Tens of thousands of Michiganders on Tuesday cast their ballots for “uncommitted,” putting them on track to garner more than 10 percent of the vote statewide. That figure seemed likely to exceed past levels of “uncommitted” votes in Michigan Democratic primaries, though fall short of sparking a political earthquake.
Democrats were divided over how to treat the outcome, noting that Biden continued to dominate the primary in ways similar to, or even exceeding, past incumbents but also wary that significant pockets of discontent in the party could prove fatal in the general election....
Uncommitted didn't just get 10% of the vote. It garnered it. Take that, Joe Biden. The garnerers are hot on your trail. And they are significant. You've got to be wary. Those significant pockets of discontent could prove fatal! You've always got to be on the lookout for fatal pockets.
पोस्ट्स
५१ टिप्पण्या:
Also, how do you "spark" an earthquake?
Uncommitted did not garner 10% of the vote. It was tens of thousands of Michiganders who somehow did the garnering.
Unless Uncommitted uses they/them pronouns.
Matters, not. If the CIA want Crook Husk-Puppet Joe to win - that's the outcome we will be stuck with.
Repeating my comment from the other Althouse post on the Michigan results. This is how a campaign strategist would almost certainly look at last night’s results:
Ignore the spin. All we know about the Democrats who voted for “uncommitted” is that they are unhappy with Joe Biden. Some may be, as advertised, unhappy with his verbal support for Israel, but some number may be just as unhappy with his feeble, foolish efforts to micromanage the way Netanyahu and the IDF are operating in Gaza. And included in the “uncommitted” vote will be people who don’t give a rat’s patootie about Israel or Gaza, however some mixture of Biden’s policies have hurt them or members of their family — they may be Democrats unhappy with Biden’s border policies, for instance. But at this point they are not unhappy enough — yet! — to cross over to vote for Trump. Yet.
By contrast, while we know that some number of the Haley voters are NeverTrumpers who will choose not to vote at all in a rematch between Trump and Biden, the only safe thing for Trump’s campaign is to assume that they are nearly all crossover Democrats who plan to vote for Biden in November.
Are female Michiganders known as Michigeese?
This is such an empty threat. When it comes to Biden vs Trump in December, we all know those “uncommitted” folks aren’t going to suddenly vote for Bad Orange Man.
Ann Althouse said:
I was going to tag this onto the first post of the day — it's the same topic — but I'm savoring the presentation, replete with "garner":
"Tens of thousands of Michiganders on Tuesday cast their ballots for “uncommitted,” putting them on track to garner more than 10 percent of the vote statewide"<
This article that is, according to you, "replete with 'garner'," uses "garner" exactly one time. But, let's work on the meaning of "replete" another time. For now it is, once again, "garner". And here, that's always fun.
This report was done with 98.6% of the vote in. IOW, the votes were still in the process of being gathered and counted. "Them" refers to the uncommitted voters as a group and that group was still garnering votes - that is, at different places and different times throughout the state - at the time of the article. This of course will not permeate the stubborn barrier to grasping the difference between "garner" and "get" that you have erroneously yet solidly constructed in your mind, but that sentence reflects precisely the meaning of "garner/garnering" and is a near-perfect use of the word. Again, as almost any dictionary will confirm.
Biden himself "garnered" 150,000 fewer votes than did Trump. "Uncommitted" got 101,000, so not enough to make up the difference. Plus Haley got 295,000 votes - once she is off the ballot, many of those votes would go to Trump (assuming no shenanigans in the primary like having Dems take a Republican ballot, which is permissible in Michigan). These results look good for Trump in Michigan!
Garner is an active verb—only people, or at least living things, can garner. An inanimate object cannot garner.
IMO, the over 13% of Dems who voted uncommitted is a bigger problem than a challenger who gets a larger share of the vote. You can expect that most people who support a losing challenger will come home to the winning candidate on election day; whereas, you can’t be so confident with a “none of the above” voter.
I don’t know if anyone’s done studies on this, but I’d bet those people are far more likely to stay home on Nov. 5.
The only Garner I ever liked was James.
So 30% for his opponent is good for Trump. But 15 % against him is bad for Biden? Nearly 11% uncommitted for Obama when he was the incumbent Democrat in 2012.
If the media covered Biden like they cover Trump, they’d declare a resounding vote of confidence for Biden after getting 80% of the vote in a state where a concerted effort against him drew less than 15% of the vote.
"Fatal Pockets" sounds like a character from Dick Tracy.
It's only 15% of those who bothered to show up for a functionally uncontested primary. You have to assume most Biden supporters didn't bother to show up. Why would they? So that 15% is definitely not 15% of Dems in Michigan, that would be a silly way to read the numbers, so, of course, the Hamas supporters in the press are interpreting them that way.
Uncommitted is a "them"?
Biden wins "decisively" with no one else on the ballot . . .
Bad Orange Man
A Person of Orange (PoO) in the diversity taxonomic catalog.
Biden is running virtually unopposed.
The other people on the D-ticket are non-existant - because of the left's control of the media.
The only Garner I ever liked was James.
Jennifer was pretty good in "Alias."
Did you know that a baby sleeping soundly on its back might be struck by a stray meteorite and killed?
Statements concerning statistics without said statistics are worthless. Over the years the medical community has proposed a number of "causes", none substantiated, all hypothetical.
If the CIA want Crook Husk-Puppet Joe to win
The Democratic Consensus (DC)... select votes matter. It's a super delegate maneuver to secure the democratic/dictatorial governing paradigm.
Michigan primary.
Trump 756,981 68.1% of the votes 95% 0f the precincts
Haley 294,912 26.5%
Biden 618,459 81% 96%
Uncom.101,108
Even if Biden gets all of the uncommited votes he can't beat Trump. If half of the Haley voters jump ship to Trump he wins in a landslide. Democrats are in trouble. They should have floated a candidate in the middle of last year when they could have been grooming Newsome or Sanders. Too late now.
They use "garner" because they want to imply effort against resistance. It's normal writing, as opposed to Dick Jane and Spot.
James Garner (Rockford Files) is on every night on GETTV and does a two week rotation every month or so on something called the Crime Channel, which also gives ya a steady diet of Kojak!
"You've always got to be on the lookout for fatal pockets."
They're in your local grocer's frozen snacks section, right next to the belladonna-flavored Hot Pockets.
Rich invents a new means of self-deception daily.
Democrats were divided over how to treat the outcome
Primaries are tools to garner feedback from the electorate.
When you set up your primaries to prohibit feedback, you're not sure how to interpret the feedback which sneaks in.
Looks like Mitch McConnell has decided to garner some pension.
Oh Noes! There goes my Croatian Holiday Vacation!
If the media covered Biden like they cover Trump[...]
If the media covered Biden like they cover Trump, Biden would be snoring on Rehoboth Beach every day after having been cancelled for exposing himself to Secret Service agents and forcibly fingering Tara Reade.
Further reading …. according to the NYT, though Biden was leading his nearest opponent by 76% in the Michigan primary he “faced opposition.” Meanwhile, Trump is leading by 35% but “easily beat” his opponent.
The NYT bias in covering this election is just impossible to ignore, at this point.
Plus Haley got 295,000 votes - once she is off the ballot, many of those votes would go to Trump (assuming no shenanigans in the primary like having Dems take a Republican ballot, which is permissible in Michigan).
Why on earth would you assume that? There are two obvious moves if you’re a Democrat unhappy with Biden and the direction of the country: a protest vote on the Democrat ballot for “uncommitted,” or a vote for Haley on the Republican ballot (which, as you point out, is allowed). Some of these Democrat Haley voters will vote for Trump in the fall, and some will not vote at all, however the majority will probably vote for their party’s candidate, even if it’s Joe Biden.
These results look good for Trump in Michigan!
I think I’ve made the case that Trump will only win if his campaign organization gets out his voters.
LLR-democratical Rich: "If the media covered Biden like they cover Trump,..."
Oh, you are simply going to have to try much harder than this drivel!
Lets see if you can do it!
My favorite "Garner" is James.
The actual numbers, beyond some minimum necessary to get attention, aren't important.
What's important is that there was a direct and public challenge to the modern Democrat machine at the ballot box by one of its interest groups.
The party's strength comes largely from the near total conformity of its voters to the Party's decisions. This represents a small breakout by a group of reliable Democrat voters.
Hopefully this will offer some encouragement to a much more important group - Black voters.
Just because a Democrat stays home does NOT mean that their vote [for the full Democrat ticket] is not still counted. Same goes for any Republicans that sit this one out, they will likely also vote for the full Democrat ticket. Same with dead people, old people, illegal aliens, dogs, cats, in many cases multiple times. Come November, Biden will beat Trump by 4Xs the actual number of people in the entire country, he is THAT GOOD!
Trump alone got as many votes as all Democrat votes cast.
Rich said...So 30% for his opponent is good for Trump. But 15 % against him is bad for Biden?
Yes, obviously. To be given one option and saying "no thank you" is a much stronger statement of rejection than being given two options and picking the other one.
Garner is an active verb …
@tim maguire, I agree. This is why Althouse’s bete noire is mistaken. One can “get” or “acquire” without effort but “garner” implies effort.
I followed Althouse's link to Cracked.com. Bizarre, that's the only word that applies. I remember Cracked magazine as a quite inferior copycat of the original and legendary MAD magazine published by William M Gaines, proto-hippy extraordinaire. By all indications, the Cracked spinoff website remains inferior and is operated by an alliance of humorless ciphers, milquetoast nobodies, and under-tranquilized psychopaths. The news presented about crib death (ostentatiously known to public health busybodies as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) is not news, nor is it amusing, nor satirical. It's just content of the most generic sort. Asphyxiation by CO2 has been known as the culprit for a century at least. What isn't known is why the Cracked editor capitalizes carbon dioxide. Maybe he/she/it thinks it's a registered tradename.
I think Althouse included that non sequitur link at the tail-end of her Garner of the Day just to catch my gimlet eye and observe my completely predictable scorn and pomposity with a satisfied smirk. (Where the hell are my fatal pockets, I'm feeling a bit liverish...)
in seeking ceasefire with Hamas has anyone asked?
does FJB want Netanyahu to do Afghanistan in Gaza and leave men and arms behind?
James Garner (Rockford Files) is on every night on GETTV...
Also on MeTV. But you know, those episodes aren't as riveting to me as they were when I was a wee lad. Beth is still just as hot of course, as lawyers go. And the parade of TV "stars" that would later appear elsewhere was interesting, but I guess I've become acclimated to modern fast-moving programming like Burn Notice and Person of Interest. But I'll always like old Jim Garner. He was cool.
I was among the Michigan garnerers. I garnered because Biden is too old. I spoke to another garnerer who garnered because of Biden's support for Israel. There were a lot of garnerers in greater Detroit with its large Arab American community.
It's funny to read these news stories that breathlessly report another 'major win' for Biden when he is only running against token opposition in his party.
>Big Mike said...
This is why Althouse’s bete noire is mistaken. One can “get” or “acquire” without effort but “garner” implies effort.<
Yes, that too. But it also implies collecting, generally over a period of time. None of which are part of "get."
I just looked up karst about an hour ago without seeing your post. It was in a book I'm reading. What a coincidence. I don't remember ever seeing it before.
It isn't just the garnerers you must look out for, but the gleaners too.
If the media covered Biden like they cover Trump... he wouldn't never been nominated, let alone elected.
“@tim maguire, I agree. This is why Althouse’s bete noire is mistaken. One can “get” or “acquire” without effort but “garner” implies effort.”
Althouse is not that dumb. She’s just baiting us at this point. I used to have a standing “joke” with my friends about how much I hated Pachelbel’s Canon in D. It’s really not a bad piece of music, but there was a period where it was terribly overused commercially and overplayed at public functions. Her treatment of the word “garner” has to be in the same vein. Right?
Right???
- Rafe
"This is why Althouse’s bete noire is mistaken."
You have to misunderstand my point to characterize it as a mistake. But I'm tired of correcting the misguided correctors every time I do a garner post. If you don't remember the stuff about Jeb Bush, you don't remember my point. But I'll say no more.
New! On Netflix! "The Garnering"!
Birches. You made me look it up.
>Ann Althouse said...
"This is why Althouse’s bete noire is mistaken."
You have to misunderstand my point to characterize it as a mistake. But I'm tired of correcting the misguided correctors every time I do a garner post. If you don't remember the stuff about Jeb Bush, you don't remember my point. But I'll say no more.<
Althouse: I am correct by decree - my decree.
Your post there about your "point" ignores the fact that you have regularly made this point unequivocally: "Garner" and "get" are synonymous (and anyone who, though guided by dictionaries, uses them for their true distinctive definitions is "misguided"). This has always been fascinating, given that it comes from a putative lexicology maven. That's why it always draws the attention and enjoyable commenting of other such.
The Jeb Bush business is a hedge that you have resorted to after repeatedly being corrected by those who know the difference between the two words (and, your being of fine mind, surely realizing that they are correct). This is known as stubbornness, which is admirable to a limited extent and foolish when practiced to the extreme.
I understand that the last incumbent Democrat also had 10% of votes go to uncommitted." That was Obama. The media fuss is pure psyop against Israel.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा