American Politics XII: We Can Do Bad All By Ourselves

[Kannap]

Also had a giggle waking up to news that Cawthorn lost

But also disappointing to hear Budd won the Republican primary for Burr's Senate seat (oh wow, just noticing their last names aren't too dissimilar haha).

Was hoping McCrory would win there to give Beasley an easier shot in November.

[Forsher]

Also had a giggle waking up to news that Cawthorn lost

More interestingly to me, we appear to have reached the period where Millennial no longer means young person. Evidence:

Madison Cawthorn: Trump-backed Gen Z congressman ousted amid scandal

Is Cawthorn a Gen Z ex-congressman? Ah...

David Madison Cawthorn (born August 1, 1995)

Well...

Researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years, with the generation typically being defined as people born from 1981 to 1996.

Jonathan Rauch, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, wrote for The Economist in 2018 that "generations are squishy concepts", but the 1981 to 1996 birth cohort is a "widely accepted" definition for millennials.[1] Reuters also state that the "widely accepted definition" is 1981–1996.[47] The United States Census Bureau ended millennials in 1996 in a 2020 news release,[48] but they have stated that "there is no official start and end date for when millennials were born"[49] and they do not officially define millennials.[50]

whereas

The Pew Research Center specified 1997 as their starting birth year for Generation Z, choosing this date for "different formative experiences", such as new technological developments and socioeconomic trends, as well as growing up in a world after the September 11 attacks.[45] Pew has not specified an endpoint for Generation Z, but used 2012 as a tentative endpoint for their 2019 report.[45] The United States Library of Congress explains that "defining generations is not an exact science" although cites Pew to define Generation Z.[68] Major media outlets have cited Pew's definition including The New York Times,[69] The Wall Street Journal,[70] PBS,[71] and The Washington Post.[72] William H. Frey, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, defines Generation Z as those born from 1997 to 2012.[73][74] Gallup[75] and Ipsos MORI[76] start Generation Z at 1997. A US Census publication in 2020 described Generation Z as the “young and mobile” population with oldest members of the cohort born after 1996.[77] Statistics Canada cites Pew Research Center and describes Generation Z as spanning from 1997 to 2012.[78]

In other words, a news organisation had an opportunity to make someone a Millennial and didn't! It's a God damn miracle.

Of course, there are plenty of a definitions of Millennial that exclude 1995 and Gen Z that include 1995... and even more obviously the whole idea is completely bunk (I am, naturally, more inclined to support Zennial, which is the Millennial -> Gen Z version of the Gen X -> Millennial Xennial, because it's a shorter time frame)... but after years of Millennials just being the obsession, I do think this Gen Z framing of Cawthorn is worth remarking on.

[Kannap]

Also had a giggle waking up to news that Cawthorn lost

More interestingly to me, we appear to have reached the period where Millennial no longer means young person. Evidence:

Madison Cawthorn: Trump-backed Gen Z congressman ousted amid scandal

Is Cawthorn a Gen Z ex-congressman? Ah...

David Madison Cawthorn (born August 1, 1995)

Well...

Researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years, with the generation typically being defined as people born from 1981 to 1996.

Jonathan Rauch, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, wrote for The Economist in 2018 that "generations are squishy concepts", but the 1981 to 1996 birth cohort is a "widely accepted" definition for millennials.[1] Reuters also state that the "widely accepted definition" is 1981–1996.[47] The United States Census Bureau ended millennials in 1996 in a 2020 news release,[48] but they have stated that "there is no official start and end date for when millennials were born"[49] and they do not officially define millennials.[50]

whereas

The Pew Research Center specified 1997 as their starting birth year for Generation Z, choosing this date for "different formative experiences", such as new technological developments and socioeconomic trends, as well as growing up in a world after the September 11 attacks.[45] Pew has not specified an endpoint for Generation Z, but used 2012 as a tentative endpoint for their 2019 report.[45] The United States Library of Congress explains that "defining generations is not an exact science" although cites Pew to define Generation Z.[68] Major media outlets have cited Pew's definition including The New York Times,[69] The Wall Street Journal,[70] PBS,[71] and The Washington Post.[72] William H. Frey, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, defines Generation Z as those born from 1997 to 2012.[73][74] Gallup[75] and Ipsos MORI[76] start Generation Z at 1997. A US Census publication in 2020 described Generation Z as the “young and mobile” population with oldest members of the cohort born after 1996.[77] Statistics Canada cites Pew Research Center and describes Generation Z as spanning from 1997 to 2012.[78]

In other words, a news organisation had an opportunity to make someone a Millennial and didn't! It's a God damn miracle.

Of course, there are plenty of a definitions of Millennial that exclude 1995 and Gen Z that include 1995... and even more obviously the whole idea is completely bunk (I am, naturally, more inclined to support Zennial, which is the Millennial -> Gen Z version of the Gen X -> Millennial Xennial, because it's a shorter time frame)... but after years of Millennials just being the obsession, I do think this Gen Z framing of Cawthorn is worth remarking on.

Damn. I knew Cawthorn was young but I never realized he's just two years older than me.

[Ifreann]

Yoooo I didn't expect Madison Cawthorn to actually lose reelection.

After snitching about the cocaine orgies he was never going to win.

[The Orwell Society]

Yoooo I didn't expect Madison Cawthorn to actually lose reelection.

After snitching about the cocaine orgies he was never going to win.

[The Jamesian Republic]

Also his name is David?

[Kowani]

Former RNC finance chair Steve Wynn accused to be unregistered Chinese agent

[San Lumen]

Also his name is David?

Yes. Like senator Jon Ossoff he goes by his middle name.

[The Jamesian Republic]

Also his name is David?

Yes. Like senator Jon Ossoff he goes by his middle name.

I see.

Shout out to you and Shrilland for your extensive reporting last night of the primaries in Pennsylvania North Carolina and Oregon.

[San Lumen]

Yes. Like senator Jon Ossoff he goes by his middle name.

I see.

Shout out to you and Shrilland for your extensive reporting last night of the primaries in Pennsylvania North Carolina and Oregon.

Same goes for Calvin Coolidge and Woodrow Wilson.

Thank you very much. We still have a few uncalled statewide elections in Idaho. We should know later today and I will make the calls.

[Zurkerx]

Dude, even though I think any of them have a chance because its a swing state, Republicans really are picking all the WORST candidates they possibly can and Democrats are picking all the BEST candidates they possibly can for themselves in PA right now. Republicans have to be beating their heads against their desks tonight.

Easily although I would argue of the three contending- McCormick, Oz, and Barnette, McCormick would be their best shot while Barnette would be their worst. Oz is snuggled in the middle but since he has a lead of about 2,500 votes- and recounts usually only change a vote count by at most a few hundred- I think Oz has it although I there are some votes that remain to be counted. Either way, it'll come down to the wire.

That said, if Oz is the nominee, Democrats chances do improve I feel. With McCormick, it would have been a complete toss-up. With Oz, I feel it leans Fetterman. Oz had a 48% unfavorable view among Republicans.

As for Mastriano, well, I feel he won't win but it'll be a little closer than what people will expect.

[Bienenhalde]

I love how when a literal far-right great replacement larpy shooter kills 10 people, Tucker Carlson seriously has the nerve to call him apolitical. Sorry, but I haven't seen a centrist or an apolitical person push the far-right great replacement conspiracy so far as to literally start a terrorist attack.

Am I the only one who sees cheap irony in the great replacement theory? My ancestors saw the Great Replacement actually fold out, and it resulted in us hiding in North Carolina for several years.

Apparently the conspiracy theory originated among Europeans nativists, but yeah, it is rather ironic to see it becoming popular among American white nationalists.

[The Jamesian Republic]

I see.

Shout out to you and Shrilland for your extensive reporting last night of the primaries in Pennsylvania North Carolina and Oregon.

Same goes for Calvin Coolidge and Woodrow Wilson.

Thank you very much. We still have a few uncalled statewide elections in Idaho. We should know later today and I will make the calls.

You are welcome.

[San Lumen]

Dude, even though I think any of them have a chance because its a swing state, Republicans really are picking all the WORST candidates they possibly can and Democrats are picking all the BEST candidates they possibly can for themselves in PA right now. Republicans have to be beating their heads against their desks tonight.

Easily although I would argue of the three contending- McCormick, Oz, and Barnette, McCormick would be their best shot while Barnette would be their worst. Oz is snuggled in the middle but since he has a lead of about 2,500 votes- and recounts usually only change a vote count by at most a few hundred- I think Oz has it although I there are some votes that remain to be counted. Either way, it'll come down to the wire.

That said, if Oz is the nominee, Democrats chances do improve I feel. With McCormick, it would have been a complete toss-up. With Oz, I feel it leans Fetterman. Oz had a 48% unfavorable view among Republicans.

As for Mastriano, well, I feel he won't win but it'll be a little closer than what people will expect.

Oz will likely be the nominee.

Mastriano will very likely lose and drag down the whole ticket with him.

[Bienenhalde]

I really should have voted for McCormick, but I thought Barnette had a better chance of beating Dr. Oz. Seriously regretting my decision right now!

[Zurkerx]

Easily although I would argue of the three contending- McCormick, Oz, and Barnette, McCormick would be their best shot while Barnette would be their worst. Oz is snuggled in the middle but since he has a lead of about 2,500 votes- and recounts usually only change a vote count by at most a few hundred- I think Oz has it although I there are some votes that remain to be counted. Either way, it'll come down to the wire.

That said, if Oz is the nominee, Democrats chances do improve I feel. With McCormick, it would have been a complete toss-up. With Oz, I feel it leans Fetterman. Oz had a 48% unfavorable view among Republicans.

As for Mastriano, well, I feel he won't win but it'll be a little closer than what people will expect.

Oz will likely be the nominee.

Mastriano will very likely lose and drag down the whole ticket with him.

That's the hope Democrats have: it would put Oz in an uncomfortable spot since he'll probably be forced to preach 2020 Election Fraud Claims. PA is honestly the Democrats best hope to pick up a Senate Seat.

[San Lumen]

NSG decision desk can now make calls in two primaries in Idaho

Idaho Attorney General Republican: Former Congressman Raul Labrador defeats incumbent Lawrence Wasden. He will face Steven Scanlin in November and prevail.

Idaho Lieutenant Governor Republican: Speaker of the House Scott Bedke. He defeated controversial state rep Priscilla Giddings who was censured by the state legislature after she doxxed a 19-year old intern who accused another legislator of raping her.

Bedke will face Terri Pickens Manweiler in the fall. Idaho is one of few states were the Lieutenant Governor is elected separately.

The primary for Superintendent of Public Instruction remains undecided however the incumbent Sherri Ybarra will place third. former Idaho State Board of Education President Debbie Critchfield currently has the most votes.

In the Secretary of state primary incumbent Phil McCrane narrowly leads st Rep Dorothy Moon. McCrane has not endorsed the Big Lie whereas Moon has made outlandish claims such as Canadians were brought in to vote in the state.

[Grinning Dragon]

Easily although I would argue of the three contending- McCormick, Oz, and Barnette, McCormick would be their best shot while Barnette would be their worst. Oz is snuggled in the middle but since he has a lead of about 2,500 votes- and recounts usually only change a vote count by at most a few hundred- I think Oz has it although I there are some votes that remain to be counted. Either way, it'll come down to the wire.

That said, if Oz is the nominee, Democrats chances do improve I feel. With McCormick, it would have been a complete toss-up. With Oz, I feel it leans Fetterman. Oz had a 48% unfavorable view among Republicans.

As for Mastriano, well, I feel he won't win but it'll be a little closer than what people will expect.

Oz will likely be the nominee.

Mastriano will very likely lose and drag down the whole ticket with him.

I hope not. oz is a shitstain.

[Zurkerx]

Easily although I would argue of the three contending- McCormick, Oz, and Barnette, McCormick would be their best shot while Barnette would be their worst. Oz is snuggled in the middle but since he has a lead of about 2,500 votes- and recounts usually only change a vote count by at most a few hundred- I think Oz has it although I there are some votes that remain to be counted. Either way, it'll come down to the wire.

That said, if Oz is the nominee, Democrats chances do improve I feel. With McCormick, it would have been a complete toss-up. With Oz, I feel it leans Fetterman. Oz had a 48% unfavorable view among Republicans.

As for Mastriano, well, I feel he won't win but it'll be a little closer than what people will expect.

Oz will likely be the nominee.

Mastriano will very likely lose and drag down the whole ticket with him.

It's kind of tough to say now that I look at it: there are still tens of thousands of votes that need to be counted (based on a quick glimpse off of NYT, I think it's somewhere around 90,000-100,000 votes) so it'll make or break one candidate. The question becomes where those votes will break to more.

[San Lumen]

Oz will likely be the nominee.

Mastriano will very likely lose and drag down the whole ticket with him.

That's the hope Democrats have: it would put Oz in an uncomfortable spot since he'll probably be forced to preach 2020 Election Fraud Claims. PA is honestly the Democrats best hope to pick up a Senate Seat.

Its not out of the realm of possibility having Mastriano as the nominee costs them the State House and possibly the State Senate.

[Zurkerx]

That's the hope Democrats have: it would put Oz in an uncomfortable spot since he'll probably be forced to preach 2020 Election Fraud Claims. PA is honestly the Democrats best hope to pick up a Senate Seat.

Its not out of the realm of possibility having Mastriano as the nominee costs them the State House and possibly the State Senate.

No, it's not entirely: it will certainly put Republicans in a bad spot, especially since the RGA won't likely pour resources into that race. That also means the RGA can focus more resources in other States, such as Michigan and Wisconsin. But PA is certainly in danger of flipping Democrat and for it to remain in the hands of a Democratic Governor.

Also, somehow I quoted you twice and didn't realize it so I'll add that tidbit here in regards to Oz's standings:

It's kind of tough to say now that I look at it: there are still tens of thousands of votes that need to be counted (based on a quick glimpse off of NYT, I think it's somewhere around 90,000-100,000 votes) so it'll make or break one candidate. The question becomes where those votes will break to more.

[Zurkerx]

And we now know what went wrong in Clackamas County, which I should've read earlier: A printing error meant that a lot of ballots had defective barcodes rendering them unreadable by the voting machines

So a lot of those votes have to be transferred to new ballots by hand before they can be counted.

It appears this was the same problem in Lancaster County, PA: thee company that printed its mailed ballots included the wrong ID code. This delay will surely sting and bring further scrutiny on the voting law they passed in 2019 since, well, they can't count mail ballots early, which is rather dumb.

[Page]

Has our 52 - 48 Republican majority Senate codified Roe yet? Rhetorical question, obviously not.

[San Lumen]

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-new ... -rcna29191

Wyoming senator booed for gender identity remarks at graduation

Sen. Cynthia Lummis apologized after criticizing those who believe there are more than "two sexes, male and female" during a University of Wyoming speech.

[Ifreann]

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/wyoming-senator-booed-gender-identity-remarks-graduation-rcna29191

Wyoming senator booed for gender identity remarks at graduation

Sen. Cynthia Lummis apologized after criticizing those who believe there are more than "two sexes, male and female" during a University of Wyoming speech.

Surprised a Republican apologised rather than just getting booked on Fox to talk about cancel culture.