The issue is there isn’t a “Dem nom” in California. Everybody runs in a single primary and the top two go to November. With only two Republicans vs. a huge number of Dems splitting their vote, there is a real chance that the Nov ballot could be Republican vs Republican if Dems don’t coalesce
You know how people get that surgery to break their legs in a way that they get taller by a couple inches? I think you just created the market for whatever the reverse would be.
“For the sake of argument” is basically the same, though. As a matter of principle (or maybe just style), I try to avoid unnecessary Latin. Among other things, I’ll also cut “inter alia” whenever I see it. Even i.e. and maybe e.g. (outside of citations) are better avoided.
Feels like there must be some weird story behind that 2020 outlier! I can’t think of an obvious one, though.
Is this analogy anything? If automakers had sold most people enclosed golf carts and called them “EVs” while car guys/pros got real-deal EVs, the average person might reasonably (but perhaps incorrectly) conclude that EVs could never replace ICE cars, even if experts tried to explain otherwise
The only good thing about him being rich and famous for so long is that he developed a truly amazing collection of haters across multiple generations.
People forget or never knew that US parties weren’t strictly ideological until, like, 1994, and it still took another decade or so past that to fully sort out. It was absolutely normal for some very conservative Dems in Congress to be to the right of some quite liberal Republicans.
I think you could probably by statute create an automatic new seat whenever a justice hits 18 years, and say only the 9 most junior justices are allowed to hear cases. Or convert SCOTUS to a temporary (but lengthy) gig for existing appeals ct judges, then they resume their circuit judgeship after
“Making it easier for people to follow the traditional tenets of their religion” is now an outrageously left-wing thing to do
Exactly. Especially in the Cold War/nuclear age, it became a much riskier situation if the president, say, fell into a coma, leaving nobody (or multiple people) claiming legitimate command authority should an urgent situation arise. It’s an emergency/backup provision, not a general political tool.
This is a hard thing with inflation measures, quantifying when a thing is just *better*. Like, a pound of beef is a pound of beef, but “a mobile phone” in 1990 vs. 2010 vs. now are three dramatically different items. You can’t just ignore a thing getting better, but it’s also not apples to apples
Vintage Twitter screenshot of tweet from @realDonaldTrump: Who is paying for that tedious Smokey Bear commercial that is on all the time - enough already! 10:50 PM - 7 Jan 2015|
“And then they start Twitter beef with Smokey the B—wait, hang on, he did what?”
“Ask your doctor if Clavicular is right for you.”
(The answer is no.)
Exactly, most places couldn’t realistically have a policy like this, but if you’re running the place that CAN, you absolutely should!
Two states split their electoral votes by congressional districts. Everyone else is winner take all. Nobody is proportional, though IMHO that would be better. (Maybe you’re thinking of presidential primary delegates, which are sometimes proportional? But never in the general election.)
The House of Representatives and state legislatures can be gerrymandered. But the electoral college (outside Maine and Nebraska) just uses state borders, which don’t change
Looks to me like, if this passed before 2020, Biden would’ve gained one more EV from Maine and maybe 3 from Alaska. If this existed in 2024, Trump would have won at least 533-5 (NH + Omaha as the only Harris votes). Both the risk and reward are entirely one-sided, and on different sides.
Just eyeballing it, I think every one of the orange states has voted Dem 3x in a row, while the green ones are mostly swingy. So if a Dem wins pop vote, they likely get similar number of EV they’d always have had, while if Repub wins, they’d get an almost unanimous EV. That seems pretty asymmetric!
Looks to me like, if this passed before 2020, Biden would’ve gained one more EV from Maine and maybe 3 from Alaska. If this existed in 2024, Trump would have won at least 533-5 (NH + Omaha as the only Harris votes)
Just eyeballing it, I think every one of the orange states has voted Dem 3x in a row, while the green ones are mostly swingy. So if a Dem wins pop vote, they likely get similar number of EV they’d always have had, while if Repub wins, they’d get an almost unanimous EV. That seems pretty asymmetric!
The electoral college has absolutely nothing to do with gerrymandering.
It’s really not as weird as people think. Prime ministers in Westminster systems like Canada’s aren’t elected by direct popular vote either, and until this week, Carney didn’t even have a majority of the Commons. It’s just that the EC has only one purpose, while Congress is totally separate.
The Confederate States existed for a little over four years, the entirety of which consisted of the Civil War. Neither existed (or would make any sense) without the other. What else *could* any Confederate-associated organization be about?
Sure, that clears it up…
Sounds like the recurring “Monsignor Martinez” show from King of the Hill, which I just learned was considered for a live-action spinoff. They even filmed a pilot!
This is actually pretty close to a true statement about Mar Awa III, the Catholicos-Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East! (The guy who famously gave Leo a Cubs jersey, bc the Assyrian Church is based in Chicago) blockclubchicago.org/2024/10/15/r...
Larry Ellison’s wife called in a favor after they bought up all the news channels
Right, and if we get to that point, forget needing Fetterman, you’d have people like John Kennedy out there demanding Trump’s resignation
In the scenario where Dems get anything like that kind of margin, we’d be so far beyond any normal political shift that it’s basically impossible to predict how the remaining Republicans would respond. Would mean Dems won places like SC and LA, not just TX and Ohio.
Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915) said you can reject a pardon (there, because it would take away your fifth amendment right not to testify)