We do municipal on odd numbered years. Mayor's race here. I'm not sure if any of the other cities have anything good on the ballot: I just had people for positions.
I would say that my candidate for mayor is a friend, although it's probably more correct to say we're friendly. I think Dunbar's concentric circles of friendship are basically valid: you can have up to 5 in the innermost circle, uo to 15 at the next level, 50 at the next, then 150, and then 500. The candidate is in my 50, but maybe I'm in her 150?
The other guy isn't on my list, and anyway the realtor's PAC has gone in for him in a big way, and we really can't let them think they bought the office for him.
The Supreme Court is the big deal here. Plus, someone is throwing bunches of money on the county executive race.
Super dull in my district. A bunch of unopposed judges, an unopposed city council member, and a couple of municipal debt propositions that are important I guess but not interesting.
I voted largely out of the gamification impulse to keep my streak going.
About last week, there started to be big signs for the Republican for county executive. My guess is that they see an opportunity to get votes from supporters of Israel who usually vote Democratic because the Democratic candidate isn't completely pro-Israel.
We don't have an election here at all today, which is a first. We just bumped our local cycle to match the federal cycle (our mayor got a one year reprieve out of it).
2: The trick to being a politician is making the 500 feel like they're the 50.
8 Oh yeah.
The next tier out is 1500, which is the limit to relationships normal people's brains can handle. The best politicians can maintain another circle out, I think.
I was at a small fundraiser a few years ago for a couple of local candidate for statewide office, and the then-governor walked up to me and said 'I know I know you, but I've forgotten your name.' We'd met before, and he'd seen me around, but this was admirably honest. I told him 'that's the way I like it' and drew a genuine laugh from him.
7 Republicans in the legislature had a bill to do that to us, but it failed. Lower propensity voters in Montana are largely Trumpers, and so it was an idea to mess with cities.
Governor here, abortion access in Ohio plus a few other local issues there, particularly whether to privatize a railroad that's had municipal ownership.
Nothing for me personally. One town over there's a special election for school board - which has been a shitshow, wrong post-redistricting maps sent out as nominating resident boundaries. Our registrar of voters keeps falling on his face and I feel like surely there is a much greater talent pool from purple/red counties (the position is appointed not elected).
How significant has the misinformation campaign/GITV been for the abortion prop and other elections in Ohio?
7: We don't have elections today in my state either, which still throws me off after living here for 13 years.
Nothing. I thin' our local elections are in the spring.
For next November, I have categorized all the statewide ballot initiatives:
* Four for social justice / labor rights (only one of which I am lukewarm to negative about)
* Three corporate attacks on good laws already passed by the Legislature, meant more to delay their implementation than to actually overturn them
* Two pro-tax and good government
* One anti-tax
* One misc.: income tax surcharge for pandemic funding
(JFC, next year is going to be nerve-wracking.)
At this moment, at least, I'm weirdly at peace with it all.
Part of that is privilege, of course. Me and mine have an above-average chance of weathering the storm, if indeed the storm does come.
But also, I keep reading trial coverage and I think: This is how I wanted to lose. Our institutions -- most obviously the media -- have failed us, but the law -- the attorneys general, the Georgia DA and the courts -- are by-and-large coming through. There was a time when it appeared Trump wouldn't be brought to court at all, then maybe wouldn't face indictment for the really serious crimes, and then the conventional wisdom told us there was no way he could face conviction before the election.
All of that was wrong. Some of our institutions, facing a grave test, have stood up to it. Maybe 2,000 people were directly involved in the insurrection, and more than a thousand have been charged. I had no confidence that would happen.
And Joe Biden is doing a great job. He, too, has directly addressed the real threat to our semi-democracy, and I don't know how he could have done much better.
So for the moment at least, my relief at what has been accomplished has overcome my dread at what is pending.
15- worst Twelve Days of Christmas adaptation ever.
Here we have city council which is mostly zoning reform and bike lanes as the big issues.
School committee is an interesting but depressing debate about math education. A bunch of people have essentially convinced themselves that every other high performing district teaches something a certain way and therefore we also must do it that way, but in reality they're all mistaken and nobody else teaches it the way a bunch of candidates have proposed. If they win on that platform I'm not sure if they'll drop the issue, implement it and everyone will hate it, or magically accomplish great things (spoiler: it won't be the latter).
No election for me today; it is odd not to have one. I guess next stop for voting is the primaries. Yay?!
Just town council and school board level things here. It's a very Democratic town. But the local Democratic party is the only one I have ever encountered who view their highest goal as guaranteeing profits for real estate developers. They've gone insanely in favor of building, even in areas abutting wetlands. All student housing when the local university can't fill its dorms. The town subsidized the building of an ersatz artificial downtown which is basically non-university dorms with a food court attached -- it has all the charm and authenticity of Soviet era factory housing with comparable food offerings. I would be absolutely ecstatic to vote against these Democrats but the opposition are Republicans and there's somethings I won't do and vote for a Republican is top of that list.
Traditionally California primaries are June, which is great making for a shorter election season; but in presidential years they're now March, which is annoying especially in this year when the primary isn't competitive.
21: Those were just submitted last week and are unlikely to qualify; apparently nobody even knows who their sponsors are affiliated with. I'm going off this list of the qualified measures.
Fun race for state semate in my district. Two years ago Ed Durr, retired trucker with no political experieence and no known accomplishments, defeated long-time Senate majority leader Stephen Sweemey, by the devious strategy of not campaigning at all, so no one knew anything about him. Everyone knew Sweeney was corrupt and somewhat anti-teacher union, and had a highway named for himself, so Durr won. This round the Democrats fight back. From recent ads, Senator Durr's principal accomplishment has been to advocate keepng your legs closed to avoid the need for abortion. Also per the ads, the democratic challenger, former State Assemblyman John Burzichelli, is known only for having been listed as a producer of an x-rated movie once. Burzichelli will probably win because he is a bettter ethnic match to the district.
Sad news: Each New Jersey county has been governed by an elected Board of Chosen Freeholders since pre-American Revolution, but no more. Beginning with this election, we are electing County Commissioners instead. No change in anything but the name of the office. Officially, this is because the title of "freeholder" was offensive, since long ago it excluded non-property owners and non-whites. I suspect the real reaosn is that the local pols were tired of being called the "Board of Chosen Freeloaders" or "Board of Frozen Cheeseholders."
There are two open Senate seats coming up in March in the East Bay. One, in the inner Bay, is to replace a great housing champion, and the frontrunner would be a decent successor, but it's a crowded race (6 major candidates), so with top-two anything could happen.
The other, a more suburban seat, is to replace perhaps the worst Democratic senator there is, who sponsored a constitutional amendment to reserve all land use power to the local level, and whose vote kept the constitutional amendment to ban carceral slavery from getting 2/3. Amazingly, there are only two candidates: one progressive, one moderate, neither a Republican or a NIMBY. (The moderate was a Republican until 2016, and has a worse record on reproductive rights, but is also something of a housing champion, if more from a developer POV.)
I'm as sure as I can be that there aren't any elections where I am today, so that's easy.
Agreed with 16. (To be strictly accurate, as far as I know he's only been convicted in the fraud case so far, but (a) that's something and (b) we still have a ways to go before 2024.) I'm not saying that things are going well, but they're better than I would have expected them to be 2-3 years ago.
I've been contacted by text, phone, and in-person today. I voted at 7:30 this morning. They used to be able to tell that and save the trouble.
The only ones here are in the Mat-Su Borough, where the main focus is on the school board. The incumbent board has been doing all sorts of nutty right-wing bullshit and the students have been protesting. It'll be interesting to see what happens. The Mat-Su is one of the most conservative part of the state, but its demographics and politics have been shifting in recent years.
According to reddit, the nutjob school board candidate in a suburban district was arrested for assaulting a volunteer from the other side.
We have nothing until the March primaries, but there are two fantastic candidates for city council and mayor next year. I am all in; I've been canvassing a ton and I want to host meet and greets and I've been giving monthly since day one. I realized recently that I've done enough that I will likely go to the watch parties and when I get there, I will likely know a fair number of people. I've never been in that situation before.
I've come to really enjoy the canvassing. Partially because I really like plants, so seeing all the landscaping at walking pace is nice for me. I also like having to go all the way up to people's entryways. People put a lot of care into their entryways, so there is lots to see. There're usually a couple interesting interactions with people and overall, they're fine. Canvassing is basically my new hobby.
People in Pittsburgh fill their porches with so much crap is what I learned.
Sad news: Each New Jersey county has been governed by an elected Board of Chosen Freeholders since pre-American Revolution, but no more. Beginning with this election, we are electing County Commissioners instead.
Aw, that's a bummer. I always liked the Freeholder title as one of those weird anachronistic quirks of American local politics.
We still have prothonotaries, if that helps.
Pretty minimal here. School board and city council totally unopposed (the at-large race had been 5 people going for 4 seats, but one of the five dropped out but too late to be removed from the ballot), mayor opposed only by an unpleasant Trump-esque kook. I voted for the streak, as LB says, and to ensure that the kook loses.
I did run into two groups today collecting signatures for ballot measures for next year. One for re-enabling the existence of rent control, and one for eliminating high-stakes school testing (10th grade MCAS required for graduation).
Cheese is great.
But this is american cheese.
Oh yeah, we also have a campaign to recall the reformist DA. Someone collecting signatures outside Target this weekend, shouting "She's letting a lot of criminals out of jail!"
12: [misinfo re abortion referendum in OH]
I can't speak to this generally but I was in Ohio over the weekend and saw several signs -- and a post-it stuck to my car window in a parking lot -- saying variations of "*This time* we vote YES on 1." (in August, issue 1 would've changed the rules to prevent the pro-abortion initiative from going on the ballot, so the good guys were No on 1. Now that old issue 1 failed, the pro-abortion-rights initiative is the first referendum on the ballot, and the good guys are Yes on 1).
In the Eastern suburbs of Cleveland the yard signs were running about 70-30 or 80-20 yes-no, which doesn't seem so bad.
12, 39: I've been surprised that I've seen many more pro-Issue one ads on TV (during Jeopardy - the only show I watch) than anti. Sometimes there would be 2 different pro-Issue One ads running one after the other. The anti-Issue One ad that runs most frequently features the Governor (living up to his name, sounding very whiny) and his wife explaining that Issue One is "extreme" and will allow your child to have an abortion during the 3rd trimester without you even being notified (I made that up because I don't actually listen to it, but I believe that's the gist of it). Since DeWine is quite popular, there is some concern that this ad may be effective.
Marijuana legalization is also on the ballot.
I think rolling paper is still easier.
Just mayor and 3 city council seats here, and it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that the Durham People's Alliance endorsements will win.
39: In my (inner-ring) East Side suburb I'd say it clocks in around 90% pro-Issue 1. Very few No on 1 signs, and the ones I've seen repeat the "it's about parental choice!" lie.
I wonder what the People's Alliance of Durham thinks.
In the Ohio exit poll, 61% of voters said abortion should be legal in most or all cases. (Only 49% said they trusted the Democratic Party more on this particular issue, wtf.)
I guess they're withholding the actual polling on the Issue, though.
I just looked at the WBNS website, and with 500k votes counted Issue 1 is winning 67-33.
Obviously things change as you go, but in light of 45, this looks pretty decent.
I'm not going to keep doing this, but with 761k votes counted, Issue 1 is winning 65-35.
In 2022, around 4 million votes were cast in Ohio.
Issue 1 now 64, Issue 2 (legal pot) 57.
The thing the surprised me about driving into Ohio was all the signs for weed. I guess that will be a bigger business soon.
Wasserman has called KY gov for Beshear and OH issue 1 for yes and says VA Senate is very close to Dem win.
I won my race, 450 to 95. Four more years of City Council!
Hard to get a read on PA Supreme Court. Pa now counts most mail votes on Election (during 2020 had to wait, so there was that big deficit). This reverses the trend of D vote gains after initial results and a number of rural areas are not in yet (but also a lot of Philly out).
Of the 2 precincts at my site, one seems to have most of their votes counted and results was similar to Fetterman which is a good sign, but other suburban precincts D is trailing Fetterman margin by a few points (he won by 5%). (That precinct skews somewhat younger so abortion issue may have been more salient).
34. Another extant oldie: House of Correction.
Apparently the Democrat has won for Allegheny County Executive. Is that surprising?
I was nervous. I wouldn't say surprised.
I don't know where you are seeing the results, but if you can check, how did Dugan do (DA race)?
Never mind. It's not over, but it doesn't look great.
Someone is throwing a bunch of money to take down Innamorato and the paper yesterday called her opponent a "centrist" instead of a "Republican tool." This morning, when I went to vote there was a woman holding Rocky (her opponent) fliers who said, "Good morning". I said "Good morning" back, because civility is important. Then she said "Would you be interested in hearing about Joe Rocky?" I said, "No, I would not" and the guy who was supposed to be handing out fliers for the Democrats laughed.
But he was just sitting on his ass. No hustle.
57: Nominally a Dem in Allegheny County should win at least 60/40 which was Biden/Trump in 2020. Fetterman was 63/35. She is squeaking it out about 52/48 as of now. Dugan down by less than 1% (against incumbent D turned R when he lost the primary). 85% vote in. I really do not have a handle on where the remaining votes are out so hard to predict--I guess they are good enough for D that someone felt comfortable calling for Immarato at this point. The last few years there have been a smallish number of late-ish mail ballots that get counted late (ones that arrived just today, maybe yesterday). Small numbers but very strong partisan lean would potentially be meaningful for Ds in tight races. But I do not know if that is the way the counting is working this year.
My 2 suburban precincts really, really did not like them; both underperforming the Supreme Court Race D by 20-30%. Fortunately, being just Allegheny County provides a big buffer.
No 97% vote in and Immarato holding on by 1.5%, but Dugan down by about the same, so not really looking good for him.
Initial results show my friend with 59.6% of the vote. This is very likely to hold: it was an all mail election, and they can get the votes counted pretty quickly.
A couple of the council races are very close, and there might even be 2 or 3 Republicans on our 12 member city council.
That sounds promising.
Someone on Bluesky says they called the PA Supreme Court race for McCaffery (the Democrat).
66.2: Yes. It looks like McCaffery is going to win; would have liked it to have been by more. Curious what final margin will be; the swing patterns are bit hard to interpret.
Looks like Ohio 1 is going to win with about 56% of the vote. Rs knew they really needed that 60% threshold--good work by Ohio Ds to get out in front of the more abstract question this summer.
Wasserman says Democrats have won both Virginia houses, flipping Delegates.
The Washington Post subheadline right now is "Democrat wins county executive race in a key Pennsylvania area". I guess they were afraid that if they said "Allegheny County", people wouldn't know where that was.
Is it wrong to call this essentially a Democratic sweep? They haven't even called Mississippi for the Republican yet (although I assume that's pending.)
Oops. I see that Wasserman has called Mississippi for the Republican.
Not a sweep, but a strong night for Dems overall. I look forward to the analysis about why all this is bad news for Joe Biden.
Well, he is old. And a Communist.
Huh, I thought they counted things the night of the election- pretty sure there have been late night announcements in the past- but it looks like our city election tally doesn't start until 9am tomorrow.
Another slug of votes and my friend's lead for mayor has widened a little. The one Republican incumbent on the city council is now behind by 5 votes, out of 3000 cast. They may well count all the votes tonight, but that one is close enough that weird anomalies -- like soldiers in foreign lands -- could make a difference.
73: I look forward to the analysis about why all this is bad news for Joe Biden.
Because a lot of the in-depth election folks seem to still only be on Twitter I've checking there tonight. And lo, there we have Saisgley (responding to Nate Fucking Silver):
Or does Beshear doing well while Biden is on track to lose confirm that someone else would be a stronger choice?
And speaking of self-parody, let me bring you the subhead and lead paragraphs of the NYT reporting on Biden dedicating some rail infrastructure projects:
President Biden, a longtime Amtrak rider, exhibited a business-as-usual approach in announcing $16.4 billion in awards for rail projects, despite polls showing him trailing Donald Trump.
President Biden, perhaps Amtrak's most famous advocate, announced $16.4 billion in funding for rail projects on Monday, exhibiting a business-as-usual approach as polls show him trailing former President Donald J. Trump one year before Election Day.
Speaking at a maintenance warehouse where Amtrak trains are serviced in Bear, Del., Mr. Biden made no mention of the polling from The New York Times and Siena College polls.
They've been finding excuses to tout their recent polls the last few days but this is just beyond pathetic even by their low standards.
And I can't get over the "Joe Biden dedicated some rail infrastructure projects and he didn't mention me, Al Franken" energy of the last graf.
Things like 77 are so obnoxious. Run Biden against Daniel Cameron and things might be different from presidential polling too, but elections don't work like that and not everything needs to be an opportunity for self-aggrandizing fluff.
They did count the city elections last night and proportional representation worked like it's supposed to- the anti-bike lane cranks got their candidate elected but the council majority is still held by supporters.
Tonight makes Biden's problems look worse. If Dems had done poorly, the political challenges would be seen as broadly based, multi-factorial. But, in fact, those problems are, essentially, specific to Biden. Dems don't have a party problem. They have a Biden problem.
Rich Yeselson on Xitter
https://twitter.com/yeselson/status/1722104333485904328
||
Anyone know what this circular feature is?
https://www.google.com/maps/@-17.4765842,44.6491291,40102m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e4?entry=ttu
|>
If Biden weren't the candidate, the takes would all be "We know that Biden has beaten Trump but can NewPerson do it?????".
85: No, but if dinosaurs still exist, they are probably there.
85: Looks like an impact crater, but I am not a geologist. I've bicycled across one about that size near (ok, surrounding) Nordlingen, Germany.
Volcanic I think Three of them. Eerie.
How do you tell an impact from a volcano?
Volcanic I think. Three of them. Eerie.
https://www.google.com/maps/@-17.5607363,44.7619547,9.83z/data=!5m1!1e4?entry=ttu
Maybe a salt dome? Looks like there are a couple similar, if less obvious features not far away.
Three right next to each other, two of them with (roughly) central high ground as well as the rim wall. I don't think you get central uplifts on impact craters that small on Earth (?).
Looks like salt?
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019EGUGA..2119080R/abstract
The difference between Morondava and Morondiva is small but crucial.
Could also be salt domes, sure. What brought the location to your attention?
I was cruising for deltas. As one does.
There are a bunch of people who are surely going to vote for Biden who will publicly sigh, for a year or more in advance, that they wish there was someone else. If everyone was in agreement about who the someone else should be, then just maybe there could be a someone else.
I don't know what Biden can do to get this to stop. Maybe nothing, maybe the Democrats look to fall in love, Republicans look to fall in line thing is basically right, and, apparently, no amount of accomplishment will satisfy those who just won't love an old man. Maybe he needs to do more dumb PR stuff. It's still a long way to the general, though, and this time in 2019 his polling was pretty bad too.
99: "Delta Delta Delta, can I help ya, help ya, help ya?"
Biden has been as good a president as we could have reasonably hoped for and in many cases better than I expected. It's pretty obvious the MSM speaks only for our plutocrat class and nothing Biden does or doesn't do will change the narrative. So far the NYTimes hasn't been able to fuck things up the way they did in 2016 so maybe the sane portion of our electorate is learning.
85:Looks to be extinct volcano. I only see the two of them--one somewhat less well-defined to the SE. Salt domes can have that look on satellite, but do not result in the amount of topographic relief seen here.
On this map they are the two somewhat circular gray areas between more elingated area of similar rock.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Simplified-geologic-map-of-Madagascar-and-the-Comoros-with-key-geologic-features-Note_fig2_338211430
Labelled Cretaceous volcanic, so not active for quite a while. Ah, and now I see the third to the east.
nd another, bigger but less defined, to the north?
https://maps.app.goo.gl/kfTfLGRL2PBTMuds5
Maybe he needs to do more dumb PR stuff.
Imagine the thousands of inches they could happily write if he just grew a beard!
102 Yeah, I think both the 2022 and 2023 election results show that by and large, people aren't going for the hard red line. That Trump is fully embracing it, and indulging in all manner of deep red fantasies of defeating the Near Enemy, likely makes him unelectable. In 2016, he got folks who'd voted for Obama. He got folks who thought he was going to be able to bring union manufacturing back to the upper Midwest. That shit is just over.
I wish we could get people in our coalition to stop thinking there's someone else who'd be better, because, at this point, I think there basically isn't.
I'm hoping that the polling for RFKJr reflects this hope, and fades out, at least on our side, as it becomes apparent that he's not that guy.
107.3: As I imagine you saw, even in his current little burst, RFK Jr took away more support from Trump than from Biden.
Why didn't we just eat the pandas instead of sending them back to China? Now, we'll never know what they taste like.
I wish we could get people in our coalition to stop thinking there's someone else who'd be better, because, at this point, I think there basically isn't.
That raises an interesting question, though. In a competitive primary, who would you, personally, vote for over Biden? I suppose I could work up some enthusiasm for Warren again, but Biden has really come through. Part of the reason there's so much talk about his age is that there's really not a lot else to be substantively critical about.
I voted for Warren last time, but now I don't think she'd be any better than Biden, in the office, and I also don't think she'd do better than him in a general election.
For example, Warren has certainly had all the chances you could ask for to show that she could move Joe Manchin. I guess I didn't really think she'd be better at that than Biden -- turned out neither of them could get him 100% of the time, even if they did get him a lot on a lot of things.
Imagine the thousands of inches they could happily write if he just grew a beard!
Laydeez
Yeah, see, that's me, too. And even if "generic Democrat" is outpolling Biden because that choice doesn't require commitment to a specific flawed person, I still think I prefer Biden to generic Democrat.
Absolutely fucking disgraceful the Dems who voted for the Tlaib censure.
Yeah, not happy that one of them is from NH.
And even one from CA - Jim Costa (Fresno), the very same as eponymous in Costa-Hawkins, the law banning much rent control that's stuck for almost 30 years.
Part of the reason there's so much talk about his age is that there's really not a lot else to be substantively critical about.
This is a great point.
Someone normal. Klobuchar, Whittmer, Pritzker. Maybe Booker. Part of why Biden's doing well is that he has a huge network, so assembling competent supporting people came easily to him. IMO as important as the person in office, no idea how to assess how well others will do at this in the future. I had to look up who his chief of staff was, a sign for how little chaos there is.
Part of why Biden's doing well is that he has a huge network, so assembling competent supporting people came easily to him. IMO as important as the person in office, no idea how to assess how well others will do at this in the future. I had to look up who his chief of staff was, a sign for how little chaos there is.
That's a good point.
Is legal weed going to make it harder to get into colleges in Ohio?
I once again advocate for a simulation exercise in lieu of debates. Each candidate goes in a stage-set Oval Office and is confronted with a constructed scenario, probably a disaster, but not necessarily. We watch how they react, who they ask what questions, when they take action vs. wait-and-see, etc.
It would probably be gameable, but a certain complexity would tamp that down.
All the former presidents (who aren't running) could get together and help formulate what the scenarios need to be reflected. Give the exercise some of their sheen.
Wasn't that in a Star Trek movie?
Part of the reason there's so much talk about his age is that there's really not a lot else to be substantively critical about
Whether you believe it is substantive or not, he is getting absolutely slammed among my kids (well 2 of the 3) and their friends for the initial enthusiasm of the Netanyahu embrace. We just cannot even discuss it at this point. So try not to.
Have you tried calling them antisemitic?
I know nothing about the geology of Madagascar but I've been reading some about the history lately and it's fascinating. They had a whole-ass indigenous empire that held off French conquest for decades by refusing to build roads.
That's because the French evolved wheels.
126: Yeah, sure. I get that. And (as you imply) there's no point in discussing Trump's role in fueling Hamas and the Israeli right. But I'm inclined to give people like Biden and Tlaib a mulligan for nonconstructive responses to a confounding situation.
I feel that "please don't make speeches that literally quote the slogan of the antisemitic terrorist group that just killed fourteen hundred people" should be one of those requests that ideally should not need to be made out loud. AND YET.
Apparently Kalamazoo, East Lansing, and Royal Oak all voted to adopt ranked-choice voting.
I mostly agree with 115, but there's some bizarre recent polling putting Harris ahead of Biden on direct comparison. It's hard to interpret that as just everyone wants a different alternative.
"please don't make speeches that literally quote the slogan of the antisemitic terrorist group that just killed fourteen hundred people"
I like the slogan. It offends people who can't conceive of Palestinian freedom without Israeli oppression. I think those people are being shitty and need to have their assumptions confronted, so its just fine with me.
133: Given how many Central Valley Republicans voted for Kevin de Leon over Dianne Feinstein in 2018, I can stretch my mind to that being a mere protest preference.
133: It's quite easy to interpret that way. People who aren't running poll better than they do once they start running. And one of the standard arguments of people making the "replace Biden" argument is that he's old and only has the unpopular Harris backing him up. And you are correct in calling that polling result "bizarre"
some bizarre recent polling
The recent NYT/Siena poll that had everybody hyperventilating also had Trump winning 20% of the black vote which maybe they're picking up on something I'm not seeing at all, but it strikes me as not really in the realm of the possible.
Maybe its because Trump is tough on crime. You know, except for all the indictments.
123 is a fantastic idea. Reminds me slightly of the selection procedure for the prime minister of Ruritania, in "Parkinson's Law"...
The first step in the process is to decide on the qualities a Prime Minister ought to have. These need not be the same in all circumstances, but they need to be listed and agreed upon. Let us suppose that the qualities deemed essential are (i) Energy, (2) Courage, (3) Patriotism, (4) Experience, (5) Popularity, and (6) Eloquence. Now, it will be observed that all these are general-qualities which all possible applicants would believe themselves to possess. The field could readily, of course, be narrowed by stipulating (4) Experience of llion-taming, or (6) Eloquence in Mandarin. But that is not the way in which we want to narrow the field. We do not want to stipulate a quality in a special form; rather, each quality in an exceptional degree. In other words, the successful candidate must be the most energetic, courageous, patriotic, experienced, popular, and eloquent man in the country. Only one man can answer to that description and his is the only application we want. The terms of the appointment must thus be phrased so as to exclude everyone else. We should therefore word the advertisement in some such way as follows:
Wanted-Prime Minister of Ruritania. Hours of work: 4 A.M. to 11.59 P.M. Candidates must be prepared to fight three rounds with the current heavyweight champion (regulation gloves to be worn). Candidates will die for their country, by painless means, on reaching the age of retirement (65). They will have to pass an examination in parliamentary procedure and will be liquidated should they fail to obtain 95% marks. They will also be liquidated if they fail to gain 75% votes in a popularity poll held under the Gallup Rules. They will finally be invited to try their eloquence on a Baptist Congress, the object being to induce those present to rock and roll. Those who fail will be liquidated. All candidates should present themselves at the Sporting Club (side entrance) at 11.15 A.M. on the morning of September 19. Gloves will be provided, but they should bring their own rubber-soled shoes, singlet, and shorts."
125: Canonically there is now a Star Trek captain whose recreational activities include speechifying on the holodeck in the persona of the "President of Starfleet". But I don't think that's what you meant.
134: you're also on the record as being okay with the slaughter of Israel civilians. For my part, I'm in favor of rhetoric that isn't absolutist. For instance, I wish that people would stop talking about "genocide," though I think Israel's actions rise to the level of crimes against humanity and very likely ethnic cleansing. Regardless, no lasting peace, as absurd as such a concept may seem right now, will be rooted in absolutism. But I understand that activists are going to apply pressure in ways they deem most powerful.
you're also on the record as being okay with the slaughter of Israel civilians.
Yeah, fuck you. I think you're ok with decades of oppression and now ongoing slaughter of Palestinian civilians, so we have that.
For my part, I'm in favor of rhetoric that isn't absolutist.
Like Tlaib, Spike is arguing implausibly that the rhetoric is not absolutist. It's a really unfortunate argument to make. Groups like Hamas or Islamic Jihad or the PLO have not, when they are using that slogan, been arguing for a multi-ethnic liberal democracy.
I don't doubt that well-meaning people have adopted that slogan, but it's not even a dogwhistle. Tlaib's rationalization reminds me of people explaining that the Confederate flag is about "heritage, not hate." It's completely ahistorical and unambiguously offensive.
That said, Tlaib herself, when not sloganizing, has been clear that she really does think a one-state solution is the answer.
And why not? One state and one pony for everyone, that's my motto.
Yeah, freedom for Palestine, such an absolutist idea.
"Ethnic cleansing" is just a synonym for genocide, it's weird to me to say one is ok and the other is not. And I don't see what's wrong with saying that's what Israel is doing.
That said, obviously the river to the sea slogan is calling for ethnic cleansing/genocide too and it's ridiculous to say it isn't. I'm against censure, people say insane things on the other side of the issue all the time and don't get censured, but it's still bad and wrong.
Also this thing where people come up with slogans (like "defund the police" and "medicare for all") and then insist that it be understood as being attached to some complicated exegesis to be understood is infuriating and I hate it.
Spike, "you're on the record" doesn't mean "we think you believe...", it means we can link to your words which were, lest you forget, "I'm not going to get particularly upset about dead Israeli civilians after witnessing a steady clip of dead Palestinians for my entire lifetime. . . . Fuck Israel." No one here can possibly give a shit about the daylight between "I'm not going to get particularly upset about x" and "I'm okay with x," even if that distinction is huge in your mind. (Von wafer, on the other hand, is "on the record" in the same thread saying that he was going to call his representative to protest U.S. aid to Israel, is deeply opposed to Israel's ethnic cleansing in Gaza, and so on. Why would you think otherwise?)
147.1 is poorly phrased. I meant "I don't see why it's ok [to say that Israel is doing] one and not the other." Both are obviously not ok behavior.
I've come around on "defund the police," but I'm still fine with "Medicare for all."
Is there a middle ground, like "I'm not going to get particularly upset about Israeli civilians being enrolled in very shoddy MLM schemes"?
In principle "medicare for all" is a perfectly good slogan, but Bernie supporters kept doing the thing where they interpreted it as having like 30 subclauses.
Defund the Medicare, Police for All.
143: I just thought it wasn't terribly surprising that you'd by okay with the phrase "from the river to the sea," because you've said that you're not upset about the slaughter of Israeli civilians, presumably in service of justice for Palestinians. It hadn't occurred to me that you might favor the slaughter of Israeli civilians just because.
In my view, a Palestinian state that runs from the river to the sea would require the destruction, almost certainly by military conquest, of Israel. And though I've long supported the creation of a viable Palestinian state, I don't think it's practicable, either militarily or morally, to achieve that goal by destroying Israel. Given that, I don't think absolutist rhetoric, whether on the part of Israelis or Palestinians (or others), advances a realistic vision of justice for Palestine. Other people, including lots of activists I respect, strongly disagree with my position.
No one here can possibly give a shit about the daylight between "I'm not going to get particularly upset about x" and "I'm okay with x,"
What I actually meant was, "I'm not going to wave that bloody shirt for you." October 7 was a horrible crime, but on par with crimes that Israel commits against Palestinians on an ongoing basis. I'm not okay with any of it, but I specifically resent being expected to recognize one sides pain and not the other's. Especially when that pain is being exploited to promote American support for military action that has by now lead to the deaths of 10,000 Palestinians, with no end in sight.
In PA it looks like McCaffery (Supreme Court) is going to outperform Fetterman (current 6.2% margin to 4.9% for Fetterman) slightly. I guess I should not be surprised other than that in one of the precincts where I work he ran 14 points behind Fetterman. I've kind of gotten to think I know that precinct fairly well over the years, but this really was a surprise to me. It is older and bluer than the other one (where the Justice ran within a point of Fetterman), but I think it is very Catholic, and older Catholic are maybe still generally staying firm against abortion (I think abortion was the main factor in the race for most voters beyond just basic D/R). In various other races that precinct still ran 10-15% bluer than the other as it generally does, but in the Supreme Court race they were within a point.
I also noticed that Erie County flipped back to slightly red after having crept into blue for Biden and Fetterman. I think the blueification of the Philly suburbs/exurbs continues apace (and a few spot checks generally confirms McCaffrey outperformed Fetterman there).
In my view, a Palestinian state that runs from the river to the sea would require the destruction, almost certainly by military conquest, of Israel.
There is a whole huge desert that connects the West Bank and Gaza that the Israelis are barely using. There is no reason a contiguous state would be impossible. Israel just doesn't want Palestine to have that.
157: Yeah, see, again, it is unserious to claim that this is what "from the river to the sea" is describing.
157: to be clear, are you now saying that you'd regard as a just outcome a peace deal that created Palestinian state made up of most of the West Bank, Gaza, and a 1km wide corridor connecting them? Your whole issue this time has been contiguity?
Because that's really not how you've been coming scross.
Nominal territorial contiguity (via a very narrow corridor with a road) has never been a major sticking point in negotiations, as far as I know.
By far the main sticking point are what to do with the major settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank (no Israeli leader has been seriously willing to give up enough of them to make peace), and Palestinians agreeing to end attacks on Israel. Some other big issues are how exactly to put the holy sites in Jerusalem under some kind of joint sovereignty and how to let Palestinian leadership save face on giving up on the right to return by having some sort of fake right of return. Beyond that everything is easy. Israel absolutely wouldn't care how much uninhabited Negev gets put into Palestine if they got to keep a lot of West Bank settlements. Israel's constantly offering big swatches of desert to Palestine in exchange for the parts they actually want.
Its not really about what I would regard as a just outcome, its about what kind of situation can be established that will form the kind of mutual prosperity that will support a lasting peace.
I don't think a 1km strip on its own is going to cut it, given the sheer quantity of land that has been stolen from Palestinians over the years, but it would certainly be an improvement.
Israel's constantly offering big swatches of desert to Palestine in exchange for the parts they actually want.
If they could offer water to go with it, that might actually be an opportunity.
161: but it is about that, though, because that is what I asked you.
Wait, Spike, are you really saying that you're in favor of both a two-state solution and use of the phrase "from the river to the sea"?
I'm actually in favor of a one-state solution. I like the phrase because it gets people thinking and pisses people off who I don't like.
no Israeli leader has been seriously willing to give up enough of them to make peace
Other than Barak? Because it's my understanding that the settlements weren't the real sticking point at Camp David.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that they cannot disqualify Trump from the Republican presidential primary because that is a party matter, but that the issue of his eligibility for the general election ballot may be refiled later when it is ripe.
Looks like the Mat-Su school board incumbents held on.
167 So if all the litigation has to follow the convention -- mid July in 24 -- then getting a ruling on the merits from the US Sup. Ct. between the beginning of the S Ct term in early October 2024 and election day seems pretty unlikely. It'll be interesting if any of the other courts hearing this issue reach a different result on the question of primaries.
166: When I looked into exactly what Barak said he'd dismantle I came to the conclusion that if I were a Palestinian leader I wouldn't take that deal. Most notably, he wanted to keep Kiryat Arba, and he wanted to delay actually dismantling many of the settlements for 10-25 years (which means it wouldn't actually happen).
Though perhaps you're right that my sticking points weren't Arafat's sticking points, certainly Clinton thought Arafat just didn't want a two-state deal.
I was just looking up some information on the Camp David negotiations. I had always believed something like this
I came, later on, to appreciate we were even closer than I thought. When President Clinton presented the Clinton Parameters to the two sides at the White House on December 22, 2000, and after five days, the Barak government came back - said they approved the parameters. They had some reservations, but the reservations were within the parameters. So on January 2, we had Arafat come to the White House, and he didn't say yes. He basically was willing to discuss all the areas where the Israelis were making concessions. He wasn't willing to discuss any of the areas where the Palestinians were supposed to make concessions. So it seemed like he had just said no.
But what I subsequently learned - about 18 months ago, I had a dinner with a former Palestinian negotiator who'd been part of the delegation. He said the whole Palestinian delegation had decided among themselves they should accept it. They went back to Arafat, and Arafat said no. I subsequently heard from another Palestinian on that delegation who said Arafat thought he could still do a better deal under Bush because he thought maybe Bush will be even more forthcoming.
But, I think that may be unfair to Arafat and that this is more likely correct.
The Camp David summit--ill-conceived and ill-advised--should probably never have taken place. It did only because Barak, fresh from repeated failures in negotiations with Syria, wanted to use the last six months of Clinton's term either to reach a deal with Arafat or expose him as an unreliable partner. Clinton initially resisted, but in truth, ever since the assassinated Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin had handed him a piece of history with the signing of the Oslo accords, the then-president was determined to redeem Rabin's legacy and his own. Arafat, who was in no hurry to reach any kind of agreement, had warned us in June that a premature summit might lead to an explosion. . . .
...
Carter succeeded for three reasons: he had strong leaders who were in a hurry, a doable agreement, and, as a strong mediator, he ran the summit. We lacked the first two; as for the third, the summit ran us.
...
... But the issues at the second Camp David were mission impossibles. Issues like borders, security, refugees, and of course Jerusalem's ownership were all dealbreakers, and the gaps between the two sides were Grand Canyon-like in scale. Barak went further than any Israeli prime minister had gone before, but his proposals were nowhere close to what Arafat needed, even if the Palestinian leader had been interested in closing a deal. On Jerusalem there was no way Arafat could have made any concessions without Arab state backing. But given Barak's sensitivity to leaks, we ensured there was no Arab state involvement. Clinton's short phone calls to Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah and then Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak to brief them on U.S. proposals about Jerusalem were hardly serious substitutes.
It'll be interesting if any of the other courts hearing this issue reach a different result on the question of primaries.
Different but similar issue, the NH State Ballot Law Commission just denied Cenk Uygur from registering for the Democratic primary because he's not a natural born citizen. Seems its not left to the party's discretion here like, presumably, it would be in Minnesota?
I was thinking the difference might be state-run versus party-run, but both Minnesota and NH seem to have state-run primaries.
My first inclination is to believe that both sides of 172 have some truth. Arafat wasn't inclined to make a deal, and the gap between the two sides was too large even if there'd been a different leader. It's also true that Barak's deal was unpopular with the Israeli public and he likely wouldn't have been able to stay in office long enough to enact a deal anyway.
Who's on tap for the next generation of Palestinian leaders? Abbas is even older than Biden. What happens when he goes?
That reminds me. When people say "The graveyards are full of essential people", I don't find it very reassuring. I think, "So that's the problem."
I know nothing about the geology of Madagascar but I've been reading some about the history lately and it's fascinating
Recommendations?
You know, that does sound interesting.
In the Chinese proverb sense.
I've just read a handful of random articles; I'll post some links when I get home from work. Most of the basic literature seems to be in French, which makes sense.
I don't think I can read French. But I haven't tried in years.
You could try reading Pirate Lemurs of Madagascar by I. P. Freeley.
Has anyone here pointed out that a "from the river to the sea" formulation is part of Likud's charter? Anyone have a problem with that?
To a first approximation, I'd guess "everyone here" has a problem with that. Maybe we'll draw some Likudniks out of the woodwork, though.
I also (of course) want Madagascar history recommendations! I passed a French reading exam in grad school and I love to procrastinate. Thank you for your help.
I don't agree with a lot of what's written here much of which I find tendentious but it's still a decent write up of the history and use of the slogan which long predates Hamas https://www.voice.wales/from-the-river-to-the-sea-the-true-history-of-a-famous-slogan-for-palestine/
This is in some respects better. It's not a genocidal slogan
https://jewishcurrents.org/what-does-from-the-river-to-the-sea-really-mean
186: Repeating myself, I don't think absolutist rhetoric, whether on the part of Israelis or Palestinians (or others), advances a realistic vision of justice for Palestine. I have plenty of questions about my family's association with Labor Zionism, but none at all about Likud.
Anyway I thought Tlaib explained all this very well and clearly.
And the mayor of Boulder seems to have been reelected, after what looked like him being replaced by a Republican riding a NIMBY backlash. (RCV being the factor, I assume, that made it possible for a Republican to win.)
190: that it's "an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate"? I actually would have bought that before October 7. But since then, it's so closely associated with Hamas that I'd hope people who aren't invoking it as a call for death, destruction, or hate might be willing to set it aside. Again, though, lots of activists I respect think I'm insane, so I'm probably wrong.
I think the idea of a one-state solution, though it strained credulity, had more salience before October 7. In the wake of the Hamas attacks, I'm back to playing the oldies: a two-state solution seems like the best hope for peace in my lifetime.
"Has anyone here pointed out that a "from the river to the sea" formulation is part of Likud's charter? Anyone have a problem with that?"
Why would anyone have a problem with that? It isn't a genocidal slogan in any way. It just shows Likud's commitment to establishing a peaceful secular state in which Israelis and Palestinians will be treated equally.
/s
And any references to "creating a Greater Israel between the Nile and the Euphrates" simply mean that Israel, geographically, has the Nile to the west and the Euphrates to the east and they want to make it greater. Really great. Terrifically splendid. What could be wrong with that?
"Drive the Arabs out of the Weat Bank"? A harmless commitment to affordable public transport!
There's a brand of wheelchair here named "karma". It's unsettling.
In agreement with Barry's 188.
Likud's formulation is meaningfully different and much stronger:
"Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."
166: looking back, though, the criticism that the accords would "freeze the settlements in place" or similar words looks kind of monkey's paw. Freezing them in place would have been infinitely better than having them continue to spread. A lot of people who now tell you that the two state solution is unworkable, because settlements, were and are also very keen on telling you that Oslo was bad because it "froze them in place", but you can't really believe both these things in good faith. It only made sense to turn it down if there was an implicit guarantee that the settlements wouldn't keep growing, but there wasn't from anyone and I really don't understand why anyone would think that.
Likud's formulation is meaningfully different and much stronger:
"Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."
That isn't genocidal either, though. You can't have it both ways - you can't argue that "one free Palestine from the river to the sea" is perfectly OK and cool and compatible with a multi-ethnic state, but "one Israel, sovereign from the river to the sea" is a call to genocide. We know it's possible for an Arab population to flourish under Israeli sovereignty, even with a Likud government, because Israel is 20% Arab. The proof that a Jewish minority can flourish under a Hamas government is a little more tenuous.
Why are you quoting specific wordings that no one is using? And no one said that it was genocidal.
To a first approximation, I'd guess "everyone here" has a problem with that.
And my word, if Adam Schiff quoted that from Likud in the context of the Gaza invasion (or the West Bank settlements or whatever), it would be grotesque, regardless of whatever ass-covering explanation he came up with -- and despite his exemplary stand against American corruption. Some shit is just beyond the pale.
Heritage, Not Hate, baby! Anything can be justified -- at great length!! -- if you are willing to circumvent context and meaning.
Has anyone here pointed out that a "from the river to the sea" formulation is part of Likud's charter? Anyone have a problem with that?
In dumber forums than this one, the entire discussion of Israel/Palestine is shot through with Whataboutism, so I suppose we ought not be surprised to find it creep in here.
But as anyone with any goddam sense understands, the answer to the question, "What about Likud?" is that Likud is horrifying to the point that -- beyond its own crimes -- it bears some recognizable responsibility for the atrocities of Hamas.
When people say "The graveyards are full of essential people", I don't find it very reassuring.
I've never been entirely clear what that saying means anyway. Is it saying "Even someone who is essential to your operation could die, so make sure that you have backups"? Or is it saying "lots of people who we thought were essential, or who thought that they themselves were essential, have died and things went on regardless, guess they weren't as important as all that"?
QI reckons the second: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/11/21/graveyards-full/
205: I think of it as an answer to "You can't fire me! I am essential to your whole operation!"
I think of it as an OSHA poster.
I think it means you're supposed to dig them up when you're in a pinch.
Like the labor equivalent of "There's MONEY in the BANANA STAND."
My mom's side of the family will detach someone from the funeral party to watch until the grave is covered.
At night, the ice bosses come.
205: Isn't that the same concept in different directions? One is the experience, the other the admonition based on the experience. And however the saying was meant, either reading is reasonable independently.
A third and rather grimmer interpretation is that there are a lot of people out there whom it is essential to put in a grave if you want to get anything useful done.
Isn't grave robbing a bad thing?
Here's a point: who actually has property rights, if anyone, in a buried corpse? If I leave my body in my will to, say, Glasgow Medical School, they own it - they can sell bits of it, they can give it away, if someone lifts it from the freezer they get charged with theft, etc. No question about that.
But if my body just gets buried, who owns it? My next of kin? The church? No one?
Isn't that the same concept in different directions?
The opposite, I think.
You can't fly a plane without a pilot. He is, literally, an essential man. So, in case he dies, because even essential men die - the graveyards are full of them - make sure you have a spare pilot.
vs
Senator Joe thought that he was the only man who could get that bill passed. But then he got hit by a falling safe, and Senator Bob managed to get enough votes for the bill and it got passed even without him. Guess he was no more "essential" than lots of other people who died.
A third and rather grimmer interpretation is that there are a lot of people out there whom it is essential to put in a grave if you want to get anything useful done.
But you wouldn't call them an essential person then. You'd say that the graveyards are full of essential obstacles or something.
It looks like in the UK and probably the US too, officially no one owns dead bodies. There are many laws about who gets to decide what's done with a dead body, whether that's cremation or burial or medical use or something else, and what you can't do with one, but it's more like custody than property. Almost proto-communist!
218: wait, that can't be right. You can buy skeletons, for medical students to study or whatever.
Also I never heard it as essential - always "indispensable", and the QI quote has that plus earlier versions like "people the world could not do without".
Graveyards filled with the essence of man.
219: The citation is Williams v Williams 1882, which puts it as "a man cannot by will dispose of his dead body. If there can be no property in a dead body it is impossible that by will or any other instrument a body can be disposed of."
Skeletons for legitimate sale usually come from those used medically, right? Maybe after the hospital has its fun it magically becomes vestable.
216: I've had the same thought, but think the ambiguity is part of the point.
Perhaps I think of it as a short-term/long-term case. In the short-term individual people are essential, in the long-term nobody is essential.
215. God created your body, still owns it. You can tell because the places God doesn't include in the calling plan don't think the same way about this.
219: The citation is Williams v Williams 1882, which puts it as "a man cannot by will dispose of his dead body. If there can be no property in a dead body it is impossible that by will or any other instrument a body can be disposed of."
Skeletons for legitimate sale usually come from those used medically, right? Maybe the hospital or medical school waves a wand and makes it property.
God created your body, still owns it.
WRONG. SOOOOO WRONG.
225. If I leave my body to the local medical school for education and research, surely they own it, even if they're legally obliged to follow certain rules in disposing of it when they no longer have use for it. Otherwise, who decides which lecturer can use it in which lectures, and which lab can use it for what research. Suppose my corpse exhibits a classic case of condition C, which my local med school isn't researching, but everybody knows that med school M, a hundred miles away is a world leader in treating, they can surely stick me in a fridge and ship me down the road. How is that not transfer of ownership?
If this is not the case, the law is an ass and needs changing statim.
190: that it's "an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate"? I actually would have bought that before October 7. But since then, it's so closely associated with Hamas that I'd hope people who aren't invoking it as a call for death, destruction, or hate might be willing to set it aside. Again, though, lots of activists I respect think I'm insane, so I'm probably wrong.
In the case of Tlaib specifically, I found this thread by John Holbo helpful: https://nitter.net/jholbo1/status/1722413641570582993#m
[Tlaib] grapples with the difficulties of implementing a 2-state solution. She is concerned to minimise harms to both sides. Again, you can say this rules out all realistic solutions but being uselessly concerned to mitigate harm all-round is not terroristic.
...
The whole 'from the river to the sea' thing is fraught. If you favor a peaceful 1-state solution it's rhetorically tempting to try to detoxify this line as aspirational in a peaceful, not an exterminationist way.
Maybe it's was stupid, but the idea that she's dog-whistling elimination of the Jews is quite incredible, in light of the bulk of her public statements. She is an advocate of a peaceful 1-state solution, as she says. In effect, the rhetorical demands placed on her are impossible:
try to build a broad coalition; be staunchly critical of Israel; don't do or say anything that could be construed as touching on antisemitism even by bad faith interpreters who are, frankly, waiting to twist her words in the hopes of discrediting her as a would-be terrorist.
It seems like in the area of "what do you do with a recently dead body" the law is clear that there is no property right but a set of other rights or duties, but at a later point when it's a prepared skeleton or detached bone or preserved organ, it is treated as obviously property, buyable and sellable. I've found nothing about the exact moment of transition between corpse and objects. In practice, it may just be the point at which nobody who cares about what happens to the body or its pieces is in the loop.
Or rather, nobody who cares about it as an emanation of the person it was.
One lawyer who wrote a book on the subject told a reporter "the law in this area is woefully vague and unenforced".
The common law that the decedent has no property interest in a dead body still obtains, according to her. Only eight states have banned trade in human remains across the board; all ban selling remains that were graverobbed; maybe half ban selling remains that were donated to science/medicine; but it's little enforced anywhere. There's a Uniform Anatomical Gift Act 48 states have passed on the donation process. Federal law bans sale of remains of Native Americans. So lots of laws nibbling around the process, but it seems like mostly courts will enforce ownership and contracts unless there's a specific law against it or a reason it might be considered desecration.
I can't remember if a recent "what do you do with anthropodermic books" discussion occurred here or elsewhere, but I agree with this editorial arguing that they ought to be given respectful burial.
Update to 23: All of the slightly less bad guys won! Now I'm represented in the State Senate by a porn producer, not a troglodyte MAGA retired trucker!
So Manchin is not going to run for reelection?
235: Came here to comment on that. Any chance we can get some kind of Dem there or do we just have to give up on the state?
There's no chance his replacement won't be much, much worse.
237: For sure. But is there a chance the replacement will be a much worse Dem? Or no chance at all?
Are we scared he might decide to run for President?
I think there's going to be continued efforts for third-party candidates, but I doubt Manchin is the one to fear.
228: I'm not sure it's worth repeating, but a call for a single-state solution, assuming the state is called "Palestine"--which seems to be what "Palestine must be free, from the river to the sea" presupposes in Tlaib's case--is de facto a call for the destruction of Israel. And as I said upthread, I can't see how that happens by any means other than conquest, which, in my view, is morally and militarily impracticable.
But even leaving aside the moral valence of the slogan, which is now forever associated with the October 7 attacks, even leaving aside whatever lingering vestiges of Zionism I may have, shrouded in however much doubt and guilt, because who cares, even leaving aside all the dead Jewish Israelis and Arab Israelis that the conquest of Israel will necessitate, let's focus for a minute on one element of Israel's military capabilities. (This is something I quarreled with apo about many years ago.) How many million people in Tehran, Damascus, Riyadh or wherever else do you think a single state called Palestine, free from the river to the sea, should be worth? Because I don't have any illusions about what Israel will do if it faces a serious existential threat. It will empty its nuclear arsenal. It's a terrifying thought, particularly while Netanyahu is in power.
242: at least not as long as Biden as the Democratic nominee.
It's probably way too late for Biden to switch parties.
Apparently Jill Stein is giving it another go.
215 Boris Karloff, he sells them to the medical college in Edinburgh
There's no chance his replacement won't be much, much worse.
West Virginia has a socialist streak from way back, and so I actually think the Dems could have a chance - but only if they are willing to nominate and fund a candidate who is radically pro-labor.
Honest question: has West Virginia elected any radically pro-labour candidates before? Because a streak isn't a majority. Mississippi has a significant pro-civil rights streak!
249: Not actually a socialist, but Jennings Randolph (House and Senate late '30s to 80s with a gap) was the kind of big government guy who would be branded a "socialist" today.
Probably best known for the first to really push for lowering the voting age to 18 (I think he started on that during WWII), he also was a big mover on the Interstate highway system.
From his WaPo obit:
He was an enthusiastic believer in the power of government to improve people's lives. "Problems are truly wonderful," he once said, "because we have the opportunity to solve them." In 1978, he noted that West Virginia had received more than $1 billion to help miners with black lung disease. "I don't begrudge a dime of it," he said. "If we have to have a deficit budget, let it be a people deficit every time."
If I leave my body to the local medical school for education and research, surely they own it, even if they're legally obliged to follow certain rules in disposing of it when they no longer have use for it. Otherwise, who decides which lecturer can use it in which lectures, and which lab can use it for what research. Suppose my corpse exhibits a classic case of condition C, which my local med school isn't researching, but everybody knows that med school M, a hundred miles away is a world leader in treating, they can surely stick me in a fridge and ship me down the road. How is that not transfer of ownership?
Maybe it's usufruct?
250: ah, thanks. That is a while ago though - someone who was too young ever to vote for Jennings Randolph would now be old enough to have grandchildren who would be old enough to vote in the next election.
Federal law bans sale of remains of Native Americans.
This could be a very tricky one, because, if I remember from when this last came up, the legal position in the US is that no one is allowed to say "this person is a Native American" about anyone - alive or dead - except a Native American. Even if you're talking about someone who was definitely resident in North America before the first Europeans arrived, you can't say "this was a Native American" unless you're one yourself.
But I can't remember who, if anyone, is allowed to say authoritatively "this is not a Native American".
Presumably the relevant tribal authorities can say "this is not a Cherokee" or whatever, but are the Cherokee also allowed to declare that he isn't any other sort of NA either?
You'd be surprised how rarely this is a problem.
253: Yes. I have no illusions that WV worker "socialism" is about to rise up. Just that there has been support for "big government" stuff in WV before. And of course, Robert Byrd was a more recent example.
That said, I do think that if there are any embers of D support it will probably be best tapped by someone in that mold with a lot of "populist" positions and "anti-woke" dog whistles. Might get to 40%, but probably not.
248 I don't think this sort of things works top down. The candidate has to come to the nomination process already leading the movement that's going to propel them to victory, first in the primary and then in the general. Money is important, but it can't create either the movement or the leader. Is Zach Shrewsbury that guy? Maybe!
On the Republican side, the governor and one of the sitting US House members are running for the nomination. If it looks like the Dem has a chance, national money will pour in.
Looks like the WV candidate filing deadline is about 10 weeks away. If that socialist streak is going to field a candidate (other than Shrewsbury) it needs to get in gear.
I think Shrewsbury does somewhat fit the mold with a bit of the Fetterman twist.
Not gonna win, but a race that can raise lots of money and come in somewhere between 38 and 43%.
254: A lot of the times it actually comes up it's mediated by NAGPRA, but that's museums and so forth. I don't know how it would work if it were just a skeleton in the hands of a body broker.
260 Can't anyone with a D, an actual campaign, and no disqualifying scandal can get between 38 and 43%? That's the case here.
The challenge is getting that last 8-13%. Up to now, Jon Tester has been able to find that (with help of Libertarian candidates drawing off from Republicans)*, and I like his chances, but he could very definitely end up with 48%.
* If only was had RCV we could have more Republican office-holders.
The Harriet Vane vote is sure to go to Shrewsbury.
I think Richard Ojeda may be the best bet, though I do recognize that would be a difficult road.