Thanks for the "Stacy's Mom" info. I recall Adam Schlesinger being one of the first well known people to pass away from Covid-19. He was such a tremendous talent. Among his many songs are the title track to the Tom Hanks film "That Thing You Do". That man could write a catchy song as well as anyone ever.
I like this Connor guy in Indiana so far. He’s right about independents and the dysfunctional two-party system. If someone tells me they’re an enthusiastic Republican or Democrat, I know that they’re missing or ignoring some key information.
Regarding the initiative to make Illinois the first Democratic Presidential primary election state in the country, I am happy to see the Democrat party being consistent in their fawning fealty to Identity Politics. (If any degree of rationality were involved, thinking people may question why a state who leads the nation in net population loss by wide numbers in recent years should be considered a good trend setter, but nobody ever accused progressives of engaging reason instead of pure full throttled ideological passion.)
In addition to population diversity and being a union stranglehold (I loved that comment!), Illinois also very closely follows the national Democrat profile as being one of the most dysfunctional and high tax states in the country, a pacesetter for governors and other politicians convicted of the pervasive statewide corruption, along with the urban center leading the entire nation in homicides (We're #1!).
So yes, as a conservative I would dearly love to see Democrats nominate a presidential candidate who represents the extreme dysfunction in Illinois to compete in the general election - bring it!
It makes a lot of sense for the parties to schedule their primaries in the order that is of most interest to them in selecting a candidate for the election. They could actually think about changing the order in every election cycle, to appeal to a variety of constituencies with the honor of priority. But the parties would have to find a way to get the state governments out of the primary business and attempting to influence the order. Which also means the parties should pay for their primary process. Then they could organize and run it any way they like, maybe adopt rank order voting, weight votes by registered party members (vs independents/ cross overs), run regions vs states, or even have multiple national votes.
But for Democrats, I would think that they would focus on the big reliable states first (CA, NY, IL) and then the big purple states (MI, OH, GA), and then the other big states (TX, FL, PA, NC). They could toss in some small states or regional primaries to pretend that they care about them. This approach might reduce primary spending, shorten the campaigns, and also weaken rural industries like ethanol. Since the top 10 states are half of the total population that should be good enough for the primary.
Regarding the Florida Parental Rights in Education legislation, Disney has now become the corporate poster child for organizations who cave into pressure from their woke progressive employees to directly engage on partisan political issues. It is contrary to their obligation to operate in the best interest of their shareholders as opposed to being bullied by a vocal segment of employees.
Disney had every right to reaffirm it's total inclusivity and welcoming for all people in their operations and administration, but they crossed a line when they took a public stand on a political issue, and have thereby opened themselves up to political response. If you elect to actively participate in the political arena, you are going to get as well as give.
And before there are anguished cries that this is some sort of fundamental human rights issue, it is clearly being framed as extremist only in the main stream media and in Democratic circles who continue to denigrate it by the phony Don't Say Gay name. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for public school teachers to feel a need to bring sexuality into educational lessons of kindergarten children. (One could easily feel creeped out by teachers who feel an obsession to do so!)
A very credible poll in Florida by public Opinion Strategies found that 61% of Florida residents were in favor of the language of this bill, and this includes over 70% of Republicans, 58% of independents, and 55% of Democrats with only 29% of Democrats indicating opposition to it! So yes, it is common sense legislation that has extremely broad support among Florida citizens.
The “modern” era of MLB baseball began in 1901 not 1900. Not that they were sticklers then for what constitutes a new century (the 20th Century, of course, began on Jan. 1, 1901–not 1900), but because it was in 1901 that a reconstituted American League was considered “major league.” Just a coincidence for those of us who ARE sticklers about centuries and millenniums.
FYI orTMI? But follow up for baseball trivia fans…
Of the eight original 1901 American League franchises, only four exist today where they started: Chicago White Stockings (later White Sox), Boston Americans (later Red Sox), Cleveland Blues (various names—Naps primarily—in early years until Indians, now Guardians) and the Detroit Tigers (only AL franchise to retain name/city).
Other four original teams (and what became of them):
—Milwaukee Brewers (became St. Louis Browns in 1902, Baltimore Orioles in 1954)
—Baltimore Orioles (became New York Highlanders—later Yankees—in 1903)
—Philadelphia A’s/Athletics (became Kansas City A’s in 1955, Oakland A’s in 1968)
—Washington Nationals (became Senators; then Texas Rangers in 1972)
So…when today’s Yankees play today’s Orioles, it’s really the original Baltimore Orioles vs. original Milwaukee Brewers.
I was one of the few (the proud?) that voted for the Stacy's Dad tweet, one of the rare entries that really made me lol. Writing this comment was immediately dampened by seeing the once again constant commenting by Jerry Brozek. Every time someone mentions how tiresome it is that JB occupies so much of the thread every week you are subjected to his justification that you, Eric, and he are friends and it's completely ok for him to take up so much space with his drivel. Considering that comments are supposed to be a perk for subscribers, it seems more like a penalty.
Re tweets this week: The gas station sandwich one may be my all time favorite. The phrase "gas station sandwich" is pretty hilarious all on its own, but then throw in "Meyers-Briggs" and I can't stop giggling.
Another tweet nomination, via Jesse Singal: "If Canada buys Elon Musk I am moving to Twitter."
Re primary order: According to a piece 538 did some time ago, Illinois was most representative of the national Democratic electorate in terms of race, ethnicity, and education, a good reason for Illinois to have first crack.
On the other hand, some argue that letting tiny states go first allows a less well-known, less well-funded, non-establishment candidate (like Obama in 2008) to gain a foothold in a primary race on the strength of retail campaigning. With that in mind, there's a strong case to be made for Nevada, a state with a population size similar to Iowa's and a demographic profile among small states that's most similar to Democrats nationwide.
Re Todd Connor, he seems like a nice enough fellow, but I'm skeptical of his democracy reform plan, which he emphasized in his exchange with you. Duverger's Law says that any voting system with single-winner races where the person with the most votes (a plurality, not necessarily a majority) wins will inevitably produce two and only two dominant parties. That's because such a system allows lane-splitting, i.e., spoiler effects, where a third-party candidate threatens, like Nader in 2000, to rob the most closely aligned candidate of a victory they would have otherwise enjoyed and hand the election to their worst enemy and the electorate's least-favored choice instead. Unless you're Nader, this is a powerful disincentive to run as a third party candidate or to vote for one.
It's true, as Connor suggests, that we could reform our system to avoid this problem (perhaps using his favored top-five open primary, really, preliminary round, followed by a ranked choice voting general election) and potentially open the door to more parties, but such a reform would have to be on too large a scale (lots of competitive states would have to adopt it) to make that a reality any time soon, especially insofar as it would require members of the two parties to agree to dismantle their duopoly.
The thing to do in the near and medium term is for Democrats to get their heads out of their ass to put forward a broadly appealing message backed by some flashy but non-gimmicky, confidence-inspiring bills. Find some wins! (Small example: I loved the idea of effing the Intuit lobby by having the IRS pre-prepare your tax return for you based on already reported information, subject only to your revisions and/or additional deductions which are usually unnecessary for the majority of filers. That should have been law by four months ago.) Democrats' utter incompetence in this regard has been shocking. It's as though they don't understand that politics is a popularity contest.
On the anti-Trump conservative side, the thing to do is to run as an independent in the general presidential election, deliberately seeking to spoil a whacko's run, using Duverger's Law for good! Such a run might even prompt a bipartisan look at election reforms via constitutional amendment, such as instituting a national popular vote for the president via instant run-off voting. I would also love to see a constitutional ban on partisan gerrymandering, as long as we're fantasizing.
As a lifelong Iowan, I hereby grant the wishes of you and Lynn Sweet regarding presidential primaries.
To the average person, they are a giant pain in the ass.
Do you enjoy political ads? Well, buddy, you'll have them round the clock. Everywhere.
In Iowa, there are only three types that want the caucus:
1. Media companies for selling the neverending adverts.
2. Local politicians so that they can nuzzle up to national politicians.
3. People that sell hay bales. Because in Iowa, every political commercial, advertisement, or public appearance must include enough hay bales to feed every horse in the state for a year.
Unrelated: Any thoughts on the proposed menthol cigarette ban? Is it just me, or is it unseemly for the U.S. to ban just the kind of cigarettes overwhelmingly favored by black people out of a paternalistic concern for their well-being? Journalists on NPR instruct us that blacks were "targeted" by advertising for menthol cigarettes, and that this is a great step toward equity. I'm pretty shocked by the casual way of talking among these experts that literally portrays black people as akin to children hooked by Joe Camel or berry-flavored vapes. I bet there are lot of black people thankful for these white people saving them from their cigarettes, while leaving alone the Marlboro reds, golds, silvers. Just the green ones they want to ban. Quick historical run-down: Whites take away blacks' freedom, labor, rights, dignity, and wealth. And now they want to take their smokes too? A+ guys.
I really liked Todd Connor's responses. Thanks for noticing him. I particularly liked his comments on honesty. I interpret it to mean both clearly and consistently stating policy positions and then being honest about the implications and the results. Politicians have justly earned the reputation for being lying weasels, lacking in consistency and principle. They and their supporters-of-the-moment justify dishonesty by claiming that the electorate is too stupid and short-sighted to understand a truthful argument for a policy. It was also refreshing to see his recognition of the regression of the parties towards their fringes.
I read the BGA report on drug arrests. I can't argue with the senselessness of arresting a person, holding a bond hearing, and holding people on cases that are then dropped at the preliminary hearing. Making drug possession a misdemeanor may have many benefits and be part of an answer. But the process described in the article is an example of the general incompetence of Cook County government. The article said that prosecutors review felony cases to decide on pursuing them or dropping them, but that there were too many possession cases to review, so they let the arresting cop decide if it was a good case. Then a prosecutor was on hand for the bail hearing and again for the preliminary hearing where the case was dropped. Counting only the time of a prosecutor it is hard to see how a review would be more time consuming than the attendance at two hearings. But adding in all of the other resources (judges, defenders, bailiffs, etc) for the hearings - how could any reasonable person have thought "sure let's skip the reviews"?
Allow me to address the utter bullshit spewed on this comment thread with a dose of reality from PolitiFact — "There is no evidence that the FBI, or any government agency, orchestrated the attack or incited it. And there is no evidence that it was staged or a false flag, as Rainey suggested.
To advance these theories, Tucker Carlson relied on circumstantial evidence and speculation provided by the Revolver News editor, including the fact that an extremist plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer was foiled by informants and undercover FBI operatives.
Carlson also relied on a misleading characterization of what led to the arrest of former Drug Enforcement Administration agent Mark Ibrahim, who brought a gun onto Capitol grounds. And he cited the work of journalist Trevor Aaronson, who reported on FBI stings targeting Muslims after 9/11. But Aaronson has strongly disputed Carlson’s claims about Jan. 6 and told PolitiFact that the FBI-plot theory is "absolutely ludicrous."
False flag claims require "more than just unsubstantiated assertions" to prove, especially with significant events that create overwhelming amounts of evidence, said Mark Fenster, professor of law at the University of Florida and author on conspiracy theories."
I initially misread “That Illinois is a union stronghold” as “That Illinois is in a union stranglehold”, which would also have been a valid statement.
Thanks for the "Stacy's Mom" info. I recall Adam Schlesinger being one of the first well known people to pass away from Covid-19. He was such a tremendous talent. Among his many songs are the title track to the Tom Hanks film "That Thing You Do". That man could write a catchy song as well as anyone ever.
I like this Connor guy in Indiana so far. He’s right about independents and the dysfunctional two-party system. If someone tells me they’re an enthusiastic Republican or Democrat, I know that they’re missing or ignoring some key information.
Regarding the initiative to make Illinois the first Democratic Presidential primary election state in the country, I am happy to see the Democrat party being consistent in their fawning fealty to Identity Politics. (If any degree of rationality were involved, thinking people may question why a state who leads the nation in net population loss by wide numbers in recent years should be considered a good trend setter, but nobody ever accused progressives of engaging reason instead of pure full throttled ideological passion.)
In addition to population diversity and being a union stranglehold (I loved that comment!), Illinois also very closely follows the national Democrat profile as being one of the most dysfunctional and high tax states in the country, a pacesetter for governors and other politicians convicted of the pervasive statewide corruption, along with the urban center leading the entire nation in homicides (We're #1!).
So yes, as a conservative I would dearly love to see Democrats nominate a presidential candidate who represents the extreme dysfunction in Illinois to compete in the general election - bring it!
It makes a lot of sense for the parties to schedule their primaries in the order that is of most interest to them in selecting a candidate for the election. They could actually think about changing the order in every election cycle, to appeal to a variety of constituencies with the honor of priority. But the parties would have to find a way to get the state governments out of the primary business and attempting to influence the order. Which also means the parties should pay for their primary process. Then they could organize and run it any way they like, maybe adopt rank order voting, weight votes by registered party members (vs independents/ cross overs), run regions vs states, or even have multiple national votes.
But for Democrats, I would think that they would focus on the big reliable states first (CA, NY, IL) and then the big purple states (MI, OH, GA), and then the other big states (TX, FL, PA, NC). They could toss in some small states or regional primaries to pretend that they care about them. This approach might reduce primary spending, shorten the campaigns, and also weaken rural industries like ethanol. Since the top 10 states are half of the total population that should be good enough for the primary.
Regarding the Florida Parental Rights in Education legislation, Disney has now become the corporate poster child for organizations who cave into pressure from their woke progressive employees to directly engage on partisan political issues. It is contrary to their obligation to operate in the best interest of their shareholders as opposed to being bullied by a vocal segment of employees.
Disney had every right to reaffirm it's total inclusivity and welcoming for all people in their operations and administration, but they crossed a line when they took a public stand on a political issue, and have thereby opened themselves up to political response. If you elect to actively participate in the political arena, you are going to get as well as give.
And before there are anguished cries that this is some sort of fundamental human rights issue, it is clearly being framed as extremist only in the main stream media and in Democratic circles who continue to denigrate it by the phony Don't Say Gay name. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for public school teachers to feel a need to bring sexuality into educational lessons of kindergarten children. (One could easily feel creeped out by teachers who feel an obsession to do so!)
A very credible poll in Florida by public Opinion Strategies found that 61% of Florida residents were in favor of the language of this bill, and this includes over 70% of Republicans, 58% of independents, and 55% of Democrats with only 29% of Democrats indicating opposition to it! So yes, it is common sense legislation that has extremely broad support among Florida citizens.
The “modern” era of MLB baseball began in 1901 not 1900. Not that they were sticklers then for what constitutes a new century (the 20th Century, of course, began on Jan. 1, 1901–not 1900), but because it was in 1901 that a reconstituted American League was considered “major league.” Just a coincidence for those of us who ARE sticklers about centuries and millenniums.
FYI orTMI? But follow up for baseball trivia fans…
Of the eight original 1901 American League franchises, only four exist today where they started: Chicago White Stockings (later White Sox), Boston Americans (later Red Sox), Cleveland Blues (various names—Naps primarily—in early years until Indians, now Guardians) and the Detroit Tigers (only AL franchise to retain name/city).
Other four original teams (and what became of them):
—Milwaukee Brewers (became St. Louis Browns in 1902, Baltimore Orioles in 1954)
—Baltimore Orioles (became New York Highlanders—later Yankees—in 1903)
—Philadelphia A’s/Athletics (became Kansas City A’s in 1955, Oakland A’s in 1968)
—Washington Nationals (became Senators; then Texas Rangers in 1972)
So…when today’s Yankees play today’s Orioles, it’s really the original Baltimore Orioles vs. original Milwaukee Brewers.
I was one of the few (the proud?) that voted for the Stacy's Dad tweet, one of the rare entries that really made me lol. Writing this comment was immediately dampened by seeing the once again constant commenting by Jerry Brozek. Every time someone mentions how tiresome it is that JB occupies so much of the thread every week you are subjected to his justification that you, Eric, and he are friends and it's completely ok for him to take up so much space with his drivel. Considering that comments are supposed to be a perk for subscribers, it seems more like a penalty.
Re tweets this week: The gas station sandwich one may be my all time favorite. The phrase "gas station sandwich" is pretty hilarious all on its own, but then throw in "Meyers-Briggs" and I can't stop giggling.
Another tweet nomination, via Jesse Singal: "If Canada buys Elon Musk I am moving to Twitter."
https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1518627536917381120
Re primary order: According to a piece 538 did some time ago, Illinois was most representative of the national Democratic electorate in terms of race, ethnicity, and education, a good reason for Illinois to have first crack.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-if-early-democratic-primary-states-looked-more-like-the-party/
On the other hand, some argue that letting tiny states go first allows a less well-known, less well-funded, non-establishment candidate (like Obama in 2008) to gain a foothold in a primary race on the strength of retail campaigning. With that in mind, there's a strong case to be made for Nevada, a state with a population size similar to Iowa's and a demographic profile among small states that's most similar to Democrats nationwide.
Re Todd Connor, he seems like a nice enough fellow, but I'm skeptical of his democracy reform plan, which he emphasized in his exchange with you. Duverger's Law says that any voting system with single-winner races where the person with the most votes (a plurality, not necessarily a majority) wins will inevitably produce two and only two dominant parties. That's because such a system allows lane-splitting, i.e., spoiler effects, where a third-party candidate threatens, like Nader in 2000, to rob the most closely aligned candidate of a victory they would have otherwise enjoyed and hand the election to their worst enemy and the electorate's least-favored choice instead. Unless you're Nader, this is a powerful disincentive to run as a third party candidate or to vote for one.
It's true, as Connor suggests, that we could reform our system to avoid this problem (perhaps using his favored top-five open primary, really, preliminary round, followed by a ranked choice voting general election) and potentially open the door to more parties, but such a reform would have to be on too large a scale (lots of competitive states would have to adopt it) to make that a reality any time soon, especially insofar as it would require members of the two parties to agree to dismantle their duopoly.
The thing to do in the near and medium term is for Democrats to get their heads out of their ass to put forward a broadly appealing message backed by some flashy but non-gimmicky, confidence-inspiring bills. Find some wins! (Small example: I loved the idea of effing the Intuit lobby by having the IRS pre-prepare your tax return for you based on already reported information, subject only to your revisions and/or additional deductions which are usually unnecessary for the majority of filers. That should have been law by four months ago.) Democrats' utter incompetence in this regard has been shocking. It's as though they don't understand that politics is a popularity contest.
On the anti-Trump conservative side, the thing to do is to run as an independent in the general presidential election, deliberately seeking to spoil a whacko's run, using Duverger's Law for good! Such a run might even prompt a bipartisan look at election reforms via constitutional amendment, such as instituting a national popular vote for the president via instant run-off voting. I would also love to see a constitutional ban on partisan gerrymandering, as long as we're fantasizing.
As a lifelong Iowan, I hereby grant the wishes of you and Lynn Sweet regarding presidential primaries.
To the average person, they are a giant pain in the ass.
Do you enjoy political ads? Well, buddy, you'll have them round the clock. Everywhere.
In Iowa, there are only three types that want the caucus:
1. Media companies for selling the neverending adverts.
2. Local politicians so that they can nuzzle up to national politicians.
3. People that sell hay bales. Because in Iowa, every political commercial, advertisement, or public appearance must include enough hay bales to feed every horse in the state for a year.
Unrelated: Any thoughts on the proposed menthol cigarette ban? Is it just me, or is it unseemly for the U.S. to ban just the kind of cigarettes overwhelmingly favored by black people out of a paternalistic concern for their well-being? Journalists on NPR instruct us that blacks were "targeted" by advertising for menthol cigarettes, and that this is a great step toward equity. I'm pretty shocked by the casual way of talking among these experts that literally portrays black people as akin to children hooked by Joe Camel or berry-flavored vapes. I bet there are lot of black people thankful for these white people saving them from their cigarettes, while leaving alone the Marlboro reds, golds, silvers. Just the green ones they want to ban. Quick historical run-down: Whites take away blacks' freedom, labor, rights, dignity, and wealth. And now they want to take their smokes too? A+ guys.
I really liked Todd Connor's responses. Thanks for noticing him. I particularly liked his comments on honesty. I interpret it to mean both clearly and consistently stating policy positions and then being honest about the implications and the results. Politicians have justly earned the reputation for being lying weasels, lacking in consistency and principle. They and their supporters-of-the-moment justify dishonesty by claiming that the electorate is too stupid and short-sighted to understand a truthful argument for a policy. It was also refreshing to see his recognition of the regression of the parties towards their fringes.
I read the BGA report on drug arrests. I can't argue with the senselessness of arresting a person, holding a bond hearing, and holding people on cases that are then dropped at the preliminary hearing. Making drug possession a misdemeanor may have many benefits and be part of an answer. But the process described in the article is an example of the general incompetence of Cook County government. The article said that prosecutors review felony cases to decide on pursuing them or dropping them, but that there were too many possession cases to review, so they let the arresting cop decide if it was a good case. Then a prosecutor was on hand for the bail hearing and again for the preliminary hearing where the case was dropped. Counting only the time of a prosecutor it is hard to see how a review would be more time consuming than the attendance at two hearings. But adding in all of the other resources (judges, defenders, bailiffs, etc) for the hearings - how could any reasonable person have thought "sure let's skip the reviews"?
Allow me to address the utter bullshit spewed on this comment thread with a dose of reality from PolitiFact — "There is no evidence that the FBI, or any government agency, orchestrated the attack or incited it. And there is no evidence that it was staged or a false flag, as Rainey suggested.
To advance these theories, Tucker Carlson relied on circumstantial evidence and speculation provided by the Revolver News editor, including the fact that an extremist plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer was foiled by informants and undercover FBI operatives.
Carlson also relied on a misleading characterization of what led to the arrest of former Drug Enforcement Administration agent Mark Ibrahim, who brought a gun onto Capitol grounds. And he cited the work of journalist Trevor Aaronson, who reported on FBI stings targeting Muslims after 9/11. But Aaronson has strongly disputed Carlson’s claims about Jan. 6 and told PolitiFact that the FBI-plot theory is "absolutely ludicrous."
False flag claims require "more than just unsubstantiated assertions" to prove, especially with significant events that create overwhelming amounts of evidence, said Mark Fenster, professor of law at the University of Florida and author on conspiracy theories."