justice who cast a fifth and deciding vote for it in 2016, Anthony M. Kennedy, retired in 2018 — and Brett M. Kavanaugh replaced him.

Justice Kennedy was appointed by a Republican, too—Ronald Reagan. Why is one relevant and the other not?

Selective application of facts is one of the ways that news outlets have of conditioning the news, giving the reader an impression that may or may not be true but isn’t actually supported by the facts at hand, in this case that justices appointed by Republicans will inevitably decide abortion cases in a particular way. I don’t actually know the track record of judges around the country on this subject is and I doubt that the WaPo editors do, either. I suspect that judges, whether elected or appointed, appointed by Democrats or Republicans, in most cases including abortion cases render their decisions according to the law and precedent. It would be interesting to know whether that’s wrong or right.

In November I planned to vote for whatever Democrat was running for president. Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat. He never has been. Even were he to announce that he’d become a Democrat, he would not be one.

I suspect that this Wall Street Journal op-ed from retired law school dean James Huffman captures the dilemma in which many find themselves pretty well:

If Bernie Sanders is the Democratic nominee for president, he’ll have to secure the votes of people like me. He won’t have a chance. A man who sings the praises of Fidel Castro’s Cuba and promises to dismantle the most productive economy on the planet won’t win over America’s moderate middle, even running against an ill-mannered, ignorant and demagogic Donald Trump.

Until 2016 I was a registered Republican. I voted for some Democrats, but mostly Republicans. In 2010 I was Oregon’s Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, challenging incumbent Ron Wyden as a social moderate and fiscal conservative. In July 2016, I wrote an op-ed in Oregon’s leading newspaper urging the state’s Republican National Convention delegates to lead a “revolution of conscience” against Mr. Trump’s nomination. When he was nominated, I changed my registration to “unaffiliated.”

In November I voted for Libertarian Gary Johnson. If I lived in a swing state, I’d have voted for Hillary Clinton. Mr. Trump has been even worse as president than I imagined—less civil, less informed, more demagogic. Yet if Mr. Sanders is the Democratic nominee, I’ll vote for Mr. Trump.

Voting for Bernie Sanders will not be an option for millions of moderate Republican and independent voters, including those in swing states. They may like some of the things Mr. Trump has done, but they can’t abide his rude behavior, narcissism and disregard for the truth. But neither can they accept Mr. Sanders’s socialism with its limitless, unfunded promises.

The lesser evil is clear. Most of the harm Mr. Trump has caused, and will cause in another term, will pass when he leaves office. It will take time but civil dialogue can be restored, foreign relationships repaired, tariffs repealed, executive orders revoked, and new people appointed to important positions. Contrary to the “resistance,” democracy and the rule of law are not in peril. Mr. Trump is a product of democracy, and the courts—including judges appointed since 2017—continue to enforce the law.

If Mr. Sanders’s socialist agenda were to become a reality, undoing it would be nearly impossible. Once created, social-welfare programs are almost never reversed. It is a one-way ratchet to more spending, mounting debt and growing dependence on government at the expense of individual responsibility. Lawmakers have known for decades that Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable without major reforms, but there are no reforms.

Everything government does is funded by the capitalist economy that Mr. Sanders’s proposed policies would deliberately undermine. Some hope that even Democratic congressional majorities would put the brakes on a President Sanders’s agenda. But in an era of unbending party loyalty, moderates can’t rely on that. That’s why people like me may end up pulling the lever for Donald Trump.

I see people making the argument that they’ll hold their noses and vote for Sanders in November because he’s a better person than Donald Trump. I think they’re kidding themselves.

Somewhat surprisingly Pete Buttigieg and Tom Steyer have exited the contest for the Democratic nomination for president. “Surprisingly” because it was just three days before “Super Tuesday”, when 14 states holding about a third of all of the committed delegates were voting. I don’t think that running out of money or cutting their losses are credible explanations. To me the most credible explanation is that their exits are strategic in nature—based on polls and performance they realize that neither will emerge as the eventual nominee and their presence merely sucks a few votes away from other candidates who are more likely to win.

I don’t think that either Tom Steyer or Pete Buttigieg would have made a good president and I doubt I would have voted for either of them.

Now the field is limited to Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg, Elizabeth Warren, and Amy Klobuchar. I don’t believe that either Sen. Warren or Sen. Klobuchar actually has a chance at this point. Sen. Warren, presumably, pulls some votes away from Bernie Sanders while Sen. Klobuchar pulls from Biden.

By all appearances Bernie Sanders has a base of support of a little more than 15% of primary voters while Biden has a floor of about 8%. As candidates have left the field, Biden’s floor has risen to about 15% while Sanders’s has stayed about the same.

As the number of acknowledged diagnosed cases of COVID-19 rises again in China, indirect evidence of what is happening there is beginning to emerge that might challenge the official reports. The most dramatic, reported by the BBC, is NASA pictures contrasting Chinese air pollution in January and today:

Satellite images have shown a dramatic decline in pollution levels over China, which is “at least partly” due to an economic slowdown prompted by the coronavirus, US space agency Nasa says.

Nasa maps show falling levels of nitrogen dioxide this year.

It comes amid record declines in China’s factory activity as manufacturers stop work in a bid to contain coronavirus.

China has recorded nearly 80,000 cases of the virus since the outbreak began.

There’s also a comparison with the same period last year so it’s not merely seasonal variation.

Maybe the Chinese authorities are operating through an abundance of caution, minimizing the scale of the outbreak to reduce the likelihood of panic. That wouldn’t be particularly nefarious—our authorities are doing the same thing even as the media try to heighten concern. Or maybe they’re reporting what they’re actually finding.

Additionally, the Wall Street Journal reports that the manufacturing purchasing managers’ index in China has fallen to a record low:

BEIJING—Official gauges of China’s factory and nonfactory activity plunged to record lows in February as the nation’s economy struggled to resume normal production as it faced the coronavirus epidemic.

The official manufacturing purchasing managers index tumbled to 35.7 in February from 50 in January, indicating a deep contraction. February’s reading from the National Bureau of Statistics on Saturday was the first official data for a full month of economic activity in China since the coronavirus began affecting the economy in late January.

The index dropped to 38.8 in November 2008, when the financial crisis prompted steep losses on Wall Street and sent shockwaves through the global economy. The 50 mark separates expansion from contraction.

Adding to the gloom, China’s nonmanufacturing PMI, also released on Saturday, sank to a record low of 29.6 in February from 54.1 in January. The nonmanufacturing PMI covers such services as retail, aviation and software as well as real estate and construction.

The factory index indicated contraction for most of 2019, hit by a trade war between the U.S. and China. It didn’t cross back into expansion until late last year, when trade tensions between the two sides eased.

The February result came in far below the median forecast of 43 by economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal. Purchasing by manufacturers is a leading indicator of business activity because factories buy supplies in anticipation of demand.

Saturday’s results show a “relatively large impact” from the epidemic, Zhao Qinghe, an analyst with the statistics bureau, said in a statement accompanying the data release. March’s readings should improve because of authorities’ efforts to help companies, especially manufacturing firms, resume production, he said.

Here’s what FiveThirtyEight said in anticipation of the South Carolina primary:

Here, according to our model, is what the post-Super Tuesday delegate count could look like following a big Biden win in South Carolina. Keep in mind that these represent the average of thousands of simulations; individual outcomes will vary based on factors such as Biden’s margin of victory in South Carolina, whether anyone drops out before Super Tuesday, and so on.

An outcome like the one in the table wouldn’t be a disaster for Sanders, by any means. He’d still be projected to end up with 578 delegates, on average after Super Tuesday, counting both delegates won before Super Tuesday and on Super Tuesday itself. In other words, Sanders would still pick up 39 percent of the total delegates awarded so far. Biden would be next with 430 delegates (29 percent), with Michael Bloombeg in third with 200 delegates (13 percent).

But you can also see how momentum could start to turn against Sanders. By “momentum,” I don’t mean something ineffable, but rather the shifts in the polls that could occur as the result of Super Tuesday, as well as decisions by other candidates to stay in the race or drop out.

Biden didn’t just get the most votes in the South Carolina primaries. He won by almost 30 points, more than their “big win” scenario. Sanders actually won a lower percentage of the votes than he did in 2016. Frankly, I doubt that any facts will be able to debunk the claim that Sanders will broaden the base because that’s his greatest chance for victory in November. But the facts actually say that most Democrats are voting against Sanders. His supporters are, essentially, the same “BernieBros” that supported him in 2016.

What I believe is happening now is that most Democrats want to defeat Trump but they also prefer an actual Democratic candidate over Sanders. Nonetheless, I hear whispers of a bolshevist strategy to demand the nomination on the basis of a plurality of the committed delegates.

Let’s consider a few scenarios of what may happen in November.

A. Sanders wins by a popular vote and electoral landslide and has broad coattails.

Sanders’s supporters are already preparing a slate of like-minded candidates to oppose more moderate Democrats. At least some of those are likely to be elected. He does not come into office with the Democratic Party apparat but with appointees of his own choosing. Sanders will rule by executive order and will be abetted by like-minded judges. Republicans lose the Senate and aren’t in a position to block Sanders’s agenda.

B. Sanders wins narrowly and does not have broad coattails.

Sanders comes into office with the usual suspects, the Democratic Party apparat, and governs pretty much as Obama did. Republicans hold the Senate and are in a position to block Sanders’s agenda.

C. Sanders is nominated and loses big in November.

That would be a disaster for Democrats but not for the Democratic establishment. They would live to fight again. Trump would claim and have a mandate.

D. Sanders is nominated and Trump wins about the way he did in 2016.

Four more years of Trump vs. The Resistance.

E. Any candidate other than Sanders is nominated in the Democratic Convention and his supporters vote for whomever that is.

This is the dream scenario for Democrats but IMO that’s exactly what it is—a dream.

F. Any candidate other than Sanders is nominated in the Democratic Convention but his supports do not vote for whomever that is. Trump wins big.

This is the real nightmare scenario for the Democratic Party. I don’t know if it will be able to survive such a schism.

I think the likelihoods are C, D, and F, in that order.

Once upon a time in the mists of the not-too-distant past Chicago celebrated four holidays with parades and other commemorations: St. Patrick’s Day for Chicago’s Irish population, Pulaski Day for its Polish population, Columbus Day for Chicago’s Italians, and Martin Luther King’s Birthday for Chicago’s black population. There were others but those were the biggies. Pandering? Heck, yes.

Now the Chicago Tribune reports it’s goodbye, Columbus:

Columbus Day will no longer be observed in Chicago Public Schools — and the group behind the city’s annual Columbus Day parade is already pushing to reverse that decision.

“This is a slap in the face of the more than 500,000 Italian Americans in Chicago, and the 135 million Italian Americans worldwide,” said Sergio Giangrande, president of the Joint Civic Committee of Italian Americans, in a statement provided to the Tribune.

Giangrande said the group “is challenging CPS’s decision and has mounted a campaign to reverse this action.”

Following similar moves in other school districts and cities, the Chicago Board of Education voted Wednesday to drop Columbus’ name from the October school holiday in favor of an observance of Indigenous Peoples Day.

This, too, is pandering but for the life of me I can’t tell to whom. Chicago actually has a substantial population of Native Americans but it’s closer to 65,000 than 500,000. There are other populations who have like numbers—Chinese, South Asians, Filipinos, and so on. There are probably more Lithuanians in Chicago than that.