Jeffries is elected Democratic House leader. The comment section in the National Review give us:

Yeah. It is The Bottom Half of the Internet.

In defense against automatic chiding of Jeffries’s brand of partisanship.:

So, to review, he called Donald Trump—the undisputed originator (let that slide, but note its inaccuracy) and propagator (better) of the birther lie, and a man who JUST THIS WEEK had an intimate dinner with a public antisemite and a holocaust denier—”The Grand Wizard of Pennsylvania Avenue.” Wow. He was way off, wasn’t he Tra?

And cometh from this, this canard.

Really…Biden, Obama and Clinton spoke at Sen Byrds funeral…they socialized and worked with him for years. Al Sharpton ran for President and went to the White House and advised Obama.
If Jeffries call them Grand Wizard I’d give him a pass…one fking dinner with someone no one knows…really f-ing really

Both Obama and Clinton addressed Byrd’s early career history as a Klansman. Clinton’s speaking on it was actually, if you bother with its merit, in its kind of politically incorrect and apologetic nature, controversial — and could be adapted to use for someone like Storm Thurmond — probably to stunted effect short of where a partisan wishes to go with it, but nonetheless Thurmond is a better analogy for Byrd than … (Looking down in this comments section)… “some guy no one’s heard of.” — A decade and a half out, Byrd — now most famous as the master of federal fund procurement into his state — is receding into memory and the latest generation “Zoomer” knows jack about him.

Wasn’t Biden friends with an actual KKK Grand Wizard? Short answer: no. Didn’t he go to his funeral and give a eulogy? Trump is an idiot and plays footsy with white nationalist, Biden was actual friends with the leadership of the KKK. Again: no. Byrd. Minor low level Klan member. Dumped when he got into electoral politics. Not a high level member, let alone Chief Honcho.

Oh goody! The 2016 election denier.

An attempt of equivalence. There is an element within the narrative which is false or off — sure, Russia or the Kremlin has “colluded” and attempted polin every election — as is the basics of special ops — but we drain at the election mechanics that has Trump as of now touching for Kari Lake’s stolen election.

Hm.

The World Health Organization has renamed monkeypox as mpox, citing concerns the original name of the decades-old animal disease could be construed as discriminatory and racist.

Isn’t the new name discriminatory against Hanson?

Amusing, if darkly so.

The guy states that he is non-binary. Nobody believes him. And they are undoubtedly or most likely right. We can now clip through various denials of this claim by transgender and non-binary activists, making a point on why would such a person do so for such after attacking such a safe space — set up for them — even if I can imagine that such scenario for a theoretical sane (and at least not homicidal) person coming in that does not feel welcome as a self-id ed “non binary” person because… He (they) comes across as too masculine. And, from what I have heard… Gathered… Seen… That plays out.

But then, there is no definition of “safe” in “space”. Bubble it up as much you can in a sea of people looking for a fight macro-ing the micro of aggressions.

The denial of the possibility right off the gate marks this off as an admission that their definitions are in large part cultural and not biological. At least at this point. Setting the actual fraction of percentages who biologically count on this score — after that, the keepers of a gate look for the accoutrements of hair colorIng and cut and how comfortable they are in a dress.

I am told that the young man who made a crack in a damnable college setting of “tell us your pronouns” by claiming “My King” (or was it “My God” — I don’t recall) was a horrible transphobic jackass. I am told that the woman who said “My pronouns are Queen and Empress” in a pile of socially conscious stage presentation was funny and insightful. The same damned joke, but never mind.

It occurs to me, though, that the common belief — that he is trying to evade a hate crime charge, could be wrong. Instead it some new Twinkie defense — going for the conservatives anti-woke jurors who want to make a sneering comment here, or perhaps it is a sideline insanity defense for those who view “gender nonconforming” as insanity.

In partial defense of Clarence Thomas. In partial defense of Mitch McConnell. The editorial for Thomas followed roughly about the lines for McConnell on this:

I look over and see the headline, emanating out of, I believe, the Huffington Post, and which I can see reaching into cutesy comments.

Mitch Mcconnell. Voted against interracial marriage. The hypocrisy of a man married to a Taiwanese immigrant!

What is the point of this bullshit? I know, you know, everyone knows that he voted against codifying same sex marriage into law. And from there we have an add on language, basically just for the help of it, for a pointless and tribalist “dunking” on McConnell, a “neener neener” which largely serves as a liberal epistemological closure in that from they will know what the hell they are talking about with McConnell’s vote against interracial marriage. These things kind of go on where things are conflated and the original sourcing gets lost.

In defense, or maybe just a due nod toward a much maligned figure out in liberal -left land, Kyrsten Sinema. She is credited with shoring up bi-partisan, which is to say Republican, support. Call her a Republican if you must, but here she brings in this dozen for the vote against closure.

And the dozen Republicans. I am slightly annoyed that Ben Sasse of Nebraska is not on this list.

1. Susan Collins of Maine
2. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
3. Rob Portman of Ohio
4. Mitt Romney of Utah
5. Thom Tillis of North Carolina
6. Roy Blunt of Missouri
7. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming
8. Richard Burr of North Carolina
9. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia
10. Dan Sullivan of Alaska
11. Joni Ernst of Iowa
12. Todd Young of Indiana

Sure, we would probably drop a few of them with a bill that actually kept same sex marriage in all the states should Obergefell get overturned. Hell, maybe even most of them.

There we come into the curious spell. We just left a midterm election where the Democrats were saved off of Abortion rights, and where various statewide abortion initiatives carried the day. But the fact is that the laws — and then on to what the restrictions of restrictions were — varied, measured against the prevailing opinions on different constituencies — so the claim that the “pro-choice” side carried the day is diluted. A new initiative and laws will come back in for future election cycles, hoping to push the boundaries further. And, more importantly, hoping to drag Democratic voters into the polls… What of the isdue, really? We are in the oughts with gradations of “civil unions” getting fought over and swinging politicians’ elections.

Polling always presents these odd statistical goofballs:

While 28 percent of the country overall said a GOP House investigation into whether Biden should be impeached was a “top priority,” that number nearly doubled to 55 percent among GOP respondents. Just 6 percent of Democrats agreed. Notably, GOP support for investigating Hunter Biden’s finances — a major source of conservative ire and conspiratorial theorizing — is slightly lower than their interest in an impeachment investigation, with 52 percent of GOP respondents calling it a priority for the incoming Congress. Meanwhile, 7 percent of Democrats agreed.

(1) The country never really got to the bottom of Billy Carter either. (The Carter Family Crime Ring?)

(2). Now, the shifting and sorting in political make-up creates interesting results. Back in 2000 and 2004, you had Nader crowing that Democrats should be blaming Gore for all those Democrats in Florida who voted Bush — zoom in and you see that out in North Florida it is a plethora of registered Democrats who have long since started voting Republican. This effect continues with conspiracy theories in Ohio in 2004 and yammering of “Who are these Democrats?”

Comedy ensues with Obama’s 2012 primaries. West Virginia takes center stage. The funny thing is that continued with the question of Bernie’s vote against Hillary in 2016.

But if I can answer that “who are these Democrats?” in those cases — left overs from a previous era — I actually don’t know in this case.

Seven percent. Who are these Democrats? Are they coming in from the Left? Maybe a permanent “throw the bums out” attitude pervades?

We move past any real news and into the “local color” aspect.

Saturday’s protests outside the Maricopa County Tabulation and Election Centre in Phoenix included a reenactment of the biblical Battle of Jericho by supporters of Ms Lake, who etc.

That time where something called “Christian nationalism” gets a broad definition to include your friendly churchy neighbor. But I guess whatever that thing is, it includes they. All dozen of them taking to the courthouse.

Reverend Nathan Empsall, the executive director of Faithful America, was quoted as saying to Newsweek that “re-enacting the Battle of Jericho is particularly troubling, given that it is a subtle threat of political violence”.

They nab a phrase, “kids in cages”, and project themselves and their grand narrative into their grievances to be redressed.

Curious, this.:

A major Democratic super PAC is launching a “tip line” for those attending former President Donald Trump’s expected 2024 campaign launch to provide potentially damaging information. […] “If you’re in South Florida and want to join American Bridge in the fight to hold Trump accountable, you should grab your phone and go down to Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday,” Goodinch added.

I do not exactly know how useful videos of dumbasses can be. Everyone already knows there are dumb assets there. For that matter, you will be able to find dumbasses at a political event you agree with — perhaps fewer, but enough to create a comprable montage out of which to giggle.

Checking in on the campaigning activities of the lot of past presidents, and toss in the former nominees while you are at it, and Assad’s easing A basic trajectory as time marches forward.

It is hard to gauge actual effects, but the Democrats fare better in their ability to trot their men out. Bill Clinton was at the hustlings to stump for a couple New Jersey congress critters, and a few figures along the Texas border. Surely he chugged Cuellar past the finish line — to the disgust of the left wing of the party — and that may be a message on the move of Clinton in the party — as Obama came in, his Democratic campaign futures put him at stops Obama could not do — helping North Dakota’s Democratic Senate candidate to a slim victory, and though it fell flat and dead he tried in Arkansas and Kentucky. Now, where the Democrats are fraying with border Hispanics, he gets shipped there.

Barack Obama was more center stage at the end — to the thicket of key races. Because otherwise you are staring at Joseph Biden who — without Obama — is kind of in the spot Obama was in 2010 when you stared at the campaign itinerary and saw Connecticut’s Democratic candidate and Delaware is throwing a sop to him and letting him speak before college crowds. Biden was allowed into Pennsylvania largely because Obama was there. He almost assuredly would still be campaigning for Hochul, though if forced to make a choice she’d stick with Hillary Clinton as speaker.

Al Gore is, naturally, nowhere to be seen, except in a bizarre Chuck Todd speculation that — hey! All Gore 2024, huh?, forcing A statement from Gore of an “ugh. Go away.”

George W Bush campaigned for Joe O’Dea in Colorado, despite the Democrats’ best efforts the Republican primary victory and always a longshot anyways — and the candidate I see the National Review offer up a post mortem headline of “He was worth a shot”. Otherwise, we now see Bush publicly announcing a meeting with Zelensky. If such a move can even slightly shore up some Republican support for Ukraine’s defense efforts — a hard seller, I suppose.

Mitt Romney wisely stayed away from endorsing Mike Lee, whose public requests for an endorsement are puzzling to me.

In the next campaign — the Georgia runoff — history as a guide — in 2002, some late last second decision robot calls from Bill Clinton get credited with pulling Mary Landrieu in Louisiana out of the fire, and 2008 saw president elect Obama doing as little as he could get away with while staring at a certain landslide loss with Georgia — all while McCain and Palin and Sell Miller gallavated the stare. In 2022, near as I can see — the Democrats have an advantage, and at last a good excuse not to include Biden in any Clinton and Obama campaigning — and the Republicans hope they could swap a tag team of their winning governor Kemp and Florida’s Desantis in for Trump.

Everybody believes in a “false consciousness” when their candidates and platforms fall short, and democracy when they win. So I gaze over the dailykos and see a bit about the white women of Georgia not voting for Stacey Abrams as way of jumping aside from a storyline on Black males slumping off of her due to vast “disinformation campaigns”. Abrams neither saint nor devil, and certainly not entitled to a victory — and I have yet to see anything untortid in a campaign by Republicans for black male votes that she faced up against — she forever has the taint of not conceding her 2018 loss.

The National Review is hilarious. It is a partisan political game where by any rights no matter the realistic size of a Republican victory, their pre-election prognostication should still be able to get called out on. But, realistically, even a tiny good night for the Republicans would have left them sweeping all things aside — ignoring their celebration on the impending defeat of New York governor Hochul and coming inauguration of Zedel. The magazine’s website did manage to get ahead with a column proposing that Hochul will be saved by some population mass exodus of New York Republicans. It is a variant on false consciousness doing in their politician. I suppose they all moved to Florida and contributed to DeSantis’s landslide.

It is worth pointing out New York Republicans had a good night, in that their House victories are responsible for the narrow Republican House and Speaker of the House McCarthy. Funny thing. In 2020, the Democrats won the House and lost expectations game, where in 2022 they lost the House and won the expectations game. Partisans wise we are at a point of stasis, fault-lines in the two parties all too apparent

For the question that haunted this election where in many respects I don’t much care — the Trump “insurrection” ploy and who runs the mechanics of election counting in 2024 — it is likely Trump’s January 8er has his governor in Arizona — and on that, though the Democratic tactical game in propping up some candidates worked well, it failed in one important instance.

I think Ben Shapiro is probably a step or three closer to reality than, oh, Alex Jones. I assume he only implies in a joking / not joking matter that Mr. Pelosi was a victim of gay lover’s spat, before extra caring the attackers’ bot partisan bonafidas that the Democrats are exploiting. Only the first part is not acceptable. Stick a “gate” on it and we wind our way to the acceptance and support toward…

Derrick Van Orden is your man in Congress. Though, conceivably he just joins a caucus of a few members who were if they weren’t sitting in their House office at the time, would have been there.

This “three Senate races” where the incumbent loses support but in a state where the partisan edge cushions them from any losing brings to mind one thought.

I don’t want a ninety year old Senator. The problem with Senator Grassley, though, is that his replacement would have come out of the Republican primary. So. Do you prefer Senator Doddering or Senator Young Buck Heavily Affected Trumpster?

There ought be term limits, but pretty damned generous ones. Five terms. Maybe even six. It gives you a good career. Probably able to do what you must in the minority with your party in the White House, in the majority with your party in the White House, in the minority with the other party in the White House, and in the majority with the other party in the White House. You have had your chance to build both oppositional and governing legacy. So goes Patty Murray. Wo will angle to be the next Chuck Grassley, I suppose. Her Democratic primary replacement may e better, worse, or just the same as her. Probably the last.

The situation with McMullin in Utah is amusing more than anything. I can’t quite figure what the people of Utah are aching for.