EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
I know what you're here for. What's his bias? Politically I at least like to think of myself as a true moderate, maybe (in US context) slightly naturally right-leaning but currently politically left-leaning if I had to be more specific.
User ID: 1043
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
13d ago
Per Politico, Zohran Mamdani set to topple Andrew Cuomo in NYC mayoral race, at least the Democratic primary. Live results here if that changes. The general election is in November -- Cuomo left the door open as he conceded tonight already to run as an independent; current mayor Eric Adams already is intending to run as an independent. This is nothing short of a massive political earthquake. Here's what I see as the most important questions raised:
Did ranked choice (and associated strategy) make a major difference?
We don't know yet quite how much. In percents, Mamdani leads 43.5 - 36.4 with 91% reporting as of writing, this means on Tuesday ranked-choice results will be released as he didn't clear 50% alone, since Brad Lander who cross-endorsed Mamdani has 11.4, Adrienne Adams who did not for anyone has 4.1. But it seems a foregone conclusion he will win. I'm not certain how detailed a ranked-choice result we get. Do we get full ranked choice results/anonymized data, or do we only see the final result, or do we get stage by stage? The voter-facing guide is here which I might have to peruse. I think the RCV flavor here is IRV (fewest first-place votes eliminated progressively between virtual "rounds" until one has a majority)
In terms of counterfactuals, I believe the previous Democratic primary system was 40%+ wins, under 40% led to a runoff between top two, so Mamdani would have won that anyways. But the general election is, near as I can tell, not ranked choice, it is instead simply plurality, no runoff. This creates some interesting dynamics. Of course, it's also possible the pre-voting dynamics and candidate strategies of this race were affected.
My thoughts? It seems Cuomo was ganged up on, and I think ranked choice accelerated this. It will be very interesting to see how this did or did not pay off for Lander specifically -- was he close-ish to a situation where people hate Cuomo most, but are still uncomfortable enough with Mamdani to hand Lander a surprise victory from behind? Statistically this seems unlikely in this particular case, but it could still happen, and how close he comes could offer some interesting insights about how popular a strategy like this might be in the future.
Will Democratic support and the primary victory make a difference in the general election?
The literal million-dollar question. Cuomo might very well run again as an independent -- otherwise his career is kind of extra-finished, no? I suppose he could always try and run for Congress later, but this is a black eye no matter how you spin it. Eric Adams, the former Democratic candidate, has also had his share of scandals, so potentially there is some similarity with Cuomo on that level. But he does have an incumbency advantage, and has expected some kind of fight for a while. Republicans might back him more, however, depending on how much they dislike Mamdani. It's hard to say. Also, Mamdani would have the Democratic party machinery and resources behind him. How much will they pitch in? That's an open question for sure. It will certainly help to some extent, for legitimacy if nothing else.
Will these results generalize nationally? And if so, what part of the results?
First of all, you must see this as an absolute W for grassroots. Cuomo is a political super-insider, despite being a major bully who is widely disliked. Yet many former enemies have backed him anyways, especially more "moderate" ones. Interesting article link. Bloomberg for example backed him. He formed a super PAC "Fix the City" and it spent a ton of time on negative attacks against Mamdani, especially on his pro-Palestinian comments framing them as anti-Israel. There's that angle of course. I'd rather not get into it personally, but I'm sure there will be some observations about if the Israel-Palestinian issue was big or not, whether it was fair, etc.
Then there's the socialism angle. Do Democrats want more extreme left candidates? Are socialists ready for the big time? Was this Cuomo's unique weaknesses? Was is just crazy turnout among young people? Did AOC and friends help a lot? All things we will be thinking about for a number of months to come. Personally, I see this as Mamdani doing much, much better among kitchen-table issues for the median voter. All about affordability. Of course, the merit of his attempt is a separate question. He's pro rent control (economically sketchy but not unheard of), wants to create public supermarkets (horrible idea all around, supermarket margins are very small), taxing the rich (will they flee or not?), and is obviously young and not super experienced.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
14d ago
Kevin Spacey did this to both American Beauty and House of Cards for a lot of people pretty closely. So great analogy.
I haven’t read Ellison so I can’t really say, but it has consistently been true that among many artists of all types, suffering, restrictions and angst leads to great art (or at least, the reverse is true, conditioning on great art). The real question is, how often does art in general present actual worldviews rather than merely challenge them, or throw out fascinating ideas that we then grapple with and fill in ourselves? Quite often! I think that’s partially the point, that new ideas, perspectives, and filters can be intoxicating and intriguing. And honestly I view sci-fi writing as more art than science or engineering or something, despite the reputation and being more “cerebral” (not a bad thing). As visionary as art can often present, I think most art is actually overwhelmingly reactionary on both a personal and societal level. It’s just how art is. Once you see it you can’t unsee it, and it shows up everywhere.
So in that sense I do wonder if you put more expectations on his art than any art merits. At the same time I deeply sympathize and more specifically you might not be wrong (again never read him)
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
15d ago
The vibes I'm getting is that Trump was way too bullish on the success of the Fordow strikes. Partly this is just Trump to a T: would he ever admit something didn't go well right away? Per this link, not only Fordow it buried deeper than the MOP bomb is actually rated for (~260 feet vs max disclosed bunker depth of 200, though that figure might be misdirection), but also we only possess about 30 of them -- so we'd only be able to make one more pass or so, given that it was reported that 14 were used. That is to say, a sustained bombing campaign might not have done much more. At least with a single strong strike, you can still deflect most of the blame on Israel, because it really is mostly opportunist. Satellite imagery is hard to parse, and obviously tells you little about the underground condition of the facility, but it's still plausible the cave-ins weren't super extensive. Source which also mentions that there's another facility in Isfahan that also has some deep underground areas, plus the chance Iran has a complex that the US/Israel don't know about, plus the fact that as noted here in thread, the uranium itself was almost certainly moved.
For Iran, in terms of the simple pros and cons, if they really has suffered a multi-year setback, I think there would be a certain logic to setting up a new deal, despite looking weak. There's still probably room for more carrot even so. If we say they really did get a major setback, by making a deal are you truly giving anything up? You'd only be giving up on something you no longer fully have. I was impressed by the initial Trump response to emphasize that he didn't necessarily care about regime change (formally and publicly giving up on it would be one such carrot). Sadly this did not last long. But overall yes, assuming the strikes were successful, there's a good argument to be made that this is the "best" (maybe not "good" but "best") chance for a longer solution since at least the JCPOA?
In terms of potential (middle to long term) blowback, I see two main routes. One, some kind of cynical move by China where they lend Iran tons of stuff as a major proxy, in a way that for Russia/Ukraine they didn't fully commit to. I don't actually list major reprisals on US troops by e.g. Iraq militias because I don't think that makes a massive difference in the long term. Two, and this is the true scary one you refer to, if the Iranian navy actually does try and fully close the straight, and gets in a shooting war with the US Navy, this is actually one of the worst-case scenarios (the true worst-case scenario is the Iran detonates a dirty bomb in Israel, but I doubt they'd be able to pull it off and it would make them an actual international pariah). It's possible the US Navy would take some losses, and that might lead to a wider war, because it's a major unknown how the public would react to major combat losses. Americans would probably stomach it, despite how ahistoric it would be, and just double down on long range bombing, but the endgame there would be very unclear and it could still snowball into a more conventional-ish war. It's just, anything short of losing a carrier or major battleship (think 100+ crew) I think wouldn't be enough to overcome the war skepticism.
Under scenario 2, the actual most probably end result would be a bombing campaign, and we get a rehash of history when an American pilot or two gets shot down and captured alive, resulting in yet another hostage situation. From there it's anyone's guess what would happen, but history does offer some clues.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
15d ago
I would say that this is correct, the left/liberal rhetoric is pro-Islamic mostly by accident (as a byproduct of the anti-racism and anti-discrimination ideas taken to a logical conclusion)
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
15d ago
This is actually part of why Congress or the President will “approve” arms sales - it’s not just national security (making sure we only give restricted tech to people we like) but to some extent foreign politics too. So it’s not like states totally ignore it when it happens, but yeah it’s generally not considered an act of war. This can vary and change over time of course: the Germans started unrestricted submarine warfare in WWI, and even today the Chinese throw a fit when we sell to Taiwan despite literally telling them we’d continue to do so over 50 years ago
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
15d ago
I was quite annoyed that I got more details quicker from the Daily Mail than I did most US outlets. Which included satellite images, though I can’t remember the provenance.
With that said I think if you look closely at the statements and rhetoric that we’ve heard so far, plus the physical facts, it seems highly likely this bombing run wasn’t enough for full destruction. They would probably need to pound it for a week to be more sure. Clearly the Trump admin is banking on Iranian peace seeking - I think they have a decent chance at it, but far from certain.
It’s been a bit of a mixed bag in craziness over the years. Ahmadinajad as president was a notorious “kill all the Jews” type but the Khamenei who always has ultimately held the reins has been a bit more pragmatic-ish. I personally think most of the allies they have promoted in the region were more cynical and self serving in purpose than religious. In other words ultimately they seem to genuinely care about keeping their own Islamic revolution going, but I don’t see them as super invasion prone. I mean 15 years anything can change but that’s the vibe.
However, theocracy type governments are particularly hard to consistently model - see for example some of the more extreme sects running out of control in Saudi Arabia and metastasizing to locations and purposes SA didn’t actually want.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
16d ago
Strong agree. Evidence of craziness is just literally exhibit A: basic factual comprehension. There's literally no need to assassinate Klobuchar to free up space for Walz to run for the Senate, because the other Senator Tina Smith, is retiring already in 2026, so there's already a free spot -- a spot which, by the way, Walz himself decided against running for. For reasons not totally explained by science yet, some small percentage of men just seem to snap at some point in their lives. Although I'm not sure how much exactly to put it into this category: guy was allegedly a classic prepper, and the plan itself wasn't actually all that badly thought out (in fact I'm impressed, props to the police, that he was caught on only the second house, though a mask in combination with a police uniform still seems like anti-synergy, for lack of a better word; are you trying to hide your identity or get closer/infiltrate your targets? Pick one).
At any rate, OP, you should feel a little bit of shame for this dreadful post, by the way You are treating these absurd claims as if they are possibly credible and at face value. You are bringing out the classic "they" in conspiracy framings. Who is "they"? Yeah, yeah, Antifa and BLM, but they aren't like, actually well-organized groups (at least not on any kind of national level). I think you can make a case for loosely coordinated actions on a local level, but a new Weather Underground this is not. Consciously attempting to "recruit susceptible members" is a pretty big claim and requires actual cognizance, not something that happens stochastically or by chance.
If you want to make an actual argument about how "Antifa, BLM" are moving towards an actual "targeted assassination" strategy, make the argument, don't piggypack on some random news story and stop at innuendo.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
16d ago
Disclaimer: I was like 10 at the time, so directly I most remember just like, graphics on TV of the invasion with arrows and stuff.
I very much agree. I think what's also missing in the conversation is that it seems to me that the US population was also still pretty bloodthirsty at the time and honestly was relatively easy to convince. A lot of post-9/11 anger still without easy outlets (Afghanistan's insurgency hadn't yet kicked into major gear and was relatively quiet, Bin Laden was elusive, etc) was still in the air. Sure, Bush coined the Axis of Evil but a ton of people ate that stuff right up (maybe we didn't learn the Cold War lessons as deeply as we should have...) All of this means that when Iraq's stability had majorly deteriorated by early to mid 2004, at the same time that year the big post-op intel reports were coming out to the public and were pretty damning. In that context, I think there's a very human motivation to try and wash your own hands and absolve yourself of responsibility, and it's very easy and cheap to say "I was tricked". And even then, there's some major revisionism going on. Polling data and the behavior of politicians both seem to agree that a lot of the regret only started to spike when Iraq and then later Afghanistan war deaths continued to rise, which was well after the facts of Iraq's WMD's were well known. So yeah, people also "backdated" their opposition to the war quite a bit. All you need to do is simply look at the contrast of the 2004 and 2008 election seasons.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
22d ago
By agency I mean the capacity to make new choices free of undue influence or restrictions. I realize the modern definition has shifted slightly and some people now use “agentic” as a synonym to someone who regularly takes novel action, but I mean it more in the Webster sense:
the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power
I would add, [especially over one’s self]
Maybe “volition” is the best word but sadly low usage
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
22d ago
Possibly was my rec, glad you liked it! Wasn’t able to figure it out but he did respond to a few comments particularly in the last few normal chapters IIRC, so it might be deducible. He said 2 years? So I assume Israel or South Korea
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
22d ago
I don’t see why our era is different other than a fairly stable system in which power could and did change hands often enough to make all voices feel heard more or less
That’s… a pretty big change actually. And fairly fundamental. It’s why at least to SOME extent Dems were justified in being a little freaked out by the noises Trump was making about elections. Because trust that your opponent will be forced to give you another chance to win is foundational to democracy as currently practiced.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
22d ago
I genuinely think the source for this strife is that people are self sorting too much. People naturally tend to moderate when exposed to other perspectives. It’s just the exposure is too skewed towards social media and online/TV personalities and too little towards everyday fellow humans. Also why travel as a source for eliminating prejudice has reversed - too little actual genuine interpersonal contact. People will never learn how to talk about politics without rage unless they attempt it (and occasionally fail). It’s not much different than other social skills in that way.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
22d ago
I think the word you’re looking for is not freedom but “agency”!
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
22d ago
I think it always makes more sense to describe freedom in specific contexts rather than try to define some kind of net, global, non-associated “freedom”. Freedom to breathe clean air without payment or restriction is a different freedom to, say, pollute the skies. These freedoms are often in conflict and it’s not clear that you can describe a ‘net freedom’ as if it were something numerical.
To choose a more grounded example, burning trash is a classic local conflict with no clear ‘more free’ option. One neighbor says it’s freedom to choose how to dispose of their own property on their own property. Another neighbor says it’s freedom to have clean air. Another says freedom is being able to throw loud parties whenever, but yet another says excessive noise infringes on their own freedom to do certain activities that might require quiet.
The solution is practical compromise, not arguing over which appeal to freedom is stronger.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
22d ago
Who is “they”? Best I can tell it was mostly the parents and school trying legal tricks (presumably to protect their reputation or something)? And the stated purpose feels at least facially plausible even if made in bad faith (that releasing shooter thoughts only makes them more famous and validates their approach as their writings are guaranteed notoriety) even if you disagree (as I do) and think there’s more to lose by a perception of secrecy. I mean, despite thinking this, it’s also true that media attention spawns copycats. I’ve never seen the copyright angle used but it also seems legally plausible.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
24d ago
Yes to turn signals otherwise they don’t become habitual,
No to stop signs because a rolling stop doesn’t necessarily increase safety (I find full-stop people often actually delay braking more),
No to strict speed because not even civil engineers intend them to be literal law, and anyways you sometimes need to speed to pass,
No, many roads aren’t wide enough for half the lane to be purely a passing lane and close trailing is dangerous,
Yes, but mostly because I lived in Miami for a while where all drivers are aggressive,
No; all these norms should be universal,
Until I die I will insist that full (non LED-obscene level) brightness lights should be required on all cars, all times of day, all lighting conditions.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
28d ago
That’s a great point and I was just trying to be brief with my allusion. I actually think that you could get bipartisan support for limiting the type of immigration that leads to large amount of remittances vs those who genuinely want to raise families and establish themselves. Thus my point about how the current split is partially a result of the stalled bipartisan efforts (like really we were only a vote or two shy several times)
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
28d ago
Maybe you would know, but are there good “AI” piano music transcription models nowadays?
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
28d ago
Only certain strategies, but there can sometimes be some fun dimensions especially when outnumbered to the Total War Troy or Pharoah games.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
28d ago
In my perception it’s not so much that the Democrats have gone crazy it’s more that Republicans won the messaging war and also, tactically, tricked many Democrats into knee jerk reactions. Dems have always been praising the virtues of model minority immigrants and at times Reps too, that’s important background. Dems had a long history of wanting more “charitable” treatment for the poor or oppressed (whether you think this is a weakness or a strength is partly a values disagreement). We can’t act like this isn’t a recurrent historical position - see for example the Statue of Liberty poem about bringing America the poor and hungry and persecuted. (Immigration sentiment also historically has come in waves for and against)
So when Trump says some overtly racist things or does a Muslim bad etc., plus the college educated lens of viewing Trump pronouncements as facially and literally accurate rather than the directional pronouncements most voters actually hear, I think there was an overreaction. Dems operate partly on guilt and border security plays on that guilt. But again, although some politicians got tricked into saying and supporting poorly considered things in Trump backlash (hate to admit he could be right about anything) extending even to the Biden years still in the shadow of Trump, I’d view this as mostly organic rather than some actual pro-immigrant plot.
To be sure, there IS a subset of Democrats who legitimately feel greater allegiance to the globe and humanity as a whole than they do to the US, they are loud but this is often a minority and they don’t always get into authority positions.
I should also add that at least 3 times in the last 15 years we got extremely close to compromise with immigration bills, but they all failed to pass so in a very real way the problem got worse than normal. In that way, of course the rhetoric gets most extreme, because the problem is more extreme
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
1mo ago
Few things terrify me more than a possible (and increasingly likely-sounding) future where superbugs of all kinds have free reign and with little recourse - aggressive Asian hornets (although allegedly wiped out), ticks, bed bugs, cockroaches, fire ants, termites (two major species just hybridized), etc. To say nothing of how violated I would feel if a tick literally gave me a meat allergy. Thankfully growing up in the PNW as well, seems like we were (still mostly are) one of the places with the fewest awful insects in the country.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
1mo ago
Again this whole thing would be easier, ironically even for Trump, had Trump not personally torpedoed a major compromise immigration bill before coming in to office. Which among other things would have increased the number of available judges.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
1mo ago
This is just anti-credentialism at its most stupid. If anything the legal industry is one of the best places to be credentialist, because so many cases turn on very specific case law and precedent that the non-credentialed have almost no hope of fully understanding. Let alone the whole demand for isolated rigor lens. Respectfully, your intuition is twisted.
The traditional argument is that US voting systems are mostly first-past-the-post (aka FPTP, single winners on plurality), and this naturally creates a two-party system due to fears about third parties just being spoilers/wasted votes (see Duverger's Law for the poli-sci theorizing). However, there is a counter-argument in that some other countries did not turn out this way despite similar voting systems, like Canada or India (for now). The traditional answer to that is that the US selects a president directly, while the PM can be chosen via some more indirect process. This is on purpose! Historically, although Parliament was kinda-sorta democratic, there was this weird interplay with the King. Baby America vehemently hated kings, and was trying to challenge the whole idea altogether! A directly-elected president is the ultimate rejection of a king-model. The modern reality of directly elected presidents being more powerful than confidence-of-Parliament heads of state was a bit unforeseen.
However, I want to make a different appeal, beyond structure: it might just be the way history shakes out! Remember the US is inventing representative democracy almost from scratch! Now-common ideas like political parties weren't even concepts yet, much less actual practice. The specifics of history have had very strong impacts on how the vote has gone. The first two pseudo-parties formed pretty early on over a mix of national vs state power, with a dash of foreign policy disagreement, pretty natural. One collapses and you get a brief mega-party period. Then Jackson shows up and is Trump-level controversial, setting up Democrats vs Whigs, partly stylistic but economics plays a big role here, and this starts to create more noticeable party-level mechanics as well (beyond voting blocs, you start getting them more involved in vote-getting, persuasion, and financing). Worth noting that at this point voting also starts to expand to non-property owners. Slavery eventually guts the Whigs a bit more than the Democrats, and you almost get a three-party scenario developing, or even a four-party one. It was probably the most likely electoral outcome for a while!
...and then a literal Civil War happens instead of waiting to let elections resolve things. At the end of which, you get two parties again, and surprise surprise for a while these line up neatly with the boundaries of the two actual contenders of the war. And yes, one of the two (the winner) is more powerful for a while. Also, every time an international war happens, you tend to get dominance by a party in the nationalist afterglow (sometimes backlash), and the US has had semi-regular wars. Since then, many of the issues have been packaged in such a binary way that arguably the "need" for a third party wasn't super strong. There's an interesting scenario where the Civil War doesn't happen and you do get some more regional powers competing, maybe even forming individual parties. However, circling back to one part of the "structure" argument: only one person can win the Presidency outright, otherwise the decision goes to the House. This happened, but was messy and unpredictable, so no one really wanted that to happen again. And remember, the president is increasingly powerful, and drives the big issues in politics, rather than reflects it! So there's motivation for regions to group together if only for convenience.
Since the US was first, many other democracies formed since then sometimes deliberately structure their democracies to be multi-party, such as via proportional representation or so such. Historically, though, again the US was first, so not only was our system the only one in town, but parties had to be "invented"! It took like 40 years for them to start to take shape, and the issues that became big deals in the US were also often of a very specific flavor: how to use the national apparatus to help specific local regions. Thus state-level and national politics are very intertwined. Also, due to the historical structure of state government, as well as state loyalty and identity, municipal power would very rarely be competitive with state power, so those elections were often done in tandem. And national issues almost historically have very often driven voting enthusiasm more than municipal issues (!!), so splinters in local approaches within one party almost never lead to local-only splinter parties. Furthermore, state and national candidates have to come from somewhere! If you have ambitions to be a bigger fish, why would you join a smaller party? I buried a lede for voting expansion in the earlier paragraph. It's my (weak) understanding that some important "third-party" groups in Canada formed in the aftermath of increasing suffrage. In the US, these new constituencies were often rapidly absorbed.
India is the other major counter-example of the FPTP theory. Duverger notes that FPTP works on a district-level, and this is low-key the case in India. However, India has also had extreme local social, religious, and economic stratification! This pairs with fewer major wars and international crises (we are in the post-WWII era exclusively, remember), which also means that there are fewer overpowering national questions. To some extent, there is economic motivation to create more national party-coalition blocs, but local identity politics is very strong to this date. While in the recent decade the BJP is showing early signs of a dominant party, it is yet to be seen if and how that might trickle down to state and municipal contests. Finally, India has a president, but they are also chosen indirectly, and are mostly ceremonial, but it's still worth pointing out how they are chosen: members of parliament (!) combined with locally elected leaders (!) use a secret ballot (!) of RCV-IRV ranked voting (!). The president in turn works basically like the Crown does for the UK, where the PM is chosen, again indirectly, via a confidence-based coalition approach (and can lose said confidence), and then basically appoints all the top level executive branch themselves.
So in short: I'd argue history mostly, which has heavily involved the president. A typical political scientist might say it's structurally all FPTP, with the constitutional role of President being relevant as a tiebreaker. Furthermore many modern democracies deliberately construct themselves to be different than the US in some way, despite the obvious influences, so it's not really a fair comparison in the statistical-causal sense.
More options
Context Copy link