I agree with his point that things can change quickly, but the support he is using is Trump's loud and open rejection of a handful of important Bush II era GOP positions. In a 2 party system the Democrats will always be to some degree 'in it' and that's especially the case where the GOP and Trump in particular also regularly does and says crazy and alienating things.
The key to making things change quickly and in more decisive ways is to actually make some changes. Tell some people that annoy the larger electorate that they need to shut up because they're wrong. Pivot on a policy or two that's important and that mitigates a D weakness. I don't understand why those propositions are so highly controversial in left of center spaces when they're just basic sense, at least IMO.
i think one could quibble on various details. However the main thrust, namely that (i) Biden appears to have been seriously compromised by his age from a pretty early point in his presidency, (ii) his inner circle went to great lengths to camouflage this fact passed the point of no return for 2024, and (iii) that this has resulted in massive brand damage requiring a serious reboot for the national party, is all pretty self evident.
Matt Y had a separate piece in the last month or two directly addressing the issue of the groups and the way the dynamic has changed for the (much) worse. Unfortunately it is paywalled. I assume he didn't directly take that on in this piece is because he dedicated a full essay to it quite recently. Below is the link if you want to try and use some magic to read it.
I don't disagree but I also think part of re-establishing credibility is agreeing to put certain toys away for a time. I've been thoroughly browbeaten for this but my opinion remains that Impeachment 2 was undermined considerably by the arcane nature of Impeachment 1, both in the charges and the investigation.
Heh I don't think that's on the table. And unless Trump really does go out and shoot someone on 5th Avenue I think it's probably worth giving the impeachment power a rest for the time being. I don't like the outcome of this election one bit but the only way out to maybe something better is through.
Yea, like last time with Trump, the staying power of this stuff is pretty questionable. Let's assume for a minute there is a real interest in civil service reform (lol I know but bear with me). You'd be trying to do that through the legislative process where you have a majority, not sending out mass decrees to try to scatter shot scare people into resigning, totally agnostic to the fact that it's going to be caught up in the courts. I have gotten texts from a few people I know in government about this, one of whom is in the kind of auditing role even a conservative would theoretically see value in.
To the extent there's any silver lining for my personal politics it's that I do think these silly diversity and DEI bureaucracies that have sprung up in universities shouldn't have public money. And if Trump or the DOJ bully some of the more ridiculous offenders using the letter of civil rights statutes as they actually exist then, well, they had it coming. I also think rescinding the affirmative action EO was at this point the right thing to do and I think long term it will be good for our side. It's time for a debate on whether this is something that really makes sense anymore rather than simultaneously knee jerk defending the status quo while still trying to placate the activist minority insisting both that the old paradigm is actually a sham and that nothing will ever be enough.
No, it's just a fact. It's never happened. Maybe one day technology will be such that it does but as of today it can't.
Anyway I mentioned it because he literally says in the piece people have changed their sex. But you need to actually read it if you want to talk more about the larger point he is trying to make.
I think you're right about that and I'm curious to see how the more online people in the administration respond or if they can even survive contact with planet Normie. The Democrats aren't the only people capable of doing things that don't make sense to people that aren't on Twitter-X.
But that's kind of always been Trump's biggest underlying flaw. He is a meme but you can't master our institutions by being a meme, and he has no apparent talent for mastering them. Hence the default to 'things Republicans have wanted since 1992, maybe even 1982' whenever it comes to trying to create lasting reforms via legislation.
It was an interesting piece but he lost me a bit at the end on trying to draw a parallel between Israel/Palestine and related activism and the transgender topic. I very much understand the critique of New Atheism, and the concept of "reality" (or the "Science" or whatever) as opposed to reality itself being used as a political cudgel in tribalistic or highly partisan ways, and particularly in ways that paper over or distract from the actual important questions at issue.
But I wasn't convinced by the suggestion that odd political bedfellows is itself dispositive on substantive questions about Israel's military strategy and the civilian death involved, or who 'wins' in a debate about whether, IDK, Carole Hooven still gets to teach human biology courses despite the content being upsetting to those with strong commitments to a particular set of abstractions about (the mutability of) sex. He also says humans have changed sex before which technically speaking has never happened.
I say this with the understanding that this is likely to be a disaster with all kinds of bad intended and crazy unintended consequences but.... it has been years and years now that totally reasonable people have been saying that the universities to remove these tumors. They refused to go under the scalpel so now they're getting full force radiation, maybe even napalm.
Not sure they pivoted quite that transparently but the big one I think you have to give them (or at least MAGA) is Trump saying he would veto a national abortion ban.
Otherwise I think you're right, they just don't really talk about their other big liabilities (i.e. entitlements).
People act like there's anything happening this weekend other than Washington's return to the NFC championship game after a 33 year absence. Hoping JD5 brings some magic to throw in the Elgses faces. The articles coming out today on how much Daniel Snyder hates the ressurection of the team he destroyed make it even sweeter.
I only bring up the alcohol because of the multiple reports of being drunk on the job. I have no illusions about the personalities in that ecosystem but I'd think even they appreciate that you can't be down a few (or more) when the missiles start hitting.
Otherwise I agree. The main question I have is why would you put someone who has never been in charge of anything in charge of this. The seemingly Strangelovian personality is as you note a (potentially quite serious) exacerbating factor but whatever his deal with women is it barely registers. I assume the strategy was to try and guilt trip pivotal female GOP Senators but if this election should be understood as anything it's the total repudiation of that type of politics. It's worse than bad, it's ineffective.
Andrew Sullivan's substack post today made the point that Donald Trump's positions on these kinds of issues are the much more mainstream ones. He argued that Trump doing this, much like SCOTUS's holding in Students for Fair Admissions is in a way a gift to the Democrats. If the left of center coalition can't bring itself to knife the unpopular abominations of a small but highly visible and influential subset then we can at least let the GOP do it then start the pivot. Unsurprisingly I think he's right.
All that's really lacking is balls. The Democrats are at their strongest when they're standing on things like not balancing the federal budget on the backs of Medicaid recipients or preaching a kind of live and let live vision of fairness, but a laid back fairness that takes into account the complexities of life, including individual agency.
It isn't that hard to look at the mostly white, highly educated, dare I say 'privileged' people to whom this stuff is important and say this isn't a workable vision for America. If you need to turn this stuff on someone turn it on yourselves (which truthfully is more often than not what they do). We need ideas that work and a big tent to implement them so either get on board or at least shut up and save it for your ivy alum group texts.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/27/2025”
We also run a couple of really big insurance schemes and a huge military. But beyond that...
"
I agree with his point that things can change quickly, but the support he is using is Trump's loud and open rejection of a handful of important Bush II era GOP positions. In a 2 party system the Democrats will always be to some degree 'in it' and that's especially the case where the GOP and Trump in particular also regularly does and says crazy and alienating things.
The key to making things change quickly and in more decisive ways is to actually make some changes. Tell some people that annoy the larger electorate that they need to shut up because they're wrong. Pivot on a policy or two that's important and that mitigates a D weakness. I don't understand why those propositions are so highly controversial in left of center spaces when they're just basic sense, at least IMO.
"
You the man!
"
i think one could quibble on various details. However the main thrust, namely that (i) Biden appears to have been seriously compromised by his age from a pretty early point in his presidency, (ii) his inner circle went to great lengths to camouflage this fact passed the point of no return for 2024, and (iii) that this has resulted in massive brand damage requiring a serious reboot for the national party, is all pretty self evident.
"
Paywalled. :(
Matt Y had a separate piece in the last month or two directly addressing the issue of the groups and the way the dynamic has changed for the (much) worse. Unfortunately it is paywalled. I assume he didn't directly take that on in this piece is because he dedicated a full essay to it quite recently. Below is the link if you want to try and use some magic to read it.
https://www.slowboring.com/p/from-the-veal-pen-to-the-groups
"
I don't disagree but I also think part of re-establishing credibility is agreeing to put certain toys away for a time. I've been thoroughly browbeaten for this but my opinion remains that Impeachment 2 was undermined considerably by the arcane nature of Impeachment 1, both in the charges and the investigation.
"
Heh I don't think that's on the table. And unless Trump really does go out and shoot someone on 5th Avenue I think it's probably worth giving the impeachment power a rest for the time being. I don't like the outcome of this election one bit but the only way out to maybe something better is through.
"
Yglesias has a free post on where Democrats should go from here. Figured I'd share:
https://www.slowboring.com/p/throw-biden-under-the-bus
On “Memo: All Federal Grant, Loan, and Financial Assistance “Temporarily Paused””
Yea, like last time with Trump, the staying power of this stuff is pretty questionable. Let's assume for a minute there is a real interest in civil service reform (lol I know but bear with me). You'd be trying to do that through the legislative process where you have a majority, not sending out mass decrees to try to scatter shot scare people into resigning, totally agnostic to the fact that it's going to be caught up in the courts. I have gotten texts from a few people I know in government about this, one of whom is in the kind of auditing role even a conservative would theoretically see value in.
To the extent there's any silver lining for my personal politics it's that I do think these silly diversity and DEI bureaucracies that have sprung up in universities shouldn't have public money. And if Trump or the DOJ bully some of the more ridiculous offenders using the letter of civil rights statutes as they actually exist then, well, they had it coming. I also think rescinding the affirmative action EO was at this point the right thing to do and I think long term it will be good for our side. It's time for a debate on whether this is something that really makes sense anymore rather than simultaneously knee jerk defending the status quo while still trying to placate the activist minority insisting both that the old paradigm is actually a sham and that nothing will ever be enough.
"
No, it's just a fact. It's never happened. Maybe one day technology will be such that it does but as of today it can't.
Anyway I mentioned it because he literally says in the piece people have changed their sex. But you need to actually read it if you want to talk more about the larger point he is trying to make.
"
I think you're right about that and I'm curious to see how the more online people in the administration respond or if they can even survive contact with planet Normie. The Democrats aren't the only people capable of doing things that don't make sense to people that aren't on Twitter-X.
But that's kind of always been Trump's biggest underlying flaw. He is a meme but you can't master our institutions by being a meme, and he has no apparent talent for mastering them. Hence the default to 'things Republicans have wanted since 1992, maybe even 1982' whenever it comes to trying to create lasting reforms via legislation.
"
Did you read the essay in the link?
"
It was an interesting piece but he lost me a bit at the end on trying to draw a parallel between Israel/Palestine and related activism and the transgender topic. I very much understand the critique of New Atheism, and the concept of "reality" (or the "Science" or whatever) as opposed to reality itself being used as a political cudgel in tribalistic or highly partisan ways, and particularly in ways that paper over or distract from the actual important questions at issue.
But I wasn't convinced by the suggestion that odd political bedfellows is itself dispositive on substantive questions about Israel's military strategy and the civilian death involved, or who 'wins' in a debate about whether, IDK, Carole Hooven still gets to teach human biology courses despite the content being upsetting to those with strong commitments to a particular set of abstractions about (the mutability of) sex. He also says humans have changed sex before which technically speaking has never happened.
"
I say this with the understanding that this is likely to be a disaster with all kinds of bad intended and crazy unintended consequences but.... it has been years and years now that totally reasonable people have been saying that the universities to remove these tumors. They refused to go under the scalpel so now they're getting full force radiation, maybe even napalm.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/20/2025”
Not sure they pivoted quite that transparently but the big one I think you have to give them (or at least MAGA) is Trump saying he would veto a national abortion ban.
Otherwise I think you're right, they just don't really talk about their other big liabilities (i.e. entitlements).
On “Weekend Plans Post: Was Last Year This Cold?”
People act like there's anything happening this weekend other than Washington's return to the NFC championship game after a 33 year absence. Hoping JD5 brings some magic to throw in the Elgses faces. The articles coming out today on how much Daniel Snyder hates the ressurection of the team he destroyed make it even sweeter.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/20/2025”
I only bring up the alcohol because of the multiple reports of being drunk on the job. I have no illusions about the personalities in that ecosystem but I'd think even they appreciate that you can't be down a few (or more) when the missiles start hitting.
Otherwise I agree. The main question I have is why would you put someone who has never been in charge of anything in charge of this. The seemingly Strangelovian personality is as you note a (potentially quite serious) exacerbating factor but whatever his deal with women is it barely registers. I assume the strategy was to try and guilt trip pivotal female GOP Senators but if this election should be understood as anything it's the total repudiation of that type of politics. It's worse than bad, it's ineffective.
"
Wow. McConnell voted no on Hegseth.
"
Andrew Sullivan's substack post today made the point that Donald Trump's positions on these kinds of issues are the much more mainstream ones. He argued that Trump doing this, much like SCOTUS's holding in Students for Fair Admissions is in a way a gift to the Democrats. If the left of center coalition can't bring itself to knife the unpopular abominations of a small but highly visible and influential subset then we can at least let the GOP do it then start the pivot. Unsurprisingly I think he's right.
"
True though IIRC the smartest man alive was threatened with rehabilitation if he failed to solve their problems in a single week.
"
All that's really lacking is balls. The Democrats are at their strongest when they're standing on things like not balancing the federal budget on the backs of Medicaid recipients or preaching a kind of live and let live vision of fairness, but a laid back fairness that takes into account the complexities of life, including individual agency.
It isn't that hard to look at the mostly white, highly educated, dare I say 'privileged' people to whom this stuff is important and say this isn't a workable vision for America. If you need to turn this stuff on someone turn it on yourselves (which truthfully is more often than not what they do). We need ideas that work and a big tent to implement them so either get on board or at least shut up and save it for your ivy alum group texts.
"
Anyone who hasn't needs to look at the farcical changes at https://www.whitehouse.gov/
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
"
It's a message from the administration that we are all going to need some cigs for the ride we are about to go on.
"
This thread is making me miss smoking.
On “Weekend Plans Post: Was Last Year This Cold?”
That sounds expensive but I'm sure if I tell my wife about it I will immediately see the charge appear on the family credit card.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.