carcieri.bsky.social
55 posts
25 followers
93 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Traffic was also a nightmare even by Rose Bowl standards. Freeway exits were closed, signs had wrong directions, not enough workers directing cars to parking, thousands of cars still stuck in traffic well past halftime
comment in response to
post
Also to the extent they have learned nothing since then and are still making similar errors today it’s informative to know they were always this way
comment in response to
post
Lmao at the tiny number of views of the Grok answer
comment in response to
post
This isn’t even a hypothetical— the assassin in MN literally posed as law enforcement so there is a very recent precedent which gives elected officials ample justification to defend themselves if an unidentified person attempts to detain them
comment in response to
post
Yeah this is it, the heuristic most NY Dems use is “which guy do I know Trump hates” and for low-info voters that’s Cuomo
comment in response to
post
Ah yes, the radical leftist enclave of NYC, home of revolutionary leaders such as Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump
comment in response to
post
I don’t think Trump even knows whether he will order it or not. The signals are mixed because they have no strategy and Trump makes impulsive decisions that are unpredictable even to himself
comment in response to
post
I still don’t understand why the freeway exit was closed at the same exit that all the signs were telling us to take, would love to hear the explanation for that decision
comment in response to
post
The overall impression I get from Bass is that she’s mostly checked out. She thought she’d be able to phone in the job of mayor and she’s annoyed that her constituents expect her to do anything at all, so her default response to any public dialogue is to discourage it as much as possible
comment in response to
post
Lots of families and American flags, very wholesome and patriotic scene here, sure hope Stephen Miller doesn’t call in an airstrike
comment in response to
post
One problem with the social media version is it’s not clear how you are measuring a rightward shift in social media sentiment. There are some obvious events (Musk buying Twitter) to support the claim but it’s mostly hand-waving, unlike inflation which is easily quantified and known to sway elections
comment in response to
post
I follow very few accounts here and have even fewer followers but still find Bluesky more engaging than Twitter. The quality of the discussion here is higher, I don’t have to wade through a thousand vapid paid blue check comments under every post, and my followers actually see my posts
comment in response to
post
I’d say damage was worse after the World Series, at least in terms of geographic spread throughout the city. After the Dodgers won an MTA bus was set on fire in Echo Park as well as damage over a much larger area in DTLA
comment in response to
post
Whether she’s sincere or not is secondary to the fact that she’s saying it, which tbh is more helpful and significant than a sincere political figure repeating the same message precisely because her politics are inconsistent and she reaches a massive audience that might not hear it otherwise
comment in response to
post
This only highlights the absurdity of sending thousands of National Guard backed by hundreds of Marines to guard the doors of a handful of federal buildings
comment in response to
post
Front page of the NYT this morning has zero mention of the National Guard being deployed to the second largest city in the country, opting instead for a stale recap of days-old Musk-Trump feud
comment in response to
post
Harris did multiple events with Cheney in the last month of the campaign, not “exactly one.” You can disagree on whether it mattered (I think it probably didn’t matter much at all) but it’s not helpful to misrepresent what happened
comment in response to
post
The example that comes to mind is the original Star Trek— watching it as a kid in the ‘80s, the ship computer was more impressive to me than the warp drive because it could answer any question asked, but watching it today, the computer is less impressive than Siri because of its 1960s robot voice
comment in response to
post
I had the same thought about Hillbilly Elegy, I just started reading it and was surprised that it was so bad after hearing Vance was a decent writer. The bar is set lower for conservative intellectuals for reasons I don’t fully understand
comment in response to
post
Seems like there are opportunity costs to running Amy McGrath types in terms of party cohesion, branding, creating viable candidates at the national level, etc which you’re not taking into account here and which arguably outweigh the benefits of moving a race from a 0.5% to a 0.6% chance of winning
comment in response to
post
Yes, but my point is that if this is true, we aren’t using the correct definition of a “good candidate” for the race. If “good candidates” still lose by 20 points then maybe it’s better to nominate candidates based on other qualities besides their ability to shave a few points off a landslide defeat
comment in response to
post
If even a “good candidate” by your estimation is doomed to lose by 20 points, what value does that candidate bring to the race? As a strategy, is this kind of “candidate goodness” the thing we should be optimizing for if it yields this result? Or are there other qualities that might add more value?
comment in response to
post
yep, and it says so right there on the certificate
comment in response to
post
Vance views achievement purely in terms of status competition, and impressive talent makes him feel insecure, so he wants less of it around him
comment in response to
post
Also correct that Vance and other skeptics are “simply extrapolating from their own natures” and assuming that just because they are not personally committed to any ideals beyond self-interest and tribalism, this must also be true of everyone else
comment in response to
post
In addition to winning 2 out of the 3 presidential elections he contested, he effectively rebranded the Republican Party entirely, which was in a death spiral after a series of early 21st century disasters (Iraq war, Great Recession) and political and cultural defeats
comment in response to
post
Yes, this becomes immediately obvious if you spend any time canvassing and talking to voters. They care more about a candidate’s perceived values and priorities than they do about issues. They don’t need to agree on every issue; they are barely even aware of the candidates’ positions on most issues!
comment in response to
post
Lots of candidates with “popular” positions on The Issues lose because (a) they are viewed as inauthentic (b) swing voters don’t know the positions of candidates in the first place and (c) public opinion is often dynamic and difficult to measure on the most controversial issues
comment in response to
post
There is certainly a relationship but there have also been shifts in public opinion since 2012. The median voter in 2025 is not identical to the median voter of 2012. The public has shifted left on some issues and right on others. It’s not easy to mirror those shifts and maintain the Dem coalition
comment in response to
post
Sure, but Dems also lost in 2000 and 2004 when they were consistently to the right of Obama. Do you think voters swung from Biden in 2020 to Trump in 2024 because Dems moved left over that period? That doesn’t sound correct.
comment in response to
post
I think this is not about one person’s feelings and more likely due to Dem overemphasis on credentials and experience, which is closely tied to the composition and values of their base
comment in response to
post
I kinda suspect Martin stopped working on ASOIAF precisely because he already sold the rights to it and he realized he would make more money by writing/selling other stories in the same setting instead (Fire & Blood)
comment in response to
post
For me it was when he was being interviewed on CNN by his own brother every night
comment in response to
post
Also hilarious and revealing that his first instinct was to lie and claim he had been there until Zelenskyy answered the question for him:
Zelenskyy: “Have you ever been to Ukraine that you say what problems we have?”
Vance: “I have been to –”
Zelenskyy: “Come once.”
comment in response to
post
The purpose of constitutional/legal objections is to contest the idea that the people in charge are acting within their authority. Why concede that point to them? How is that helpful for persuading people to resist their illegal actions?