@connorfromohio.bsky.social
Haven you seen the Templin Institute’s lore videos? They’re great! It was actually their video about the Tyranids that got me into reading about 40k
youtu.be/DRaSbuV_LNQ?...
youtu.be/DRaSbuV_LNQ?...
The Tyranids | Warhammer 40,000
YouTube video by The Templin Institute
youtu.be
November 11, 2025 at 4:22 AM
Haven you seen the Templin Institute’s lore videos? They’re great! It was actually their video about the Tyranids that got me into reading about 40k
youtu.be/DRaSbuV_LNQ?...
youtu.be/DRaSbuV_LNQ?...
I quite like this one. The short story about the Tau is great! Well written and present the Tau the way I find most interesting.
November 11, 2025 at 4:22 AM
I quite like this one. The short story about the Tau is great! Well written and present the Tau the way I find most interesting.
The senate needs to be abolished.
November 11, 2025 at 3:08 AM
The senate needs to be abolished.
And Matthew Ygglesias. He always had some issues, but he’s gotten way worse.
November 10, 2025 at 6:49 PM
And Matthew Ygglesias. He always had some issues, but he’s gotten way worse.
He doesn’t need to. Dems outside of the Senate are enraged: bsky.app/profile/greg...
This is really good to see: Miki Sherrill just put out a statement sharply criticizing the Senate Dems' pending cave in the government shutdown, ripping it as "malpractice" and a betrayal of the people who are "counting on us to fight for them." Sherrill knows what drove her victory. Wake up, Dems.
November 10, 2025 at 6:42 PM
He doesn’t need to. Dems outside of the Senate are enraged: bsky.app/profile/greg...
Exactly this is why I phrased my claim so carefully & why if someone says Jill Stein was a spoiler in 2016 I do not believe it.
November 9, 2025 at 6:36 PM
Exactly this is why I phrased my claim so carefully & why if someone says Jill Stein was a spoiler in 2016 I do not believe it.
I did no such thing. I explicitly stated above (and repeatedly beforehand) that no reasonable argument for Nader being a spoiler can rest upon the idea of no Nader & 100% of his votes go to Gore.
November 9, 2025 at 6:34 PM
I did no such thing. I explicitly stated above (and repeatedly beforehand) that no reasonable argument for Nader being a spoiler can rest upon the idea of no Nader & 100% of his votes go to Gore.
Quite the opposite! I explicitly stated the SCOTUS stole the election & stated that there were a multitude of factors other factors such that you just change one factor & the outcome of 2000 is different. Nader was a determinant factor, but so were other factors.
November 9, 2025 at 1:25 PM
Quite the opposite! I explicitly stated the SCOTUS stole the election & stated that there were a multitude of factors other factors such that you just change one factor & the outcome of 2000 is different. Nader was a determinant factor, but so were other factors.
I blame Hillary's mistakes, James Comey, & the media coverage of the emails for her EC defeat.
November 9, 2025 at 4:18 AM
I blame Hillary's mistakes, James Comey, & the media coverage of the emails for her EC defeat.
I 100% buy this as an argument for Stein being pernicious in 2016, but I think the evidence Stein swayed enough votes to vote for her or stay home or vote for Trump rather than Hillary is lacking. You might be right, BUT I don't feel I can quantify that claim the way I can Nader's affect in 2000.
November 9, 2025 at 4:18 AM
I 100% buy this as an argument for Stein being pernicious in 2016, but I think the evidence Stein swayed enough votes to vote for her or stay home or vote for Trump rather than Hillary is lacking. You might be right, BUT I don't feel I can quantify that claim the way I can Nader's affect in 2000.
At least some of the time. Do you not agree?
November 9, 2025 at 4:05 AM
At least some of the time. Do you not agree?
"Dems never tank their own campaigns, even when they do" that would be a crazy, crazy claim & one I do not endorse.
Dukakis ran a bad campaign in '88 & lost. Kathy Hochul ran a wretchedly bad reelection campaign in '22 & barely won.
I think we can identify causes of events political & economic
Dukakis ran a bad campaign in '88 & lost. Kathy Hochul ran a wretchedly bad reelection campaign in '22 & barely won.
I think we can identify causes of events political & economic
November 9, 2025 at 4:05 AM
"Dems never tank their own campaigns, even when they do" that would be a crazy, crazy claim & one I do not endorse.
Dukakis ran a bad campaign in '88 & lost. Kathy Hochul ran a wretchedly bad reelection campaign in '22 & barely won.
I think we can identify causes of events political & economic
Dukakis ran a bad campaign in '88 & lost. Kathy Hochul ran a wretchedly bad reelection campaign in '22 & barely won.
I think we can identify causes of events political & economic
Sorry, I meant Jill Stein has NEVER been a spoiler. I mistyped there.
November 9, 2025 at 3:51 AM
Sorry, I meant Jill Stein has NEVER been a spoiler. I mistyped there.
I'm sorry. You're awesome!
November 9, 2025 at 3:40 AM
I'm sorry. You're awesome!
Despite Truman's heft popular vote victory he almost lost the EC because of how Thurmond, Dewey, & his own voters were distributed.
November 9, 2025 at 3:36 AM
Despite Truman's heft popular vote victory he almost lost the EC because of how Thurmond, Dewey, & his own voters were distributed.
Because he was as spoiler
bsky.app/profile/conn...
But not all third party campaigns have spoiler effects. Jill Stein has ever. Anderson in 1980 wasn't. Perot in '92 probably wasn't. Taft in 1912 WAS a spoiler for Teddy Roosevelt's return.
Strom Thurmond was almost a spoiler for Truman in '48.
bsky.app/profile/conn...
But not all third party campaigns have spoiler effects. Jill Stein has ever. Anderson in 1980 wasn't. Perot in '92 probably wasn't. Taft in 1912 WAS a spoiler for Teddy Roosevelt's return.
Strom Thurmond was almost a spoiler for Truman in '48.
In NH if 1/3 of Nader voters voted for Gore he wins the state & the EC. In FL, if 550 votes—which constitutes less than 1% of Nader’s votes in FL—went for Gore, he wins FL even if the SCOTUS stops the full recount.
November 9, 2025 at 3:36 AM
Because he was as spoiler
bsky.app/profile/conn...
But not all third party campaigns have spoiler effects. Jill Stein has ever. Anderson in 1980 wasn't. Perot in '92 probably wasn't. Taft in 1912 WAS a spoiler for Teddy Roosevelt's return.
Strom Thurmond was almost a spoiler for Truman in '48.
bsky.app/profile/conn...
But not all third party campaigns have spoiler effects. Jill Stein has ever. Anderson in 1980 wasn't. Perot in '92 probably wasn't. Taft in 1912 WAS a spoiler for Teddy Roosevelt's return.
Strom Thurmond was almost a spoiler for Truman in '48.
I buy the evidence that Gore could have won by moving to his left & I also 100% believe the moral argument that Gore should have campaigned to his left & won that way.
November 9, 2025 at 3:30 AM
I buy the evidence that Gore could have won by moving to his left & I also 100% believe the moral argument that Gore should have campaigned to his left & won that way.
are in a position to know the truth of that claim. Sometime we humans aren't in position to know things. But Nader's campaign being responsible for Gore's loss is something that we can know to be true.
He wasn't solely responsible--Gore's campaign had effects too as you rightly note.
He wasn't solely responsible--Gore's campaign had effects too as you rightly note.
November 9, 2025 at 3:30 AM
are in a position to know the truth of that claim. Sometime we humans aren't in position to know things. But Nader's campaign being responsible for Gore's loss is something that we can know to be true.
He wasn't solely responsible--Gore's campaign had effects too as you rightly note.
He wasn't solely responsible--Gore's campaign had effects too as you rightly note.
I'm comfortable saying that had Perot stayed dropped out in '92 or dropped out for a second time in Oct '92 that Clinton still wins. A much harder question to answer is 'If Perot NEVER ran, would Clinton still have won?' & while there is an answer to that question, I don't think human historians
November 9, 2025 at 3:30 AM
I'm comfortable saying that had Perot stayed dropped out in '92 or dropped out for a second time in Oct '92 that Clinton still wins. A much harder question to answer is 'If Perot NEVER ran, would Clinton still have won?' & while there is an answer to that question, I don't think human historians
The more interesting & harder to gauge proposition is that Perot forced Bush Sr. into a two-front war at a time where he needed to be attacking Cinton & by Perot elevating issues that were unfavorable to Bush Sr, like the deficit, he helped prime the electorate for Clinton.
November 9, 2025 at 3:30 AM
The more interesting & harder to gauge proposition is that Perot forced Bush Sr. into a two-front war at a time where he needed to be attacking Cinton & by Perot elevating issues that were unfavorable to Bush Sr, like the deficit, he helped prime the electorate for Clinton.
Perot's positions were also very helterskelter--he was to the left of Bush Sr on some issues & others he wasn't.
The easy answer w/respect to Perot is that he was like Nader 04 or Stein in her runs or Anderson in 1980--he didn't matter.
The easy answer w/respect to Perot is that he was like Nader 04 or Stein in her runs or Anderson in 1980--he didn't matter.
November 9, 2025 at 3:30 AM
Perot's positions were also very helterskelter--he was to the left of Bush Sr on some issues & others he wasn't.
The easy answer w/respect to Perot is that he was like Nader 04 or Stein in her runs or Anderson in 1980--he didn't matter.
The easy answer w/respect to Perot is that he was like Nader 04 or Stein in her runs or Anderson in 1980--he didn't matter.