jlannik.bsky.social
@jlannik.bsky.social
Do sufganiyot qualify?
December 16, 2025 at 5:33 AM
Do sufganiyot qualify?
It's kind of amazing that Ds didn't understand this before. This is literally repeating HW's mistake in his debate with Bill Clinton- when a woman asked about "the national debt" (meaning affordability) and HW didn't pick up on what she actually meant, vs Clinton's "I feel your pain"
December 11, 2025 at 2:11 PM
It's kind of amazing that Ds didn't understand this before. This is literally repeating HW's mistake in his debate with Bill Clinton- when a woman asked about "the national debt" (meaning affordability) and HW didn't pick up on what she actually meant, vs Clinton's "I feel your pain"
Blazing Saddles at 77 and Producers doesn't make the list?
November 24, 2025 at 5:23 PM
Blazing Saddles at 77 and Producers doesn't make the list?
No. They may say "we don't think race was used here because you say that it wasn't," but "you are free to racially discriminate" doesn't fly even with Alito or Thomas
November 19, 2025 at 8:40 PM
No. They may say "we don't think race was used here because you say that it wasn't," but "you are free to racially discriminate" doesn't fly even with Alito or Thomas
You're not free to racially discriminate. The argument the cons have been making is that drawing to favor minority groups is discrimination. Here, the opinion says that the gov and leg said they were drawing racial lines, the drawer said "I didn't," but the drawer did in fact draw race based lines
November 19, 2025 at 5:29 PM
You're not free to racially discriminate. The argument the cons have been making is that drawing to favor minority groups is discrimination. Here, the opinion says that the gov and leg said they were drawing racial lines, the drawer said "I didn't," but the drawer did in fact draw race based lines
No- the ruling is actually saying that the *goal* here was intentionally to deny *racial* groups of their voting rights, and that the maps were drawn to do just that. Contrast to the VRA cases which are about intentional drawing protecting districts
November 19, 2025 at 4:23 PM
No- the ruling is actually saying that the *goal* here was intentionally to deny *racial* groups of their voting rights, and that the maps were drawn to do just that. Contrast to the VRA cases which are about intentional drawing protecting districts
I'm not surprised both pundits and strategists make this mistake.
By definition, pundits and strategists live politics. They breathe it. Their identities are formed around it. And they project that onto everyone.
But (especially swing) voters don't- they tune in briefly, vote, and tune back out.
By definition, pundits and strategists live politics. They breathe it. Their identities are formed around it. And they project that onto everyone.
But (especially swing) voters don't- they tune in briefly, vote, and tune back out.
November 16, 2025 at 3:12 AM
I'm not surprised both pundits and strategists make this mistake.
By definition, pundits and strategists live politics. They breathe it. Their identities are formed around it. And they project that onto everyone.
But (especially swing) voters don't- they tune in briefly, vote, and tune back out.
By definition, pundits and strategists live politics. They breathe it. Their identities are formed around it. And they project that onto everyone.
But (especially swing) voters don't- they tune in briefly, vote, and tune back out.
Carve Sherman onto Stone Mountain
August 20, 2025 at 1:12 PM
Carve Sherman onto Stone Mountain
Yes, except VA doesn’t have state senate elections this year. They’re up in 2027
June 20, 2025 at 5:14 PM
Yes, except VA doesn’t have state senate elections this year. They’re up in 2027
You know between yourself and @tkingfisher.com you could literally make up any wild story summary and have 10,000 people all nod and say "yep, that definitely happened" and wait with bated breath for the details
June 12, 2025 at 12:48 AM
You know between yourself and @tkingfisher.com you could literally make up any wild story summary and have 10,000 people all nod and say "yep, that definitely happened" and wait with bated breath for the details
This is true. But there is also an issue with the media where the media assumes that people know/remember anything that was covered previously, and it’s been a particular problem when it comes to Trump
June 6, 2025 at 2:07 PM
This is true. But there is also an issue with the media where the media assumes that people know/remember anything that was covered previously, and it’s been a particular problem when it comes to Trump
The Federal Circuit (it’s a separate circuit court of appeals specifically for a variety of courts with dedicated, specialized purposes)
May 28, 2025 at 11:34 PM
The Federal Circuit (it’s a separate circuit court of appeals specifically for a variety of courts with dedicated, specialized purposes)
Hopefully you have, by this time, figured out where you're wrong. But just to spell it out: Senate Rs overruled the Parliamentarian to redefine something as having "budgetary impact". That lets them put whatever they want in the bill, which breaks the filibuster, even if they say "it still exists".
May 23, 2025 at 6:58 PM
Hopefully you have, by this time, figured out where you're wrong. But just to spell it out: Senate Rs overruled the Parliamentarian to redefine something as having "budgetary impact". That lets them put whatever they want in the bill, which breaks the filibuster, even if they say "it still exists".
No. Normal pollsters were fine in 2018 and 2022 and these R pollsters were better in 2020 and 2024 because of infrequent, hard to contact voters who lean R and only turn out for Pres (or maybe Trump) elections.
May 20, 2025 at 3:29 PM
No. Normal pollsters were fine in 2018 and 2022 and these R pollsters were better in 2020 and 2024 because of infrequent, hard to contact voters who lean R and only turn out for Pres (or maybe Trump) elections.
I know nothing about the case but my general rule is that if Alito and Sotomayor are on opposite sides then Sotomayor is correct, so I'm going to assume that the majority got it right
April 30, 2025 at 2:06 PM
I know nothing about the case but my general rule is that if Alito and Sotomayor are on opposite sides then Sotomayor is correct, so I'm going to assume that the majority got it right
Wizard of the Fifth Circuit?
April 29, 2025 at 1:06 PM
Wizard of the Fifth Circuit?
It’s in Crown Heights, so it’s almost certainly Chabad
April 25, 2025 at 9:11 PM
It’s in Crown Heights, so it’s almost certainly Chabad
That's because they've decided it's cheaper to deny services to 4 kids and have 1 whose parents have the knowledge, social connections, and financial resources to fight it in court.
April 24, 2025 at 3:24 PM
That's because they've decided it's cheaper to deny services to 4 kids and have 1 whose parents have the knowledge, social connections, and financial resources to fight it in court.
The higher turnout among 16-17 year olds doesn't surprise me. It directly affects them and they likely heard about it at school!
April 21, 2025 at 7:34 PM
The higher turnout among 16-17 year olds doesn't surprise me. It directly affects them and they likely heard about it at school!
"Swing voters" are people who *change* their vote between elections. Lakshya is saying that relatively few people (maybe 2%) actually changed from R 2024 to D 2025- instead, a lot more D 2024 voters showed up than R 2024 voters
April 21, 2025 at 4:09 PM
"Swing voters" are people who *change* their vote between elections. Lakshya is saying that relatively few people (maybe 2%) actually changed from R 2024 to D 2025- instead, a lot more D 2024 voters showed up than R 2024 voters