Not completely done, but close enough to call. Adams squeaked through. It is barely possible there are enough votes still out to flip it to Garcia, but at this point it'd be quite surprising.
Unfortunate about Adams, but hey, it looks like non-Mainer Americans can handle instant runoff after all. Let's have more of this.
I don't remember which one was the one people liked.
||
Open thread you say? Well I just had my interview with the dean and I think it went very well. Knock on wood.
|>
I didn't have a strong favorite -- waffled between Wiley and Garcia, and eventually voted Garcia. An election like this, RCV was great. It didn't ultimately pay off, but I didn't have to sweat hard over deciding which candidate that I was okay with I should vote for strategically.
And hooray for the good interview!
Good luck. If you get in, see if you can get Andrew Yang a job. He's having too prolonged of a job hunt.
Had not foreseen someone coming from third place to almost squeak it out. I assume that if Wiley had stayed ahead of Garcia in penultimate round she would not have come as close.
5: Hooray! I didn't mean that open, but I can get a check in thread going after this meeting that's about to start.
5: Hooray! I didn't mean that open, but I can get a check in thread going after this meeting that's about to start.
9: I dunno -- I think I might have been a fairly common type of voter. If there were a lot of "anyone but Yang or Garcia" voters, they all end up with the most popular other option.
Yglesias had a smug and infuriating (to me) reaction to the initial results, gloating how May Wiley's support did not extend much beyond the woke parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn, This from a guy who was touting the chances of Andrew Yang early on. from afar I actually thought Wiley did better than I expected especially given how little coverage she seemed to get early in the race. I do confess to finding Yglesias increasingly annoying; his takes on CRT have been worse than typical for instance. (I do not agree with whoever said in the Drum thread that he is just as always--maybe it's in part the seemingly pernicious influence of having a Substack.
That should have been "anyone but Yang or Adams" in my last.
To 13: You think Yglesias is gloating? I think he's looking at candidates like Adams as difficult for leftists to run against, but not rooting for them to win. Same on Wiley -- I think Yglesias's deal is believing that candidates like Wiley are unpopular with a big chunk of the electorate, but not opposing them much on substantive governing issues.
Possibly not the correct term; I meant that he is "gloating" about their bad political instincts, not that he is necessarily opposed to their policies and glad they lost (other than reinforcing his political punditry cred which is important to him).
I do think that's a big distinction, although one that's hard to stay focused on with someone as temperamentally irritating as Yglesias.
13: I said he was the same. Remember when his big thing was licensing requirements? And then not too long ago he wrote a book calling for the US to admit 600 million immigrants or something. The dude just has a lot of idiosyncratic opinions, and he always has.
13: Yglesias has gotten markedly shittier in the last couple of years, or I just started noticing it more, or something, but I have basically zero time for him anymore.,
As of late he's been a bit "look, I'm not saying that the Democratic party should embrace racism but clearly that's what the voters want and who am I to argue with the voters?"
Observation: Successful male pundits often age poorly, particularly compared to women of similar accomplishment.
(I agree with 18 and 19.)
I stopped reading Yglesias a couple months ago without even noticing. He seems to be going into one of his pointless-contrarianism phases, after being pretty good during the Trump era. Better in opposition, in keeping with his blogging roots.
I'm still not willing to figure out what "Substack" is.
I quit reading him (and Drum) a long time ago now (second Bush term, I think), and I only check up on them whenever there's a wave of people saying "look, he's gone conservative now", and every time he's as annoying as he was back then, but not more annoying. He is more annoying when there's a Democrat in the White House than a Republican, as teo pointed out, but other than that he's remarkably consistent. I just looked at his Twitter, and there's one tweet dunking on Ben Shapiro, one tweet citing some research proving that Trump supporters are white supremacists, one tweet trolling conservatives about microaggressions, and then another tweet calling out Republican leaders for being bigots. I'm sure if I kept looking there would be tweets trolling the left and pushing some goofy policy idea, but he's a pretty average liberal most of the time.
I had to stop reading substacks, they take too much time, but I started listening to Yglesias's podcast again after a break of a few months. He does seem slightly more annoying and I vacillating on whether it's worth continuing to listen to, but it isn't horrible. Calling him conservative is silly but LB is right about him being temperamentally irritating.
I did read his billion Americans book and thought it was sound, though.
The internet has been on a downward trend since Geocities.
22: The precise opposite of a domheap.
That's when they photoshop Vin Diesel into other movies.
"Stately, plum Matt Sausagely -- I remember him as a kid. Also McMegan -- whatever happened to *her*? Did Ezra Klein ever have an epithet?
Those were the days.
whatever happened to *her*
Don't ask.
She's writing for the Washington Post about pie. Almost enough to make me feel bad about liking it.
I still like Armsmasher's pieces when he does a journalism.
Whether or not Yglesias has changed politically, he's still got that top notch copy editing:
I think you can't object too much to the flattening of King into a blander, less radical figure than he really was as part of his elevation into the cannon of national heroes