mtutiger

Humphrey is the closest corollary to this election, and we saw how that turned out (ie. not well for Humphrey) My pushback on Tigeraholic here though isn't so much that Harris was a uniquely strong candidate... I think she ran a better race that I expected, but she was far from the platonic ideal candidate. But again, this all went down 107 days before the election.... chances are none of the alternatives wanted anything to do with running in the first place given that there was this little time left. And the election, how it played out and what drove the median voter, really made clear that this thing was going to be a slog no matter who would have replaced Biden. And I would add again that Biden staffers are among the least credible people to be making comments about this right now. To the extent that we are in this situation, their boss bears a lot of responsibility for not announcing sometime in late 2023 that he was going to withdraw. Frankly, anything they say off the record to media outlets oughta be taken with an entire bottle of Morton's salt.

Even setting aside the violence of J6, given the fact that Trump worked so hard to nullify the votes of millions of people during the last election tells you everything you need to know. But hey, as Archie said, "we need to give him a chance..." right?

I've noticed most of the Tigers set worth following has been migrating over, so I'll be shortly

Maybe I shouldn't feed the troll, but I kinda want to pivot back to Archie's comment yesterday about "giving him a chance".... honestly, despite the actual election result, I think your position is probably closer to the median position than most. I wouldn't be surprised if there are a bunch of people who would agree with you on the first three sentences, yet ultimately voted for Trump anyway (people have different calculations, for better or worse) All of this is to say that, as Trump has won the election... the onus on him, not the greater population, to prove it. And yeah, when he selects someone as unqualified as Kristi Noem to a position like HHS Secretary, it shouldn't exactly come as a shock to people that it's going to get criticized.

I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express recently... Does that qualify me to serve in Trump's cabinet?

Trump picks Kristi Noem to serve as his Homeland Security secretary Not exactly clear what qualifies Kristi for this role....

https://x.com/AndrewRestuccia/status/1856119452250919133 Mike Waltz tapped for NSA... Not sure how many more golden tickets they can afford out of the House without creating some short term math issues

The margins in the Florida House and Senate are significantly larger than the 119th Congress will be. And have been ever since Ronny D showed up in Tallahassee. If we were talking about a 20 seat majority, I'd be singing a different tune...

Can't really put anything past them, but based on what has been publicly reported, I'd be surprised if they nuked it.

I don't believe they could use the reconciliation process to eliminate an entire federal department.

There's 1-2 seats in California that could (perhaps even will) flip based on the behavior of late arriving mail. My point still stands at 222 though.... I understand that the behavior of the members continues to get worse, but the margins are still incredibly thin. Particularly given that, unless the filibuster is abolished, it's DOA in the Senate.

Agreed, but I stand behind what I said. Three votes isn't a lot, particularly given there are going to be at least 1-2 vacancies (Stefanik + possible other or others)

It's the responsibility of the President-elect to win over those who didn't vote for him. That's on him. The voters don't owe him a thing.

Even at a bare majority of 220-215, they would have trouble nailing foen the votes to eliminate the Department of Education

I engage on politics more than anything on Twitter, but sports is probably the only thing keeping me on there at this point.

Spent the last month of 2016 assuming that Trump might be a different guy once entering into office, and that didn't happen. Others MMV, but when he says he's going to do something (and when he's bringing in Stephen Miller to be in a high level policy position), I'm gonna take him at his word.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/11/07/latino-community-in-chicago-divided-by-support-for-trump-as-leaders-pledge-to-continue-advocating-for-immigrants-others-celebrate-trumps-win/ This is behind a paywall so guessing most probably can't read it, but it's interesting read into the Hispanic community in Chicago and the shifts that led to Trump's increasing support. I do want to pull out a few quotes that seem to strike at a theme I've noticed both in media and in my own life talking about the election: There's a real sense, on any number of issues (including immigration, but also on tariffs, abortion, etc.) that he's not going to go full-on maximalist, or will act with discretion. We're about to find out whether that is true or not.

Differential turnout was absolutely an issue in this election, particularly in the safe states. NY, NJ, IL, etc. But not surprised that a "For You" account didn't provide that additional context.

I'll say it again, immigration is going to be difficult to solve when there isn't really agreement on what the problem is in the first place. Is the problem the border itself and making it more orderly? Is it the bureaucratic mess that is (both) the asylum process and the actual process to legally immigrate to the country? Or is it, from the Stephen Miller school of thought, that "we're full"? Also, how does the socioeconomic factors that exist in the origin countries factor in? Does this incoming administration have any plans there? The punitive stuff is what excites some of the base folks, I know.... but it's ultimately not going to solve the problem in and of itself.

https://x.com/SidKhurana3607/status/1855664216155496455 The fact that Western NC trended left while almost everywhere outside of the Atlanta suburbs, NW Michigan, and a few states out west is interesting Maybe turnout effects, but these were the folks who dealt with a lot of lies about Helene, and are dealing with FEMA on the ground after an apocalyptic storm

https://x.com/Redistrict/status/1855759244898828372 She improved margins more in Flint, Erie and Wausau than she did in a bevy of wealthy liberal enclaves. Again, the preponderance evidence just points to the campaign being really effective in the battleground states relative to everywhere else. I don't care what the anonymously sourced Biden staffer types think, that's just the facts

The start of a real third party movement in the country is going to have to start small, at the state and local level. Like there just massive barriers to entry to breaking into the two party system at the federal level, particularly the Presidential level, especially the way our system is structured. It would also help if the most notable third parties in this country (the Libertarians and Greens) weren't run by incredibly unserious people who don't seem interested in building from the ground up. I do find the Forward Party concept to be interesting (this group is associated with former Dem candidate Andrew Yang)... It has longer range plans on establishing itself as a credible third party but, for the time being, is allowing politicians of both parties to align with it. I don't know that it will work, but their approach is a lot smarter than we've seen from other third party movements.

The fact that the absolute best case scenario for a third party vote in this country (ie. winning a few states) is that it would lead to the election being thrown to the House and the winner of being picked by state House delegation vote is a big reason I, personally, just can't do it. Other people believe differently, and I understand it and respect it. But personally just couldn't do it... Until something epochal happens to our party system, I'll be choosing the least bad choice.