It occurs to me I'm much more likely to use my laptop while watching TV than I would a desktop, which would be stuck in the other room.

How does that affect my total KwH usage? Fewer Watts/hour but certainly more hours.

Usage matters.

How? I have no idea. When laptops reached the point where I could do everything I needed on them, and they were no longer twice as expensive as comparable desktop PCs, I decided it was going to be laptops from then on. Of course for real high-performance computing needs, a laptop wouldn't suffice. But neither would a typical home-usage desktop PC.

Electro Robot falls well into the trap of saying that black voters are "unthinking" if they support a black candidate.

At this point in the race, it's hard to imagine a thinking black voter signing on with Hillary. Given that, why use the word "unthinking"?

This reminds me how, every election season, Republicans bemoan the "unthinking" black vote that votes Democratic out of "blind loyalty". The reason this seems blind or unthinking to the outsider is that they have no idea what black Americans want.

FWIW, I don't think that white voters who support Clinton are "unthinking" either. Some of them are perhaps racist, but I suspect more of them are only racist in a secondary sense: they are voting against the black candidate because they think in the Fall, other people who are actually racists will vote against him. But at the end of the day, race is still the deciding factor.

And it's sad that not only is this the last arrow left in the Clinton quiver, but that she does not see just how much respect she is losing by using it. There are times and places for scorched-earth campaigns, and the primary season is neither the time nor place (so to speak).

In baseball, where 162 games are played in a season, a person who has no talent for the competition is quickly exposed and demoted.

For some reason, in politics, the Democratic party is stuck with a generation of people who have lost fight after fight for decades, to the point where constant capitulation to the opposing point of view is seriously advanced as not only a policy alternative, but the only possible way for the party to win anything.

If I wanted to vote for Republicans, I would simply join their party.

Most of the current generation of political "experts" on the Democratic side base all their philosophy on

a) McGovern's loss

b) Mondale's loss

c) Willie Horton

d) Clintonian triangulation

These are the people who have been so busy participating in the process the brand name of Democrats and the more generic term "liberal" into the ground that they have managed to help empower a party solely interested in helping the ultra-wealthy, despite the evident political idiocy of such a platform.

Obama, in contrast, is happy to throw away "Conventional Wisdom" and try new strategies. The Old Guard gets annoyed when he does this, because they've made a living for the past thirty years drawing lines around what is possible for Democrats, and have put their reputation on the line for the dubious goal of Lowered Expectations.

People get tired of "Let's lose by less" as a strategy

She started with a big lead and lost it.

She started with a money advantage and squandered it.

She started with an advantage in name recognition and, well, that really didn't work to her advantage.

For the past few months, her platform has essentially been "racism is worse than sexism in rural America, so you have to vote for me because Obama cannot possibly win". I've never been convinced that Clinton's pre-existing negatives would be less of a problem than any racist issues Obama will have to deal with, and the constant whining about sexist coverage didn't help this argument either.

Basically, the argument appeared to be: you have to fight sexism, because it's bad, but you have to shrug your shoulders and accept that racism is inevitable. Wow! There's an attitude to rally around!

Obama is not a perfect candidate and was not my first choice (or indeed, second or third for that matter), but I never bought into the idea that Clinton was more experienced than he simply because she had been the First Lady and a guiding force behind her husband's career. It had reached the point where I, a voter who had voted Democratic in every election since 1988, was finding her the least appealing major candidate I had ever seen, and one I thought would be routed in the general election if that was the matchup. If I was having trouble finding a reason to vote for her, hypothetically, then she'd already lost the race.

they also put the fish into barrels, and lend shotguns to interested anglers. I hear it's pretty easy.

Apparently going down on women causes cancer!

Thanks droog!

Next, we'll learn that "getting the beer yourself" causes cancer, too.

Thanks for the right-wing talking points, Herb.

I'm curious, does this objection to "making law" apply to any of the current majority of SCOTUS? Does it apply to the Bush v. Gore decision?