2024

[Farfromgeneva]

Read the full transcript of this interview.

https://thenevadaglobe.com/articles/the ... d-j-trump/

Here is a clip of the r's hero:

TNG: So let’s talk Nevada. Governor Lombardo lost Clark County by six points. He lost Washoe county by two points. Yet, he still won the governorship. Additionally, he’s recently signed legislation that awards $25 million to the Culinary Union. The Nevada GOP believes that that money is going to be used for ballot harvesting. Proponents claim it’s going to be used for a “capital improvement project” that hasn’t been identified. A GOP presidential candidate hasn’t won Nevada since 2004. You lost Nevada twice. How do you win Nevada?

President Trump:

I think I won the last time. I think I won both times by a lot.

This is a state that is disgraceful.

You know, we sued on the basis of …they robbed the vote at a level.

We had a lawsuit that was so good and the judge didn’t want to see it. He didn’t even want to see it.

We had a lawsuit that was, in my opinion, conclusive.

But, you know, we have guys like Laxalt. Laxalt was a very weak candidate. He was pathetic.

You know, I helped Laxalt do the best he could. I guess his grandfather was strong. His father was good. But, I guess the chain got weaker and weaker.

But, Adam Laxalt is a stiff and he didn’t do the job. He was a lawyer. He was working for a lot of different people on trying to do the vote thing, but he wasn’t the right guy.

We have great people working now. We have great lawyers working.

They used COVID to cheat the last time. They used COVID to cheat.

But, we think we have a great team in place to stop it.

(We are then asked to wrap the interview due to an event at Calvary Chapel for NVGOP volunteers)

TNG: Nevada has unlimited ballot harvesting….

President Trump:

It’s a disgrace. I think it’s a disgrace. It’s, it’s not a good thing, but the Republicans are going to do it now.

You have to understand. I come here and I campaign. You have other people running elections.

The last time I did a great job in campaigning, but I didn’t know I had to be running every voting booth in the country.

Some states do a great job. This is a state that, I have no doubt, if you take a look at the litigation…but, Adam was not a good attorney and didn’t do a good job. I thought he was actually a terrible attorney and he didn’t do a good job. He wasn’t able to do anything with the litigation, but this is a state we did very well in.

I don’t believe this is a Democrat state. I think this is a Republican state.

I endorsed the governor. I like the governor. He was able to win. So we’re proud of him for doing that.

Yeah I mean sometimes the R word should still be utilized.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Yeah I mean sometimes the R word should still be utilized.

We're all pretty well regarded around here.

[Farfromgeneva]

Well I would never vote for this fat in Hawaii or if Gephardt ran again. Politicians really are all POS. The hubris to not “allow” another option.

No Labels, no hesitation

Hans Nichols
No Labels, the bipartisan group plotting an independent presidential campaign, is claiming that a new poll — commissioned by Democratic and Republican strategists determined to stop them — actually bolsters their case.

Why it matters: No Labels' response to the survey — which shows a moderate third-party candidate at roughly 20% in a three-way race with President Biden and former President Trump — is another indication that the deep-pocketed group isn’t going away.

"Their poll validates our strategy and what we’ve been saying all along — there’s an unprecedented opening for the independent ticket, a lot of room to grow and a viable path to victory," Dritan Nesho, chief pollster at No Labels, told Axios.
"It's a real insurance strategy given the weakness of and dissatisfaction with the major party candidates, especially Biden," he said.
Driving the news: No Labels is giving every indication that their leaders are dead-set on launching a third party campaign, with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) scheduled to headline a No Labels town hall in New Hampshire on July 17.

Alarmed — a collection of former Republican and Democratic lawmakers and top party strategists — are forming a new group, led by former House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt, to stop them, as the Washington Post reported Tuesday.
But first the strategists wanted their own data and commissioned a poll that included 2,200 likely national voters and then 500 voters in seven swing states.
What they're saying: "When the poll came back, it confirmed our worst fears," said Joe Trippi, a veteran Democratic strategist. "It sped up the decision to form a committee and start doing what we can, to make clear the danger of what No Labels represents."

"Whether it’s 38% or 43%, the die-hard Trump vote isn’t going anywhere," Trippi said.
"There will not be a no-party president — there will be a no-party spoiler if they go through with their plan," he said.
"A third party candidacy is very, very, very likely to elect Trump," said Greg Schneiders, whose firm, Prime Group, conducted the poll.
By the numbers: Without a third-party candidate, Biden leads Trump 52%-48%, according to the poll, which was conducted June 14-28.

With one, Trump leads Biden 40%-39%. The independent takes the remaining 21%.
Those numbers are roughly the same in swing states, with the independent candidate capturing 18% in Michigan and 28% in Arizona.
The big picture: The prospect that No Labels will nominate a candidate at their April convention and gain ballot access across the country is causing an increasing amount of alarm in the Democratic Party.

"I think it is worth freaking out about because I think this election is likely to be close," Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) told Axios. "And even if these idiots only get 3%, that could be 3% that throws the Electoral College in the wrong direction."
The centrist group Third Way, along with the progressive organization MoveOn, will brief Senate Democratic chiefs of staff on July 27 on the risk they believe a third party candidacy poses, Politico reported over the weekend.
"I haven’t ruled out anything," Manchin, who played footsie with Iowa voters in May, told CNN on Wednesday.

[ggait]

If you really want to facilitate more options, it is stupid to just form a new party.

Instead, you need to spend your efforts to reform the election system first. Because under our current "first past the post system, third party candidates have no chance of getting even one electoral vote, much less winning.

So all you get are stupid vanity campaigns that only create mischief.

Ross Perot got 18.9% of the 1992 popular vote and got zero electoral votes. ZERO.

So his accomplishment was either (i) electing Clinton with only 43% of the vote by drawing away Bush voters or (ii) absolutely nothing (if he drew equally from D and R voters).

Until you get stuff implemented like ranked choice voting, jungle primaries, etc, third party campaigns are narcissistic, idiotic, counter-productive and likely nefarious. Totally epic fails.

I like what No Labels is talking about, but I wish them only bad things/luck for the 2024 campaign. They need to work at fixing the plumbing first.

[Farfromgeneva]

If you really want to facilitate more options, it is stupid to just form a new party.

Instead, you need to spend your efforts to reform the election system first. Because under our current "first past the post system, third party candidates have no chance of getting even one electoral vote, much less winning.

So all you get are stupid vanity campaigns that only create mischief.

Ross Perot got 18.9% of the 1992 popular vote and got zero electoral votes. ZERO.

So his accomplishment was either (i) electing Clinton with only 43% of the vote by drawing away Bush voters or (ii) absolutely nothing (if he drew equally from D and R voters).

Until you get stuff implemented like ranked choice voting, jungle primaries, etc, third party campaigns are narcissistic, idiotic, counter-productive and likely nefarious. Totally epic fails.

I like what No Labels is talking about, but I wish them only bad things/luck for the 2024 campaign. They need to work at fixing the plumbing first.

Restructuring the system requires this action to occur. Nobody's going to restructure the system without some pain forced on them. That's the entire point and ergo I reject your hypothesis that it's nothing more than a vanity project. This system needs some creative destruction. I'm as much an emprical skeptic as they come and still believe things are done for a purpose beyond winning/losing as it that's the only path forward.

[MDlaxfan76]

If you really want to facilitate more options, it is stupid to just form a new party.

Instead, you need to spend your efforts to reform the election system first. Because under our current "first past the post system, third party candidates have no chance of getting even one electoral vote, much less winning.

So all you get are stupid vanity campaigns that only create mischief.

Ross Perot got 18.9% of the 1992 popular vote and got zero electoral votes. ZERO.

So his accomplishment was either (i) electing Clinton with only 43% of the vote by drawing away Bush voters or (ii) absolutely nothing (if he drew equally from D and R voters).

Until you get stuff implemented like ranked choice voting, jungle primaries, etc, third party campaigns are narcissistic, idiotic, counter-productive and likely nefarious. Totally epic fails.

I like what No Labels is talking about, but I wish them only bad things/luck for the 2024 campaign. They need to work at fixing the plumbing first.

Restructuring the system requires this action to occur. Nobody's going to restructure the system without some pain forced on them. That's the entire point and ergo I reject your hypothesis that it's nothing more than a vanity project. This system needs some creative destruction. I'm as much an emprical skeptic as they come and still believe things are done for a purpose beyond winning/losing as it that's the only path forward.

Perot provided that pain, do we really need to risk another Trump presidency?

And yeah, those are the stakes...want rank choice voting, support the orgs working on getting this done at the state levels first and making the argument: Like Fair Vote
https://fairvote.org/harvard_business_s ... g_reforms/

[Farfromgeneva]

If you really want to facilitate more options, it is stupid to just form a new party.

Instead, you need to spend your efforts to reform the election system first. Because under our current "first past the post system, third party candidates have no chance of getting even one electoral vote, much less winning.

So all you get are stupid vanity campaigns that only create mischief.

Ross Perot got 18.9% of the 1992 popular vote and got zero electoral votes. ZERO.

So his accomplishment was either (i) electing Clinton with only 43% of the vote by drawing away Bush voters or (ii) absolutely nothing (if he drew equally from D and R voters).

Until you get stuff implemented like ranked choice voting, jungle primaries, etc, third party campaigns are narcissistic, idiotic, counter-productive and likely nefarious. Totally epic fails.

I like what No Labels is talking about, but I wish them only bad things/luck for the 2024 campaign. They need to work at fixing the plumbing first.

Restructuring the system requires this action to occur. Nobody's going to restructure the system without some pain forced on them. That's the entire point and ergo I reject your hypothesis that it's nothing more than a vanity project. This system needs some creative destruction. I'm as much an emprical skeptic as they come and still believe things are done for a purpose beyond winning/losing as it that's the only path forward.

Perot provided that pain, do we really need to risk another Trump presidency?

And yeah, those are the stakes...want rank choice voting, support the orgs working on getting this done at the state levels first and making the argument: Like Fair Vote
https://fairvote.org/harvard_business_s ... g_reforms/

Maybe we do instead of kicking the can and talking about doing something which never gets done. How many folks your age have discussed this issue for over 20yrs now? We move closer to the worst of Europe as we continue to avoid any pain for anyone. Restructuring requires pain. I’ve yet to see a successful reorganization of any entity, business or otherwise, without some challenges along the way. I’m over 40yrs now.

I’m older enough to remember that election. Not sure a George Bush presidency over mIchael Dukakis is painful or tragic. Heck he raised taxes responsibly as a Republican!

[runrussellrun]

Old As Fork

A.I. 2024 Ad…

We'll get good candidates for POTUS at some point------right, guys?

Guys? Right?

Biden the MAN is old and establishment.

Biden the head of the Democratic-led Administration has gotten LOTS done for America....not the least of which was riding the office of the cretinous orange moron. I've said it before, the Head of State is just that: a figurehead. We NEED a left-of-center leader (yes, DEM) in the White House. Period.

To review:

-Didn't try to overthrow an election Yup, he succeeded
-passed the Inflation Reduction Act, the biggest investment in fighting climate change in history fighting what? how so ?
-passed the bipartisan infrastructure bill, the largest investment in infrastructure since Eisenhower more toll roads ?
-passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, breaking a 30-year streak of federal inaction on gun violence legislation
-signed the CHIPS and Science Act into law
-took out the leader of al Qaeda violence is cool
-followed through with ending America's longest war with minimal loss of American lives we don't do "war" anymore
-reauthorized and strengthened the Violence Against Women Act and yet, we can't define what a woman even IS
-signed the PACT Act, a bill to address veteran burn pit exposure This should have happened when he was VP
-signed the NATO accession protocols for Sweden and Finland and?
-issued executive order to protect reproductive rights and?
-in the process of canceling $10,000 of student loan debt for borrowers making less than $125,000 and canceled $20,000 in debt for Pell Grant recipients Your above infrastructure bills, who got the funds ?
-canceled billions in student loan debt for borrowers who were defrauded Huh?
-nominated now-Supreme Court Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to replace Justice Breyer
-brought COVID under control in the U.S. (e.g., COVID deaths down 90% and over 220 million vaccinated) only the unvaxxed get covid
-formed Monkeypox response team to reach communities at highest risk of contracting the virus
-unemployment at a 50-year low such a useless stat
-largest one-year deficit reduction in U.S. history (yes there are extenuating circumstances)
-limited the release of mercury from coal-burning power plants who so ?
-$5 billion for electric vehicle chargers where?
- $119 billion budget surplus in January 2022, first in over two years
-united world against Russia’s war in Ukraine not really
-ended forced arbitration in workplace sexual assault cases did he ? try again
-reinstated California authority to set pollution standards for cars states rights,
-ended asylum restrictions for children traveling alone
-signed the Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act, the first federal ban on lynching after 200 failed attempts
-Initiated “use it or lose it" policy for drilling on public lands to force oil companies to increase production
-released 1 million barrels of oil a day for 6 months from strategic reserves to ease gas prices
-rescinded Trump-era policy allowing rapid expulsion of migrants
-expunged student loan defaults
-overhauled USPS finances to allow the agency to modernize its service
-required federal dollars spent on infrastructure to use materials made in America
-restored environmental reviews for major infrastructure projects
-Launched $6 billion effort to save distressed nuclear plants
-provided $385 million to help families and individuals with home energy costs through the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. (This is in addition to $4.5 billion provided in the American Rescue Plan.)
-national registry of police officers who are fired for misconduct
-tightened restrictions on chokeholds, no-knock warrants, and transfer of military equipment to police departments
-required all federal law enforcement officers to wear body cameras
-$265 million for South Florida reservoir, key component of Everglades restoration
-major wind farm project off West coast to provide electricity for 1.5 million homes
-continued Obama administration's practice of posting log records of visitors to White House
-devoted $2.1 billion to strengthen US food supply chain
-invoked Defense Production Act to rapidly expand domestic production of critical clean energy technologies
-enacted two-year pause of anti-circumvention tariffs on solar
-allocated funds to federal agencies to counter 300-plus anti-LGBTQ laws by state lawmakers in 2022
-relaunched cancer 'moonshot' initiative to help cut death rate
-expanded access to emergency contraception and long-acting reversible contraception
-prevented states from banning Mifepristone, a medication used to end early pregnancy that has FDA approval
-21 executive actions to reduce gun violence
-Climate Smart Buildings Initiative: Creates public-private partnerships to modernize Federal buildings to meet agencies’ missions, create -good-paying jobs, and cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
-Paying for today’s needed renovations with tomorrow’s energy savings without requiring upfront taxpayer funding
-ended Trump-era “Remain in Mexico” policy
-Operation Fly-Formula, bringing needed baby formula (19 missions to date)
-executive order protecting travel for abortion
-invested more in crime control and prevention than any president in history
-provided death, disability, and education benefits to public safety officers and survivors who are killed or injured in the line of duty
-Reunited 500 migrant families separated under Trump
-$1.66 billion in grants to transit agencies, territories, and states to invest in 150 bus fleets and facilities
-brokered joint US/Mexico infrastructure project; Mexico to pay $1.5 billion for US border security
-blocked 4 hospital mergers that would've driven up prices and is poised to thwart more anti-competition consolidation attempts
-11 million jobs—more than ever created before at this point of a presidency
-record small business creation
-banned paywalls on taxpayer-funded research
-best economic growth record since Clinton
-eliminated civil statute of limitations for child abuse victims
-announced $156 million for America's first-of-its-kind critical minerals refinery, demonstrating the commercial viability of turning mine waste into clean energy technology.

You won't see NEAR this level of governance under ANY republican in 2024...

..

this is a complete lie.

[MDlaxfan76]

If you really want to facilitate more options, it is stupid to just form a new party.

Instead, you need to spend your efforts to reform the election system first. Because under our current "first past the post system, third party candidates have no chance of getting even one electoral vote, much less winning.

So all you get are stupid vanity campaigns that only create mischief.

Ross Perot got 18.9% of the 1992 popular vote and got zero electoral votes. ZERO.

So his accomplishment was either (i) electing Clinton with only 43% of the vote by drawing away Bush voters or (ii) absolutely nothing (if he drew equally from D and R voters).

Until you get stuff implemented like ranked choice voting, jungle primaries, etc, third party campaigns are narcissistic, idiotic, counter-productive and likely nefarious. Totally epic fails.

I like what No Labels is talking about, but I wish them only bad things/luck for the 2024 campaign. They need to work at fixing the plumbing first.

Restructuring the system requires this action to occur. Nobody's going to restructure the system without some pain forced on them. That's the entire point and ergo I reject your hypothesis that it's nothing more than a vanity project. This system needs some creative destruction. I'm as much an emprical skeptic as they come and still believe things are done for a purpose beyond winning/losing as it that's the only path forward.

Perot provided that pain, do we really need to risk another Trump presidency?

And yeah, those are the stakes...want rank choice voting, support the orgs working on getting this done at the state levels first and making the argument: Like Fair Vote
https://fairvote.org/harvard_business_s ... g_reforms/

Maybe we do instead of kicking the can and talking about doing something which never gets done. How many folks your age have discussed this issue for over 20yrs now? We move closer to the worst of Europe as we continue to avoid any pain for anyone. Restructuring requires pain. I’ve yet to see a successful reorganization of any entity, business or otherwise, without some challenges along the way. I’m over 40yrs now.

I’m older enough to remember that election. Not sure a George Bush presidency over mIchael Dukakis is painful or tragic. Heck he raised taxes responsibly as a Republican!

Perot wasn't in the Bush-Dukakis year, we got Clinton instead of HW., likely because of Perot's 18% vote get which garnered no electoral votes. And yes, HW raised taxes responsibly, much to the benefit of the next 8 years. But he lost votes to Perot because of it, and that put Clinton over the top. Ranked choice voting, IMO, would have been HW and a less aggressive Gingrich.

Ranked choice voting would tend to favor moderation and compromise, getting things done without high degrees of divisiveness.

We've seen Trump's ill effect, the building of a cult, but we haven't seen Trump unbound, MAGA unbound.
I don't think there's a restructure from Trump/MAGA in the direction of a more democratic system.
Quite the opposite is possible.
And quite possibly no return in my lifetime.
Minority rule deeply entrenched.

Sure, perhaps there would actually be the 'civil war' the hard right is so fond of threatening, but I think the frog boils and is cooked.

And that's a horrible risk.

[Farfromgeneva]

If you really want to facilitate more options, it is stupid to just form a new party.

Instead, you need to spend your efforts to reform the election system first. Because under our current "first past the post system, third party candidates have no chance of getting even one electoral vote, much less winning.

So all you get are stupid vanity campaigns that only create mischief.

Ross Perot got 18.9% of the 1992 popular vote and got zero electoral votes. ZERO.

So his accomplishment was either (i) electing Clinton with only 43% of the vote by drawing away Bush voters or (ii) absolutely nothing (if he drew equally from D and R voters).

Until you get stuff implemented like ranked choice voting, jungle primaries, etc, third party campaigns are narcissistic, idiotic, counter-productive and likely nefarious. Totally epic fails.

I like what No Labels is talking about, but I wish them only bad things/luck for the 2024 campaign. They need to work at fixing the plumbing first.

Restructuring the system requires this action to occur. Nobody's going to restructure the system without some pain forced on them. That's the entire point and ergo I reject your hypothesis that it's nothing more than a vanity project. This system needs some creative destruction. I'm as much an emprical skeptic as they come and still believe things are done for a purpose beyond winning/losing as it that's the only path forward.

Perot provided that pain, do we really need to risk another Trump presidency?

And yeah, those are the stakes...want rank choice voting, support the orgs working on getting this done at the state levels first and making the argument: Like Fair Vote
https://fairvote.org/harvard_business_s ... g_reforms/

Maybe we do instead of kicking the can and talking about doing something which never gets done. How many folks your age have discussed this issue for over 20yrs now? We move closer to the worst of Europe as we continue to avoid any pain for anyone. Restructuring requires pain. I’ve yet to see a successful reorganization of any entity, business or otherwise, without some challenges along the way. I’m over 40yrs now.

I’m older enough to remember that election. Not sure a George Bush presidency over mIchael Dukakis is painful or tragic. Heck he raised taxes responsibly as a Republican!

Perot wasn't in the Bush-Dukakis year, we got Clinton instead of HW., likely because of Perot's 18% vote get which garnered no electoral votes. And yes, HW raised taxes responsibly, much to the benefit of the next 8 years. But he lost votes to Perot because of it, and that put Clinton over the top. Ranked choice voting, IMO, would have been HW and a less aggressive Gingrich.

Ranked choice voting would tend to favor moderation and compromise, getting things done without high degrees of divisiveness.

We've seen Trump's ill effect, the building of a cult, but we haven't seen Trump unbound, MAGA unbound.
I don't think there's a restructure from Trump/MAGA in the direction of a more democratic system.
Quite the opposite is possible.
And quite possibly no return in my lifetime.
Minority rule deeply entrenched.

Sure, perhaps there would actually be the 'civil war' the hard right is so fond of threatening, but I think the frog boils and is cooked.

And that's a horrible risk.

That’s right on election. I wasn’t voting age obviously but we were all paying attention as the gulf war 1 was seemingly a big deal at the time.having been around Newt and his Ga (st Simons/st Mary’s crew-see JAM capital) I don’t think he would’ve been that different it’s impossible to know.

I’m for ranked choice. But I don’t believe we moderately, gradually going to get there. I don’t see it and as much as sometimes I’m ok with marginalize approaches this is an area I don’t see that working ever absent a major event exogenous or otherwise. Just chilling away at it is a path to nothing happening IMO.

You’re into the VC related world. Imagine if you took a gradual, marginal approach to that world? Is the destruction of our economy ok on the hope of something transformational but not in politics or how would you describe the differences since it would seem you take opposing positions on the two broadly speaking?

(BTW talked to a major VC this week and they still want to hear ARR, TAV etc and don’t care still about profitability in our lifetime, compliance, risk Mgt etc-crazy except he’s got tons of LP money locked up for quite a bit of time still and no one can get out of Capital calls).

[runrussellrun]

the above....anyone have any clue ?

On the other hand..........you have a however........and the opposite is true.

Likewize........possibly .


Personally, I thought unhinged maga behavior was on display on Jan 6th.

the only "worse for Trump" that is going to happen is he, rightfully so, will be thrown under the covid bus.

Trump, afterall....was the mastermind behind the "succe$$" that IS the nasty lil mRNA fake "vaccine".

mdlaxfan tells us he got covid. twice. fully "vaccinated" with the never used before in human history, mRNA drug.

and, than, mdlaxfan tells us tRumps fake vaccine works.

guess you are cool with Biden signing a "treaty" to make sure world health and bill gates , undeniably this time, with full permission, handle the NEXT world wide outbreak of sickness (illegal, btw, you need Senate approval )

[runrussellrun]

If you really want to facilitate more options, it is stupid to just form a new party.

Instead, you need to spend your efforts to reform the election system first. Because under our current "first past the post system, third party candidates have no chance of getting even one electoral vote, much less winning.

So all you get are stupid vanity campaigns that only create mischief.

Ross Perot got 18.9% of the 1992 popular vote and got zero electoral votes. ZERO.

So his accomplishment was either (i) electing Clinton with only 43% of the vote by drawing away Bush voters or (ii) absolutely nothing (if he drew equally from D and R voters).

Until you get stuff implemented like ranked choice voting, jungle primaries, etc, third party campaigns are narcissistic, idiotic, counter-productive and likely nefarious. Totally epic fails.

I like what No Labels is talking about, but I wish them only bad things/luck for the 2024 campaign. They need to work at fixing the plumbing first.

Restructuring the system requires this action to occur. Nobody's going to restructure the system without some pain forced on them. That's the entire point and ergo I reject your hypothesis that it's nothing more than a vanity project. This system needs some creative destruction. I'm as much an emprical skeptic as they come and still believe things are done for a purpose beyond winning/losing as it that's the only path forward.

Perot provided that pain, do we really need to risk another Trump presidency?

And yeah, those are the stakes...want rank choice voting, support the orgs working on getting this done at the state levels first and making the argument: Like Fair Vote
https://fairvote.org/harvard_business_s ... g_reforms/

Maybe we do instead of kicking the can and talking about doing something which never gets done. How many folks your age have discussed this issue for over 20yrs now? We move closer to the worst of Europe as we continue to avoid any pain for anyone. Restructuring requires pain. I’ve yet to see a successful reorganization of any entity, business or otherwise, without some challenges along the way. I’m over 40yrs now.

I’m older enough to remember that election. Not sure a George Bush presidency over mIchael Dukakis is painful or tragic. Heck he raised taxes responsibly as a Republican!

Perot wasn't in the Bush-Dukakis year, we got Clinton instead of HW., likely because of Perot's 18% vote get which garnered no electoral votes. And yes, HW raised taxes responsibly, much to the benefit of the next 8 years. But he lost votes to Perot because of it, and that put Clinton over the top. Ranked choice voting, IMO, would have been HW and a less aggressive Gingrich.

Ranked choice voting would tend to favor moderation and compromise, getting things done without high degrees of divisiveness.

We've seen Trump's ill effect, the building of a cult, but we haven't seen Trump unbound, MAGA unbound.
I don't think there's a restructure from Trump/MAGA in the direction of a more democratic system.
Quite the opposite is possible.
And quite possibly no return in my lifetime.
Minority rule deeply entrenched.

Sure, perhaps there would actually be the 'civil war' the hard right is so fond of threatening, but I think the frog boils and is cooked.

And that's a horrible risk.

That’s right on election. I wasn’t voting age obviously but we were all paying attention as the gulf war 1 was seemingly a big deal at the time.having been around Newt and his Ga (st Simons/st Mary’s crew-see JAM capital) I don’t think he would’ve been that different it’s impossible to know.

I’m for ranked choice. But I don’t believe we moderately, gradually going to get there. I don’t see it and as much as sometimes I’m ok with marginalize approaches this is an area I don’t see that working ever absent a major event exogenous or otherwise. Just chilling away at it is a path to nothing happening IMO.

You’re into the VC related world. Imagine if you took a gradual, marginal approach to that world? Is the destruction of our economy ok on the hope of something transformational but not in politics or how would you describe the differences since it would seem you take opposing positions on the two broadly speaking?

(BTW talked to a major VC this week and they still want to hear ARR, TAV etc and don’t care still about profitability in our lifetime, compliance, risk Mgt etc-crazy except he’s got tons of LP money locked up for quite a bit of time still and no one can get out of Capital calls).

IF only we followed the US Constitution, Art. I and why we have a US census every ten years......

.....and yet, the "facists" Woody referred to on his guitar, won out and locked the number of US House of Reps, back when fascists were super cool, all around the globe. Especially hear in the USA.

Our "democratic" peers, like England and Germany , have a much lower rep to population than the US, btw.

what else happened when the fascists got control ? IRS and Fed reserve created around the same time the fascist locked the number of US House members.

No taxation without representation ?

Even with email and a staff of 10, how is it possible to correspond with your constiuants, when the ratio is 1 to 700k ? Simple answer, ace$$ for mostly the monopolies.

Easy fix. The US Constitution IS the law.

Why, isn't Art. 1 being followed ?

[MDlaxfan76]

If you really want to facilitate more options, it is stupid to just form a new party.

Instead, you need to spend your efforts to reform the election system first. Because under our current "first past the post system, third party candidates have no chance of getting even one electoral vote, much less winning.

So all you get are stupid vanity campaigns that only create mischief.

Ross Perot got 18.9% of the 1992 popular vote and got zero electoral votes. ZERO.

So his accomplishment was either (i) electing Clinton with only 43% of the vote by drawing away Bush voters or (ii) absolutely nothing (if he drew equally from D and R voters).

Until you get stuff implemented like ranked choice voting, jungle primaries, etc, third party campaigns are narcissistic, idiotic, counter-productive and likely nefarious. Totally epic fails.

I like what No Labels is talking about, but I wish them only bad things/luck for the 2024 campaign. They need to work at fixing the plumbing first.

Restructuring the system requires this action to occur. Nobody's going to restructure the system without some pain forced on them. That's the entire point and ergo I reject your hypothesis that it's nothing more than a vanity project. This system needs some creative destruction. I'm as much an emprical skeptic as they come and still believe things are done for a purpose beyond winning/losing as it that's the only path forward.

Perot provided that pain, do we really need to risk another Trump presidency?

And yeah, those are the stakes...want rank choice voting, support the orgs working on getting this done at the state levels first and making the argument: Like Fair Vote
https://fairvote.org/harvard_business_s ... g_reforms/

Maybe we do instead of kicking the can and talking about doing something which never gets done. How many folks your age have discussed this issue for over 20yrs now? We move closer to the worst of Europe as we continue to avoid any pain for anyone. Restructuring requires pain. I’ve yet to see a successful reorganization of any entity, business or otherwise, without some challenges along the way. I’m over 40yrs now.

I’m older enough to remember that election. Not sure a George Bush presidency over mIchael Dukakis is painful or tragic. Heck he raised taxes responsibly as a Republican!

Perot wasn't in the Bush-Dukakis year, we got Clinton instead of HW., likely because of Perot's 18% vote get which garnered no electoral votes. And yes, HW raised taxes responsibly, much to the benefit of the next 8 years. But he lost votes to Perot because of it, and that put Clinton over the top. Ranked choice voting, IMO, would have been HW and a less aggressive Gingrich.

Ranked choice voting would tend to favor moderation and compromise, getting things done without high degrees of divisiveness.

We've seen Trump's ill effect, the building of a cult, but we haven't seen Trump unbound, MAGA unbound.
I don't think there's a restructure from Trump/MAGA in the direction of a more democratic system.
Quite the opposite is possible.
And quite possibly no return in my lifetime.
Minority rule deeply entrenched.

Sure, perhaps there would actually be the 'civil war' the hard right is so fond of threatening, but I think the frog boils and is cooked.

And that's a horrible risk.

That’s right on election. I wasn’t voting age obviously but we were all paying attention as the gulf war 1 was seemingly a big deal at the time.having been around Newt and his Ga (st Simons/st Mary’s crew-see JAM capital) I don’t think he would’ve been that different it’s impossible to know.

I’m for ranked choice. But I don’t believe we moderately, gradually going to get there. I don’t see it and as much as sometimes I’m ok with marginalize approaches this is an area I don’t see that working ever absent a major event exogenous or otherwise. Just chilling away at it is a path to nothing happening IMO.

You’re into the VC related world. Imagine if you took a gradual, marginal approach to that world? Is the destruction of our economy ok on the hope of something transformational but not in politics or how would you describe the differences since it would seem you take opposing positions on the two broadly speaking?

(BTW talked to a major VC this week and they still want to hear ARR, TAV etc and don’t care still about profitability in our lifetime, compliance, risk Mgt etc-crazy except he’s got tons of LP money locked up for quite a bit of time still and no one can get out of Capital calls).

To the first, if there was ranked choice voting in House voting, the extremes would be less rewarded, especially in the less gerrymandered era of Gingrich's day...he'd have still been a firebrand but there'd have been less electoral reward. (and no Clinton impeachment, as he'd have lost that election...based on "character"; think about the lessons taken from ignoring Clinton's foibles since then).

And we see it now in primaries where candidates are more worried about their flank than in appealing to the middle...and so we often end up with candidates and then legislators who are performing all the time for that flank. Same for State legislators, same for Senators.

To the second, actually I think VC is a collection of marginal bets that collectively lead to "disruption" of the status quo. We don't know which bets will necessarily pay best, but making lots of them drives innovation forward; it isn't a single, central decision to "destroy the economy" that overthrows the status quo ...so, I don't think the analogy actually holds as you framed it.

That said, I also don't know that we have the same dynamics present of competition of individual bets rewarded in politics...just because Alaska has success with ranked choice isn't going to mean Alaska wins greater market share, reward...other than relatively good governance processes in-state and good contribution to moderation at national level...sure, it works, but it isn't "disruptive" to the rest of the country. But it can be an experiment that others adopt as a model, or parts of which others adopt.

Listen, I thought Jan 6 was enough of a shock to the system that we might actually reform our system in important ways...but the Constitutional system is built to resist drastic reform, all sorts of intentional barriers, so, at best it takes time to build major consensus.

Yes, huge disruptions, ala the Civil War, can lead to lead to major Constitutional changes, but I think I'd rather 'muddle through' on a slower path, ala Civil Rights, based on demographics, morality, etc...

Right now, though, I'm much more concerned with a slide into a form of fascism or its kin that will be extremely difficult to reverse. Job 1 is to prevent that.

[Farfromgeneva]

If you really want to facilitate more options, it is stupid to just form a new party.

Instead, you need to spend your efforts to reform the election system first. Because under our current "first past the post system, third party candidates have no chance of getting even one electoral vote, much less winning.

So all you get are stupid vanity campaigns that only create mischief.

Ross Perot got 18.9% of the 1992 popular vote and got zero electoral votes. ZERO.

So his accomplishment was either (i) electing Clinton with only 43% of the vote by drawing away Bush voters or (ii) absolutely nothing (if he drew equally from D and R voters).

Until you get stuff implemented like ranked choice voting, jungle primaries, etc, third party campaigns are narcissistic, idiotic, counter-productive and likely nefarious. Totally epic fails.

I like what No Labels is talking about, but I wish them only bad things/luck for the 2024 campaign. They need to work at fixing the plumbing first.

Restructuring the system requires this action to occur. Nobody's going to restructure the system without some pain forced on them. That's the entire point and ergo I reject your hypothesis that it's nothing more than a vanity project. This system needs some creative destruction. I'm as much an emprical skeptic as they come and still believe things are done for a purpose beyond winning/losing as it that's the only path forward.

Perot provided that pain, do we really need to risk another Trump presidency?

And yeah, those are the stakes...want rank choice voting, support the orgs working on getting this done at the state levels first and making the argument: Like Fair Vote
https://fairvote.org/harvard_business_s ... g_reforms/

Maybe we do instead of kicking the can and talking about doing something which never gets done. How many folks your age have discussed this issue for over 20yrs now? We move closer to the worst of Europe as we continue to avoid any pain for anyone. Restructuring requires pain. I’ve yet to see a successful reorganization of any entity, business or otherwise, without some challenges along the way. I’m over 40yrs now.

I’m older enough to remember that election. Not sure a George Bush presidency over mIchael Dukakis is painful or tragic. Heck he raised taxes responsibly as a Republican!

Perot wasn't in the Bush-Dukakis year, we got Clinton instead of HW., likely because of Perot's 18% vote get which garnered no electoral votes. And yes, HW raised taxes responsibly, much to the benefit of the next 8 years. But he lost votes to Perot because of it, and that put Clinton over the top. Ranked choice voting, IMO, would have been HW and a less aggressive Gingrich.

Ranked choice voting would tend to favor moderation and compromise, getting things done without high degrees of divisiveness.

We've seen Trump's ill effect, the building of a cult, but we haven't seen Trump unbound, MAGA unbound.
I don't think there's a restructure from Trump/MAGA in the direction of a more democratic system.
Quite the opposite is possible.
And quite possibly no return in my lifetime.
Minority rule deeply entrenched.

Sure, perhaps there would actually be the 'civil war' the hard right is so fond of threatening, but I think the frog boils and is cooked.

And that's a horrible risk.

That’s right on election. I wasn’t voting age obviously but we were all paying attention as the gulf war 1 was seemingly a big deal at the time.having been around Newt and his Ga (st Simons/st Mary’s crew-see JAM capital) I don’t think he would’ve been that different it’s impossible to know.

I’m for ranked choice. But I don’t believe we moderately, gradually going to get there. I don’t see it and as much as sometimes I’m ok with marginalize approaches this is an area I don’t see that working ever absent a major event exogenous or otherwise. Just chilling away at it is a path to nothing happening IMO.

You’re into the VC related world. Imagine if you took a gradual, marginal approach to that world? Is the destruction of our economy ok on the hope of something transformational but not in politics or how would you describe the differences since it would seem you take opposing positions on the two broadly speaking?

(BTW talked to a major VC this week and they still want to hear ARR, TAV etc and don’t care still about profitability in our lifetime, compliance, risk Mgt etc-crazy except he’s got tons of LP money locked up for quite a bit of time still and no one can get out of Capital calls).

To the first, if there was ranked choice voting in House voting, the extremes would be less rewarded, especially in the less gerrymandered era of Gingrich's day...he'd have still been a firebrand but there'd have been less electoral reward. (and no Clinton impeachment, as he'd have lost that election...based on "character"; think about the lessons taken from ignoring Clinton's foibles since then).

And we see it now in primaries where candidates are more worried about their flank than in appealing to the middle...and so we often end up with candidates and then legislators who are performing all the time for that flank. Same for State legislators, same for Senators.

To the second, actually I think VC is a collection of marginal bets that collectively lead to "disruption" of the status quo. We don't know which bets will necessarily pay best, but making lots of them drives innovation forward; it isn't a single, central decision to "destroy the economy" that overthrows the status quo ...so, I don't think the analogy actually holds as you framed it.

That said, I also don't know that we have the same dynamics present of competition of individual bets rewarded in politics...just because Alaska has success with ranked choice isn't going to mean Alaska wins greater market share, reward...other than relatively good governance processes in-state and good contribution to moderation at national level...sure, it works, but it isn't "disruptive" to the rest of the country. But it can be an experiment that others adopt as a model, or parts of which others adopt.

Listen, I thought Jan 6 was enough of a shock to the system that we might actually reform our system in important ways...but the Constitutional system is built to resist drastic reform, all sorts of intentional barriers, so, at best it takes time to build major consensus.

Yes, huge disruptions, ala the Civil War, can lead to lead to major Constitutional changes, but I think I'd rather 'muddle through' on a slower path, ala Civil Rights, based on demographics, morality, etc...

Right now, though, I'm much more concerned with a slide into a form of fascism or its kin that will be extremely difficult to reverse. Job 1 is to prevent that.

Guess it all depends on whether the system makes the people or the people make the system. I don’t think we can tell that in general.

Good governance may or may not lead to market share gains but poor governance definitely has a negative effect on a locks over time. Even if I reject the hardcore BS artist DeSantis types often seen in sublet areas it doesn’t mean that a large portion of the net migration has to do with poor governance in NE states in the prior 25-50yrs. We just are really locusts swarming to where it’s easiest in this country. I see it on a micro level inside the perimeter of Atlanta where each new neighborhood redevelopment gets hot and leaves the prior one with overpriced and underutilized RE/CRE.

On the last point I think we’ve been in a multi dimensional civil war since the financial crisis personally. It’s just not muskets and cannons.

VC was based on small bets. Hasn’t been the case since SoftBank and Saudi Arabia started throwing money around. They don’t even consider small deals if you’re starting post seed under $10mm it’s almost impossible to even get an audience and now they don’t have any interest in good solid doubles everything is boom/bust. But isn’t “transformational” which is a term utilized in many VC missions statements the same thing as destruction? Just with a nice terminology wrapped around it. I hear it all the time from that crowd .

[MDlaxfan76]

If you really want to facilitate more options, it is stupid to just form a new party.

Instead, you need to spend your efforts to reform the election system first. Because under our current "first past the post system, third party candidates have no chance of getting even one electoral vote, much less winning.

So all you get are stupid vanity campaigns that only create mischief.

Ross Perot got 18.9% of the 1992 popular vote and got zero electoral votes. ZERO.

So his accomplishment was either (i) electing Clinton with only 43% of the vote by drawing away Bush voters or (ii) absolutely nothing (if he drew equally from D and R voters).

Until you get stuff implemented like ranked choice voting, jungle primaries, etc, third party campaigns are narcissistic, idiotic, counter-productive and likely nefarious. Totally epic fails.

I like what No Labels is talking about, but I wish them only bad things/luck for the 2024 campaign. They need to work at fixing the plumbing first.

Restructuring the system requires this action to occur. Nobody's going to restructure the system without some pain forced on them. That's the entire point and ergo I reject your hypothesis that it's nothing more than a vanity project. This system needs some creative destruction. I'm as much an emprical skeptic as they come and still believe things are done for a purpose beyond winning/losing as it that's the only path forward.

Perot provided that pain, do we really need to risk another Trump presidency?

And yeah, those are the stakes...want rank choice voting, support the orgs working on getting this done at the state levels first and making the argument: Like Fair Vote
https://fairvote.org/harvard_business_s ... g_reforms/

Maybe we do instead of kicking the can and talking about doing something which never gets done. How many folks your age have discussed this issue for over 20yrs now? We move closer to the worst of Europe as we continue to avoid any pain for anyone. Restructuring requires pain. I’ve yet to see a successful reorganization of any entity, business or otherwise, without some challenges along the way. I’m over 40yrs now.

I’m older enough to remember that election. Not sure a George Bush presidency over mIchael Dukakis is painful or tragic. Heck he raised taxes responsibly as a Republican!

Perot wasn't in the Bush-Dukakis year, we got Clinton instead of HW., likely because of Perot's 18% vote get which garnered no electoral votes. And yes, HW raised taxes responsibly, much to the benefit of the next 8 years. But he lost votes to Perot because of it, and that put Clinton over the top. Ranked choice voting, IMO, would have been HW and a less aggressive Gingrich.

Ranked choice voting would tend to favor moderation and compromise, getting things done without high degrees of divisiveness.

We've seen Trump's ill effect, the building of a cult, but we haven't seen Trump unbound, MAGA unbound.
I don't think there's a restructure from Trump/MAGA in the direction of a more democratic system.
Quite the opposite is possible.
And quite possibly no return in my lifetime.
Minority rule deeply entrenched.

Sure, perhaps there would actually be the 'civil war' the hard right is so fond of threatening, but I think the frog boils and is cooked.

And that's a horrible risk.

That’s right on election. I wasn’t voting age obviously but we were all paying attention as the gulf war 1 was seemingly a big deal at the time.having been around Newt and his Ga (st Simons/st Mary’s crew-see JAM capital) I don’t think he would’ve been that different it’s impossible to know.

I’m for ranked choice. But I don’t believe we moderately, gradually going to get there. I don’t see it and as much as sometimes I’m ok with marginalize approaches this is an area I don’t see that working ever absent a major event exogenous or otherwise. Just chilling away at it is a path to nothing happening IMO.

You’re into the VC related world. Imagine if you took a gradual, marginal approach to that world? Is the destruction of our economy ok on the hope of something transformational but not in politics or how would you describe the differences since it would seem you take opposing positions on the two broadly speaking?

(BTW talked to a major VC this week and they still want to hear ARR, TAV etc and don’t care still about profitability in our lifetime, compliance, risk Mgt etc-crazy except he’s got tons of LP money locked up for quite a bit of time still and no one can get out of Capital calls).

To the first, if there was ranked choice voting in House voting, the extremes would be less rewarded, especially in the less gerrymandered era of Gingrich's day...he'd have still been a firebrand but there'd have been less electoral reward. (and no Clinton impeachment, as he'd have lost that election...based on "character"; think about the lessons taken from ignoring Clinton's foibles since then).

And we see it now in primaries where candidates are more worried about their flank than in appealing to the middle...and so we often end up with candidates and then legislators who are performing all the time for that flank. Same for State legislators, same for Senators.

To the second, actually I think VC is a collection of marginal bets that collectively lead to "disruption" of the status quo. We don't know which bets will necessarily pay best, but making lots of them drives innovation forward; it isn't a single, central decision to "destroy the economy" that overthrows the status quo ...so, I don't think the analogy actually holds as you framed it.

That said, I also don't know that we have the same dynamics present of competition of individual bets rewarded in politics...just because Alaska has success with ranked choice isn't going to mean Alaska wins greater market share, reward...other than relatively good governance processes in-state and good contribution to moderation at national level...sure, it works, but it isn't "disruptive" to the rest of the country. But it can be an experiment that others adopt as a model, or parts of which others adopt.

Listen, I thought Jan 6 was enough of a shock to the system that we might actually reform our system in important ways...but the Constitutional system is built to resist drastic reform, all sorts of intentional barriers, so, at best it takes time to build major consensus.

Yes, huge disruptions, ala the Civil War, can lead to lead to major Constitutional changes, but I think I'd rather 'muddle through' on a slower path, ala Civil Rights, based on demographics, morality, etc...

Right now, though, I'm much more concerned with a slide into a form of fascism or its kin that will be extremely difficult to reverse. Job 1 is to prevent that.

Guess it all depends on whether the system makes the people or the people make the system. I don’t think we can tell that in general.

Good governance may or may not lead to market share gains but poor governance definitely has a negative effect on a locks over time. Even if I reject the hardcore BS artist DeSantis types often seen in sublet areas it doesn’t mean that a large portion of the net migration has to do with poor governance in NE states in the prior 25-50yrs. We just are really locusts swarming to where it’s easiest in this country. I see it on a micro level inside the perimeter of Atlanta where each new neighborhood redevelopment gets hot and leaves the prior one with overpriced and underutilized RE/CRE.

On the last point I think we’ve been in a multi dimensional civil war since the financial crisis personally. It’s just not muskets and cannons.

VC was based on small bets. Hasn’t been the case since SoftBank and Saudi Arabia started throwing money around. They don’t even consider small deals if you’re starting post seed under $10mm it’s almost impossible to even get an audience and now they don’t have any interest in good solid doubles everything is boom/bust. But isn’t “transformational” which is a term utilized in many VC missions statements the same thing as destruction? Just with a nice terminology wrapped around it. I hear it all the time from that crowd .

yes, some small, some huge, bets...but they're competitive bets, ongoing, not a single revolution and final solution...

Certainly not claiming perfection of either system.

Seems to me that a lot of the southern migration has been based on aging, sun, and/or where the infrastructure is new field. Mature areas have all sorts of cost downsides, whereas de novo seems fresh and full of opportunity. Mature is also likely to have higher tax structure for maintenance, and those retiring or with the ability to earn a lot of income regardless of where they are, find low tax environments quite attractive.

Who knows what will happens with climate...and it may also become a pretty dramatic issue around governance. We're seeing some of that come to the fore around abortion and gun extremism, but it's too early to tell whether those will be enough to offset benefits of easy construction, low environmental regulation, etc.

[Farfromgeneva]

If you really want to facilitate more options, it is stupid to just form a new party.

Instead, you need to spend your efforts to reform the election system first. Because under our current "first past the post system, third party candidates have no chance of getting even one electoral vote, much less winning.

So all you get are stupid vanity campaigns that only create mischief.

Ross Perot got 18.9% of the 1992 popular vote and got zero electoral votes. ZERO.

So his accomplishment was either (i) electing Clinton with only 43% of the vote by drawing away Bush voters or (ii) absolutely nothing (if he drew equally from D and R voters).

Until you get stuff implemented like ranked choice voting, jungle primaries, etc, third party campaigns are narcissistic, idiotic, counter-productive and likely nefarious. Totally epic fails.

I like what No Labels is talking about, but I wish them only bad things/luck for the 2024 campaign. They need to work at fixing the plumbing first.

Restructuring the system requires this action to occur. Nobody's going to restructure the system without some pain forced on them. That's the entire point and ergo I reject your hypothesis that it's nothing more than a vanity project. This system needs some creative destruction. I'm as much an emprical skeptic as they come and still believe things are done for a purpose beyond winning/losing as it that's the only path forward.

Perot provided that pain, do we really need to risk another Trump presidency?

And yeah, those are the stakes...want rank choice voting, support the orgs working on getting this done at the state levels first and making the argument: Like Fair Vote
https://fairvote.org/harvard_business_s ... g_reforms/

Maybe we do instead of kicking the can and talking about doing something which never gets done. How many folks your age have discussed this issue for over 20yrs now? We move closer to the worst of Europe as we continue to avoid any pain for anyone. Restructuring requires pain. I’ve yet to see a successful reorganization of any entity, business or otherwise, without some challenges along the way. I’m over 40yrs now.

I’m older enough to remember that election. Not sure a George Bush presidency over mIchael Dukakis is painful or tragic. Heck he raised taxes responsibly as a Republican!

Perot wasn't in the Bush-Dukakis year, we got Clinton instead of HW., likely because of Perot's 18% vote get which garnered no electoral votes. And yes, HW raised taxes responsibly, much to the benefit of the next 8 years. But he lost votes to Perot because of it, and that put Clinton over the top. Ranked choice voting, IMO, would have been HW and a less aggressive Gingrich.

Ranked choice voting would tend to favor moderation and compromise, getting things done without high degrees of divisiveness.

We've seen Trump's ill effect, the building of a cult, but we haven't seen Trump unbound, MAGA unbound.
I don't think there's a restructure from Trump/MAGA in the direction of a more democratic system.
Quite the opposite is possible.
And quite possibly no return in my lifetime.
Minority rule deeply entrenched.

Sure, perhaps there would actually be the 'civil war' the hard right is so fond of threatening, but I think the frog boils and is cooked.

And that's a horrible risk.

That’s right on election. I wasn’t voting age obviously but we were all paying attention as the gulf war 1 was seemingly a big deal at the time.having been around Newt and his Ga (st Simons/st Mary’s crew-see JAM capital) I don’t think he would’ve been that different it’s impossible to know.

I’m for ranked choice. But I don’t believe we moderately, gradually going to get there. I don’t see it and as much as sometimes I’m ok with marginalize approaches this is an area I don’t see that working ever absent a major event exogenous or otherwise. Just chilling away at it is a path to nothing happening IMO.

You’re into the VC related world. Imagine if you took a gradual, marginal approach to that world? Is the destruction of our economy ok on the hope of something transformational but not in politics or how would you describe the differences since it would seem you take opposing positions on the two broadly speaking?

(BTW talked to a major VC this week and they still want to hear ARR, TAV etc and don’t care still about profitability in our lifetime, compliance, risk Mgt etc-crazy except he’s got tons of LP money locked up for quite a bit of time still and no one can get out of Capital calls).

To the first, if there was ranked choice voting in House voting, the extremes would be less rewarded, especially in the less gerrymandered era of Gingrich's day...he'd have still been a firebrand but there'd have been less electoral reward. (and no Clinton impeachment, as he'd have lost that election...based on "character"; think about the lessons taken from ignoring Clinton's foibles since then).

And we see it now in primaries where candidates are more worried about their flank than in appealing to the middle...and so we often end up with candidates and then legislators who are performing all the time for that flank. Same for State legislators, same for Senators.

To the second, actually I think VC is a collection of marginal bets that collectively lead to "disruption" of the status quo. We don't know which bets will necessarily pay best, but making lots of them drives innovation forward; it isn't a single, central decision to "destroy the economy" that overthrows the status quo ...so, I don't think the analogy actually holds as you framed it.

That said, I also don't know that we have the same dynamics present of competition of individual bets rewarded in politics...just because Alaska has success with ranked choice isn't going to mean Alaska wins greater market share, reward...other than relatively good governance processes in-state and good contribution to moderation at national level...sure, it works, but it isn't "disruptive" to the rest of the country. But it can be an experiment that others adopt as a model, or parts of which others adopt.

Listen, I thought Jan 6 was enough of a shock to the system that we might actually reform our system in important ways...but the Constitutional system is built to resist drastic reform, all sorts of intentional barriers, so, at best it takes time to build major consensus.

Yes, huge disruptions, ala the Civil War, can lead to lead to major Constitutional changes, but I think I'd rather 'muddle through' on a slower path, ala Civil Rights, based on demographics, morality, etc...

Right now, though, I'm much more concerned with a slide into a form of fascism or its kin that will be extremely difficult to reverse. Job 1 is to prevent that.

Guess it all depends on whether the system makes the people or the people make the system. I don’t think we can tell that in general.

Good governance may or may not lead to market share gains but poor governance definitely has a negative effect on a locks over time. Even if I reject the hardcore BS artist DeSantis types often seen in sublet areas it doesn’t mean that a large portion of the net migration has to do with poor governance in NE states in the prior 25-50yrs. We just are really locusts swarming to where it’s easiest in this country. I see it on a micro level inside the perimeter of Atlanta where each new neighborhood redevelopment gets hot and leaves the prior one with overpriced and underutilized RE/CRE.

On the last point I think we’ve been in a multi dimensional civil war since the financial crisis personally. It’s just not muskets and cannons.

VC was based on small bets. Hasn’t been the case since SoftBank and Saudi Arabia started throwing money around. They don’t even consider small deals if you’re starting post seed under $10mm it’s almost impossible to even get an audience and now they don’t have any interest in good solid doubles everything is boom/bust. But isn’t “transformational” which is a term utilized in many VC missions statements the same thing as destruction? Just with a nice terminology wrapped around it. I hear it all the time from that crowd .

yes, some small, some huge, bets...but they're competitive bets, ongoing, not a single revolution and final solution...

Certainly not claiming perfection of either system.

Seems to me that a lot of the southern migration has been based on aging, sun, and/or where the infrastructure is new field. Mature areas have all sorts of cost downsides, whereas de novo seems fresh and full of opportunity. Mature is also likely to have higher tax structure for maintenance, and those retiring or with the ability to earn a lot of income regardless of where they are, find low tax environments quite attractive.

Who knows what will happens with climate...and it may also become a pretty dramatic issue around governance. We're seeing some of that come to the fore around abortion and gun extremism, but it's too early to tell whether those will be enough to offset benefits of easy construction, low environmental regulation, etc.

But built on a mantra of your margin is my opportunity fairly universally from what I hear. That's basically an assault on existing systems. Regardless of whether the merit is there or not only if the possibility of something better can pay for 8 losing bets.

Think its the low cost basis of an undeveloped area. I left NYC back end of the crisis. Didn't like moving to wifes hometown for the perception I wanted to be closer to his dough but I did see a 20yr gap in age between my parents and hers and frankly even though I can survive anywhere it kind of felt like NYC's time was close to being up then. I was also barely into my 30s when I left. Yes older folks are moving over weather, but I don't think that's what kids out of random colleges in Upstate NY, Western Mass, Central CT, etc who go to Worcester or Wheaton or RIT or Quinnipiac type schools are motivated by. They see it differently and that's kind of the more important cohort in migration IMO. Not the retirees as we know their impact on economy, all consumption, little to no investment or savings on average.

Florida may be a lot of older migrating for sun and lower taxes, but not what I see in TN, NC, SC & GA as much. Regardless of age I don't see many who come south for college going back to northern climates generally - even the Vandy, Emory, Duke, UNC, Wake,W&L etc kids tend to stick in the SE (in general there's talent coming out of W&L but I haven't met a more pretenious cohort in general in 13yrs in Atl including the UGA football idiots, they talk about their school 25yrs later more than someone who went to Harvard, but with half the accomplishments)

[PizzaSnake]

If you really want to facilitate more options, it is stupid to just form a new party.

Instead, you need to spend your efforts to reform the election system first. Because under our current "first past the post system, third party candidates have no chance of getting even one electoral vote, much less winning.

So all you get are stupid vanity campaigns that only create mischief.

Ross Perot got 18.9% of the 1992 popular vote and got zero electoral votes. ZERO.

So his accomplishment was either (i) electing Clinton with only 43% of the vote by drawing away Bush voters or (ii) absolutely nothing (if he drew equally from D and R voters).

Until you get stuff implemented like ranked choice voting, jungle primaries, etc, third party campaigns are narcissistic, idiotic, counter-productive and likely nefarious. Totally epic fails.

I like what No Labels is talking about, but I wish them only bad things/luck for the 2024 campaign. They need to work at fixing the plumbing first.

Restructuring the system requires this action to occur. Nobody's going to restructure the system without some pain forced on them. That's the entire point and ergo I reject your hypothesis that it's nothing more than a vanity project. This system needs some creative destruction. I'm as much an emprical skeptic as they come and still believe things are done for a purpose beyond winning/losing as it that's the only path forward.

Perot provided that pain, do we really need to risk another Trump presidency?

And yeah, those are the stakes...want rank choice voting, support the orgs working on getting this done at the state levels first and making the argument: Like Fair Vote
https://fairvote.org/harvard_business_s ... g_reforms/

Maybe we do instead of kicking the can and talking about doing something which never gets done. How many folks your age have discussed this issue for over 20yrs now? We move closer to the worst of Europe as we continue to avoid any pain for anyone. Restructuring requires pain. I’ve yet to see a successful reorganization of any entity, business or otherwise, without some challenges along the way. I’m over 40yrs now.

I’m older enough to remember that election. Not sure a George Bush presidency over mIchael Dukakis is painful or tragic. Heck he raised taxes responsibly as a Republican!

Perot wasn't in the Bush-Dukakis year, we got Clinton instead of HW., likely because of Perot's 18% vote get which garnered no electoral votes. And yes, HW raised taxes responsibly, much to the benefit of the next 8 years. But he lost votes to Perot because of it, and that put Clinton over the top. Ranked choice voting, IMO, would have been HW and a less aggressive Gingrich.

Ranked choice voting would tend to favor moderation and compromise, getting things done without high degrees of divisiveness.

We've seen Trump's ill effect, the building of a cult, but we haven't seen Trump unbound, MAGA unbound.
I don't think there's a restructure from Trump/MAGA in the direction of a more democratic system.
Quite the opposite is possible.
And quite possibly no return in my lifetime.
Minority rule deeply entrenched.

Sure, perhaps there would actually be the 'civil war' the hard right is so fond of threatening, but I think the frog boils and is cooked.

And that's a horrible risk.

That’s right on election. I wasn’t voting age obviously but we were all paying attention as the gulf war 1 was seemingly a big deal at the time.having been around Newt and his Ga (st Simons/st Mary’s crew-see JAM capital) I don’t think he would’ve been that different it’s impossible to know.

I’m for ranked choice. But I don’t believe we moderately, gradually going to get there. I don’t see it and as much as sometimes I’m ok with marginalize approaches this is an area I don’t see that working ever absent a major event exogenous or otherwise. Just chilling away at it is a path to nothing happening IMO.

You’re into the VC related world. Imagine if you took a gradual, marginal approach to that world? Is the destruction of our economy ok on the hope of something transformational but not in politics or how would you describe the differences since it would seem you take opposing positions on the two broadly speaking?

(BTW talked to a major VC this week and they still want to hear ARR, TAV etc and don’t care still about profitability in our lifetime, compliance, risk Mgt etc-crazy except he’s got tons of LP money locked up for quite a bit of time still and no one can get out of Capital calls).

To the first, if there was ranked choice voting in House voting, the extremes would be less rewarded, especially in the less gerrymandered era of Gingrich's day...he'd have still been a firebrand but there'd have been less electoral reward. (and no Clinton impeachment, as he'd have lost that election...based on "character"; think about the lessons taken from ignoring Clinton's foibles since then).

And we see it now in primaries where candidates are more worried about their flank than in appealing to the middle...and so we often end up with candidates and then legislators who are performing all the time for that flank. Same for State legislators, same for Senators.

To the second, actually I think VC is a collection of marginal bets that collectively lead to "disruption" of the status quo. We don't know which bets will necessarily pay best, but making lots of them drives innovation forward; it isn't a single, central decision to "destroy the economy" that overthrows the status quo ...so, I don't think the analogy actually holds as you framed it.

That said, I also don't know that we have the same dynamics present of competition of individual bets rewarded in politics...just because Alaska has success with ranked choice isn't going to mean Alaska wins greater market share, reward...other than relatively good governance processes in-state and good contribution to moderation at national level...sure, it works, but it isn't "disruptive" to the rest of the country. But it can be an experiment that others adopt as a model, or parts of which others adopt.

Listen, I thought Jan 6 was enough of a shock to the system that we might actually reform our system in important ways...but the Constitutional system is built to resist drastic reform, all sorts of intentional barriers, so, at best it takes time to build major consensus.

Yes, huge disruptions, ala the Civil War, can lead to lead to major Constitutional changes, but I think I'd rather 'muddle through' on a slower path, ala Civil Rights, based on demographics, morality, etc...

Right now, though, I'm much more concerned with a slide into a form of fascism or its kin that will be extremely difficult to reverse. Job 1 is to prevent that.

Guess it all depends on whether the system makes the people or the people make the system. I don’t think we can tell that in general.

Good governance may or may not lead to market share gains but poor governance definitely has a negative effect on a locks over time. Even if I reject the hardcore BS artist DeSantis types often seen in sublet areas it doesn’t mean that a large portion of the net migration has to do with poor governance in NE states in the prior 25-50yrs. We just are really locusts swarming to where it’s easiest in this country. I see it on a micro level inside the perimeter of Atlanta where each new neighborhood redevelopment gets hot and leaves the prior one with overpriced and underutilized RE/CRE.

On the last point I think we’ve been in a multi dimensional civil war since the financial crisis personally. It’s just not muskets and cannons.

VC was based on small bets. Hasn’t been the case since SoftBank and Saudi Arabia started throwing money around. They don’t even consider small deals if you’re starting post seed under $10mm it’s almost impossible to even get an audience and now they don’t have any interest in good solid doubles everything is boom/bust. But isn’t “transformational” which is a term utilized in many VC missions statements the same thing as destruction? Just with a nice terminology wrapped around it. I hear it all the time from that crowd .

yes, some small, some huge, bets...but they're competitive bets, ongoing, not a single revolution and final solution...

Certainly not claiming perfection of either system.

Seems to me that a lot of the southern migration has been based on aging, sun, and/or where the infrastructure is new field. Mature areas have all sorts of cost downsides, whereas de novo seems fresh and full of opportunity. Mature is also likely to have higher tax structure for maintenance, and those retiring or with the ability to earn a lot of income regardless of where they are, find low tax environments quite attractive.

Who knows what will happens with climate...and it may also become a pretty dramatic issue around governance. We're seeing some of that come to the fore around abortion and gun extremism, but it's too early to tell whether those will be enough to offset benefits of easy construction, low environmental regulation, etc.

But built on a mantra of your margin is my opportunity fairly universally from what I hear. That's basically an assault on existing systems. Regardless of whether the merit is there or not only if the possibility of something better can pay for 8 losing bets.

Think its the low cost basis of an undeveloped area. I left NYC back end of the crisis. Didn't like moving to wifes hometown for the perception I wanted to be closer to his dough but I did see a 20yr gap in age between my parents and hers and frankly even though I can survive anywhere it kind of felt like NYC's time was close to being up then. I was also barely into my 30s when I left. Yes older folks are moving over weather, but I don't think that's what kids out of random colleges in Upstate NY, Western Mass, Central CT, etc who go to Worcester or Wheaton or RIT or Quinnipiac type schools are motivated by. They see it differently and that's kind of the more important cohort in migration IMO. Not the retirees as we know their impact on economy, all consumption, little to no investment or savings on average.

Florida may be a lot of older migrating for sun and lower taxes, but not what I see in TN, NC, SC & GA as much. Regardless of age I don't see many who come south for college going back to northern climates generally - even the Vandy, Emory, Duke, UNC, Wake,W&L etc kids tend to stick in the SE (in general there's talent coming out of W&L but I haven't met a more pretenious cohort in general in 13yrs in Atl including the UGA football idiots, they talk about their school 25yrs later more than someone who went to Harvard, but with half the accomplishments)

“including the UGA football idiots”

“Man In Full”…

[MDlaxfan76]

My niece went to W&L, and a whole lot of my classmates from HS (most wouldn't stand a chance in hell of getting in now!).

Very, very preppy.

My son was recruited there and so we toured, coach nice guy, place is pretty, academics obviously very good; but my son said no way as my wife gushed about it on the drive out of town...I knew what it was...the multiple bookstore mannequins with black tie or sport coat, rows and rows of pinks and blues etc, Vineyard Vines ties, and especially bow ties and cummerbunds...huge array of W&L lacrosse ties, but...just way too preppy...

Yes, I think lifestyle is a factor with southern movement, and especially the ease of building big plants where nothing but farms or forest were before. As you say, 'low cost basis'.

[Farfromgeneva]

If you really want to facilitate more options, it is stupid to just form a new party.

Instead, you need to spend your efforts to reform the election system first. Because under our current "first past the post system, third party candidates have no chance of getting even one electoral vote, much less winning.

So all you get are stupid vanity campaigns that only create mischief.

Ross Perot got 18.9% of the 1992 popular vote and got zero electoral votes. ZERO.

So his accomplishment was either (i) electing Clinton with only 43% of the vote by drawing away Bush voters or (ii) absolutely nothing (if he drew equally from D and R voters).

Until you get stuff implemented like ranked choice voting, jungle primaries, etc, third party campaigns are narcissistic, idiotic, counter-productive and likely nefarious. Totally epic fails.

I like what No Labels is talking about, but I wish them only bad things/luck for the 2024 campaign. They need to work at fixing the plumbing first.

Restructuring the system requires this action to occur. Nobody's going to restructure the system without some pain forced on them. That's the entire point and ergo I reject your hypothesis that it's nothing more than a vanity project. This system needs some creative destruction. I'm as much an emprical skeptic as they come and still believe things are done for a purpose beyond winning/losing as it that's the only path forward.

Perot provided that pain, do we really need to risk another Trump presidency?

And yeah, those are the stakes...want rank choice voting, support the orgs working on getting this done at the state levels first and making the argument: Like Fair Vote
https://fairvote.org/harvard_business_s ... g_reforms/

Maybe we do instead of kicking the can and talking about doing something which never gets done. How many folks your age have discussed this issue for over 20yrs now? We move closer to the worst of Europe as we continue to avoid any pain for anyone. Restructuring requires pain. I’ve yet to see a successful reorganization of any entity, business or otherwise, without some challenges along the way. I’m over 40yrs now.

I’m older enough to remember that election. Not sure a George Bush presidency over mIchael Dukakis is painful or tragic. Heck he raised taxes responsibly as a Republican!

Perot wasn't in the Bush-Dukakis year, we got Clinton instead of HW., likely because of Perot's 18% vote get which garnered no electoral votes. And yes, HW raised taxes responsibly, much to the benefit of the next 8 years. But he lost votes to Perot because of it, and that put Clinton over the top. Ranked choice voting, IMO, would have been HW and a less aggressive Gingrich.

Ranked choice voting would tend to favor moderation and compromise, getting things done without high degrees of divisiveness.

We've seen Trump's ill effect, the building of a cult, but we haven't seen Trump unbound, MAGA unbound.
I don't think there's a restructure from Trump/MAGA in the direction of a more democratic system.
Quite the opposite is possible.
And quite possibly no return in my lifetime.
Minority rule deeply entrenched.

Sure, perhaps there would actually be the 'civil war' the hard right is so fond of threatening, but I think the frog boils and is cooked.

And that's a horrible risk.

That’s right on election. I wasn’t voting age obviously but we were all paying attention as the gulf war 1 was seemingly a big deal at the time.having been around Newt and his Ga (st Simons/st Mary’s crew-see JAM capital) I don’t think he would’ve been that different it’s impossible to know.

I’m for ranked choice. But I don’t believe we moderately, gradually going to get there. I don’t see it and as much as sometimes I’m ok with marginalize approaches this is an area I don’t see that working ever absent a major event exogenous or otherwise. Just chilling away at it is a path to nothing happening IMO.

You’re into the VC related world. Imagine if you took a gradual, marginal approach to that world? Is the destruction of our economy ok on the hope of something transformational but not in politics or how would you describe the differences since it would seem you take opposing positions on the two broadly speaking?

(BTW talked to a major VC this week and they still want to hear ARR, TAV etc and don’t care still about profitability in our lifetime, compliance, risk Mgt etc-crazy except he’s got tons of LP money locked up for quite a bit of time still and no one can get out of Capital calls).

To the first, if there was ranked choice voting in House voting, the extremes would be less rewarded, especially in the less gerrymandered era of Gingrich's day...he'd have still been a firebrand but there'd have been less electoral reward. (and no Clinton impeachment, as he'd have lost that election...based on "character"; think about the lessons taken from ignoring Clinton's foibles since then).

And we see it now in primaries where candidates are more worried about their flank than in appealing to the middle...and so we often end up with candidates and then legislators who are performing all the time for that flank. Same for State legislators, same for Senators.

To the second, actually I think VC is a collection of marginal bets that collectively lead to "disruption" of the status quo. We don't know which bets will necessarily pay best, but making lots of them drives innovation forward; it isn't a single, central decision to "destroy the economy" that overthrows the status quo ...so, I don't think the analogy actually holds as you framed it.

That said, I also don't know that we have the same dynamics present of competition of individual bets rewarded in politics...just because Alaska has success with ranked choice isn't going to mean Alaska wins greater market share, reward...other than relatively good governance processes in-state and good contribution to moderation at national level...sure, it works, but it isn't "disruptive" to the rest of the country. But it can be an experiment that others adopt as a model, or parts of which others adopt.

Listen, I thought Jan 6 was enough of a shock to the system that we might actually reform our system in important ways...but the Constitutional system is built to resist drastic reform, all sorts of intentional barriers, so, at best it takes time to build major consensus.

Yes, huge disruptions, ala the Civil War, can lead to lead to major Constitutional changes, but I think I'd rather 'muddle through' on a slower path, ala Civil Rights, based on demographics, morality, etc...

Right now, though, I'm much more concerned with a slide into a form of fascism or its kin that will be extremely difficult to reverse. Job 1 is to prevent that.

Guess it all depends on whether the system makes the people or the people make the system. I don’t think we can tell that in general.

Good governance may or may not lead to market share gains but poor governance definitely has a negative effect on a locks over time. Even if I reject the hardcore BS artist DeSantis types often seen in sublet areas it doesn’t mean that a large portion of the net migration has to do with poor governance in NE states in the prior 25-50yrs. We just are really locusts swarming to where it’s easiest in this country. I see it on a micro level inside the perimeter of Atlanta where each new neighborhood redevelopment gets hot and leaves the prior one with overpriced and underutilized RE/CRE.

On the last point I think we’ve been in a multi dimensional civil war since the financial crisis personally. It’s just not muskets and cannons.

VC was based on small bets. Hasn’t been the case since SoftBank and Saudi Arabia started throwing money around. They don’t even consider small deals if you’re starting post seed under $10mm it’s almost impossible to even get an audience and now they don’t have any interest in good solid doubles everything is boom/bust. But isn’t “transformational” which is a term utilized in many VC missions statements the same thing as destruction? Just with a nice terminology wrapped around it. I hear it all the time from that crowd .

yes, some small, some huge, bets...but they're competitive bets, ongoing, not a single revolution and final solution...

Certainly not claiming perfection of either system.

Seems to me that a lot of the southern migration has been based on aging, sun, and/or where the infrastructure is new field. Mature areas have all sorts of cost downsides, whereas de novo seems fresh and full of opportunity. Mature is also likely to have higher tax structure for maintenance, and those retiring or with the ability to earn a lot of income regardless of where they are, find low tax environments quite attractive.

Who knows what will happens with climate...and it may also become a pretty dramatic issue around governance. We're seeing some of that come to the fore around abortion and gun extremism, but it's too early to tell whether those will be enough to offset benefits of easy construction, low environmental regulation, etc.

But built on a mantra of your margin is my opportunity fairly universally from what I hear. That's basically an assault on existing systems. Regardless of whether the merit is there or not only if the possibility of something better can pay for 8 losing bets.

Think its the low cost basis of an undeveloped area. I left NYC back end of the crisis. Didn't like moving to wifes hometown for the perception I wanted to be closer to his dough but I did see a 20yr gap in age between my parents and hers and frankly even though I can survive anywhere it kind of felt like NYC's time was close to being up then. I was also barely into my 30s when I left. Yes older folks are moving over weather, but I don't think that's what kids out of random colleges in Upstate NY, Western Mass, Central CT, etc who go to Worcester or Wheaton or RIT or Quinnipiac type schools are motivated by. They see it differently and that's kind of the more important cohort in migration IMO. Not the retirees as we know their impact on economy, all consumption, little to no investment or savings on average.

Florida may be a lot of older migrating for sun and lower taxes, but not what I see in TN, NC, SC & GA as much. Regardless of age I don't see many who come south for college going back to northern climates generally - even the Vandy, Emory, Duke, UNC, Wake,W&L etc kids tend to stick in the SE (in general there's talent coming out of W&L but I haven't met a more pretenious cohort in general in 13yrs in Atl including the UGA football idiots, they talk about their school 25yrs later more than someone who went to Harvard, but with half the accomplishments)

“including the UGA football idiots”

“Man In Full”…

Working on it but only a few chapters in. Don’t love his writing style. Wants to be Hemingway but isn’t. That my challenge.

[Farfromgeneva]

My niece went to W&L, and a whole lot of my classmates from HS (most wouldn't stand a chance in hell of getting in now!).

Very, very preppy.

My son was recruited there and so we toured, coach nice guy, place is pretty, academics obviously very good; but my son said no way as my wife gushed about it on the drive out of town...I knew what it was...the multiple bookstore mannequins with black tie or sport coat, rows and rows of pinks and blues etc, Vineyard Vines ties, and especially bow ties and cummerbunds...huge array of W&L lacrosse ties, but...just way too preppy...

Yes, I think lifestyle is a factor with southern movement, and especially the ease of building big plants where nothing but farms or forest were before. As you say, 'low cost basis'.

I adore that region in the Shenandoah valley or most of the 81 corridor in Va. Wouldn’t mind retiring around natural Bridge if I can get 5+ ac and be proximate to major access points.

And my experience is anecdotal though we’re talking at least 30 people from there in Ga and probably more than 50 if I counted it. So not one errant bid/ask in a universe of price discovery so to speak. They all carry an arrogance I don’t see in any other SE college alum base while lacking accomplishment and leaning on the school name. Just wild to me. I have a young 30s guy who does some work for me, 10yrs w Sandler ONeill, SunTrust RH and Piper (pre merger w Sandler) as a pitch book and modeling guy and he’s wayy to chief for his lack of Indian experience and talks W&Zaleski all the turn as the source of his strength while I know more closely guys he references as “they went to W&L ans I know xxx” but he doesn’t really know them. Bring him to client meetings and he talks about his watches, cars and cigars and I don’t stop him but it’s a stupid and bad look for someone who hasn’t accomplished much in life. He’s about to get cut by me though so there that.