Rare in this context is a question of density. There are infinitely many integers within the real numbers, for example, but there are far more non-integers than integers. So integers are more rare within the real.
Yet another sad indicator of the state we're in, that the blunder is giving the senate enough time to find out how shitty the nominee is, rather than picking a shitty nominee.
Is that even a close call? If Trump called me a shithead I'd wear that as a badge of honor. If Mr Rogers called me a disappointment I would question my life choices.
“It’s true that I hear lots of women, and men, who say ‘you’re very brave,’” she said. “I say it’s not bravery, it’s will and determination to change society.”
The solution is for states to allocate delegates proportionally. That is in the best interest of each state, so it’s not fragile. It can be accomplished one state at a time, so it’s logistically easier.
Isn't this overlooking that each state that does this, especially swing states, does it at their own disadvantage? States that allocate their electoral votes all-or-nothing have more sway over politicians who receive those votes (because the politicians are, in turn, are incentivized to spend their effort on states where the return on that effort is larger, and an effort that wins you 5% of the vote in an all-or-nothing swing state could win you the whole state's worth of electoral votes, compared to 5% of electoral votes in a proportionally allocated state).
Seems likely that we'll be better at making things go extinct than un-extinct for a while, yet.