jerseyhoya wrote:Also worth keeping an eye on - Rangel down 10% in early returns - http://project.wnyc.org/election2014-ny-primary/

I really want him to lose... but I also feel like it's nearly certain he'll die within months if not weeks of leaving office. Retirement being the #1 killer of old people and all that.

Also, when they say "X percent of the votes in," they mean X percent of precincts, right? Probably a dumb question, but it's been bugging me.

Edit: it's now close as fuck in Deep Dixie--1200 votes with 94% in. Honestly not sure what I want to happen there. I do think it's pretty rich that Cochran's campaign amounts to "our awful state is totally fucked if we unlock our lips from Uncle Sam's collective teat," while the 'bagger seems to think that if you're dumb enough to live anywhere a hurricane can ruin your life, it's on you.

dajafi wrote:Also, when they say "X percent of the votes in," they mean X percent of precincts, right? Probably a dumb question, but it's been bugging me.

Yeah, I think it's almost always % of precincts

Pretty remarkable that it looks like turnout will go up by about 10% from the primary to the runoff. The last time that happened in any senate runoff was 1980.

Cochran did it

Rangel looks to have won as well.

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:Also, when they say "X percent of the votes in," they mean X percent of precincts, right? Probably a dumb question, but it's been bugging me.

Yeah, I think it's almost always % of precincts

has to be, since they have no idea how many people voted until they're all counted

jerseyhoya wrote:Cochran did it

Bet he'll get a nice congratulatory note from Harry Reid

McDaniel's been making some noises about challenging the votes that defeated him there in Miss'sipp. Please, jackass, please be on tv every day for weeks challenging the votes of black people for the sake of the Republican nomination.

Cochran's victory may be the death knell for the Republicans. What a complete fraud.

McDaniel sounds genuinely surprised to discover that he was running in an open primary

LG gotta disagree on Cochran's win being bad for Republicans. It's marginally bad for Teepers - to the extent any actually care about winning elections - and should be instructive for ambitious "true" Republicans

I'm wondering if voter ID didn't have some impact on the Mississippi election. A lot depends on the particulars of the Mississippi law and what kind of IDs are necessary but even more so how it was enforced and how much discretion poll workers have.

The other thing is I wonder if the tea party types will ever figure out that Citizens United and deregulation of campaign finance entrenches the establishment, making it much more difficult for a tea party insurgent to prevail at the polls. Probably not though, since they're cut from the same cloth as social conservatives who still haven't figured out after 45 years that the Republicans are using them.

I understand the politics of the Dems pushing a fight over the import/export bank, but it really should not be reauthorized.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:The IRS told Congress Friday it cannot locate many of Lois Lerner’s emails prior to 2011 because her computer crashed during the summer of that year.

no one would mistake me for Steve Wozniak but I'm not sure her computer would be critical to tracking down her archived mail. Seems like a pretty weak "the dog ate it" assertion

FWIW, 20k+ have been found from the recipients and her hard drive crash has been well-documented and proven. none of the emails were between Lerner and anyone from the White House, and there were two from someone in Congress seeking help filling out their taxes. But, you know, SCANDAL.

there are no victims in this case. it should simply be dropped by the republicans because they are simply preaching to people that will believe that the president does everything wrong.

So, the Court did not repeal Abood today, which was the "kill shot" the right and the National Right to Work Foundation were looking for out of Harris v. Quinn.

But they all but sent an engraved invitation to the National Right to Work Foundation and its allies to please, please, please file another suit, a direct challenge to Abood this time, so they can overturn it.

This is to say nothing of essentially granting private corporations freedom of religion, as they did today.

Right wing social engineering. For joy. This is the right wing judicial activism George Will was asking for awhile back.

"A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends," Alito said. "Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies."

These individuals' rights are NOT being denied. They can continue to not use contraception in their individual lives. How they've decided that a corporation can have religious opinions is beyond me.

One one end of hte spectrum, corporations are people who deserve more rights than the people they employ, my friend. On the other end, unions are corrupt monoliths made of no people blindly stealing money from those it forces to join, my friend.

The Supreme Court is full of pathetic individuals.

The Hobby Lobby ruling is a joke, and I keep hoping it might be the one that goes too far for average everyday Americans. There is a even a right-wing Christian evangelist who thinks this idea that corporations are entitled to religious beliefs is stupid, and he very succinctly says why: corporations have no soul, they can't go to heaven, they can't repent. They're not therefore capable of "exercising" religion.

Awful, embarrassing ruling, and no surprise signed on to be 5 men and exactly 0 women.

pacino wrote:These individuals' rights are NOT being denied.

I agree, and it is the same with Harris v. Quinn. Paying a "fair share" towards a union that bargains contracts from which you benefit if you are a member or not, and from which you are entitled to representation in employment matters whether you are a member or not, in no way takes away your free speech. You can run for office, push for decertification, or stand on public property and scream your head off about how bad unions are. No one is stopping you. If you convince enough of your fellows, you vote to get it removed.

If you don't have to pay towards something that majority voted for and works on behalf of everyone, member or not, then you shouldn't have to pay taxes either if you don't like the government.

i liked how Kennedy went out of his way to note that this did not apply to things like blood transfusions. basically it seems like they don't see this as medicine, or if they do it's at a lower prioritization than the rest of women's medical expenses. birth control is considered a luxury, something you have to earn to benefit from. it's not like married Christians don't use it.

just pull out guys

mozartpc27 wrote:
Awful, embarrassing ruling, and no surprise signed on to be 5 men and exactly 0 women.

i mean come on.