Tuco

It's not the odds that are concerning, it's the stakes. Hard not to be nervous when there are so many chips are on the table, regardless of what hand you are holding.

Accidentally?

I could certainly envision another balcony pose.

This is excellent work.

I'd love to believe, but I would call this race a Lean D at best. (Toss-up at worse.)

The Dems don't command the party loyalty that the Republicans do. Manchin isn't going to vote a certain way just because Joe tells him to. Getting to 50+VP in the Senate would be a huge advantage for controlling the agenda, but actually passing that agenda is going to be a bitch without being able to twist some arms, or a couple of extra seats.

Yep. And for any progressive who is cranky about pulling the lever for Biden, they should realize that if there is no mandate, there will be little backbone to implement even the moderate changes Biden is pushing.

They are only a distant memory if you are old enough. For most anyone under thirty, they don't remember.

I really wish I had more time to dig into this one this morning. The asshole was about two hours late to an outside event, in ~30 deg weather. And then when it was over, it took hours for Trumpkins to get back to their cars. The event was at TAC, which is a little airport connected to the the main Eppley airfield, but completely around the back of the airfield, around 3.5 mile walk. It's basically a county road that connects TAC to the rest of the Eppley parking. 30 medical contacts for TAC security. 7 transfers to the hospital. 1 complete clusterfuck.

Part of the death of expertise is the belief that competence doesn't matter. No matter how shitty someone in power is at running the government, it doesn't matter. Although, Hillary's emails definitely caused Benghazi.

I'm still surprised Trump is okaying it. The great thing about Bloomberg's campaign is that he is attacking Trump where Trump will be living in 3 months (god willing) and where one of his few successful resorts is. It's personal. "If your enemy is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him." Trump has shown the tendency to view states as either pro-Trump and anti-Trump, and the idea of him living out his post-presidency in an anti-Trump state is fucking delicious. So, while his campaign may not be relying on bullshit polls, I am willing to bet they are spoonfeeding Trump those polls to keep him from dedicating resources to a bad strategic play.

What's fucked up about that ad is that it shouldn't be a political ad. Pull the last lines about voting for Biden, and add in some lines about maintaining social distancing and wearing masks, to reduce the number of families that have to go through this shit, and put it out as a PSA. That is an ad the government should be running, not running from. But the traitors are more worried about maintaining power than protecting people.

Used to be, but after he relinquished whatever soul he may have had for Trump, I disagree. Nobody likes Ted Cruz, even his wife and children. He's a sad sack of shit. It would be like punching a cripple. There is no victory in that, even though Ted Cruz ate my son. The problem with punching Cruz is that he would kiss your ass after.

Bolded for emphasis. People like it when famous people visit. Particularly if you are in "fly over" country. I love that Trump is visiting Omaha today. It will get some Republicans excited that a President is visiting, and they know the only reason is because Nebraska splits up their EVs. It will make it harder for the GOP to push through a rule change that makes it an all or nothing vote. (I suspect the GOP will push it through regardless, because they know it helps them and they obviously don't give a shit about people think about fair play.) Also, the House is a very tight race, with the Republican incumbent doing everything he can to distance himself from Trump without looking like he is distancing himself from Trump. Hard to walk that line when Trump puts his arm around you at a rally.

Well, I certainly hope they stay the fuck off the streets unless something happen. The last thing I want is for him to station a bunch of troops in areas he thinks are likely to riot - ie, the places with heavy Dem turnout.

And maybe the assumption will be wrong, but it's one that is pretty reasonable when one candidate is pushing early voting and the other is attacking it. I'm not sure what you mean by "from whom they're coming demographically," The only demographics I see there are party affiliation (any major changes in registration have already happened) and that they are in Maricopa Co. And what that evidence supports is "Democrats are more likely to vote early in this election cycle." Hopefully that will portend greater Dem turnout (relative to Republicans) in total, but right now that is just a hope. Really good to know. Also good to know.

It's silly to compare early votes to total votes. Dems are more likely to vote early than Republicans. People in 2020 are much more likely to vote early than 2016. The stats are something that looks nice, but doesn't really say much.

One of the things that is particularly galling about the Hunter Biden accusations is that it basically comes down to influence peddling - whether someone with a personal relationship to a powerful politician is selling their influence in exchange for money. Off the top of my head, Trump has three well documented cases of influence peddlers that I can think of. Do you all remember Michael Cohen's "Essential Consultants" selling to ATT, Novartis, and Korean Aerospace Industries, in additional to the Russian-linked Columbus Nova? Seems like simpler times, doesn't? Recently Elliot Broidy pled guilty to lobbying for Malaysia. And, of course, Rudy is on Demtri Firtash's payroll. The big accusation against Hunter Biden is being spearheaded by the guy currently doing the same crime.

I see the GOP is sticking to its small-government philosophy with Trump's priorities.

Nice.

1. I don't think anyone is saying that oil extraction will be completely eliminated. 2. As far as global warming, using oil as a base for plastic probably isn't a big deal. The carbon stays in the plastic. (I imagine there is some carbon release, but it's not the same as combustion.) 3. We should probably be looking to reduce plastic anyway, for environmental reasons that have nothing to do with global warming. 4. There are plenty of cheap, efficient products we have transitioned away from for environmental or health reasons. Asbestos. Lead. Most refrigerants from more than 20 years ago. Who here still has a mercury thermometer? I will fucking fight you for it. 5. Most oil based products are oil based because that's what is currently easily sourced. Oil itself is just a junky, varied hydrocarbon with a lot of shit in that can be broken up, processed, and recombined to what you need. You can make plastic from corn. You can make plastic from natural gas or coal. You can make new plastic from old plastic. The oil itself isn't that critical, it's the molecules in it. And because we have been breaking those molecules out of oil for decades, we are really good at it. But it's not the only way.

Petro produces more than twice the amount of CO2 per kW-h than natural gas does. (And that's in a power plant; cars are going to be worse.) From an environmental standpoint, it is massively relevant whether we are talking oil or gas. EIA.gov stats

I would also say that standardizing on the batteries, at this point, would really stifle innovation. I want the car companies pushing that technology hard, and they wouldn't if batteries are fungible.

Well, the white male control on politics is being reduced, so I guess it makes sense he would feel disenfranchised, relatively speaking. It's not a coincidence that Republicans are talking about how democracy is not really a goal of the US. If a big part of your base is worried about whites losing their majority status it's important to demonstrate some twisted rationalization where they can still dominate the political process.

I disagree that oil will maintain close to its percentage of energy sector for the next 40 years. There were people saying the same shit you are about coal 20 years ago. And, yes, cheaper natural gas is part of coal's waning, but that does not tell the whole story. "Best available technology" for controlling NOx and heavy metals has pushed out a lot of old plants - both on the utility scale and industrial scale. I had a client on the industrial side who basically got his coal for free, but switched to gas because there was no way he was going to retrofit his stack to handle the new requirements. Evolving emission requirements definitely affect what the cut will be, and it is just plain shortsighted to believe that those emission requirements will not tilt against oil in the next 40 years. As far as "spending money," we need to spend money regardless. The options are 1) let some cities/countries get flooded losing those investments, 2) spend money on mitigation efforts, like sea walls and pumping stations, 3) reduce CO2 production. In reality, it will be a combo of the three. The US government is already spending 100s of millions of dollars relocating residents of low lying towns in Louisiana and Alaska, abandoning the old towns. We are already spending money on mitigation efforts. And, we are spending money on pushing renewables. There is a problem, and status quo is not a free solution. I favor a revenue neutral carbon dividend so that there is some economic balance between these options on the market, rather than expecting a lobbyist controlled Congress come up with prescriptive solution that doesn't have corporate pork and loopholes.