Jump to content

Fez

Members
  • Content count

    13,808
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Fez

  • Rank
    Like A Thundering Lizard
  • Birthday 11/18/1987

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Off Site

Recent Profile Visitors

12,966 profile views
  1. Also, there's pretty long history of governors who became senators (not just self-appointment, also being term-limited or otherwise deciding to run for the other office) and being disappointed in the experience. Turns out, being the sole executive is better than being 1 out of 100; especially in states with very powerful governorships. My understanding is that a lot of Arizona GOP insiders and electeds were pretty angry at McSally's post-election memo that basically blamed everyone except herself and her campaign for the loss; which is why it no longer seems a foregone conclusion that she'll get the appointment. Also, whoever gets the seat faces a special election in 2020 and then a regular election in 2022 and there's a good chance Arizona will be even more Democrat-friendly in 2020 than it was in 2018. McSally may just be too weak a candidate.
  2. He's exciting to a lot of Democratic voters and has shown an impressive fundraising ability, which will be critical in the summer and fall of this year when there's tons of potential candidates competing for attention. He's not my first choice, that's Amy Klobuchar; but I'm trying to be realistic about who I think can win a Democratic presidential primary in the era of Trump. I'll see where things on Super Tuesday, when my state votes, to figure out who I'll personally vote for in the primary. One possible name for VP is Bloomberg. I think he bought a lot of goodwill inside the party for how much money he donated this past cycle and how successfully he targeted his funding too. And if the nominee is one of the more liberal options, I think a legitimately famous centrist name like him could reassure the sorts of suburban moderates who voted Democratic for their first time ever this past November.
  3. Hard to say. I think some people thought he'd get less because of how much he cooperated with the Mueller investigation; but, as the SDNY made clear, he has not been cooperative on the taxi medallion-mob stuff. Also, worth noting, the judge agreed to recommend that Cohen serve at Otisville (the minimum security camp, not the medium security prison next to it), which is pretty widely considered the cushiest federal prison around and the go-to desired destination for white collar criminals. From a 2012 article on it:
  4. Its hard to make comparisons across states, but I think a lot of this conventional wisdom comes from the fact that this past election the high-profile centrist candidates had more success than the high-profile base-exciting ones. Sinema and Rosen won, Evers and Whitmer won; Beto lost, Abrams and Gillium lost (Nelson did too, though by less than Gillium). This isn't a totally fair comparison since different states have varying degrees of openness to voting Democratic. Although at the same time, maybe any candidate would've done as well as Beto in Texas this year, we just don't know. As for Biden, I'm now thinking he'd only run if it was coronation, and it clearly won't be a coronation. Apparently he hasn't sounded like a potential candidate in his recent speeches either; being really focused on specific topics of events (like cancer research) and not generally not making broader, politically-focused remarks. I think Sanders does run, but does significantly worse than a lot of people are expecting. I don't think Kerry or Warren run in the end. I strongly suspect the nominee will be Beto, Harris, or Booker, or whichever one of the younger non-senate folks has a really strong stretch of viral speeches in Fall 2019 (Castro, Garcetti, Gabbard, etc.) 'cause there's almost certainly going to be one of those.
  5. In a situation like that, I think the hope that folks in the "everybody else" category pledge their delegates to one of the front runners and it never goes to the super delegates. But I agree that even that could get really heated. On the other hand, there's always predictions of brokered conventions and reality always falls short; and even with the rule changes, I suspect the same will happen in 2020. One interesting thing I read is that a major difference between Democratic and Republican presidential primaries is that long-shot Democratic candidates don't have pocket billionaires keeping them afloat during lean times the way long-shot Republicans do. So after IA and NH, or even before any contests happen, there's a good chance the field will have already narrowed down to the 3 or 4 most viable candidates. Things could still get very messy with that number, but it would mean, if there is further narrowing after Super Tuesday, that the "everybody else" outside the top 2 may only have 5% or 6% of delegates at the convention, not 20+%; which would mean there's a greater chance that there's a pretty clear frontrunner to win on a second ballot.
  6. I certainly consider voting for Klobacher in the primary. I think she'd be one of the strongest general election candidates; she has actual crossover appeal from some moderate Republicans without being any sort of blue dog for some reason (just look at how far ahead she won compared to the other statewide Democrats in Minnesota). I don't know if she's popular enough with the base to get through though. With California and Texas both being part of Super Tuesday in 2020 though, there's definitely the chance for an early knockout blow for someone. On the other hand, with the new party rule that superdelegates aren't allowed to vote on the first ballot of a contested convention, there's definitely the possibility that things get long and messy as well.
  7. Took a pretty long break, but I'm fully back into AC: Odyssey. The game's still really good, I just wish it was a bit shorter, there's too much bloat in it. I could, and do, ignore a lot of the mechanics, but I want to complete all three of the main plot threads, not just the one that gets you to the end credits. And the other two are pretty damn involved.
  8. Yep, really. Either he and Roberts see some technical issue in the case that would've messed up their longterm judicial plans (which I doubt, since Gorsuch would've probably recognized any such issue too; Alito and Thomas wouldn't care) or this is Roberts being concerned about court legacy and somehow has leverage on Kavanaugh to keep him in line too (since it only takes 4 justices to agree to hear a case). Or, and I find this least likely of all, Kavanaugh doesn't want to defund Planned Parenthood.
  9. Buffalo beat St Bonaventure on the road for the first time in over a hundred years yesterday. I've never really bought into the "Big 4" of Buffalo (Buffalo, St Bonaventure, Niagara, and Canisius) as a real thing. Niagara and Canisius have a real rivalry, there's a trophy and everything for whoever wins the most games (they play each other in all Division I sports every year), which St. Bonaventure is sort of adjacent too but not really, and Buffalo has nothing to do with. But even so, St. Bonaventure has been the best basketball team in the area most years, and getting a win over them was always exciting. And now Buffalo's even done it on the road. Next up is a home game against Southern Illinois, who Buffalo already beat on the road this year by 9, and then the big remaining test of the season; road games against Syracuse and Marquette.
  10. Fez

    US Politics: A Feast for Crows

    I feel like the Brennan Center has kind of lost their credibility after their "analysis" that Democrats needed at least an 11 or 12 point vote margin to take the House; which was immediately attacked by polling data folks and was extremely debunked by the actual election results. Last I saw, Democrats would've still had a, very slight, majority with about a 3.5% win. Which is to say, its not that they don't have a point; gerrymandering is definitely bad and Democrats (and Republicans) should be able to have a House majority with a 1% win, if not less. But they exaggerate these points far beyond what's reasonable, to get more coverage; and it just looks pollyannaish.
  11. Fez

    US Politics: A Feast for Crows

    Considering states are their own administrative entities, providing significant numbers and amounts of services to their citizens (at least, in some states). This splitting sounds like an impossible bureaucratic nightmare.
  12. Fez

    US Politics: A Feast for Crows

    I don't know the details of Wisconsin, other than that the Republican party there is a pack of snakes. But the latest news out of North Carolina (overshadowed by Wisconsin, and to a lesser extent Michigan) is that Republicans are trying, while they still have the votes to override vetoes, to pass a bill requiring that county election chairs be Republican in election years* (and also trying to force the NC-9 race to be certified despite the fraud). *The literal language is a new statute that in even-numbered years all county election chairs be members of the party with the second most registered members in the state. As for the 269-269 split, Trump would probably still come out on top. The House votes, but its not a normal vote, each state delegation gets a single vote and whichever candidate gets a majority of the 50 delegations wins. If its a tie, no one wins and instead whoever the Senate votes to be Vice President becomes President instead. Delegations that deadlock don't cast a vote. And the thing is, even though Democrats have a 235-200 majority going into the new Congress, Republicans will still have a 26-22-2 majority in delegations. I believe it will be the 2020-elected Congress that would vote, not the incoming one, and it is possible Democrats get to a majority of delegations. There's a bunch of combinations of winning just 4 seats that'd do the trick, but most of them (like winning 1 additional Florida seat) probably only happen if the Democratic nominee is already winning.
  13. To be honest, I don't know much of the details of the overall lineage of tabletop gaming. I didn't realize there was a Pathfinder beyond Pathfinder: Kingmaker; I thought Pathfinder: Kingmaker was the spin-off from D&D (e3.5?), not that it was a module for the spinoff.
  14. Fez

    US Politics: A Feast for Crows

    With all the fuckery the state legislatures are trying to pull right now, Democrats should not be pinning their presidential hopes on Wisconsin or North Carolina at this point. Voter suppression in both is going to be off the charts in 2020. I think the easiest Democratic path at this point is the Clinton states+PA+MI+AZ. Sinema's final victory margin was 2.4%, and that was against a pretty generic Republican who ran a pro-Trump campaign. Arizona is ready to elect statewide Democrats again, at least in the current Trump era (Ducey did win re-election in a landslide, but he was running as a pro-business moderate against an underfunded opponent). Plus, Arizona also just elected a Democrat to be state secretary of state (another statewide win), who will be able to block most attempts at voter suppression and even be able to expand voting access.
  15. That is definitely a possibility. But the thing is, the kingdom stuff is the main hook of Pathfinder, both the tabletop and the video game. It's what makes it different from D&D (among some other things). It'd be a shame to lose that. If you've a hankering to play this type of game, I'd recommend finding another one of the batch from the past few years and play that. Wait for the P:K devs to finish sorting out things. I really liked what I played of the game, even back at launch with all the bugs. But my save is stopped right in the middle of chapter 2 (there's 7 chapters IIRC, and chapter 2 is when the kingdom building starts) and I'm not coming back until the game is where it needs to be.
×