Commenter Archive

AvatarComments by Ozzzy! in reply to Saul Degraw*

On “Voter ID Law Blocked in North Carolina Before March 3rd Primary

Can someone remind me how this is different from registering to vote? I can't keep up with all these laws...

On “Dawkins Sticks His Foot In It…Again

The bene gesserit actually started with the planned sharing of genetic material between Davosers and Occupiers.



I guess I’ll let another one lie then.


Chip it’s pretty obvious.

I’m commenting on the fact that in your statement you can interchange democracy, socialism, eugenics, and hell competitive bridge for that matter and it still makes sense. I’m sure there is an aristocratic word for this, but what it means that the comment isn’t worth much.

It’s pap. Word salad. Blerg. Nada. Unhelpful. Lacking in rigor.

I hope that clears it up.


If you swap ‘Eugenics’ with ‘Democracy’ or ‘Capitalism’ or ‘Socialism’ in this comment, it reads pretty accurately too.

Is that your point? That it’s complicated?

On “The Party Man

How old do you think this party animal is supposed to be? I’d guess late 50’s nowadays, by his look, but this was in 1916?

Hmm, maybe 40?

On “Very Stable Genius Predictions

The dumbest part of all this is the Angled, all caps Comic Sans, no?

that kills his chances with the graphic design and Cleveland cav’s fan voter factions. I hear Ohio is kind of a big deal this time around?


If you want to be cynical (and hell, we are talking about mike Bloomberg here) it’s just an acceptable way to fund democratic donations, where the guy doesn’t even care about the tax benefit of donating.


All this makes sense. But how does that align with what happened, which is a presidential candidate stopped be viable because of this amorphous group? (Assumes that the standard center left people didn’t gob on per our earlier comments)

Isn’t that pretty much the definition of powerful? If it was idk, Christian scientists advocated against a candidate and that candidate stopped being viable, I think we’d all say wow! That group has clout!

Are you saying it’s just that they were the loudest voice but weren’t the cause? Which sure ok that could be, but it’s undemonstratable.


I agree with this! Most people in the domoceatoc tent don’t care about this stuff.

But You seem to be talking in circles a little - if the far left wing (SJW label for this convo) was attacking her then they aren’t every standard issue center left person. But if those are the people that ‘took’ down Harris (because the standard issue center left person didn’t care), then the original point by north that they have no power is wrong.

I’m not sure how to neatly (or messily) tie those two things together.


Please note it wasn't my proposed label. Yes there are alot of SJW's in the world! I think that is mostly a good thing. And I hear you that she had serious issues within the democratic party's base.

But every item you just said would line squarely up with the SJW 'brand' saying Nope.

Unless its just plain sexism/racism...


Prosecutor! Prosecutor! Prosecutor! was all I saw or heard after the first or second debate, following her bump after pushing Biden a little on busing.

I guess this might not be the SJW faction you are referring to, but even if I try, I really don't have another tidily labeled group to say was her downfall. A separate, amorphous faction?

If you have a different reason she plummeted out, I'd like to hear it.



They knocked Harris out right quick and seem to being doing a number on Bloomie and Biden in the last few days, so there is that?

On “I’m A Lawyer, Not A Mime

Also, congrats on the good review and 1 year anniversary! Glad you are in a good new role and know that it takes a lot of energy to make a big change like that work, which is all too often and easily underappreciated.


I guess the easiest go to equivalent for men is body odor, but in a client facing role, yes men also are asked not to make the client uncomfortable due to their person/ticks/demeanor. Certainly not saying said norms are applied equally or in a fair manner. Also, client facing roles are just different - part of said job is to make the person like and trust you. If someone is simply a smelly or angry looking person, it is probably a bad fit.

On “Politico Reports “An Unsettling New Theory: There Is No Swing Voter”

Honestly chip, it’s so self obvious I’ll just let this one lie.


I’d go back to the old tried and true - ‘it’s the economy stupid’. It’s not trumps doing and Obama built the foundation, but voter turn out seems to inversely follow economic booms pretty well.


Chip, I love your drum, but white people will be around for a very long time, and will be the single largest race-based block in the voter universe of the US for the foreseeable future.

They are splintered from an ideology and voting team perspective, but if your goal is to get ‘them’ to side with you, saying they can’t even be part of ‘identity politics’ seems, well, like a dumb point coming from an intersectional view.

On “Chaos Isn’t a Ladder, It’s a Caucus in Iowa

Short answer seems to be no, there cannot be unallocated delegates. Long answer is that the instructions below in the first image refer to the caucus rule book when there are unallocated delegates after rounding to integers, which in turn goes through the method of highest remainder below 0.5 allocation. Rule book is available online if you are interested, or just read more of the replies below JB’s tweet someone linked a pic there or the relevant page.


Nah it’s just unallocated delegates to the highest remainder below 0.5.


IDK Jack, but it looks like most of those images are showing the awarding of unallocated delegates. Whatever. Reading instructions is actually pretty hard to get people to do.

On “The Impeachment End Game

I guess I’ll answer it flat out - The president is not impeachable under the charges put forward. I’d say for ‘high’ political (it takes a lot to get party members to admit fault) and ‘low’ popularity reasons (he has a lot of voters who are meh to yay! with him and they are voters who show up, and are fired up about his connection with people).

It’s hard to successfully impeach a US president, and for good reason. if you start at ‘why isn’t he impeached? He lied about this and that is important!’ It doesn’t make any sense. But that isn’t where at least 40% of voters in the US start from.

Given that dynamic, All the rest, from house trial to the Chief Justice, is politics and positioning.

In case this wasn’t obvious, I’m talking about BC here, but it works rhetorically for a reason.


For those of us not up to speed on Ted Cruz’s podcast, what stunt did warren do? The misinfo announcement?

On “Poor Strategery: Elizabeth Warren Tilts at the Misinformation Windmill

If the question: Which do you [random voter] dislike more? Horserace stans or Policy wonks? was asked, I'm not sure I could tell you where that poll comes out and certainly couldn't tell you which answer was better.

*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.