Favorite recent post by the previous poster

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Can we please end the memes currently going on?

Yeah it's time to bring Iowa is Rubio Country to an end

[Atlas Force]

Movement conservatism (as opposed to the old pro-business, socially-nostalgic conservatism that promoted thrift and other forms of self-restraint as founts of prosperity) is a wealth cult in the sense that many Protestant churches are. In those churches you make allegedly-pious sacrifices (lots of tithing) and you will be able to get the bounties of American life. With easy credit just about anyone can get overpriced stuff at rent-to-own (when it is obsolete or broken-down trash) emporiums and slightly fewer can buy a spiffy Cadillac that someone cast off. If such fails, then the fault is with the backsliding schmuck who lacks faith. It is magical thinking, something questionable.

So what, I say. Proof of your wisdom is that you saved up for much the same stuff and have gotten a good credit rating so that you need not deal with shysters. If you must save for what you get, then you will recognize that going into savings to buy something means a real good-for-good transaction. Maybe you will do comparison-shopping. But this has no aura of religiosity. Not attributing economic success to any deities, I see no market magic in the formula. Back in the old days, pro-business conservatives never pretended that there was any magic in the free market.

Today it is different. The Right has abandoned thrift as a virtue for the common man. Get him in debt so that his fecal credit rating leads him to rent-to-own places and so that, if he has a college degree, he will take just about any job offer short of leaving the Big City to do ill-paid farm labor. (Let me say some good things about thrift stores -- we have a tile floor at our house, and anything ceramic breaks if it falls onto it. I have had to replace chinaware, and at times I have gotten better stuff than what broke -- dirt cheap).

The Hard Right has entwined itself with evangelical Christianity to push the idea that human suffering of the masses creates prosperity, and the greater the pain, the greater that society prospers. Of course the elites of ownership and management first get theirs -- and not surprisingly (as is so for amoral elites) they keep asking for more. They demand that people accept economic inequality characteristic of a fascistic regime if not a plantation, harsh management, and the destruction of the decencies of a liberal society so that in return for growth from which most people see no benefit that the elites get to live lives of ostentatious display -- and that the rest of us get vicarious delight from seeing people connected to the elites frolic in the few times that we get to see them.

As is so with other absurd ideologies, people need only a bare minimum of learning -- enough so that they can read propaganda, technical manuals, advertising, road maps, and warning signs... and do basic math. To learn more would be to do something inimical to monarchical despotism, fascism, Bolshevism, Nazism, Ku Kluxism, Ba'athism, Iranian-style theocracy, ISIS, evangelical wealth cults, and the ideology behind Trump: critical thought. People fitting such an ideology accept the promises but don't complain when the elites fail to make the promises work. Democracy works when people hold elected officials accountable for failure and success.

Yes, there are authoritarian religions such as Roman Catholicism that strongly promote secular learning. Learning may be a double-edged sword, as the very Church that promotes secular learning to allow people technical success that allows people to put more into collection plates and to study source materials also allows people the means to access of critical material.  Critical thought that allows people to condemn corrupt government and shady business dealings keeps business and government more honest than otherwise, whether because people be too moral to do bad things to people who did nothing wrong or because as good and intelligent people they demand fair play.

A healthy community recognizes well-honed learning as a necessity for learning. The more widespread that high-quality learning is, the less special it is. That is a good thing. Where learning is rare, people with even modest amounts of formal learning who care capable of exploiting that privilege in commerce and bureaucracies. It is better that we have a few million people who can do differential equations and see little special about such. A healthy economy depends upon widespread prosperity -- which I define as savings accounts, insurance policies, and savings bonds. (OK, so perhaps you are 'in' the stock market as a buy-and-hold investor because interest rates are ridiculously low, and dividends alone are bigger than interest on a savings account).  Remember: it is thrift that makes real prosperity possible.    

Movement conservatism suggests that in return for monopolistic gouging, environmental ruin, poor public services (including educational under-funding), and privatization of the public sector to crony capitalists that prosperity will emerge. Of course it will -- and only for some tiny economic elites. People capable of critical thought recognize such as the fraud that it is. But that contradicts the idea that ignorance is strength.. or bliss. The fictional Oceania of George Orwell's 1984 turns language into a means of destroying thought by turning even words themselves into lies. A 'joy-camp' awaits anyone who shows signs of ideological backsliding, like recognizing the deterioration of life as something other than progress.  

Unfortunately, I do agree with much of this.  I will emphasize, however, that many Evangelical churches are not part of a wealth cult.  The ones that are not get the least media attention.

[Dr. MB]

And now the desperate Pennsylvania GOP is attacking Fetterman for...using the word “jagoff”:

https://twitter.com/PAGOP/status/996832539892477952

[Politician]

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

KY-SEN 2004: Mongiardo wins by 2%
SD-SEN 2004: Daschle wins by 3%
LA-SEN 2004: Vitter gets 47% in first round, loses 51-49% to Chris John in runoff
NC-SEN 2004: Bowles wins by 0.5%
TN-SEN 2006: Ford wins by 1%
MN-SEN 2008: Franken wins by 2%, so he is thus seated on schedule
KY-SEN 2008: Lunsford wins by 1%
WI-SEN 2010: Feingold wins by 2%
PA-SEN 2010: Sestak wins by 2%

What happens afterwards?

For Sestak and Feingold, they would still be senators even if Trump won in 2016, and would be possible presidential contenders.

For 2008, if McConnell lost Cornyn or Thune would become the next majority leader. It would also be a big blow to Republicans to lose their own leader.

For 2006, if Ford won in 2006 he likely would have lost in 2012 provided his opponent wasn't an Akin/Mourdock/Angle.

For 2004, it would make it much easier for Democrats to win the Senate in 2006 and they would have had a supermajority even after Scott Brown won the special election (assuming Specter still switches parties).

Some other ones

IL-2010: Giannoulias wins
GA-2008: Martin takes down Chambliss
MS-2008 SPECIAL: Musgrove takes out Wicker
FL-SEN 2004: Castor wins

[All Along The Watchtower]

thx, the map has been edited.

[Politician]

Note: Sarah Jones is one of the increasingly few American journalists who actually comes from a working-class background and writes on class issues (from a left-of-center perspective - and this writing includes topics like the appalling elitism of mainstream media and most journalists today, and how this directly contributes to our current insane political-media culture, resentment, counter-resentment, ad nauseam. And she is, in fact, white).

Anyway:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://newrepublic.com/article/148452/myth-trumps-populist-revolt

[Atlas Force]

More cabinet picks:

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard for Secretary of State
Fmr. Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower for Secretary of Agriculture
Professor Paul Krugman for Secretary of the Treasury

This can't go well.

[kyc0705]

Another day of primaries.

Unfortunately, we cannot project anything in Iowa because the Governor race on the R side is uncontested, leading to massively reduced R turnout in the state.

Dems picked up NJ-02, NJ-07, and NJ-11. Not sure about NJ-03 yet.

Dems have also picked up NJ-03 and NJ-04. Unfortunately, Republicans have picked up NJ-05. Gottheimer was sacrificed so Democrats could defeat MacArthur and Smith.

Wow, sad to see my home district hero going down. And I liked Chris Smith a lot... but getting rid of McArthur is good.

For Gottheimer so loved the Democrats, that he gave his only elected office, that MacArthur and Lance should not win re-election, but have everlasting lobbying careers.

[ON Progressive]

Since the Australian kangaroo population exceeds the Australian human population, it's technically more likely that you're a kangaroo.

[Atlas Force]

Monmouth shows a healthy lead for the GOP in this district, even if Dem turnout surges. What's the official reason to ignore contradictory evidence this week?

Haven’t you been consistently wrong this entire year?

No, considering I have not made any predictions that have been tested yet (your statement will be true if Keirstead makes the runoff in CA-48). We will see come November how my House predictions turn out.

Monmouth shows a healthy lead for the GOP in this district, even if Dem turnout surges. What's the official reason to ignore contradictory evidence this week?

Because the election is two months away? Saccone was ahead by 14 at this point in time, in a redder district.

Also, special election house polls are terrible because it's very hard to model special election turnout accurately.

Good to know that only Democrats can gain in the polls with time, because something something PA-18.

That is true, but what do you propose is better empiric evidence than a poll? Using the "muh special elections average swing" gives you D+5, but that's a bit specious, considering that this is one such special election that one would be relying on to make such a prediction. Circular logic, if you will.

I am simply pointing out that polls two months away from Election Day with tons of undecideds (just like the PA-18 poll I mentioned) in a House special election (where the MOE is very high) aren’t a great indicator of what will happen during the actual election.

It would also be more likely than not the Dem gains since the poll has him at 33% (in a CD both Clinton and Obama got in the 40s) and Trump approval among undecideds is in the negatives.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

*puts on trollface*

Well obviously it'll be Menendez because he's not a very strong candidate because of the scandal and all. But of course the blue wave will save him and re-elect him by a low single-digits margin, just like what happened with Ron Johnson. Oh yeah, and New Jersey is still a deep-blue state, which isn't unlike how Wisconsin is now a deep-red state because Trump won it and Walker got re-elected.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

I miss collecting and playing YugiOh.  FF signature.

[Mr. Reactionary]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=293817.msg6245753#msg6245753

[fhtagn]

Just voted Freitas. I have now voted for all 3 Republican candidates running for something.

[Atlas Force]

"I Voted!" selfie

[_]

TIL Maine has plantations as a form of municipal government.

Source: Looking up Grand Lake Stream, whose ME-02 Dem primary results are showing up as an exact tie for Golden and St. Clair with 2 votes each, at 100% reporting.

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=262279.msg6252646#msg6252646

[MAINEiac4434]

1980
	Governor	Fmr. President
Candidate	Robert F. Kennedy	Ronald Reagan
	D—New York	R—California
	Vice President	Senator
Running mate	Gaylord Nelson	George Bush
	D—Wisconsin	R—Texas
PV%	49.9%	48.8%
EV's	340	198

[James Monroe]

Golden down to 49.7.

Yea this is where RCV gets annoying, it's unlikely but you could see St. Clair who has like 40% of the vote win when everything is allocated. I think a 45%+ cutoff and you win is good enough and anything below is a runoff election is a better alternative.

I'd guess Olson's 2nd preferences split fairly evenly between St. Clair and Golden, so Golden is still fine.

[Atlas Force]

Trump will be guaranteed re-election and the Democratic Party will pay a price by nominating Schultz, a inexperience businessman who appeals to no core constituent. Not people of color, not women, not Latinos, not millennials, only upscale latte liberals.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Optical illusions are always fun.

[_]

I won't defend this and Hollywood liberals do often make me cringe, but as others have said, the Republicans have put not one, but TWO celebrities in the White House (the first of whom literally was a Hollywood actor!).

And the father-son Republican Presidents in between with the same first and last name were President mostly because the former was the son of a powerful, WASP elite Republican Senator (a confidant of Super-Popular WWII Hero President Eisenhower) who, after years of effortlessly climbing the Republican political ladder (mostly in appointed positions), hitched his political fortunes to the aforementioned Hollywood actor by agreeing to be his running mate/Vice President, while the latter had the same and first name as his father who had been President just eight years earlier.

As for Democratic Presidents and celebrities - or rather, name recognition -  Hillary Clinton was the exception, not the rule (and she lost). Few people "on the street" knew who Jimmy Carter was in 1974, or who Bill Clinton was in 1990, or who Barack Obama was in early 2004, or hell, who Bernie Sanders was in 2014. The same can not be said of the four Republican Presidents we've had within the past four decades. I reject the notion that Democrats are more obsessed with celebrities and name recognition than Republicans; if anything, it's the other way around.

[Atlas Force]

Sweet beginning to pull away from Eves as Kennebec, Hancock, and the rest of the state start to come in.  She's in third or second in every county statewide excluding York, Sagadahoc, and Penobscot at the moment.  She's doing very well imo.

Does she really have a realistic shot at winning the runoff?

Honestly?  I'm incredibly biased but I'd say yes.  Based on MAINEiac's accounts and my own perception, Sweet is the second choice of a lot of progressives (Russell and Eves voters), and should she manage to surpass Cote when it's Sweet, Cote, and Mills left at the end, I think Cote supporters would've backed her over Mills due to how much they've fought.

[DC Al Fine]

https://twitter.com/Scotttaylorva/status/1006960372086165504

First response to the Stewart Question is to unironically whine about “identity politics”...okay.