The Long March to 11/24

cannabineer said:

Have you ever had head cheese? It’s fragments of the unlisted bits of the pig in a gelatin matrix. You never know what morsel of don’t-tell-me the next bite will bring.

View attachment 5327610

Click to expand...

I've worked in a couple of meat packing plants and head cheese is mostly pig brain is what they used to make it out of. I was the take-off man on the Frank-O-Matic machine at Fletcher's meats and didn't eat hot dogs for a decade after that and still won't eat cheap weiners. I'll pay good money for some bison smokies from the local butcher and some whole grain 6" sub sandwich buns when I get the craving for a 'dog. Dress it up real good and wash it down with a bottle of The Great Gentleman Ginger Beer. Still don't have any at the store and I'm down to 3 bottles.

We so rarely eat any kind of deli meats except if the wife wants to make a pizza from scratch. With my diverticulitis I'll only have one piece along with a big scoop of MetaMucil. Sure miss a lot of the foods that are my taboo list now but better than spending all day running to the john while doubled over in pain.

OldMedUser said:

I've worked in a couple of meat packing plants and head cheese is mostly pig brain is what they used to make it out of. I was the take-off man on the Frank-O-Matic machine at Fletcher's meats and didn't eat hot dogs for a decade after that and still won't eat cheap weiners. I'll pay good money for some bison smokies from the local butcher and some whole grain 6" sub sandwich buns when I get the craving for a 'dog. Dress it up real good and wash it down with a bottle of The Great Gentleman Ginger Beer. Still don't have any at the store and I'm down to 3 bottles.

We so rarely eat any kind of deli meats except if the wife wants to make a pizza from scratch. With my diverticulitis I'll only have one piece along with a big scoop of MetaMucil. Sure miss a lot of the foods that are my taboo list now but better than spending all day running to the john while doubled over in pain.

Click to expand...

The head cheese dad brought home from a German butcher in Poughkeepsie was probably brainless. There were no bits that had the lack of chew that brain has. Lips, cheeks, eyelids etc., probably some of the rear suspension components, sure. But not knowing the exact provenance of the woodgrain bits of pink&white oinky goodness was a good thing.

I think this can go here.

cannabineer said:

I think this can go here.

https://www.npr.org/2023/09/18/1199318220/nonpartisan-open-primaries-explainer

Click to expand...

That the idea is supported by the American Enterprise Institute says it all for me. This is an illiberal idea and the fundamental premise they make is false.

"After 100 years of experimentation with this, we see that there are clear problems with this system — not least of which is that it produces candidates who frequently aren't particularly representative of the average voter," Kosar says. "And that is an issue for democracy."

"Experts and advocates say this (closed primaries) electoral process excludes voters and leads to more extreme candidates who mainly appeal to activists, and could be exacerbating partisan polarization."

Come on, man, Joe Biden is an extreme candidate? Also, Joe Biden and the Democratic Party are extremely polarized? In most liberal democracies, Biden would be called conservative. Most in the US who identify as left are tame compared to people and parties in other countries who identify as left. What the AEI is promoting is to fracture coalitions that has formed, MAGA fascist right and Democratic left-leaning center, both of which are rejecting noo-liberal libertarian policies that were successful in the 80's and 90's. The wealthy elite who were most happy with neo-liberal libertarian policies that favored them are finding that they no longer have much influence in either party. Or the population at large.

I view this non-partisan open primary initiative as an illiberal attempt at breaking up the vote in a divide and conquer strategy. If a person wants to have a say in who the Democrats fields as a candidate, they can always register to be a Democrat. We will welcome them. But don't take away our right to pick the candidates we want. If you don't like our candidates, go form your own party. People who identify as Independents are politically weak for a reason. People who act as a group, who cooperate with each other in a common interest and work together are able to overcome people who don't. I mean, duh. This is true regardless of where people fall on the left-right political scale.

PROGRESSIVE ERA REFORMS AND THE BIRTH OF THE PRIMARIES, 1890-1960
During the Progressive era, which lasted from roughly 1890-1920, the people’s desire for reform in the political process led to the establishment of the primaries. A primary is a state election in which citizens of that state cast their vote for the candidate whom they want to represent their party in the general election.

With an eye to making the process of presidential nominations more democratic, progressive reform efforts focused initially on making the delegate and candidate selection processes more transparent and inclusive. One of the earliest efforts was made by Wisconsin Governor Robert La Follette who’s frustration with the backroom politics in the 1904 elections led him to draft legislation that allowed Wisconsin voters more say over convention delegate selection. Subsequent states followed suit, so that by 1916, twenty-five of the forty-eight states had presidential primaries and stricter rules binding delegates to popular election results.

After World War I, the appetite for reform in the political process decreased as the country entered a period of political conservatism. In fact, eight states actually abandoned their primaries in favor of the old tradition of only allowing delegates to cast votes for their party’s nominee. As the Progressive movement lost momentum in American politics, so too did the idea of the state primaries in the nominating process.

Following World War II, primaries made a resurgence. With the advent of television and radio, populist-minded candidates could get their message directly to the voters and circumnavigate the influences of party bosses. This meant that lesser known candidates stood a chance at prevailing in the state primaries over more senior candidates with greater clout among party insiders. Candidates like Adlai Stevenson used the media advantageously to connect with voters, win state primaries, and ultimately wrest the nomination from the party’s establishment at the 1952 Democratic Convention. This trend continued in the post-war era, and came to a head in 1960.

...

Fogdog said:

That the idea is supported by the American Enterprise Institute says it all for me. This is an illiberal idea and the fundamental premise they make is false.

"After 100 years of experimentation with this, we see that there are clear problems with this system — not least of which is that it produces candidates who frequently aren't particularly representative of the average voter," Kosar says. "And that is an issue for democracy."

"Experts and advocates say this (closed primaries) electoral process excludes voters and leads to more extreme candidates who mainly appeal to activists, and could be exacerbating partisan polarization."

Come on, man, Joe Biden is an extreme candidate? Also, Joe Biden and the Democratic Party are extremely polarized? In most liberal democracies, Biden would be called conservative. Most in the US who identify as left are tame compared to people and parties in other countries who identify as left. What the AEI is promoting is to fracture coalitions that has formed, MAGA fascist right and Democratic left-leaning center, both of which are rejecting noo-liberal libertarian policies that were successful in the 80's and 90's. The wealthy elite who were most happy with neo-liberal libertarian policies that favored them are finding that they no longer have much influence in either party. Or the population at large.

I view this non-partisan open primary initiative as an illiberal attempt at breaking up the vote in a divide and conquer strategy. If a person wants to have a say in who the Democrats fields as a candidate, they can always register to be a Democrat. We will welcome them. But don't take away our right to pick the candidates we want. If you don't like our candidates, go form your own party. People who identify as Independents are politically weak for a reason. People who act as a group, who cooperate with each other in a common interest and work together are able to overcome people who don't. I mean, duh. This is true regardless of where people fall on the left-right political scale.

Click to expand...

I missed the part where Biden or any Democrat was identified as extreme. And I could not find the phrase “extremely polarized” anywhere in the article. Is it there and I overlooked it?

On the practical side, the current GOP is riddled with extremists. How will closed primaries do a better job of reeling the party back in from its current fascist agenda?

cannabineer said:

I missed the part where Biden or any Democrat was identified as extreme. And I could not find the phrase “extremely polarized” anywhere in the article. Is it there and I overlooked it?

On the practical side, the current GOP is riddled with extremists. How will closed primaries do a better job of reeling the party back in from its current fascist agenda?

Click to expand...

I paraphrased the article but I assert that the article does indirectly make the claim in this passage.:

Closed Primaries "leads to more extreme candidates who mainly appeal to activists, and could be exacerbating partisan polarization."

The article makes no distinction between Democratic Party primaries and the clown show that Republican Party primaries have become. The article says closed primaries lead to "extreme candidates" and "exacerbating patrician polarization". I am stating bluntly and without equivocation that only one party is voting for extreme candidates who mainly appeal to activists". Not only is there no proof in the main assertion in that article, it is ridiculous that they make that assertion whatsoever when only one party represents what they claim. Biden and virtually all Democratic congressmen are not extreme ideologues nor are they "exacerbating partisan polarization". To say so is to agree that "both parties are bad". Democratic Party leaders represent a broad coalition are not exacerbating partisan polarization.

I think the movement to open primaries is a strategy to break the coalition that is defeating both MAGA fascism and neoliberal libertarianism. Democratic Party primaries disprove their assertion. Just because Republicans have lost their mind does not mean Democrats should allow people who are not willing to at least temporarily register as Democrats to choose who they want to represent them in an election.

Needless to say, I don't much care for this idea. Democrats should choose who they want to represent them on the ballot and a closed primary ensures that they do. It's called the Democratic Party, and that should mean something. When somebody registers as Independent, they are saying they don't support the Democratic Party. So then, they should vote for Independents and stay out of our primary. Same goes for MAGA fascists.

As much as I dislike MAGA policies and ideology, I recognize their right to choose whatever asshole they want to represent them. Of course, the candidates we and they choose must be qualified to occupy the position. For president, that means they are natural born citizens, over 34 YO and meet the terms specified in sec. 3 of the 14th amendment.

cannabineer said:

The head cheese dad brought home from a German butcher in Poughkeepsie was probably brainless. There were no bits that had the lack of chew that brain has. Lips, cheeks, eyelids etc., probably some of the rear suspension components, sure. But not knowing the exact provenance of the woodgrain bits of pink&white oinky goodness was a good thing.

Click to expand...

German butcher for my mom also. The meaty bits were stripped from the head but no brain material. Mom made some for herself also when we were all younger, the meat did not bother me but I disliked the jelly part because of the fat content.

Fogdog said:

I paraphrased the article but I assert that the article does indirectly make the claim in this passage.:

Closed Primaries "leads to more extreme candidates who mainly appeal to activists, and could be exacerbating partisan polarization."

The article makes no distinction between Democratic Party primaries and the clown show that Republican Party primaries have become. The article says closed primaries lead to "extreme candidates" and "exacerbating patrician polarization". I am stating bluntly and without equivocation that only one party is voting for extreme candidates who mainly appeal to activists". Not only is there no proof in the main assertion in that article, it is ridiculous that they make that assertion whatsoever when only one party represents what they claim. Biden and virtually all Democratic congressmen are not extreme ideologues nor are they "exacerbating partisan polarization". To say so is to agree that "both parties are bad". Democratic Party leaders represent a broad coalition are not exacerbating partisan polarization.

I think the movement to open primaries is a strategy to break the coalition that is defeating both MAGA fascism and neoliberal libertarianism. Democratic Party primaries disprove their assertion. Just because Republicans have lost their mind does not mean Democrats should allow people who are not willing to at least temporarily register as Democrats to choose who they want to represent them in an election.

Needless to say, I don't much care for this idea. Democrats should choose who they want to represent them on the ballot and a closed primary ensures that they do. It's called the Democratic Party, and that should mean something. When somebody registers as Independent, they are saying they don't support the Democratic Party. So then, they should vote for Independents and stay out of our primary. Same goes for MAGA fascists.

As much as I dislike MAGA policies and ideology, I recognize their right to choose whatever asshole they want to represent them. Of course, the candidates we and they choose must be qualified to occupy the position. For president, that means they are natural born citizens, over 34 YO and meet the terms specified in sec. 3 of the 14th amendment.

Click to expand...

Thank you for explaining. Iiuc it’s a subtle instance of both-sides gaslighting. It sounded fine to me until you laid out your reasoning. Here in California we have open primaries, but I think that is secondary to the entrenched politics of our many districts.

I’ll decouple my other question from open primaries. Even though this is California, the last three places I’ve lived have Utah-level conservative communities that have reliably voted maga. I wonder how those districts might be eased away from the fascist teat, or how moderates might be encouraged to run against freedom caucus sorts on the Republican ticket.

(add) on a reread, you mostly covered it. The part that I had not considered is your assessment of independent registrees as not Democrat.

With the current serious need for a unified front against the hard-right threat, your contempt for them makes sense. “Don’t pretend not to be part of the problem if you won’t commit to being counted alongside the solution.” I never thought of it like that ‘til you got me to think.

cannabineer said:

I missed the part where Biden or any Democrat was identified as extreme. And I could not find the phrase “extremely polarized” anywhere in the article. Is it there and I overlooked it?

On the practical side, the current GOP is riddled with extremists. How will closed primaries do a better job of reeling the party back in from its current fascist agenda?

Click to expand...

What bothers me about CA's open primary system is that it's susceptible to being gamed. This nearly happened in 2018:

" in several competitive Southern California districts in Republican hands, so many Democrats are running that party leaders fear the Democratic vote will end up badly splintered. That could mean no Democrat makes it to the November ballot in those districts, which would be an unexpected self-inflicted blow to the party’s hopes of taking control of the House."

Republicans by agreement ran only a few candidates in those districts and even though they had zero shot at winning in those districts under the closed primary system, they very nearly ran the table for the two spots in the open primary. With so many Democratic Party candidates on the ballot, their electorate became split among the many. Republicans voted for just a few and managed to get one on the ballot with the other very nearly taking the other spot. What was touted as a process that made elections more democratic almost gave the seat to the minority party.

As I recall, Democrats did manage to win one of the runoff seats but it was a near thing. I haven't followed CA's elections since. Maybe they made changes to close that loophole but this is an example of what causes me to reject open primaries.

source:

Fogdog said:

What bothers me about CA's open primary system is that it's susceptible to being gamed. This nearly happened in 2018:

" in several competitive Southern California districts in Republican hands, so many Democrats are running that party leaders fear the Democratic vote will end up badly splintered. That could mean no Democrat makes it to the November ballot in those districts, which would be an unexpected self-inflicted blow to the party’s hopes of taking control of the House."

Republicans by agreement ran only a few candidates in those districts and even though they had zero shot at winning in those districts under the closed primary system, they very nearly ran the table for the two spots in the open primary. With so many Democratic Party candidates on the ballot, their electorate became split among the many. Republicans voted for just a few and managed to get one on the ballot with the other very nearly taking the other spot. What was touted as a process that made elections more democratic almost gave the seat to the minority party.

As I recall, Democrats did manage to win one of the runoff seats but it was a near thing. I haven't followed CA's elections since. Maybe they made changes to close that loophole but this is an example of what causes me to reject open primaries.

source:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/californias-open-primaries-are-a-cautionary-tale-about-political-reform/2018/06/02/737e697c-65dd-11e8-a768-ed043e33f1dc_story.html

Click to expand...

no; that makes sense.
I would think it is up to Democratic leadership in the state to suggest and implement strategies most likely to send a candidate forward. (My rudimentary understanding of the process shows here; I’m not sure if this is workable.)

cannabineer said:

no; that makes sense.
I would think it is up to Democratic leadership in the state to suggest and implement strategies most likely to send a candidate forward. (My rudimentary understanding of the process shows here; I’m not sure if this is workable.)

Click to expand...

sounds like you are suggesting a closed primary system.

Fogdog said:

sounds like you are suggesting a closed primary system.

Click to expand...

If that’s the way to get the result… yes.

What sways me is that independents did come in two flavors: genuine centrists* and opportunists. At this point the centrists are fully under the Democrat wing. That leaves a residue enriched in stealthy freedomers.

*with a sprinkling of folks to the left of D and a generous shake of those to the right of where R was.

cannabineer said:

If that’s the way to get the result… yes.

What sways me is that independents did come in two flavors: genuine centrists* and opportunists. At this point the centrists are fully under the Democrat wing. That leaves a residue enriched in stealthy freedomers.

*with a sprinkling of folks to the left of D and a generous shake of those to the right of where R was.

Click to expand...

my impression of Independents of the 2000 vintage is that they were conservatives who didn't identify with Gingrich or Shrub and have become alienated by MAGA Trumpists. But they aren't fascists. Yet they are still conservatives in the sense that they object to Politically Correctness and the baggage that goes along with it, such as colleges with safe spaces. Also they will vote against socializing healthcare even though they support Medicare. They are right leaning centrists. Not quite Manchin but to the left of him. I consider them allies but not ones I can rely on.

So, IMO, they are welcome to register in my Oregon Democratic Party as Democrats if they want to participate in our Primary even though they might vote for Republican scum in our state races. We don't have to agree on everything. Just don't take away the race among Democrats for the Democratic Party's nomination. We are a political party and together we are more than if we are apart.

Our state's Republicans support horrible policies and I want them to have no say in what Democrats do.

Trump takes credit for ending Roe after calling Florida abortion law ‘terrible thing’
Former President Trump on Tuesday sought to clarify his position on abortion after facing backlash from some conservatives for calling Florida’s ban on the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy a “terrible thing.”

“I was able to do something that nobody thought was possible, end Roe v. Wade,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “For 52 years, people talked, spent vast amounts of money, but couldn’t get the job done. I got the job done! Thanks to the three great Supreme Court Justices I appointed, this issue has been returned to the States, where all Legal Scholars, on both sides, felt it should be.”

Trump reiterated that he believes in exceptions to abortion restrictions for cases of rape, incest and life of the mother, arguing that Republicans will struggle to win elections if they do not support exceptions.

“In order to win in 2024, Republicans must learn how to talk about Abortion. This issue cost us unnecessarily, but dearly, in the Midterms,” Trump wrote, adding that Republicans should paint Democrats as “Radicals on the Abortion issue.”

He also repeated a false claim that Democrats support abortion “even after birth,” which no one has actually backed. Vice President Harris earlier this month dismissed claims that Democrats support abortion until the moment of birth as “ridiculous.”
Trump’s lengthy statement on the topic of abortion comes as he has faced criticism from conservatives and rival Republican campaigns for comments he made on “Meet the Press” when moderator Kristen Welker asked if he thought Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) made a mistake by signing the state’s six-week abortion ban into law.

“I think what he did is a terrible thing and a terrible mistake,” Trump said. He went on to say both sides would come together to find a solution on abortion, an incredibly unlikely scenario given partisan divisions over the issue.
The former president, who is the frontrunner for the GOP nomination, has repeatedly dodged questions about whether he would support a federal abortion ban if elected in 2024.

But he is likely to take fire from all sides on the issue of abortion over his latest comments.
Rivals like DeSantis and former Vice President Mike Pence, as well as some activists, have argued Trump is inconsistent on an issue that is important to many socially conservative voters and does not support tougher restrictions.

“It’s never a ‘terrible thing’ to protect innocent life. I’m proud of the fetal heartbeat bill the Iowa legislature passed and I signed in 2018 and again earlier this year,” Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) posted Tuesday on X, formerly known as Twitter.

Democrats, meanwhile, will seize on Trump’s comments taking credit for the end of Roe v. Wade, which for decades protected a woman’s right to have an abortion. The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling last year overturning the landmark decision helped lead to major Democratic turnout in special elections and in the midterms last November.

“Bragging about overturning Roe. Is that still ‘hedging’?” Biden campaign spokesperson Kevin Munoz wrote on X.

Interesting...


‘It’s not polling, it’s real’: Dems overperform in 24 of 30 special elections so far in 2023

3,151 views Sep 20, 2023 #msnbc #elections #republicans
Five Thirty Eight compiled the 30 different special elections so far in 2023. In 24 out of these 30 races, Democrats over performed their baseline. “That says something robust and inspiring about where we stand at this moment,” says Chris Hayes.

DIY-HP-LED said:

Interesting...

‘It’s not polling, it’s real’: Dems overperform in 24 of 30 special elections so far in 2023

3,151 views Sep 20, 2023 #msnbc #elections #republicans
Five Thirty Eight compiled the 30 different special elections so far in 2023. In 24 out of these 30 races, Democrats over performed their baseline. “That says something robust and inspiring about where we stand at this moment,” says Chris Hayes.

Click to expand...

it’s nice to see a key player admit that polling and real are different things.