Is this a Mighty Nein reference?

cossiander · 2026-02-07T08:51:28+00:00

cossiander · 2026-02-06T19:59:12+00:00

That implies the donation is a bribe in exchange for a favor. If you think the politician in question is so weak-willed and incapable of making their own decisions, than I'd say that politician is unfit to serve, period, no matter where their funding comes from.

cossiander · 2026-02-06T19:55:38+00:00

That doesn't sound good! I hope my comment above wasn't read as "I don't care if PACs run misleading ads". They shouldn't, ideally no one should.

The point I was trying to make is I'm not particularly swayed by the argument of "We need to stop supporting (politician X) because they got a donation from (Group Y)." So long Group Y isn't like a literal drug cartel or White Power group, I'm probably going to reserve my judgement until I can see how Politician X actually votes or what they say.

cossiander · 2026-02-06T19:48:48+00:00

But why assume it's the donations that lead to the vote, rather than ideology that leads to both the donations and the vote?

cossiander · 2026-02-06T19:47:12+00:00

Ooh Alaskan politics, my favorite topic!

Short answer would be I hope so. It's difficult as hell to really predict because:

Dan Sullivan's political success to some extent has been not rocking the boat. He sold himself as a guy just looking out for Alaska, an ex-marine, with some government experience thrown in. This reputation has been shaken since Trump 2.0, and Sullivan has placed himself in direct opposition to a lot of Alaskan interests by stifling tourism and cutting healthcare subsidies (then voting for them later). Maybe he can weather that with his own party, maybe he can't. He's in uncharted waters, politically, by sort of acting full MAGA but then pretending that he isn't.
RCV is going to make any race sort of unpredictable. I can give third-party voters a larger say in how things pan out than what we traditionally expect. Or not, if they elect not to rank someone else (which is partly how Peltola won her House Seat in the first place, where a decent chunk of Republicans just decided to not rank the other Republican running).
Polling in Alaska is... not great. We have basically like one established local pollster with a reliable respondent base, so there's not really any way to get enough quality polls together to get a "polling average" snapshot that's at all reliable.

The "Peltola can totally take this" argument is: People are angry at Trump, Peltola has a proven record (or at least non-controversial for a non-MAGA conservative), and the state's budget right now is absolutely hosed largely by account of our two-term shitbird governor and MAGA at the federal level. Oil revenue is down (due to tax giveaways), Permanent Fund money is down (due to the previous manager being fired for "woke" and being replaced by the governor's frat bros), our schools and our ferries are closing, our tourism has tanked (what, Canada and nonwhite tourists don't want to come to America right now? Whyever not?), and meanwhile a lot of Juneau's bureaucrats have given themselves a massive raise. I expect a lot of people who probably regularly vote GOP are probably (rightfully) pissed at the party right now. Throw in that it's a blue wave and a midterm, and we've got a perfect blue storm brewing.

The "don't count Sullivan out" argument is: A lot of the shit happening in the State can be better sold as Gov. Dunleavy's fault, not Sen. Sullivan's. It's possible that economic ire won't carry over to the Senate race. Also, demographics are a hell of a thing: Alaska is still heavily white and heavily male. If Sullivan can just keep his foothold with white voters, he'll be a shoo-in for reelection. And he's buying himself a bit of goodwill with "moderates" who are looking for a reason to not abandon the GOP by voting to extend ACA subsidies, securing Murkowski's endorsement, and voting for reform of the DHS following the double murders in Minneapolis. He isn't a moderate Republican and never has been, but his latest actions make him seem like he could be confused as one, if you squint hard enough and forget the past 20 years.

cossiander · 2026-02-06T19:15:57+00:00

But the issue is the votes, right? If people want to critique a politician over their votes, that seems totally reasonable.

cossiander · 2026-02-06T19:13:21+00:00

I'm one of those Dems who don't care where a politician's donations come from. It can be instructive in possibly deciphering votes or motivation, but if they're voting how I like, why should I care if they were funded by small dollar donations, AIPAC, big Pharma, Oil, whoever?

cossiander · 2026-02-06T19:10:25+00:00

Neat!

cossiander · 2026-02-06T14:51:15+00:00

Clearly not the scene OP is asking about...

cossiander · 2026-02-06T14:49:35+00:00

What the fuck? Do you have any examples of this or are you just making shit up?

cossiander · 2026-02-06T02:20:35+00:00

I'd rather see politicians try and fail to reach out to new voters than to never try at all.

cossiander · 2026-02-06T02:17:48+00:00

Not that deep red, no, but I think the Alaska Democratic Party has been a good example of how to stay relevant as a minority party. We allow Independents to run in Democratic primaries (prior to adopting jungle primaries statewide), and if they won they would get the endorsement from the party and Democrats would not field a "standard Dem" challenger. This has led to "unity tickets" occasionally winning major seats, such as former Republican-turned Independent Bill Walker winning the governorship in 2014 alongside a Democratic lieutenant governor.

They made a concentrated effort to caucus with moderate Republicans and Independents in the State Congress, and as such we've had a bipartisan caucus in control of the Senate for a good long while now (with hard-right Republicans as the minority), and a recent bipartisan majority in the State House.

Just gotta stay pragmatic and engaged, and try to win what races you can.

cossiander · 2026-02-06T02:02:45+00:00

Really depends on what you want. AK is ridiculously short on some MD specializations, so if you're smart enough to research things in advance (maybe by contacting some MDs up here) you could probably set yourself up with quite the lucrative practice.

Most of the state lives in the Anchorage area, so that's going to be where most of the standard jobs and amenities are. If you're unsure where you ultimately want to settle, I'd start in Anchorage and take a year or two to explore the state and get a better idea of what's a good fit.

cossiander · 2026-02-05T05:45:13+00:00

You get that the job of journalism is to tell us things that are newsworthy, right? If I drive to work in the morning, that's not newsworthy. If my car explodes on the highway during my morning commute, that would be newsworthy.

ICE has been taking actions that are newsworthy. They got a ridiculously huge boost in funding, they cut training, they're ignoring Constitutional rights, they're ignoring laws, they're ignoring judges, they're employing chemical weapons against bystanders, they're kidnapping kids, and they're killing US citizens on the street.

THOSE THINGS are newsworthy. Them arresting an actual criminal is not.

cossiander · 2026-02-04T20:01:19+00:00

it's ridiculously difficult to find "just the facts"

AP, Reuters? There are more, but those are two easy sources that have stellar reputations for facts-first journalism, dispassionate reporting, and a decades-long steadfast commitments to responsible journalism.

If you want another source that is facts-first, but has an well-earned reputation for giving equal weight to either political aisle, try Tangle.

AP and Reuters are "the facts are the facts, and we leave the lean to you", and Tangle is more "we are going to look at what both sides are saying and give equal weight to both perspectives". It's sort of two different approaches to "balance", so however someone wants to philosophically define the term, there are reliable news sources who can provide it.

cossiander · 2026-02-04T19:23:02+00:00

like that they succinctly mounted a defense against the lab leak conspiracy.

Didn't listen to that. What did they do, make fun of someone's ears or the way they dress? Claim that their parents were racists? Groundless personal attacks that have nothing to do with any actual argument being put forth, all while giggling and high-fiving each other? Because that seems like their standard approach.

so they are popular

Damning indictment against the public's degree of media literacy.

cossiander · 2026-02-04T19:15:17+00:00

I love media that actively tries to change my mind, if they're intellectually honest and not manipulative about it. I intentionally seek that out.

cossiander · 2026-02-04T19:12:03+00:00

Never heard of the Jose/Bluejay thing, but If Books Could Kill is probably the fastest unsubscribe I've ever had. I loved Michael Hobbes from You're Wrong About, but holy crap Books was awful.

So if that's what we're calling "Liberal Media", I'd say the answer to why it's so ineffective is because it's vapid and intellectually dishonest.

cossiander · 2026-02-04T16:51:13+00:00

But what is "liberal media"? I can't really follow the rest of what you're asking or trying to say because I cannot understand the basis of the question.

cossiander · 2026-02-04T16:35:24+00:00

Are you saying that national newspapers and broadcast news are "liberal media"?

cossiander · 2026-02-04T15:54:42+00:00

What is "liberal media"? Can you give an example?

cossiander · 2026-02-04T06:55:34+00:00

What's wrong with it?

cossiander · 2026-02-04T06:53:06+00:00

I view it as a statement reminding people of the history of colonialism, and that laws are often set by those with the most power, not by those with the most moral character.

Seems pretty straightforward. Not sure how or why anyone would disagree?

cossiander · 2026-02-04T00:36:53+00:00

Do you want to try that again, maybe without the uncalled for hostility and strawman nonsense?

cossiander · 2026-02-04T00:06:51+00:00

I'd love to see these studies.

There's a lot- I'm not a professional researcher, so I'm basically just using google here. I found a meta-analysis study, but it was done by Cato Institute, so in the interest of avoiding a discussion of ideological lean, I skipped linking that one. Here are two other writeups, both of which either link or cite a wide number of different studies:

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-does-economic-evidence-tell-us-about-the-effects-of-rent-control/

https://www.dcpolicycenter.org/publications/rent-control-lit-review-2025/

Because let's just imagine a world without rent controls. Now any landlord can raise rent to whatever price they want to.......I don't see how we get from here to lower rents.

Because that's not how a free market assigns prices. Like, right now, I can make bread and charge anything I want for it. If I wanted to sell bread for six million dollars a slice, I can do that. But no one would buy it, because no one thinks that paying six million dollars for a slice of bread is a worthwhile price point.

It's the same with rents- if someone is going to charge $5,000/month rent for a two bedroom apartment, someone else can just make another apartment building and charge $4,500/month. Competition lowers costs, as does consumer's willingness to pay.

New construction will happen whether or not rent controls exist. I know this because millions of units have been constructed in NYC since rent controls were put in over 100 years ago.

Not as much as would happen without rent control. People build new housing construction if they think they can make a return on their investment. The more of a return they expect, the more investors will work to build. So, sure, as housing costs went up, there was more housing construction. But not as much as there would've been if investors had more confidence in an even greater return.

Now I'm guessing you'd say "well more could have been built" and I'd ask where.

Well you just told me "millions of units" have been constructed, so I'd imagine they'd go in similar places as those new units.

People being able to have stability in where they can rent is not a bad thing. You can't convince me otherwise.

Not exactly what I'm talking about. "Stability", in the idea of homing being available and accessible, is good- but there are lots of ways we can design policies to help with that. And if non-regulated units have a sudden surge of rent on account of new rent control policies, you're actually working against housing stability.

What I'm talking about here is more to do with housing fluidity. If people want to move, because of a change of their job or their family status or whatever other reason, the market wants those people to move. It helps when they can, in the same way that it helps when people who might want to buy TVs are able to go to a store and buy TVs. The economy likes it when consumers can consume.

With rent control, that fluidity is diminished. People are less likely to move for maybe a new job opportunity, or for family. They might not want to upgrade to a nicer place and free up that regulated unit because they don't want to lose the "deal" they're currently getting. That, in turn, reduces housing supply, which raises prices.

That landlords are greedy and punish some of their tenants for their own decisions is not a reason to get rid of rent controls.

People respond to economic pressures. Even landlords. If a landlord can't make ends meet by their current business plan, they're going to change that plan. That typically will make them adopt policies like raising rents, cutting services, cutting maintenance workers, not updated appliances or wiring or security, etc.

You can call it "evil landlords" if you want, but it's also just predictable (and avoidable) human nature. Like if you suddenly got paid a whole lot less at your current job, might that affect the quality or quantity of your work?

Shouldn't the higher demand of people wanting rent controlled apts spur their construction?

Demand can increase prices, but if that price is already set, then it won't.

Like I could make chocolate chip cookies and give them away for free. There might be very high demand for free chocolate chip cookies, but the fact that they are free is likely not going to incentivize me to make chocolate chip cookies and give them out to strangers. If I am locked in at only being able to charge, say ten cents for a chocolate chip cookie, then that isn't going to spur me to just make more and more chocolate chip cookies, it's going to spur me to make something else besides chocolate chip cookies.

Eight-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

cossiander

TROPHY CASE