Typical

Because if they aren't just a buncha whiny-butt pussies, then they're weak-brained and easily fooled by cynical manipulators who need to inflate people's egos so they'll stay distracted from being fucked with their pants on.

Overheard

The trouble with conspiracy fantasies is that even a total lack of evidence is not taken as a compelling reason to dismiss it, but rather, it's taken to mean that it's so wide-spread that only few clever souls have "done the research" and can see through the lies and coverups.

You might as well tell me there are elephants hiding the tree tops, and the reason we never see them is that they're really good at it, and we're all elephant blind.

But Don't Let Up

For just another 23 days, it's gotta be all gas and no brakes.

Don't forget: A big part of Trump's plan is to set the expectation that he's ahead - so when Harris wins (if she wins - fuck me, she's gotta win), he can kick it up a few notches and hit the usual bullshit about "It was rigged! They cheated! The brown people knifed us in the back!"

Harris vs. Trump analyst tells panicky Dems: GOP is creating fake polls

‘Desperate, unhinged, Trumpian’

As polls seem to indicate that former president Donald Trump has momentum in some swing states with 24 days remaining until the Nov. 5 presidential election, Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg says: Don’t buy it.


About a month ago, Rosenberg predicted that a slew of polls by Republican organizations would flood the zone, showing Trump leading — and, like clockwork, it has happened.

The purpose is two-fold, Rosenberg said: To excite Trump’s base and discourage Vice President Kamala Harris’ supporters, while also providing Trump with ammunition to say the election was rigged if he loses.

In a tweet thread, Rosenberg explained:

“Of last 15 general election polls released in PA, 12 have right/GOP affiliations. Their campaign to game the polling averages and make it appear like Trump is winning — when he isn’t — escalated in last few days.

“I urge journalists and researchers to dive into FiveThirtyEight and see how the red wave pollsters have flooded the zone again. MT, PA, NC were initial targets but now it’s all 7 battleground states.

“This 2024 red wave op is much larger and involves many more actors and polls than the red wave campaign in 2022. It also involves new players — Polymarket, Elon — and feels far more desperate, frenetic, unhinged. Trumpian.”

Rosenberg pointed to a New York Times autopsy on the 2022 midterm elections: “The ‘Red Wave’ Washout: How Skewed Polls Fed a False Election Narrative.”

Rosenberg also referred to a recent New York Times report — “Elon Musk is going all-in to elect Trump” — that shows coordination between Twitter/X owner Elon Musk and the Trump campaign.

Musk shut down a Twitter/X account that published hacked materials from the Trump campaign. And according to the New York Times, Musk and his team have set up a war room in Pittsburgh to strategize with a team of lawyers and public-relations professionals to help Trump win.

On Thursday, American Muckrakers posted about emails it received detailing how the conservative-leaning Rasmussen Reports, which claims to be nonpartisan, shared polling results with Trump advisers and campaign officials like Dan Scavino, Susie Wiles, and John McLaughlin.

“More than 25 organizations are now involved in red wave 2024,” Rosenberg tweeted. “Last week, they dropped 27 polls. This week it’s more. Ferocity of effort to make it look like Trump is winning clearly means they don’t think he is.”

Overheard

You believe Democrats can create a catastrophe-level storm,

and then aim it at you.

You think they can change the gender of your kids without you even

knowing about it.

You're convince they can manufacture

a virus that only kills their enemies ...

... and you wanna start a war with these guys?

Today's Belle

How much Trump would Trumper Trump if a Trumper could Trump Trump?

Y'Know What?

I just wanna tell MAGA to fuck off. 

Take all your manufactured WWE melodrama and shove the whole thing up your ass.

Let's just relax and be groovy. Can we try that for a while?

Equity

The CEOs and the rich pricks who never have to lift a finger are using politics to get ahead and stay ahead.

Why aren't you?

The median wage in the US is about $58,000/year

CEOs are getting (again, on average)

$1,300,000 - $14,900,000/year

Equilar | New York Times 100 Highest-Paid CEOs

Compensation Soars Over 20% for America’s Highest-Paid CEOs

The role of chief executive officers (CEOs) is extremely demanding. Chief executives bear the responsibility of steering their organizations towards financial growth while navigating the complexities of economic and regulatory challenges and fending off competitive threats. As such, it comes as no surprise that companies often award their CEOs massive pay packages as incentive to perform at a high level. It seems compensation for public company CEOs continues to rise each year, with the trend persisting in 2023.

For 17 years, Equilar has partnered with The New York Times to uncover trends in CEO compensation across Corporate America. The New York Times recently published coverage* of new findings from the annual CEO pay study, and the results show that compensation packages for executives in the corner office are quite lucrative. For the purposes of this post, Equilar analyzed just a portion of the findings provided to The New York Times. This post examines the 100 largest CEO pay packages among U.S. public companies with revenues of at least $1 billion and that filed a proxy statement by April 30, 2024 (see full methodology in footer).

The introductory page of this feature highlights the top 10 highest-paid CEOs in 2023. Below the highest-paid CEO table, there is a link to view the full list of the Equilar 100 CEOs in an interactive chart that allows you to sort by compensation, compensation actually paid (CAP), revenue and other company measurements. A summary of key findings from the study follows on this page.

1) Jon Winkelried
TPG Inc. (TPG)
$198,685,926

2) Harvey M. Schwartz
The Carlyle Group Inc. (CG)
$186,994,098

3) Hock E. Tan
Broadcom Inc. (AVGO)
$161,826,161

4) Nikesh Arora
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (PANW)
$151,425,203

5) Sue Y. Nabi
Coty Inc. (COTY)
$149,429,486

6) Christopher L. Winfrey
Charter Communications, Inc. (CHTR)
$89,077,078

7) Ariel Z. Emanuel
Endeavor Group Holdings, Inc. (EDR)
$83,879,504

8)Arash Adam Foroughi
AppLovin Corporation (APP)
$83,361,678

9) John David Risher
Lyft, Inc. (LYFT)
$78,238,027 $4,403

10) William J. Lansing
Fair Isaac Corporation (FICO)
$66,349,962 $1,513

Full List

Key Trends and Takeaways

• CEO compensation soars 20.1%. The median total compensation for CEOs in the study spiked to $29.1 million in 2023, up over 20% from 2022. The highest-paid CEO in the study is Jon Winkelried of TPG, Inc., whose total disclosed pay package was $198.7 million in 2023. The five highest-paid CEOs were each awarded a nine-figure pay package in 2023.
• Large jump in stock award values propels a big pay bump. In 2023, the median value of stock awards granted to CEOs in the study took a large 38.7% leap, increasing to $21 million. The increase in stock award values was largely responsible for total disclosed compensation rising at such a high rate. Stock awards tend to make up the largest portion of an executive’s compensation package, and fluctuations in values will likely have a noticeable impact on total compensation. It’s important to note that the disclosed figures reflect grant date fair values of awards, compensation the CEOs on this list will likely not realize until a future date after achieving targeted performance goals for the organization.
• Meanwhile, total cash compensation for CEOs in the study increased slightly by 2.8%. Cash bonuses increased by 26.5% from $3.4 million in 2022 to $4.3 million in 2023. The uptick in cash bonuses may be a result of the companies in the study recording strong shareholder returns—a median of 23% for the study—as compensation committees rewarded their CEOs for impressive financial growth.
• CEO Pay Ratio reaches 312:1. The CEO Pay Ratio for companies in the study rose to 312:1 in 2023, with the median employee earning $101,947. However, comparing CEO pay to median employee pay can be challenging, as CEOs are largely compensated through stock awards, whereas median employees primarily receive salaries and bonuses. The ratio has appeared in proxy disclosures for seven years now, and while its impact on executive compensation remains limited, it continues to be a contentious issue among the public.
• Compensation Actually Paid (CAP) figures surpass total disclosed pay. The median CAP value for CEOs in the study was $46.5 million in 2023, approximately 60% higher than total disclosed pay. The objective of the CAP calculation is to capture the change in fair value of previously granted awards to CEOs, clearly indicating how much the executive has gained from equity awards over time. The disclosure is in year two, and it remains to be seen if investors and other stakeholders will use this information in their decision-making processes.
• Six women make the 100 highest-paid CEOs list. Six women were among the highest-paid CEOs in 2023, earning $30.5 million—slightly higher than the overall median of the study. Sue Y. Nabi, CEO at Coty, was the highest-paid woman in 2023, earning a pay package of $149.4 million.
• Walmart records the highest revenue in 2023. Retail giant Walmart led all companies in the study with a recorded revenue of $648 billion in 2023. Overall, the median revenue was $21.7 billion for the companies in the study, representing a 7% gain from the prior year.

Oh Those Pesky Undecideds

At the risk of repeating myself:

You call them undecided - I call them fuckin' idiots.

Puh-tay-ta / Puh-tah-toh

Dear Undecideds,

Let's review - again. Cuz some of you seem unable or (more likely) unwilling to grok the situation.

Let's say this election is like looking at a breakfast menu.

Option 1: A big steaming bowl of lumpy, greasy, tequila hangover squirts. 

Option 2: A short stack, some crispy bacon, 2 eggs (any way you like 'em), fresh-squeezed OJ, and some coffee.

But you're telling me you can't decide because you're just not sure about the fucking syrup?

WaPo pretty much misses the point - again - because WaPo needs to fill space and sell ads for dick pills and panty liners.

And yes, WaPo - we are a "nation divided" - it's the shit-eaters versus the normal people.

But, hey - do your dumbass thing, Press Poodles.

The elusive ‘policy-driven’ undecided voter

It’s useful to the media to suggest that undecided voters are seeking out more information about Harris and Trump. But, often, the reverse is true.

There is a canonical presentation of voters in a democracy. Attuned to the central issues of the election — be they national, state or local — these voters carefully consider the positions of the candidates and perform an elaborate mental calculus. Candidate A aligns with the voter on a few things, but Candidate B aligns on more, and more important ones. Candidate B it is. On to the next contest on the ballot.

Written out like that, the idea is obviously ridiculous. Most voters scan their ballots for the candidates indicated as Democrats or Republicans and vote for those candidates. There’s nothing wrong with that, as such; the point of political parties, in part, is to provide a mnemonic for Americans to quickly identify candidates who broadly share their values. Why spend all that time reading about issues when the D and the R serve as accurate summaries?

That has become particularly true as partisan polarization has sharpened in the United States. Fewer legislators and candidates hold heterodox positions, meaning that the D and the R are more effective presentations of their views than they used to be. If you are moderately well informed, those two letters can tell you most of what you want to know about the candidates on most issues, even at the state or local level. At the presidential level, the letters are almost completely descriptive, given that the parties’ presidential candidates help define where the parties stand.

And yet there are still numerous voters who say they haven’t been able to decide between the two major-party presidential candidates in 2024. But there are different strains of “undecided.” For many, the question is probably less whether they prefer Vice President Kamala Harris or former president Donald Trump than whether they plan to vote at all. For a handful, their calculus of how the candidates’ positions comport with their own personal values is complex. And for many — perhaps, if we allow ourselves to be cynical, most — they simply haven’t been, and are not now, paying much attention to politics.

This isn’t new. There’s always been a clutch of Americans who are loosely attached to politics and whose opinions on political issues are therefore idiosyncratic. It’s been 20 years since Chris Hayes (well before his MSNBC days) described talking to undecided voters in Wisconsin during the 2004 election. He found fewer of the theoretical cautious/conscientious voters than people whose politics appeared to have been picked at random from piles of newspaper clippings.

One thing we’ve heard a lot this year is that undecided voters are still making up their minds in part because they want to learn more about Harris’s positions. This makes sense in theory; Harris’s presence as a candidate has been relatively short-lived, given the transition the Democratic Party made at the end of July.

But that’s just short-lived in the American sense. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced parliamentary elections on May 22; they were held on July 4. That’s a 43-day election cycle. Harris has been a candidate for 78 days. There was a Democratic Party convention that dominated the airwaves for four days. There was a debate. Harris released policy platforms. If voters want to know what she’s running on, it’s there for them to consume.

In fact, the New York Times released polling last week delineating why voters who still described themselves as “undecided” were refraining from settling on a candidate. Conducted by Siena College, the poll asked those voters what their concerns about the candidates were. A plurality of those voters said Trump’s personality was their biggest point of hesitation. For Harris, a smaller percentage said they were concerned about her honesty and judgment.

Only a handful of people indicated that they wanted to know more about her candidacy.

If we sketch out a more realistic picture of an undecided voter, we can see why this isn’t a surprise. For the most part, they are not carefully sitting down and considering the information at hand, finding that their stack of information about Harris is still missing elements. They are, instead, not paying much attention at all and, perhaps, sometimes tacitly admitting they aren’t paying much attention by saying they need to learn more.

Some in the media nonetheless seized upon this idea with alacrity. Consider how Politico described the Harris campaign’s flurry of media appearances this week: “Most of these are not the types of interviews that are going to press her on issues she may not want to talk about, even as voters want more specifics from Harris. Instead, expect most of these sit-downs to be a continuation of the ‘vibes’ campaign Harris has perfected.”

There’s been frustration from some reporters that Harris hasn’t centered her campaign on conversations with traditional media outlets but, instead, on a more limited schedule with podcast and online personalities. That seeps out of the Politico description: What voters want is policy information, which a Harris-Howard Stern conversation isn’t going to provide! The error in this argument should be immediately apparent — as should the reason that traditional outlets would elevate it.

Several things are true about the current media landscape. One is that the traditional media (including The Washington Post, obviously) has a more limited influence than it used to. Another is that some podcasts and influencers have much broader audiences — particularly among the constituencies the candidates hope to spur to the polls — than newspapers or cable news programs. A third is that this is useful for the campaigns, since they can more easily avoid tricky or challenging questions that traditional reporters might pose.

The solution is not to suggest that undecided voters are uniformly desperate for probing questions that will inform their votes. This is true of some undecided voters, sure. But everything else we know about those voters (including the Times poll above) indicates that those voters are anomalous. It’s safe to assume that the campaigns understand that, with four weeks remaining, the key to victory will almost certainly depend less on presenting undecided voters with complex policy proposals and extended, wonky conversations with editorial boards than on ensuring that those voters casting a ballot based on the D and the R are excited to go out and do so.

2.4% Inflation

Biden's rescue plan is working - really well. But of course prices are still high.

Your groceries and your rent and your gas are costing you more because a lot of corporate assholes are on the phone with each other, fixing prices, so they can drop a few more bucks to the their bottom line - so they can pay themselves and their coin-operated politicians more in salaries and bonuses and "donations".

Sea Level

Sea level rise is accelerating.

In the last 30 years, we've seen sea levels rise about 4 inches.

In the next 30 years, it's likely to go up another 12 inches.