Ahhh Canada, our copycat little brother. We beat everyone up for you, and then you brag to mom that your the “good one”. We are only keeping you guys around for the maple syrup and occasional musical genius...

Canada is great.

You're welcome to visit anytime Jla.

Need to renew my passport so I can go hang out in Vancouver.

Nah, don't just stop there, keep going!

If I ever have the time.

I like Canada.

I vote that my t shirt post above be promoted to feature comment.

Sorry- Canadian exceptionalism is N. American exceptionalism. https://globalnews.ca/news/5887716/first-nations-boil-water-advisories/

  http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/paying-price-human-cost-racial-profiling/impact-racial-profiling-aboriginal-community

And the last time I had to deal with disruptive hate language in public was in Hamilton- in the main public library (nice building, but when people yell slurs everyone hears it thanks to the concrete)

Agreed, but such is the case with the two-party system. I'd love to see some type of meaningful plan put forth to get rid of it. I don't even have a problem with parties as long as there are more than two dominant ones.

Point taken. However, there have long been only two (main) parties but many more policies, with some folks willing to (sometimes awkwardly) navigate toward the center. That approach seems to be on life support.

I blame the death of local news. & I blame that on the internet. Still not sure how we start to undo that damage.

Thank Bill Clinton for deregulating the FCC. Now 5 corporations own just about all of it.

Running with the life support analogy (bear with me) ... only letting two doctors in the room who can barely stop arguing long enough to acknowledge there is a patient there doesn't seem to be doing much for the patient. But getting rid of a forced dichotomy and allowing some other doctors in to see the patient might have a better success rate. It doesn't guarantee they'll stop arguing long enough to get anything done, but it at least increases the probability that they'll find some common ground rather than needing to be instantly against the other's views.

+EA

I’ll even do Gabbard / Buttigieg. He’s not bad either...

Would love her to do something unconventional though and team up with a libertarian like Johnson, but not gonna happen :(

lol (Jan 23 2020)

Also really damn sick of this one-sided game of "You should reach out to the opposition" while Republicans are openly, proudly disdainful of liberals. Why should I bother to respect a bunch of people who are more than happy to see me suffer just because I have different ideas?

  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/21/why-arent-trump-republicans-pilloried-failing-reach-out/?

A democrat can't win with just the Democrat vote thanks to the electorate and gerrymandering districts. They'll have to swing Independants and make traction into the Republican moderates. Those two groups aren't liking the polarized partisan politics going on. So they might go for someone who can unify and is willing to negotiate; Hillary didn't give that impression, nor do several of the mainstream candidate front runners.

^exactly. Also, the dem party has lost support of many with all of this pc identity politics socialism talk. Many people who voted for obama, went on to vote for trump, or didn’t vote at all. I can’t overstate how many are turned off by political correctness. It’s incredibly annoying for most people to have other adults telling them how to act and speak. The natural instinct kicks in and just wants to piss them off and defy them. Especially true when asshats in Hollywood join in. It’s like when your mother or teacher told you not to do something and it made you want to do it more. This is the effect. We need a candidate brave enough to not play that game.

The presidents poll numbers where very low pre 2016 also. All the polls showed Hillary easily winning. I wouldn’t trust the polls. The media is probably manipulating them to make supporters feel like outsiders or weirdos. None of the more left candidates will beat him.

The right is obsessed with this 'PC identity politics socialism" narrative that's entirely blown out of proportion. It's a bad faith argument, where anything they want to portray as negative can be labeled Socialism or Identity Politics. Sadly, it works.

mightyaa: My point is that the independents are already anti-Trump (look at his underwater polls) and the Republicans are never going to be convinced to ditch him (because the GOP is a cult). So there's really no point in playing to a "middle" that's actually quite skewed to the right.

.

Castro’s claim that we should pay for trans women getting pretend abortions from their non-existent uteruses is not going to get anyone out to vote. That’s identity politics and it’s annoying to the vast majority of Americans...not just the “right”.

Not only is it annoying, but it shows fake ness in the candidate. Say anything to win. Beto speaking Spanish was hilarious too. Identity politics is not overblown, it’s the entire platform of the Dems and left.

This makes people want to vote in a way that makes Alyssa Milano mad because she’s an annoying person who pretends to have moral authority over the “depolorables” because she was in a few crappy movies and an 80s sitcom.

Seriously though. This crap really annoys people to the point of wanting to vote in a way that annoys it back.

From 1961: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bejdhs3jGyw They've been playing this game for a long time and the dumb electorate keeps falling for it.

“It's a bad faith argument, where anything they want to portray as negative can be labeled Socialism or Identity Politics. Sadly, it works.“

Yeah, same can be said for the left. Anything they want to portray as negative can be labeled far-right or fascist.

Or racist, sexist, privilege, etc etc etc.

Can be, but rarely is.

More importantly, you hear these kinds of appeals to racism, fascism, privilege, etc. mostly from the so-called "extremely online" left and various small time activists, with the occasional politician wading into the rhetoric. Conversely, the bad-faith accusations have been standard campaign rhetoric for the Republican establishment since Lee Atwater dredged up Willie Horton to scare the racists into voting for Bush. Yes, there is bad faith on both sides. But it's important to look at *who* is doing the talking.

Regardless, perception is reality when it comes to voting. We need someone who will unite people. The country is too divided, and both trump and the more leftist candidates will further exacerbate the problem. We need a good level headed canidate that is above the bullshit.

I like Yang, but he’s really dry. I can’t see him getting too far.

Perception is reality and one group has been disproportionately shaping perception through misinformation and lies. I don't think the way to fix this is by meeting in the middle. 

How about unity for education? Unity against propaganda? 

Why does being "above the bullshit" only seem to skew in one direction? The bullshit is not evenly distributed, and yet there seems to be a constant insistence that it be evenly called out. Which only hurts the less-bullshitty party, since the bullshitters aren't even pretending anymore.

Really what we need more than a politician who will do this is a united media voice that's willing to hold the GOP accountable for their bullshit. Not that the Democrats don't engage in bullshit, but when they do they're largely taken to task for it. The Republican party gets away with everything because no one will call them out. Start calling them out if we ever want to recover from this insanity.

Whaaat? The left msm is even worse. I don’t know how you can be so blind to that. The Dem party is super corrupt and they basically own the media. This all became obvious during the HRC campaign. The left is now spreading lies on all the bells and whistles that they are promising...regardless of how unrealistic, unconstitutional, or plain unworkable those things may be. Essentially snake oil salesmen. That’s how I see them anyway. To say the republicans get away with everything??? No way man. The left msm is a way way more pervasive and dangerous thing right now. During the bush and obama years I would have agreed with you. Things have changed though. The left msm is completely full of shit most of the time.

“Can be, but rarely is.” Lollololol. They call everything they disagree with one of those labels. there are too many examples...it’s overwhelming...Covington was in the top 10 greatest hits of the year though...

What would you consider "Left MSM"? I'm also not sure what you're referring to when you say " Covington"

*sigh* 

That Kavanaugh was confirmed and Roy Moore is still in public while Al Franken resigned is evidence of this double standard. That Ilhan Omar can't open her mouth without a shitstorm of anti-semitism accusations while those same accusers equivocate on protesters who chant "Jews will not replace us" is evidence of this double standard. That the media is losing their minds over Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez' "socialism" while heaping praise on a president who is putting all kinds of state influence on the economy through tarriffs and targeted subsidies is evidence of the double standard. That Mitch McConnell can whine about "the left’s never-ending judicial war" while being personally responsible for more than 50% of the judicial filibusters in the country's history is evidence of this double standard. I could go on. 

 [From the op-ed I posted above] "How do we explain this double standard? One explanation: Republicans don’t even bother to pretend that they care about the votes of liberal Americans, or even about their fate. Democrats try to get health insurance for people in red states and write environmental plans that include help for coal communities, but Republicans don’t ask how their policy choices might hurt people who don’t vote for them — unless it’s to figure out how they screw those voters even more. They don’t try to show “respect” for liberals, and they don’t publicly agonize about their inability to “connect” with them. 

 After a while, it stops even occurring to people in the media to ask whether Republicans need to do more “reaching out,” and they don’t chastise those Republicans for not doing it. Democrats, on the other hand, act like they have a responsibility to represent all Americans, so they're constantly told that they're falling short in fulfilling that responsibility."

Just for absolute clarity I want to emphasize that I'm not saying the Mainstream Media is *good*, I'm saying that it's not *leftist*

CNN, MSNBC, etc are exactly as left biased as FOX is right biased. That’s just tv msm, then you have VOX, buzzfeed, etc...

I’m not saying republicans are better, just saying that both parties equally suck, and the Dems are currently outdoing them on the looney metric.

I've often wondered, and have found little to try to explain it (though admittedly I haven't tried very hard), why Fox gets a pass on being mainstream when the mainstream media gets brought up. 

Also curious to hear both of you discuss the media bias chart by Vanessa Otero ... https://www.adfontesmedia.com/

"CNN, MSNBC, etc are exactly as left biased as FOX is right biased. " No they aren't.

I think the chart is a very good starting point. I could argue some things are slightly out of place (a little to the left here, a little down there) but for the most part it is a correct assessment. 

Of course, the echoed refrain of anyone who disagrees is to claim the chart itself from being biased. Which, at that point, just give up because you're never going reach common ground with that person.

That's basically my take on it as well. You might argue a little movement here or there, but overall a good starting point. But yeah, it only works as an assessment if people can agree that it is close to accurate.

The other thing I like about the chart that I think get's lost in most of the rhetoric as left vs. right is the overall news quality represented by the Y-axis.

Lmfao. CNN literally gave Hillary the questions! Get out of your bubble. CNN and MSNBC are exactly as fake as Fox News. 100% party propaganda.

Wildly misleading, ignores vast majority of media ownership by 5 corporations. Knowledge of the results of the Church Committee hearings is also helpful in understanding media. 

Required viewing, films on media: Orwell Rolls in His Grave and Spin by Brian Springer. Required reading: George Seldes.

FWIW - television cable news is a complete wasteland. If you're getting the majority of your information from television, you're simply not informed. That said - only one of the major cable networks gleefully employs white nationalists and has inspired terrorism.

jla stop telling us to get out of our bubble when your talking points are suspiciously in alignment with Fox.

Hillary Clinton is politically indistinguishable from a 1960s Republican. I mean if we're going to talk about the rightward tilt of *all* of the US - media included - let's not lose sight of that.

It’s all Biased towards the deep state. All of it. Left/right illusion is simply the mode of acquiring more power and Keeping us in fighting. Unity between “sides” which doesn’t really exist, especially in the name of peace, is the ultimate threat. Preaching peace is about as dangerous as you can get. Can’t have that shit getting in the way of the military industrial complex and John Bolton’s wet dreams of destruction.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thelibertarianrepublic.com/is-tulsi-gabbard-getting-the-ron-paul-treatment-from-the-dnc/amp/

Those debates were complete garbage.

Lose the tinfoil hat & maybe we can talk.

True story. Watch the debate and it will be obvious who they are steering towards the win.

You're not wrong in assuming all media outlets have a bias and a preference. Where you're wrong is assuming there is a single "they"

“They” refers to the DNC marketing machine.

YES! I've noticed this recently - the subtle shift from saying "Democratic Party" (i.e. a group of ideas) to saying "Democrat Party" (i.e. a group of people). I first noticed it with Trump, but now I hear it from all over the right.

I wasn't sure if I was just over-analyzing. I might be, but there's definitely something telling in this simple re-branding.

I would think a thing that is happening is more important than a thing that isn't happening.

My ignore list is tingling.

tduds, it's a tactic that is not new, but (surprise, surprise) gained a new resurgence via Tadpole Gingrich and Rush "The Human Opioid" Limbaugh.

It's funny to me how the people who are absolutely obsessed with making political affiliation into an immutable identity are also obsessed with complaining about "identity politics"

This is a neat graphic. Thanks.

The reply function really incentivizes this by using "return" to post instead of making a paragraph break.

Yes, posting from iPhone makes it difficult to write in one post, because I can’t scroll up to read what I wrote if it gets too long. Also can’t do paragraph breaks in phone :(

I thought of a cheaper way: shut them down.

I agree. Until then, they should at least have some level of transparency.

That position is easy for me though, as a libertarian, with a self regulating economy. How does a proponent of a welfare state do math? How can open borders exist in the same space as unlimited entitlements?

That only works if we have unlimited resources, which we know isn’t the case. All welfare states or socialist states are nationalist. Can you give me an example of a functional open border welfare state with substantial population and migration?

Borders are not "open" or "closed" and entitlements are not "nothing" or "unlimited." The foundational bedrock of my entire life philosophy is to reject binaries. Nothing is a silo, everything is a bell-curve. 

Somewhere between totalitarian immigration enforcement and no borders exists a sensible solution that allows immigrants seeking a better life or escaping persecution to succeed while screening for (admittedly rare) criminal elements, trafficking, and smuggling. 

Similarly, somewhere between a libertarian free market and a wholesale Maoist state exists a level of social safety net that provides those of us most in need the resources and help to remain in society. 

Do I know specifically where those solutions are? No. If I ever run for office maybe I'll get around to formulating a more specific opinion. Until then, my criteria for evaluating politicians is "Do I think this person intends to move society along the spectrum closer to or further away from a society I think is just?" It's wishy washy and circumstantial, I know. But systems are complicated, and I can be so informed before I need to make a choice.

To bring it back to the topic at hand (you sure love abstracting), I don't believe immigrant concentration camps are necessary to ensure a "secure" border. In fact, I think they're detrimental to our national security in the longer term.

"Abolish ICE" doesn't mean "Open the border." It means Abolish fucking ICE.

But what about the criminals? There are criminals at the border. The mostly people even are not coming over solo. They are being trafficked by criminals who are brutal and dangerous. Eliminating ICE is not the answer. We need border security, and also good immigration policies so that any reasonable non criminal person would legally and easily cross at a port of entry. that said, if we have free college, housing, and health care for all, we can’t have unlimited amounts of people coming over or the resources get drained. That’s common sense. This isn’t binary thinking, it’s a huge flaw in the rhetoric of the current Dem candidates. No one dares to define the line you speak of. Without the line, the math is all make believe....I’m having a pizza party...everyone deserves free pizza...but we don’t know how many pies or how many people will come...doesn’t sound like a plan, sounds like a snake oil pitch.

A libertarian free market system is self regulating. The resource space is in flux with the population and migration...like an ecosystem.

Now that’s not to say that entitlements cannot be part of that. They just need to be in flux with the flux of the market...example: a billion in federal sales tax = a billion in equally distributed entitlements in form of UBI. When that number goes up or down so does the UBI. We need to create a self regulating system to have anything remotely like an open or highly permeable border. We kinda already do have that in a sense. When our economy tanked in 08 immigration fell to net zero.

But what about the criminals?!? 

There are criminals *inside* the United States. An overwhelming majority of them, in fact, were born in the United States. We have laws in place to handle criminals inside the United States. There's no need to criminalize additional behavior in an attempt to catch would-be criminals before they commit real crimes, especially when that added enforcement catches well-intended asylum seekers who merely seek opportunity in a new land. And *ESPECIALLY* when study after study indicates immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than US citizens.

I'll be honest I didn't read past the first sentence of your first reply. 

I have trouble following your lines of argument because you switch between asking me what I think and telling me what people running for the Democratic nomination are saying, as if the difference between those things makes me wrong. I'm answering for myself and myself only.

Rejecting your "Unlimited people" argument out of hand because people are by definition finite. And because - the current humanitarian crisis aside - immigration into the US has been on a pretty consistent down-trend for the last 25 years. Immigration restriction is a solution in search of a problem (because racial quotas are out of fashion this century)

Eliminate ICE is a stupid “solution” to the problem. We need comprehensive reform. We need to make immigration cheap, easy, and fast so that no reasonable innocent person would try to cross or enter illegally. Then, the few crossing the border illegally would be obviouse criminals looking to smuggle something in or evade detection. To deny that there are actual serious criminals coming over the border, possible terrorists, human traffickers, etc is completely ridiculous. It’s also ridiculous to criminalize jaywalking and then have a crosswalk every 50 miles. That’s going to make normal people cross illegally. If there is a crosswalk every block, and someone still jaywalks, I have less sympathy. We are creating criminals by making the process near impossible.

The line of thinking that you are pretending to not follow is the contradiction between limitless immigration, and endless entitlements. The Dem candidates like Warren and Sanders are frivolously over promising things that they cannot deliver on. In architecture, that would be considered fraud or malpractice. How can you promise a plethora of specific entitlements without putting a quota on population? They are selling a fake system that has never existed. One that has the mathematical reality of a perpetual motion machine. There has never been a socialist state that has open or permeable borders. They are all highly nationalist and closed off. Bernie essentially wants to have govt run health care. He wants it for “undocumented” people. What will stop people from coming here to have medical procedures and then return home? A welfare state and liberal border policy is incompatible. My point is, the current top runners in the party are selling bullshit.

I am 100% for highly permeable borders as I stated above...but that works fine with a market economy with low-no entitlements. It’s self regulating.

Ah yes, self regulation...if only the US didn’t interfere in local politics south of the border those countries would be much better off and people would have no reason whatsoever to leave...first the US destroys their democracy and economy and then they’re surprised people need to leave.

"The line of thinking that you are pretending to not follow is the contradiction between limitless immigration, and endless entitlements." 

...no I explained in my very first reply that the ideas of "limitless" and "endless" in this context are incorrect, and any opinions drawn from those ideas are therefore incorrect. I could recount the number of other ways you've (deliberately or otherwise) mis-stated what I said back to me and then discredited what I didn't say (in this response alone!), but who has the time?

The idea that eliminating ICE is impossible conveniently ignores the fact that ICE was only created 16 years ago.

Imagine this, laxative has all the time in the world to concoct a coherent world view, and still comes up with nada. These "political" ramblings are basic as fuck, and lack the consistency of diaper doo.

Another boring post by b3. Probably home reading a gender theory book because 4th of July is sexist or something.

Ouch. I guess I touch a Randian nerve? Proves I'm correct of course. You're a one hit wonder.

What’s inconsistent?

Inconsistent with your narrow view of anyone who disagrees with you maybe.

The pivot to insult when you run out of cogent responses is weak.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AZZNvT1vaJg

^an interview with them if
interested...lololol

Wish someone did an architecture version of this :)

Lol. True

I’m doing the same. Tduds is a reasonable guy refusing to disassociate with an unreasonable philosophy- Marxism.

tduds, assuming of course that anyone besides you is actually reading his dribblings. maybe if you stopped feeding it ...

miles wanders in a thread started by me named “politics central”....and claims to not read my posts...

I'm going to be offline a lot between now and October. We'll see if the well dries up in my absence.

I'm also not a Marxist.

Yup. It's rather sad.

What happened this morning specifically to cause that thought?

I'm guessing this: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a30220580/mitch-mcconnell-senate-impeachment-trial-sham/

I hadn't read that article specifically, but it pretty much outlines the reasoning behind my thoughts. To offset the left bias in the Esquire piece you could also add a bunch of things the Democrats have done too ... Each majority party in congress, tasked with oversight, looks the other way when it's their own guy in the oval.

this where I am too...just came from reading The Hill reporting on how Mcconnell says the senate is "in lock step" with the WH & how Trump is having the GOP Senate Judiciary committee members over for a private event...HOW THE F*CK IS THIS REASONABLE FROM THE PARTY THAT IS COMPLAINING THERES BEEN A LACK OF DUE PROCESS?!?

One thing that drives me absolutely mad is the way the media has run with this framing. It's not "the House is impeaching the President" (which is technically true & how the government works) but "The Democrats are impeaching The Republican" (which frames this as a political maneuver and not a constitutionally-mandated exercise of oversight). The House is doing it's job, the Republicans in the House are not doing their job.

https://twitter.com/BreeNewsome/status/1205488724097802240

Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said: "Rather than help Americans move into the future with confidence, Democrats are attempting to knee-cap our democracy. They're telling millions of voters that Democrats will work to overturn the will of the people whenever it conflicts with the will of liberal elites."

Right, Doug. That's why the Democrats tried to impeach Reagan, Bush, and Shrub. Oh, wait...

Meanwhile...

I could never buy the argument that impeachment is somehow overturning the will of the voters. It's like they don't realize that people also vote to elect their representatives in Congress.

As if congress is answerable to "the people" ...

In an ideal scenario, the more public support a bill has, the more of a chance it should have of being passed by congress. I don't recall where, but I read that studies have found that increasing public support of legislation basically has zero effect on that legislation actually getting passed.

Miles, you're sounding like my parents. They're not left, but they commonly make the same arguments you are. It's tiresome, my friend.

Here it is ... and some excerpts: 

"When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy." 

...

"Overall, net interest-group alignments are not significantly related to the preferences of average citizens. The net alignments of the most influential, business-oriented groups are negatively related to the average citizen’s wishes. So existing interest groups do not serve effectively as transmission belts for the wishes of the populace as a whole." 

...

"In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it." 

...

"Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts."

I'm particularly fond of the bottom 3 points in the bi-partisan section

Miles, I almost included a 3rd branch (as a H/T to you) ... the "career politician branch" where the goal is to do the things outlined in the Venn diagram above.

I have my beef with the old-guard Democratic establishment, but the Republicans are essentially proto-fascist at this point. They really aren't similar.

Yeah, the "pox on both their houses" sounds remarkably similar to "There were very fine people on both sides" to me.

.

REPs and DEMs in the House overwhelmingly passed the largest military spending bill ever: $738b.

• no repeal of AUMF that gives the cedes congressional responsibility for war to the president
• authorizes creation of US Space Force
• bans US withdrawal from NATO
• provides money to research low-yield nuclear weapons
• prohibits military cooperation with Russia
• sanctions businesses and people involved in the NordStream Piepline

41 DEMs voted against.

Admitting the GOP is significantly more corrupt does not imply the Democratic Party is *good* ...that's the only point I was making.

Beware of cognitive bias.

Back at ya.

Dans ses écrits, un sage Italien Dit que le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.

^classic french throwback.

lol "anti war" https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/05/us/military-families-troops-deployed-us-iran-trnd/index.html

I wish. The parts I do hear are infuriating though .

I catch whatever happens to be on NPR on my way home in the evening. Schiff is presenting a very clear narrative that should result in overwhelming consensus that Trump is guilty, but will persuade exactly no one.

tduds, I think about the only defense the republicans have is "sure he did what the house is saying he did, but it's not that bad." I was seeing comments from Trey Gowdy earlier questioning that if Biden wasn't running for president, would Trump's actions rise to the level of being impeachable. 

That doesn't sound like he needs to be convinced of what Trump did, he tacitly admits that the facts say he did it ... he needs to be convinced that it's impeachable, even though by the way he sets up his hypothetical he implies that it is worthy of impeachment. There's no need for a hypothetical where Biden's an ordinary american if you think Trump's actions are worthy of impeachment to begin with. Even then, the hypothetical has no bearing on the actual trial so it's simply something thrown out there to distract from the issues. 

I see no logical way that they can justify Trump's actions without simply drawing a line and saying "it's not bad enough to be worthy of removal from office." And if that's the answer ... I'm not sure what to expect in the next handful of elections.

I’m doing exactly what tduds is doing, listening when I can and feeling it’s really, really important but ultimately won’t be anything.

ACQUITTED!

Congratulations?

Now who am I going to half-assedly argue with?

jla-x is still around, no? Or is that more whole-assedly arguing?

I give him a good 3/4 ass most of the time.

Looks like Interpol's comments were also nuked from the Trump border wall news thread too.

While this is clearly not a democracy I vote for nuking the account.

why is Iowa so important? I've never been, have no plans on ever going... yet it's in my news feed.

It's not important. It's just first.

https://gen.medium.com/f-ck-iowa-638cb9ab15a8

great article. thanks.

Utter incompetence. Why the Iowa Dems thought it necessary to shoehorn an app into the caucus is beyond me. All we had to do was count people in a room and then make a phone call. But no, we had to get some company named "Shadow Inc." (no joke) to build a half-assed vote reporting app and go ruin everything. There really is an app for everything.

Huge CF. I was following along for a little bit to 538's live blogging of the results and they were all getting pretty annoyed with this. They started saying journalists had headlines to write and deadlines to meet and the story was going to be about how much of a screw up the process was this time around rather than any meaningful results. Also with the State of the Union today, the impeachment trial vote to convict/acquit tomorrow, and New Hampshire's primary next week, the winner in Iowa expecting a bump was going to get lost in the news cycle. Huge CF.

"They started saying journalists had headlines to write and deadlines to meet.." This, to me, is the bigger problem. News cycles are hurting our ability to parse information.

That wasn't lost on them as well ... but that headline bites the hand that feeds them.

Well, it was fun while it lasted. I'm ready for this shit show called human existence to end anyway. ELE where are you?!

That's a bit drastic don't ya think.

Here's around 5.5 minutes of video where Nate Silver is pretty visibly frustrated (use headphones if you're at work or around children): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0j7JTeyIlU 

Galen Druke had this comment as well...

GALEN DRUKE
11:09 PM

While most Americans probably aren’t holding their breath for results from Iowa, the people responsible for tomorrow’s media narrative — journalists — are. Based on a sample of about 30 people in our newsroom, journalists are getting increasingly annoyed. Those same journalists are going to be responsible for tomorrow’s narrative, and it’s growing increasingly likely that that narrative will be: SHITSHOW IN IOWA

Live Blog here for those with time to kill: https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/iowa-caucus-2020-election-live/ 

Of course it is, but we need to save the planet, dinosaurs, humans, next-generation evolutionary species will do better.

Never use an app for something that can be done without an app.

*throws phone away*

I'll give the digital benefit of the doubt and revise tduds statement: "Never us an app for something that can be done better without an app."

If you are looking for election meddling look

no further than the DNC. They’re doing it again because it worked so well last time.

No. They just screwed up.

I have zero patience for this idiot narrative in which the DNC is too incompetent to win elections and at the same time so competent that they secretly rig elections.

Hanlon's Razor looms large here.

@ tduds Fantastic logic. "the DNC is too incompetent to win elections and at the same time so competent that they secretly rig elections." Elections that they lose. LOL

So Wasserman Schultz did not resign as DNC head over a leak of internal DNC emails that showed officials actively favoring Hillary Clinton during the presidential primary and plotting against Bernie Sanders?

The NYT today had a page on all the democratic candidates positions ... except Sanders. Whoops.

And DNC chair Tom Perez hasn't stacked the nominating committee with vocal opponents of Sanders?

Don't be surprised when the new caucus app is found to have been somewhat less than legitimate ...

There is no evidence — none, zero, zilch — to suggest the results of the Iowa Caucuses will be in any way inaccurate, and people suggesting otherwise are irresponsible. Did this take longer than everyone hoped? Yeah. But somehow faking the results of the caucus, when there are extensive paper trails, and when people LITERALLY CAST THEIR VOTES IN PUBLIC, is essentially impossible. https://twitter.com/Robillard/status/1224751886881951744

Anyway California has like 500 delegates, votes in less than a month, and Sanders is polling ahead so none of this is going to matter.

Also the page that doesn't exist was really easy to find https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/elections/bernie-sanders.html

NYT print edition. As to the app, it is a compromised system from the start, just like electronic voting machines that are susceptible to manipulation. Reference Clinton Curtis sworn testimony to congress. https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/4/21121903/iowa-results-delay-app-reporting

If Pete is cheating, at least he's trying. Go Liz!

When he was elected, my first response was, "Please, whatever God or Gods are listening, don't let him get his tasteless, tiny hands on the 'Guiding Principals for Federal Architecture."

Apparently, no Gods were listening.

So Dictator is deciding what style is or isn't allowed to be used. This isn't hyperbole. Banning of an architectural style is on par with banning a religion.

maybe trump owns a bunch of quarries

it's like trump wants to be literal hitler. https://archinect.com/news/article/73841759/hitler-s-classical-architect

curtkram - Also my first thought when I saw it. I wonder who will be Herr Drumpf's new Albert Speer...

bullshit, obviously. also, i can't vote for the senators and congress reps from other states. my state is great, not part of the problem.

my point being that the efforts of reasonable people to influence this will fail because they have no impact on the states dominated by unreasonable people.

Which former Hillary Clinton staff member? What we this staff members job while with HC?

Gerard Niemira. Hillary For America Total Duration1 yr 2 mos TitleDirector of Product Dates EmployedMar 2016 – Nov 2016 Employment Duration9 mos LocationBrooklyn, NY - Promoted during the campaign to lead the small but mighty team in charge of all of the campaign’s tools for field organizers and volunteers. - Created a platform for field organizers to contact voters and manage volunteers in their communities as efficiently as possible while opening up new avenues of data collection for the campaign. - Pioneered voter contact via SMS, resulting in the most efficient voter contact method ever on a presidential campaign (over 40 time as efficient as phone calls) used to reach tens of millions of voters. - Led a cross-functional team to scale our platform’s capacity to handle an over 4000% increase in usage during the critical “get out the vote” weekend before the election. … see more TitleSenior Product Manager Dates EmployedOct 2015 – Mar 2016 Employment Duration6 mos LocationBrooklyn, New York - Produced a suite of tools, used by millions of voters and supporters nationwide, for field teams to collect commitments to vote, share polling place information, and make voting plans. - Built an online call tool that resulted in millions of voters and volunteers contacted remotely by campaign volunteers by phone.

taken from linkedin

Thanks for the info JLC-1!

The DNC has little, if anything, to do with the Iowa Democratic Caucus. Separate entities. Pursuing the Hillary Clinton/DNC Boogieman path of inquiry is asinine and unproductive, however fun and thrilling in the near term. Leaning on weak conspiracy theories is foolish. Never presume malfeasance in place of good ol' incompetence.

Focusing on this makes us useful idiots.

@3oh The Iowa Democratic Party and the Nevada Democratic Party retained Shadow to develop its caucus app.

@Pete ignoring this makes us useful idiots.

We have the very best government that money can buy and that money is terrified of Sanders. The corporate media blatantly sabotages him, the DNC is working against him, Hillary's foaming at the mouth over him is widely reported. There is a full court press by the establishment to derail his campaign. Watch what they do next, this is only going to get worse. I’m surprised that they have linked Bernie to Putin yet.

Who really gives a flying shit who the nominee is? Hold your damn nose, pull the lever not marked Trump, then we can argue for four years about this all you like.

The DNC is absolutely pathetic. Trump is a dick. Can we add a none of the above lever in the polls?

I’ll probably vote for Klobuchar if she makes it. She’s cool.

Warren is the definition of cringe. Bernie is nuts...Bloomberg is an asshole...Amy is looking like the best bet.

I like Gabbard best, but running as an anti war canidate In the US is like trying to be a vegan ceo of McDonald’s

A vote for anyone other than the eventual Democratic nominee is a vote for Trump. There are many places to advocate for changes to the system, and many other ballot races to support minority party candidates. The presidential general election is not the place.

https://chomsky.info/an-eight-point-brief-for-lev-lesser-evil-voting/

“A vote for anyone other than the eventual Democratic nominee is a vote for Trump.” Silly me, I thought voting was supposed to determine the nominee. Care to share your foreknowledge and save us all the trouble of voting?

I read that more as eventually, when the nominee is selected, a vote for anyone else at that point is a vote for Trump.

Don't vote for what you believe in: vote for someone you hate as a vote against someone you hate even more. This largely explains why we inevitably end up with a choice between two detestables like Hillary and Trump.

The mechanism for our elections is in need of repair. The mechanism for our elections is not broken in a method that allows you to vote your beliefs or conscience. Doing so doesn't make you smarter or better, It just makes you lose the election.

Change doesn't happen in the presidential general election. Change must already have happened for the presidential general election to contain a desirable candidate. I find the focus on The President, at the expense of focus on thousands of other elected officials and tens of thousands of policy initiatives, frankly annoying.

You have two choices: vote for the Democrat or vote for fascism. If you want to make change, start reading up on your county school boards.

You think Trump came out of nowhere? Trump's candidacy was the result of 45 years of subtle but deliberate action from the right. Same with Bush. Same with the Senate. Things accelerated post-2010 once the money shackles were off, but I tell you one thing they didn't start with the damn president.

Trump was put up by Hillary to insure her victory. The establishment media focused - at the behest of Clinton - on the most despicable Republicans (Ted Cruz!) and gave Trump billions in exposure. Trump thought he would get some delegates and trade them for something sweet at the Republican convention. Look at the election night video - when Trump is announced as the winner his entire family looks like deer caught in the headlights: WTF?! He wasn’t supposed to win. The Dems handed it to him, and they are poised to do it again. 

I give up... I can't compete with MIles' ability to read intent into every coincidence. It must be exhausting to think the world is that laden with sinister plots.

"The Dems handed it to him, and they are poised to do it again." You know how to stop that? Vote for the Democrat.

I have an unflattering reasoning on why people buy into conspiracy theories.

The term "conspiracy theory" was invented by the CIA. Documented quote, CIA Director William Casey to President Ronald Reagan: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."

Incredible.

Uncredible.

Barbara Honegger is the source of the quote. Formerly a researcher at the Hoover Institution, Honegger was an assistant domestic policy advisor to Regan. She also disclosed the October Surprise (1980) where Reagan negotiated with Iran to delay the release of the hostages until after the election.

Hillary was the worst candidate. She’s a deep State actor. Trump is hated because he’s so narcissistic that he actually thinks he runs the country. The deep state doesn’t like that. The presidency is only supposed to be a public front...

Actually it was the Reagan / Bush campaign. Bush senior had been CIA director under Gerald Ford.

This just keeps getting better. Acronym is a political dark money group (no financial reporting). It was started with money from Silicon Valley billionaire Reid Hoffman. Acronym has ballooned since its founding into a massive dark money operation, even launching a Super PAC dubbed Pacronym that has raked in money from hedge fund billionaires like Seth Klarman and Donald Sussman. Tara McGowan - who runs Acronym, which founded Shadow Inc., which created the app for the Iowa caucus - is married to a senior Buttieg advisor.

There is no deep state.

Here's a good thread about how the Iowa fiasco happened. Predictably, incompetence not malice. https://twitter.com/rabble/status/1224820389387223041?s=21

Chad: "I have an unflattering reasoning on why people buy into conspiracy theories." 

The terrifying reality that there is no one in charge but us and that the world is a chaotic, unpredictable, and cruel place is just too much for some. So they invent an omniscient overlord because evil control is preferable to neutral chaos.

The deep state is an obvious reality whether it has an overlord or not. Do you not think the Iraq war had beneficiaries private and govt? That deep corruption and power is a “deep state”...

I think there are as many definitions of "deep state" as there are people talking about it. As a term, it's meaningless. Yes, there exists a bureaucracy of unelected career government employees. There also exists a money-fueled network of unaccountable power in our country. Both of these groups contain some corrupt individuals and some well-intentioned ones. Talking about these various and disparate groups as if they're a united cabal of "deep state" actors is delusional and unproductive and I have no patience for it.

It's a convenient boogieman for those who are no longer able to publicly project previous versions of men of boogie: racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, jews, etc etc. When life is difficult, who do Americans typically blame? Yep, it's those you consider to be "below" you in status and those with whom you share little. It's 1984 Eurasia. I always laugh at first when I hear people cry about the Deep State, then I become sad.

NSA not a deep state program? people deeply working within the state that are not accountable to the public and operate outside of their knowledge? Do get me started on the ufo stuff lol.

Military industrial complex = deep state

The NSA is accountable to House and Senate Intelligence Committees, among others. Just because we elect morally corrupt hooligans to these posts doesn't negate constitutional powers.

The military industrial complex is anything but deep. It employs hundreds of thousands of citizens in both public and private capacities. Contracts are public. Most of the companies are public and have their financials posted quarterly. Again, elect war-mongering idiots, get stupid government. 

Don't equate "hard to understand" or "complex" with the plans of nefarious government workers. If anything, we should be proud that our government is so inept such that it couldn't possibly create and maintain some "deep state". 

jla: Read what I said above. All of your examples fit into what I"m talking about. And please don't start on the UFOs

So Eisenhower was wrong, the NSA has never spied on American citizens and congress, CIA directors have never lied to congress, intelligence agencies are vigorously scrutinized by elected officials, whistle-blowers are always protected and never prosecuted, Wikileaks only publishes lies, the NSA does not operate a global ground-based, aerial, and orbital surveillance system run by the same contractors who supply the Pentagon, the CIA hasn't meddled in foreign elections around the globe since 1940, the Church Committee hearings were a hoax, the CIA never sold crack on the streets of LA, etc.

It is utterly impossible that there exists a Shadow Government of unelected, contractor-staffed, highly classified, black-budget intelligence agencies, and there have never been former intelligence officers, staffers, and contractors who have become whistle-blowers who were prosecuted and imprisoned for revealing crimes committed by such agencies, or that there exists, like in all power structures, groups competing for power and control of their common interests.

Good to know. I feel much better now.

Might I suggest everyone take a minute and learn where the term 'deep state' came from.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/06/776852841/the-man-who-popularized-the-deep-state-doesnt-like-the-way-its-used

Another take on this: http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/ex-agents-us-military-intelligence-complex/

I find NPR more credible than some conspiracy theory website with click-bait banner adds.

Miles: none of that rant refutes or addresses my point. The term "Deep State" is meaningless. At worst, there are lots and lots of Deep States, all working in their own self interest and often in direct contradiction of each other. Most of it can be explained by scope creep and institutional inertia.

A large part of the dysfunction of our government - especially in the unelected portions - is due to a lack of cohesive direction, not a sinister direction.

Ha, so your issue is with the term “deep state” but you admit that there is a corrupt shadowy intentional collaboration between Unelected govt officials, military, and private corporations to control us and profiteer against our interests ...call it whatever, sounds like a deep state to me.

I’m with Miles on this one. A

I never said any of those things.

Dismantling the various systems of ineffective power and unaccountable inertia that contribute to government intransigence requires first admitting that there is not one element to dismantle, but dozens. There is no Deep State. There is no enemy, only various levels of apathy with a peppering of fraud.

The system is composed of multiple interests that both compete and cooperate with each other. Boeing and Lockheed (entrenched in both military and intelligence complexes) compete to sell military hardware but work together to create the ‘need’ for it. Reps and Dems vie for power via money from such interests, which both parties serve slavishly. These systems are highly effective at promoting their own interests and preventing accountability. Thus the Pentagon's inability to account for $37 trillion in spending or even complete a basic audit.

When people start talking about the 'deep state' all I hear is the 'wa wa wa' from Charlie Brown cartoons.

Ignorance is its own reward.

Sorry, but I have better things to do with my time. 

Ignorance is bliss, or so I am told.

If Trump gets re-elected I'm stocking up on insulin, food, and ammo to fend off the Nazi shitheads who will become even more embolden .

A fellow diabetic! Not so much of a gun person though...might have to move north and restart my hockey career.

The hyperbole isn’t helping.

What makes you think I'm not being serious jla-x?

threeohdoor - just move back to northern Minnesota like I plan on doing. The state is rather liberal with great schools and healthcare. Also we're really close to Canada so the beer is good. Also it's too cold for Nazi's. Ever since the battle if Stalingrad those dipshits have been scared of the cold.

Oh and hokey is 'uge up north in Minnesota eh! 

You have Almost zero chance of being attacked by nazis. Hyperbole

They aren’t even leading in anti Semitic attacks...nazis are a small small threat. Most trump supporters are just middle age assholes who may call the cops on children selling lemonade if they are black. That’s about as dangerous as they come. The real wackos are few and far between.

Depends on where you live. Also I include the alt-right, tiki torch carrying, women hating dipshits in the Nazi category .

Then you are watering down the definition. Not helpful. Assholes are assholes, nazis are nazis.

The tiki dipshits are also a small minority of the voter base though. I suspect 90% of the base just Wants to see annoying Dems lose.

Hate to tell you Chad, but the Nazis are in St. Cloud, they busy banning immigrant settlements in their town.

jlax-x, I'm not watering down the definition of a Nazi. If you have the same ideals and views as the Nazi's, then you're a Nazi and an asshole.

b3t

This map is hilarious. I'll make sure to stay clear of St. Cloud, Nazis, and jla-x when I migrate north.

Yeah, but I hear Nazis portage and like walleye.

Little known fact, Nazis are scared of loons. Just hearing their haunting cry makes them soil themselves.

Chad, We’ve been over this. You’ll have to define those views clearly before classification. Nazi can’t mean anything you disagree with. Ben Shapiro (an Orthodox Jew) was being labeled a nazi. Recently joe Rogan was labled as alt-right, after endorsing aBernie Sanders, because he doesn’t think it’s right for trans people to fight in mma (former buff man pulverizing natural born women) because science and biology doesn’t care about being politically correct.

Just saying, there is a danger of labeling people. Those tiki torch pricks are a bunch of racist cunts, but there is a big difference between being a racist and being an actually nazi. It’s tantamount to calling every small time crook a mobster. Not helpful. Not useful.

That's a well known fact, but only Northern Loons, not European Loons.

Well obviously b3t.

Instead of 'Nazi' let's say 'Fascist' then.

jla-x, as I said above if someone has the same ideals and views as the Nazi's then I'll classify and call them as such. If you need me to clarify, if someone believes that theirr race is better than all others and they want to physically harm or kill the other races because they don't consider them human then I'll call them a Nazi, along with other things.

Now I agree with your overall statement jla-x, you can't just throw around classifications willy-nilly.  That being said I do think the alt right and those affiliated with the group are Nazis.

I want to see more state maps like the one Chad posted.

Here you go.

What's the deal with Glenwood Springs?

glenwood springs, and a couple of towns to the left and right of it, is where all the service and construction workers for aspen live, it's also where we shop in big boxes that aren't allowed in the rich man's landscape. It's a nice town, getting crowded by driving tourists that stop for a soak in the hot "springs". Lots of new construction going on, mainly multifamily.

They like to be their own 'thing'. I think this is because they are the gateway to a few major ski areas to their south but don't have good skiing themselves. They're have a rather rugged sense if individualism.

I made this a bunch of years ago & it make the internet-rounds every so often:

SE Mass is a wasteland too. Basically the 95/195/Bay zone.

.

You Canuks are just weird.

Rest assured that the political operatives in Canada are paying close attention and will be adopting successful tactics in your elections soon.

Every decade or so Canada produces an awesome band...only reason we haven’t invaded...they’ve been slacking lately.

Jla, I see you're a big Nickleback fan... maybe your definition of awesome band needs some re-evaluation.

Sick burn.

Oh god no. Rush and Neil bought you years and years. Arcade fire is aight. Beiber and nickel back put you on defcon 4...one more shitty act and you’ll be eating real bacon and drinking dishwater beer.

Neil Young that is....

Neil Young is the only god that has ever existed.

He’s a beautiful man.

Indeed he is. His auto biography is filled with more info on model trains than music. Also, no Neil means no Pearl Jam... and we can't exist without PJ.

"He became a United States citizen, taking dual citizenship on January 22, 2020."

I must say that Canada is lacking in the heavy metal department though. . . .

Chad, heavy-metal is not my scene (see Young and Pearl Jam notes above)... but we do have a Dave Mustaine and Unibroue colab. See here: https://www.unibroue.com/en/our-beers/a-tout-le-monde/10

I got turned on to Tragically Hip way too late. In my mind, way better than Rush.

Chad - Check out a Band called The Headstones not heavy metal but they rock!

Thanks for the band names!

Ahip7, I’ll be seeing headstones (along with tea party, moist, big wreck) in Ottawa this summer. Going to be a great throw back concert day.

I saw them last year and the year before at a small bar in my town. I’m going to the same tour just down in Edmonton. I have the headstone logo tattoo’d on me

Seen them New Year’s Eve 1992 at The Volcano Clud in Kitchener. And I was hooked ...been about 10 times after that till now.

My favorite Canadian band...https://youtu.be/bBBDCwZECLQ

Great Big Sea is Canadian fucking royalty.
Ahip, it’ll be my first time seeing them.

I believe he's qualified for the next debate, so perhaps he's going to try for a (donation) surge. He's not polling in any meaningful way in the next 3 states (NH, NV, SC) so I would imagine he'd start thinking of dropping out soon-ish.

Also, although he's wealthy, he can't compete with Bloomberg and Steyer when it comes to self-financing. At a certain point, the money dries up and the campaign can't buy ads, pay staffers, etc.

I'm 34 years old. In my lifetime - including 2020, unless Trump dies - there will have been two presidential elections in which neither nominee was born between 1946-48 - 1988 and 2008. For a presidential election where no "serious" candidate (that is, a candidate who earned a significant number of primary delegates) was a 1940s baby you have to go back to 1984. We're approaching 40 years of one small group in power. I'd contend that's too long. 

There has not been a president born in the 1930s (there almost definitely won't be). There might not be a president born in the 1950's (in 2024 people born in 1960 will be 64...above average age for a president). The only other decade with 0 presidential birth years is 1810-1820. 

 In 2024 the eldest Millennials will be in our mid-40s, right around the age that Obama, Clinton, Kennedy & Roosevelt were when first elected. The next-next-president could very well be an 80s baby. 

 All this to say that 40's Baby Boomers siezed power ahead of expectations and held on to it well past expectations. Anyway, sorry Gen-X. As usual you got skipped.

Strictly speaking, neither Joe nor Bernie is a Boomer. Their generation is almost as forgotten as Gen X - if either one of them wins, he will certainly be the only President from their generation.

I predict Gen X will be totally skipped by the US Presidency.

They're boomers to me.

Don't care if they are boomers, just as long as it's not Trump.

I was told I was gen X growing up in the mid 90s... now they tell me I'm millennial. I chose to identify as a lampshade.

if only generational labels qualified as identity.

Gen X has been absorbed by Millenials + Boomers because our easily-digestible-narrative-obsessed media insists everything be described as one of two sides only. Sorry.

" Thanks to TV and for the convenience of TV, you can only be one of two kinds of human beings, either a liberal or a conservative."

Strong disagree with all of that.

Open primaries just create an environment primed for garbage gamesmanship. I voted.

Luckily for me, I don't hate Joe or Bernie - I would've strongly preferred Liz, but those two have been my 2nd & 3rd picks since Kamala dropped out.

A Stacey Abrams or Kamala Harris pick for Biden would nearly seal the deal. Optics alone says avoid the 'old white dude' ticket--which is what the race is now down to--on either side.

In modern history the VP pick is a ticket balancer. Biden needs someone younger, more liberal, ideally a woman, a person of color, or better a woman of color (Abrams?). Bernie needs the same but more moderate (Booker?, Harris?).

I'm guessing it'll be some serious back-room dealing over which one of them gets Liz.

Learn to post.

This is an absurd chart.

Julian?

Either one of them should be able to beat Trump easily, assuming all of us do our jobs (voting, convincing others to vote, NOT voting for 3rd party or independent candidates).

Honestly, if she had any real insight or fortitude, I would entertain the thought of voting for her. She is, after all, the stop all wars candidate. But she never really offered anything else other than a pretty face and joe rogan podcast appearance (there's a venn diagram there I'm sure)

Kind of agree that she was too focused on that one issue, but she was the only candidate that appeared genuine to me

Tulsi got the raw deal. She needs to leave the DNC. She was light years better than sleepy creepy Biden.

Both. This is a brief good thing for immediate Democracy because of the ant-democratic problems with first past the post, but it won't, in the long run, do anything to solve them.

He will get my vote. Otherwise I’m not voting. Biden is a senile rapist and Trump is a narcissist.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/justin-amash-could-cause-some-trouble-in-november/

My secret hope is that he'll take away votes from Trump in a demonstrable way which will influence more people to support ranked choice voting or something like that so you can vote third-party without feeling like you've thrown away your vote.

So you think Biden will be better because what? He sexually assaults in a more democratic way?

"Biden is a senile rapist and Trump is a narcissistic senile rapist." FTFY

jla-x, I'm not sure where you're seeing in this little aside that I expressed a desire for Biden over Trump. I simply stated that I hope Amash's third-party run pulls support away from Trump in a demonstrable manner. The reasoning is that I think more Republicans oppose measures like ranked choice voting and if they can see that Amash get's a lot of votes, that might have picked Trump as their second-choice vote, they might be more open to it when it comes up. No, I don't think ranked-choice voting is the answer to all the US's issues, but I think it could help more third-party candidates in local and state elections which might eventually have a shot at influencing congressional and presidential elections.

Oh, I agree. I’d prefer to see parties abolished all together. They serve no real purpose. They have an obvious polarizing effect that is anti intellectual. This idea that beliefs are static and come in bundle packages is the most troubling thing to me. Yes, Amash will likely take votes away from Trump which is good, but he will also likely take some away from Biden which is also good. There are many many “liberals” that are really libertarians. Libertarians share more in common with liberals on civil issues than with republicans. We believed in gay marriage, open borders, prison reform, ending bs wars, and legalized pot before it was cool. I’ll admit, this is a bad time for Amash’s to run. Coronavirus and small government is gonna be a hard sell. It’s tantamount to if Tulsi Was running in 2004 post 9-11.

As for ranked choice, I think it’s a good idea.

I think a popular vote distribution of each states electoral votes would be a good system. For example in the last election California's 55 electoral votes would have been 18.26 Trump and 33.83 Clinton. I think a system like this would allow a third party choice to have a chance of working.

I agree, but don’t think that the popular vote is necessarily the better candidate...especially when the population is so poorly informed. Political parties are a bundle deal for ignorant voters.

Political parties are an inevitable result of the coalition-building inherent in representative democracy, and a two party system is the inevitable result of first past the post voting. Talking about eliminating parties or moving to a multi-party democracy is useless without addressing the way we vote. You can't "abolish parties", you can only create the conditions that facilitate their dwindling.

I would like to see more states get rid of plurality take all awarding of electors and adopt a system like Nebraska or Maine. 

I'm not such a big fan of the popular vote winner take all nationally either that some states are trying to establish as a counter to the electoral college process. I'm not sure if I'm describing that correctly. I'm referring to the coalition of states that are trying to award the states' electors to the winner of the national popular vote if they can gain enough states to join where the total of the coalition's electors would get the national vote winner past the post.

tduds, we now have ranked-choice voting here in Maine for local elections, as it's not allowed for Federal elections. Most intelligent people like it, but it is surprisingly confusing to others. I believe we have more independent voters than any other state and only enrolled voters can participate in primary elections, so I can see what you mean about needing to change the way we vote.

Really in Maine...how long has it been that way?