#i DO buy more that she would do so via a donor than some guy she was in love with actually

[julesnichols]

I will say much as I fucking loathe season four and have a lot of feelings (derogatory) about it, including the idea that Melanie chose to impregnate herself, if they were gonna go "lol fuck her characterization" they at least got right the fact that she'd find someone as close to being the male version of her as humanly possible to do it

[gettingtoknowmj]

A WARNING TO MICHAEL JACKSON FANS - MATT FIDDLES IS A PRESS RAT AND WAS NEVER MICHAEL'S BODYGUARD

Because of my Michael Jackson page I have been afforded communication with a man formally on Michael Jackson's security team. We have talked a number of times after something on my page made him contact me. I have all proof I need that he is the real deal. He has said I can post this message, encouraged it.

Now unlike some bodyguards that hung around MJ in his last years and have made money out of their association. This guy hasn't and doesn't plan to; he doesn't even really want his face and name known but he knew Micheal for a good number of years (but not after 2004). He loved the man he called complicated, sometimes frustrating but a true good heart. He does not claim the status of friendship but keen observer of his boss, who was mostly very kind to him. He saw Michael at the best and at his worst, and felt for him. And Michael Jackson was more vulnerable than I personally imagined.

And one thing he has definitely confirmed to me is not to trust Matt Fiddles (pictured). The man popping up all over the media claiming to have been Michael's bodyguard for ten years, he is a fake and a fraud. He did not guard Michael Jackson for more than a few days back in 2002. He was an associate of Uri Geller's not Michael's bodyguard! Michael agreed to help Geller on a project. When Michael came to England this Matt Fiddles agreed free of charge for Uri Geller to pose as a bodyguard for Michael Jackson.

The things Fiddles has been saying in the press of late on the face of it seem harmless, perhaps beneficial. Yes, he is coming across as a defender of Michael Jackson's honour. He could fool anyone, including me... he did! But this guy has said nasty stuff in the past. He has a dark history of slandering Michael Jackson. That older fans are choosing not to knowledge and newer fans don't know about...

This past week since getting the alert about Matt Fiddles I and a Facebook friend of mine have attempted to warn fans on various Michael Jackson groups only to have pending posts deleted before they can be seen! It seems some group owners are keen on Matt Fiddles.

Yes, I know some of you are probably thinking "but Matt Fiddles is defending Michael Jackson. He even took apart in Chase The Truth documentary where he debunked stuff to do with Neverland... I want to believe him, it makes me feel more assured of Michael's innocence. Matt Fiddles has even said how Michael was very interested in women, and sneaked women into his hotel room! I want that to be true". I hate to break it to you, I am sorry to say but Matt Fiddles never worked at Neverland nor was he a member of his tour security.

None of Michael's real bodyguards, including the lovely man on security I have talked to remember him at all. In fact, no sneaking in of any women happened on his watch. He just saw families touring with Michael with their kids. Some of them did share and sleep in same huge hotel room at times but so did a member of security (before anybody jumps to unpleasant conclusions). If he had secret girlfriends who knows maybe he did but Matt Fiddles was not there to know. Because nobody remembers him!

Michael's makeup artist Karen Faye doesn't remember Fiddles either, don't believe me? Ask her. She is easy to contact.

Michael's friend from child to man Frank Cascio has never heard of Matt Fiddles either.

The late Frank DiLeo was asked in 2009 about Matt... and you guessed it... never heard of him.

Michael's mother has also publicly outted Matt Fiddles as a fake in the past too. Yes, Katherine Jackson, Michael's own mother: “‘Fiddes tried to pretend that he was a close friend of my son Michael, but when I spoke to Michael about him, he could not remember who he was. The whole family was deeply upset by the interviews he gave shortly after Michael’s death, which no friend would have done.’

Trust me, if Matt Fiddles was a character witness he wouldn't be called in a legal case for Michael Jackson's defence.

MATT FIDDLES LIES YOU PROBABLY WERE NOT AWARE HE CREATED IN THE PRESS

NO NOSE LIE: Matt caused some of the crazy rumours that Michael Jackson had a fake nose for years and at time of death that fell off. When anyone that has read Michael's autopsy report (not a happy task, I don't recommend it) and can see from the photos (again really upsetting, not recommend...), his nose was actually fine at time of death...

It is true that he had a number of reconstructive procedures on his nose mostly due to complications caused by lupus (and even according to security man I am in communication with, did have a hole in tip at one time caused by that!) but he did not have a full on fake nose! EVER! And as I say, issues with his nose were fixed. No fake nose.

SKIN BLEACHING AND SELF RACE HATE: Matt Fiddles claimed Michael hated his skin colour so much he almost BURNED off his willy with bleaching creams. Autopsy report, Michael had a NORMAL uncircumcised penis (I feel bad for knowing these kind of details... truly no privacy but in good cause, sorry Michael!). Certainly not brunt off by skin bleaching creams. Autopsy also showed Michael was a longtime sufferer of vitiligo. Not race hate.

NAZI SYMPATHISER: Matt Fiddles has stated that Michael Jackson was obsessed with Nazis, had admired Hitler and hated Jews. Funny that Micheal should choose a woman of Jewish faith Debbie Rowe as surrogate mother in order that he could experience becoming a father, even to please his mother's religious beliefs married Debbie so the children could be born of wedlock (something very important to Witnesses). And Michael was at one time firm friends with a Rabbi and was best man at a Jewish wedding! He even donned a skull cap for it. And Michael lovingly recounted stories of dear Rose Fine, the Jewish tutor he’d had as a child whom he credited as giving him a lifelong passion for reading.

On a related note: Matt said Michael POKED holes in a voodoo doll he made of Steven Spielberg after the singer became a Nazi sympathiser, err? Yeah... imaginative.

MICHAEL ASKED BODYGUARDS TO SHOOT RANDY: Michael Jackson ordered his bodyguards to kill his brother Randy Jackson when Randy was in a dispute with Michael. This was supposed to have been said in front of Randy. A story his real bodyguards at the time say is laughable and Randy even released a statement that it never happened.

SPERM STEALING: Matt Fiddles has claimed Michael stole his sperm to father Blanket. On 17th November 2010 Matt Fiddes sold a story claiming that in 2 months (January 2011) he will be flying out to California to take a DNA test to establish that he is the father. He never did.

"He won't go to L.A., he has no intention!" Fiddes ex-girlfriend Carly Galliford said via Twitter. "He loves the attention, not caring about the Jacksons." Galliford (who claims she was with Fiddes when he came up with the baby-daddy tale) said that Fiddes admitted to lying about being Blanket’s father to her face, years ago.

In the interest of being fair and balanced it should be noted. There are many sources that claim Michael didn't father any of his children, some more credible than others (let's not go there, his private business... wouldn't change the fact he was dad). IF Michael didn't, you can be reasonably sure Matt Fiddles didn't either. Matt Fiddes was in Michael’s life for all of 5 minutes. He wasn’t Michael's close friend, he certainly wasn’t a confidant. It's highly unlikely that Michael chose Fiddles as a donor.

KILL MYSELF WITH SAME PILLS AS MICHAEL KILLED HIMSELF WITH: On 3rd December 2010 a story appears in the Sun claiming that the stress of putting himself forward as Blanket's father caused him to take an overdose of the same drugs Michael died from and that they were found in Michael’s body. Touching story, except Michael Jackson did not die from Soma tablets, none were found in his body or in his possession, and none has ever been associated with him. The most amusing aspect of this story is that he claims he was prescribed 5 of these tablets by a Michael Jackson doctor in 2002 and he’d stored them 8 years before finally using them. Soma aka Carisoprodol has a shelf life of 2 years, so I’d be curious as to what effects a drug that had expired 6 years before could do to a person, but maybe Matt could share that with us sometime.

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT LIE: Matt said Michael FLEW into a rage when he was barred from buying the Speaker’s chair from the House of Commons to use as his “green throne”. To quote him: "He toured Parliament in 2002 and when the guide told him he could not buy this piece of British culture Michael exclaimed, ‘I am the King, the King of Pop’, before flying into a real rage.”

Funny that, the officials that gave Micheal the tour said he was lovely, funny and charming... making a joke how he'd like a chair like that. He didn't in anyway suggest actually buying the thing let alone fly into a rage, he was even invited to go for a chat with a mp afterwards. The main tour guide said Michael loved England and was genuinely in awe of the building and history. There is footage on one of the pay for press video footage sites documenting from moment Michael starts his guided tour to moment he leaves. I will see if I can recall which site and update with link. Proof this ranting at the guide event never took place. Only thing that is true is Matt Fiddles was there.

There is actually more but you get the picture... this is just some of the crazy stuff Matt Fiddles has said, all soon after Michael Jackson died of course, so he couldn't be sued. There’s no proof he even went to visit Michael at a perminant residance. There’s no proof he even went to Neverland.

Michael Jackson is nothing more than a lucrative business for Matt Fiddles, and he is now selling his “positive” stories to papers for cash and celebrity. Nothing more nothing less. Because being positive about Michael actually is selling better for him right now as not many people are brave enough to defend Michael.... a book will come next... as you can be sure he is trying to build up a base of MJ fans to sell it too! When/if his book comes out, you will know to take what he say's with a very large pinch of salt.

---

Note: Please don't ask or pm me requesting information on the security staff member I have been in communication with. Our conversations are to remain private. Do not press me to ask him questions he has said what he has had to say, what he wanted to share and won't share no more... I may for all I know never hear from him again, if I don't that is fine, I am touched and grateful for the tip bits of information he gave me and for the warning about Matt Fiddles. I will not give his contact details to anybody. Nor repeat anything he has told me without his utter consent. Other than what has already been ok'd.

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): On Monday, a new national Monmouth poll found that Joe Biden’s status as the 2020 Democratic front-runner may be in jeopardy. The former vice president is no longer the sole candidate at the top of the pack: Rather, the pollster found him, at 19 percent support, in a three-way tie for first with Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, both at 20 percent.

Of course, this is just one poll and Biden still has the highest polling average at 28 percent, according to Real Clear Politics. But it’s also possible that the dynamics of this race, which up until this point have been pretty stable, are finally shifting, with Biden on the decline and Warren and Sanders on the upswing.

In fact, could Warren be the new front-runner? She and Sanders are neck and neck in their RCP polling averages — and according to The Economist’s polling average, she’s actually now in second. What’s more, since Warren entered the race in January, she has steadily moved from polling in the single digits and fifth or sixth place nationally to the double digits and second and third place. So what evidence do we have to support the idea that Warren in the lead (or close to it)? Or if you don’t think Warren is the front-runner, who do you think is?

nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, elections analyst): I think Biden is still pretty clearly the front-runner. The vast majority of polls still give him a healthy lead.

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): She’s not in the lead nationally. You could maaaaaayayayayayayaybe convince me that she’s the most likely to win the nomination, though.

nrakich: That said, if your question is, “Is Elizabeth Warren one of the two most likely Democratic nominees?” I would answer yes for sure.

natesilver: C’mon, that’s a cop-out, Nathaniel!

sarahf: srsly

ameliatd (Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux, senior writer): Could we say that she is a front-runner? I think that’s becoming more and more plausible, and also maybe less of a cop-out.

Warren’s slow but steady growth in support is worth taking very seriously. Maybe she’s not the front-runner but she’s an increasingly serious threat to Biden.

And given the fact that we’ve heard over and over again that voters are concerned about nominating a woman, Warren’s increasing support is that much more impressive.

natesilver: I’d say she’s one of the 20 most likely winners.

nrakich: Fine, I’ll rephrase — I think Warren is the second-most likely nominee.

I still think Biden is the most likely.

Flag, planted.

natesilver: I feel like someone has to play devil’s advocate here.

Maybe I’ll do that? Even though I’m not totally sure I buy it?

sarahf: So, I realize Monmouth is just one poll. And of course, Monmouth wasn’t even the only poll to drop Monday. Morning Consult also released its weekly tracking poll, which found Biden in the lead with 33 percent, Sanders in second with 20 percent and Warren in third at 15 percent. So Nathaniel is right that Biden is still the front-runner — I’m not really disputing that.

What I am curious to know is whether the tides are changing and there is evidence that Warren could usurp the lead.

natesilver: Oh, my devil’s advocate case wouldn’t even reference the Monmouth poll at all. Because I’m a good devil’s advocate, not a facetious one.

sarahf: Ha, so what’s the devil’s advocate argument here?

natesilver: The devil’s advocate case is just that she’s been moving up steadily, she’s the most likely candidate to win Iowa, she has the best favorables in the field, she might have the best campaign organization and Biden — although probably a little UNDER-rated on balance — has a lot of vulnerabilities.

sarahf: Huh, I guess I don’t think of that as a devil’s advocate argument. Sounds like an explanation for why Warren is now in second or third, depending on what polling average you look at, and a reason why she might continue to climb upward in the polls.

nrakich: Here’s how I think the argument goes for why Warren isn’t in first place today but might wind up on top: We don’t hold a national primary day. If we did, Biden would be on much safer ground with his polling lead. But as it stands, Warren has a clear path to winning the first three primary states:

As Nate alluded to, Warren is a good fit for Iowa. She has led some polls there, and she’s not that far behind Biden in others. Relatedly, Biden is relatively weak in Iowa, as Nate wrote recently — he has just the fifth-best favorable rating of any candidate there. (And guess who’s in first?)

Warren is better-liked than Biden in Iowa

Average favorability of Democratic primary candidates in Iowa polls

Favorable Unfavorable Candidate Strongly Somewhat Total Somewhat Strongly Total Warren 46% 34% 80% 6% 4% 11% Harris 40 33 73 6 4 10 Buttigieg 40 32 72 5 3 7 Sanders 32 37 68 15 9 24 Biden 31 36 67 16 8 24 Booker 22 42 63 10 3 13 Klobuchar 15 34 49 11 3 15 Castro 14 34 48 7 3 10 O’Rourke 12 40 52 13 6 19 Gillibrand 8 33 40 14 6 20 Gabbard 7 25 32 13 7 20 Delaney 5 20 25 13 7 20 Yang 5 18 23 14 6 19 Bullock 5 16 21 8 3 11 de Blasio 3 19 22 24 11 35 Bennet 3 16 19 9 3 12 Williamson 2 9 10 17 14 31 Ryan 2 14 16 13 5 18

Average of Iowa polls from Selzer & Co., Change Research and David Binder Research. Totals may not add up exactly due to rounding.

“Strongly” includes respondents who answered “very strongly”

Source: Polls

Plus, as a candidate from next-door Massachusetts, Warren already has home-field advantage in New Hampshire. And if she does win Iowa, that will give her a boost heading into the Granite State.

If she wins Iowa and New Hampshire, she will definitely have a boost going into the next state, Nevada. Nevada is also a heavily unionized state, which seems like a good fit for her. Plus, former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is reportedly partial to Warren, and he might be willing to deploy his powerful turnout machine on her behalf. (Although Warren already has a pretty good campaign apparatus in Nevada on her own!)

So despite Biden’s lead in national polls, the actual state-by-state results might lead to a Warren nomination more often.

natesilver: Meh, I think the momentum shit is overrated.

The momentum shit from winning primaries, that is.

Like, it’s not nothing. It’s something! But, if you look at the Obama-Clinton contest in 2008, or Clinton-Sanders in 2016, the vast majority of who does better in which state is determined by demographics, not timing.

nrakich: Right, but I don’t think my argument relies on Warren winning, say, Iowa in order to keep her afloat in subsequent states. Warren has some natural advantages in New Hampshire and Nevada, too. Any momentum from winning previous states just makes her case for winning them even stronger.

natesilver: But then Biden wins South Carolina by six million points and who has the momentum on Super Tuesday?

ameliatd: On the demographics issue, one big question I have about Warren is how she will continue to broaden her support. She’s significantly more popular among white voters than black or Hispanic voters, and that could pose a serious problem for her.

nrakich: Combining Nate’s and Amelia’s points, certainly her weakness with black voters — who constitute almost a quarter of the Democratic primary electorate — is a problem for Warren.

natesilver: WhY aRe YoU gUyS eRaSiNg BeRnIe?

sarahf: Ha, I was just going to get to that.

Ostensibly, Warren and Sanders are roughly in the same place in the polls — Sanders has a poll average of 17.7 percent and Warren 16.0 percent, according to RCP. So are there actually two new front-runners?

ameliatd: How many front-runners is too many front-runners??

natesilver: Not in my view, no. I think Warren and Biden are No. 1 and 2 for likelihood of winning the nomination in some order, and I think Sanders is No. 3.

Why? First of all, Warren’s polls are a bit better than Sanders. She has roughly equal support nationally despite being less well known, and she has slightly better net favorables. She’s doing better in Iowa. And she has more upward momentum, although that can be overrated.

Second, if you put any weight on the sort of “party decides” view of the race, the party establishment seems to view her as being quite a bit more acceptable than Bernie, although she doesn’t have a ton of endorsements yet.

nrakich: Yeah, Sanders does not appear to be interested in expanding his coalition; he’s pretty much been stuck polling in the same 15-to-18 percent range since Biden entered the race, whereas Warren has been steadily winning people over. According to The Economist, only 38 percent of Democrats are considering voting for Sanders, whereas 49 percent are considering voting for Warren … which is even (slightly) more than the 48 percent who are considering voting for Biden!

ameliatd: Warren does seem to be doing quite a bit of work to position herself as a progressive candidate who’s also not a threat to the Democratic establishment — which is not Bernie’s typical M.O.

natesilver: That Economist poll has generally had good numbers for Warren, though. So I’d be a little careful there.

But polls do show that more informed voters are generally more into Warren than Sanders. So that’s another bad sign for Bernie (and Biden). As voters tune in, they seem to gravitate toward Warren more.

sarahf: I also thought the second quarter’s fundraising numbers were particularly telling when it came to support for Warren and Sanders. Warren tripled her numbers from the first quarter and raised the third-most from individual contributors, after Pete Buttiegieg and Biden (and before Sanders). And even though a greater percentage of Sanders’s donations currently come from small donors (or those giving $200 or less) than Warren, a Los Angeles Times analysis found that more than 80 percent of the donors who funded Sanders’s 2016 bid have not given to him this cycle, so this is, to me, evidence of a larger enthusiasm problem with Sanders.

And that’s important, because rightly or wrongly, Warren and Sanders are going to have to work to distinguish themselves from each other.

nrakich: I think they’re already distinguishing themselves, Sarah. Even though they’re not attacking each other, Warren has made clear efforts, as Amelia said, to show that she can play nice with the establishment. Sanders has continued to rail against economic and political institutions.

sarahf: And I guess at this point, Warren and Sanders’s bases are pretty different from each other, right?

natesilver: Well, part of the reason their bases are different now is because Warren has stolen most of the college-educated left from Bernie.

So what’s over in Sanders’s coalition is a bit eclectic — some real dyed-in-the-wool anti-establishment types, but also some non-college educated voters who aren’t necessarily that far to the left but like his populism or just like his message and personality.

nrakich: There is a big gender gap between Warren and Sanders, though. According to a Quinnipiac poll from early August, Sanders is second among men with 19 percent support, and Warren is third with 16 percent. But among women, Warren is second with 24 percent, and Sanders is third with 10 percent. (Biden is in first with both groups.)

sarahf: Are there more opportunities for Warren to continue to take voters away from Sanders? Or is she better off targeting voters from, say, Biden or Harris?

ameliatd: Isn’t Warren already siphoning some support from Harris? There seemed to be overlap between their supporters, at least earlier in the summer.

nrakich: Right. And my guess, Amelia, is that a lot of the voters who jumped on the Harris train after the first debate have since decamped to Warren.

And to Nate’s point, I suspect a lot of those 2016 Sanders voters without college degrees are now with Biden. So Sanders is kind of getting pinched from all sides.

natesilver: Yeah, I definitely think there’s evidence of a Harris-Warren overlap.

ameliatd: I also wonder how much some combination of sexism and electability concerns are holding Warren back, and how that will play out as the primary moves forward. There was some research earlier in the summer suggesting that both Warren and Harris were taking a hit among Democratic voters with more sexist views. And then there are the meta-sexism concerns from people who think a woman will have a harder time getting elected. As she continues to build support, maybe she’s chipping away at the latter? It’s obviously a hard thing to measure.

nrakich: Yeah, Amelia, maybe some voters have realized that Biden isn’t as electable as they thought, after seeing him struggle in the debates.

ameliatd: That would be my guess, Nathaniel. Although it’s interesting that Biden and Warren have yet to be on a debate stage together. If that happens next month (fingers crossed for one night!) maybe that shifts the dynamic between the two?

natesilver: It almost feels like there’s some weird shit like this going on, in terms of how voters are flowing between the candidates.

sarahf: Omg. What is that?

nrakich: Hahaha. I think that’s pretty good! My most recent piece on lanes in the Democratic primary indeed found that there is very little overlap between Sanders and Harris supporters, and not much between Warren and Biden supporters either.

ameliatd: But in terms of Warren being able to pull more supporters from Harris, a strong debate performance against Biden couldn’t hurt.

natesilver: IDK, if we’re forced to have two debates, the DNC could draw the rules up such that candidates who haven’t faced one another yet are more likely to be paired.

sarahf: I’m not so sure Warren can’t eat more into Biden’s support, though. Another thing that I thought was interesting in that Monmouth poll is that they found that among moderates who haven’t been paying as much attention, there is evidence they are swinging toward Sanders or Warren instead of toward a lesser-known candidate who might be more of an ideological fit.

And maybe this is just further proof that lanes don’t really exist, but it is interesting to me that among the more moderate candidates, there doesn’t seem to be an ordained alternative to Biden.

natesilver: Maybe it’s Buttigieg? But he’s still sort of a niche brand.

ameliatd: Is Harris’s name-recognition really that much lower than Warren or Sanders’s, though? It’s interesting, because moderates don’t seem to be flocking to her, and she’s someone who you think they’d be interested in.

natesilver: Yeah, I don’t know why there are so many WHY IS BIDEN STRUGGLING?!?!? takes when Harris is clearly the one who’s had a rough month or so in the polls.

nrakich: Amelia, 79 percent of Democrats can form an opinion of Harris, according to an average of August polls. That’s comparable to the 83 percent who can form an opinion of Warren. Biden and Sanders are noticeably higher — they have almost universal name recognition within the party.

sarahf: It’s true that Harris has had a much rougher month in the polls than Biden, but something else that stuck out to me in Nathaniel’s story was that Biden had the biggest drop of any candidate in his net favorability rating (favorable rating minus unfavorable rating) — he dropped 8 points from May to August, and 17 points from the beginning of the year. So I think, even if Harris might be down more at this particular point in time, some of the conventional wisdom might be that she has more of an opportunity to gain back what she’s lost in the polls than Biden?

ameliatd: I wonder if Harris’s flaw is that she’s not so easily categorized. People know who she is, but she’s kind of been staking out a middle ground between the moderates and the liberals. Warren, on the other hand, has a clear brand, which could be helping her right now. Maybe there’s room for Harris to recover, though?

nrakich: Frankly, I think primaries are periods of ebbs and flows. Right now, Harris and Sanders are down, while Biden and Warren are up (Biden more in the absolute sense, Warren more in the relative sense). But Harris and Sanders have shown the ability to appeal to these now-Warren-and-Biden-supporters before. So if they campaign smartly, they could certainly gain them back.

natesilver: Yeah, Amelia, that was basically the critique I had of Harris: She’s trying to split the difference and it … isn’t working, right now at least. But a campaign like Harris’s, which doesn’t have as clearly defined of a base, is inherently liable to be more volatile than someone with more of a base of their own.

ameliatd: But Warren has been steadily gaining support for months. And that seems hard to dismiss, especially with all of this movement. Unless she eventually hits some kind of ceiling, of course.

nrakich: I think it’s definitely a good sign for Warren that her increase has been slow and steady, instead of a Buttigiegian “bump.”

sarahf: OK, pulse check. No one at the beginning of this chat was willing to say Warren is the front-runner, and maybe that’s still true. But let’s wrap by talking about where you see her in the race currently, and what you’re going to be watching for going forward.

natesilver: I’m gonna be watching for whether she can gain more traction with non-college educated voters, and with black voters. And I’m gonna be watching if she gets more endorsements. We haven’t really taken the time in this chat to make the case against Warren, but those three things above would be a big part of it.

ameliatd: I will be really curious to see what happens when Warren ends up on a debate stage with Biden, and whether that helps defuse any more electability concerns.

nrakich: I see Warren as a clear No. 2. And there are a couple of good indicators for her that, if she eventually overtakes Biden, we will point to as early signs of that. But I think I will mostly look to see if coverage of Biden continues to be skeptical and if his favorability ratings continue to decline.

natesilver: Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I sort of disagree with Rakich. I think Warren’s chances are more about Warren than Biden.

Biden’s at, IDK, 29 percent right now. And maybe 23 or 24 percent in Iowa or something. It shouldn’t be that hard for Warren to surpass him even if he doesn’t decline at all.

nrakich: Nate makes a good point, and I could easily see the race boiling down to Warren vs. Biden by Super Tuesday. But for Warren to become a favorite over Biden, as opposed to a co-front-runner? I think Biden has to help out with that.

ameliatd: Warren is gaining on Biden — and seems to be surpassing Sanders — but it’s probably still important to watch how she performs relative to Harris, too.

Despite having some overlap in supporters, they also haven’t gone after each other — does that start to change, if Harris sees Warren as a threat?

sarahf: Yeah, we didn’t really talk about the case against Warren — but I think Nate’s landed on one of her biggest vulnerabilities: Can she win over more voters who aren’t white? Currently, as you’ve all mentioned, the crosstabs aren’t really there, but if she can build support, I think she emerges as a true front-runner. Otherwise, I think someone like Biden (or Harris) continues to have broader appeal.

nrakich: Right, Sarah. There’s also the possibility her favorability ratings decline, too. There is ample opposition research against her, like her claims of Native American ancestry and her past as a Republican, that hasn’t come up a lot in recent months but could still hurt her.

Now that I think about it, one of the benefits to Warren’s steady rise, as opposed to a sudden surge, is that she didn’t immediately get thrust into the “discovery, scrutiny, decline” cycle. Her rise has been so gradual, it might have snuck up on people. So I guess another thing I’ll be looking for is if the media, voters and her opponents start assessing her more critically.

natesilver: We should also maybe be a little bit skeptical of candidates whose support is concentrated among college-educated white people, which happens to be the demographic that the media both caters to and belongs to.

Bernie’s support is actually notably more diverse than Warren’s, and Biden’s certainly is.

ameliatd: But I do think Warren has room to grow, especially among women, if voters are actually starting to be less concerned about electability. Granted, right now, she’s doing much better among white women than women of color right now — but that could change.

[orbemnews]

Twitter Bans MyPillow C.E.O. Mike Lindell: Live Business Updates Here’s what you need to know: Mike Lindell, the chief executive of MyPillow, helped fund a bus tour that promoted Donald T. Trump’s false election claims.Credit…Erin Scott/Reuters Twitter said it had permanently barred Mike Lindell, the chief executive officer of the bedding company MyPillow and a close ally of former President Donald J. Trump, from its service. The move on Monday night followed numerous tweets by Mr. Lindell promoting debunked conspiracy theories about election fraud. Mr. Lindell’s Twitter account, which had nearly 413,000 followers, was permanently suspended “due to repeated violations of our Civic Integrity Policy,” said Lauren Alexander, a Twitter spokeswoman, in an email. Corporate America has moved swiftly to try to turn down the volume on assertions by Mr. Lindell, a major Republican donor and one of the loudest voices perpetuating Mr. Trump’s claims of voter fraud in the Nov. 3 elections. Kohl’s and Bed Bath & Beyond removed MyPillow products from their stores last week. Mr. Lindell also faces legal action over his claims of voting fraud involving Dominion Voting Systems, the company at the center of one of the more outlandish conspiracy theories about voter fraud. His account’s suspension is the latest in a series of high-profile bans by Twitter since the company permanently blocked Mr. Trump from its service over concerns that he would use the platform to incite more violence like the storming of the Capitol this month. After the attack on the Capitol, Twitter said it had updated its rules to more aggressively police false or misleading information about the presidential election. As part of that move, Twitter has moved to suspend the accounts of more than 70,000 people who have promoted content related to QAnon, a fringe pro-Trump group that the F.B.I. has labeled a domestic terrorist threat. Ms. Yellen is the first woman to hold the top job at Treasury in its 232-year history.Credit…Leah Millis/Reuters The Senate confirmed Janet L. Yellen to be Treasury secretary on Monday, putting her at the forefront of navigating the fallout created by the pandemic as she advocates for President Biden’s economic agenda. Ms. Yellen, the former Federal Reserve chair, was confirmed by a vote of 84 to 15 with support from both Republicans and Democrats. She is the first woman to hold the top job at Treasury in its 232-year history. With the confirmation, she will now be thrust into the middle of negotiations over a potential $1.9 trillion economic aid package that is the chief plank of Mr. Biden’s effort to revive the economy. The size of the plan already met with doubts from some Democrats and Republicans. Ms. Yellen has been a clear champion of continued government support for workers and businesses, publicly warning that a lack of aid to state and local governments could slow the recovery, much as it did in the aftermath of the Great Recession. At her confirmation hearing and in written responses to lawmakers, Ms. Yellen echoed Mr. Biden’s view that Congress must “act big” to prevent the economy from faltering and defended using borrowed money to finance another aid package, saying not doing so would leave workers and families worse off. “The relief bill late last year was just a down payment to get us through the next few months,” Ms. Yellen said. “We have a long way to go before our economy fully recovers.” Shoppers wait outside of a GameStop on Black Friday. An online community of traders seem to be fueling a spike in the store’s share price.Credit…Go Nakamura for The New York Times In an epic contest between Wall Street traders who bet against stocks and legions of small-scale investors, the small guys are winning. On Monday, shares of the struggling video game retailer GameStop surged, adding to a recent rally that has lifted the stock by more than 300 percent in January alone and making it a glaring illustration of the growing power of small investors in certain segments of the financial markets. Shares of companies like GameStop are becoming detached from the kinds of factors that traditionally help benchmark a company’s valuation — like growth potential or profits. Analysts expect the company to report a loss from continuing operations of $465 million for 2020, on top of the $795 million it lost in 2019. What seems to be fueling this spike is an online community of traders, who congregate in places like Reddit’s “Wall Street Bets” forum and hype up individual trades. Lately, they’ve made buying short-dated call options on GameStop’s shares — an aggressive bet that the shares will rise — a favorite position. Market analysts and academics say a rush of new money in such short-dated call options can create a sort of feedback loop that drives the underlying share prices higher, as brokerage firms that sell the options have to themselves buy shares to hedge the contracts. In GameStop’s case, these small investors have found themselves going up against a different group of speculators. The company’s struggles have also made it a favorite target for short-sellers — who bet on a stock’s decline by selling shares they don’t actually own. Short sellers profit when a stock has plunged and they can buy those same shares back at a lower price. Of course, with GameStop’s shares surging, those investors are losing a lot of money. And their rush to get out of the trade by buying shares can cause a surge in prices, too, called a short squeeze. On Monday, the small traders on Wall Street Bets and the messaging site Discord were encouraging each other to hold on to their positions as the short-sellers ran for the exits. “Am I too late to get on the GME rocket?,” one commenter on Wall Street Bets wrote shortly after 10 a.m. “No buy the dip,” another responded. On Discord, the message was clear. “GME ONLY UP,” one commenter wrote. Budweiser’s Covid-19 awareness advertisement includes two health workers who were being vaccinated.Credit…Budweiser, via Associated Press Budweiser, the beer giant whose commercials featuring Clydesdale horses, croaking frogs and winsome puppies made it one of the most beloved Super Bowl advertisers, is opting out of the game-time broadcast this year for the first time in 37 years to focus on raising awareness for the Covid-19 vaccine. Budweiser, an Anheuser-Busch company, said Monday that it would donate portions of its advertising budget this year to the Ad Council, a nonprofit marketing group at the helm of a $50 million ad blitz to fight coronavirus vaccine skepticism. Instead of debuting a splashy big-game commercial, as Super Bowl advertisers often do in the weeks leading up to the Feb. 7 match, the beer company released its 90-second online vaccination ad, titled “Bigger Picture.” (Anheuser-Busch will still feature prominently during the game, with ads for several of its other beer brands.) Other Super Bowl stalwarts, including Coca-Cola, Hyundai and Pepsi, will also be missing onscreen. As the pandemic disrupted the sports industry, many companies hesitated to pay CBS roughly $5.5 million for a 30-second slot during a game that some worried could be delayed or even canceled. In the Budweiser Covid-19 vaccination ad, the actress Rashida Jones urges viewers to “turn our strength into hope” while the melody of “Lean on Me” plays as inspirational images from the pandemic are shown. Ms. Jones, who recorded her narration while isolated from other people in a Hollywood facility, said in an interview that “obviously people want to be entertained, they want to watch funny commercials,” but “what’s most important is that we prioritize this next phase.” The Super Bowl advertising season, which usually extends beyond the broadcast into weeks of teasers, celebrity reveals, YouTube debuts and celebratory live events, is more subdued as companies struggle to adopt an appropriate tone after a year full of marketing missteps. “You can’t pretend like everything’s OK,” Ms. Jones said. “People can sense when brands are exploiting a moment.” Source link Orbem News #Bans #Business #CEO #Lindell #Live #Mike #MyPillow #Twitter #Updates

[ninety9percent]

Comments on Joe Biden’s Ad soliciting donations

Joe Biden sponsored this ad on FB. There were interesting comments. Sharing some. Not surprisingly only “Vote Blue No Matter Who” people support him. Comments are being presented as is - no editing. First his ad:

As a top Democrat, you’ve been selected by the Biden for President campaign to share your top priorities with Joe! We need your answers by midnight tonight, so don’t delay. Click below to begin the survey:

MaryBeth Sjostrom Pasmore 

✅Opposes Medicare For All ✅Opposes legalizing marijuana ✅Supports the death penalty ✅Wrote the 1994 crime bill ✅Voted for DOMA ✅Voted for NAFTA ✅Voted for Iraq War ✅Voted for PATRIOT Act. Takes money from health insurance, corporations. ... no, I won't vote Joe.

Jenny Miles 

Sorry Joe, you are exactly the opposite of what's needed. Too many reasons: 1. “The younger generation now tells me how tough things are—give me a break... No, no, I have no empathy for it, give me a break.” 2. “Trump is not a bad man” 3. Biden praises former Republican Senator who was forced to resign after 19 sexual harassment complaints. 4. Referred to immoral moneylenders as Shylocks - insulting and offending Jews 5. Supported attacks on Anita Hill (who had accused Clarence Thomas of “ inappropriate sexual behavior“) and refused to call witnesses who could testify in support of her claim. 6. Wrote 1994 Crime Bill heralding “the era of mass incarceration“ 7. Wrote 1995 Omnibus Counter Terrorism Bill “ allowing the Government to use evidence from secret sources in deportation proceedings “ (despite claiming to oppose that section he introduced the bill), and included 1st Amendment violating “anti freedom of association” provisions (became Patriot Act) 8. Opposed marriage equality; “ No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage” (has since changed) 9. Voted in 1999 to repeal Glass Steagall - leading to (as expected) the financial crisis 10. In 2001 voted for Patriot Act, emphasizing that it was essentially a copy of his 1995 Omnibus Counter Terrorism Act 11. In 2002 Voted for “illegal” Iraq War 12. In 2005 Voted to end bankruptcy protection for students [ Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) ] 13. In 2018 Presented George Bush with Liberty Medal “presented to individuals for their commitments to veterans “ 14. “I am not Bernie Sanders. I don't think 500 billionaires are the reason we're in trouble. The folks at the top aren't bad guys”. 15. Supported Civil Asset forfeiture, even without an arrest or conviction 16. Pushed for “Cabinet Level Drug Czar” to punish “drug crime” 17. “The punishment should fit the crime. But I think [marijuana] legalization is a mistake. I still believe [marijuana] is a gateway drug.” 18. Opposed spending money on drug research (including medical) on any Schedule 1 drug 19. Supported and introduced mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses that saw “the average federal drug sentence for African Americans was 11% higher than for whites. Four years later, the average federal drug sentence for African Americans was 49% higher”. 20. Despite the strong anti drug stance, his daughter was arrested for drugs (and a decade later caught on video allegedly snorting cocaine), but there is no evidence of a conviction or asset seizure. 21. Again, despite the above, when his son tested positive for cocaine, there was no conviction and no asset seizure. 22. Supported Militarization of the Police - that had no effect on reducing crime, but is correlated with higher rates of police discrimination against minorities (blacks) 23. Unable to “think of any reason not to run for President” 24. MBNA Credit Card Company in his home state was his biggest donor between 1989 amnd 2000. Biden voted against a measure requiring credit card companies to warn consumers of the consequences of making only minimum payments (and others). MBNA hired Biden’s son, Hunter, as a lobbyist straight out of law school, and later hired him as a consultant from 2001 to 2005 — the same years Biden was helping to pass the bill 25. Ukraine’s biggest private gas producer (whilst under investigation for corruption) hired his son to serve on its board while Biden was acting as the Obama administration’s point man on Ukraine policy. 26. A mid-sized construction firm Hill International won a $1.5 billion contract to build 100,000 homes in Iraq had Biden’s brother, James, as its executive vice president, despite lacking any experience in residential construction prior to joining the firm. 27. One of the Senate’s top twenty-five earners of outside income — and, along with twenty-two others on that list (of top earners), voted against a bill to limit such earnings. 28. In 1979, after receiving donations from Coca-Cola, Biden cosponsored and voted for legislation that let the soft-drink industry get around antitrust laws. 29. The same year, he voted against a measure before the Judiciary Committee to expand consumers’ rights to sue over price-fixing — one of only two Democrats to do so. 30. Has a very close “revolving door” relationship with lobbyists 31. Vehement opponent of school busing implemented to tackle racial segregation 32. Opposed a deficit reduction military spending freeze, and supported an increase in the retirement age 33. “I have the most progressive record of anybody running" 34. Has NOT signed pledge not to accept money from fossil fuels industry 35. “rejection of the whole movement of black pride.” 36. After being accused by seven women of “inappropriate touching” , hugs kids, and makes jokes about it. 37. Offered Ukraine $1Bn to sack their prosecutor 38. Supports a number of anti abortion measures 39. Proud of his support for the death penalty for a wide range of offenses 40. No statement on pledge rejecting corporate money 41. No statement on GND (Green new Deal) 42. No statement on fossil fuel money pledge 43. No statement on support for universal healthcare 44. No statement on "free" college education 45. No statement on abolishing Electoral College 46. No statement on supporting whistelblowers exposing government criminality 47. No published tax returns for 10 years 48. No declared statement opposing Israel genocides in gaza 

- via Dennis Freeland

Lindsay Shugerman 

Don't run. Please don't run. We don't need another corporate paid shill. Medicare for ALL, no fracking, free public college, livable wages (for real), end to Citizens United and lobbyists buying power. Renewable energy, not oil. In other words, NOTHING you support.

Matthew Pace

There is only one priority. Get the Orange Menace evicted from squatting in the WH; stabilize the government and pass it off to peaceful elections in 2024. The insanity in the WH has to end.

Josh Ruppert - Matthew Biden is just as bought why don't you research before running your mouth. Biden is put as a candidate because the DNC wants to loose. If Bernie wins their slush money goes bye bye.

Hugh Stearns  - This anti-intellectual trope is brought to you by the DNC. How, before the primary, does it make any sense to interject anyone but Trump? Of course, we want anyone but Trump. This is an attempt to suggest that we must suffer another centrist candidate or risk losing to Trump. This is the same argument that was used against the more progressive candidate last time. If we want to beat Trump and future Trumps we better think critically about the elitist element of the Democratic Party and question their authority.

Allen Heinzer 

My top priority is for Biden to withdraw and support Bernie

Allen Heinzer - Biden is a republican lite there is no establishment democrats they all just democrats in name only Fdr was a democrat Look up his record If democrats would run on that they’d never lose

Allen Heinzer - Ask yourself if he is a democrat why didn’t him and Obama give us universal healthcare when they had super majority in all 3 branches

Nancy Hollister Kozlenko -  Allen Heinzer I hope you support who ever represents the Democratic Party and not go off in a huff if your guy or gal doesn’t win. That’s how Trump got in!

Lin Bower - Martha Korte Get real,Bernie is a back stabber.He was such a good friend to Hillary until she beat him .Then he wasn’t.A person like that is not Presidential material.

D Kim Sayre-Arnold  - Gary Bailey And Bernie WAS THE SPLITTER IN 2016!!! HE NEEDS TO STICK TO HIS OWN PARTY, and please, stay out of mine.!

Pamela Jarvis - Allen, that about sums it up. Biden announced his run at $2,000 a plate fund raiser with corporate CEO's. I am voting Bernie. I may be old but I am hanging with the young progressive's choice..feel the Bern

Tammy Fox Sorry 

my top priority is getting Bernie Elected.

Charlotte Arnold - Bernie cost us the last election. Republicans have a lot of crap on Bernie they are going to release if he wins the primary. Bernie will not win.

Lezli Magnani - Charlotte Arnold Bernie did not cause that loss!! The DNC shoving Hillary down people’s throats caused that loss. Again, the clearest candidate that can beat Trump is being ignored by the corporate democratic party. Joe will not be shoved down our throats either. Please just follow the money-look where Joe is getting his money from-always follow the money

Rebecca Sake - D Kim Sayre-Arnold once you take your corporate owned Republicans out of our Democratic Party then you’ll see Bernie is in the right place. And Bernie didn’t split anything, your candidate was too weak to win. #BernieWouldHaveWon

Rebecca Sake - Me too, #HealthCareForAll will only be attainable with #Bernie2020 Biden is backed by big pharma & Comcast. He's not a man of the people and he's out to make his corporate donors happy.

Rebecca Sake - Kim Crane they weren’t her votes to begin with. And every chance she had to earn those votes were blown by her own decisions, remember she said she didn’t need the progressive dems. You can think he took away millions of votes all you want, doesn’t make it true. The truth is, she never earned the votes she needed to win. End of story. Stop blaming everyone but the one who lost the easiest victory ever.

Rebecca Sake - Kim Crane actually it was Hillary supporters who, in larger numbers refused to vote for Obama. In 2016, Hillary failed to even try to court progressive votes. Most of us had very specific reasons to not vote for her, and her cheating her way into the nomination made it very easy to vote third party. A very small percent voted Trump but the majority voted third party. Btw you earn votes, they aren’t given because of the fear of the other candidate. It might also surprise you to know Hillary helped trump in the early primaries because she felt he’d be the easiest to beat. You guys forget that a lot while you’re trying to shame people for not voting for the most owned candidate in history. Your lack of insight and foresight is more to blame for a trump presidency than our educated choice of voting.

Anita Concilio 

Health care Joe - and parity for women in the workplace and as citizens of the world. Child care, education, and for goodness sake, job training for the families in the midwest who have lost manufacturing and farming. Oh, and also, immigration reform, like amnesty maybe? Middle class needs some significant help. And campaign financing reform, oh, the list is so long. But I have faith that a Biden administration would focus on the things that will make America respected again.

Nicole F Sharpe 

Joe, your time has come and gone by. You've made too many "bi-partisan" compromises that have hurt too many people, especially women, in your need to be liked. We can't trust you to do the right things in office because we know you'll cave to political expediency at the people's expense. You may get the DNC nod but you won't be elected, and we need a candidate that can be elected. Please bow out of the race now and put your support where it will do some good instead of sapping the strength of more viable candidates

Ashley Smuts Pizzuti 

Joe - what are you going to do about your history with student loans? I know you love those lenders. We know your history. But you are very out of touch with a problem you helped create.

Mary Nikas 

We have predators on our streets that society has in fact, in part because of its neglect, created," said Biden, then a fourth-term senator from Delaware so committed to the bill that he has referred to it over the years as "the Biden bill." "They are beyond the pale many of those people, beyond the pale," Biden continued. "And it's a sad commentary on society. We have no choice but to take them out of society." In the speech, Biden described a "cadre of young people, tens of thousands of them, born out of wedlock, without parents, without supervision, without any structure, without any conscience developing because they literally ... because they literally have not been socialized, they literally have not had an opportunity." He said, "we should focus on them now" because "if we don't, they will, or a portion of them, will become the predators 15 years from now." Biden added that he didn't care "why someone is a malefactor in society" and that criminals needed to be "away from my mother, your husband, our families."” https://www.google.com/.../biden-1993-speech.../index.html

Laurence Bridge 

Medicare & the cost of long term care is the most important concern for those of us who having worked and saved all our working life,can end up in a facility that was once called the workhouse.Untrained staff, disgusting food,left to lie in our own waste ,to the tune of thousands of dollars from our life time savings,for these disgraceful places called LONG TERM CARE, perhaps our politicians should be forced to take a long look at the Chinese system,who treat the elderly with dignity in the twilight of their lives.

Cathy Sullivan

i'm going with .. go away Joe Biden .. we can't afford to lose to trumpy again. Make sure Hillary leaves with you

Deborah Birdsong

#NoJoe No more corporate democrats who run their campaigns using special interest monies!  #OverturnCitizensUnited#Bernie2020

Mary Nikas 

“Biden, by contrast, has been a bag man for big corporations for his entire career. Delaware is like the Luxembourg of U.S. states — a tiny tax haven and flag of convenience for corporations who own the local political system outright, and Biden is no exception. His economic policy career has been one disgrace after the next — sponsoring or voting for multiple rounds of financial deregulation, trade deals that savaged the American manufacturing base, and bankruptcy "reform" that made it much harder to discharge consumer debt (and nearly impossible to get rid of student debt). It's no surprise at all that on the same day he launched his campaign, Biden held a fundraiser including several corporate lobbyists and Republican donors at the home of a Comcast executive.”

Jeffery Ansani

Perfect example of his stupidity. Did he send this to all the "disaffected" white working class males who voted for trump in 2016 whose votes he needs to capture to beat trump? He's so arrogant he thinks his mere presence in the race is enough. And secondly, if I'm a Right Wing Fuckhead I use this to Demonstrate that he doesn't give a FUCK about ALL Americans' concerns. Like taking candy from a baby dinosaur. It's a transparent attempt to bolster small donor roles, nothing more. Seriously! All he has to do is look at the polls. We overwhelmingly FAVOR a Green New Deal, money OUT of politics, Medicaid for ALL, sensible gun laws, reasonable and humane immigration reform, free college, and just about every other Progressive proposals. WAKE THE FUCK UP DEMOCRATS! And when you do, smarten up too. These people have failed you for thirty years while Bernie has been FIGHTING for you. He's the only choice. For Robert Paul PaulKarla Jen Lynn Jannon and any others who may be thinking Joe is a good option. He's not. Look at the polls. Not the candidate polls but the issues ones. You'll see very clearly, he's out of touch. Don't argue with me, he's not the one.

[haplesshuman]

Breaking Dawn, Book 2 Part 1

In which nobody knows what they’re deailing with.

Let me tell you a little story.

In 2015, I had to do a university project on Boys’ Adventure Stories as a group presentation. As the only girl in the group, I got to look at the books from  a feminist point of view. I also had to guess which books in the library were boys’ adventure stories, took a pile out (of which sadly only three have stuck in mind - Northern Lights, the first book of the His Dark Materials trilogy, Stormbreaker, the first of the Alex Rider books, and Artemis Fowl, the first book in the series of the same name), and sadly never got to read those books. Shame. It didn’t help that I had to read Gold of the Gods, the very book that inspired this very blog.

Anyway, after looking random stuff up on TV Tropes, I decided to put that wrong right, and am now looking up the books I failed to read two years ago. I don’t think any of them will end up on Too Long; Didn’t Read. I’ve finally read the first Artemis Fowl book, and no, it’s not going on this blog.  Expect it to be referred to, though.

I would far sooner be reading that than Breaking Dawn. What you’re about to see is from the Book of Suck. I’d have hoped it to be one nice long part, but I’m afraid you’re going to be mistaken. I never finished book 2 whilst I still had Breaking Dawn. I ran out of patience at chapter... Oh, who cares? You do. Wait a second. Even the Book of Suck won’t tell me what chapter I stopped at.

I lost patience at the end of Chapter 12. Goody. That means I’ve got another... 27 chapters to go before I can wash my hands of this stuff. Well, shit.

Buckle up, kids.

And after that long intro, let’s kick this one off.

1. Preface. ‘Whiny crap’, I said. It’s mercifully short.

2. Italics for the wolf mind meld. Oh no. I took the decision to speed read those bits, and it seems nothing of value made it out of the actual page. Apart from Jacob being called out for being a horible person

3. Let’s meet Rachel Black! Yeah, Jacob’s sister has not appeared once in the story, and of course she makes her debut now. No, I know nothing about her.  I asked, ‘WHY THE HELL HAVE WE NOT SEEN RACHEL BLACK BEFORE?’ She’s not really plot-relevant, and sadly nor is she here. She just exists to be the girlfriend via imprint of some guy named Paul, so I’m just going to pretend they don’t exist from now on and just move on.

4. Reigns vs Reins. The term ‘free rein’ is spelt without a g. Whoever proofread this must have been blinded by dollar signs, that’s my only explanation for this one.

5. The Quil and Claire scene. Remember these guys from Eclipse? If you’re new to Too Long; Didn’t Read, then you’ll know that Claire is Quil’s girlfriend via imprint. She is also two, something which sent me to the Great White Telephone. I’m not sure what the point of this scene is, but Claire’s parents? Please teach Claire you can’t always get what you want, because Quil is never going to teach her.

What we do learn is that imprinting is basically mind rape. Ick.

6. Oh, the Protagonists are Horrible People. Yeah, they really are. They’re now lying to Charlie - who is blissfully aware that he is about to become a grandfather - about Bells’ pregnancy. I think he’d want to know. The story is that she’s sick - which would only DRAW A PARENT CLOSE. Jesus Christ, not only do we have protagonists who I can now no longer call heros if I ever could, but they’re STUPID AS ALL HELL.

Villain Protagonist is not a bad trope, mind you. It can work.

Here... it doesn’t work.

Also, dipping into more TV Tropes language, Did They Think Charlie Couldn’t Feel? Gaah.

9. Medical consent, people. Jacob bas even less right than Edward to force an abortian on Beells. He’s not related.

10. What has Leah done? Seriously, everyone seems to have it in for her. What did she do? Did she invent Comic Sans? She’s snarky, so no, Leah’s not letting me down in being an OK character.

11. Crazy idea. Edward comes up with one - having Jacob be a sperm donor - and because plot, it won’t work. He’s called out on this, but then it leads to the next point -

12. Jacob failing to sound his age. He does not sound like a 16-year-old. No freaking way am I buying that narration.

Again, I’m not saying this is a bad thing - if it’s justified (case in point - Artemis Fowl) . Where’s your justification, Jacob?

13. Snarky Chapter Titles. Unforunately, the snark came out wrong. The only one that vaguely amused me was Chapter 10′s title, and that’s only because it’s right - Jacob is an idiot.

14. This is pregnancy on drugs. Bella has turned into an optimist. She’s normally a really, really pessimistic whiny person. Uh, what happened? Who or what happened? (Any suggestions are to be placed in the comments)

15. A Midsummer Night’s Dream. It doesn’t go like that. I can’t remember the full thing, but whatever interpretation you used, you got it wrong.

16. More rules of science are being torn up and set aflame. Why would the ultrasound not work? And also, whilst I dropped Biology 8 years ago, I’m pretty sure chromosones don’t work like that.

17. More headdesking. I don’t know a damn thing about artificial insemination, not being a farmer. It’s not really being handled well here. If Bells wants a kid and can’t really have one, couldn’t they get a vampire to be a surrogate (Not Rosalie, though)

18. That fight will never happen. Nuff said.

19. Everyone also hates Rosalie. Is it because she’s blonde? If so, someone needs to get over themselves.

20. The narration. I’ll get this elephant in the room out of the way - this narration is worse than Bella’s. Yeah, I know, can’t be unsaid.

21. In-laws. Doc, Bells is your daughter-in-law. This means she is family. Got that? Yes? Good.

22. Exposition that must break medical rules. Doc Cullen is now telling Jacob a whole pile of stuff that, as a friend of the expectant mother, shouldn’t really be finding out from him. Patient confidentiality, just saying.

23. Robbing a bank. Robbing a blood bank. Whilst, you know, there could be a blood shortage and people could be dying due to lack of suitable blood. Do I even have to say how wrong this is?

I’ll be back next week, if not with another part read, the long awaited Why I Won’t Review entry for The Host. In the meantime, I think I shall cheer myself up with something funny.

POSTSCRIPT: Remember my review of The Princess Diaries: A Royal Disaster? Well, I expleained the plot to my mum - who said it didn’t make sense at all. Looking at the plot again, yeah, sense is something it’s lacking. Thanks, Mum.

[thisdaynews]

Republicans seize on impeachment in bid to retake House

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/republicans-seize-on-impeachment-in-bid-to-retake-house/

Republicans seize on impeachment in bid to retake House

“It certainly sparks something in you when you see this bombardment against our president,” said Dale Crafts, a former state representative and paraplegic businessman who plans to launch a run this week against Democratic Rep. Jared Golden of Maine.

Seizing on impeachment and seeking to protect President Donald Trump, GOP outside groups over the past week have launched a seven-figure TV ad blitz in targeted districts and rolled out fundraising initiatives to help bankroll the eventual Republican nominee in some 20 Trump-won seats. They’re also cranking up efforts aimed at building donor lists.

The infusion of energy comes at a crucial moment. A rash of summer retirements has undercut the GOP’s message that the majority is within reach, and the National Republican Congressional Committee has trailed the House Democratic campaign arm in fundraising every month this cycle. Meanwhile, the NRCC is approaching the final stretch to lure top-tier recruits to run in the most competitive districts that will decide the majority.

Party strategists said they are already beginning to see an impeachment-fueled surge in base enthusiasm — evidenced by an uptick in fundraising and interest from potential candidates — that they believe can animate sleepy races in the 31 Democratic-held seats that Trump carried in 2016.

Republicans’ recruiting map still has some notable holes. No Republicans have filed to run in four Trump-won seats, including those held by Reps. Andy Kim in New Jersey and Chris Pappas in New Hampshire. And operatives are still recruiting in at least nine others in the hopes of drafting more formidable contenders, including in seats held by Reps. Haley Stevens of Michigan, Elaine Luria of Virginia, Angie Craig of Minnesota and Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania.

Since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi formalized an impeachment inquiry last month, the NRCC has fielded calls from prospective candidates who had previously shown little interest in 2020 bids in offensive targets in Michigan, Wisconsin, Virginia, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, according to officials involved in recruitment.

Democrats’ move toward impeachment was part of what helped persuade Crafts to challenge Golden for his rural Maine seat that the president won by 10 points, though the incumbent is 1 of just 8 House Democrats who has yet to back the inquiry. Eric Brakey, the 2018 GOP Senate nominee, is also running, but Crafts said others encouraged him to enter, including former Gov. Paul LePage.

The broadcast campaign aligns with some key recruitment opportunities for the GOP. The Republican National Committee is running over $2 million worth of broadcast ads in at least a dozen districts, according to data from the ad tracking firm Advertising Analytics. The RNC made some of its biggest buys in districts held by Luria, Craig and Cartwright.

It’s a tactic that worked before: The House GOP campaign arm ran ads as part of its “Young Guns” program in mid-2009 in the Missouri district of longtimeDemocratic Rep. Ike Skelton as part of an attempt to signal its seriousness about the district to prospective candidates.

“We could not get a single thing going on in that race.” said Guy Harrison, the NRCC’s executive director in the 2010 cycle. “We ran Young Guns ads there. We got three calls within the next week, and that race came online.” One of those calls was from Vicky Hartzler, who beat Skelton and still holds the seat.

The impeachment pushback has also coincided with the start of the fourth fundraising quarter, giving Republicans a chance to plug their recruiting gaps. Kate Gibbs, a former state legislator who now works for a politically influential union, will soon announce a bid to oust Kim in New Jersey. And Lisa Scheller, a recovering heroin addict-turned-president of a manufacturing company, is readying a run against Democratic Rep. Susan Wild in a Pennsylvania district Trump lost by 1 point, according to sources familiar with their plans.

But any new candidate will enter those races at a massive monetary disadvantage. Kim, for example, had already banked $970,000 by the end of June.

Democrats’ financial dominance — about two dozen freshmen had more than $900,000 in the bank as of June 30 — has bolstered their chances of keeping their majority. Only 11 of the 31 Democrats in districts Trump carried in 2016 had a challenger who had raised more than $100,000 by the end of the second quarter.

Impeachment could provide a means to play catch up. The RNC piloted a successful joint fundraising initiative last month with an email blast that directed supporters to a page where they could split a donation between Trump and a fund for the eventual nominee who will take on Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin, a swing-seat freshman in a Michigan district that the president carried by 7 points.

The push has so far netted some $250,000 for the Slotkin fund, according to the RNC. Slotkin got her first challenger a week later in state Board of Education member Nikki Snyder. The RNC has since tweeted out digital ads with links to nominee funds in some 20 other Trump-won districts that it plans to promote on social platforms.

“Over the next few months, they’re going to be sending emails and tweets and doing marketing and advertising to fill them up,” said Gerrit Lansing, the president of WinRed, which is collectingthe funds.“It’s a just a question of how much money they want to put in and attention they focus to it, but they certainly have the ability to raise millions of dollars in each of those.”

Several Republican consultants working with 2020 House candidates said they have seen online fundraising soar in recent days. The NRCC’s online fundraising shot up 608 percent higher than the average day this cycle when Pelosi formalized the inquiry and it has remained about 400 percent higher, according to committee officials. The committee had two of its top three online fundraising days since Pelosi’s announcement.

The NRCC is also running digital acquisition ads in over 20 districts aimed at amassing email lists, which can be delivered to nominees after primary season ends.

From a messaging standpoint, GOP strategists said impeachment provides an opening to cast the Democrats as partisan players. Many of them ran in 2018 as centrists who could work with Trump on bipartisan issuesand picked up key crossover support on their way to winning red-leaning districts.

“Republicans want to know that their congresswoman is going to support the president and not support impeachment,” said Snyder, who just launched her campaign to oust Slotkin in Michigan. “She kind of slates herself as a moderate, but now she’s really going with her left colleagues.”

Republicans are adamant that impeachment is a political winner for their party’s efforts to take back the House. The NRCC, along with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s political team, released polling in battleground districts suggesting voters would punish Democratic members who vote to impeach Trump over the Ukraine scandal. But public polling is less conclusive and suggests voters generally support the inquiry now underway.

Democratic candidates and party committees have been careful to avoid the appearance of politicizing the inquiry in an attempt to frame it as a decision made on members’ principles, but they could also experience a similar bump in energy and fundraising. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee reported a 240 percent increase from August to September in first-time donors via online and text.

Andliberal donors could be motivated to react if they think Republicans are pulling ahead.

“I can see where they would be excited about seeing these metrics,” said Taryn Rosenkranz, a veteran Democratic digital fundraising strategist. “But I would also be surprised if my party wasn’t seeing that kind of same response in response to them. They have a surge, then we have a surge responding to their surge.”

Read More

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): Today I’m coming to you from the future. Or maybe I’m not. The rest of you will have to figure out whether I’m really coming from the future or just pulling your leg. But for now, I’ve timeported myself back from Nov. 7, and I’m going to tell you what happened on Election Day. Tell me whether you believe me or not.

nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, elections analyst): There’s approximately a 0 in 1 chance that Nate is coming to us from the future.

natesilver: Here’s what happened: Democrats picked up only 16 House seats, short of the 23 they needed to take control of the House. They might win another one or two once California finishes counting its returns, but they’re not going to get to 23.

And in the Senate — oh, boy.

Democratic incumbents lost in North Dakota, Missouri and Indiana. And they didn’t gain any Republican seats, although there’s a chance that Kyrsten Sinema could win Arizona if it goes to a recount (don’t get your hopes up, Democrats — she’d need almost everything to go right). So it looks like we’ll end up with a 54-46 Republican-controlled Senate.

There were a few bright spots for Democrats. Andrew Gillum won the Florida gubernatorial election. Republican Gov. Scott Walker lost by 2 points in Wisconsin. But overall, Republicans beat their polls by an average of 2 to 3 points — a lot like 2016, to be honest.

Democratic turnout was high. But GOP turnout was high too, and the election was fought in very red places.

OK, so that’s what happened.

Why don’t you guys ask me some questions so that you can verify I’m telling the truth?

julia_azari (Julia Azari, political science professor at Marquette University and FiveThirtyEight contributor): I’m not sure what kinds of questions. I think I don’t understand the rules of this game.

But this scenario seems plausible to me.

What was wrong with the polls in Arizona?

natesilver: Not sure you could say much was wrong with them — Sinema was up only 2 points in our forecast, and she’s down by 0.3 points based on votes counted so far.

That’s the thing — the polls weren’t really that far off. Just almost all of them were off in the same direction.

nrakich: That scenario is unlikely in the House, but it’s believable in the Senate. A Democratic gain of 16 House seats falls outside the 80-percent interval of the most likely possible outcomes in our model. That would mean Democrats basically just won the seats that are clearly in their favor right now — e.g., the Iowa 1st, the Virginia 10th, a handful in Pennsylvania — but not much else.

There’s about a 20 percent chance that Republicans pick up three or more seats in the Senate. Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Claire McCaskill of Missouri would probably be two of the first Democratic incumbents to fall in that scenario.

natesilver: I think pollsters are still sorting it out, but there’s a sense that wavering Republican voters came home to Trump at the end. We’re in an era where everything is very polarized along presidential lines, and that little uptick in Trump’s approval rating at the end may have helped, even though we were dismissive about it beforehand.

julia_azari: This is my sense about 2016 and politics in general: Predictability is making things, weirdly, slightly harder to predict.

sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): I think there’s something fishy in Future Nate’s count of House seats that Democrats picked up.

What can you tell us about those House seats?

natesilver: They didn’t necessarily fit any one pattern. GOP incumbents were a bit stronger than expected in some places. And Democrats were disappointed with the results in Texas and Florida, where they didn’t get much of a Hispanic turnout. There were some impressive Democratic victories — Richard Ojeda somehow won in the West Virginia 3rd, for example, which just doesn’t make a ton of sense given how the rest of the night went, but that’s what happened. There just weren’t enough of them.

nrakich: Here’s a question for you, Nate: What was Trump’s approval rating on Election Day?

natesilver: The national exit poll had it at 45 percent.

But, again — Democrats actually had a fairly good night, in some ways! They won the popular vote for the House by 6 points. They just lost nine battleground races by 2 percentage points or less.

julia_azari: What were the implications of this for the “shy Trump voter” phenomenon? Does this result debunk it, since it happened when Trump wasn’t actually on the ballot? Is the problem with the sampling or the likely voter screen? Or just unavoidable error? I want to know what this means for the nationalization of politics.

Also, were there any purple states where voters split the ticket on governor and Senate races?

natesilver: Sure. Ohio split, for example.

Plus some of the obvious ones, like Massachusetts and Maryland.

julia_azari: Right, Massachusetts is weird.

nrakich: Hey.

julia_azari: Did any of the top-shelf competitive races split? Did Sen. Tammy Baldwin win?

natesilver: Of course Baldwin won — it was always a Republican pipe dream to beat her.

julia_azari: I’ve seen a lot of yard signs for Leah Vukmir, her Republican opponent … (Please note that I am trolling Nate and this is not a factual statement.)

What about Bill Nelson? Democrats held on to his Florida Senate seat?

And wait … none of the competitive states that had both a governor and Senate race split? Just blue states with popular red governors?

natesilver: Yeah, Nelson held on.

And yet again, yard signs weren’t that predictive. But to your earlier question, Julia — there is some question about a “shy Trump” effect. The random digit dial polls tended to show better results for Democrats than the list-based sampling polls, and they may have been more affected by Democrats’ superior enthusiasm.

nrakich: So both Nelson and Gillum won in Florida, but Democrats were disappointed with low Hispanic turnout?

The thing about Florida is that it’s a state where Hispanic voters might help Republicans. Those southern Florida districts are heavily Cuban-American, a GOP-leaning group.

But honestly, that’s the only thing that seems inconsistent to me about your narrative. I buy that you’re from the future.

natesilver: Nathaniel, I think you’re neglecting that Nelson and Gillum both went into the election up several points. They were up by 4 points and 6 points, respectively, in our final polling average, and they each won by about 2 points.

nrakich: But why would Democrats be disappointed? They still won.

natesilver: Because they lost almost all the toss-up House races there, other than the Florida 27th (which maybe shouldn’t have been thought of as a toss-up to begin with). In the 26th, Republican Carlos Curbelo hung on — by 9 points, in fact.

julia_azari: So what we’re doing here is looking at a lot of small shifts in our expectations — no major upsets?

natesilver: What we’re doing here is that I’m coming back from the future and telling you what happened.

In the House, we had nine candidates (seven Republicans and two Democrats) win in races where they had less than a 20 percent chance of doing so. So there were some surprises there. Not as much in the Senate, really.

nrakich: Who was the other Democrat (other than Ojeda)?

natesilver: Ammar Campa-Najjar, of all people — bad night for Duncan Hunter in the California 50th.

Although, I should note that technically it’s still possible for Hunter to win — it’s just that the late mail ballots are expected to be Democratic.

sarahf: And what can you tell us about the seven Republicans? Any trends there?

natesilver: Yeah, there were several races where the Republicans were only slightly behind in the polls, but our model was very bullish on Democrats based on their fundraising.

The fundraising was a good sign of Democratic enthusiasm. But Republicans were enthusiastic too, even though they didn’t donate much money. Big-time donations from donors like Sheldon Adelson helped a lot. Republican efforts to triage basically worked.

nrakich: A lot of the fundraising was inefficiently distributed (*cough* Beto *cough*), so I certainly believe that the fundraising could fall flat.

julia_azari: I find how seemingly mundane the surprise is compelling, but my objection on the Senate side is that if things go badly for the Democrats, there will be at least one more incumbent loss — in Florida, or in Montana, or a true upset in Wisconsin, where underpolling of rural voters may be a real thing.

natesilver: Jon Tester won by 9 points in Montana. That was sort of a surprise in the opposite direction.

nrakich: Small state, popular incumbent. That checks out.

natesilver: But wait. Something’s happening. Something strange.

I have to go back into the timeporter.

[several hours pass]

julia_azari: I call BS on multi-directional surprises.

natesilver: Well, folks. I just got back from the future. It turns out that Democrats had a really, really good night. They’re going to win somewhere between 53 and 55 House seats, depending on a couple of California districts. And they somehow won the Senate, thanks to Texas! I guess Beto O’Rourke is going to be our next president now.

You guys should probably ask me a few questions about what happened, since it’s not too often you get to talk to someone from the future.

nrakich: Did Heidi Heitkamp win in North Dakota, or did Democrats have to make up for that loss elsewhere?

natesilver: She lost by 8.

But Beto O’Rourke won, and Democrats won all the toss-ups.

julia_azari: Where else did the Democrats pick up in the Senate?

What was the national House popular vote?

natesilver: Democrats won Arizona by 7 (!) and Nevada by 5 (!). Pollsters really underestimated Democratic performance in the Southwest.

The Democrats made huge gains in California, and it’s not out of the question that Republican Rep. Devin Nunes could lose once all the mail ballots are counted (although I wouldn’t bet on it).

nrakich: Eh, I don’t know about that. I’d say Democrats’ best path to a Senate majority lies with the incumbent in an underpolled, small state winning, not with a pro-impeachment Democrat who’s trailing in about a bazillion polls defeating Ted Cruz.

natesilver: But, Nathaniel, the polls weren’t that great.

For some reason, people don’t blame the polls unless Republicans beat their polls.

Democrats are going to win the popular vote for the House by something like 11 or 12 points, though.

sarahf: Was turnout lower among Republicans, too?

natesilver: It’s not that turnout was lower among Republicans. It’s just that all cylinders were firing for Democrats: There was very high turnout among suburban women and baby boomers and relatively high turnout among black/Hispanic/Asian voters. And independent voters went Democratic in the House by 14 points in the national exit poll.

julia_azari: To go back to an earlier question, what was Trump’s approval rating on Election Day?

natesilver: 44 percent.

But the small fraction of voters who had no opinion of Trump overwhelmingly backed Democrats.

nrakich: I’d bet more money on the polls in North Dakota being off than the polls in Texas. We have multiple high-quality pollsters in Texas. In North Dakota, it’s Fox News (a very good pollster) and then a handful of outlets without long track records of success.

natesilver: You can bet as much money as you want — but I’m from the future, and I know what happened.

Pollsters were baking in too many assumptions about a 2010- or 2014-type turnout — if they’d relied on self-reported voting intention, they would have come a lot closer to predicting the Democratic surge.

nrakich: That’s a narrative I would believe if Nate’s scenario came to pass.

julia_azari: What happened in the governors races?

natesilver: Democrats won all the highly competitive races, except in Kansas and Alaska.

Scott Walker actually almost held on in Wisconsin, losing by just 1 point, but a loss is still a loss.

nrakich: So Walker did better in your “Democratic surge” scenario than your “revenge of the Republicans” scenario?

Partisanship is much weaker in gubernatorial races, but with that kind of swing nationally, that would be a surprise.

julia_azari: Abrams won in Georgia?

natesilver: I mean, Kemp hasn’t conceded yet, and the AP hasn’t called the race — but, yeah, Abrams is going to win.

And, Nathaniel, these aren’t scenarios. These are incontrovertible news accounts from the future.

nrakich: So did Democrats only do decently in the Midwest, but really, really well in the Sun Belt?

It wouldn’t take much of a polling error for Democrats to win all the gubernatorial seats Nate mentioned. Our forecast already favors them to win Wisconsin, Florida, Connecticut, Iowa and several others. Picking up the toss-ups — Ohio, Georgia and Nevada — could happen, too.

And you’re right, Nate. I apologize — how indelicate of me.

natesilver: That’s a good summary, Nathaniel. In the West, it looks like Democrats will beat their polls by about 5 points on average. In the rest of the country, only 1 to 2 points.

nrakich: Did Democrats hold onto Minnesota’s 1st and 8th districts?

natesilver: Yeah.

I don’t want to toot our model’s horn too much, but a lot of the underpolled races where Democrats had a big fundraising advantage indeed proved to be big problems for the GOP.

Take Republican incumbent Scott Tipton in the Colorado 3rd, for instance.

The GOP efforts to triage went badly — they lost a lot of the toss-ups anyway, and it seemed to open up opportunities for Democrats to really expand the map.

nrakich: Did Doug Ducey win the gubernatorial race in Arizona? He’d be in real danger in a scenario — er, reality — like the one you’re describing, IMO.

natesilver: Yeah, he’ll hold on — just gonna be a lot closer than expected.

julia_azari: Can I point out some implications of this scenario? Democrats have made campaign finance an issue, but research shows that campaign money is more valuable to challengers than incumbents in congressional campaigns — it lets newcomers “even the playing field” when the incumbent has stronger name recognition.

In retrospect, I think the media actually paid too little attention to the Democrats’ grassroots fundraising. And were too dismissive of Beto O’Rourke, obviously!

nrakich: I’m laughing at the idea of the media dismissing Beto.

natesilver: Turnout in midterms isn’t that high. If voters are willing to part with their hard-earned cash, they’re going to turn out in big numbers.

And, Nathaniel, maybe dismissed is the wrong word? But there was a lot of smugness at the end about Beto O’Rourke being out of the running — he actually had a 20 percent chance, which isn’t nothing.

nrakich: What was the most Democratic district that Republicans held onto, in this timeline?

natesilver: Curbelo’s in Florida.

In some ways, voters differentiated the stronger GOP incumbents from the weak GOP incumbents quite a bit.

Curbelo won, but Chris Collins lost by 9 points (!!) in New York, and Duncan Hunter went down, too.

That said, Republican Will Hurd held on in Texas, despite O’Rourke’s victory.

It was the scandal-plagued districts and the off-the-radar races that collectively got Republicans in major, major trouble.

julia_azari: Is this a unique House effect? Were Senate seats more uniformly part of a national wave?

nrakich: I’m not sure that jibes with the “Democrats firing on all cylinders” claim.

natesilver: I think you’re underestimating the importance of local factors.

You can have both a pretty strong overall blue wave and a few places where GOP incumbents overperform relative to that blue wave.

sarahf: So the Texas 23rd, where Hurd held on, is a Romney-Clinton district that voted for the Republican candidate … Is that true of other Romney-Clinton districts? Or was it an anomaly?

natesilver: Yeah, the Romney-Clinton districts weren’t bad for Democrats as a group. But that’s not where they beat expectations. It was in the Southwest, plus a fair number of Obama-Trump districts, actually.

Hell, Barbara Comstock in the Virginia 10th only lost by 2 points, which isn’t bad under the circumstances.

nrakich: Overall, I think this timeline has more internal inconsistencies, but the topline numbers are more likely than under the Republican surge scenario. Democrats gaining 50 seats in the House is well within our confidence interval, and the gubernatorial outcome you describe is extremely plausible.

But Nate would probably say that the internal inconsistencies are a feature, not a bug.

Which is an argument.

julia_azari: I’m not suggesting that GOP incumbents can’t overperform. I want to know if local factors were stronger in the House beyond what we would already expect.

Like, were Senate races more nationalized?

natesilver: Julia, I’m not sure how to put it, other than that our picture of the House is always fuzzy. The GOP incumbency advantage was small overall by historical standards — but maybe a bit larger than you’d have gathered from polls ahead of time.

So if you take three or four crosscurrents — 1) overall Democratic turnout higher than expected, 2) controlling for No. 1, incumbents slightly outperform expectations on average in both parties, 3) the story was more about reversion to the mean in Obama-Trump districts, rather than continued gains for Democrats in Romney-Clinton districts, 4) particularly strong Democratic performance in the West and Southwest — and put all of those together, that basically explains the map.

And (to break character for a moment) that’s the thing about congressional elections.

They typically have 2 or 3 or 4 crosscurrents and not just one.

Uh oh. Receiving another transmission.

It seems I’ll need to end this chat and head to the office to meet with my superiors.

They were NOT happy that I’ve shared all this information with you.

sarahf: Not at all.