did someone muck with the backend here

Re: Mushy voters

1

If they hold some progressive and some conservative ideas, what matters for their vote is which ones are made relevant by the media and the campaign. We're going to get another really racist campaign because racism is better received by this group than giving money to rich people.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 7:34 AM
horizontal rule
2

I believe this firmly -- that 'moderate', in the sense of 'based on policy preferences, systematically equipoised between the Republicans and Democrats', means you're not a moderate person, you're an erratic lunatic with policy preferences that make no sense. Or I suppose you don't have to be a lunatic, but if you're not completely irrational than you're very very low information.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 7:49 AM
horizontal rule
3

Nearly everybody is very low information.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 7:55 AM
horizontal rule
4

Well, yeah. I'm a lot lower information than I should be. But there's a point of low information where the sort of rules of thumb people use to make decisions in the absence of solid information get completely incoherent, and voters who can't decide between Republicans and Democrats seem to me to be at that completely incoherent place.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 7:58 AM
horizontal rule
5

As long as the uninformed people vote more or less randomly (as was kind of the case pre-Fox/Rove), you have the informed voters making a decision within the set of choices allowed by the media debate.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 7:59 AM
horizontal rule
6

"YouGuv" is presumably the firm that only polls London cabbies. It may not be completely representative.

I am suspicious of the argument that we will win if only we get out the vote. It certainly doesn't work in the UK, where it has always been Corbyn's strategy. His approval rating of -60 is testimony that the voters who support you in email are about as much use as the lurkers who do.


Posted by: NW | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 8:00 AM
horizontal rule
7

It's not completely incoherent. It's just that enjoy watching bad things happen to people who aren't like them more than they enjoy getting good things for themselves.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 8:05 AM
horizontal rule
8

Actually, those people aren't moderates.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 8:07 AM
horizontal rule
9

Nevermind.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 8:07 AM
horizontal rule
10

voters who can't decide between Republicans and Democrats seem to me to be at that completely incoherent place

I suppose there could be people who are fanatical about multiple issues that are addressed by different parties. Like a committed environmentalist who is also a raving gun nut. That person might re-decide every election which issue is most important to them.


Posted by: AcademicLurker | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 8:08 AM
horizontal rule
11

2

"Moderate" in the sense of "equipoised" is lunacy, sure. Alternately, a lot of people use it to mean "a Democrat who doesn't like the term 'liberal'". The article discussed this, and lord knows enough politicians ran away from the term for the past few decades.


Posted by: Cyrus | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 8:09 AM
horizontal rule
12

I appreciate all Sanders has done for America and Vermont, but 78 years old and two stents?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 8:22 AM
horizontal rule
13

I had a very close friend when I was in graduate school, and circa November 1st, 2004, she said casually that it was just so hard to choose between W. and Kerry, and she said it in this fishing-for-commiseration way, and I just about lost my goddamn mind. I may have overreacted, because I was trying to tread lightly but I really needed to know that she got the goddamn point.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 8:23 AM
horizontal rule
14

Voters who can't decide between Democrats and Republicans are people who can't evaluate arguments if they have a veneer of smartness. So they skim David Brooks and Krugman and say, "Well, they both make good points! It must be somewhere in the middle!" and think that they're doing solid intellectual work.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 8:26 AM
horizontal rule
15

I am suspicious of the argument that we will win if only we get out the vote. It certainly doesn't work in the UK, where it has always been Corbyn's strategy.

I mean, it looks like you guys had 72.2% participation in the Brexit vote and 68.7% turnout in the June 2017 election. We had 55.5% turnout in the 2016 election. If we turned out 65%, this country would be transformed.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 8:30 AM
horizontal rule
16

I think people who read David Brooks aren't low information. They're rich people who want to feel better about voting for obvious evil.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 8:30 AM
horizontal rule
17

Right, I think low information voters can sometimes better distinguish information. I mean people who try and still actually think it's murky.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 8:32 AM
horizontal rule
18

Well, also 16.2.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 8:32 AM
horizontal rule
19

low information

Many Americans simply do not read. There are millions of people who will pay attention to whatever news channel is on in a retail place or in their homes for a few minutes. That is the sole source of information outside of daily life. Last few years, maybe fb items as well. If asked, they would not think of themselves as low information, because they've heard Nancy Pelosi's name said aloud, also they've heard about the terrible murder three neighborhoods away.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 8:33 AM
horizontal rule
20

Are people building cute interactives for how $candidate's policies would affect you, $individualvoter? People should do that, and run studies afterwards.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 8:42 AM
horizontal rule
21

Jammies is student-teaching in a high school in SadTown, and the classes are composed of the most hardluck students: they're in their junior or senior year, but they're mostly freshman and sophomores by credit hours. These kids come from really dreadful levels of chaos, and they're totally checked out in class, and they're receiving a really appallingly bad high school education. They'll most likely be low information nonvoters because the system has so utterly failed them, through and through.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 8:46 AM
horizontal rule
22

See, that's where your slick gamified web design comes in.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 8:50 AM
horizontal rule
23

Ask yourself what Edward James Olmos would do. If the reply is "fold paper unicorn," ask again.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 8:53 AM
horizontal rule
24

I liked him, emotionally, but honestly he's way too goddamn old to be commanding a battlestar.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 8:59 AM
horizontal rule
25

And one has to question, honestly, why exactly he isn't at a higher rank. More importantly, what junk food should I go out and purchase?


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 9:02 AM
horizontal rule
26

The link is as annoying as most 538 articles. What are the actual questions they asked?: "Are you pro- or anti-immigration?", "Are you pro-market or pro-egalitarian?" These are stupid questions, and so, shockingly, the answers make no sense. GIGO.


Posted by: DaveLMA | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 9:05 AM
horizontal rule
27

My mother is a type 10 voter, with the issues being anti-abortion and anti-racism.


Posted by: Unfoggetarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in" (9) | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 9:06 AM
horizontal rule
28

The gamified voter self-interest quiz would of course be a technopolitics to end technopolitics, a field on which dissertations would be written at nearly the same rate postgrad underwearwould be creamed. And yet, how much worse could it be than what we have now? 25.2 is a real question, btw.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 9:07 AM
horizontal rule
29

The link is as annoying as most 538 articles.

See, but it has that veneer of smartness.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 9:08 AM
horizontal rule
30

Is 27 a typically Catholic position? I could actually support that, given adequate support for orphanages and smilar.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 9:09 AM
horizontal rule
31

Ok, fine, assholes. Chips, sushi, chocolate, Bailey's if they have it.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 9:12 AM
horizontal rule
32

I don't know about typical, but I know people with similar views.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 9:14 AM
horizontal rule
33

There's a Catholic position called the consistent life ethic, sometimes "seamless garment", that links anti-abortion with pacifism, support for provision of health care, opposition to capital punishment, and similar, which leaves proponents straddling parties the same way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic

Not sure how commonly held it is.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 9:22 AM
horizontal rule
34

The Catholics described in 33 should get together with the environmentalist gun nuts. They'd have a lot to commiserate about.


Posted by: AcademicLurker | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 9:26 AM
horizontal rule
35

10

* a committed environmentalist who is also a raving gun nut

* a strong old-school populist who's just a little bit racist

* a trans-exclusionary feminist who's not that radical

* proto-fascists who value strength above all else, so they're bothered by how silly Trump's Twitter tantrums look

* the lowest-information of the lowest-information voters, not just people who avoid the news but people with no new memories formed since 1991 or so

30: Eh. I could respect it intellectually, given adequate support for orphanages and similar, and maybe find common ground with them on something completely unrelated. I couldn't support the position myself, given how big "and similar" is and how far away it is from today's current system, or for that matter any system that has ever existed.


Posted by: Cyrus | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 9:28 AM
horizontal rule
36

Do environmentalist gun nuts shoot coal surveyors or what?


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 9:28 AM
horizontal rule
37

When the Nebraska legislature outlawed the death penalty and the Republican governor used his family money to get it put on a ballot initiative, the bishop (who is conservative even for a bishop) had a letter read at every mass that was basically an order to vote against restoring the death penalty. It was a clean vote, so you couldn't say you had to compromise between two values.

The restoration also won.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 9:33 AM
horizontal rule
38

"As a Catholic who really likes killing people, I often struggle to reconcile my core values."


Posted by: AcademicLurker | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 9:36 AM
horizontal rule
39

The Church is so weird. Inextricably part of the power structure, but so often a check on it. Someone with knowledge should comment and give me a reading list.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 9:36 AM
horizontal rule
40

She's protestant though... I disagree with the Catholic seamless garment stuff, but I think it's a basically respectable wrong position. Pro-life sola scriptura protestants I have much a harder time with: God had the opportunity to a prohibition against abortion in his law (as at least some ancient middle eastern law codes did in some circumstances), but He was much more concerned with shellfish and tattoos.


Posted by: Unfoggetarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in" (9) | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 9:39 AM
horizontal rule
41

I think there is a niche for xenophobic liberalism, a philosophy that can be encapsulated in the words "Will I ban the burqa if elected? Certainly not! That's the sort of thing a Frenchman would do."


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 9:41 AM
horizontal rule
42

"Environmentalist gun nut" sounds like a very plausible position. I love the outdoors and want to preserve it undamaged so there will always be plenty of deer for me to shoot.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 9:43 AM
horizontal rule
43

And in the off season, an infinite supply of humans.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 9:46 AM
horizontal rule
44

A term of art for those guys is 'conservationist' rather than 'environmentalist'. Ducks Unlimited is the organization that comes immediately to mind -- habitat preservation and so on but specifically for the purpose of hunting.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 9:47 AM
horizontal rule
45

That's how Pennsylvania got much of its public land.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 9:49 AM
horizontal rule
46

By hunting poachers to extinction?


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 9:52 AM
horizontal rule
47

Hunters. Plus perverts who like to watch birds having sex.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 9:55 AM
horizontal rule
48

Hunters hunt birdwatchers? This is great. I'm seeing a Jack Black tragicomedy, long-range rifle shots through telephoto lenses, like in Private Ryan.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 9:58 AM
horizontal rule
49

I don't know if any of you read Osita Nwanevu's fine piece on "cancel culture"*, but I noticed that there is also a TNR piece on far right environmentalism which I am just, I admit it, not going to read.

* I cancel myself for incorrigibly failing to get his last name right, even after recommending this piece in a bunch of places -- maybe I can focus on the n-w-n-v quasi-symmetry and how the vowels are in alphabetical order, and remember that it's vaguely like "Nunavut"?


Posted by: lurid keyaki | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 11:30 AM
horizontal rule
50

Sorry, connection is that the eco-fascism piece was linked in the sidebar when I was reading the cancel culture piece, and I noticed it and rolled my eyes and didn't click through to see if Hitler's Vegetarianism(TM) is once again popular.

In 2001 one of my professors, let's call him Shark Shilla, tried to issue a sick burn on "all your crypto-fascist vegan friends," but for some reason he pronounced it "vedjan" which was maybe a common pronunciation in the 1970s? I guess he'd had it in for the vedjans for a while.


Posted by: lurid keyaki | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 11:35 AM
horizontal rule
51

Most working and middle class people I know, thatbhave the good taste to not follow politics, essentially cast their vote on one idiosyncratic issue (guns, abortion, gay-rights) and therefore while they will say they don't belong to a party, they only vote for one of them.


Posted by: Asteele | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 11:43 AM
horizontal rule
52

Might I cynically suggest that many supposed swing voters are people who are sort of socially liberal but also would prefer not to pay high tax rates for any reason whatsoever? Dovetails nicely with the popularity of Republican governors in otherwise blue states.


Posted by: Trivers | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 12:21 PM
horizontal rule
53

Centrism isn't a philosophy or an ideology. It's an affect for people who want **very badly** to signal that they are above grubby politics and operating in a realm of pure reason. It's the political version of the "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual" gobbledy-gook.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 12:23 PM
horizontal rule
54

Also the consistent life doctrine seems to be pretty common among Catholics I know. Lots of them mostly vote Republican, and quite sincerely because they trust Democrats to end wars and capital punishment and do anything significant about poverty less than they trust Republicans to do something about abortion.


Posted by: Trivers | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 12:24 PM
horizontal rule
55

Ending wars and capital punishment is one thing, but anyone who thinks that there isn't going to be an immense difference between Republicans and Democrats on poverty issues is not looking at the issues in good faith.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 12:40 PM
horizontal rule
56

Being a "single-issue voter" is a good way to shut down people trying to politely probe on the subject.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 12:54 PM
horizontal rule
57

I don't know if any of you read Osita Nwanevu's fine piece on "cancel culture"

I wasn't very impressed. The upshot seemed to be that people who are already very famous and very rich are probably going to be fine in the long run. Indeed.


Posted by: AcademicLurker | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 1:10 PM
horizontal rule
58

33. My dad was one of the consistent-life/left-wing Catholics up until the last decade or so, at which point he apparently became pro-choice, too. He's always voted D (I have memories of going with him to vote for Jesse Jackson in a primary), but he refused to become a member of the ACLU because of its work on abortion rights. I'm grateful that he put a lot of effort into protesting war and capital punishment, but didn't actually do anything to protest abortion that I can remember.


Posted by: J, Robot | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 1:40 PM
horizontal rule
59

I should add, as someone who has been to a lot of US Politics academic job talks, YouGov is apparently a popular data source, and people in this subfield have been disclaiming the existence of genuinely independent voters for a while now.


Posted by: J, Robot | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 1:43 PM
horizontal rule
60

There's nothing especially special about Montana -- every place is special -- but a whole bunch of people voted for both Jon Tester and Greg Gianforte in 2018, and for both Steve Bullock and Donald Trump in 2016. My theory is that a significant number of loosely Republican voters were wooed away by the authenticity, likeability, and other personal characteristics of both Democrats here.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 2:38 PM
horizontal rule
61

2nd 57. The eco-fascism piece is just unsurprising.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 3:21 PM
horizontal rule
62

My theory is that a significant number of loosely Republican voters were wooed away by the authenticity, likeability, and other personal characteristics of both Democrats here.

That's never going to happen with a presidential candidate (Fox News isn't lambasting Jon Tester and Steve Bullock for hours every day), but I am surprised that it barely happens anywhere anymore. People vote straight party line. Except that apparently Democrats also like to have Republican governors.

Most working and middle class people I know, thatbhave the good taste to not follow politics, essentially cast their vote on one idiosyncratic issue (guns, abortion, gay-rights) and therefore while they will say they don't belong to a party, they only vote for one of them.

This is our world of negative partisanship. People vote for one party because they despise the other party. Therefore their options are to vote for the other party, or stay home. In a multi-party system, even if you are mostly motivated by hating one of the parties, your vote is still up for grabs! Seems nicer.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 3:29 PM
horizontal rule
63

Thinking about this some more. I think a lot of "low information voters" don't follow national politics but for whatever reason do follow one specific thing. Maybe they're in the NRA, or they're part of the queer community, or a Union wo(man). For this reason they vote on the one thing they follow, because that's the only part of politics they pay attention to.


Posted by: Asteele | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 3:35 PM
horizontal rule
64

60: Yes. In 2018, a significant number of Ohioans voted for Sherrod Brown and Mike DeWine. I tend to forget this, because I can't make any sense out of it.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 3:43 PM
horizontal rule
65

Also it's not nothing, but it looks like 4% of people voted for both Gianforte and Tester. About 21,000 people. Both of them won by about 50.5% to 46.5%. It's kind of a fluke that the ticket splitters clearly made the difference in this case.

4% is high compared to most states. In Florida the governor and senate race were both exactly 50-50. In Nebraska the Republican won governor with 59% and senator with 58%. In Michigan the Democrat won governor with 53% and senator with 52%. In Minnesota the Democrat won governor with 54% and senator with 53%. And the special Minnesota connection of the OTHER senator, Klobuchar, got her all the way to 60%. Likewise the beloved incumbent Tammy Baldwin got 55% of the vote in Wisconsin and the Democrat governor candidate, an obscure bureaucrat, won with 49.5%.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 10- 2-19 3:43 PM
horizontal rule
66

https://twitter.com/justinwhang/status/1179543806015918081


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 6:13 AM
horizontal rule
67

In Ohio, Sherrod Brown got about 290,000 more votes than Richard Cordray which is about 6.5% of everyone that voted in 2018.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 6:13 AM
horizontal rule
68

I could actually support that, given adequate support for orphanages and smilar.

The blithe assumption that adoption takes care of the abortion debate is glib, at best. Adoption is a big fucking deal, as are carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 6:26 AM
horizontal rule
69

glib, at best

Yes, at best.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 6:37 AM
horizontal rule
70

Here's another take on similar data (2016 survey of Clinton & Trump voters) with 3.8% of voters fitting into the moderate socially liberal/fiscally conservative category.

(The original study interprets that group as libertaian.)


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 6:46 AM
horizontal rule
71

On the idea that "getting out the vote" can't work or never works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election

It's free and on wiki so there is little point pretending it didn't happen.


Posted by: 2017 Elections Reminder | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 6:55 AM
horizontal rule
72

Remind me who emerged as the Prime Minister after that election? Worked out well for everyone, didn't it.


Posted by: NW | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 7:08 AM
horizontal rule
73

I mean, if Corbyn had won and had today a -60 approval rating, that would be one thing. But to lose and still work your approval down to that level is truly remarkable. And I know that his entire strategy was getting out the vote. He was, and is, completely convinced that all right thinking people agree with him, that they form a majority, and that the only problem is to get them to the ballot box. Questions of the form "How will you appeal to people who voted Labour in 2010 and Conservative in 2015?" appeared incomprehensible to him. To quote one of his followers, "They're Tories! Why should we care what they think?"


Posted by: NW | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 7:12 AM
horizontal rule
74

The dichotomy between persuading people and getting out the vote is oversold. These things aren't mutually exclusive, and are often mutually reinforcing. I am immediately suspicious of anyone who claims otherwise.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 7:16 AM
horizontal rule
75

I suggest both of you drop the argument until you've agreed on what similarities actually exist between US and UK politics and electorates. AIUI there are actually very few.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 7:43 AM
horizontal rule
76

When a friend ran for office last year I was interested to learn her expensive professional consultant's advice was to have a quick pitch that had the potential to win over not a majority or a large majority, but 100%, of the people who hear it in person. On the one hand, that seems like a recipe for perpetual stasis because it rules out any message with a major component of afflicting the comfortable, or asking significantly more of them. On the other hand, you do want to cast as wide a net as possible, and while there are many incorrigible among the comfortable-and-voting-badly, you can't necessarily assume.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 8:08 AM
horizontal rule
77

76
expensive professional consultant's advice was to have a quick pitch that had the potential to win over not a majority or a large majority, but 100%, of the people who hear it in person.

And a mind-control machine, and a unicorn that shits gold, and a genie that lets you wish for more wishes, and a consultancy job where people pay you money to give them advice like this, and...


Posted by: Cyrus | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 8:34 AM
horizontal rule
78

I was thinking the same, but is the advice maybe to say nothing but "Puppies are adorable" or "The children are our future"? That seems like bad advice, but not literally impossible advice.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 9:35 AM
horizontal rule
79

57, 61: the culture police have been apprised of your unwise displeasure.


Posted by: lurid keyaki | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 9:43 AM
horizontal rule
80

I believe the puppies are our future.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 9:51 AM
horizontal rule
81

They will eat us after the fall.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 9:52 AM
horizontal rule
82

Yeah, that sounds like really pointless advice, on the order of 'win your games by always scoring more than your opponent.' Well, yes, but...


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 10:08 AM
horizontal rule
83

It appeared to be considered de rigeur to hire a known consultant, otherwise you're not considered serious. And on top of their own fees they have their own subcontracting relationships with direct-mail firms, so they also militate toward a fundraising-based strategy. They don't act as an actual campaign manager, just an adviser. So feels somewhat scammy.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 10:18 AM
horizontal rule
84

That's how you know you're doing thing the American Way.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 10:20 AM
horizontal rule
85

I was thinking the same, but is the advice maybe to say nothing but "Puppies are adorable" or "The children are our future"?

Those might get you into the 90s but to get to 100%, requires either offering cash or mind control drugs.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 10:26 AM
horizontal rule
86

85: Mind control drugs! That's what I'm missing.


Posted by: Andrew Yang | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 10:42 AM
horizontal rule
87

"Abortions For Some, Miniature American Flags For Others!"


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 10:48 AM
horizontal rule
88

Nicely done, 86.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 11:23 AM
horizontal rule
89

You don't know which because the flags are too small to see on the ultrasound.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 11:23 AM
horizontal rule
90

D'oh. 89 to 87.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 11:26 AM
horizontal rule
91

25, 28: Look
I understand too little too late
I realize there are things you say and do
You can never take back
But what would you be if you didn't even try
You have to try
So after a lot of thought
I'd like to reconsider
Please
If it's not too late
Make it a cheeseburger


Posted by: Opinionated Lyle Lovett | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 1:56 PM
horizontal rule
92

As to what motivates votes, a very interesting quote from Grover Norquist, especially amusing (or not) in retrospect:

http://web01.prospect.org/article/world-according-grover
«Pat Buchanan came into this coalition and said, "You know what? I have polled everybody in the room and 70 percent think there are too many immigrants; 70 percent are skeptics on free trade with China. I will run for President as a Republican; I will get 70 percent of the vote." He didn't ask the second question ... do you vote on that subject?»


Posted by: Blissex | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 2:09 PM
horizontal rule
93

66. Why is this so funny. I've clicked on it like five times waiting for its power to dissipate, but it makes me laugh every time.


Posted by: jms | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 2:49 PM
horizontal rule
94

It is great.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 3:56 PM
horizontal rule
95

Speaking of voting, I just got polled about who I would like to vote for in the primary for the state legislature, the incumbent (who just started this year and is a Democratic Socialist) and some guy I never heard of and who wasn't introduced at all. I really don't know what they're going to learn from that.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 4:31 PM
horizontal rule
96

Name recognition.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 4:43 PM
horizontal rule
97

I guess. Seeing how many people both know and don't like the incumbent. The district is majority-white and she is not and has been active on local Black Lives Matter things.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 5:05 PM
horizontal rule
98

66 is great because his expression was aiming for Civic Duty and landed on Puppy Dog.


Posted by: heebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 5:31 PM
horizontal rule
99

Only quadroons need apply? I guess I shouldn't be surprised Americans still measure these things.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 5:35 PM
horizontal rule
100

Theoretically, if I were an EU leader and I had to choose between another year of bullshit or No-Deal Brexit plus maybe Johnson goes to prison for not asking for an extension, I think it would be hard to pick the former at this point.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 6:05 PM
horizontal rule
101

I'm assuming he goes to prison if he doesn't ask for an extension.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 6:10 PM
horizontal rule
102

Being out of ECHR jurisdiction, the more lurid punishments of the common law would in principle once more become available.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 6:22 PM
horizontal rule
103

Spotted dick?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 6:34 PM
horizontal rule
104

Whatever holes your toad.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 6:38 PM
horizontal rule
105

Evidently we will be treated to many iterations of the Fox News Republican excuse cycle in response to new revelations. Has anyone tried teaching their audience to recognize this pattern? Impart some sort of media literacy?


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 6:55 PM
horizontal rule
106

I just found myself yelling at the TV. The wife is watching News Hour, and they had Mukasey on to say that T was normal. (I had a thing with him some years ago, and wrote maybe one of the more insulting lines I've ever filed in court.) I was right then, and I'm right now: authoritarian toadies should have chyrons identifying them.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 7:38 PM
horizontal rule
107

have never voted for feinstein and never will since her vote to confirm mukasey as ag - unforgivable.


Posted by: dairy queen | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 9:15 PM
horizontal rule
108

102: a lot of Brexiters hate the EU because of human rights law and the ECHR, not knowing that the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 10:33 PM
horizontal rule
109

So can you put Johnson in the stocks or not?


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 10- 3-19 11:14 PM
horizontal rule
110

75: You're suggesting that we think before letting our buttons be pushed? Sir, may I introduce you to the internet ...


Posted by: NW | Link to this comment | 10- 4-19 12:57 AM
horizontal rule