jfb | (no subject)

Friends, I have read every word of post-election analysis in this Sunday's New York Times, and I am here to tell you, it is dumb. It falls into two categories: the obvious, and the obviously wrong. I direct your attention, in only a cautionary way, to Adam Nagourney's article on what Democrats are thinking, or rather what Democratic centrists are thinking, since, although Nagourney does mention what centrists think liberals might be thinking, he doesn't seem to have asked the liberals themselves. (What centrists think is that the party should be more centrist.)

One exception to the gloom: The editorial on fixing elections, the latest in a series, is a good summary of a bunch of reforms that should be obvious and uncontroversial--not major overhauls like instant runoff voting or abolishing the electoral college, but no-brainers like nonpartisan election administrators.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Note to the Democratic Party: You accumulated political capital in this campaign, and now you're frittering it away on wigs and makeup.

I found the Sunday Times to be overwhelmingly boring this week. It's a sad state when the most interesting article, to me, is a comparison of my hometown Wegman's to Whole Foods.

Yeah. I usually keep reading it in bits and pieces throughout the week, but I might just sit this one out.

Hm. The overview mentions gerrymandering, but none of the articles seem to cover it. This is arguably more important than each of the other issues mentioned, and for sure beats out such problems as case studies on New York, or transitional wrinkles due to HAVA and provisional ballots.

Maybe they plan to cap the series off with it. It certainly makes one wonder.