Biden could have done more, but Trump was charged and was in the process of being tried when Aileen Cannon blocked it. The appeal was abandoned when Trump was reelected. If the case was in front of an actual unbiased jurist, it would have gone much farther, but Cannon is pretty infamous for being a biased and inadequate jurist

Consider a high deductible plan with an HSA, especially if your employer contributes to the HSA and you don’t have any underlying conditions (or dependents with them) which make it more likely for you to hit the deductible.

You can use the HSA funds later when you or your dependents need health care even if you’ve switched to a low deductible plan.

So what exactly was gained?

At the very least, we’re talking about what was said and that it happened. The message got to a wider audience than it would have if the statements were just inserted into the record.

Shooting the messenger has a long, sordid history.

They’re from Charles T. Munger, a billionaire who lives in Palo Alto who champions Republican causes. It’s almost always a billionaire, not rejected representatives.

He’s not exactly uninvolved in this case. The governor of California is an ex-officio member of the board of regents, and he did appoint 10 of the current regents.

But that said, we can do better than Newsom. His primary goal is to be elected to higher office no matter what he has to say or do.

Though usually they appoint them to ambassador to a ally like France or England or somewhere else cushy with minimal political impact.

First off, thanks for the discussion, and this is an important question to ask as Democrats unpack why they lost. It boils down to “does moving to the central position gain more voters in the end or not?”

The argument I’m making applies in reverse too. What if there was polling data that indicated that this issue shifted the seven percent who were las likely to vote for Harris into not voting for Harris or not voting at all?

If that’s the case, then their decision becomes more understandable.

The challenge with this poll question is that it doesn’t ask whether this issue changes a potential voter from someone who wouldn’t have voted for Harris into someone who would have voted for Harris. It asks if they are more likely to vote for Harris.

For example, I was already highly likely to vote for Harris, but her being more emphatically against the genocide would still have made me even more likely to vote for her.

To make the case that she should have used this poll to change her position, you have to look at the pre-existing likelihood that someone would vote for her and see whether this issue brought them over that threshold. (For example, what fraction of the 35% voted in the primary and the midterm election? Were they already planning on voting? Who were they planning on voting for if not Harris?)