A University of Houston Hobby School and Texas Southern University Jordan-Leland School poll released Thursday found that 46.6% of likely Texas voters plan to vote for Cruz, while 44.5% said they’d vote for Allred — putting Cruz 2.1 points ahead. Of those polled, 2.5% said they were voting for Libertarian Ted Brown and 6.4% said they’re undecided.
It should be noted that there was a pretty big polling miss in the 2018 TX-SEN race, the polling average was I think somewhere in the neighborhood of 5-6 and Cruz wound up winning by 2.6. The polling miss in 2018 in TX and FL was very similar but the latter got much more attention, and justifiably so because it was big enough that it got the winner wrong, but in terms of just the numbers the miss was very similar.
Seems like saturation digital ads of showing Ted Cruz out of the state vacationing while everyone suffers from power outage should be able to topple this guy.
In Massachusetts, "ballot candy" is prohibited in the State Constitution and the Supreme Judicial Court regularly tosses measures that run afoul of this prohibition. A recent example was they threw out Uber/Lyft's question that would make keep their employees as contractors but give them limited benefits (like the one they successfully passed in California). This was actually because the ballot question also limited the liability of the ride share companies, and not because of the tying of benefits to contactor status, which the court found to be sufficiently related.
The exception is a constitutional amendment, which is allowed to address multiple issues. The "millionaire's tax" is an example of this. They originally tried to go the regular ballot question route to get an extra tax on incomes over $1,000,000 with the revenue being earmarked for education and transportation, but were told that spending and revenue were two distinct questions, so they went back and did the much more cumbersome path of getting an amendment on the ballot. Personally I think this is unfortunate, since we now have spending written into the State Constitution, but Education especially is a large portion of the annual budget and the revenue raised by new tax is fairly small.
It sounds like Wyoming Republicans really fucked the state. Do you suppose they'll like the "rugged individualism" of lacking any support from the state government or that there will be a bit of a backlash in 2 years, when the results of their votes are evident? My feeling is that they'll continue to be extremists, poor people who are suffering will make do with whatever work, aid and charity they can scrape together or in some cases move to other states, and the state's politics won't improve unless enough less extreme people move in from Colorado. It never pays to bet on Republican voters to be sensible or prioritize government programs over performative posturing.
Wyoming is in DEEP doo-doo fiscally since they've been so reliant on coal mining and coal production in that part of the country has just absolutely fallen off a cliff.
He's still committing to being a senator until he's 80, but it's nice to see someone willing to put a cap on their time in office rather than planning to live out the rest of their life in the senate.
I don't know if I can quote tweets in full, so I'll paraphrase that idiot Trump already thinks he has all the votes he needs before anyone has voted, and says that his primary focus is not to get out the vote but to prevent "cheating." He really seems to think he will lose the vote, doesn't really have to try to win it, and will then steal the election. https://politicalwire.com/2024/08/22/extra-bonus-quote-of-the-day-876/
But actually believable.. To a degree.. Terrible Republican and popular Democrat in a state that the Democratic party is building from the grass roots.. Anderson Clayton is bringing the fire with Governor Cooper being the most popular politician in the state
"SurveyUSA's latest polling, conducted exclusively for Hight Point University, shows Harris taking 46% of the vote among all registered voters, Donald Trump taking 45%. 1% say they will vote for another candidate; 8% say they are undecided. Among those voters who say they are certain they will vote in November, Harris leads by 2 points, 48% to 46%; among those who say they will probably vote, Trump leads by 10, 50% to 40%. Combining certain and probable voters – how SurveyUSA traditionally defines "likely voters" – the race is tied: 47% Harris, 47% Trump. Whether the GOP convinces those less-than-certain "probable" voters – 12% of all registered voters &ndash to show up for the Trump-Vance ticket or whether the Democratic Party convinces them to stay home, vote third-party, or even switch to Harris-Walz may determine the outcome of the national contest."
I think that's High Point University. Moving on:
"Briefly turning to the race for Governor, incumbent Democratic Attorney General Josh Stein defeats incumbent Republican Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson by 14 points among all registered voters, 48% to 34%, with 18% undecided. Among certain voters, Stein leads by 16 points; among probable voters, by 6. Combined, the Democrat holds a 14-point lead among all likely voters. 88% of those voting for Harris for President say they will vote for Stein for Governor; 68% of those voting for Trump for President say they will vote for Robinson for Governor. 5% of Harris voters go with Robinson; 13% of Trump voters go with Stein."
What do you think makes someone say "I support Trump, but Robinson is a bridge too far!" And how much of that is due to racism?
Also, what do you think of Survey USA's "secret sauce" on "certain" and "probable" voters? My feeling is, regardless of anything else, I salute them for being open about it.
Still getting used to coming here to post stuff. Not sure if this was touched upon yesterday. While it's Rasmussen and they are going to have rosy numbers for the GOP, I will woof for this one: Sheehy up 7 on Tester in their poll of LVs: https://x.com/Politics_Polls/status/1826464374724165877
"A divided Supreme Court on Thursday afternoon granted a request from the Republican National Committee and the Republican leaders of Arizona’s legislature to reinstate a state law that requires residents to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote using a form provided by the state. The court turned down a request, however, to reinstate the portion of the same law that would bar voters who register using a standard federal form from voting for president or by mail unless they provide proof of citizenship.
The vote was 5-4. In a brief unsigned order, three of the court’s conservative justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch – indicated that they would have granted the RNC’s application to fully reinstate the law.
Four other justices – Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson – indicated that they would have denied the RNC’s request in its entirety, keeping in place a ruling by a federal district court in Arizona blocking the state from enforcing the law.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not publicly signal how they voted, but they must have provided the two remaining votes necessary to revive the portion of the law dealing with the state form."
Barrett seems to be continuing to distinguish herself somewhat from the rest of the radical right justices, and might end up disappointing the Christian extremists whom she sprang from, but boy oh boy is this a scary court, and there's no question that an additional seat controlled by right-wing extremists - or reasonable people - would make a difference!
I have experience in the law but this case confuses me. Bottom line, it looks like it will have no effect on the November election for president and congress.
"We find that the Secretary correctly refused to count the signatures collected by paid canvassers because the sponsor failed to file the paid canvasser training certification," the court said in a 4-3 ruling.
My guess is that since this is a technicality that affected only a few hundred signatures and only a 4-3 decision, they'll redo this in a year or two and dot all their I's, and then the ballot measure will probably be run, but this gives me pause:
"Supporters of the measure said they followed the law with their documentation, including affidavits identifying each paid gatherer. They have also argued the abortion petitions are being handled differently than other initiative campaigns this year, pointing to similar filings by two other groups.
State records show that the abortion campaign did submit, on June 27, a signed affidavit including a list of paid canvassers and a statement saying the petition rules had been explained to them. Moreover, the July 5 submission included affidavits from each paid worker acknowledging that the group provided them with all the rules and regulations required by law."
Furthermore, they argued that they "should have been given more time to provide any additional documents needed."
So maybe this is bad faith, like the Scotus decisions that deny standing when they want to deny a right and recognize totally fictitious standing when they want to overturn a right. Maybe next time, they'll find that someone messed everything up because they jaywalked...
The speakers list for the 4th and final night of the DNC is here. The main speaker is Vice President and Democratic Presidential nominee Kamala Harris.
There could be a surprise guest or two.
Other notable speakers: Elizabeth Warren, Gretchen Whitmer, Ted Lieu, Tammy Baldwin, Al Sharpton, Roy Cooper, Gabby Giffords, Mark Kelly, and Maxwell Alejandro Frost
Performers: The Chicks, P!nk.
Illinois: Lisa Madigan, Raja Krishnamoorthi, Adam Kinzinger
And if anyone doesn't know who he is, you should. Convicted as a minor for a notorious crime he didn't commit, convicted in the media and imprisoned for years, Trump took out a full-page ad in the Times calling for him and his fellow framed arrestees to be executed, and now he's a City Council member representing Harlem.
I've missed the entire convention until now. I just listened to Kamala's speech. I'm so impressed! She's progressed so much since 2020! Excellent speech!
General response seems to be she delivered it perfectly, not that it really moves a lot of votes, but it continues to drive a narrative of her as a precise, well-firing candidate, and also won a lot of praise for its thorough presentation of a foreign policy vision in easy to grasp ways. Harris is continuing to be a huge and pleasant surprise in this campaign. Even Fox News generally covered the speech in extremely positive terms. If Harris continues to flip the Trump narrative on its head, that should really hamper Trump; for him to be the babbling, incomprehensible old man presenting a political program most Americans are exhausted about. I maintain that Americans don’t really like identity politics much…they just dislike leftist identity politics more than right wing identity politics, but if you have a Democratic ticket that has, from the lessons of 2016 and 2020, almost completely dropped identity politics for economic populism and a vision of joyful normality, my gut feeling is that is very effective for Democrats.
A long stretch, but Trump is not responding well and not pivoting well and Harris is executing the strategy that Biden *wanted* to execute with added flair and the whole normalcy angle which was never really part of the Biden strategy (the weird label has been so effective because it so accurately captures what a hermetic vacuum the right has been the past decade, to the point where they have all their own internal references and very insular culture, full of ideas, thinkers, and cultural norms that are aggressively separate from “debased” popular culture and strike even a lot of normal conservatives who aren’t part of that very online movement, as weird).
"Happy Days Are Here Again" was actually written for a movie in 1929. Three versions of it were #1 hits in 1930, before it was identified with FDR.
And Prohibition didn't actually end until December 1933, though a step was made in that direction when beer and wine not exceeding 3.2% ABV were legalized starting that April 7, which is now considered "National Beer Day". (Though it should be noted that in some parts of the country, including your and my home bases, Prohibition enforcement was lax to the point of near nonexistence.)
Yes indeed. I read a period New Yorker Magazine article that stated that there wasn't really any Prohibition in New York City. There were hundreds of speakeasies here, and all they had to do was bribe the police to look the other way.
Meanwhile, in Maryland Albert Ritchie was governor for 15 years, from January 1920 to January 1935, and thus the entirety of national Prohibition. As a wet and a states' rights advocate, he basically told the feds to piss off and vetoed state Prohibition enforcement legislation (Al Smith was a similar opponent of such enforcement in NY), thus making the state one of the wettest in the country.
Ironically, Ritchie was defeated in his bid for a fifth (!) term in 1934, in part because Prohibition was no longer an issue and his state's rights stances instead became identified negatively with opposition to New Deal programs; even more ironically he lost to a Republican (Harry Nice) who pledged to be at least somewhat friendlier to the New Deal. (In that same MD election New Deal Democrat George Radcliffe was elected to the US Senate, replacing a Republican.)
Texas:
A University of Houston Hobby School and Texas Southern University Jordan-Leland School poll released Thursday found that 46.6% of likely Texas voters plan to vote for Cruz, while 44.5% said they’d vote for Allred — putting Cruz 2.1 points ahead. Of those polled, 2.5% said they were voting for Libertarian Ted Brown and 6.4% said they’re undecided.
https://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article291256785.html#storylink=cpy
Trump up 50-45
https://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article291256820.html
It should be noted that there was a pretty big polling miss in the 2018 TX-SEN race, the polling average was I think somewhere in the neighborhood of 5-6 and Cruz wound up winning by 2.6. The polling miss in 2018 in TX and FL was very similar but the latter got much more attention, and justifiably so because it was big enough that it got the winner wrong, but in terms of just the numbers the miss was very similar.
Yeah, Quinnipiac was cranking out polls showing Cruz up 9 points at the same time they were finding Gillum and Nelson up the same amount in Florida.
Yeah and right after Quinnipiac had been one of the few to get the VA-GOV margins right. They really haven't been a top firm since.
The poll also found Trump leading harris 50%-45%. https://uh.edu/hobby/txtrends/election2.pdf
YouGov also finds the Texas Senate race as Cruz +2 as well
https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1826663045843878243
That IS the poll from UH, conducted by YouGov.
Seems like saturation digital ads of showing Ted Cruz out of the state vacationing while everyone suffers from power outage should be able to topple this guy.
Should be, but this is Texas, so he's still more likely than not to win.
It's a turnout situation.. Hispanic turnouts in Texas are always disappointing
Yeah, but if this poll’s numbers are right, and they are splitting their votes, it’s a wash.
If we could get that libertarian number to actually turn out true..then it's a margin of error race
In Massachusetts, "ballot candy" is prohibited in the State Constitution and the Supreme Judicial Court regularly tosses measures that run afoul of this prohibition. A recent example was they threw out Uber/Lyft's question that would make keep their employees as contractors but give them limited benefits (like the one they successfully passed in California). This was actually because the ballot question also limited the liability of the ride share companies, and not because of the tying of benefits to contactor status, which the court found to be sufficiently related.
The exception is a constitutional amendment, which is allowed to address multiple issues. The "millionaire's tax" is an example of this. They originally tried to go the regular ballot question route to get an extra tax on incomes over $1,000,000 with the revenue being earmarked for education and transportation, but were told that spending and revenue were two distinct questions, so they went back and did the much more cumbersome path of getting an amendment on the ballot. Personally I think this is unfortunate, since we now have spending written into the State Constitution, but Education especially is a large portion of the annual budget and the revenue raised by new tax is fairly small.
As a Massachusetts voter, extra-love that detail!
Tremendous information here. This is why we have a comment board in the first place!
It sounds like Wyoming Republicans really fucked the state. Do you suppose they'll like the "rugged individualism" of lacking any support from the state government or that there will be a bit of a backlash in 2 years, when the results of their votes are evident? My feeling is that they'll continue to be extremists, poor people who are suffering will make do with whatever work, aid and charity they can scrape together or in some cases move to other states, and the state's politics won't improve unless enough less extreme people move in from Colorado. It never pays to bet on Republican voters to be sensible or prioritize government programs over performative posturing.
Wyoming is in DEEP doo-doo fiscally since they've been so reliant on coal mining and coal production in that part of the country has just absolutely fallen off a cliff.
Hickenlooper announces he will run for a second term in 2026, and that it would be his last: https://politicalwire.com/2024/08/22/hickenlooper-will-run-again/
He's still committing to being a senator until he's 80, but it's nice to see someone willing to put a cap on their time in office rather than planning to live out the rest of their life in the senate.
Though of course this is 8 years away and non-binding.
Joe Neguse for Senate 2032!! 💙🇺🇲🌊🙏
I don't know if I can quote tweets in full, so I'll paraphrase that idiot Trump already thinks he has all the votes he needs before anyone has voted, and says that his primary focus is not to get out the vote but to prevent "cheating." He really seems to think he will lose the vote, doesn't really have to try to win it, and will then steal the election. https://politicalwire.com/2024/08/22/extra-bonus-quote-of-the-day-876/
I wonder if he thinks he will be able to steal the election when his losing margin is somewhere in the neighborhood of 12-15 million votes?
He's so far gotten away with trying to steal elections, including through a violent coup attempt, so he'll do whatever he can.
NJ09: Assemblywoman Sumter is the first person in. https://newjerseyglobe.com/congress/shavonda-sumter-will-run-for-pascrells-house-seat/
As is her seatmate, Assemblyman Wimberly. https://newjerseyglobe.com/congress/benjie-wimberly-joins-race-to-succeed-pascrell/
No one mentioned this gem yet? SurveyUSA got Harris+1 and Stein+14! Lol.
https://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=6368b805-bffe-45d6-bfff-c3e2cbd2d222
Very screwy crosstabs…
But actually believable.. To a degree.. Terrible Republican and popular Democrat in a state that the Democratic party is building from the grass roots.. Anderson Clayton is bringing the fire with Governor Cooper being the most popular politician in the state
Ah, you beat me, but I did post more detail.
"SurveyUSA's latest polling, conducted exclusively for Hight Point University, shows Harris taking 46% of the vote among all registered voters, Donald Trump taking 45%. 1% say they will vote for another candidate; 8% say they are undecided. Among those voters who say they are certain they will vote in November, Harris leads by 2 points, 48% to 46%; among those who say they will probably vote, Trump leads by 10, 50% to 40%. Combining certain and probable voters – how SurveyUSA traditionally defines "likely voters" – the race is tied: 47% Harris, 47% Trump. Whether the GOP convinces those less-than-certain "probable" voters – 12% of all registered voters &ndash to show up for the Trump-Vance ticket or whether the Democratic Party convinces them to stay home, vote third-party, or even switch to Harris-Walz may determine the outcome of the national contest."
I think that's High Point University. Moving on:
"Briefly turning to the race for Governor, incumbent Democratic Attorney General Josh Stein defeats incumbent Republican Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson by 14 points among all registered voters, 48% to 34%, with 18% undecided. Among certain voters, Stein leads by 16 points; among probable voters, by 6. Combined, the Democrat holds a 14-point lead among all likely voters. 88% of those voting for Harris for President say they will vote for Stein for Governor; 68% of those voting for Trump for President say they will vote for Robinson for Governor. 5% of Harris voters go with Robinson; 13% of Trump voters go with Stein."
What do you think makes someone say "I support Trump, but Robinson is a bridge too far!" And how much of that is due to racism?
Also, what do you think of Survey USA's "secret sauce" on "certain" and "probable" voters? My feeling is, regardless of anything else, I salute them for being open about it.
https://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=6368b805-bffe-45d6-bfff-c3e2cbd2d222 (hat tip to PoliticalWire, as usual)
Still getting used to coming here to post stuff. Not sure if this was touched upon yesterday. While it's Rasmussen and they are going to have rosy numbers for the GOP, I will woof for this one: Sheehy up 7 on Tester in their poll of LVs: https://x.com/Politics_Polls/status/1826464374724165877
That's the Rasmussen that actually has nothing to do with the real Scott Rasmussen.. pretty sure it's just meaningless
Well, they have Trump winning the state by 23 when he won it last time by 16. So math says Tester is tied.
No it doesn't. Trump could win by 7 more points this time.
He may. Or he may not.
Agreed.. Meaningless poll from clown pollster
Correct. But there's no reason to assume the margin will be exactly the same as last time.
More mischief from the Supreme Court, and if one justice had voted differently, it would have been much worse:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/08/justices-allow-arizona-to-enforce-proof-of-citizenship-law-for-2024-voter-registration/
"A divided Supreme Court on Thursday afternoon granted a request from the Republican National Committee and the Republican leaders of Arizona’s legislature to reinstate a state law that requires residents to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote using a form provided by the state. The court turned down a request, however, to reinstate the portion of the same law that would bar voters who register using a standard federal form from voting for president or by mail unless they provide proof of citizenship.
The vote was 5-4. In a brief unsigned order, three of the court’s conservative justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch – indicated that they would have granted the RNC’s application to fully reinstate the law.
Four other justices – Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson – indicated that they would have denied the RNC’s request in its entirety, keeping in place a ruling by a federal district court in Arizona blocking the state from enforcing the law.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not publicly signal how they voted, but they must have provided the two remaining votes necessary to revive the portion of the law dealing with the state form."
Barrett seems to be continuing to distinguish herself somewhat from the rest of the radical right justices, and might end up disappointing the Christian extremists whom she sprang from, but boy oh boy is this a scary court, and there's no question that an additional seat controlled by right-wing extremists - or reasonable people - would make a difference!
I have experience in the law but this case confuses me. Bottom line, it looks like it will have no effect on the November election for president and congress.
It will deny votes to people who don't have a passport and lost their birth certificates. That's a lot of people.
Only in state elections. From my reading.
We can't blame Ginsburg for that one.
True.
Mary Pergola is a future Senator.. She's a force of nature
Pertola..
Oops.Peltola..lol
Fat fingers
One nice change for TDB from DKE is that we have an edit button now! We just need to get over ingrained assumptions that it isn't available.
I wasn't even aware.. Old habits.. Thanks
LOL even I didn't know that! Good to know!
I'm not seeing how to edit. Is that only on a computer?
I see "Share link to comment," "Delete comment" and "Hide comment."
The ... To the right 👉👉👉of your comment with both edit and delete tabs
Yes, it seems to be only on the computer, or at least on the web, rather than the app. My choices on my computer are "Edit" or "Delete." Very odd!
https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2024/aug/22/arkansas-supreme-court-upholds-rejection-of-abortion-rights-petitions/ (hat tip to a Daily Kos diary)
"We find that the Secretary correctly refused to count the signatures collected by paid canvassers because the sponsor failed to file the paid canvasser training certification," the court said in a 4-3 ruling.
My guess is that since this is a technicality that affected only a few hundred signatures and only a 4-3 decision, they'll redo this in a year or two and dot all their I's, and then the ballot measure will probably be run, but this gives me pause:
"Supporters of the measure said they followed the law with their documentation, including affidavits identifying each paid gatherer. They have also argued the abortion petitions are being handled differently than other initiative campaigns this year, pointing to similar filings by two other groups.
State records show that the abortion campaign did submit, on June 27, a signed affidavit including a list of paid canvassers and a statement saying the petition rules had been explained to them. Moreover, the July 5 submission included affidavits from each paid worker acknowledging that the group provided them with all the rules and regulations required by law."
Furthermore, they argued that they "should have been given more time to provide any additional documents needed."
So maybe this is bad faith, like the Scotus decisions that deny standing when they want to deny a right and recognize totally fictitious standing when they want to overturn a right. Maybe next time, they'll find that someone messed everything up because they jaywalked...
Considering the state imo it's another politicized court where the rule of law is in the back seat
The speakers list for the 4th and final night of the DNC is here. The main speaker is Vice President and Democratic Presidential nominee Kamala Harris.
There could be a surprise guest or two.
Other notable speakers: Elizabeth Warren, Gretchen Whitmer, Ted Lieu, Tammy Baldwin, Al Sharpton, Roy Cooper, Gabby Giffords, Mark Kelly, and Maxwell Alejandro Frost
Performers: The Chicks, P!nk.
Illinois: Lisa Madigan, Raja Krishnamoorthi, Adam Kinzinger
https://demconvention.com/news/news/program-schedule-democratic-national-convention-night-4/
Also Yusef Salaam: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/8/22/2264888/-NYC-Councilman-Yusef-Salaam-one-of-the-exonerated-Central-Park-Five-to-speak-on-final-night-of-DNC?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=trending&pm_medium=web
And if anyone doesn't know who he is, you should. Convicted as a minor for a notorious crime he didn't commit, convicted in the media and imprisoned for years, Trump took out a full-page ad in the Times calling for him and his fellow framed arrestees to be executed, and now he's a City Council member representing Harlem.
Performers? Old time pols are rolling over in their graves.
You mean because there's no big band on that list to play "Happy Days Are Here Again"?
No, because there was no version of the Super Bowl halftime show.
That roll call might have been the greatest innovation in my lifetime.. A genius move imo
That was definitely the biggest play we've seen in a convention we've seen in quite a while. It seems to have landed well.
I'm 59 and yet still love that balloon drop..
I've missed the entire convention until now. I just listened to Kamala's speech. I'm so impressed! She's progressed so much since 2020! Excellent speech!
General response seems to be she delivered it perfectly, not that it really moves a lot of votes, but it continues to drive a narrative of her as a precise, well-firing candidate, and also won a lot of praise for its thorough presentation of a foreign policy vision in easy to grasp ways. Harris is continuing to be a huge and pleasant surprise in this campaign. Even Fox News generally covered the speech in extremely positive terms. If Harris continues to flip the Trump narrative on its head, that should really hamper Trump; for him to be the babbling, incomprehensible old man presenting a political program most Americans are exhausted about. I maintain that Americans don’t really like identity politics much…they just dislike leftist identity politics more than right wing identity politics, but if you have a Democratic ticket that has, from the lessons of 2016 and 2020, almost completely dropped identity politics for economic populism and a vision of joyful normality, my gut feeling is that is very effective for Democrats.
A long stretch, but Trump is not responding well and not pivoting well and Harris is executing the strategy that Biden *wanted* to execute with added flair and the whole normalcy angle which was never really part of the Biden strategy (the weird label has been so effective because it so accurately captures what a hermetic vacuum the right has been the past decade, to the point where they have all their own internal references and very insular culture, full of ideas, thinkers, and cultural norms that are aggressively separate from “debased” popular culture and strike even a lot of normal conservatives who aren’t part of that very online movement, as weird).
I can’t get over Lil Jon coming out with the Atlanta delegation and playing Turn Down for What. At a national convention.
I'm glad I tuned in right as it was Georgia's turn.
"Happy Days Are Here Again" was performed at the 1932 DNC.
As I recall reading, it was written for that convention and partly because Inauguration Day of 1933 marked the end of Prohibition.
"Happy Days Are Here Again" was actually written for a movie in 1929. Three versions of it were #1 hits in 1930, before it was identified with FDR.
And Prohibition didn't actually end until December 1933, though a step was made in that direction when beer and wine not exceeding 3.2% ABV were legalized starting that April 7, which is now considered "National Beer Day". (Though it should be noted that in some parts of the country, including your and my home bases, Prohibition enforcement was lax to the point of near nonexistence.)
Yes indeed. I read a period New Yorker Magazine article that stated that there wasn't really any Prohibition in New York City. There were hundreds of speakeasies here, and all they had to do was bribe the police to look the other way.
Meanwhile, in Maryland Albert Ritchie was governor for 15 years, from January 1920 to January 1935, and thus the entirety of national Prohibition. As a wet and a states' rights advocate, he basically told the feds to piss off and vetoed state Prohibition enforcement legislation (Al Smith was a similar opponent of such enforcement in NY), thus making the state one of the wettest in the country.
Ironically, Ritchie was defeated in his bid for a fifth (!) term in 1934, in part because Prohibition was no longer an issue and his state's rights stances instead became identified negatively with opposition to New Deal programs; even more ironically he lost to a Republican (Harry Nice) who pledged to be at least somewhat friendlier to the New Deal. (In that same MD election New Deal Democrat George Radcliffe was elected to the US Senate, replacing a Republican.)