A few presages from the tea leaves of Nostrajamus and his trick knee:

As for Teresa may, my sources in the UK are suggesting she's likely to prorogue parliament, declare for another general election and insinuate another plebiscite on Brexit with her name on the 'NO' side. She was never enamoured with Brexit, and has had to have her time in Downing st overshadowed by an increasingly unpopular scene. In triumph, May will become the leading anti-populist in Europe.

Populism will float decidedly to the left in 2019, the world over. In France, Italy, Greece and the US, having realised that they were hoodwinked by self-seeking political adventurers, the populist movements will move away from right-wing nationalism to left-wing inclusion politics.

The newly ensconced Democrats in power over house committees introduce Trump real oversight and investigative zeal. Sealed indictments against Trump and his gang float around Washington and the SDNY like confetti, sales of Depends quadruple as the day arrives for Mueller to release his report, despite Trump's attempts to burn every copy.

While the economy grinds to a halt and the stock market crumbles to dust, Trump blames all immigrants, even the ones he keeps in chains at Mar-a-Lago for his many blunders. The 'Border Curb' funding is finally agreed upon--Trump still refers to it as a wall, his followers rename it 'The Trump Hump' and consider it fifty bucks well spent.

After the Mueller report comes out, GOP congressional members start re-writing their own personal histories explaining they were just following orders. Fredericksburg, VA is quietly renamed Nuremburg.

After having the writing on the wall read to him by his three member cabinet of Ivanka, Jared and Kellyanne, Trump curses the American people for being unworthy of his leadership and opens negotiations with Mike Pence to get a better deal on the price of presidential pardons. Pence merely crosses out the word 'Indulgences' on the agreement and changes it to 'Bigly Fuckups'.

Trump appears on FOX for the last time, primarily to clean out his locker, while there he announces he has caught an inner ear infection from the Democrats and is longer able to discharge his duties as 'Great Leader' without the unconditional adoration of his base whom he secretly loathes. FOX rejoins its regularly scheduled program... 'Pence: The Lord's Personal Choice For President' Trump is escorted off the premises in handcuffs on his way to Riker's Island...via MacDonald's.

Senator Grassley wakes up.

Sarah Sanders accepts a job at RT as the weather girl.

Manafort smuggles his autobiography, written on toilet paper, out of jail.

Cohen welcomes his new cell-mate, Avenatti and is instantly consigned to the lower bunk.

Melania Trump files for divorce, only to find out Trump never signed the cheque to the minister for their wedding and is instantly deported.

After his mother's death, Eric Trump is found dead floating in a water hazard at Pence National Golf Course, Bedminster NJ.

Rand Paul retires from politics and goes to work for Stormy Daniels' fetish division. Secure in the knowledge that a fake screen name was academic. [Rand lives with his wife, mistress and some kids in Bowling Green KY in a house surrounded by a massive wall the neighbours Gofunded.]

Rudy Giuliani will be returned to the home without incident.

Biden, having universal backing as the Democratic candidate, is seen regularly coming and going from his running-mates' apartment complex on 5th Ave NYC. After a short and tearful slander lawsuit, Obama Tower becomes a popular tourist attraction.

Happy new year, all.

LL&P

I dug into it a bit more....so it would appear on the surface that ME will allow the ranking of all candidates, however, it also appears that the SOS also has the the ability to modify that as the regulations stipulate that each type of vote ( RCV, non-RCV, referendum, etc) will have instructions at the beginning of that vote section on how you will cast your vote.

Elimination is indeed minus one rounds, or in the event of larger contests batch elimination is used to eliminate all candidates that have no mathematical chance of securing the majority and continues onto minus one rounds for the remaining candidates.

Here is the link to the regulations.

https://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/upcoming/pdf/250rcvnew.pdf

I will definitely be looking at ME to see if the system brings forth the benefits we have seen in other locales.

I don't think DH is using the term majority in the same sense you are, but that's a minor point that I'm willing to concede.

My core objections to DH's voting scheme are:

If no candidate wins a majority of votes in the first round, then votes are reallocated in a way that greatly favors the weakest candidate in the field. Voters do not rank their preferences for candidates , they have no say in how votes are allocated in subsequent rounds. DH's rules fashion a bottom up coalition majority from the weakest candidates, and then proceeds to reallocate votes from the contrived minority coalition to the contrived majority, with the weakest candidate gaining the most votes. This amounts to institutionalized ballot stuffing that strongly tilts the game towards the weakest candidate in the field. If this is by some misfortune adopted it will encourage the formation of micro-parties who stand a fairly good chance of winning and governing with very little popular support.

I know Borda...Harris is no Borda. Borda voting tends to favor a broad consensus in politics. Harris voting would do the opposite.

"Norway plus would indeed be the best outcome."

Actually that would be the worst possible outcome for those you pushed for Brexit in the first place.

It would mean that Britain would still have to follow EU regulations without having any decision making input on their creation.

then i take a deep breath and think, well, at least with dems in charge of the budget maybe there won't be a giant honking monument to the policy.

JL

what trump and pelosi seem to understand about "the wall" and schumer seems not to understand is that its importance lies not in its efficacy (or lack thereof), but in its symbolism. if it gets built, of course it won't accomplish much logistically, but it will signify our country's support of donald's draconian policies, like zero-tolerance-zero-planning child separation (have we already forgotten the 2600 children kidnapped and locked in cages, their parents deported and their records tossed in the trash, such that some parents have still not been found? it's not like detained kids aren't still dying and their parents still being scapegoated.)

less time has passed since this policy was enacted than it takes a child to be conceived and born, yet it appears so far in the rear-view of today's political news that we've forgotten just how horrible it truly is, and how much its trauma would be kept alive by a symbol of its support.

JL

how can you have 2 majorities in a single election?

you can't have two majorities of first choice votes, but you can say that a majority of the electorate chose someone (or some ones) first, second or third on their ballots. it's just a backward way of explaining one possible criterion for condorcet candidates. borgers believes separating the strong from the weak candidates is a good first step in his proposed voting system. if there's only one "strong candidate" (one who would defeat all other candidates head to head), that's where it ends. if there are multiple strong candidates, a borda system would assign decreasing points for voter rankings of first, second, third and so-on.

https://epubs.siam.org/doi/book/10.1137/1.9780898717624

DH didn't explain it well. Yeah, that's a fair cop.

The instructions in comment 6 are nonsense...how can you have 2 majorities in a single election?

What actually happens in the example shown in post 26 is that a majority formed by combining the weakest polling candidates that can form a majority get to plunder the votes from the top performing candidates who get less than half the votes. The worst performing candidate gets to plunder the most votes. After that, things get vague. No voters who vote for the top two performers have assigned a specific candidate as a second choice during the initial ballot, that's defined by how the positioning breaks down once first rounds are counted. It's a rule, not a choice made by individual voters.

This scheme is a slippery and vague monstrosity. Try explaining the result to the voters...before they string you up and kick out the chair.

don obviously didn't explain it well, but cristoph borgers demonstrates how in elections with many strong candidates and no clear majority, it makes sense to give credit to those with broader appeal, and to handicap those who are the most polarizing. sometimes that means someone who is only 19% of the population's first choice wins out over candidates who are the first choice of 22, 23 and 27 percent. if the 19% candidate has a landslide of second choice votes from supporters of the other top candidates, then it's not crazy to have that candidate win instead of being eliminated in the early rounds.

JL

I live fairly close to a large military airport. Interesting stuff flies over my house now and then..especially during hurricane season.

*MAWA = Make America Warm Again

Use stove only in a VERY well ventilated area
Do not stand close to stove
Do not leave stove unattended
Keep fire extinguisher handy
Lighting this stove is not recommended

"i think don is attempting to refer to the condorcet-borda hybrid."

Condorcet aims to favor candidates that win the most pair-wise contests between candidates (or voting blocks).

Borda aims to favor candidates with broad appeal across many voting blocks.

The DH method fails on both counts....if it's a hybrid, it's a monster made from the tail-ends of two political animals.

First thing, cheesed off = pissed off = very, very angry. A common term of my childhood that was mutually understood among residents of OH,VA,NY,NJ and probably most locales with access to mass media.

Your procedure does not simulate a sequence of runoff elections. Nobody is eliminated, it's just a weird way of counting votes. It is not one-person one vote. Going into the voting booth, you don't what your handicap (or bonus) is.

Your method of counting votes has a terrible pathology - in at least some cases the least popular candidate wins. That pathology is enough to make your idea a non-starter. An election result like that is going to be pitchforks, tar and feathers unpopular. In more modern terms, shotguns, bumpstocks and pipebombs unpopular. A minority party that gains power that way to require a powerful police state to remain in power. Do you want to turn the United States into Syria?

I don't need to go into any deeper analysis to reject your idea.

I can see why you promote it. Your brand of politics is not very popular.

JL

Oh, first off:

HAPPY NEW YEAR to everyone! Woo hoo! Just got home from a concert, had a great time! Hope everyone else did too...

OK, back to the comment...

I'm not sure about Maine, I think they vote for "total candidates minus one" rounds. In other words, the final round (should it be necessary) is always between two candidates, so you never have to vote for the total number.

That's confusing (hey, it's early morning New Year's Day, sue me...) so here goes an example:

Five candidates = four rounds of voting (total minus one).

First round = 5 candidates
Second round = 4 candidates
Third round = 3 candidates
Fourth round = 2 candidates.

There will be a "50% plus one" winner of the fourth round, so a fifth round is impossible.

Like I said, I *think* this is how ME does it, but I can check...

The really interesting thing (got this direct from a Maine voter) is that the candidates all have a two-fold strategy. Which fits in with your point nicely, too.

They work hard to convince all the voters to vote for them in the first round. But then they ALSO put the time and energy into (ME is like NH, they do campaigning retail rather than wholesale, for the most part, so this is very personal) convincing voters of OTHER candidates to make them their SECOND choice.

In other words, a Democrat would say: "OK, I get that you're voting for the Green candidate. More power to you! But I'd like to present my case for why I should be your second pick..." A Republican might do the same thing for someone voting Libertarian.

It's an interesting experiment, and so far it seems to be producing beneficial results. That's what I measure any reform effort (and "laboratories of democracy" test cases) by.

Kick [32] -

I dunno. Mysterious are the minds of cats...

Heh. Just saw it in the morning paper, and had to post a link, that's all!

:-)

italyrusty [33] -

Good point about the Brexit battle continuing for a long time to come... hadn't really thought that far out, but I fear you are 100% correct in that.

Norway plus would indeed be the best outcome. Oh, I saw an interesting story (forget where) that pointed out that the Northern Ireland / Republic of Ireland border will NOT be the only land border between the EU and UK.

There's also Gibraltar...

OK, that's enough, I'm for bed...

Happy 2019 everyone!

-CW

I wouldn't call some of these predictions; they are "quisling talking points". And I can't help but wonder if the author thought he was being clever or was scraping the bottom of the barrel by including such respected media figures as "Diamond & Silk"
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/12/26/worst-predictions-of-2018-politics-223514

If I had to predict, the Brits will finally tire of the pro-Brexit rhetoric of the Murdoch-controlled media. Parliament accepts "Norway-plus", i.e. not a voting member of the EU, but accepting EU rules and jurisdiction, with some minor carve-outs as a balm to the Brexiteers.

A second referendum is the absolute-worst 'solution'. The wording of the first one was so simplistic and the results have been terrible. So the wording of the second referendum will be overly-complex and the outcome even more divisive than the first.

The only thing I can predict with confidence is that Brexit infighting will consume the UK for at least a decade. Meanwhile, the EU will move on, ever-more convinced that they/we can do just fine without the UK. (And that will be the biggest blow to the Brits' pride!)

All future editions of a dictionary should have as the entry for "Pandora's Box" a picture of David Cameron holding up a Brexit ballot.

Maybe he's the mastermind of the conspiracy? Heh.

Heh! Isn't this particular cat's idea of "pie" more like a lasagna?! Meat pie does qualify, no? ;)

While you are correct aboot the reporting requirements, the organizations that explained their reasoning for using 200 dollars or less specifically said it was because it was what the majority of citizens could afford.

Well, if you insist and continue to claim these "organizations" have "explained their reasoning" which aligns with "the same reason you do," then surely you won't mind posting the links to these "organizations" and their "explanations" of their "reasoning." You made the claim.

Regardless of your claims or any of the other "organizations" you insist agree with you, it's utterly nonsensical and patently asinine for your organization or any other "organizations" to "specifically" state or purport or claim to know "what the majority of citizens" can afford. You made the claim: You prove it!

I didn't find any organization that said they used the 200 dollar figure because of the reporting requirements.

Well then, you didn't look very hard... as per your usual modus operandi... and facts have proven repeatedly and time and time again not to be anywhere near your wheelhouse, DH!

Let me know if you find one.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/05/opensecrets-mailbag-small-vs-large/

You should seriously allow yourself to stop the repeated spewing of your own personal asinine beliefs as if they are facts shared by the "majority" of voters or even the so-called "average" citizen. :)

So, on this whole RCV thing DH is going on about it should be pointed out that the system actually requires greater civic engagement and study of the candidates running for a selected office. It also has returned a level of civility to the political discourse...at least on a local level.

In the Bay Area where Oakland and Berkeley have instituted RCV the tone and content of rhetoric has changed to be more civil and is more based on policy that any given candidate wants to implement.

Over time RCV inevitably leads to voters voting for what they want vs who they want. In other words it reduces the impact of "cult of personality" in your selection of how you are ranking candidates.

Most RCV systems limit the number of candidates you can vote for, three seems to be the number, thus creating clear groups of viable candidates on the first round of voting the may win a majority on the second or third rounds.

If you choose not to fully participate by ranking more than one voter then that is on you, however if you are engaged in your community and civic minded you will have looked at all of the candidates and ranked them. To be clear in the RCV system you only disenfranchise yourself

Most RCV systems limit the number of candidates you can vote for, three seems to be the number, thus creating clear groups of viable candidates on the first round of voting the may win a majority on the second or third rounds.

DH seems to advocate for a system wherein the voter ranks every candidate and then requires all votes for all candidates to be tallied before a winner is declared. this simply leads to chaos and does allow for "cult of personality" to win.

I think I will stick with RCV that seems to work well and has already proven to have had a positive impact on the political landscape.

RE: Orr. Plus, he could fix the stove...

At one point in my life, I lived near Andrews, and would see the "big blue nose" planes (there's actually two of them) taking off and landing all the time. Even if POTUS isn't traveling, they test them out with flight time constantly.

Don Harris [16] -

Yes, it is RCV, because that's what RCV is. This is how it has been implemented everywhere it has been implemented (not only in the US, but worldwide). If you want a different system, fine, but the RCV name has already been chosen.

As for your scheme, once you get it implemented somewhere then we'll be able to see how it works. Until then, I'll continue to evaluate this voting reform given the facts on the ground, and to me it still looks pretty good. It gives people themselves the choice of what to do. Why not ask the people in Maine what they think of the new system? They seem to approve of it in big numbers.

Kick [17] -

Maybe, maybe not. Beto might decide that he'd be the prime VP choice if he decides not to run... it could happen...

We'll have to wait and see.

Kick [19] -

Excellent point. Thank you.

Don Harris [26] -

This seems unconstitutional, since it breaks the "one man, one vote" tenet. Why should some citizens get multiple votes when others only get one? With RCV, the total number of votes in every round equals or is less than the number of total voters. Your system would radically change that equation.

-CW

I have no idea what it means in the grand scheme of things, but here's a message from Garfield (today's strip):

https://garfield.com/comic/2018/12/31

Maybe he's the mastermind of the conspiracy? Heh.

-CW

i think don is attempting to refer to the condorcet-borda hybrid.

https://theconversation.com/beyond-instant-runoff-a-better-way-to-conduct-multi-candidate-elections-74973

to be honest such a system probably would be superior to instant run-off, but don has his own special way of taking otherwise reasonable ideas and promoting them into oblivion.

I suggest you give an example of your system in action using hypothetical numbers and at least 4 candidates. Working thru all the steps with numbers would clear up how your system works better than your verbal explanation does.

Maine's new voting procedure is called "Instant Runoff" because it simulates a traditional electoral runoff. In a traditional runoff, the weakest candidate in a crowded field is eliminated first. This has the desirable property of cheesing of the smallest number of people in the electorate. In each successive voting round, a traditional runoff removes the weakest performing candidate, cheesing off the fewest people in that cycle

Your concept turns this approach on it's head, as you successively cheese off supporters of the 2nd highest voting block in each cycle of the runoff.
Serious political scientists would say your idea has "Undesirable Condorcet Properties."

In the unlikely event that your idea catches on, communities should probably ban the sale of tar, insulation and rails at the local Home Depots for at least several weeks during and after the election.

Reminds me of my best lines in the film The Graduate.

Mr. Braddock: Ben, this whole idea sounds pretty half baked.

Benjamin: No, it's not. It's completely baked.

Most organizations that track political contributions choose 200 dollars for the same reason I do- because that is aboot all that the majority of citizens can afford to contribute.

Spew alert! It took several minutes to stop laughing long enough to compose myself and my response. :)

That must be some good shit you are smoking, but just so you know, it is utterly nonsensical and asinine to claim that "most organizations" that track political contributions choose your figure and for the same reason and then further claim to also know the amount that the "majority of citizens *painful laughing* "can afford to contribute." *sides hurt*

While it may come as a shock to you that it has nothing whatsoever to do with your pronouncements regarding the finances of the "majority of citizens" *shakes head* the fact is that the FEC requires that campaigns itemize and report to them all contributions that meet the reporting threshold of $200 or more. The reason $200 or less is considered a "small contribution" is because it doesn't have to be itemized by a campaign and can be reported in an aggregate amount to the FEC as "unitemized contributions." That said, there are some campaigns that choose to report all contributions regardless of size because they seek transparency and/or full disclosure regarding their donors.

Thanks for the laugh, though, DH. The fact that you really buy into your own spew is positively "Trumpian" in nature and side-splitting comedy indeed. :)

Just wanted to let everyone know: thanks to all for donating (if you did), and here's to seeing the site for all of 2019 without ads!

It would be great to see the site without ads in 2019. How is that even possible if Don Harris's incessant advertisements are allowed unabated? Serious question.

Beto O'Rourke will astonish many by deciding to sit the race out.

Sit the race out!? Beto is already running. Oh, sure, Beto hasn't announced he is running, he just is already doing it. The Berners are beside themselves trying to kill Beto off because he is 6'4" tall, extremely intelligent, speaks fluent Spanish, is actually a Democrat, and a whole slew of other things which have them running scared and needing Beto neutralized early. *shakes head* :)

RE Maine's instant runoff: No votes are changed by election officials. Every vote cast is counted. A voter is allowed to vote for just one candidate and leave all other slots blank. There is no "mandatory lessor of two evils voting." If you choose to only rank one candidate, it is equivalent to voting in the first round, and refusing to participate in any subsequent runoff rounds that might occur.

The only change is that you have to rank everybody at once....so you can't tactically re-rank as you might in a series of runoffs separated over time. But, if small money vs big money is your sole issue, why do you need to re-rank?

A fine FTP roundup to 2018 on your part! I'm especially glad to see the funding goal has been reached, without any gimmicks such as 1 dollar per inane comment and such like.

FTP columns usually arrive late in the Eastern Time Zone, and my Saturday routine starts very early in the AM and tends to run long into the PM. All wildly fun with about 30-45 of my best (and longest) friends mind you. In summary, Friday Talking Points is usually Sunday Morning Talking Points (SMPT) for me. It takes two large mugs of coffee to process, and by the time I'm done I find your column Grognards have done all the heavy lifting. All that's left for me to do is nod my head in agreement - with some notable exceptions.

In summary, last year's predictions were astonishingly accurate. I think your latest effort will prove much more right than wrong.

Let me add one more prediction to the mix:

Trump will make more unannounced visits to far flung military bases at the danger filled edge of empire. He'll be more careful not to reveal the identities of Seals and other clandestine types. He and his handlers (assuming there are actually any handlers outside of the oxymoron-ic Trump Organization)are now aware that there is such a thing as Plane Spotters...and that a large 747 with a gaudy paint job is pretty easy to spot at critical stages in each journey. (FYI,I have spotted AF-1 several times myself over the years).

Team Trump is now cognizant of the need for close-to-the-edge-of-the-envelop evasive actions during take-off and landing of AF-1. Trump no longer thinks MANPADs are discreet "watertight" undergarments worn by statesmen and stateswomen of a certain age).

Security demands a cozier, more maneuverable, less flamboyantly painted jet, which still be quite comfortable inside, especially if you keep the number of retainers and hangers on (Press) low or absent. Why Trump has his very own such jet! Fully capable of transoceanic fights. Better still, the operating costs of each flight can be diverted to the Trump Organization! This is almost as good as owning a Trump Hotel in D.C.!

Trump will make more semi clandestine flights to the edges of American military influence-and a bit beyond. He (and selected family members) will gradually be acclimatized to tighter schedules and even tighter turns. Dramamine doses will be adjusted. He, or rather his attendants, will learn to pack and unpack with great efficiency. Fast light weight vehicles (upscale dune buggies)will be part of each payload and each high speed motorcade to the military base or embassy. These adventure flights will gradually become more elaborate and yet completely routine. Until one day, Trump lands at 2:30 am local time in Moscow. Trump, selected family and the plane do not return to the USA, much less the White House. Trump resumes his real estate and reality TV career in a colder climate. Pence gets a promotion.

This scenario was inspired by the character of Lieutenant Orr in the novel Catch-22. He's the pilot that ditched on every mission. Everybody in the novel thought Orr was crazy-but he is the only character who makes a successful escape to a safer place.

;-)

Personally, I'm always amazed anyone makes it to the end of these columns, in these days of "TL;DR"...

:-)

Hope everyone has a very happy new year!

-CW

Well, thank you for the kind words!

italyrusty [3] -

Thanks also for the kind words...

I wondered whether the "pirate ghosts" had gone too far... Boehner -- I remember a photo of him mowing his own lawn soon after he retired, that's what inspired that one... Judy Woodruff, I remember watching that night wondering "will she say it?" -- the other networks mostly said it with one (NBC?) wimping out -- Star Trek brought the first interracial kiss and the first "dammit!" to air, but it took Trump to bring the word "shit" to America's airwaves -- a perfect "first" for him... and that bit about Trump's ad being turned down for being too racist still stuns me, when you state it in its basic terms...

[4] -

What's "picayune" in Italian? Inquiring minds want to know! Heh.

Yeah, true, the first one was an oversimplification. But I was of two minds about Trump's bold campaign strategy -- now, nobody will ever know how much it was the Kavanaugh hearings and how much it was Trump ranting, but the fact remains that more GOP voters turned out than was expected in, say, July or August.

And you're right, I meant to (and should have) added scare quotes around "moderate" (as in "moderate" Republicans), or even added "so-called" in front of it. Flake voted with Trump pretty much every single time.

As for British politics, I don't even pretend to understand it all, but the main point was that May might not have survived that vote, but she did. That's why I considered her underrated.

Aside: what do you think of my prediction? I know it's a longshot, but I really do think that when faced with "hard Brexit" versus "maybe let's vote again" the Brits might just want another referedum at the last minute. But again, I'm going WAY out on a limb predicting it, I know.

nypoet22 [8] -

I liked "Age Of Conan," but I think "Agent Of Change" might actually catch on!

:-)

OK, in general, I don't hew to any strict definition of "small donation candidate," although there are plenty of sites that track political donations for individual politicians. Beto O'Rourke used to take PAC money, for instance, but didn't in the last election.

My loose definition is anyone who accepts only individual donations, up to the federal limits (which are something like $5,400 per election, if memory serves, although that might mean 5.4K for primary and 5.4K for general from same donor). I just don't think that's big enough to realistically buy any outsized influence for any particular individual, personally.

Most reports I've seen break down politicians' donations as "those under $200" and "those over $200," but even they might not count cumulative totals (you could give $200 a total of 27 times and still be OK with the limit, for instance).

Basically, my rule of thumb is: no corporate or PAC money at all, and no using a super PAC for your own campaign to get around the limits. Individual donations (up to the allowed limit) only.

But again, I really don't split this hair as finely as others seem to.

The history of small-donor-only goes back (at least) to Jerry Brown's first presidential run, back in the (?) 1990s. Pre-internet, he had (and got mocked for) a "1-800" number where you could call up to donate, and I believe he drew his own line in the sand at only $100 per donation (or maybe "per person," I'd have to look it up). Just to give credit where it is due...

-CW

As you can now see at the top of the page (may have to reload page in browser), we have officially reached our 2018 pledge drive goal!

Woo hoo!

Just wanted to let everyone know: thanks to all for donating (if you did), and here's to seeing the site for all of 2019 without ads!

:-)

-CW

you and cw use different definitions of small contribution campaigns. cw's definition is a campaign that focuses its fundraising efforts on gaining contributions outside the traditional rich donors and forgoes super PAC involvement, but presumably will still accept larger donations, just won't be beholden to them. your definition is much stricter, and would refuse any large donors no matter the circumstances. that's why candidates that fit cw's definition exist, and candidates that fit your definition don't exist. i hope that clarifies things, although both situations are part of the 'worst cake scenario'

JL

https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/AOC

* "The GOP base did not stay home, they voted. But in the end more Democrats voted against them."

It is probable that at least some independents voted for Democratic candidates. We can be generous, too, and grant the possibility that even the rare registered Republican cast a vote for the Democratic candidate. (In fact, later in the article, you are more accurate: "The voters cast their lot with Democrats")

* We're really sorry to see all the moderate Republicans exit politics who kept at least some sort of check on Trump. People like Jeff Flake and Bob Corker...
Sen Flake represented me, first as Reprentative and then as Senator; I screamed at this one. Call him 'not insane', use 'principled' if you must, but his voting record is anything but 'moderate'.

* May just survived a "vote of no confidence" in Parliament...
Not quite - Those who cast ballots were Conservative Party Members of Parliament only, i.e. Labor, DUP, etc. MPs were excluded.
I am no expert of British law - and this is very 'inside baseball' - so I'll let Al Jazeera explain:
'British Prime Minister Theresa May has survived a secret vote of confidence on her leadership of the ruling Conservative Party triggered by rebel MPs disgruntled by her Brexit deal.

Of the Conservatives' 317 members of parliament, 200 voted in support of May during the poll on Wednesday evening, while 117 went against her.'
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/12/british-pm-theresa-survives-vote-confidence-181212164528667.html

The entire article was well-written and insightful. Several times, I said to myself, "I wish I had said that!". So I compiled a list, which I will share here, of my favorite turns of phrase.

Laugh out loud:
* Fox News won't have enough money to hire them all as consultants, even.
* Best acronym of the year, (tiny) hands down!
* "Can I have 'Political Mismatch' for $1000, Alex?"
* (if his health holds out of course -- as we all now know, he still "likes beer... a lot," so who knows?).
* was still big Big BIG news on the teevee.
* [Rudy Giuliani](and one that just keeps on giving).
* Just like, you know, those pirate ghosts.
* The impact was amazing, though, because (as the old horror movie cliché put it) it was coming from inside the house!
* [Boehner] retired to sip whiskey on his porch and mow his lawn (hopefully, not in that particular order).
* without being thrown under the double-decker bus of British politics
* Under Nancy Pelosi, the House will investigate Trump within an inch of his political life.

No one does it better:
* We certainly never thought we'd see Judy Woodruff of the PBS NewsHour ever utter the word "shithole" on air, but Donald Trump proved us wrong in the end.
* Consider: Missouri's governor was shamed in a scandalous affair and faced impeachment from the legislature. He was forced to resign. Does anyone remember his name? We didn't
* Gallons of ink (well, pixels, we suppose)
* Traumatizing infants and small children for no real reason, and separating them from their parents just to make a political point with your base is not really who America should be, plain and simple.
* they never added up without "magic asterisks" or fantastical mathematics or just large gaps in the data.

You opened my eyes:
* The middle class got screwed, once again, by the GOP -- but this time they realized it in record time.

* The freakin' president of the United States tried to get the television networks to run an ad that they decided was too racist to run, as the closing argument for an American midterm election.
* So how can it be "bribery" when a whole bunch of small-donor citizens band together to do exactly the same thing lobbyists routinely threaten in Washington?
* [Pelosi] didn't just shatter the glass ceiling, she left behind a brand-new ceiling that her male successors will have to break through.
* Trump will not be able to issue any pardons for state-level crimes, of course.

I think a lot of folks are taking a breather from politics right now, so there's no one talking about some of the things going on right now. I'm hoping that changes after the New Year.

(The best to you and yours.)

i am very disappointed in you for failing to recognize the obvious societal benefit of voting based on pie. by awarding your so-called 'best idea' to fund-raisers in the state of maine, you are completely ignoring the potential benefit of baking pies for candidates instead of merely donating funds. you are also mistaking the quality of an idea for the logistical ability to implement that idea. if only you would write a column dedicated to the political implications of pie, i am certain it would catch fire just like the me too movement or the march for our lives. for your failure to recognize this opportunity, i bestow upon you my own 'worst cake' award. for shame.

JL