#nate’s basically the reason they won the war

[boltmyth]

thinking about how nate was most likely zeus’s favorite son at one point in time only to now be one of his biggest failures

[sassenashsworld]

Hi Everybody!

On this Fallout Day, let's me re-talk a little about Silver, my OC

Mainly we can't really talk about an "OC" as Silver IS Nora. She is almost the basic characters of the game but for : her long white hairs and her eyes as green as plutonium

Nick is the person who nicknamed Nora because of the color of her hair.

At the very beginning of the Fanfiction (ao3 The path of the private), Nora remains a long time in silence just staring at Nick, then as they advance in the story, she says very few sentences and finally, Nick realizes that he doesn't even know her name. Since it’s so hard to get her to talk, he just nickname her Silver.

Even if I mainly stick to Nora main story in my game for this fanfiction, I still used the gray areas of the game to go a little in the Head Canon and I admit that at one point, I added elements out of canon (like the way it was Nora who brought the original Nick Valentine to the CIT).

This characteristic is based on the fact that the fanfiction is entirely based from my game (survival no cheat -no power armor mostly) and that I realized that the companions often spoke, made comments here and there, but that Nora hardly says a word except few dialogues… and then, the companions and NPC can go in big, long speeches, but not her.

I thought it would be fun to imagine how others perceived such a silent person, thus was born my Fanfiction.

So, if we are to talk about Nora AKA Silver :

She is a discreet and silent person. She internalizes her traumas and accepts her new reality with a taunt humor, sometimes biting, degenerate if we take Nick to his own description of it, and still according to him, absolutely inappropriate.

Ironically, even if everyone agrees that Nora is beautiful and "well rolled", she has very big problems of esteem, and due to the scars that she won in Concord by fighting the Deathclaw, she considers herself downright visually horrible…

She consumes an astronomical amount of whisky. Probably she would choke if she drank water (but in reality she has to drink it since I play survival) and she uses combat drugs…. every fight.

It’s a big deal for Nick.

She’s a great shot. Nate taught her to shoot guns before the war and she’s really a natural. She can practically snipe with a .10mm, and I’m not talking about a riffle. --even if I use the VATS sometime, I admit that I like to empty a place on the scope as far as I can. I played Unreal Tournement when I was younger and I sniped while my teammate went to get the flag. I don’t think I’m exceptional, but Nora is.

Speaking of guns, she has an excessively nervous trigger. She can shoot several bullets before people around her react --yeah, VATS… worse when she get her hands on The Deliverer.

This combination of skill makes her impressive with her shooting skills and that made her reputation.

That, and her shitty nature.

Because even though Nora uses humor to deal with her trauma (she must have had a great sense of humor before the bombs), she is very straightforward, doesn't like to waste time and has no tolerance for gratuitous acts of malice. She often tries to reason first, then shoot, but as her adventure progresses in the Commonwealth, new traumas are added that make her lose even more faith in humanity.

She is however not a bad person --eh, otherwise Nick would not be her best friend-- and she is always ready to offer a chance to someone who try. But not two, as quickly --before dying-- Porter learns.

Speaking of Nuka-World, it is worth mentioning that the excessive use of drugs + the experimental gases of Among the Star caused a seizure to Nora who developed a schizophrenia. I am not an expert on this disease, I mainly use my personal experiences having been with some people with this disease to describe her condition, and I absolutely do not recommend judging a schizophrenia person on my writings.

--One of my best friends had schizophrenia and refused to seek treatment. I had to cut ties with him three years ago after twenty years of friendships. It is a very difficult state for the person and for the entourage but a person with schizophrenia can get through it and live a normal life, even if it requires a lot of courage and effort…--

...and Nora does the opposite.

Then her state IS NOT based on a normal struggling person but based on the worse reactions my friend could have, a little romanced to make an awful impression.

In the main game, Nora leave Dogmeat at Sanctuary, but in any modded game, she always keep him with her. He is her good doggie doggy precious baby smishie little love.

As for the companions, Nora has a distinct preference for MacCready, whom she regards as her little brother (and he regards her as his big sister), Hancock, with whom she could have had an affair, in another life, another world, and of course Nick Valentine, who becomes a kind of father/best friend figure.

She often admits that without Nick, she would have badly turn. But he keeps her on the straight and narrow.

To Nick’s great damn, she also adores this cursed paladin, Danse, but to his great astonishment, he also ends up understanding the qualities of the man beyond his creed and ends up respecting him.

She also likes and respect Preston a lot, even if they sometimes have conflicts --virulent that she solves viciously-- and Sturges is like a brother in arms for her, mechanic side. They love to fix and build things together, two little tinker geniuses.

It is mentioned that Piper is her best friend but Nick rarely attends their meeting and he knows that she spends time with Deacon and likes him a lot but he knows nothing of their exact relationship (as The Path of the Private is written from Nick’s perspective, I can’t say more).

Nora absolutely doesn't know how to deal with Strong and its takes her a long time to get closer to Cait, but she refuses to let them down.

Also, she will dive head first into Kent’s delirium about the Silver Shroud.

Nora shares a secret with Kelly, the Mayor of Somerville (OC not OC, it's the settler with two kids when you first get there), Clem, and a certain Doctor Laslay (OC), but this secret is explored in more detail in the fanfiction Heartbeat of the Commonwealth, co-written with @jasmineofthecommonwealth.

So, if you want to know more about Silver, I invite you to read my fanfiction on Ao3

And of course The Heartbeat of the Commonwealth also on Ao3

PS: I admit that I was learning English at the beginning of my fanfiction and I promise myself one day to rewrite it with the experience I acquired since (mostly thanks to @jasmineofthecommonwealth), but I think it’s legible ;)

PPS : The screenshot have been taked from a modded game, not the game from The path of the Private but mostly based on The Heartbeat of the Commonwealth

Have fun!

[lockdownuk]

Lockdown Diary Part 6

A personal account during the lockdown in the UK due to the Covid-19 outbreak.

23/03/2020 8:30pm Boris Johnson, UK Prime Minister, gives a live address to the nation to, effectively, put the country on lockdown to stem the spread of the deadly coronavirus strain, Covid-19.

Many of us have been self-isolating for days but this latest development within the UK in reaction to the pandemic feels very serious and very scary. I decided to keep a simple diary and where better but online.

Day 151: Great hour or so last night around Foggy’s. When I got home I watched World War Z and some stand up by Nate Bargatze and drank and smoked loads. Today, I got up just before 2pm and felt soooo unmotivated. I was going to have a day of doing fuck all but had a change of heart around 7pm so did my stair climb then walked for over an hour (7km) and got home at 9:30pm!

Day 152: Typing on day 153. I popped up and saw Foggy last night. One of the reasons was I wanted to take him a beer to say thanks for looking over my mitigation statement for my impending court hearing for speeding. He liked what i wrote but has given me some key amendments. Basically free solictor advice and I am very grateful. While there he hit me with the news that Ham’s sister, Preeya, has died (last Friday 14th August) from Covid 19. To say i was gobsmacked is an understatement. She was 49. The family could only talk to her over a loud speaker and had to say good bye that way as her life support was swithced off. Fucking hell, it’s terrible. And, what makes it worse, is how complacent I have become about the disease while it’s causing so much tragedy. As I said to Foggy, it’s important to renew our efforts in combatting this disease so that Preeya’s death at least means we learn. I also feel guilty for not realising that many people have passed like this - just because I (sort of) knew Preeya doesn’t mean I shouldn’t feel any less sorry for the dozens of people dying and many more affected everyday. My emotions are in turmoil and yet I’m not directly affected.

Day 153: Typing this on day 154. Gone midday before I woke up. Beers in the evening and watched Den of Thieves. Great film.

Day 154: Woke up at 2:37 pm FFS. Just done a walk and I feel like shit (booze induced).

Day 155: Went to bed at about 4am yesterday but was up at 10am today so, usual Monday correction of sleep patterns. Two long walks today plus a little housekeeping on photos, sharing to the Oundle chatter group, so, quite constructive. Hoir chat with dad plus a chat with a recruitment agemt about a helpdesk manager role in Peterborough.

Day 156: Typing on Day 157. I saw Karen sitting with TTP (and two others I couldn’t make out) at the T&K on my second walk. Why does that piss me off so much? I am being like Jack in Midnight Run. I need to let go.

I am also getting wound up with Tumblr - I can only make entries on this diary blog on the PC - when I try on the Android or Apple apps, they pop up with ‘post too long’. Trying getting info from Tumblr’s online help on that though - fucking not happening. I think I might move this to a Google Blog...it’s not like anyone else reads it. I’m not sure I’d want that - it’s far more a private diary now rather than the cute ‘blog’ idea it started out as. It is now a disciplinary exercise more than anything.

Day 158: Feeling less sorry for myself now. It’s 10pm and I am having a midweek beer as I wait for tea to cook.

Day 159: Decided I will split this diary into 30 day sections to appease Tumblr. My second walk today was at 8pm ‘cos it was pissing down from about 4pm ‘til 7:30pm...very dark and so wet. Home by 9.15pm.

Day 160: I went shopping in Corby (Tesco and Asda) - I only really went so I could get blue eggs. £75 on booze! I was going up to Fog’s tonight but at around 6pm it started to piss down. So, I shall drink at home. It’s 9.15pm, I think it’s going to get messy.

Day 161: Not sure when I wnet to bed last night but I didn’t get up until 2pm. Nice long walk (9km) in the rain!

Banners and Sam G went to London to have a few with Andy P. I’m a little flabbergasted, it’s like there’s no Covid19 all a sudden.

Day 162: Bank holiday Sunday so I am having a beer or two. Tea’s cooking, gonna watch The Accountant on BBC1 at 10.30pm. Today I got up at 1.55pm and managed to have a shower and be downstairs to see the start of the Belgian GP. Hamilton won, pretty easily. I then did my stair climb and a 9.8km (6 mile) walk.

Last night I watched a rather quirky, entertaining comic horror film called Ready or Not and then Ricky Gervais - Fame. That’s the tour I saw him live after seeing Henman’s final tennis match at the Davis Cup at Wimbledon. Bloody funny - the recording could even be the show Karen and I were at. Bed at around 5am, hence not egtting up ‘til way past midday!

Day 163: Bank Holiday Monday, just like a Sunday. I am making this entry on my phone as I'm now able to due to breaking up the diary blog into 30 day sections.

Molly's Game, a film I've tried to rewatch several times but it's never been free, is on BBC2 tonight. I'm recording it right now but actually watching Seinfeld from the start on All4. The first couple of episodes are a bit ropey if truth be told. Luckily, I know it improves.

Day 164: Managed to get hold of Michelle via her daughter Daisy to place a nice big order for C. Just as well ‘cos Tim’s ignoring me!

Rang and spoke with Barry Haddon today to check he’s OK.

Day 165: Picked up C from Michelle’s in Yarwell. While there I was mauled by her over friendly Staffordshirebull terrier getting bit on the thigh. Twice in six months I’ve been bitten by dogs.

Karen WhatsApp’d to see if I’d seen Miley Cyrus on the Live Lounge!

Day 166: Forgot to say that yesterday, I also bumped into and chatted with Pete Gilder. We mainly talked about (getting caught) speeding.

Today I did over 22k steps and I am fucked. 

I replied to an email from Shirley at work HR. After the furloughed staff call on Thursday, which I didn’t attend, they want us to cash in some (more) hoilday, which is fine by me, but I have also asked if we are any clearer as to what happens on 1st October, when the rentention scheme ends. I await her reply.

Day 167: Another 20k stpes today. Just 24k needed to have completed 1m steps since the start of July.

It’s Friday, about 9.45pm. I’m going to watch Molly’s Game and have a few beers.

Day 168: Got up at just before 2pm. It’s now 10.15pm and I am just having my first beer, Today was a lazyish day, completed 12k steps.

Day 169: Completed the 1m steps with 24 days to spare. Woohoo. Now, I am unsure whether to reduce the walking I have got so used to doing? I think I might keep up an average of 11k steps a day which is all I would have needed to accomplish to reack 1m in 3 months.

I’m pleased I did it today since I :went to bed a nearly 5am this morning!

Day 170: Actually typing this on day 171. Feels weird having done the 1m steps, almost like I’ve nothing to do. However, I am of course going to keep walking but not quite as hard/much. I did feel liek I was walking myself into the ground all in the name of finishiong the task ASAP. So, today I only had one walk, did 11,5k.

Yesterday’s Italian GP was a cracker. Hamilton had a penalty and ikt ended up with Gasly winning. Full of incident including a red flag so the race ‘restarted’.

I completely forgot ot make this entry on the correct day?

Day 171: I have decided to press on with the walking - not quite so urgently as before - to see what I can achieve steps-wise in 3 months. So, today, an unusually hot day for September, I did 18k steps plus cleaned the bathroom, hoovered my room and stairs and hallway. I am fucked!

Today I have bought a set of smart scales and a new pair of Skechers. The Skechers were almost free (£69 reduced to £30ish which I had in Paypal) and the scales were £20. Still, I shouldn’t. I don’t know what will happen at the end of October when the CJRS ends plus I don’t know what punsihment will be dished out, any day now, for the speeding offence! Fuck it!

Day 172: An eventful day. Boris has restricted gatherings to no more than 6 people and will use ‘Covid Marshalls’ to police this. It’s causing a stir amongst the online community. I have set up accounts with Gurushots and Picfair to showcase my snaps. The latter offers the opportunity to sell them. I watched Anchorman 2. It was pretty good. I also postd on the Oundle chatter group about walking in front of a car the other day - the driver, a yound lady, was enchanting the way she just smiled and let me pass - I used it as an opportunity to ask about George Higgins saving a child from near death at the hands of a lorry, the post about which has disappeared.

Day 173: Lots have seen my post re: my car incident but the bait hasn’t been taken.

Sarah Haines made a nice comment about my photo posts on the Oundle Chatter group also saying that she doesn’t know me but, it turns out she does. She is James Watson’s ex from when I first moved to Oundle so we caught up on Messenger.

Rachel Harris posted a meme slating Boris about the fact we were all encouraged to go out and about (inclding the Eat Out to Help Out scheme) and now we are being sent back to ‘our room’. Some of the comments continue to slate the government. I couldn’t resist commenting that, had the royal ‘we’ maintined social distancing and remembered there’s a fucking pandemic, perhaps we might not be under impending severe lockdown, as it now looks like. I also mentioned photos I have seen (one posted by Rach herslf) whereby you could be mistaken for thinking that there isn’t a pandemic. I have finished the comment with a line about we can only blame ourselves, not the hapless government! I wonder what reaction that will get!

Day 174: Scales were delivered today. If they are accurate I am a little over 11 stones, from 12st 7lbs before lockdown. Can’t quite believe it. I have a yearly diabetic review with Lynne in October so i can check then. If the scales are wrong, I’ll be livid on 2 scores!

Friday night beers as I type. Been looking forward to them since last Saturday!

Day 175: I do not trust the new scales. I get a different reading each time I step on them and by 10-12 lbs. Fucking things. Boots arrived today - they’re going back as well. Footy season started today. Posh lost away to Acrrington Stanley. “Who are they?”

Day 176: The GP was reflagged again today (a new track at Tuscany. A red flag two races on the trot is most unusual. Hamilton won.

Day 177: I managed to get the scales working. I’m pretty much the same weight I was prior to ld (about 12.5 st). This leads me to believe that if I wasn’t doing all the walking I am, I would be as fat as a fucking house. On that note, Google Fit is playing up. It loses the step and heart point count for each walk (although the workouts retain the route map info) Wtf?

I think K and TTP might be a thing from a post I saw on FB whereby some chap (who I don’t know) commented on TTP’s post that it was nice to see him and K. Kinda gutted if it is true but I shouldn’t be. That’s all I will say on here.

Day 178: Jim contacted me today to let me know he’s leaving RCI. He was quite secretive about why and what’s going on but, there it is. He went on to say that HR will be contacting me shortly to call me back from furlough. Sueanne is taking over as team leader but that’s temporary. and that they will most likely promote from within. I struggling to think what it would be like if Mark was boss! The way RCI are and how disjointed it is with Jim as boss, I shan’t take it as read until HR do contact me. Also, I dunno how I feel about it...I have got so used to not working. But, and it’s a big but, I doubt I’ll have a job after the retention scheme finishes so, if this does pan out, it’s good. I’ll be back to job hunting while in a job, as per before the pandemic.

Also, I received an email letting me know the punishment for my speeding offence was 6 points and a £233 fine, plus costs (£90) and victim support (£34), £357 in total. More than I expected. But, no ban, so I’ll suck it up. 

Day 179: Having midweek beers. I'm in that sort of mood.

Day 180: I WhatsApp’d Jim to let him know HR haven’t contacted me. His garbled response went from telling to give them a shout and let them know he is leaving, to which I asked ‘don’t they know?’, he then said hold fire (on Sueanne’s instruction) and she has said for me to sit tight and then, finally, that HR will contact me! Fuck knows what’s going on! I had a diabetic review with Lynne today. When you go to the surgery you have to let in, which I was by Keren. It was nice to see and chat with her. She is back with Ronnie which was news to me. Then Lynne came and got me. It was nice to see and chat with her also. She weighed me and I’m 12st 3lb. Apparently in Jan last year I was over 13st!

[dcseriesfanfics]

Afraid to lose you- Rip Hunter Appreciation Week, Day 4.

“Hello everyone! So this day of Rip Hunter Appreciation Week it´s about “Rip ship”, basically a day to write about romance and our fav ship with Rip, in my case my fav ship it´s Timecanary and I´m still so bitter by the fact that the writers ruined it but fanfic writers are here to save it all:) So this fanfic will be about Rip and Sara being afraid of losing each other, they lost so many people before so that´s their fear and that brings some problems when they have to plan an attack or something like that. I hope you guys like it!

Rip´s P.O.V 

Since the time pirates took over, the Legends had more job to do, more danger and more time and people to protect. Sara and I as captains had to work harder, sometimes we didn´t even sleep because we kept spending our time planning and trying to figure out where the time pirates are going to attack next. 

I don´t know why, I don´t know if it is because I haven´t slept and I´m not thinking straight, but I just found myself watching how beautiful Sara was, with her blonde hair and deep eyes, thinking about the way she smiles and light up the entire room, how brave and strong she is. Sara Lance believed in me even after everything I did, and I believed in her since day 1. 

“What? Do I have something on my face or why are you looking at me like that?” Sara asked, I tried hard to not blush.

“Sorry, I´m just tired that´s all” I answered. 

“You should go to sleep, I can stay here”

“What if we both go to sleep? You must be really tired too” 

“I´m tired of this situation, like I mean, when are we going to have a break?”

“We are Legends, time protectors, this is what we do”

“And look how many we have lost. I wonder, who´s gonna be next?” I couldn´t answer to that, I couldn´t think about losing another legend again, specially if that legend is Sara “You are right, we have to sleep, I´m thinking things I shouldn´t be thinking about” before I could ask what she was thinking, she stood up and went to her room.

Was she thinking the same thing I was thinking?

On the morning, we got the alert about the time pirates attacking some old village, so Sara and I had to made a plan right away.

“Appareantly there are more time pirates than other attacks, so we are going to split up. Amaya, Zari and Ray are a team, and Mick, Nate and Sara are other team, I will go to find the time pirate leader and stop this” Sara looked at me confused.

“You seriously don´t think that you are going alone right?”

“Why not? This war started because of me, so I have to be the one to stop it”

“And get yourself hurt or even killed? Hell no, I´m coming with you”

“I am the captain so you will obey me”

“I am the captain too, we are partners so we are doing this together, until death do us appart” 

“Sara I said no, you are not strong enough!” everyone got quiet on the room, looking uncomfortable about the tense situation. Sara looked at me, and by the way she was looking at me my heart broke.

“That I am not strong enough? Let me remember to you that I am the one who went through death and back to save you, I got hurt and I almost got killed to save you. Yes, maybe I´ve lost many people, we´ve lost too many legends and maybe it´s my fault, but don´t you ever come to tell me that I am not strong enough, even after everything I´m still here and I am not giving up. You want to go alone and try to save the day? Fine, but I won´t save you this time, it´s pretty clear that you don´t appreciate it” Sara turned her back on me and got out the room. I covered my face with my hands, thinking about how bad I ruined all this situation.

“You didn´t meant what you said, right?” Zari asked “I can see how much you care about her, how much you love her, you are just too afraid of losing her”

“Don´t be a coward and just tell her” Mick said, Nate rolled his eyes and looked at him.

“It´s not that easy, specially when you´ve lost people that you loved before”

“I agree with Nate, it´s not easy, but you have to tell her before it´s to late” Amaya suggested, I let out a deep sight. 

“Let´s stick with the plan, we have time to save”

And that´s exactly what we did. I tried to not think about Sara, about my fears, I even tried to not look at her but it was so hard, she was so beautiful. 

The village was devastated, we had to stop the time pirates, there was already too much damage.

“Well, let´s split up” Zari, Amaya and Ray went to a side, and Mick with Nate and Sara following him to another side.

“Sara wait” I said stopping her, she turned and looked at me.

“If you haven´t realised, we don´t have too much time so what is it?” in her eyes I found myself falling in love with her, the first time we meet and all the moments we shared, specially the moment when Sara lost her sister and I told her that she was one of the strongest people I ever met, and I still think that, the one who is not strong enough here is me.

“In case I get myself killed and you don´t save me” without a doubt, I took her face and kissed her, with passion and love, passion and love I had kept a long time. Everything just stopped, time, space, everything, it was just Sara Lance and I, kissing. 

Before I could saw her reaction, her face after we kissed, I ran away. 

Sara´s P.O.V 

And suddenly, my dream came true, Rip and I finally kissed, in the middle of the battle and the trouble. The dream became a nightmare when he just ran away for me, ready to get himself hurt or worse, and if I lose him, I lose everything.

Then I realised that Rip don´t actually thinks that I´m not strong enought, he is afraid of losing me because he loves me.

Rip Hunter loves me. 

In that moment I ran, trying to find Rip. Of course I was going to save him, he saved me too when he recruited me to be a legend, he is the reason that I am now this person.

“Rip!” I shouted, and then I found what I feared the most, Rip on the ground, unconscious “Rip! No, you are not leaving me” he wasn´t moving, he wasn´t breathing, I started RCP but still no answer, tears were already filling my eyes “I know, I know that you love me, and you have to know that I love you too. You are afraid of losing me and so I am, so please don´t you dare to leave me. Without you, I´m not strong enough, I lost too many people so please don´t be the next to leave me. I love you Rip Hunter”

“And I love you, Sara Lance” I heard Rip´s voice behing me, when I turned around I saw him, alive. 

“How...?”

“Turns out he is a shape shifter, so he changed on my form to escape”

“Oh thank God” I stoop up and threw my arms around Rip “I thought I lost you”

“So you were going to save me, after all”

“How couldn´t I? You saved me before, and I love you, you are the best part of me”

“Glad to know” and we kissed, letting our fears of losing each other go away. 

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): Stories around the allegations that President Trump used the power of the presidency to seek dirt on his political rival in a phone call to the Ukrainian president in July are moving fast. The House has opened an official impeachment inquiry into the president, and some Democrats have even suggested they’ll draft articles of impeachment by Thanksgiving.

But there’s also an election going on (in case you forgot) … so how does the question of whether Congress should move to impeach Trump affect the Democratic primary?

nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, elections analyst): Well, since Sept. 20 — which is both the day the Wall Street Journal broke the news that the whistleblower complaint alleged that Trump pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and, not coincidentally, the last time I really thought about the 2020 Democratic primary — Sen. Elizabeth Warren has gained significantly in the Real Clear Politics average, and Biden has slipped.

And I think there are lots of reasons to believe this story would help Warren and hurt Biden.

Warren was one of the first 2020 candidates to come out in favor of impeachment, back in April, and she has been one of the clearest candidates about where she stands on the issue.

So given that support for impeachment has increased among Democrats, as our tracker of impeachment polls shows, I think a sense of urgency among Democrats to impeach Trump could help Warren.

perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): I disagree with this take pretty strongly.

nrakich: Oh good! I was afraid we were all going to agree.

perry: I don’t think the “scandal” (Biden himself did nothing wrong; his son, Hunter Biden, seems to have done something that is perhaps not ideal but not illegal) will hurt Biden among Democratic voters who were already seriously considering voting for him.

Basically everyone in the party is defending him, and I suspect that the people who are likely to say this is a problem for him (by showing he and his family made money through politics/cronyism) were already Warren or Bernie Sanders supporters.

Impeachment is the position of the Democratic Party, and Biden is in line with that. He and Warren are not that different on this issue now.

nrakich: But doesn’t it show leadership on Warren’s part that she was one of the first to call for impeachment?

As for Biden himself, I don’t think a lot of Democrats buy what Trump is selling — that Biden’s activities in Ukraine were corrupt. But I think it could pierce his aura of electability if Democrats worry that it’s something that could be used against him in a general election.

sarahf: Yeah, I tend to agree with Perry, but do think there is a “tug-of-war” around media narratives right now involving the Ukraine scandal, and while Fox News has been the main outlet focusing more on Biden’s involvement in Ukraine, rather than Trump’s conduct, the déjà vu to 2016 makes me think this has the potential to overtake/overshadow the primary.

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): I think impeachment is pretty clearly good news for Warren. But that’s not mutually exclusive with it being good news for Biden. My initial instinct was that it could help Biden in some ways because (1) Democrats would have to come to his defense, and (2) it makes Trump looks like he fears Biden, which bolsters his electability case. My second instinct, though, is that it isn’t so helpful for Biden.

Why? It’s not so much because his vague aura of electability might suffer, although maybe there’s some of that. But more because it requires a campaign that can be nimble and react to unpredictable news developments in real time, and I’m not really sure that campaign is Biden’s — they’ve run a very risk-averse strategy so far.

perry: But I think Biden is smart to lean into this and basically argue, “I’m so electable that Trump is already trying to cheat to beat me.” That seems like a good argument to me, particularly in the Democratic primary. That argument also seems true!

natesilver: It’s a pretty decent argument!

Another dimension to all this is that if impeachment is in the news all the time, it’s bad news for any candidate who isn’t one of the front-runners now. Since the story occupies a lot of media bandwidth that could be spent on, I dunno, a Cory Booker surge, or whatever.

perry: But in general, I do think a fast-moving event favors Warren, just because her strategy (run to the left) is easy to execute and Biden’s (figure out where the middle of the electorate is) is a bit harder. And if this moves to the Senate, you can imagine Warren being like, “Let’s convict” and Biden being less eager to say that.

nrakich: Maybe this is a bad analogy, but I think maybe the impeachment issue is to Warren as the Iraq War was to Barack Obama in 2008. He had a clear anti-war stance and no past baggage on the issue (unlike Hillary Clinton, who had voted for the war), and that really gave him credibility on an important issue to Democratic primary voters.

Furthermore, Warren’s steady rise in the polls actually started around the time she came out in favor of impeachment in April — although there were also a lot of other factors at play, so we can’t say for sure it was the reason she caught fire.

sarahf: I mean, to some extent, though, this has to be objectively better for anyone who isn’t Biden, because being dragged through the mud on this scandal (regardless of whether any wrongdoing actually happened) isn’t great PR.

And while the Biden campaign has tried to put the kibosh on stories that Biden did anything wrong, I do find it astounding that a Monmouth poll this week found that 42 percent of voters think Biden “probably did” pressure Ukrainian officials to not investigate his son’s business interests.

perry: I still think the number of Biden Democratic primary supporters leaving him over this is close to zero, and the number of Democrats who were thinking about voting for Biden who will be bothered by this is also close to zero.

What percentage of that 42 percent will vote for Trump? Probably most of them.

nrakich: Yeah, and that’s borne out by the crosstabs of that poll — Democrats said 65 percent to 19 percent that Biden “probably did not” inappropriately pressure Ukraine. But as I said above, it’s not about Democrats leaving Biden because they believe the allegations. It’s about them getting scared that he now has a scandal, however unsubstantiated, that could hurt him in the general election.

perry: So they choose Warren instead?

Does that seem likely to you?

natesilver: Yeah I’m with Perry on this!

I think voters aren’t taking “electability” quite as literally as you or I might.

Otherwise they’d consider Amy Klobuchar really electable or whatever, because she’s from a swing-ish state and has won by big margins before.

nrakich: Nate, I agree that the ordinary voter may not spend a lot of time diving into a candidate’s average overperformance above partisan lean or whatever — but I think simpler concepts like “scandals hurt your chances of winning” can resonate. This may be one of the lessons many people took from 2016 (along with, maybe, “America isn’t ready to elect a woman president”) — that even an overhyped scandal like the one over Clinton’s emails can cost someone an election.

And Perry, Warren doesn’t need all those ex-Biden voters to flock to her. She is doing fine on her own. If Biden drops to 15 percent, Warren will probably be in first place by default.

sarahf: I’m not sure we’ll see mass defection from Biden over this. But I do think Warren stands to benefit, however marginally, just by not being at the center of it all. I still think that while the Ukraine situation might not be bad for Biden, it’s not great either.

perry: Part of why I don’t think this will hurt Biden with voters who care a lot about electability is because the rest of the really viable candidates don’t scream electable (the white woman, the black woman, the socialist, the 37-year-old) in the way that voters typically think about electability.

natesilver: We also haven’t really seen how perceptions of Warren change now that she’s perceived by the media as a front-runner — maybe even the front-runner — instead of an underdog. I do wonder if there’s a bit of recency bias in how we’re covering that too.

nrakich: Right. I fully expect a scrutiny cycle for Warren coming up.

But I think that’s outside the purview of this chat!

natesilver: I mean, in some ways, you’d think that Biden could gain ground by saying, “While all these other Democrats are out there talking about impeachment, I’m talking about how we can BEAT Donald Trump based on issues that matter to the middle class,” etc.

Except that… the scandal at the heart of Democrats’ best impeachment case directly involves him!

sarahf: I do wonder, though, how much people are generally factoring impeachment into how they think about either a) the candidates or b) the election, period. Granted, this CNN poll is from March, but what stood out to me in that poll is that no one named the Russia investigation as their top issue for 2020. Do you think we’re headed toward a similar outcome here? Or is the dynamic different?

natesilver: At the very least, Democratic voters’ focus on impeachment is likely to increase now that all the party leaders and candidates back it.

perry: Where there might be a shift is in how the primary is fought. Basically every debate up to now has had this super-boring Medicare for All vs. Medicare “for everyone who wants it” discussion. But does that go away now? Are the terms of the campaign now different?

sarahf: Do you think there will now be more questions about whether the candidates support impeachment?

perry: Not impeachment. But the debates have all been very policy-focused. And now I wonder if they will be more about democratic norms and values. “Should Trump be removed from office?” is certainly a question that will be asked.

nrakich: Yeah, the irony of this whole thing is that impeachment is actually an irrelevant topic for a presidential campaign. If any of these people wins the White House, Trump will be out of office anyway!

perry: But impeachment is in the news, and I think it’s more interesting than restating everyone’s Medicare position. It could lead to more interesting questions, too. For example, Kamala Harris’s idea to ban Trump from Twitter has come out of this whole discussion. My guess is Warren may be to the right of Harris on that.

nrakich: Oh, I agree that it will come up. I just find it funny.

natesilver: But calling on Twitter to kick Trump off, though, is (apart from the journalistic case against kicking Trump off Twitter) sort of daft strategically since Trump probably hurts himself politically (and maybe even legally) with his various outbursts on Twitter. You’ve also had Harris calling for Brett Kavanaugh’s impeachment if I’m not mistaken, which seemed very off-message for Democrats.

nrakich: Warren did as well.

perry: The primary has largely been a wonk-fest, which is good for wonky candidates (Warren) and candidates who clearly reject wonkiness (Biden). But maybe this is a new phase of the campaign and a different type of candidate emerges. Maybe someone like Pete Buttigieg who has campaigned a lot on norms and democratic values. He also speaks about foreign policy fairly fluently. I wonder if he can turn this moment into something.

sarahf: Given that support for impeachment is so high among Democrats, do you think any of the candidates have anything to lose by saying they support impeaching Trump?

natesilver: I dunno. If Harris is any indication, I don’t think it’s going to be very easy for any of the other low-polling Democrats to latch onto a good argument about impeachment.

perry: Right, now that impeachment is a position of the party, I think it’s hard to differentiate yourself on it.

natesilver: I guess you could argue it’s good for Tom Steyer, who really was out in front on impeachment.

nrakich: Yeah, by all rights, Steyer should get a boost from this, as he’s run so many TV ads on the topic. But I think your point above about the media oxygen being taken away from non-front-runners is a good one.

natesilver: Maybe in a weird way it’s good, too, for someone like Andrew Yang, because he’s the most unconventional candidate and can counterprogram the most. It’s not like he’s been relying on much traditional media attention anyway.

Like, if you’re airing something alongside the Super Bowl, you don’t want to be showing a college football game. You want something really different.

nrakich: Like the Puppy Bowl???

sarahf: Tulsi Gabbard certainly held out on supporting impeachment — but to Nate’s earlier point, I’m not sure talking impeachment will help differentiate any of the candidates already struggling in the polls.

But OK, if the conversation does become more about norms and values and how we think about the office of the presidency, does that actually change the primary that much?

natesilver: I guess one way it could be bad for Warren is if it makes the debates less policy-driven. Then again, I’m not sure if Warren is benefiting from her policy positions so much as being branded as The Policy Candidate

.

nrakich: One point worth reiterating is that we’re still probably very early in the Trump/Ukraine/impeachment story timeline. The story will continue to evolve, and we don’t know where that will take the political conversation.

perry: After the El Paso shooting, Beto O’Rourke was in the news a lot. But his numbers didn’t move, and that tells me that he is still very unlikely to break through. And so while this feels like the kind of story where Buttigieg can come in and say, “This is another example of how Washington is broken and we need fresh faces,” I would not be surprised if he didn’t gain in the polls either.

A lot of what we are seeing in the polls right now is Warren gaining from Harris, Sanders and, to some extent, Biden. So I think the biggest shift for Warren, as Nate was hinting at, is not her stance on impeachment, but that she is now doing so well that her rivals will attack her more and the media will increase its scrutiny of her. Perhaps this is an atmosphere in which the primary is shaken up a bit. Warren has already kind of won the college-educated, Hillary Clinton-voter mini primary over Harris and in some ways has won the populist mini primary over Sanders, too. But what happens next is unclear.

[starringemiliaclarke]

Emilia Clarke on Why Game of Thrones Is the Perfect Form of Escapism + HQ Scans

As Daenerys Targaryen on Game of Thrones, Emilia Clarke created a warrior queen for the ages. Her legend can be told on the walls of caves or on T-shirts at Comic-Con. But behind the Valkyrie wigs and very testy dragons, Clarke has an inspiring origin story of her own.

A valley sprawls before her, rich with every color of green in the kingdom, reaching out to a twinkling city, which borders the infinite sea. Her hair (tinted not with peroxide, but tiny flecks of actual gold) glows with a radiance that makes the setting sun so jealous it hides behind the surrounding mountains, and the evening sky blushes. She is Daenerys Targaryen, Queen of the Andals, Breaker of Chains, Mother of Dragons, Khaleesi of the Great Grass Sea. Everything in sight belongs to her.

Just kidding! She is Emilia Clarke, sitting high above Beverly Hills in a glass mansion rented for a magazine cover shoot. So high up that passing aircraft rattle the bones of the house and those inside it. So high up that you can see Santa Catalina Island in the distance, peeking out from behind a curtain of fog. She laughs about something the makeup artist says, and the last of the evening light bounces off of her cheekbones and shoots into the camera lens.

We are in the sky to talk about Clarke’s reign as one of the most preeminent television actresses of our time, as Daenerys on Game of Thrones. But first, I have a few questions about her abandoned career as a jazz singer.

Clarke’s default emotion is joy — her resting heart rate seems to be just below that of someone seconds after winning a medium-expensive raffle prize — but it quickly congeals into theatrical horror when I reveal that I know that she is a casual but talented singer of jazz music.

When she was 10, Clarke was an alto in a chorus that she describes as “very churchy.” Then a substitute teacher introduced her class to jazz. “I just innately understood it,” she explains. “I was always sliding up and down the notes. Every time, the [chorus] teacher would be like, ‘Quit sliding, just sing that note and then that one and that’s it. Stop trying to fuck with it.’ Then this [jazz teacher] was like, ‘Fuck with it. That’s the point.’ ” Fast-forward a couple of decades, and Clarke was singing “The Way You Look Tonight” at the American Songbook Gala in New York, honoring Richard Plepler, erstwhile CEO of HBO. Nicole Kidman was there, too, and that is the story of Emilia Clarke, a very famous singer.

Just kidding, again! That is the story of Emilia Clarke, extremely famous actress, and it is not even the beginning. Game of Thrones, the HBO fantasy epic that has captured the global zeitgeist for most of the past decade, has entered its ultimate season. Since the show premiered in 2011, Daenerys’s searing platinum blonde has been branded into the brains of every living person with cable access, so much so that she has become as recognizable an action figure as Princess Leia. Every autumn, legions of Americans don Grecian-style dresses and carry stuffed dragons to Halloween parties in homage. Kristen Wiig even appeared on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon in a full Daenerys getup. This phenomenon exists in part because it’s a relatively easy costume to assemble, but more likely because Game of Thrones is the most popular TV show in the history of TV shows.

It’s also just one of three popular entertainment franchises Clarke has participated in. Last year: Solo: A Star Wars Story, as a paramour of Han Solo. Two years before that: the fifth Terminator movie, beside Arnold. She was also Holly Golightly in a short-lived Breakfast at Tiffany’s production on Broadway. None of those projects were particularly successful — but none of that matters, to a remarkable degree, because what matters is: The people love Daenerys.

They love a character whose series arc begins with her indentured servitude as a warlord’s concubine and ends, most recently, with her fighting for sovereignty over a league of nations and for a throne made of swords. They love how fictional languages drift from her mouth like dancing smoke, and how her searing-white mane retains a fearsome curl, even in or near battle. They love the whole dragons thing.

The people would love Emilia Clarke, too, if only they knew who she was. During the first few seasons of Game of Thrones, Clarke was able to fool the general public into believing she was very regular civilian Emilia Clarke, because Daenerys was blonde, and Clarke was not. Now, she says, recognition happens more frequently. Particularly Stateside.

For reasons I cannot fathom, Americans feel more entitled to command the attention of celebrities. “People are like, ‘UH-melia CLORK!’ ” she says, in perfect American. In London, people are prone to whisper about her as she passes by. “ ‘Was that Emilia Clarke?’ ”

“I move like a shark when I’m in public,” she says. “Head down. I think I’ve got quite bad posture because of it, because I’m determined to lead a normal life. So I just move too quickly for anyone to register if it’s me or not. And I don’t walk around with six security men and big sunglasses and a bizarre coat. I really try to meld in.” It gets worse when the show is being promoted, but otherwise, she says, it’s not so bad.

“I move like a shark when I’m in public. Head down…I’m determined to lead a normal life, so I just move too quickly for anyone to register if it’s me or not.”

Her best efforts aside, anonymity may be a pipe dream. The show is as decorated as a Christmas tree in a craft store. Game of Thrones has won a Peabody and 47 Emmys, the most of any television drama in history. The show marries critical praise with popular success, then it mercilessly slaughters those who have come to celebrate this union and receives even more acclaim (“The Rains of Castamere,” season 3, episode 9). The plotlines are famously convoluted. Luckily, we have an entire web’s worth of episode explainers, encyclopedias designed specifically for the Westeros universe, and a self-explanatory Funny or Die segment called Gay of Thrones, starring Jonathan van Ness.

When Mad Men first aired, television bloggers dutifully unpacked its symbolic elements, and millennials celebrated the show’s style with Mad Men–themed parties that were really just ’60s-and-one-red-wig-themed parties. Game of Thrones is basically an economy of its own. Since the show premiered, tourism to Croatia, whose coastal port Dubrovnik stands in for the fictional city of King’s Landing, has nearly doubled. Game of Thrones–themed weddings are so popular that it is almost impossible not to attend them — in 2016, Clarke accidentally walked into one that was occurring at the same hotel where she and the cast were staying during filming. (It was not a canonical wedding, and no guests were harmed.)

Game of Thrones has also earned one of the most important pop culture accolades of the century: The attention of Beyoncé Knowles. I believe it is her favorite TV show, and this is why.

Exhibit A: Jay-Z reportedly gave her a prop dragon’s egg from the set, at great personal expense. Exhibit B: At an Oscars after-party this year, Beyoncé approached Clarke (“voluntarily,” according to the actress) to introduce herself. “I watched her face go, ‘Oh, no, I shouldn’t be talking to this crazy [woman], who is essentially crying in front of me,’ ” remembers Clarke. “I think my inner monologue was, ‘Stop fucking it up,’ and I kept fucking it up.”

“I was like, ‘I just saw you in concert.’ And she was like, ‘I know.’ ” Clarke also mentions that Beyoncé complimented her work but declines to share specifics.

Why are people (more specifically, everybody) and goddesses (more specifically, Beyoncé) all obsessed with a show about some dragons and lots of dungeons?

“The show is sensationalist in a way,” Clarke explains, in an effort to describe a TV series that features twins having sex and a child’s defenestration in the very first episode. It doesn’t matter — Clarke’s conversational style is so intimate and emphatic that basic facts feel like sworn secrets. When she smiles, she does so with every single muscle in her face. “It’s the reason why people pick up gossip magazines. They want to know what happens next…. You’ve got a society that is far removed enough from ours but also circulates around power. How that corrupts people and how we want it, and how we don’t want it.”

In other words, Game of Thrones’ value proposition is creating a rich other world for people to experience a prestige, high-production version of pure, horny, violent, unbridled drama. It is, according to Clarke, pitched perfectly: “I think it caught Western society at exactly the right moment.”

“I don’t know about you,” she says, “but when I watch something, it’s escapism. I’m feeling crappy; I’m just sad, moody, depressed, upset, angry, whatever it is. I know that distraction is what makes me get better. Distraction is what really, really helps me.” She laughs and then quickly pivots to a caveat: “I’m sure that’s not what a therapist would advise.”

It is at this point that Emilia Clarke leans in very close, her breath knocking at my sideburn, and explains to me the bombastic and devastating ending to the most important TV show of the decade.

Wow — just kidding once more. But, uh, while we’re on the topic, how is this whole thing going to end?

It was not hard to root for the Breaker of Chains, until recently. Now we’re seeing the gentle unspooling of her character, and flickers of a dangerous prophecy that she will ascend the throne only to follow in her father’s footsteps and burn it all to the ground. For a while, Daenerys seemed like the Lawful Good ruler, but we have had the great pleasure of watching how power can pervert people. (Nate Jones, at Vulture, leads a thrilling discussion of this very topic.) (Also, if Daenerys were to rule the Seven Kingdoms, only to go nuts, we might at the very least have a spinoff to look forward to.)

Clarke will never say. Throughout 10 or so years in the public eye, her interviews have been peppered with the same handful of charming personal details from her career — the service jobs she worked prior to making it, dancing the funky chicken during her Game of Thrones audition — which feels a lot like walking a vast beach and finding the same series of 10 seashells.

Then, in March, some very different treasure washed ashore when The New Yorker ran the most illuminating profile of Emilia Clarke to date. It was written by Emilia Clarke.

If I am truly being honest every minute of every day I thought I was going to die.

In it, Clarke revealed that she had suffered two near-fatal brain aneurysms during the early seasons of Game of Thrones. The first hit her mid-plank during a training session, and not long after, doctors discovered a second that required them to open her skull for a risky operation. The recovery period was, to her, more painful than the aneurysms. “If I am truly being honest,” she wrote, “every minute of every day I thought I was going to die.” She also announced her charity venture, SameYou, which seeks to provide rehabilitation for young people recovering from brain injuries.

The second time we talk, it is the day before the Game of Thrones New York premiere, and Clarke is at a morning fitting, surrounded by a coronation’s worth of gowns. It’s early, and a passing cold has fried the edges of her voice. But her words still vibrate with so much joy, it’s like she doesn’t even notice. She’s just happy to be here, wherever she is.

Source

Emilia Clarke on Why Game of Thrones Is the Perfect Form of Escapism + HQ Scans was originally published on Enchanting Emilia Clarke | Est 2012

[recentanimenews]

THE GREAT CRUNCHYROLL NARUTO REWATCH Crashes the Chunin Exams in Episodes 64-70!

Come and come all to THE GREAT CRUNCHYROLL NARUTO REWATCH! I'm Nicole Mejias, and I'll be your host this week as we make our way through all 220 episodes of the original Naruto. Last week, we covered episodes 57-63, and we continue this week with episodes 64-70.

So the Chunin exam finally comes to a close in an explosive way, as Sasuke and Gaara face off! This was quite the rollercoaster batch of episodes, with the debut of Sasuke's Chidori attack, the hints about Sasuke's true abilities to power up, Gaara's real strength, and then... the exam ends with the attack of Sand on Leaf. It seems like Orochimaru felt Gaara going out of control was the perfect time to hatch his plan, and now everything is in chaos. As we finish up for this batch, we start getting some truly confusing resurrection powers utilized to give us 2 on 1 Hokage fighting action! Seems like things are only going to heat up after this week's batch!

Alright, let's get the ball rolling and on to what the Crunchyroll Features team thought of this week's episodes!

This week's episode sees the Chunin exam come to a somewhat unsatisfying ending as the true plan of the Sand Village unfolds. I remember my first time around that I wanted to see the exam actually complete, but how do you all feel about this sudden interruption?

Joseph: I didn’t mind it at all, it made the story less predictable and kept the pace up rather than transitioning into your usual post-tournament downtime. I really enjoyed the tournament but I can’t say I care who would have won.

Carolyn: I have to agree, I thought it was nice to see a bigger world/threat/issue than just the controlled, one-on-one fights.

Danni: I love a good tournament arc, so it’s a bit of a shame this one only lasted a few matches. That being said, the new developments are pretty cool. I’m looking forward to where it goes from here if a war does indeed break out.

Kevin: It makes for a bit more dramatic turn, since on first viewing it seems like we’re about to go into another short tournament to finish the arc, but then a war starts. In terms of personal feelings, I could go either way. I appreciate the story not following the exact beats that the audience expects, but I also like tournaments, so wanted to see how the fights progressed.

David: Stopping powerlevel defining tournaments early isn’t exactly new—looking at you, Saint Seiya—but in this case the seeds for the attack have been sown as early as the forest arc, so it’s hard to complain. If anything it would be disappointing if nothing had come of that.

Paul: I welcome the swerve. Sure, in part it feels like Kishimoto got bored with the whole tournament fighting arc, but I love the idea that there's a huge, precarious world out there filled with fragile alliances and ninja skullduggery of which the main characters, in their youthful innocence, are only experiencing a tiny taste.

Kara: I don’t think I’d call this ending unsatisfying, really. I mean, everyone got slapped in the face before the Round 3 preliminaries with the fact that the exams are largely politically motivated, and we’ve known the Sand Village was up to something the whole time. I feel like finishing everything out by the book and handing out Chunin diplomas or whatever would be more disappointing after all that setup.

Noelle: Tournament arcs are such a staple that they almost feel expected for the genre—so anything that tosses it up is something that I’d welcome. 1v1 fights are fun, but after a while, I think I’d lose the patience to sit through the whole thing.

Jared: I think this was fine the tournament during the opening round. It’s certainly something that doesn’t blindside you as it’s abundantly clear something’s going to happen, but it’s a neat way to play with your expectations.

Sasuke is back the spotlight this week during his face off against Gaara, and wow, it’s definitely quite the impressive fight! What are your thoughts on Sasuke vs Gaara after all the build up for Gaara and Naruto?

Joseph: I love how unhinged Gaara is, especially after we learned more about him during his backstory last week. It’s kind of dull that Gaara essentially turtles on defense the entire time, but I like the moment where it hints once again at his monstrous transformation. Even though I said I didn’t need to see the tournament fully play out, I would have liked to have seen where this fight went if it were allowed to continue.

Carolyn: I just felt so bad for Rock Lee the whole time. Those were his moves! But Gaara freaking out and losing his mind over a little blood is part of why I liked him so much on first watch. He’s almost uncomfortably weird.

Danni: I dunno, I thought it was pretty underwhelming. It seemed more like a teaser for an approaching REAL battle between them than anything.

Kevin: Sasuke versus Gaara is one of the fights that I remember most from when I watched the show as a kid. Sasuke pulling out new techniques, showing how much more powerful he’s become, all of it stuck in my head. Watching it again… it’s not as good as I thought. They renamed Raikiri to Chidori for no real reason, and Sasuke managed to reach Lee levels of Taijutsu in a month (and also offscreen), when Lee himself is supposed to be a genius at martial arts, and it took him years to get that far.

Nate: They actually get into this—the Raikiri (Lightning Blade) is Kakashi's version of the original technique, Chidori (Thousand Birds).

David: As others mentioned, this is the first real example of classic shonen action powercreep; Gai and Kakashi point out in no uncertain terms that Sasuke has matched Rock Lee’s physical prowess within a month, and Rock himself even admits this. There’s also only one good bit of animation before the whole thing goes wrong. Overall it’s important but kind of disappointing even if you’re a Sasuke fan.

Paul: I don't currently have any opinions on Sasuke vs. Gaara, since that fight it still on-going, but I do wonder where exactly the story is going with that bit about Gaara momentarily transforming into the Tetsuo-blob from the end of Akira.

Kara: This was my semi-regular reminder that Gaara is a walking horror movie. Gotta agree with Carolyn, I feel sorry for Rock Lee watching Sasuke out there using his moves. Nothing against ludicrous power-ups. Just Sasuke taking a level in awesome, while awesome, feels kind of sour when viewed through the lens of Lee’s story. I’m starting to understand why Naruto is so cranky about Sasuke in his periphery constantly.

Noelle: Sasuke was always going to get his power-up, that was inevitable, but it feels kind of… eh. Probably because we didn’t really see Sasuke work to get these power-ups much, so it doesn’t really feel earned that he’d suddenly become more powerful, especially enough to copy Lee. Sure, Sasuke’s the co-protagonist of the series, but it doesn’t feel as much of a thrilling fight from his end. Gaara is now full-blown horror and I love it.

Jared: It was kind of weird since they build this up to be Sasuke being the returning hero to vanquish Gaara, but since he’s been out of the picture since his fightin the prelims, the real build had been more Naruto/Gaara. Probably doesn’t help that there’s no real conclusion here. Sasuke certainly gets his moments of showing he’s truly back and more formidable than ever and Gaara looks even more unhinged, but it certainly didn’t have the same feel that a Naruto/Gaara match would have had.

This is the first time we see the Chidori in action, showing off how much Sasuke really does seem to be ahead of Naruto in terms of skill. How’d you all feel seeing this signature attack for the first time?

Joseph: They do a good job of making it clear how powerful Sasuke has come in such a short period of time. I dig that they made it seem as if he spent the whole time mastering genjutsu before busting out his awesome new move.

Carolyn: Agreed. It gives some justification for his almost rockstar status amongst his classmates. But also goes to show that hard work and determination are key factors.

Danni: It was cool seeing a physical manifestation of chakra just obliterating anything near it, but it still bums me out that Naruto doesn’t get to be the protagonist of his own show.

Kevin: Sasuke running down the wall, ball of lightning in hand, is one of the most iconic moments in anime for me. It stuck in my imagination for years after seeing it for the first time. My only issue with it is that Guy and Kakashi try to explain away the name change, and it doesn’t really make sense why the technique has two names.

Paul: Having never watched Naruto before, and having only ever absorbed bits and pieces of it through cultural osmosis over the years, I'm ashamed to admit that when I kept hearing people say “Chidori”, I assumed that it was the name of a kunoichi. I think the technique is cooler when Kakashi uses it, personally.

Kara: Despite my aforementioned feeling for Lee, I gotta admit the Chidori looked pretty rad. And yeah, I kind of thought Chidori was a person and not a move, but I’m looking forward to seeing it used later.

Noelle: There’s no questioning it, Chidori looks awesome!

Jared: It makes sense he would inherit a devastating attack like that, plus it’s a cool looking attack to boot.

This segment of the show really gets to let Shikamaru shine a bit, with him fighting Temari and also fighting the faceless Sound Ninja. Shikamaru was always a favorite of mine, and I know some of you like him too, so how do you feel after seeing him get some serious action?

Joseph: I love Shikamaru’s attitude, and I appreciate how differently his fight ends up playing out compared to the rest of the tournament. With that in mind, his real highlight is episode 70 in the classic trope of staying behind to give your teammates a chance to escape. The resolution of that scene is fantastic.  

Carolyn: I love him! He’s basically a genius mastermind who hates that he’s so capable and it’s great. I agree that his stepping up in the actual battle is where he really shines this time around. My favorite bit would actually have to be his very, very detailed plans for how he expects the rest of his life/future to turn out. The boy has brains and strategy, to say the least.

Danni: He has such a bad attitude, and I love it. It was great finally seeing him thinking five steps ahead of everyone else around him. I hope he eventually figures out some kind of finisher for when he has someone trapped in shadow paralysis.

Kevin: Seeing Shikamaru actually fight is a bit odd. I love seeing him in action, but he is most at home as a tactician. In his first fight, he gave up because he was running low on chakra, and in the second fight he needed his teacher to save him because he ran out of chakra. He is a brilliant strategist, but don’t force him to actually fight people himself.

David: Honestly, I don’t think the show does a great job of convincing me of Shikamaru’s character. We don’t know a whole lot about him before this, which is fine, but then he ‘defeats’ Temari mostly because she forgets a tunnel can also have a shadow in it. Then later Sakura is impressed when he stays behind to stall the enemies because he has never been “this reliable of a character before” as she puts it, but most of what we’ve seen from him has been a subverting of that so far, which doesn’t work when I wasn’t convinced of the original concept in the first place. So overall I’m less impressed than I remember being before.

Paul: I like the cerebral aspects to Shikamaru's fighting style, but I could do without the low-grade sexism of him complaining about how he keeps getting matched up against girls. The women in this universe are clearly as dangerous as the men, and a shuriken will kill you just as dead regardless of the gender of the person who throws it. Get over yourself, Cloud Boy.

Kara: It’s funny because Shikamaru annoyed me so much early on for being Captain Haaa Mendokusaaaai. Not that that’s not a mood. I do appreciate that the show played me (and Shikamaru’s classmates) for a fool with that, though. It never occurred to me that he might consider things boring because he’s already five steps ahead of everyone else. As much as I appreciate his tactics, I do kind of hope he gets his ass handed to him by a kunoichi before long.

Noelle: I really think that Shikamaru’s real time to shine comes later, but here we get a fairly good idea what he’s about. He’s smart, his fighting style is unconventional and that makes him rely more on tactics as opposed to brute strength. That being said, even though he’s up against Temari who is more along the lines of overpowering her opponents, this fight isn’t that bad.

Jared: I was kind of surprised just how much they put him over in these episodes. He certainly has a different style and attitude which is a refreshing change from everyone being rather serious about what they do. Although if he really wants to commit to the tranquilo lifestyle, he needs to be more cool and collected than just bored.

I remember my first time around not really understanding the resurrection jutsu in this show, and I won’t spoil things but it comes up again later. If it’s so easy to bring people back from the dead, why don’t people do it more often? Both the First and Second Hokage seem totally fine until Orochimaru controls them. What are your thoughts on this life and death power that we see here for the first time?

Joseph: I don’t recall how it’s used later in the series, but regardless of what it hints at this is just a cool way to heighten Orochimaru’s showdown against the Third Hokage and make him seem even nastier as a villain.

Carolyn: I don’t remember a lot in advance either, it’s been so long since I last watched the show. That’s why this is so much fun!

Danni: I...don’t really get it. I expected them to be zombies, but they seem totally unaffected. How are they supposed to be a threat when they’re friends with the guy they were summoned to defeat?

Kevin: I’m pretty sure that it’s not used more often because it’s a Forbidden Jutsu, like the Mass Shadow Clone jutsu, it’s just probably forbidden due to ethical issues. Seeing Resurrection for the first time, it doesn’t have as much impact as I would’ve expected. If Orochimaru brought back Zabuza, the audience would have a much stronger personal connection and we could measure a previous antagonist’s power against the Third Hokage’s. Instead, he summoned the First and Second Hokage, who are definitely better choices for Resurrection targets, but there are two problems. First, the audience has no idea who they are initially, so we aren’t as invested in the fight. Second, how did Orochimaru get their bodies? Shouldn’t they be under the tightest security the village can muster?

David: It’s currently confusing and weird and as far as I remember it only gets more confusing and weird.

Paul: I'm still of the opinion that Summoning style Ninjutsu techniques (and by extension, Resurrection techniques) don't actually summon a real, individual person or animal. Instead, I think they involve Chakra taking physical form, and that the resulting manifestation is shaped by the will of the summoner. I don't think that's literally Zombie Hokage 1 and Zombie Hokage 2 we see in Episode 70, but rather it's the idea of these Hokage colored and called into being by Orochimaru's memories, biases, and desires.

Kara: I have so many questions about the resurrection jutsu, mainly regarding the summoned people’s loyalties and the entire ethics of it. Granted, ethics in the world of Naruto are pretty screwy already. But the can of worms the show has opened up just by saying this can be done is big and squirmy and terrible. I hope they go into it more.

Noelle: Not going to lie, still kind of iffy on the Resurrection thing. Half zombies, half mind control, I suppose? I do think that revival is by no means easy, but Orochimaru lives for breaking out taboo jutsu anyway.

Jared: Gonna agree with some of the others and say it’s kind of confusing what’s actually happening. My thoughts were that they were able to come back but couldn’t disobey orders from Orochimaru? Whether it’s actually them or not, I’m not sure and I’d assume this isn’t done more often is because it’s a high level technique or forbidden.

And as always, what were the high and low points of this week’s batch of episodes?

Joseph: Low point: gosh, I actually really liked this section of episodes through and through. I guess, while I didn’t mind the tournament itself ending, the low point was cutting the fight between Gaara and Sasuke short. The high point was Pakkun and his SOFT AND SUPPLE PAWS.

Carolyn: High point is definitely Shikamaru taking charge and running through his already planned out future in his head. I don’t think I had a definite low point this week, but I laughed a lot at Sasuke’s James Bond-like introduction of himself at the exam. Does that count?

Danni: Can’t really think of any standout low points. I think the high point for me was finally getting to see the Third Hokage in action.

Kevin: High - Shikamaru’s thinking stance. Seeing him just take a moment to clear his mind, think of a plan, then start acting actually impacted my so much as a kid that it is seriously something I still do. Clasp my hands together in some kind of fake hand sign to focus my thinking to break out of my current mentality. Low - As simple as the moment is, my lowest point was when Kabuto knocked out Kiba. Sure, Kiba’s out, but Akamaru should still be conscious and making a ton of noise that would alert at least the crowd, meaning that Kabuto wouldn’t be able to cast the genjutsu that starts the war.

David: High point despite everything is Sasuke just bodying Gaara. Extremely satisfying and smooth to watch. Low point is Rock realizing how underpowered he is in the face of Sasuke, not necessarily because of the power level issues there, but just because no one is there to comfort him for it all.

Paul: Although I bagged on him earlier, my high point was Shikamaru pretending to be put to sleep by the hypnosis Genjutsu in order to avoid getting dragged into the bigger conflict, because he's just that much of a lazy ass at heart. My low point was probably the English translations for some of the episode titles. “Hit it or Quit it” and “Late to the Show, but Ready to Go” in particular rub me the wrong way, bruh.

Kara: High point is the existence of Pakkun. I love this good boy and his squishy paw pads. Low point is, again, having to watch Rock Lee watch Sasuke. Which is less a “the show did bad” low point like previous weeks, and more an “I feel sad about this” low point.

Noelle: High point, Sasuke vs Gaara, especially with Gaara freaking out over finally bleeding again. Low point, Rock Lee feeling bad because Sasuke powercreeped him, give Lee a break.

Jared: I really liked the Third Hokage taking off his hat to reveal an even cooler hat. Low point was my boy Rock Lee getting real sad about being overtaken by Sasuke.

How about a little bonus question? Since the Chunin exam ends and is more or less never referenced again, who do you think would have won had it gone to an actual conclusion?

Joseph: Knowing this show, probably Sasuke. Then they’d do the whole thing again later Dragon Ball style so Naruto could win.

Carolyn: It seems almost impossible, from a writing standpoint, that Gaara could win, though he’s so powerful that seems to be the logical choice. It’s too soon for Naruto to take it. So, I think Sasuke is the only real option, here.

Danni: No one. The proctor would try to stop Gaara from killing Sasuke, leading Gaara to kill everyone there rendering the entire exam null.

Kevin: I can’t imagine Shino defeating Temari, since she can blow any flying insects away and can fly to get away from any remaining ground insects, so she would advance to the finals. I could see Sasuke versus Gaara going either way (provided he don’t allow stuff Garaa reveals in the next set or two of episodes), but Naruto wouldn’t be a match for either of them, so whoever won that fight would advance. If Temari fought Gaara, she’d probably forfeit before the match even started. If she fought Sasuke, he could probably overwhelm her with speed alone. So unless shounen tropes intervened in the tournament to give Naruto a way to the finals, I suspect that either Sasuke or Gaara would win, depending on who won in the first round.

David: If Gaara’s powers had been allowed to completely come out—in other words, the tournament not interrupted—then Gaara would have completely obliterated Sasuke. Squashed him. He would be dust. Gaara would not only win but Sasuke would be dead.

Paul: Definitely Sasuke. Not only is he a prodigy, he's also got that whole legacy thing going for him as the last-remaining (non-evil) scion of the Uchiha clan. Whether he actually deserves to win it is another matter...

Kara: If things actually went as power levels and fighting styles seem to dictate they would, Gaara, nearly to the death. Considering how Naruto goes, Sasuke with one last-ditch, low-powered jutsu he learned in the first season.

Noelle: At this point in time, it would probably be either Sasuke or Gaara. Provided that Gaara doesn’t go berserk of course, Gaara would probably outmatch Sasuke. If Sasuke activates the power of plot armor, he’d likely make it to the top. Sorry, Naruto.

Jared: Probably the winner of Sasuke/Gaara, although with how everyone was incredibly drained after their first matches, I wonder if by the finals it’d just become a stamina battle and technique wouldn’t be as much of a factor.

COUNTERS: "I'm gonna be Hokage!" count: 23 Bowls of ramen consumed: 29 bowls, 3 cups Shadow Clones created: 258

And that's everything for this week! Remember that you're always welcome to join us for this rewatch, especially if you haven't watched the original Naruto! Watch Naruto today!

Here's our upcoming schedule:

- Next week, on MARCH 29th, DANIEL DOCKERY returns as the Third Hokage springs into action in EPISODES 71-77! - Then, on APRIL 5TH, CAYLA COATS stops by just in time to introduce us to a mysterious new shinobi in EPISODES 78-84! - And on APRIL 12th, NOELLE OGAWA elaborates further in the antics of the mysterious shinobi in EPISODES 85-91!

Thank you for joining us for the Great Crunchyroll Naruto Rewatch! Have a great weekend, and we'll see you all next time!

Have any thoughts on our thoughts on Episodes 64-70? Let us know in the comments! Don't forget, we're also accepting questions and comments for next week, so don't be shy and feel free to ask away!

----

Nicole is a features and a social video script writer for Crunchyroll. Known for punching dudes in Yakuza games on her Twitch channel while professing her love for Majima. She also has a blog, Figuratively Speaking. Follow her on Twitter: @ellyberries

  Do you love writing? Do you love anime? If you have an idea for a features story, pitch it to Crunchyroll Features!

By: news+feed@crunchyroll.com

[newtonrants]

Kwentong Barbero

It was too hot.

Yes, I know that every day has been uncomfortably so. But it’s definitely worse today. I tug at the mess I call my hair, slick with sweat, and decide to hijack every electric fan at the house.

By the time I had two electric fans, one in each hand, my mom calls my attention - she had a newspaper and a steaming cup of coffee in hers - and tells me to go head to the barbershop before it becomes too hot outside. 

I check the clock: 12:02 pm. The sun has long pounded on the hard concrete, basically transforming them into burning charcoal. It wasn’t a pretty prospect.

But not unlike elementary school where the regulation haircut is part and parcel of the code of conduct, keeping one’s locks in check remains a prime directive. It is for that reason that I found myself pedaling my old, beat-up bike towards the nearby subdivision at 12 o clock in the afternoon.

Haircuts, Manny Pacquiao and Rocky Balboa

After 15 minutes of biking underneath the now-cancerous rays of the sun, I arrived at Roland’s barbershop. Set between a butcher’s shop and a burger joint, Roland’s has been my go-to for haircuts for almost a decade.

His shop looked nothing out of the ordinary for a barbershop: two barber’s chairs, a long, rectangular mirror and a desk containing enough scissors and blades to make Freddy Krueger giggle with delight. Lest I forget, there are the standard FHM posters and calendars plastered on walls featuring scantily clad women that everyone in the shop take turns looking at like an unspoken contract.

As I lay down my bike in front of the dingy shop, Roland calls me in and bids me to sit on one of the open chairs. It was a slow day, as the middle of the month isn’t peak season for barbers. I settled into my fugue state reserved for haircuts, boring class lectures and listening to Mike Enriquez over the radio at ten in the morning.

“Alam mo p’re, napanuod ko kanina yung Rocky. Ang lupit,” said one of the regulars, engrossed in a chess match with one of the other barbershop tambays. He was playing the white pieces, and his king was currently exposed with only a couple of pawns to keep it company. The end was nigh for thy royalty - probably what triggered this sudden verbal expression.

“Ayos diba? Idol ko yun. Lupit ng katawan ni Sylvester Stallone dun. Batak, parang si Pacquiao,” said Roland.

“Sino kaya mananalo dun,” said another fellow, smugly taking the white king off of play. “Checkmate, brad. Atsaka feeling ko si Rocky. Mas matangkad yun. Mas mahaba yung abot.”

“Pacquiao pa din. Madami nang nakalaban yun na mas matangkad sakanya, dinadaan lang sa bilis,” said Whitey, named for the chess pieces he played.

This particular debate went on for several more minutes. All the while my head resembling more and more a rather steamy siopao, for the shop only had one electric fan, and it was broken.

“Si Rocky mas mabilis gumalaw, p’re. Mas kaya niyang tumakbo. Puro yun ginawa niya sa pelikula. Hindi tulad ni Pacquiao, puro takbo sa pulitika nalang ang inaatupag,” said Roland, to everyone’s laughter.

As the last few snips chopped off what remained of my uneven hair, Whitey and Blacky chimed in on why Pacquiao have not won any of his recent matches: him losing himself completely in Duterte’s politics, his convoluted stances on religion and LGBT rights, and his race to build political capital.

In this manner, Pacquiao can learn a lot from what happened with Rocky. The first Rocky movie was good - it was an inspiring story of a boxer fighting for the underdog with his own sweat and blood. It stands today as one of the greatest boxing movies in history.

But the rest? The five sequels that had the misfortune of being produced? Utter crap. Convoluted plots, poorly written characters, ridiculous dialogue served as the perfect recipe to ruin a perfectly good movie.

From hometown hero to hated politician, the parallel runs deep in Pacquiao’s narrative. He should have learned to take the hint: quit while you’re ahead.

*cue in Gotta Fly Now*

Shaving, Duterte and Marawi

With my hair all butchered, Roland eased my head backwards for the shave - the final part of this monthly ritual. He pulled from his cabinet a bottle of shaving cream and a box of blades that put the fear of god in me. See I’ve never been a fan of blades, blood and gore, especially during my high school days when having watched the movies Saw and Final Destination marked your journey into “manhood.”

Snapping out of that particular trip down memory lane, the shop’s old, dusty radio piped up, delivering a news report in that perennial radio voice we’ve all come to hate - most likely one of the numerous Mike Enriquez clones clogging the AM airwaves. The news report was on Marawi and its liberation from the Maute fighters.

“Alam mo, pasalamat talaga kay Duterte patay na yang mga terorista na yan,” exclaimed Roland, with that patriotic fervor you only see in war movies where the good guys kick Nazi butt. “At dun sa drug war, ngayon wala nang drug addict sa subdivision. Buti nalang talaga binoto ko siya.”

I had a dilemma on my hands. On one hand, there were some corrections to be made about Duterte’s so-called “success” in Marawi. On the other, Roland had something extremely sharp gliding across my neck. I was - quite literally - on a razor’s edge.

As my budding double chin quivered in fear and indecision, I blurted out: “Paano po ang mga taga-Marawi? Yung mga binomba ang tirahan at nadamay sa crossfire na tinatawag nating collateral damage?”

The silence was deafening. I felt blood on my throat as Roland’s razor slipped. It was a small scratch, but it was all I needed.

“Hindi po mesiyas si Duterte.”

Marawi is in such a state of destruction that who knows when they’ll ever get some semblance of normalcy. Yolanda happened years ago, and yet things are still far from normal, why would Marawi be any different? Years in the future we’ll most likely see the same stories, the same news reports: backlogs in delivering relief aid, corruption in the selection of private contractors.

History repeats itself, nothing is ever new.

This self-inflicted catastrophe brought by gunfire and fusilade, through constant bombing operations over civilian spaces has left nothing but destruction. I see no victory here.

“Hindi po mesiyas si Duterte”

Thousands lay six feet under following Duterte’s massive war against drugs - his words - with the drug cartels still in force. Three months turned into six. It’s well over a year, and despite several high-profile deaths and cases of abuse by our national police, there remains no justice to be gained for all the victims.

Roland stared at the me plastered on the glass panel. There was confusion in his eyes, but somehow also measured understanding. He flashed that smug grin, and did something that caught me by surprise: he laughed.

“Ang laki mo na, Allan. Hindi ka na yung dating pumipikit kapag ginugupitan. Inom nga tayo minsan tapos dun natin ‘to pagusapan,” Roland said, brushing off the hair from my neck. “Yan okay na. Wala ka namang bigote o balbas eh.”

I handed him P70 for the haircut and the shave. He waved it away. “Sa susunod na. Ikaw na bahala sa pulutan,” he said. I said thank you and waved goodbye, picking up my bike from the pavement

It was still too hot.

But it wasn’t because of my hair. It was because for the first time after starting to work at corporate, I felt alive. Who knew that Roland’s would be a one-stop shop for all my existential crisis needs?

I pedal away.

[thesportssoundoff]

The Preview: UFC on Fox from Colorado

Joey 

Jan 23rd, 2017

The  UFC's first foray (HA!) on Fox for 2017 is a pretty solid affair all things considered. We're beginning to creep our way out of the winter bad show doldrums (although the Canada card ain't too pretty) with the next two cards being pretty damn solid all things considered and UFC 208 quickly falling into the "So hated it's now underrated" department. Slowly but surely we're emerging from the drek. Just gotta get by that Canadian card, fellas. Compared to the last two Fox cards in January (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFC_on_Fox:_Johnson_vs._Bader) and (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFC_on_Fox:_Gustafsson_vs._Johnson), I'd say this one really holds up pretty well. There's a lot of meaningful stuff on the main card and there's JUST enough meaningful stuff on the prelim slate to not feel like you're wasting your time there either. The headliner is a battle at bantamweight between Julianna Pena and Valentina Shevchenko with the winner almost certainly getting a title shot in the spring or summer time. The co-main event is a pretty damn awesome fight between two guys who are riding hot streaks at 170 lbs with Donald Cerrone fighting Jorge Masvidal. There's a super big heavyweight fight featuring the top prospect and an aging HW hero and the opener is a fucking war and a half with Alex Caceres taking on Jason Knight. Let's get to it then!

Fights: 12

Debuts: 5 (Jordan Johnson, Eric Shelton, Alejandre Pantoja, Bobby Nash and Jeremy Kimball)

Fight Changes/injury cancellations: 3 (Hector Lombard vs Brad Tavares cancelled due to injuries, John Phillips out/Jeremy Kimball in, Yancy Medeiros out/Bobby Nash in)

Headliners (fighters who have either main evented or co-main evented shows in the UFC): 6 (BJ Penn, Yair Rodriguez, Joe Lauzon, Marcin Held, Court McGee and John Moraga)

Fighters On Losing Streaks: 2 (Andrei Arlovski, Jason Gonzalez)

Fighters On Winning Streaks: 6 (Jorge Masvidal, Andrei Arlovski, Donald Cerrone, Valentina Shevchenko, Nate Marquardt and Alex Caceres)

Stat Monitor for 2017:

Debuting Fighters (Current number: 0-0)- Jordan Johnson, Eric Shelton, Alejandre Pantoja, Bobby Nash and Jeremy Kimball

Short Notice Fighters (Current number: 2-2)- Bobby Nash, Jordan Johnson and Jeremy Kimball

Second Fight (Current number: 1-1)- JC Cottrell

Twelve Precarious Ponderings

-So right away, we have to acknowledge this main event. Shevchenko vs Pena, barring something unforeseen, will be a #1 contender fight given the fact that off the top of my head, these two are the only ones streaking currently in the division. Both represent interesting stylistic challenges for Amanda Nunes and there's stories built in about of that layer. For Shevchenko, she fought Nunes before and lost a very open ended 29-28 decision. Open ended meaning that there's doubt as to whether or not Nunes would've won had the fight been a five round affair. Julianna Pena seems to have a better grasp on fight promotion, even if she annoys plenty of people, and so you'd imagine if this turns into a trash talking feud, Pena would be the better fit. It doesn't make sense to take Nunes from headlining two big PPVs (even if it was as the B-side twice) and then ask her to be on Fox or co-main event a PPV. From a business standpoint, it's a matter of "who should the UFC want to win?" and I'm not quite sure there's a clear answer here just yet.

-This fight is a big challenge for Shevchenko primarily. Julianna Pena for the most part has a style that negates the strengths of her opponents, often turning fights into bully clinch fighting and squirrely exchanges on the mat. Pena has a skill set that probably works regardless of opponent because it's not predicated on anything but her own strengths. Shevchenko's two biggest UFC performances have seen her start slow but build up momentum as she figures out her own path to victory. Against Holly Holm, the five round format allowed her to make adjustments long term that paid off in the end en route to a big decision win. Vs Nunes, she never got in gear until the third round and that was primarily due to how physical Nunes is.

-What will the legacy of Jorge Masvidal be if he wins vs Donald Cerrone? Masvidal theoretically could be riding into this fight on a ridiculous nine fight winning streak across two weight classes. Masvidal's been a victim of some rough judging but also a victim of his own malaise in fights, taking his foot off the gas and coasting to the judges en route to a "WTF happened?" split decision loss. He won't be afforded that luxury here vs Cerrone.

-Assuming Cerrone wins, what would be next? Give in to the assumption that Maia has a guaranteed title shot waiting for him so Woodley/Thompson winner and Maia are both out. What else can Cerrone do? Does Robbie Lawler make sense?

-THREE major challenges for Francis Ngannou on this card. The first is the obvious acknowledgment of the competition jump here. Arlovski is so far and away the best opponent Ngannou  has ever faced that it's almost laughable to try and compare him to anybody on his resume. That said Arlovski's not the same guy he was in his prime so you can sort of kind of negate that. The second  is the altitude in Denver which makes cowards of many a men. Ngannou's not a guy who fights like he's paid by the round either but he's also not somebody who rushes. For a young fighter he's very patient so while the altitude is seriously something to watch, I'm not TOO too concerned I suppose. Lastly, Greg Jackson. Both Anthony Hamilton and Francis Ngannou train with Greg Jackson which is going to represent an interesting quandry I suppose.  Jackson's going to have trained twice for Francis Ngannou with Hamilton basically acting as a test run for Arlovski. Did he learn anything new during Ngannou vs Hamilton?

-Let's say Ngannou breezes through Arlovski. Just runs right through him. When do we start the title talk?

-There's been some scuttlebutt about Aljamain Sterling vs Rafael Assuncao being neither the prelim main event nor the opening fight on the main card. I'd like to offer, I suppose, a few explanations:

1- This fight has been rebooked twice now. Your best ability sometimes is availability and it could be argued or reasoned that the UFC has zero reason to trust either Rafa or Aljamain to make it to a main card fight or a prelim headliner capacity. Injury prone guys get hurt a lot so it's harder to feel like you can commit to them in higher profile engagements.  You can kind of count on Sam Alvey and Nate Marquardt to make it to their commitments.

2- Knight vs Caceres is going to be wild and wacky fun while Sterling vs Assuncao  is for the purists, as one might say.

3- Jason Knight is a guy the UFC thinks has star potential so they're giving him the big push.

-Nate Marquardt's recent wins have me kind of sort of excited. Allow me to explain before y'all bury me under my own words.  Marquardt's chin is a seriously broken one from years of fighting elite competition. Having said that, his hand speed, technique and ground game all looked pretty damn solid vs Tamdan McCrory and he removed CB Dollaway from consciousness before that in a really impressive come from behind win. Sam Alvey is going to really test what Nate has left----but I feel like it's worth pointing out that in the UFC, Alvey recently has only lost to dudes like Elias Theodorou and Derek Brunson. I'm not saying I'm all in on Nate's comeback yet BUT I'm willing to be convinced if he can get by Alvey who is all kinds of wrong for him at this point in his career.

-Of the fights on this prelim slate that I'm most into, Alessio Di Chirico vs Eric Spicely is the one I'm really excited to see. Italy's got a few good middleweight prospects and Di Chirico is one of them; a whirling dervish of offense on the feet with decent-ish grappling chops. Spicely has the ability to shut those guys down as he did vs Thiago Marreta. Big challenge here for Di Chirico.

-We've talked a bit about how the TUF flyweight season is already a bit of a hit given how Tim Elliott vs Mighty Mouse was a great fight and Brandon Moreno has rejuvenated 125 lbs. Alexandre Pantoja vs Eric Shelton is buried way down onto the card but it's a really great fight with two guys who could have long term futures at flyweight in the UFC.

-Li Jingliang fight week! The Leech is getting ready to claim another foe.

-Welcome to the UFC, Jordan Johnson! Your opponent is Henrique da Silva who we all kind of expect to be in the top 15 eventually and you're taking the fight on super short notice. Good luck, dude!

Must Wins:

Julianna Pena

Pena's fighting style and her attitude are not everybody's cup of tea but she has something unique at bantamweight. She can sell a fight, sell herself and she's got the ability to quite possibly be champion. Cringe if you like but seriously, she CAN beat Amanda Nunes. It's not like Nunes hasn't lost time and time again to hyperactive grapple first ground and pound artists before. Shevchenko vs Nunes II would be a darned good fight but Pena vs Nunes might be a bigger fight.

Donald Cerrone

The narrative on Cerrone continues to be and will continue to be a story where every "big fight" he loses, we'll have to hear about how he chokes. Jorge Masvidal is a fighter he should beat in a co-main event slot on big Fox.  Big fight opportunity for Cerrone to shut some people up.

Jason Knight

I was torn between Ngannou and Jason Knight here. I went with Knight because even IF Ngannou loses to Arlovski, it's heavyweight and heavyweights are always one win away from relevancy. Jason Knight fights in a much tougher weight class where you need to string together like four good performances in a row to get an eyebrow raise.

Five Underlying Themes:

1- Whether the winner of the main event can put on a performance worthy of getting people excited about a potential PPV headliner vs Nunes.

2- Whether or not the altitude turns what should be a very good card into a very sloppy card.

3- The on-again/off-again love affair between the UFC and Donald Cerrone as Jorge Masvidal comes to ruin the show.

4- How hard they push Francis Ngannou.

5- If we see more complaining than usual about the commentary with Jon Anik leading the charge on big Fox.

Predicting (Bonus) Winners!

Current record: 8-4

Julianna Pena Donald Cerrone Andrei Arlovski Jason Knight Nate Marquardt Aljamain Sterling Li Jingliang Luiz Henrique da Silva Alessio Di Chirico Jason Gonzalez Marcos Rogerio De Lima Eric Shelton

FOTN: Donald Cerrone vs Jorge Masvidal POTN: Aljamain Sterling and Andrei Arlovski

[networkingdefinition]

Merry Christmas Quotes

Official Website: Merry Christmas Quotes

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();

• A little smile, a word of cheer, A bit of love from someone near, A little gift from one held dear, Best wishes for the coming year. These make a merry christmas! – John Greenleaf Whittier • A merry Christmas to all my friends except two. – W. C. Fields • A merry Christmas to everybody! A happy New Year to all the world! – Charles Dickens • A very Merry Christmas And a happy New Year Let’s hope it’s a good one Without any fear. – John Lennon • A word to the wise to all the children of the twentieth century, whether their concern be pediatrics or geriatrics, whether they crawl on hands and knees and wear diapers or walk with a cane and comb their beards. There’s a wondrous magic to Christmas, and there’s a special power reserved for little people. In short, there’s nothing mightier than the meek, and a merry Christmas to each and all. – Rod Serling • Although it’s been said many times, many ways…Merry Christmas to you! – Nat King Cole • And from the crew of Apollo 8, we close with good night, good luck, a Merry Christmas, and God bless all of you – all of you on the good Earth. – Frank Borman

jQuery(document).ready(function($) var data = action: 'polyxgo_products_search', type: 'Product', keywords: 'Merry+Christmas', orderby: 'rand', order: 'DESC', template: '1', limit: '68', columns: '4', viewall:'Shop All', ; jQuery.post(spyr_params.ajaxurl,data, function(response) var obj = jQuery.parseJSON(response); jQuery('#thelovesof_merry-christmas').html(obj); jQuery('#thelovesof_merry-christmas img.swiper-lazy:not(.swiper-lazy-loaded)' ).each(function () var img = jQuery(this); img.attr("src",img.data('src')); img.addClass( 'swiper-lazy-loaded' ); img.removeAttr('data-src'); ); ); ); • Be merry all, be merry all, With holly dress the festive hall; Prepare the song, the feast, the ball, To welcome merry Christmas. – William Spencer • Christmas a humbug, uncle!” said Scrooge’s nephew. “You don’t mean that, I am sure?” “I do,” said Scrooge. “Merry Christmas! What right have you to be merry? what reason have you to be merry? You’re poor enough. – Charles Dickens • Christmas and the New Year are actually two holidays, so there is a plural, which in the English language necessitates the use of the letter “S.” Now, I suppose you could say “Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year” but you probably have sh*t to do. – Jon Stewart • Every company in America should be on its knees thanking Jesus for being born. Without Christmas, most American businesses would be far less profitable. More than enough reason for business to be screaming ‘Merry Christmas.’ – Bill O’Reilly • every idiot who goes about with a ‘Merry Christmas’ on his lips should be boiled with his own pudding, and buried with a stake of holly through his heart. – Charles Dickens • Gifts of time and love are surely the basic ingredients of a truly merry Christmas. – Peg Bracken • I don’t know what to do!” cried Scrooge, laughing and crying in the same breath; and making a perfect Laocoön of himself with his stockings. “I am as light as a feather, I am as happy as an angel, I am as merry as a school-boy. I am as giddy as a drunken man. A merry Christmas to every-body! A happy New Year to all the world! Hallo here! Whoop! Hallo! – Charles Dickens • I happened upon a memoir by a midlevel White House staffer, and he had been in the room that [Nixon’s last] night [in office]. This guy’s memoir told me what Nixon’s last words were. And they were, on August 8, 1974, to the crew: “Have a Merry Christmas, fellas!” That was just so bizarre. – Harry Shearer • I made a French film called “Merry Christmas” which is a very European film. It’s a World War I piece. – Diane Kruger • I never hear terrorists say ‘Merry Christmas,’ only ‘Allahu Akbar’. – Bill Maher • I say ‘Merry Christmas’ to people I don’t know, or to people I know are Christians. I say ‘Happy Hanukkah’ to people I know to be or suspect to be Jewish. And I don’t say ‘Happy Kwanzaa,’ because I think African Americans get enough insults all year round. – Christopher Hitchens • If your Birthday is on Christmas day and you’re not Jesus, you should start telling people your birthday is on June 9 or something. Just read up on the traits of a Gemini. Suddenly you’re a multitasker who loves the color yellow. Because not only do you get stuck with them combo gift, you get the combo song. “We wish you a merry Christmas – and happy birthday, Terry – we wish you a merry Christmas – happy birthday, Terry – we wish you a merry Christmas and a happy New Ye – Birthday, Terry! – Ellen DeGeneres • In case anyone would like to know, we have now entered the Christmas season. Christmas as in Jesus Christ. This is not the “happy holidays” season. …Don’t “Happy Holidays” me because I will “Merry Christmas” you in return. – Lyn Nofziger • In the old days, it was not called the Holiday Season; the Christians called it “Christmas” and went to church; the Jews called it “Hanukka” and went to synagogue; the atheists went to parties and drank. People passing each other on the street would say “Merry Christmas!” or “Happy Hanukka!” or (to the atheists) “Look out for the wall!” – Dave Barry • It doesn’t bother me a bit when people say, ‘Merry Christmas’ to me. I don’t think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. – Ben Stein • It doesn’t bother me a bit when people say, ‘Merry Christmas’ to me. I don’t think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I It is Christmas in the heart that puts Christmas in the air. – William Thomas Ellis • It’s “Merry Christmas” at our house. Whatever it is at yours, have a happy one. And be good to somebody. – Stephen King • It’s like a little folk song. I think it might’ve been Harry Belafonte or someone like that who did it. And “Merry Christmas, Everybody” by Slade, which is a rock group – a rock-pop group who are very big over there. – Nick Lowe • Jowa na kita? Thank you! Merry Christmas! – Toni Gonzaga • Last Christmas, I got the worst gift a guy ever gave me. He gave me a lottery ticket… what’s the guy even thinking there. Here you go… nothing! Merry Christmas! It’s nothing! – Norm MacDonald • Leo had recently discovered how to change the display, like the Times Square JumboTron,so now the banner read: Merry Christmas! All your presents belong to Leo! – Rick Riordan • Many merry Christmases, many happy New Years. Unbroken friendships, great accumulations of cheerful recollections and affections on earth, and heaven for us all. – Charles Dickens • Merry Christmas to all. A Pagan holiday (BC) becomes a Religious holiday (AD). Which then becomes a Shopping holiday (USA). – Neil deGrasse Tyson • Merry Christmas, I whisper to myself. Merry Christmas, Nate. – Lisa Ann Sandell • Out upon merry Christmas! What’s Christmas time to you but a time for paying bills without money; a time for finding yourself a year older, but not an hour richer…? If I could work my will,” said Scrooge indignantly, “every idiot who goes about with ‘Merry Christmas’ upon his lips should be boiled with his won pudding, and buried with a stake of holly through his heart. He should! – Charles Dickens • She mailed me a Merry Christmas-I’m-Breaking-Up-with-You card. I’ll read it to you,” he said. He cleared his throat. “Dear Marcus. Merry Christmas. I’m breaking up with you. Mia. – Megan McCafferty • She told me if I clean all the ashes out of the grate, then I’ll be able to help my sisters get ready for the bal.” “It’s Christmas, Dashiel. Can’t you give that atitude a rest?” “Merry Christmas, Dad. And thanks for the presents.” “What presents?” “I’m sorry—those were all from Mom, weren’t they? – Rachel Cohn • The charming aspect of Christmas is the fact that it expresses good will in a cheerful, happy, benevolent, non-sacrificial way. One says: “Merry Christmas”-not “Weep and Repent.” And the good will is expressed in a material, earthly form-by giving presents to one’s friends, or by sending them cards in token of remembrance . . . . – Ayn Rand • The dude in red’s back at the pole, Up North where everything is cold. But if he were right here tonight, He’d say ‘Merry Christmas! And to all, a good night!’ – Kurtis Blow • The earth has grown old with its burden of care, but at Christmas it always is young, the heart of the jewel burns lustrous and fair, and its soul full of music breaks the air, when the song of angels is sung. – Phillips Brooks • The spirit of Christmas lives with us. We are the protectors of the real tradition of Christmas-peace on Earth and Goodwill to all. We are the hope of Man-the only hope. Mankind’s salvation lies within our hands. With our tech and ability we can create here on Earth a real heaven where men can be free. In our hands lies the power to restore to Man his determinism and all that he finds good in himself-his honesty, his integrity, and the thrill of being of real help to others. A very Merry Christmas to you all and a bright friendly new year. – L. Ron Hubbard • You can’t allow the forces of political correction to shut you up. I mean, why are people afraid to say, ‘Merry Christmas?’ Give me a break. If people don’t like it, yeah, they can go do something else. – Benjamin Carson

[clickbank-storefront-bestselling]

jQuery(document).ready(function($) var data = action: 'polyxgo_products_search', type: 'Product', keywords: 'a', orderby: 'rand', order: 'DESC', template: '1', limit: '4', columns: '4', viewall:'Shop All', ; jQuery.post(spyr_params.ajaxurl,data, function(response) var obj = jQuery.parseJSON(response); jQuery('#thelovesof_a').html(obj); jQuery('#thelovesof_a img.swiper-lazy:not(.swiper-lazy-loaded)' ).each(function () var img = jQuery(this); img.attr("src",img.data('src')); img.addClass( 'swiper-lazy-loaded' ); img.removeAttr('data-src'); ); ); );

jQuery(document).ready(function($) var data = action: 'polyxgo_products_search', type: 'Product', keywords: 'e', orderby: 'rand', order: 'DESC', template: '1', limit: '4', columns: '4', viewall:'Shop All', ; jQuery.post(spyr_params.ajaxurl,data, function(response) var obj = jQuery.parseJSON(response); jQuery('#thelovesof_e').html(obj); jQuery('#thelovesof_e img.swiper-lazy:not(.swiper-lazy-loaded)' ).each(function () var img = jQuery(this); img.attr("src",img.data('src')); img.addClass( 'swiper-lazy-loaded' ); img.removeAttr('data-src'); ); ); );

jQuery(document).ready(function($) var data = action: 'polyxgo_products_search', type: 'Product', keywords: 'i', orderby: 'rand', order: 'DESC', template: '1', limit: '4', columns: '4', viewall:'Shop All', ; jQuery.post(spyr_params.ajaxurl,data, function(response) var obj = jQuery.parseJSON(response); jQuery('#thelovesof_i').html(obj); jQuery('#thelovesof_i img.swiper-lazy:not(.swiper-lazy-loaded)' ).each(function () var img = jQuery(this); img.attr("src",img.data('src')); img.addClass( 'swiper-lazy-loaded' ); img.removeAttr('data-src'); ); ); );

jQuery(document).ready(function($) var data = action: 'polyxgo_products_search', type: 'Product', keywords: 'o', orderby: 'rand', order: 'DESC', template: '1', limit: '4', columns: '4', viewall:'Shop All', ; jQuery.post(spyr_params.ajaxurl,data, function(response) var obj = jQuery.parseJSON(response); jQuery('#thelovesof_o').html(obj); jQuery('#thelovesof_o img.swiper-lazy:not(.swiper-lazy-loaded)' ).each(function () var img = jQuery(this); img.attr("src",img.data('src')); img.addClass( 'swiper-lazy-loaded' ); img.removeAttr('data-src'); ); ); );

jQuery(document).ready(function($) var data = action: 'polyxgo_products_search', type: 'Product', keywords: 'u', orderby: 'rand', order: 'DESC', template: '1', limit: '4', columns: '4', viewall:'Shop All', ; jQuery.post(spyr_params.ajaxurl,data, function(response) var obj = jQuery.parseJSON(response); jQuery('#thelovesof_u').html(obj); jQuery('#thelovesof_u img.swiper-lazy:not(.swiper-lazy-loaded)' ).each(function () var img = jQuery(this); img.attr("src",img.data('src')); img.addClass( 'swiper-lazy-loaded' ); img.removeAttr('data-src'); ); ); );

jQuery(document).ready(function($) var data = action: 'polyxgo_products_search', type: 'Product', keywords: 'y', orderby: 'rand', order: 'DESC', template: '1', limit: '4', columns: '4', viewall:'Shop All', ; jQuery.post(spyr_params.ajaxurl,data, function(response) var obj = jQuery.parseJSON(response); jQuery('#thelovesof_y').html(obj); jQuery('#thelovesof_y img.swiper-lazy:not(.swiper-lazy-loaded)' ).each(function () var img = jQuery(this); img.attr("src",img.data('src')); img.addClass( 'swiper-lazy-loaded' ); img.removeAttr('data-src'); ); ); );

[equitiesstocks]

Merry Christmas Quotes

Official Website: Merry Christmas Quotes

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();

• A little smile, a word of cheer, A bit of love from someone near, A little gift from one held dear, Best wishes for the coming year. These make a merry christmas! – John Greenleaf Whittier • A merry Christmas to all my friends except two. – W. C. Fields • A merry Christmas to everybody! A happy New Year to all the world! – Charles Dickens • A very Merry Christmas And a happy New Year Let’s hope it’s a good one Without any fear. – John Lennon • A word to the wise to all the children of the twentieth century, whether their concern be pediatrics or geriatrics, whether they crawl on hands and knees and wear diapers or walk with a cane and comb their beards. There’s a wondrous magic to Christmas, and there’s a special power reserved for little people. In short, there’s nothing mightier than the meek, and a merry Christmas to each and all. – Rod Serling • Although it’s been said many times, many ways…Merry Christmas to you! – Nat King Cole • And from the crew of Apollo 8, we close with good night, good luck, a Merry Christmas, and God bless all of you – all of you on the good Earth. – Frank Borman

jQuery(document).ready(function($) var data = action: 'polyxgo_products_search', type: 'Product', keywords: 'Merry+Christmas', orderby: 'rand', order: 'DESC', template: '1', limit: '68', columns: '4', viewall:'Shop All', ; jQuery.post(spyr_params.ajaxurl,data, function(response) var obj = jQuery.parseJSON(response); jQuery('#thelovesof_merry-christmas').html(obj); jQuery('#thelovesof_merry-christmas img.swiper-lazy:not(.swiper-lazy-loaded)' ).each(function () var img = jQuery(this); img.attr("src",img.data('src')); img.addClass( 'swiper-lazy-loaded' ); img.removeAttr('data-src'); ); ); ); • Be merry all, be merry all, With holly dress the festive hall; Prepare the song, the feast, the ball, To welcome merry Christmas. – William Spencer • Christmas a humbug, uncle!” said Scrooge’s nephew. “You don’t mean that, I am sure?” “I do,” said Scrooge. “Merry Christmas! What right have you to be merry? what reason have you to be merry? You’re poor enough. – Charles Dickens • Christmas and the New Year are actually two holidays, so there is a plural, which in the English language necessitates the use of the letter “S.” Now, I suppose you could say “Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year” but you probably have sh*t to do. – Jon Stewart • Every company in America should be on its knees thanking Jesus for being born. Without Christmas, most American businesses would be far less profitable. More than enough reason for business to be screaming ‘Merry Christmas.’ – Bill O’Reilly • every idiot who goes about with a ‘Merry Christmas’ on his lips should be boiled with his own pudding, and buried with a stake of holly through his heart. – Charles Dickens • Gifts of time and love are surely the basic ingredients of a truly merry Christmas. – Peg Bracken • I don’t know what to do!” cried Scrooge, laughing and crying in the same breath; and making a perfect Laocoön of himself with his stockings. “I am as light as a feather, I am as happy as an angel, I am as merry as a school-boy. I am as giddy as a drunken man. A merry Christmas to every-body! A happy New Year to all the world! Hallo here! Whoop! Hallo! – Charles Dickens • I happened upon a memoir by a midlevel White House staffer, and he had been in the room that [Nixon’s last] night [in office]. This guy’s memoir told me what Nixon’s last words were. And they were, on August 8, 1974, to the crew: “Have a Merry Christmas, fellas!” That was just so bizarre. – Harry Shearer • I made a French film called “Merry Christmas” which is a very European film. It’s a World War I piece. – Diane Kruger • I never hear terrorists say ‘Merry Christmas,’ only ‘Allahu Akbar’. – Bill Maher • I say ‘Merry Christmas’ to people I don’t know, or to people I know are Christians. I say ‘Happy Hanukkah’ to people I know to be or suspect to be Jewish. And I don’t say ‘Happy Kwanzaa,’ because I think African Americans get enough insults all year round. – Christopher Hitchens • If your Birthday is on Christmas day and you’re not Jesus, you should start telling people your birthday is on June 9 or something. Just read up on the traits of a Gemini. Suddenly you’re a multitasker who loves the color yellow. Because not only do you get stuck with them combo gift, you get the combo song. “We wish you a merry Christmas – and happy birthday, Terry – we wish you a merry Christmas – happy birthday, Terry – we wish you a merry Christmas and a happy New Ye – Birthday, Terry! – Ellen DeGeneres • In case anyone would like to know, we have now entered the Christmas season. Christmas as in Jesus Christ. This is not the “happy holidays” season. …Don’t “Happy Holidays” me because I will “Merry Christmas” you in return. – Lyn Nofziger • In the old days, it was not called the Holiday Season; the Christians called it “Christmas” and went to church; the Jews called it “Hanukka” and went to synagogue; the atheists went to parties and drank. People passing each other on the street would say “Merry Christmas!” or “Happy Hanukka!” or (to the atheists) “Look out for the wall!” – Dave Barry • It doesn’t bother me a bit when people say, ‘Merry Christmas’ to me. I don’t think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. – Ben Stein • It doesn’t bother me a bit when people say, ‘Merry Christmas’ to me. I don’t think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I It is Christmas in the heart that puts Christmas in the air. – William Thomas Ellis • It’s “Merry Christmas” at our house. Whatever it is at yours, have a happy one. And be good to somebody. – Stephen King • It’s like a little folk song. I think it might’ve been Harry Belafonte or someone like that who did it. And “Merry Christmas, Everybody” by Slade, which is a rock group – a rock-pop group who are very big over there. – Nick Lowe • Jowa na kita? Thank you! Merry Christmas! – Toni Gonzaga • Last Christmas, I got the worst gift a guy ever gave me. He gave me a lottery ticket… what’s the guy even thinking there. Here you go… nothing! Merry Christmas! It’s nothing! – Norm MacDonald • Leo had recently discovered how to change the display, like the Times Square JumboTron,so now the banner read: Merry Christmas! All your presents belong to Leo! – Rick Riordan • Many merry Christmases, many happy New Years. Unbroken friendships, great accumulations of cheerful recollections and affections on earth, and heaven for us all. – Charles Dickens • Merry Christmas to all. A Pagan holiday (BC) becomes a Religious holiday (AD). Which then becomes a Shopping holiday (USA). – Neil deGrasse Tyson • Merry Christmas, I whisper to myself. Merry Christmas, Nate. – Lisa Ann Sandell • Out upon merry Christmas! What’s Christmas time to you but a time for paying bills without money; a time for finding yourself a year older, but not an hour richer…? If I could work my will,” said Scrooge indignantly, “every idiot who goes about with ‘Merry Christmas’ upon his lips should be boiled with his won pudding, and buried with a stake of holly through his heart. He should! – Charles Dickens • She mailed me a Merry Christmas-I’m-Breaking-Up-with-You card. I’ll read it to you,” he said. He cleared his throat. “Dear Marcus. Merry Christmas. I’m breaking up with you. Mia. – Megan McCafferty • She told me if I clean all the ashes out of the grate, then I’ll be able to help my sisters get ready for the bal.” “It’s Christmas, Dashiel. Can’t you give that atitude a rest?” “Merry Christmas, Dad. And thanks for the presents.” “What presents?” “I’m sorry—those were all from Mom, weren’t they? – Rachel Cohn • The charming aspect of Christmas is the fact that it expresses good will in a cheerful, happy, benevolent, non-sacrificial way. One says: “Merry Christmas”-not “Weep and Repent.” And the good will is expressed in a material, earthly form-by giving presents to one’s friends, or by sending them cards in token of remembrance . . . . – Ayn Rand • The dude in red’s back at the pole, Up North where everything is cold. But if he were right here tonight, He’d say ‘Merry Christmas! And to all, a good night!’ – Kurtis Blow • The earth has grown old with its burden of care, but at Christmas it always is young, the heart of the jewel burns lustrous and fair, and its soul full of music breaks the air, when the song of angels is sung. – Phillips Brooks • The spirit of Christmas lives with us. We are the protectors of the real tradition of Christmas-peace on Earth and Goodwill to all. We are the hope of Man-the only hope. Mankind’s salvation lies within our hands. With our tech and ability we can create here on Earth a real heaven where men can be free. In our hands lies the power to restore to Man his determinism and all that he finds good in himself-his honesty, his integrity, and the thrill of being of real help to others. A very Merry Christmas to you all and a bright friendly new year. – L. Ron Hubbard • You can’t allow the forces of political correction to shut you up. I mean, why are people afraid to say, ‘Merry Christmas?’ Give me a break. If people don’t like it, yeah, they can go do something else. – Benjamin Carson

[clickbank-storefront-bestselling]

jQuery(document).ready(function($) var data = action: 'polyxgo_products_search', type: 'Product', keywords: 'a', orderby: 'rand', order: 'DESC', template: '1', limit: '4', columns: '4', viewall:'Shop All', ; jQuery.post(spyr_params.ajaxurl,data, function(response) var obj = jQuery.parseJSON(response); jQuery('#thelovesof_a').html(obj); jQuery('#thelovesof_a img.swiper-lazy:not(.swiper-lazy-loaded)' ).each(function () var img = jQuery(this); img.attr("src",img.data('src')); img.addClass( 'swiper-lazy-loaded' ); img.removeAttr('data-src'); ); ); );

jQuery(document).ready(function($) var data = action: 'polyxgo_products_search', type: 'Product', keywords: 'e', orderby: 'rand', order: 'DESC', template: '1', limit: '4', columns: '4', viewall:'Shop All', ; jQuery.post(spyr_params.ajaxurl,data, function(response) var obj = jQuery.parseJSON(response); jQuery('#thelovesof_e').html(obj); jQuery('#thelovesof_e img.swiper-lazy:not(.swiper-lazy-loaded)' ).each(function () var img = jQuery(this); img.attr("src",img.data('src')); img.addClass( 'swiper-lazy-loaded' ); img.removeAttr('data-src'); ); ); );

jQuery(document).ready(function($) var data = action: 'polyxgo_products_search', type: 'Product', keywords: 'i', orderby: 'rand', order: 'DESC', template: '1', limit: '4', columns: '4', viewall:'Shop All', ; jQuery.post(spyr_params.ajaxurl,data, function(response) var obj = jQuery.parseJSON(response); jQuery('#thelovesof_i').html(obj); jQuery('#thelovesof_i img.swiper-lazy:not(.swiper-lazy-loaded)' ).each(function () var img = jQuery(this); img.attr("src",img.data('src')); img.addClass( 'swiper-lazy-loaded' ); img.removeAttr('data-src'); ); ); );

jQuery(document).ready(function($) var data = action: 'polyxgo_products_search', type: 'Product', keywords: 'o', orderby: 'rand', order: 'DESC', template: '1', limit: '4', columns: '4', viewall:'Shop All', ; jQuery.post(spyr_params.ajaxurl,data, function(response) var obj = jQuery.parseJSON(response); jQuery('#thelovesof_o').html(obj); jQuery('#thelovesof_o img.swiper-lazy:not(.swiper-lazy-loaded)' ).each(function () var img = jQuery(this); img.attr("src",img.data('src')); img.addClass( 'swiper-lazy-loaded' ); img.removeAttr('data-src'); ); ); );

jQuery(document).ready(function($) var data = action: 'polyxgo_products_search', type: 'Product', keywords: 'u', orderby: 'rand', order: 'DESC', template: '1', limit: '4', columns: '4', viewall:'Shop All', ; jQuery.post(spyr_params.ajaxurl,data, function(response) var obj = jQuery.parseJSON(response); jQuery('#thelovesof_u').html(obj); jQuery('#thelovesof_u img.swiper-lazy:not(.swiper-lazy-loaded)' ).each(function () var img = jQuery(this); img.attr("src",img.data('src')); img.addClass( 'swiper-lazy-loaded' ); img.removeAttr('data-src'); ); ); );

jQuery(document).ready(function($) var data = action: 'polyxgo_products_search', type: 'Product', keywords: 'y', orderby: 'rand', order: 'DESC', template: '1', limit: '4', columns: '4', viewall:'Shop All', ; jQuery.post(spyr_params.ajaxurl,data, function(response) var obj = jQuery.parseJSON(response); jQuery('#thelovesof_y').html(obj); jQuery('#thelovesof_y img.swiper-lazy:not(.swiper-lazy-loaded)' ).each(function () var img = jQuery(this); img.attr("src",img.data('src')); img.addClass( 'swiper-lazy-loaded' ); img.removeAttr('data-src'); ); ); );

[thrashermaxey]

Ramblings: Updates on Price, Eichel, Pacioretty; Nilsson Traded; Looking Ahead to 2019 – January 3

  Alex Ovechkin is turning down the opportunity to play in this year’s All Star Game, opting instead to just take the week to rest. With the rules the league put in place years ago, that means Ovechkin will have to miss a game either directly before or directly after the ASG itself. Given the playoff run last year, his age, and the team’s expectations for another deep run this year, I can’t really blame him. He’s given us some of the best All Star Game moments over the last decade, he’s earned a weekend off.

*

Minor trade:

  #Canucks have acquired Mike McKenna (@MikeMcKenna56), Tom Pyatt & 2019 6th round draft pick from the Senators, in exchange for Anders Nilsson & Darren Archibald. https://t.co/12mOFoG2x9

— Vancouver Canucks (@Canucks) January 2, 2019

  I say it’s a minor trade but this should lead to a call-up of Thatcher Demko at some point, so it could be a major deal in that sense. Something to monitor.

*

There was no Jack Eichel at Sabres practice and afterwards the coach says he’s still being evaluated medically. There won’t be an update until their next gameday, so owners should prepare for Eichel to miss at least the next game Thursday night against Florida.

*

Max Pacioretty was skating on the third line at practice for Vegas, giving a pretty good indication that Brandon Pirri, still on the second line, will be staying. I mean, the guy’s a goal-per-game in his Vegas career. If that doesn’t give him an extended look in the NHL, I’m not sure what will.

*

No change in Corey Crawford’s status according to ‘Hawks coach Jeremy Colliton. I suppose no chance is better than worsening, but in the leagues where I have Crawford on my roster, I’m operating as if he won’t return this year. This is a scary situation. Let’s just hope he comes out of this ok as a person, let alone return to the ice.

*

Speaking of goaltender injuries, Carey Price was taken off the injured reserve by the Habs, meaning he should be good to go for their next game. Get him off your fantasy IR lists.

*

The NHL All-Star Game rosters were announced. Keep in mind there will still be a fan vote to come and every team needs at least one representative. Here they are:

pic.twitter.com/7zlumFndz7

— Elliotte Friedman (@FriedgeHNIC) January 2, 2019

pic.twitter.com/enfbVyDo0U

— Elliotte Friedman (@FriedgeHNIC) January 2, 2019

pic.twitter.com/edI8ejTnEQ

— Elliotte Friedman (@FriedgeHNIC) January 2, 2019

pic.twitter.com/9GFkVrGILb

— Elliotte Friedman (@FriedgeHNIC) January 2, 2019

  Thoughts/Complaints? 

*

We had a huge upset at the World Juniors yesterday as Switzerland defeated Sweden 2-0 in their quarter-final matchup. A team that has had relegation concerns in recent history defeated a gold medal contender. And the thing is, it wasn’t one of the typical upsets where it’s a couple fluke shots and a goalie standing on his head that were the difference. It was basically an even game. That’s a huge credit to the Swiss.

*

It was quite the game between Finland and Canada as the Canadians held a 1-0 most of the game but the Finns tied it up with under a minute left. It had been the Mikey DiPietro show to that point as he had made several key saves for Canada but Eeli Tolvanen had the look of a guy destined to score. He took the shot that redirected in off of Aleksi Heopniemi to tie.

Finland won it a little halfway through the overtime period following a wild overtime. Canada had a penalty shot, and Noah Dobson had an open net goal on his stick, before his stick broke. Finland went the other way and got another deflected goal. Just a crazy, crazy overtime period.

*

The next game following a four-point outing, Johnny Gaudreau managed another four-point night in Detroit on Wednesday night. He had a goal and three assists, Elias Lindholm had a goal and two assists, while Sean Monahan had just one of each the lazy bum. That makes 21 points over the last two games for the top line, and Lindholm has set a career-high with 47 points. There’s half a season left.

*

Kris Letang had a goal and an assist to go with four blocked shots in Pittsburgh’s 7-2 stomping of the Rangers. That gives him points in five straight and 35 in 38 games this year. This pace would give him a career-high, topping the 67 points he had a few years ago. Guentzel, Crosby, Malkin, and Simon all had a goal and an assist as well.

*

In the hours following his All-Star Game selection, Elias Pettersson tallied a hat trick for Vancouver in their 4-3 overtime win against Ottawa. That pushes him past 20 goals, giving him 22 and 20 assists this year. He’s shooting about 27 percent, but even half that and he’d have 30 points in 37 games as a rookie on a bad team. Truly a special first-year player we’re watching right now.

*

Well New Year’s is behind us, as is the holiday season, it’s time to look ahead to 2019. It could be a very tumultuous year for the NHL as though the collective bargaining agreement doesn’t expire for a few years, both the players and owners can opt out of the current CBA in September. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we could be about eight months away from our next NHL lockout. Good times.

But let’s not focus on the negative right now. Let’s focus on the positives. I want to go through a list of players I’m excited for in 2019, whether it be the second half of the 2018-19 campaign or the first half of the 2019-2020 season.

  Mark Stone

This year’s free agent crop is one absolutely loaded with talent. Aside from Stone, names like Erik Karlsson, Sergei Bobrovsky, Artemi Panarin, Matt Duchene, Joe Pavelski, and Jeff Skinner top the list, and that’s discounting guys like Alex Edler and Jordan Eberle. But Stone is one of the few players I suspect will be on the move at or before the trade deadline, and that means there’s a lot of interest in the future of Mark Stone both for the balance of this season and next year.

Let’s set aside the balance of this year for a second. One reason Stone’s UFA contract should be fascinating is that he’s truly one of the best wingers on the planet: According to Corsica’s wins above replacement model, Stone is top-25 in the league in a per-82 games basis since the start of the 2016 season. The only wingers ranked ahead of him are Nikita Kucherov, Alex Ovechkin, Patrik Laine, David Pastrnak, Taylor Hall, Vladimir Tarasenko, Jeff Skinner, TJ Oshie, Kyle Palmieri, Brad Marchand, and Rickard Rakell. That puts him somewhere near the top-10 wingers, and he will be a free agent. But do other general managers view him as such? Are there enough GMs who view him as such that there will be a bidding war? He has 105 points in his last 98 games so his offence has started to show through over the last couple seasons, too.

Stone may not be a coveted fantasy asset like Marchand or Tarasenko but he’s similar in real-world talent. He should see north of $8-million a year. How much further will depend on how general managers value him which is, in a nerdy-ish kind of way, exciting.

  Erik Brannstrom

I thought there would be a chance that Brannstrom would crack the Vegas roster coming out of camp, especially with the early-season suspension to defenceman Nate Schmidt. But he didn’t, and they sent him to the AHL to start the 2018-19 year. As a 19-year old defenceman in the AHL, Brannstrom has put up 20 points in 24 games. It surely seems that this will be his first and last year in the AHL.

Brannstrom has the look of a player ready to be a great puck-mover in the NHL and he’s proving this in the AHL. I suppose one issue would be is that if he starts the year in the NHL next season, he’ll still be behind guys like Schmidt, Shea Theodore, and Colin Miller. All the same, there should be a lot of reason for excitement and he’ll be a guy firmly on my radar for rookie and keeper drafts when September roll around.

  Vladimir Tarasenko

Even with 33 goals and 66 points in 2017-18, it was seen as a down year for Tarasenko. He had been battling through injuries and the St. Louis power play didn’t do him any favours, but some (present company included) were excited for a turnaround for the 2018-19 season. Things haven’t gone as planned as he has just 11 goals and 22 points in 37 games. It’s been a brutal first half for him.

It’s also been a brutal first half for the Blues as they find themselves tied for last in the NHL (as of Wednesday afternoon) with the Ottawa Senators. The team making its way to the playoffs seems like a far-fetched idea. What if Tarasenko doesn’t turn his season around in the second half? We’re talking about a guy who had established himself as one of the top wingers in the league (see: write-up on Stone) over a three-year span and then will have had back-to-back poor seasons on a team that missed the playoffs. What does management do?

It seems unfathomable to trade an elite talent like Tarasenko coming off a bad year (or two) while secured to a very team-friendly contract. Then again, we thought the same thing about Taylor Hall. I’m excited to see what Tank does in the second-half of the 2018-19 season, but more importantly, what his future holds in 2019-2020 and beyond.

  Morgan Frost

I’ll be honest, I hadn’t watched much of Morgan Frost before this year’s World Juniors. I don’t watch much junior hockey and without some NHL games, he just wasn’t on my radar. This year’s World Juniors has changed that.

Frost tore up the OHL last year and is doing so again this year. Though he’s not big by any means (he’s listed as 6’0”, 185 pounds but that seems generous on both counts) he doesn’t seem to have any problem going to the dirty areas to use his hands and quickness to make plays in traffic, which can draw coverage and leave teammates open. That kind of ability is coveted because not only can he create plays, but he can create plays will creating space for line mates. That’s how you score goals in the new era of the NHL. Whether he can do that in the NHL rather than the OHL remains to be seen, but that he can do it now bodes well for the future.

With the way the NHL plays these days, worrying about size is a fool’s errand. It’s all about speed, skill, and quick decisions. Frost has all those. If the Flyers decide to use him on the wing, he could find himself in the top-6 right out of the gate next season. He’s another player I will be targeting heavily in rookie and keeper drafts.

from All About Sports https://dobberhockey.com/hockey-rambling/ramblings-updates-on-price-eichel-pacioretty-nilsson-traded-looking-ahead-to-2019-january-3/

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

micah (Micah Cohen, politics editor): We’re here to talk about superdelegates!!!!!!

Everyone’s favorite subject, right?

clare.malone (Clare Malone, senior political writer): Extremely 2016 up in here.

micah: (This is my least favorite topic.)

clare.malone: I can’t imagine why. It’s so sexy, and the debate is totally based in facts about what happened during 2016.

micah:

OK, so Democrats over the weekend curtailed the power of superdelegates a bit by changing the party’s nominating rules.

Here, from friend-of-the-site Josh Putnam at Frontloading HQ, is a description of the new system:

1. If a candidate wins 50 percent of the pledged delegates plus one during or by the end of primary season, then the superdelegates are barred from the first ballot. 2. If a candidate wins 50 percent of all of the delegates (including superdelegates) plus one, then the superdelegate opt-in is triggered and that faction of delegates can participate in the first (and only) round of voting. 3. If no candidate wins a majority of either pledged or all delegates during or by the end of primary season, then superdelegates are barred from the first round and allowed in to vote in the second round to break the stalemate.

Can someone give us a topline “what this means”?

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): It means that superdelegates can’t override the voters if someone gets 50 percent + 1 of pledged delegates.

It also means they could be hugely influential in the case of a multiballot convention, which is probably the more important case.

And it probably makes a multiballot convention more likely by not allowing superdelegates to be used as tiebreakers.

clare.malone: I think what they’re trying to do is mitigate the notion during the primary contest that “elites” have outsized weight.

We should note here that Hillary Clinton won more pledged delegates in 2016 than Bernie Sanders.

micah: Yeah, how much of this is PR vs. actually limiting the influence of superdelegates?

natesilver: Like so many other institutions, they’re catering to their critics and fighting the last war.

Like, I’m not even sure how I feel about superdelegates. I just think this is done for maybe the wrong reasons? And that the more interesting lessons were actually in the GOP primary in 2016?

clare.malone: I don’t know — it seems like a fair reaction in many ways.

I don’t think it’s bad to mitigate concerns that people in your base might have about stifling voter representation.

natesilver: Let’s say the pledged delegate allocation after everyone has voted is: Elizabeth Warren 40 percent, Joe Biden 30 percent, Cory Booker 20 percent, and 10 percent scattered among various other candidates who have since dropped out. Under the previous system, superdelegates would weigh in for Warren — who clearly is the most popular choice — and give her a majority on the first ballot.

Under the new system, the superdelegates don’t get to vote on the first ballot. Instead, they wait until the second ballot, when most of the pledged delegates become unpledged.

And there could be a lot more chaos here: Maybe Booker agrees to run as Biden’s VP, for instance.

clare.malone: Devil’s advocate: Why is it chaos? And even if it is chaos, why is it bad?

Are you arguing that it actually leads to back-room deals negating its supposed goal of democratizing the process?

natesilver: I’m saying that requiring an outright majority on the first ballot — no superdelegates to push a candidate who’s close to a majority over the top — coupled with Democrats’ extremely proportional delegate allocations — is a recipe for chaos

The chances of the nomination not being resolved on the first ballot are about 50 percent, maybe a little higher.

perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): I agree with that. I actually think under the previous system, Warren (or Sanders) was guaranteed to win in a scenario where she (or he) had the most delegates. That is less true now. The previous system gave superdelegates lots of power in theory. But in practice, supers were already bending to the will of the voters. Some superdelegates who originally backed Hillary Clinton flipped to Barack Obama in the latter stages of the 2008 Democratic primary, for example, once it became clear that he would win the most pledged delegates. That ensured that he got the majority of all delegates at the end.

clare.malone: I’ve decided to argue from the angle of the rules-changers. Aren’t you guys infantilizing the voters a bit? Yes, the process might be messier than in previous years, but on a second-round ballot where people are unpledged, you basically get to see a bit of a caucus happen among delegates. Maybe that sort of parliamentary way of doing things is healthy for the party.

Maybe what voters want is to see the process thrashed out, to see a second ballot!

micah: Woo!

natesilver: Maybe! But it goes against the stated aims of the reforms.

perry: And the changes don’t seem like a great advantage for the Sanders people, who pushed for them.

clare.malone: Well, the party is very different than it was in 2016.

So maybe the “center” or the “establishment” candidate will be closer to where Sanders is and it won’t matter … and the voters will be there too.

natesilver: I agree that it’s hard to predict who these changes will benefit. And, of course, there’s a long history of changes that were made with the best of intentions backfiring.

Democrats saw the train wreck that was the Republican nomination process in 2016 and decided to do nothing to prevent something similar happening to them, even though it looks like they could easily also have a 17-candidate field or thereabouts in 2020.

micah: So, using Nate’s hypothetical above — “Warren 40 percent, Biden 30 percent, Booker 20 percent, and 10 percent scattered among various other candidates” — doesn’t this come down to whether you think Warren winning a plurality means she should get the nomination or whether you think Warren not winning a majority means she shouldn’t get the nomination?

natesilver: I think Warren’s probably getting the nomination either way IN THOSE SCENARIOS , but she’s definitely at more risk under the new system.

clare.malone: Maybe it’s a healthier process for a party that has actual divisions.

natesilver: Now, maybe there are some cases where the opposite is true. If you have a case where it’s Kamala Harris 51 percent, Joe Biden 48 percent, Martin O’Malley 1 percent of the pledged delegates — Harris is now guaranteed the nomination, whereas supers could have pushed it to Biden before.

But if it’s Harris 49 percent, Biden 46 percent, O’Malley 5 percent, she’s not.

clare.malone: It’s basically just more of a wild-card system.

(As a side note, as a journalist, I look forward to the potential drama.)

natesilver: What saved the Republicans from a contested convention of their own in 2016 was the fact that a lot of their primaries, especially toward the end stages, were winner-take-all or winner-take-most. That allowed Donald Trump to build up some real momentum in the last one-third or so of the primary calendar.

Without that, the GOP would probably have still gotten Trump anyway — he was clearly the choice of the plurality of voters — but only after an extremely chaotic convention.

perry: I don’t think the big goal (stopping supers from overturning the plurality of the pledged delegates) is necessarily best served by these particular reforms. That said, on the broader question of whether superdelegates SHOULD be able overturn the plurality of pledged delegates, I think there is a case for superdelegates to have that power. I’m not completely sure superdelegates should be disempowered, even though I agree with arguments that the will of the people should be respected and am generally for giving voters more power. The last two years (so Trump) have suggested that maybe party elders should play a bigger role, not necessarily in pushing for a different person ideologically, but maybe a president who abides by general norms. (For example, I think Ted Cruz would be as conservative as Trump, but perhaps less erratic and able to condemn white nationalist rallies.) I’m not sure if, say, Michael Avenatti has a chance of winning the Democratic nomination in 2020, but I bet a lot of Democratic Party elders are not excited at that prospect–and would like to have the power to stop it.

In other words, maybe the elites should have more power?

micah: I’m a secret believer in that.

clare.malone: Why? To prevent chaos?

micah: Because the mob can be dangerous.

clare.malone: Why are you guys harping on that?

I think there’s something to be said about a cathartic political process.

Voters have watched their nominations be manufactured behind the scenes. What’s wrong with radical transparency?

Yes, it might bring a couple of rounds of voting, I concede that. But you haven’t convinced me why that’s bad in the end? As long as there’s civility among the actors, which I think you could engineer, it’s not a terrible scenario.

natesilver: The expectation among voters is that the most popular nominee will get the nomination.

Granted, there are different ways of defining “most popular.”

clare.malone: Which would likely be reflected in the contested convention votes. Right?

Norms have been less broken on the Democratic side of things, so I don’t think that’s an unreasonable expectation.

natesilver: Maybe? But the more ballots you go, the more divorced you become from the delegates’ original preferences.

We knew on the GOP side, for example, that many delegates personally didn’t back Trump and were big risks to turn on him in the event of multiple ballots even though they were bound to him on the first ballot.

A better-organized campaign will exert more control over the delegate selection process and be better at whipping delegates.

perry: I guess I view these rules as being a diss to the superdelegates. The supers themselves read them that way too.

clare.malone: That’s the point, though. They’re meant to diss. It’s the mood of the party’s hoi polloi.

perry: If Sanders or another candidate who is anti-superdelegates does not win a majority of pledged delegates during the primary, he should be worried. I wonder if the supers, on the second ballot, are even more unbound under this new system, compared to the old one. They could say, “You [Sanders’ supporters] said you wanted a system in which a majority of pledged delegates means you win. You didn’t get a majority. We get to intervene now. These are your rules. We are following them and we will now choose who WE want.”

micah: OK, let’s try it this way: Would these rules, had they been in place, have altered any past Democratic nominations?

Would Clinton have had a better chance in 2008?

perry: This is where I would like to do a more careful analysis.

But, yes, my instinct is that Clinton would have had a better chance to win on a second ballot in this new system. The superdelegates would have no role in the first ballot, but I think their role is enhanced in a second one.

natesilver: There are some primaries, such as in 1984 and 2008, where the nomination process would have been messier, although maybe it would have produced the same nominee.

clare.malone: I smell an assignment …

And then some fan fic about the alternate political universes.

natesilver: Yeah. My thing is that you want a system where someone can win on the first ballot with less than a majority, but with a reasonably clear plurality. Because it’s very common for the top candidate to have something like 35 percent to 45 percent of the overall votes in the primary.

There are two ways to achieve that: either through superdelegates or through winner-take-all/winner-take-most rules.

The Democrats have neither one of those now.

clare.malone: Maybe this is finally a concession to the big tent party that they have. And in the ensuing rounds of ballot negotiation, maybe you have compromises on who gets VP — like, a Warren paired with a more centrist person — we’ll see who comes along over the next couple of years.

micah: IDK, maybe I agree with Clare: Democracy is messy, so maybe it should look messy.

perry: I think those changes might be good (the ones Clare laid out). The idea that the convention picks the vp. But they give the elites more power.

Sanders does not want the party to pick his vp.

clare.malone: Well, that’s the concession he has to pay to be more of a player.

People have sold their souls for much less. A compromise VP when you’re the presidential nominee of a party in semi-shock therapy ain’t bad.

natesilver: One simple reform they could have considered is to give the nomination to whomever wins the plurality of delegates. Except in a few weird states, that’s how our electoral system works: Plurality takes all.

micah: Or: National popular vote. Simple. One day of voting. Highest vote-getter takes all.

perry: Can we jump back to the broader context?

The reason I am open to elites having more power is because Trump is different in terms of democratic norms, etc. I think Sanders would be better than Avenatti in terms of following those norms.

And the voters might blow it.

If we have weak parties and strong partisanship, do we want to weaken the parties further?

I’m not usually an elitist, but are we sure the voters are doing a great job?

clare.malone: This feels like the old argument against direct election of U.S. senators.

It basically comes down to the age-old question: Do we trust the vox populi?

micah: No.

clare.malone: Haha, so now you’ve switched teams!

micah: lol

Just kidding.

Do you?

How much “republic” do you want in your democratic republic?

clare.malone: I’m still arguing team small-d democracy.

natesilver: There’s also the question of whether ranked-choice voting would produce a different result. Like, suppose that Avenatti was the plurality front-runner with 20 percent of the vote. But most of the other 80 percent who didn’t vote for him didn’t like him.

clare.malone: I think you’ve got to have some faith in the voters.

perry: I want to.

natesilver: Although the GOP doesn’t have superdelegates per se, the fact that the party made relatively feeble efforts to stop Trump is also relevant here. It suggests the norm toward letting voters decide is quite strong.

And the stronger that norm is, the less dangerous that superdelegates are.

micah: I think Perry said this earlier, but I do think there’s a chance this empowers supers because it will erode that norm on the second ballot.

perry: Yeah, that is what I was hinting at — particularly if it’s something like Sanders 44 percent and Harris or Booker or Julian Castro (a non-white candidate) at 41.

natesilver: THEY’RE GOING TO STEAL THE NOMINATION FROM AVENATTI

clare.malone: I mean, he’s got his Vogue story in place.

Next comes the chummy Ellen interview.

perry: FiveThirtyEight contributor Seth Masket wrote that there was a big racial divide at the DNC meeting where this change was adopted, namely that some prominent black officials are opposed to the changes.

The Congressional Black Caucus, for example, likes the power of superdelegates in the current system. (Members of Congress are superdelegates, of course.)

clare.malone: Donna Brazile was making the argument that the DNC was trying to disenfranchise them.

micah: Why do you think there’s a racial divide?

perry: Because there is a big racial divide among party elites about Sanders.

Sanders did well among young black voters. But I suspect that he has very little support among black superdelegates.

natesilver: And there’s also the question of: What if in a close race, you had one Democrat with a plurality of votes/delegates but very little support among black or Hispanic Democrats.

You could argue that’s a case where supers should intervene. I’m not sure I like that argument, but you could make it.

Although, again, in any type of plurality scenario, the supers get to intervene anyway.

micah: How about this for a compromise: Have superdelegates but only let elected officials be them.

natesilver: Many/most of them are elected officials anyway?

clare.malone: Yeah.

micah: Not all, though.

perry: Most superdelegates are DNC members, according to the Pew Research Center, not members of Congress. But some of those DNC members might be elected officials at the local level.

micah: BAM!

clare.malone: I love that one of the subcategories of superdelegates is “distinguished party leaders.” Lol.

natesilver: How about: Let the nowcast decide in the event that no one gets the plurality?

perry: Nate Silver picks which candidate is most electable.

natesilver: Hahaha

hahahahaha

perry: If we pitched this idea to Democratic voters, that Nate picks the candidate or the DNC picks, they would probably go with Nate. I’m serious. I don’t think most Democrats trust the party that much.

natesilver: But see the most electable candidate would be the one with the most popular support.

clare.malone: O’Malley’s gonna make a comeback in that case.

micah: If all the supers were elected officials, it would still have a tinge of small-d democracy. It’s a good middle ground!

perry: That seems right to me. They would be accountable.

That’s the problem with the DNC — people don’t necessarily know who those people are.

natesilver: How about if there’s no majority through the delegate system, there’s a national 50-state referendum where everyone votes again?

That would obviously be cost/logistically prohibitive.

In some very real ways, though, polls could become very important under that scenario. For example, it was probably important in 2008 that Obama never fell behind Clinton in national polls, or at least not for sustained periods, when going through all the Jeremiah Wright stuff, etc.

perry: I’m going to play the Micah role here, because I was curious what Nate’s and Clare’s thoughts were about the caucus changes.

micah: Yeah, let’s close on that. Can someone give me a summary of the caucus changes please?

natesilver: My understanding is that caucuses now need to include a means for people to participate off-site — e.g., through absentee ballots.

perry: Right.

clare.malone: I think it’s probably a shift toward the right kind of “small d democracy” change I’ve been talking about. There are lots of good arguments that say caucuses mean that a lot of people who do shift work can’t vote.

natesilver: Caucuses tend to favor candidates whose supporters are (1) more enthusiastic and (2) better organized. I’m not sure that necessarily maps cleanly onto a left-right scale, and it can be fairly idiosyncratic from election to election who does better in caucuses.

clare.malone: Caucuses tend to favor insurgents, it’s fair to say.

natesilver: They didn’t in the GOP, though.

clare.malone: On the Democratic side they have, right?

natesilver: Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz (OK, Cruz is sort of an insurgent) did better in caucuses, and Trump struggled in them.

I think that’s mostly true.

In 1988, Jesse Jackson struggled in caucuses early on but then started to do quite well in them. It can be quirky.

Also, a lot of states have abandoned caucuses of their own volition and switched to primaries.

perry: So is this a big change?

natesilver: It’s not big in the sense that the Democrats didn’t have that many caucuses anyway, and they were mostly in small-population states.

However, there are often big differences between who does well in caucuses and who does well in primaries.

Without caucuses, Clinton might have won in 2008.

Without caucuses, Sanders wouldn’t have lasted nearly as long.

If the GOP had more caucuses, they might not have chosen Trump.

micah: To wrap, does anyone want to say whether all these changes help or hurt any specific potential 2020 candidates?

Or do we really just have no clue?

clare.malone: I think you have to wait and see what their support/activist system is like.

natesilver: Yeah, we’re at the stage where there are 15 billiard balls on the table and it’s hard to know what everything will look like after the break.

Again, my

take is just that it’s a bad idea to have neither superdelegates nor winner-take-all/most rules. Especially in a year without a clear front-runner.

micah: OK, to sum up, it seems like the best take is: These changes could have big unforeseen and unintended consequences — or maybe not. And to cap us off, I asked Julia (who has studied this a lot) to give us her take …

julia_azari (Julia Azari, political science professor at Marquette University and FiveThirtyEight contributor): I’m more ambivalent about the superdelegate change than a lot of political scientists, many of whom are generally opposed to them. This is mainly because I think parties need to think about how they can regain legitimacy, and if supers are left out of the first ballot but can legitimately come in in the case of a deadlocked convention, that’s a good thing.

Acknowledging the possibility that the nomination might not be wrapped up by the convention and that that could be something other than a total crisis is in my view a good thing. The emphasis on party elites unifying around a single candidate early in the nomination — in either party — hampers competition within the party and potentially prevents voters from having real power in the nomination process.. At the same time, my understanding is that none of the rules change anything about how elected officials can make their preferences known during and before the primary season (so people who are superdelegates can still endorse someone ,even if that endorsement is not effectively a delegate vote in this new process), and that will rightly be seen by some in (for lack of a better term) the Bernie camp as attempting to tip the scales in favor of more establishment candidates. If you could actually have a competitive convention without it being seen as a giant disaster, then elites wouldn’t need to head that off by endorsing early.

[theconservativebrief]

One of the most puzzling elements of the 2016 election, at least for a lot of Americans, was the millions of voters who switched from voting for Barack Obama in 2012 to Donald Trump in 2016. Somewhere between 6.7 million and 9.2 million Americans switched this way; given that the 2016 election was decided by 40,000 votes, it’s fair to say that Obama-Trump switchers were one of the key reasons that Hillary Clinton lost.

The existence of those voters has served as evidence that the most plausible explanation for what happened in 2016 — that Trump’s campaign tapped into the racism of white Americans to win pivotal states — is wrong. “How could white Americans who voted for a black president in the past be racist,” or so the thinking goes.

“Clinton suffered her biggest losses in the places where Obama was strongest among white voters. It’s not a simple racism story,” the New York Times’s Nate Cohn wrote on the night of the election. This typically segues into an argument that Trump won by tapping into economic, rather than racial, anxiety — anger about trade and the decline of manufacturing, or the fallout from the 2008 Great Recession.

A new study shows that this response isn’t as powerful as it may seem. The study, from three political scientists from around the country, takes a statistical look at a large sample of Obama-Trump switchers. It finds that these voters tended to score highly on measures of racial hostility and xenophobia — and were not especially likely to be suffering economically.

“White voters with racially conservative or anti-immigrant attitudes switched votes to Trump at a higher rate than those with more liberal views on these issues,” the paper’s authors write. “We find little evidence that economic dislocation and marginality were significantly related to vote switching in 2016.”

This new paper fits with a sizeable slate of studies conducted over the past 18 months or so, most of which have come to the same conclusions: There is tremendous evidence that Trump voters were motivated by racial resentment (as well as hostile sexism), and very little evidence that economic stress had anything to do with it.

This isn’t just a matter of historical interest or ideological ax-grinding. Understanding the precise way in which racism affected the 2016 election should shape how we think about the electorate in the run-up to the 2018 midterms. More broadly, it helps us understand the subtleties of America’s primordial divide over race — and why racism will continue to fracture the country politically for the foreseeable future.

The three scholars who wrote the study — UCLA’s Tyler Reny, UC-Riverside’s Loren Collingwood, and Princeton’s Ali Valenzuela — drew on a database that has information on more than 64,000 American voters. Inside that huge sample, they restricted their analysis to white voters who switched their presidential vote from 2012 to 2016 (most commonly from one major party’s candidate to the other’s, but occasionally from a third party in 2012 to Clinton or Trump).

They then split the sample of white voters in two, between working-class and non-working class voters, and then tried to figure out what the vote switchers ran in common. To do so, they ran tests on three different types of question: scores on a test measuring attitudes towards racial minorities, hostility to mass immigration, and measures of economic stress (e.g., whether a person’s family income was lower or higher than the median income in the county where they lived).

The results were quite striking. First, attitudes on race and immigration were crucial distinguishing characteristics of both Trump and Clinton switchers. The more racially conservative an Obama or third party voter was, the more likely they were to switch to Trump. Similarly, the more racially liberal a Romney or third-party voter was, the more likely they were to switch to Clinton.

Second, class was largely irrelevant in switching to Trump. Keeping racial attitudes constant, white working-class voters were not more likely to switch to Trump. The white working-class voters who did switch tended to score about as highly on measures of racial conservatism and anti-immigrant attitudes as wealthier switchers.

Third, the correlations between measures of economic stress and vote switching were either weak or non-existent. There’s just little evidence supporting the “economic anxiety” or “economic populism” explanations for the Trump surge.

“We find a much stronger association between symbolic racial and immigration attitudes and switching for Trump and Clinton than between economic marginality or local economic dislocation and vote switching,” Reny et al. write. “In fact, we find marginally small or no associations between any of our economic indicators and vote switching in either direction.”

A 2018 demonstration in Chicago supporting the conviction of police officer Jason Van Dyke, who shot 17-year-old Laquan McDonald in 2014. Joshua Lott/Getty Images

The Reny et al. findings may seem counterintuitive: How can people who wanted a black man to run the country somehow become attracted to Trump because of his racial demagoguery?

The unspoken premise behind this question is an assumption of a certain kind of white redemption narrative: By voting for Obama, white America exorcized its racial demons. But the truth is nothing of the sort. For one thing, Obama lost the white vote by 12 points in 2008 and 20 points in 2012.

For another, voting for Obama once or even twice doesn’t automatically mean that someone is not prejudiced against black people or immigrants. It’s possible to support Obama in particular while maintaining overall anti-black or anti-immigrant attitudes. In those cases, some other factor, like the Iraq War catastrophe or financial collapse, may have predominated over white voters’ racial hang-ups in the 2008 and 2012 election.

The 2016 election was different.

One reason is that Obama’s second term featured a significant amount of racial conflict. The Black Lives Matter movement was founded in 2013. The 2014 killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, and subsequent week of protest and unrest, kicked off a massive and racially polarizing national debate over police violence against African Americans.

A second reason is that Obama’s very presence in office was racially polarizing. Michael Tesler, a scholar at the University of California-Irvine, has documented in detail how Obama’s very presence in the White House polarized America along racial lines. It would make sense that this effect would grow stronger the longer Obama was in office, setting the stage for a major backlash in his final year.

Third, and arguably most importantly, the two candidates turned the election into a kind of referendum on American race relations. Trump kicked off his campaign by calling Mexican immigrants rapists and vowing to build a wall between the US and Mexico. He vowed to ban Muslims, and described black life in America as a hellscape of violence and poverty. Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign was not nearly so overt, which means it was less likely to attract voters who held latent racist and anti-immigrant attitudes.

Clinton, for her part, positioned herself as a champion of racial justice. While Obama’s rhetoric on race was typically post-racial, positioning the country as more united than divided, Clinton got out front on issues like police violence and immigration. There are plenty of valid reasons for this — Clinton was more worried about failing to turn out minority voters, Obama was more worried about alienating skittish whites, and there was no way to respond to Trump’s campaign without tackling race head-on.

The result, though, is that racial issues became the key political dividing line in a way they were not in either 2008 or 2012.

Now, Reny et al.’s statistical analysis can’t show all of this on its own. You should never draw conclusions this large from one statistical analysis, as it could suffer from any number of problems.

However, the basic analysis of the election is supported by a wide and deep body of research on the election, the vast majority of which shows that concerns about identity and race were the decisive issues in the 2016 election. This was true in the Republican primary and the general; it’s also consistent with research on far-right parties in Europe whose xenophobic appeals are similar to Trump’s. There is a complete lack of statistical evidence, by contrast, for the “economic anxiety” theory.

This analysis suggests that American politics are only likely to get more polarized on racial lines. Trump and Trumpism are, for the time being, the core of the Republican Party; the Republican message on race and immigration will match his as such. California Rep. Duncan Hunter, for example, is running a nakedly anti-Islam reelection campaign against Democratic challenger Ammar Campa-Najjar (who is a Mexican-Arab Christian by background).

The implications for American politics, both in 2018 and in the long term, could be significant. Remy et al. compare this period to the post-civil rights era, a period where the historically Democratic South transformed into modern-day red America primarily in backlash to the Democratic embrace of civil rights:

History suggests that significant changes in voting across party lines, particularly for the presidency, precede changes in party identities, the basis for realignments. This sequence of events played out during the Southern realignment (i.e., Democrats voting for GOP presidential candidates but maintaining their party attachment) and here we provide evidence that it may be happening again after two terms with a black president and during an era of mass demographic change due to immigration. Racial conservatives and those with the most punitive immigration views are moving right and were the most likely to switch to Trump in 2016. Our data suggest the same is happening in the opposite direction as those with racially liberal or pro-immigration views may be sorting into the Democratic Party.

This prediction may or may turn out to be accurate. But it’s plausible, and there’s no use burying our heads in the sand by pretending this is about class when it isn’t.

Original Source -> A new study reveals the real reason Obama voters switched to Trump

via The Conservative Brief