CatBus

Lots of hay being made over today’s special election result in Wisconsin. Special elections are special in many ways – because they are so few and they are not aligned with other elections, they should not be seen as representative of how other elections might go. Because turnout is typically much lower for special elections than even for off-year elections, they favor Republican candidates more than any other type of election. But still, here’s this result compared against the other three special elections with candidates from both parties that were decided today.

WI-SD10 27 pt swing to Democrats (D pickup)
IA-HD06 18 pt swing to Democrats (R hold)
SC-HD99 13 pt swing to Democrats (R hold)
WI-AD58 25 pt swing to Democrats (R hold)

Those numbers are so big, especially considering the general Republican advantage in special elections, that I’m having trouble following my own advice to ignore them. However, there’s one extra bit of doom and gloom in the data to consider–the biggest Democratic gains were in the reddest districts. In other words, swing districts swung less than safe ones. So theoretically, a national 12-point swing to the Democrats could result in no change, or even Republicans gaining seats, if most of that swing is absorbed in districts so red that it doesn’t change the outcome of the election.

yhwx said:

I found this interesting:

https://overcast.fm/+HIn0qOVYY/43:09

It’s basically a guy who’s an expert in game theory telling us that we should actually feel safer that Trump’s in control of the North Korea situation. It’s actually a bit more reasonable than it sounds.

Game theory explains Nixon. The Peter principle explains Trump.

Matching resolutions is recommended more strongly now. Thanks for testing for being our player bug field tester.

Stinky-Dinkins said:

[Editor’s Note: Our friend Petr “Harmy” Harmáček, who some of you may know for his fine Star Wars Despecialized efforts, worked on the visual effects for Blade Runner 2049 at UPP in Europe and confirmed to us that they were done in full native 4K resolution. Chris McLaughlin, CG supervisor at the project’s VFX lead Double Negative, says they delivered their VFX at 3.4K.]

Holy shit.

For some reason, Harmy’s low profile on this reminds me of Nikola Tesla (in film):

The first time I changed the world, I was hailed as a visionary. The second time I was asked politely to retire. The world only tolerates one change at a time. And so here I am. Enjoying my “retirement”.

PM sent.

PM sent.

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

NeverarGreat said:

DominicCobb said:

The only open hostility towards religion I see comes from Republicans against Muslims.

I’ve seen quite a bit of left wing hostility towards organized religion, so it exists, especially in academia.

I meant elected officials.

An obvious and recent example was Senator Feinstein’s questioning of Amy Coney Barrett. You can find apologists for Feinstein’s inappropriate questions, but I guarantee Democrats would burst if a Republican asked a comparable question of a Muslim.

Yeah, that was nasty. I can understand why you might have to dig into unrelated matters when you’re questioning someone without any experience to take into consideration, but dig somewhere else.

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Liberals and Democrats are not hostile to religion and Christianity in particular.

Not all, but many are.

Can you tell me why Hillary, being a Methodist herself, did not bolster her appearance as a person of the Christian faith? Can you tell me why Obama, being a member of United Church of Christ, did not openly refute accusations that he was Muslim rather than letting people carry on forever with it?

For my money, it’s because it doesn’t target their base.

It’s actually probably because they realized that it had no relevance to their candidacies and had no bearing on their abilities as potential presidents. As for the Muslim theory, I’m assuming he didn’t refute it because it was a psychotic conspiracy theory only believed by insane people or rightwing hacks.

There’s a continuum between the minimum religious exposition deemed politically required, and the maximum deemed non-ostentatious, and nearly all Democrats and Republicans can be found somewhere on this continuum. Not all Democrats are crowded at one end with Republicans at the other, although there’s probably a gradual trend that way. Neither Clinton nor Obama made any sort of secret at all of their religious affiliation, they just didn’t trumpet it at regular intervals. All the time and effort you spend fighting insane conspiracy theories can’t be spent reaching out to sane people who may actually vote for you.

 
…As opposed to Republicans, who (and this is an enormous pet peeve of mine) co-opt their so-called Christianity for political points.

Yes and this is worse than not pretending to be religious. The fact that liberals are accepting of candidates that leave God out of their rhetoric is more respectable than people that accept predatory and adulterous conmen like Donald Trump because he pretended to be a Christian.

I don’t really think anyone was fooled. Just look at the man – his words, his actions, his history. Some of his attempts at remedial Bible-thumping on the campaign trail were so laughably inept that Mr. Atheist over here cringed to hear them. I’m sure there’s true believers out there that think Holy Water can be wrung out of his hotel bedsheets, but for most observers, he was an honorary member of their tribe, a fellow traveler, someone with the same goals. And those goals were just an unrelated demographic overlap with his religious supporters. He was the all racism all the time candidate, and that was the only appeal he needed. IMO the Christian appeal was just a fig leaf so that his voters could add some sort of moral plausibility to their decision.

Words mean what you want them to mean. Today’s small government conservative is a classical liberal. And also, as of Trump, a Democrat 😉

The problem for small government conservatives is that they’ve never really had a party to call home. Reagan actively courted libertarians and Republicans since then have worked small government sound bites into all their speeches, but they never actually were much of a small government party when they were in power – only promoting small government policies that extended much beyond tax cuts as a means of opposing Democrats when they were out of power.

Mrebo said:

Next year, copyrights expire again maybe!!

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/hollywood-says-its-not-planning-another-copyright-extension-push/?amp=1

I’m thinking it will actually happen this time. The reason is we spent the past decade trying to get every other country in the world to coordinate their copyright terms, and I doubt anyone thinks we’ll be able to pull that off again.

Warbler said:

TM2YC said:

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Oprah appeals to the more liberal minded people. But if you want Trump gone, we need someone that will appeal to the moderate and conservative-light people. Obviously the liberals are going to vote for the Democrat whoever it is. But the moderates and conservative-light people need to be won over.

Alternatively, and probably more easily; get someone that actually excites the liberal base—get the non-voters to go out and vote. Going right isn’t always, or even usually, the answer.

the liberals alone can’t elect a President.

They managed to elect Trump by staying at home.

You think they stayed home? I thought they voted for Hillary or the Green party.

Forbes had an article on this: “The Non-Voters Who Decided The Election: Trump Won Because Of Lower Democratic Turnout”

This pattern is national. Clinton’s black voter turnout dropped more than 11 percent compared to 2012. The support for Clinton among active black voters was still exceedingly high (87 percent, versus 93 percent for Obama), but the big difference was the turnout. Almost two million black votes cast for Obama in 2012 did not turn out for Clinton. According to one plausible calculation, if in North Carolina blacks had turned out for Clinton as they had for Obama, she would have won the state.

Not just North Carolina, but the more closely-contested states as well.

I live in a fairly liberal area, and I can say that at least here, we’ve been down on the Democratic Party for not really representing liberal values for some time, probably really escalating with Clinton. Bill Clinton. Sure, I get out there and vote for what I consider to be pretty conservative and even downright awful (but less awful!) candidates, but that’s because I’m angling for the Democratic Party to move to the left again, or at least stop moving to the right so fast. A lot of my peers have given up at this point – they think there will never be a liberal national political party in America in their lifetimes, and maybe they’re right (snark: especially if they never vote!). Not all non-voters are ideologically stuck indecisively between the two parties, or people without strong political views at all. They’re just Democrats from the seventies who are looking around for a party they recognize, and don’t see anything even close (snark: and apparently they also have trouble distinguishing between conservatives and fascists for crying out loud).

EDIT: Jill Stein was even a joke out here in Leftyville, although apparently not enough of one. Back in the Clinton years, we had a few leftists successfully run for office here as Republicans, because Republicans were desperate to have anyone. It got pretty awkward when the Democrats got outflanked by the Republicans on the left, but the Republicans started clamping down on ideological purity around the same time, so it was a short-lived phenomenon.

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:

Oprah appeals to the more liberal minded people. But if you want Trump gone, we need someone that will appeal to the moderate and conservative-light people. Obviously the liberals are going to vote for the Democrat whoever it is. But the moderates and conservative-light people need to be won over.

Actually, I thought that was what was being attempted with Hillary. As democrats go, she was pretty centrist.

Hillary was hated by too many people.

I think it’s entirely plausible that Oprah’s role in smuggling Uranium to Benghazi via secret e-mails to Vince Foster stored in a private server located in a pizzeria is something that might draw the attention of our crack congressional investigators, if her candidacy starts seeming serious. Then we’ll see how likable this Crooked Oprah is.

But is her husband a creep?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stedman_Graham

He is also founder of Chicago, Illinois’s AAD (formerly, Athletes Against Drugs), a non-profit organization that provides services to youth and has awarded over $1.5 million in scholarships since its founding in 1985. It also arranged for sports figures to educate children about substance abuse.

Sounds suspiciously like a Clinton foundation-style bribe conduit to me. I’m sure Gowdy’s already been briefed.

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:

Oprah appeals to the more liberal minded people. But if you want Trump gone, we need someone that will appeal to the moderate and conservative-light people. Obviously the liberals are going to vote for the Democrat whoever it is. But the moderates and conservative-light people need to be won over.

Actually, I thought that was what was being attempted with Hillary. As democrats go, she was pretty centrist.

Hillary was hated by too many people.

I think it’s entirely plausible that Oprah’s role in smuggling Uranium to Benghazi via secret e-mails to Vince Foster stored in a private server located in a pizzeria is something that might draw the attention of our crack congressional investigators, if her candidacy starts seeming serious. Then we’ll see how likable this Crooked Oprah is.

Quite possibly the nation’s most blatant and aggressive gerrymander just got struck down.

http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/rucho-opinion.pdf

It will be appealed, of course. The real game in the appeal is not necessarily to reverse the ruling, but to try and delay any remedies until AFTER the 2018 elections have already taken place.

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

ray_afraid said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

But seriously, why are we actually discussing Oprah being elected? Why is anyone anywhere discussing it?

She made a big and inspiring speech.

meh.

Pfft. Good grief.

I just didn’t think it was that great or that moving. On a side note, I think I’d rather have someone just say thank you to whomever they feel need to be thanked when winning an award like a Golden Globe or an Oscar, instead of making a political speech. But that is just me.

And everyone thinks their ideas sound perfectly reasonable.

Well, what if someone gave you the chance to talk to the entire nation? What if that chance kept coming up again and again, and your views never lost their urgency?

Going to take a shower now. Just realized in retrospect that I briefly entered the mind of the Donald.

Warbler said:

ray_afraid said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

But seriously, why are we actually discussing Oprah being elected? Why is anyone anywhere discussing it?

She made a big and inspiring speech.

meh.

Pfft. Good grief.

I just didn’t think it was that great or that moving. On a side note, I think I’d rather have someone just say thank you to whomever they feel need to be thanked when winning an award like a Golden Globe or an Oscar, instead of making a political speech. But that is just me.

That’s the problem of celebrity. Earned or not, related to your occupation or not, you’ve got a soapbox. Firefighters and surgeons don’t get soapboxes*, hardly anyone really ever gets a chance to make their voice heard to very many people. But that doesn’t mean they don’t sometimes wish, “Gee, if I could only air my views to the nation for a couple minutes, I could make a difference.” Everyone’s got something to say. Everyone has something they care deeply about. And everyone thinks their ideas sound perfectly reasonable.

Well, what if someone gave you the chance to talk to the entire nation? What if that chance kept coming up again and again, and your views never lost their urgency?

Frankly I’m shocked celebrities aren’t much more politically vocal than they currently are.

* Well, technically I suppose if you were a firefighter or a surgeon, you could refuse to provide your services to someone who conflicted with your ideology, but that’s just a sure way to seem like a complete dick, and celebrities often have enough sense to avoid that.

darth_ender said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Trump doesn’t seem all that evangelical if you ask me.

The bar is lower today than ever before. Trump may be our first atheist President – but he’s a self-righteous, bigoted, ignorant, loudmouthed atheist, and apparently in some circles that makes you an honorary evangelical.

not in my circle.

I get that. Nevertheless, there are other – and unfortunately, larger – circles.

That’s quite a generalization.

Exit polling wouldn’t work if you couldn’t take a statistical sample and generalize to the larger population.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Trump doesn’t seem all that evangelical if you ask me.

The bar is lower today than ever before. Trump may be our first atheist President – but he’s a self-righteous, bigoted, ignorant, loudmouthed atheist, and apparently in some circles that makes you an honorary evangelical.

not in my circle.

I get that. Nevertheless, there are other – and unfortunately, larger – circles.

Warbler said:

Trump doesn’t seem all that evangelical if you ask me.

The bar is lower today than ever before. Trump may be our first atheist President – but he’s a self-righteous, bigoted, ignorant, loudmouthed atheist, and apparently in some circles that makes you an honorary evangelical.

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

I will have to do some research on this Kamala Harris.

I think the road for her was (ominously) mapped out by Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. She is on many occasions doomed to be the smartest person in the room. Gore tripped over that by seeming too eager to crush his neophyte opponent in a debate. Clinton (I felt) successfully managed to walk the line between being strong and knowledgeable without showing any drive to kneecap her opponent just because he didn’t know how to defend himself, preferring to let him hang himself instead.

That’s the trap of an Oprah candidacy IMO. If Kamala does anything that seems mean to Oprah, it’s over. She’s got to get that tough but fair balance just right.

If Kamala is the smartest person in the room, I view that as a big plus. I want the President to be the smartest in the room.

Depends who else is in the room.

?

There are lots of smart people in the world. Not all the candidates are fielded yet. We may get to choose among multiple well-informed, articulate, competent candidates… in the Democratic primary. Kamala Harris has a lot of chatter but she hasn’t even declared yet. Who knows who else might be in the mix by 2020? There could easily be better choices than her… in the Democratic primary.

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

The reason lack of political experience is only a giant red flag and not a disqualification is delegation. The President does not need to know how to do everything – they only need to be smart enough to know who knows how to do things, and delegate accordingly. I’d be fine with an amateur pitching in the Word Series if they could delegate the pitching duties to someone else, as long as I trusted their judgment about who that person might be.

That said, it’s still a giant red flag. I’m not excited about the prospect.

The Presidency is more than just delegation of duties.

Which is exactly why it’s a giant red flag if a candidate has no political experience.

As said on a conservative blog:

More than anything, what sustains him is the sense — true or not — that he’s outsourced his actual duties to more responsible actors. Ryan and McConnell write the bills; Mattis, McMaster, Kelly and the generals coordinate foreign policy. Occasionally POTUS pops up to say something provocative about North Korea or NATO’s obsolescence or a trade war with China but mostly he seems consumed with live-tweeting Fox News and settling grudges.

IMO there’s difference between delegation and a power vacuum. Delegation is an actual management skill, Trump seems to be the latter.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

I will have to do some research on this Kamala Harris.

I think the road for her was (ominously) mapped out by Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. She is on many occasions doomed to be the smartest person in the room. Gore tripped over that by seeming too eager to crush his neophyte opponent in a debate. Clinton (I felt) successfully managed to walk the line between being strong and knowledgeable without showing any drive to kneecap her opponent just because he didn’t know how to defend himself, preferring to let him hang himself instead.

That’s the trap of an Oprah candidacy IMO. If Kamala does anything that seems mean to Oprah, it’s over. She’s got to get that tough but fair balance just right.

If Kamala is the smartest person in the room, I view that as a big plus. I want the President to be the smartest in the room.

Me too. Now you’ve got me all misty eyed for Bush Sr again, and I hated that guy’s policies.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

The reason lack of political experience is only a giant red flag and not a disqualification is delegation. The President does not need to know how to do everything – they only need to be smart enough to know who knows how to do things, and delegate accordingly. I’d be fine with an amateur pitching in the Word Series if they could delegate the pitching duties to someone else, as long as I trusted their judgment about who that person might be.

That said, it’s still a giant red flag. I’m not excited about the prospect.

The Presidency is more than just delegation of duties.

Which is exactly why it’s a giant red flag if a candidate has no political experience.

yhwx said:

The BernieBros don’t like Harris though.

The BernieBros don’t even like Bernie. They’re just there to sink Democrats.

EDIT: I should add that I’m an actual Bernie primary voter (not just someone who plays a Bernie supporter on the Internet to peddle pro-Trump conspiracy theories) and sure Harris is more conservative than I’d like but so are most people. If we could have stopped fascism in the 1930’s merely by voting for less-than-perfect candidates, I’d have jumped at the chance. I would gladly vote for Romney or Bush Sr. if I thought it would stop the rise of white supremacy.

Warbler said:

I will have to do some research on this Kamala Harris.

I think the road for her was (ominously) mapped out by Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. She is on many occasions doomed to be the smartest person in the room. Gore tripped over that by seeming too eager to crush his neophyte opponent in a debate. Clinton (I felt) successfully managed to walk the line between being strong and knowledgeable without showing any drive to kneecap her opponent just because he didn’t know how to defend himself, preferring to let him hang himself instead.

That’s the trap of an Oprah candidacy IMO. If Kamala does anything that seems mean to Oprah, it’s over. She’s got to get that tough but fair balance just right.