Yeah only #3 turns my head, possibly because it aligns with a notion I had that Trump voters who were willing to vote for him already overtly want to vote for him and those who're hesitating/uncertain about voting for Trump will end up breaking away from him.
Still, it's just gonna be an agonizing two weeks and change.
I don't think of it as ignoring early voting data as being un-reassured by it. And, frankly, since Complacency is one of the two great plagues of Democrats along with its vile twin Purity, I'm not worried about us leftists being anxious about the outcome. Anxiety is good. Go vote. Go encourage some low engagement acquaintance to vote. I've done several myself.
As for the Senators- I don't give one flat fart what somewhat nice things they say the great Pumpkin so long as they end up in the Senate and neither should you.
I have no idea how it's actually going to turn out. The polls are too close. The squishier indicators look nice but they looked fine in '16 too. And on top of it I'm going to be on a cruise on election day with spotty internet access. It's going to be a unique election for me to watch, that is for sure.
I'm still predicting and hoping for a Harris win and for the Dems to run the table but after '16 I simply can't have any strong confidence about it.
One thought tho: Harris has a lavishly funded ground game and my understanding is Trump simply doesn't. Will this be a good election for us to measure if that element actually makes a difference or if it's pure election industry grift?
Not necessarily moronic- even if Harris wins the Trump positivish adds help those Senate candidates appeal to squishy Trump voters. In WI and OH especially playing to that bunch is smart even if it gives us highly engaged leftier voters a sad. At the same time I don't think it indicates that either candidate necessarily thinks Trump is going to win- just that saying vaguely nicish things about some aspects of him is a way to play for votes and good for them for doing so.
An entertaining internet digression once theorized that Tom Bombadil was an eldritch evil contained by Gandalf and the Elves to his particular corner of Middle Earth. He is unaffected by the ring because his own power transcends it. Tom releases the hobbits, and the Ring, back into Middle Earth because he very much wants Sauron to fail, the ring system to collapse and the Elves to fade departing middle earth and leaving Tom free to rampage.
I trudged through the poetry in total but gave each line little thought and definitely endured it with no enjoyment.
I agree that Tom Bombadil is in the story because Tolkein is a world builder and Tom was an early creation and, thus, could not be left out. If Dungeons and Dragons had existed in Tolkeins time his players no doubt would ruefully have complained about old Tom. Also if D&D had existed as a creative outlet back then it may be that the novels wouldn’t have been written so let’s give thanks for that.
Toms’ inclusion in the Rings of Power Season 2 somehow manages to be indulgent, ham handed and utterly contrary to Toms cannonic role and nature. It’s uniformly so bad it’s almost impressive.
Having reviewed it I think she did herself no significant harm and potentially some good. We also can now bury and retire the nonsensical notion that Harris avoids challenging media encounters.
"Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas... This is part of our strategy - to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank."
Benyamin Netanyahu at the Likud Party conference in 2019
I'm very unsure. I think this may be a rare moment when I agree more with Chip than you. Trump has this visceral connection to a constituency of voters that other more Theilian and Republitarian politicians on the right so far seem unable to replicate. Those voters genuinely believe, for instance, that Trump won't allow cuts to safety net programs that impact them. Removing Trump doesn't automatically mean Vance would inherit their support or, more importantly, their entheusiastic support.
Great musings but I remain dubious about Texas. I guess I just don't know enough about the state to even begin to hazard a guess as to how the Dems would go about flipping it.
You also touch on the big question- what the fish does the GOP/Right look like post Trump? That answer will inform most future electoral questions for the Dems.
I agree, but no total victory, no total dictating of terms ala Allies post WWII. And this is without even considering the land question. If the US, and Britain had entertained significant designs on land in Europe post WWII that would have been a very different kettle of fish.
Maybe, but the primary and principle reason was not world opinion or changing moores. It was because A) Israel depended on the largess of western nations to make war and, most importantly, Israel absolutely, totally, was incapable of prosecuting a total occupation of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the territories the way the allies occupied Germany, Italy and Japan. Eshkol could have shoved a gun into every Israeli man woman and childs' hands and they still couldn't have done it. No total victory, no total dictating of terms.
And let us not forget that a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the territories -IS- a victory by any rational measure of victories since Israel would, mostly by itself, be deciding what the final lines on the map would be, keeping what it desired and abandoning what it didn't want while making no concessions in return.
That kind of victory has always been impossible because Israel has never been capable of totally defeating her Arab neighbors. Smash their armies? Sure. but A) she could never do it without outside support which always made Israels' successes contingent on outside politics and B) Israel has absolutely never been capable of totally defeating and totally occupying her neighboring countries the way the Allies did post WWII. Absent independence and the power to occupy a total victory along post WWII lines is not possible. Nor, I'd hasten to add, would it have been desirable.
Very kind Dark. I am not gonna quibble on odds but I suspect history suggests the outcomes will be more muddled than your pessimism may suggest- for one thing once they actually have something to fight over it's entirely possible the Palestinians may just fight each other instead. It is the middle east after all.
Sure, but the Israeli's have started turning to a land grubbing derangement including their own underpants gnomes theories about how they get that land without the people on it that is new and very dangerous. The Palestinians ineffective absolute refusals can't endanger Israel beyond the degree that Israel permits it to threaten them. The Israels own demons, though, could kill their state stone dead. A world historic case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Eh, once the 15 million Palestinians in the West Bank have Israels' boot off their neck the dynamic changes a lot. Not to be crass about it but the Palestinian cause has never been unitary and once the West Bank is its own polity a great deal of FUIGM will set in vis a vis the refugees elsewhere. It also can't be emphasized enough that while the refugees can make a lot of moral and online noise they simply have very little ability to cause actual, real, trouble for Israel; enormously less than their relatives on the border can.
The point is that Israels' worst case scenario would still be, in terms of Israels' long term interests, better than their current state. There's a significant chance it'd be a -lot- better and even if it did turn out poorly it'd also have much better odds of improving. The occupation freezes everything in the Middle East in place to Israel's long term detriment.
And, I'd like to pointedly add, that the current occupation of the West Bank does little to nothing to prevent rocket fire from the West Bank into Israel. The people preventing rocket fire from the West Bank into Israel are predominantly the PA. The idea they'd do that -less- when they had -more- control of the West Bank is silly.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Election’s Home Stretch”
Yeah only #3 turns my head, possibly because it aligns with a notion I had that Trump voters who were willing to vote for him already overtly want to vote for him and those who're hesitating/uncertain about voting for Trump will end up breaking away from him.
Still, it's just gonna be an agonizing two weeks and change.
On “Campaign Scratchpad: Known Unknowns”
That's my normal haunting grounds for cruising but husbando wanted something new.
"
Small world! I'm cruising out of LA to Baja Mexico for a friends 50th birthday. I'll keep an eye out for you. I hope your cruise goes very well.
"
I don't think of it as ignoring early voting data as being un-reassured by it. And, frankly, since Complacency is one of the two great plagues of Democrats along with its vile twin Purity, I'm not worried about us leftists being anxious about the outcome. Anxiety is good. Go vote. Go encourage some low engagement acquaintance to vote. I've done several myself.
As for the Senators- I don't give one flat fart what somewhat nice things they say the great Pumpkin so long as they end up in the Senate and neither should you.
"
I have no idea how it's actually going to turn out. The polls are too close. The squishier indicators look nice but they looked fine in '16 too. And on top of it I'm going to be on a cruise on election day with spotty internet access. It's going to be a unique election for me to watch, that is for sure.
I'm still predicting and hoping for a Harris win and for the Dems to run the table but after '16 I simply can't have any strong confidence about it.
One thought tho: Harris has a lavishly funded ground game and my understanding is Trump simply doesn't. Will this be a good election for us to measure if that element actually makes a difference or if it's pure election industry grift?
"
Not necessarily moronic- even if Harris wins the Trump positivish adds help those Senate candidates appeal to squishy Trump voters. In WI and OH especially playing to that bunch is smart even if it gives us highly engaged leftier voters a sad. At the same time I don't think it indicates that either candidate necessarily thinks Trump is going to win- just that saying vaguely nicish things about some aspects of him is a way to play for votes and good for them for doing so.
On “POETS Day! Why Is Tom Bombadil?”
An entertaining internet digression once theorized that Tom Bombadil was an eldritch evil contained by Gandalf and the Elves to his particular corner of Middle Earth. He is unaffected by the ring because his own power transcends it. Tom releases the hobbits, and the Ring, back into Middle Earth because he very much wants Sauron to fail, the ring system to collapse and the Elves to fade departing middle earth and leaving Tom free to rampage.
I trudged through the poetry in total but gave each line little thought and definitely endured it with no enjoyment.
I agree that Tom Bombadil is in the story because Tolkein is a world builder and Tom was an early creation and, thus, could not be left out. If Dungeons and Dragons had existed in Tolkeins time his players no doubt would ruefully have complained about old Tom. Also if D&D had existed as a creative outlet back then it may be that the novels wouldn’t have been written so let’s give thanks for that.
Toms’ inclusion in the Rings of Power Season 2 somehow manages to be indulgent, ham handed and utterly contrary to Toms cannonic role and nature. It’s uniformly so bad it’s almost impressive.
On “Group Activity: VP Kamala Harris Fox News Interview”
Having reviewed it I think she did herself no significant harm and potentially some good. We also can now bury and retire the nonsensical notion that Harris avoids challenging media encounters.
On “Open Mic for the week of 10/14/2024”
I do think it has a lot of commonality with Christian Grift on the right, though I fear that nonprofits in general already have that space staked out.
"
Further evidence that the excesses of that ideology are in retreat.
"
I agree, it's encouraging.
"
Good, she should.
"
Me too!
"
So we're switching from "She's too scared to do interviews" to "She must be desperate to be doing so many interviews"?
"
"Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas... This is part of our strategy - to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank."
Benyamin Netanyahu at the Likud Party conference in 2019
"
I'm very unsure. I think this may be a rare moment when I agree more with Chip than you. Trump has this visceral connection to a constituency of voters that other more Theilian and Republitarian politicians on the right so far seem unable to replicate. Those voters genuinely believe, for instance, that Trump won't allow cuts to safety net programs that impact them. Removing Trump doesn't automatically mean Vance would inherit their support or, more importantly, their entheusiastic support.
On “Lone Star Rising”
Great musings but I remain dubious about Texas. I guess I just don't know enough about the state to even begin to hazard a guess as to how the Dems would go about flipping it.
You also touch on the big question- what the fish does the GOP/Right look like post Trump? That answer will inform most future electoral questions for the Dems.
On “Open Mic for the week of 10/7/2024”
I agree, but no total victory, no total dictating of terms ala Allies post WWII. And this is without even considering the land question. If the US, and Britain had entertained significant designs on land in Europe post WWII that would have been a very different kettle of fish.
"
Maybe, but the primary and principle reason was not world opinion or changing moores. It was because A) Israel depended on the largess of western nations to make war and, most importantly, Israel absolutely, totally, was incapable of prosecuting a total occupation of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the territories the way the allies occupied Germany, Italy and Japan. Eshkol could have shoved a gun into every Israeli man woman and childs' hands and they still couldn't have done it. No total victory, no total dictating of terms.
And let us not forget that a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the territories -IS- a victory by any rational measure of victories since Israel would, mostly by itself, be deciding what the final lines on the map would be, keeping what it desired and abandoning what it didn't want while making no concessions in return.
"
That kind of victory has always been impossible because Israel has never been capable of totally defeating her Arab neighbors. Smash their armies? Sure. but A) she could never do it without outside support which always made Israels' successes contingent on outside politics and B) Israel has absolutely never been capable of totally defeating and totally occupying her neighboring countries the way the Allies did post WWII. Absent independence and the power to occupy a total victory along post WWII lines is not possible. Nor, I'd hasten to add, would it have been desirable.
"
Very kind Dark. I am not gonna quibble on odds but I suspect history suggests the outcomes will be more muddled than your pessimism may suggest- for one thing once they actually have something to fight over it's entirely possible the Palestinians may just fight each other instead. It is the middle east after all.
"
Sure, but the Israeli's have started turning to a land grubbing derangement including their own underpants gnomes theories about how they get that land without the people on it that is new and very dangerous. The Palestinians ineffective absolute refusals can't endanger Israel beyond the degree that Israel permits it to threaten them. The Israels own demons, though, could kill their state stone dead. A world historic case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
"
Eh, once the 15 million Palestinians in the West Bank have Israels' boot off their neck the dynamic changes a lot. Not to be crass about it but the Palestinian cause has never been unitary and once the West Bank is its own polity a great deal of FUIGM will set in vis a vis the refugees elsewhere. It also can't be emphasized enough that while the refugees can make a lot of moral and online noise they simply have very little ability to cause actual, real, trouble for Israel; enormously less than their relatives on the border can.
"
The point is that Israels' worst case scenario would still be, in terms of Israels' long term interests, better than their current state. There's a significant chance it'd be a -lot- better and even if it did turn out poorly it'd also have much better odds of improving. The occupation freezes everything in the Middle East in place to Israel's long term detriment.
"
And, I'd like to pointedly add, that the current occupation of the West Bank does little to nothing to prevent rocket fire from the West Bank into Israel. The people preventing rocket fire from the West Bank into Israel are predominantly the PA. The idea they'd do that -less- when they had -more- control of the West Bank is silly.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.