I've not seen this movie or read the play but reminded me of odd way Amanda Plummer was very specifically typecast as "seemingly incoherent woman with secret insights", in her Tony-winning "Agnes Of God", her Emmy-winning SVU role ("Weak"), and her biggest hit ("Catching Fire").
Of course the lead in "Catching Fire" probably got the job because they were like, "well, Jennifer Lawrence already skinned a squirrel onscreen in that Oscar movie, let's just get her to do it again". So Hollywood does this.
Or--I'm sure I've Tweeted about this before, and it's not unique to me, Brian Cox's FOUR different "guy behind the memory-erasing super-soldier program" roles.
I'm ripping off some list of these, I forget. If you've seen Bruce Greenwood in a movie, then he might well have been President of the United States.
If you were a "Sliders" fan and you asked why Cleavant Derricks was in the main cast as an old-time R&B star, maybe someone just liked his Tony-winning "Dreamgirls" role as...an old-time R&B star...
Everyone's always like "it's so dystopian that we need to have school shooting drills", but do we need to have them? Do they help? Is there any evidence they help? (They help the companies hired to perform them, I'm sure.)
Some light Googling suggests they're currently being done in like 95% of schools, and also, there don't seem to be any good studies on their costs or benefits. Not a great combo, IMO.
Would there be any downside to a state running redistricting as an open contest judged on a predetermined set of metrics?
Like, say, average deviation between median district margin and statewide margin, and if they're pretty close by that, a compactness measure because people are annoying, VRA compliance, etc.
(Someone said that redistricting is a political problem, which I agree, but I think the relevant political metrics can be defined and included.)
Said the other day that, while Connecticut Presidential results and gubernatorial results are different, you can see same trends in both, but I wanted to check more carefully. And yeah, pretty much. (H/t @DrewSav for the town-level election results.)
Democratic margins in the richest towns did improve (way) more for President than for Governor, but they did improve for both. Not sure what's up with Connecticut's cities. (A sentence you will often find yourself saying in CT politics, or in CT true crime.)
Darien and New Canaan are such funny little outliers but at the end of the day these are you know, very correlated elections.
"Turnout or persuasion" is not an either/or, precisely because persuasion (or at least vote-switching) exists, and therefore voters are not constant units. So it makes decomposing electoral changes very very tricky.
And it might matter a lot what your baseline/counterfactual is. Is it "the exact same voters show up as Election X", is it "all the voters we hoped show up (and not the ones the other side was hoping for)", is it "literal 100% turnout".
If a county's raw vote drops by exactly 1000, and the Democratic margin drops by exactly 1000, it's easy to say "oh, 1000 Democrats didn't show up". But you don't actually know that.
So that much seems to have been going on for a while, in the broad strokes at least. Indeed I wonder how correlated various 2000-2010 vs. 2010-2020 changes are, or more precisely, which changes are or aren't correlated.
Women in Hawaii have the highest life expectancy of any state/gender group in America so she's probably not near done.
(If Tulsi Gabbard, apparently a particularly athletic and healthy young woman in Hawaii, hadn't been...whatever she is, she might have beaten all the Congressional longevity records.)