The Immortal Life Of Henrietta Lacks tells the true story of Henrietta Lacks, an African-American woman whose cells were used to create the first immortal human cell line. Told through the eyes of her daughter, Deborah Lacks (Winfrey), the film chronicles her search to learn about the mother she never knew and to understand how the unauthorized harvesting of Lacks’ cancerous cells in 1951 led to unprecedented medical breakthroughs, changing countless lives and the face of medicine forever. It’s a story of medical arrogance and triumph, race, poverty and deep friendship between the unlikeliest of people.

Winfrey and Oscar winner Ball executive produce the movie alongside Peter Macdissi (Cinemax’s Banshee), Carla Gardini (The Hundred-Foot Journey) and Lydia Dean Pilcher (HBO’s You Don’t Know Jack). It’s a Your Face Goes Here Entertainment, Harpo Films and Cine Mosaic production. Skloot serves as co-executive producer, while Henrietta Lacks’ sons David Lacks Jr. and Zakariyya Rahman and granddaughter Jeri Lacks are consultants.

Mark Salter, who served as chief of staff to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and worked as an adviser on both of McCain’s presidential campaigns, says he’ll be supporting Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump this fall.

Salter, known as one of McCain’s closest confidants, tweeted Tuesday that he’s “with her,” a nod to Clinton’s campaign slogan.
...
While #NeverTrump has become a popular refrain in some factions of the Republican Party as the brash businessman inches closer to the GOP nomination, few Republicans have actually said they’ll back Clinton or her Democratic primary opponent Bernie Sanders instead.

Salter has long criticized Trump’s presidential bid. Last July, he penned an essay for RealClearPolitics comparing Trump to P.T. Barnum. In a January Esquire essay, he described the candidate as “a cartoon villain, a fake, a cheat, a liar, a creep, a bullying, bragging, bullshitting, blowhard kind of asshole.” And in February, Salter warned of the dangers of electing Trump as commander in chief, predicting he “would have American soldiers commit atrocities as a matter of national policy.”

The November outcome should be within 1 SD of current polls approximately two-thirds of the time. Hillary Clinton’s polling margin over Donald Trump is currently +8% (median of 19 pollsters since mid-March) – twice the standard deviation. Based on past years, how likely is it that Trump can catch up? It is possible to convert Clinton’s lead to a probability using the t-distribution*, which can account for outlier events like 1964 and 1980. Using this approach, the probability that Trump can catch up by November is 9%, and the probability that Clinton will remain ahead of Trump is 91%**. This probability doesn’t take into account Electoral College mechanisms. But since the bias of the Electoral College is quite small, it does not make a difference in the calculation.

I should note that the polls have been telling us this information for some time. In the first half of March, Clinton led Trump by a median of 9 percentage points. Using an SD of 4.5 percentage points, her win probability would come out as 93%. So today’s estimate has been knowable for several months.

This is a result that may excite Democrats. However, it is subject to change. For example, the SD increases to about 7% in June, which combined with a lead of Clinton +8% corresponds to an 83% win probability, less certain than today. And of course the polls could change. I don’t know why polls would be less predictive in summer. Maybe general election campaign events drive polls away from where they would naturally go otherwise. Post-convention bounces would be examples of such events.

This estimate is also independent of other factors, such as the state of the economy and Clinton and Trump’s net favorability/unfavorability. Most such factors should already be partially baked into the polls, and therefore might not add much information. Now that polls are predictive, they give us a more direct measure of what will happen in November

Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have made white working-class resentments over international trade central to their presidential bids. But neither takes the issue seriously. Ironically, the one who does is the candidate most identified with free trade.

Hillary Clinton.
...
Lost job growth isn't due to bad deals with China because the U.S. does not have bilateral trade agreements with that country. China and the U.S. are, however, members of the World Trade Organization, which writes the rules of commerce. A condition of membership was lifting trade barriers. To influence commerce rules, and to benefit from China's liberalized economy, the U.S. dropped tariffs on Chinese imports. Trump and Sanders may blame trade deals for the plight of the white working class, but the real issue is a global economy.
...
Her claim on this is a tax proposal that gives corporations incentives to invest in the USA. According to her "clawback" plan, firms relocating overseas must repay any taxpayer assistance they ever received. As she told the New York Daily News, tax relief is given in exchange for creating jobs. There was, she said, "an implicit bargain."

Elizabeth Warren, the progressive icon, invoked the same implicit bargain while running for the Senate in 2012. Corporations are part of communities with multiple stakeholders, she said: "Part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

Clinton’s proposal to make firms stay or pay is good policy that is also good politics. Given how closely her views resemble Warren's, it's ironic that the candidate most identified with free trade could be the most progressive.

2 p.m. update: Hillary Clinton tackled topics ranging from gun violence to mental health during her Sunday afternoon rally at Douglass Park Gymnasium.

After apologizing to the roughly 100 people who were unable to get inside the packed facility, Clinton talked about the importance of this year's election. She said that the country will either move forward together, or be divided against each other.

"There is no more consequential election facing our country than this 2016 presidential election," she said.

Clinton said the three big tests facing the next president will be producing positive results, keeping residents safe and uniting the country.