The more down-ballot fiascoes the Rs suffer in the primaries, the greater the chance of a blue wave sweeping over all three elective parts of the government in the general. And since that would probably not occur, or at least not be so dramatic, if TFG were not supporting the looniest of those singing his tune, the analogy to Jonestown becomes stronger. TFG gives them the Koolaid they crave and winds up with a form of mass suicide.
North Carolina has a produced a bumper crop of weirdos this cycle from current Lt Gov. Mark Robinson, who thinks he's running for State Pastor instead of governor; to Addison McDowell, who can keep his Cheerwine - and mine. Stuff tastes like hyper-sweetened cough syrup.
This cycles has even this atheist asking y'all to pray for us, here in the Tarhell State.
Being in California, the biggest annoyance is that all three would be great senators, and yet we can only have one. Two senators for 40 million people just feels so unfair.
Joe noting the seismic shift from Giants to Dodgers in California Senate representation is a superb, if painful, hiding in plain sight, perceptual scoop. Garvey may finish second but is unlikely to get a single vote in 9-county Bay Area; besides Tommy Lasorda, he was most hated Dodger of that awful era. Beat L.A.
I was a Dodger fan in the 70’s and Garvey was an admired player. As I remembered it, he was squeak clean personality. Ah the Dodgers were a great time over the years. But then Garvey up and went to San Diego. That is when I started to dislike him! He had some personal troubles, but for a squeaky-clean guy, it appeared 2 faces of him. Let him go back where he came from.
"While either would be able to mount a more meaningful challenge to Schiff in a general election than the Republican Garvey, the uncelebrated baseballer is on track to go with Schiff into the two-person arena this fall after polls close this evening."
Yes, California is a deep blue state, but its voters are not homogeneous, there is a large contingent of Repubs in the state. With this in mind, I find it highly likely that Mr Garvey will be Mr Schiff's opponent in Nov. Schiff will get a solid plurality of the Dems voting, and Garvey will likely get almost all of the Repub votes. As noted, Ms Porter and Ms Lee combined are approximately polling the same as Schiff, and both are well behind Garvey. IMO as an outsider, the CA Senate race has been a two person event from the start.
No matter how close Garvey is to Schiff after tonight, it is still a moot point. As I and others have said, CA is a blue state, and I don't really think that it will go purple with the election of Mr Garvey -- it ain't gonna happen. Ms Porter's and Ms Lee's supporters will go with Schiff, especially Ms Lee's; she inhabits the left wing of the Dem party, and I just don't see progressives voting for a Repub backed by the Mango Malignancy.
I agree - lots of important primary elections down-ballot in these states, particularly California where the "jungle primary" system can cause a single party election in the fall. U.S. Senate and/or CA-22 U.S. House of Reps come to mind.
During the recent Focus Group Podcast Sarah indicates she is not a fan of Adam Schiff. While I understand and agree with Sarah's perspective on Gavin Newsome, I don't understand Sarah's perspective on Adam Schiff. I view Schiff as a serious / responsible person, and on balance more good than bad. Definitely more skills, knowledge, and abilities with Adam Schiff than with baseball hall-of-fame prospect Steve Garvey and other standard CA-caliber candidates like Larry Edler. Sarah, help me understand your objections to Schiff.
If Dems were a tit--for-tat party, as soon as they have a majority they would censure Comer and Jordan and remove them from committees for their stupid "impeachment inquiry" into Biden. After all the GOP used their majority to do so to Shiff even though Shiff actually had powerful evidence.
Joe, "jungle" primary is a derogatory term. Are you showing your dislike of California? I live in CA and I'm a long-time Bulwark subscriber. If so, you're not singing my song.
Please use more neutral terms. Like “top-two” primary.
“Supreme control, alt, delete” is the most perfect heading I’ve seen in ages.
The more down-ballot fiascoes the Rs suffer in the primaries, the greater the chance of a blue wave sweeping over all three elective parts of the government in the general. And since that would probably not occur, or at least not be so dramatic, if TFG were not supporting the looniest of those singing his tune, the analogy to Jonestown becomes stronger. TFG gives them the Koolaid they crave and winds up with a form of mass suicide.
North Carolina has a produced a bumper crop of weirdos this cycle from current Lt Gov. Mark Robinson, who thinks he's running for State Pastor instead of governor; to Addison McDowell, who can keep his Cheerwine - and mine. Stuff tastes like hyper-sweetened cough syrup.
This cycles has even this atheist asking y'all to pray for us, here in the Tarhell State.
Being in California, the biggest annoyance is that all three would be great senators, and yet we can only have one. Two senators for 40 million people just feels so unfair.
Joe noting the seismic shift from Giants to Dodgers in California Senate representation is a superb, if painful, hiding in plain sight, perceptual scoop. Garvey may finish second but is unlikely to get a single vote in 9-county Bay Area; besides Tommy Lasorda, he was most hated Dodger of that awful era. Beat L.A.
Why was an opinion originally authored by a lone justice as a partial dissent transformed into a concurrence authored by all three liberals together?
A republican court in trying to look legitimate bungles itself into even more illegitimacy
I was a Dodger fan in the 70’s and Garvey was an admired player. As I remembered it, he was squeak clean personality. Ah the Dodgers were a great time over the years. But then Garvey up and went to San Diego. That is when I started to dislike him! He had some personal troubles, but for a squeaky-clean guy, it appeared 2 faces of him. Let him go back where he came from.
"While either would be able to mount a more meaningful challenge to Schiff in a general election than the Republican Garvey, the uncelebrated baseballer is on track to go with Schiff into the two-person arena this fall after polls close this evening."
Yes, California is a deep blue state, but its voters are not homogeneous, there is a large contingent of Repubs in the state. With this in mind, I find it highly likely that Mr Garvey will be Mr Schiff's opponent in Nov. Schiff will get a solid plurality of the Dems voting, and Garvey will likely get almost all of the Repub votes. As noted, Ms Porter and Ms Lee combined are approximately polling the same as Schiff, and both are well behind Garvey. IMO as an outsider, the CA Senate race has been a two person event from the start.
No matter how close Garvey is to Schiff after tonight, it is still a moot point. As I and others have said, CA is a blue state, and I don't really think that it will go purple with the election of Mr Garvey -- it ain't gonna happen. Ms Porter's and Ms Lee's supporters will go with Schiff, especially Ms Lee's; she inhabits the left wing of the Dem party, and I just don't see progressives voting for a Repub backed by the Mango Malignancy.
This is a guess and not a prediction.
fnord
I agree - lots of important primary elections down-ballot in these states, particularly California where the "jungle primary" system can cause a single party election in the fall. U.S. Senate and/or CA-22 U.S. House of Reps come to mind.
During the recent Focus Group Podcast Sarah indicates she is not a fan of Adam Schiff. While I understand and agree with Sarah's perspective on Gavin Newsome, I don't understand Sarah's perspective on Adam Schiff. I view Schiff as a serious / responsible person, and on balance more good than bad. Definitely more skills, knowledge, and abilities with Adam Schiff than with baseball hall-of-fame prospect Steve Garvey and other standard CA-caliber candidates like Larry Edler. Sarah, help me understand your objections to Schiff.
If Dems were a tit--for-tat party, as soon as they have a majority they would censure Comer and Jordan and remove them from committees for their stupid "impeachment inquiry" into Biden. After all the GOP used their majority to do so to Shiff even though Shiff actually had powerful evidence.
Joe, "jungle" primary is a derogatory term. Are you showing your dislike of California? I live in CA and I'm a long-time Bulwark subscriber. If so, you're not singing my song.
Please use more neutral terms. Like “top-two” primary.