Young people are more nonwhite than the overall electorate. They’re more politically disengaged than the overall electorate. But the single biggest predictor of swing from 2020 to 2024 is age. Voters under 30 supported Biden by large margins. But Donald Trump probably narrowly won 18- to 29-year-olds. That isn’t what the exit polls say. But if you look at our survey data, voter file data, and precinct-level data, that’s the picture you get.
And if you look at people under the age of 25, every single group — white, nonwhite, male or female — is considerably more conservative than their millennial counterparts. And it even seems that Donald Trump narrowly won nonwhite 18-year-old men, which is not something that has ever happened in Democratic politics before.
How in the heck would one go about turning this around?
How do you turn it around without ticking off The Groups?
I'd probably put the start of the modern version of paranoid thinking in American Politics smack dab in the middle of Prohibition when Hoover was denying the existence of the mafia and, indeed, denied its existence until the 1950s.
Well, it's like the difference between CRT (pure theory) and CRT by the time it goes through the telephone game and comes out the other side in the form of social media posts.
Critical Theory? It might be awesome if we limited the game to Bertrand Russell and thereabouts.
But anyone can play and, good lord, they do a better job of turning people off of it than their fiercest critics do.
A parallel question is "What are universities actually doing?"
How far from what we want them to be are they?
Looking at what they actually do gives us a handful of different answers... the administrators do one thing, the professors another, the TAs yet another, the librarians have their own fiefdom, and the students are as diverse as their majors.
You've got some of them getting hired as they walk off the stage and others who walk off the stage and walk across the street and join a protest demanding student loan relief.
The crazy thing is that out of all of the things that we want the University to be, one of the top three is "sustainable" and... well, whatever we have now, doesn't seem to be sustainable.
My assumption is that people mean "critical theorist" when they say "Marxist" these days.
The folks in charge of running the university have a different set of goals ("maintain endowment", "grow endowment") than the people teaching the courses ("teach math", "teach LGBTQ dance theory"), and those are different than the goals of the students themselves ("chase tail", "get good job when I graduate, I guess").
The problem is that there are a handful of really bad actors who have screwed everything up for everybody and the landscape of universities will look significantly different in a generation and in the bad direction. Smaller, fewer students, more emphasis on employment prep than life of the mind.
They sold their birthrights for a mess of pottage.
There's also the NYT and BBC but, honestly, you're not going to click on those any more than you clicked on the NPR one.
The issue isn't "is the autopen sufficient for a pardon?" because OF COURSE IT IS.
The issue of "did Biden direct these pardons personally?" is troublesome because the possibility exists that he didn't is a larger possibility than "and monkeys might fly out of my butt" due to Biden's severe cognitive decline.
"There is no reason to believe that Biden didn't know about these pardons" is a better argument when there is no reason to believe that Biden didn't know about those pardons.
Yes, but I was pointing out that he doesn’t even need to do that. Because pardons don’t even _need_ be signed. Bills need to be signed into laws, pardons do not. Just ‘granting’ them is enough. They are usually printed and signed, just like executive orders are printed and signed, but they have the exact same validity if they’re just…said.
If someone snuck into the autopen room and put a pardon in the machine and pushed the button WITHOUT THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT TO DO SO, do you believe that this is a legit pardon?
Because that's the debate being forced on us now.
"That's an absurd question!" might be a good counter-argument but Trump is making the allegation that Biden's staffers were running things and not Biden himself.
And I'm not sure that moral indignation will work as a tactic against people who do not recognize your moral authority.
I don't know that these pardons were done without Biden's knowledge or consent.
I don't know whether they were done with his consent or not.
I am agnostic on whether they were.
If Biden comes out and says "Oh, I'm the guy who directed my subordinate to press the button on these pardons", that would clear everything up.
However, I do think that the question of whether Biden personally directed his subordinate to affix a signature is an interesting enough question that it is in everybody's best interest to have the question cleared up.
I don't think that mocking the question is going to be a good play going forward.
I think that it signals the weakness of the position instead of its strength.
"Of course Biden directed the subordinate to issue these pardons and it's offensive to imply that he didn't! Trump is offensive!" is, at least, an argument that addresses the core issue.
"It doesn't matter if Biden knew about the pardons that the autopen signed!" is not an argument that I'd want to defend.
Though I'd probably think that dismissing the issue entirely is the best play...
The President need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill he approves and decides to sign in order for the bill to become law. Rather, the President may sign a bill within the meaning of Article I, Section 7 by directing a subordinate to affix the President’s signature to such a bill, for example by autopen.
I think that we can similarly conclude that if Biden directed a subordinate to affix the President's signature to a pardon, then that pardon is officially official and it'd be silliness to say that it wasn't a real pardon.
"But what if Biden didn't direct the subordinate to affix the signature? Like, what if the subordinate was acting on his or her own?"
"What part of 'the president may direct the subordinate to affix a signature' did you not understand?"
"I'm asking about a subordinate affixing a signature without having been directed."
"WE HAVE ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT THE PRESIDENT MAY DIRECT THE SUBORDINATE TO AFFIX A SIGNATURE!!!"
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/17/25”
Maybe it's in the distinction between Biden and Harris?
"Biden had skibidi rizz but Harris was skibidi Ohio so I went with Trump who was bussin fr fr"
"
This part is interesting:
How in the heck would one go about turning this around?
How do you turn it around without ticking off The Groups?
On “The JFK Files Drop Today (Supposedly)”
I'd probably put the start of the modern version of paranoid thinking in American Politics smack dab in the middle of Prohibition when Hoover was denying the existence of the mafia and, indeed, denied its existence until the 1950s.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/17/25”
This link should work.
On “The JFK Files Drop Today (Supposedly)”
Oh, there's also the option of *NOTHING* new dropping. A replay of the Epstein drop from a couple of weeks ago.
If *THAT* happens, well, we'll see the craziest folks turn on Trump the way they turned on Bondi.
On “From The New York Times Editorial Board: The Authoritarian Endgame on Higher Education”
Rawls is like Nietzsche.
He won. He won so completely that we don't even need to read him anymore.
Only crazy people still do.
"
They get used to set and develop policy, though.
"They're difficult to master" is all well and good if it is contained in the university setting.
Once it bleeds out into management and administration, it'll have transmogrified into a status game.
Status games are a lot easier to master. Amateurs can do it.
"
We can include unintentional underemployment.
"
Well, it's like the difference between CRT (pure theory) and CRT by the time it goes through the telephone game and comes out the other side in the form of social media posts.
Critical Theory? It might be awesome if we limited the game to Bertrand Russell and thereabouts.
But anyone can play and, good lord, they do a better job of turning people off of it than their fiercest critics do.
"
A parallel question is "What are universities actually doing?"
How far from what we want them to be are they?
Looking at what they actually do gives us a handful of different answers... the administrators do one thing, the professors another, the TAs yet another, the librarians have their own fiefdom, and the students are as diverse as their majors.
You've got some of them getting hired as they walk off the stage and others who walk off the stage and walk across the street and join a protest demanding student loan relief.
The crazy thing is that out of all of the things that we want the University to be, one of the top three is "sustainable" and... well, whatever we have now, doesn't seem to be sustainable.
"
My assumption is that people mean "critical theorist" when they say "Marxist" these days.
The folks in charge of running the university have a different set of goals ("maintain endowment", "grow endowment") than the people teaching the courses ("teach math", "teach LGBTQ dance theory"), and those are different than the goals of the students themselves ("chase tail", "get good job when I graduate, I guess").
The problem is that there are a handful of really bad actors who have screwed everything up for everybody and the landscape of universities will look significantly different in a generation and in the bad direction. Smaller, fewer students, more emphasis on employment prep than life of the mind.
They sold their birthrights for a mess of pottage.
"
Joe Rogan was mocked for talking about having been prescribed Ivermectin and taking it as prescribed.
There was also a movement to have his show taken off of Spotify entirely.
He's not an academic, though.
On “Spaghetti on the Wall: Autopens and Out to Lunch Presidents”
Anybody could have written this essay this morning.
It takes *INSIGHT* to have written it a week ago. Well done.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/17/25”
Unfortunately, it's not just me choosing to have the debate. Apparently the White House press room is now involved.
On “Spaghetti on the Wall: Autopens and Out to Lunch Presidents”
I don't know. It is scheduled to be released on May 20th, according to Amazon. You can pre-order it here.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/17/25”
Okay. Not believing that that would be legit gets us to the core issue.
I don't think it'd be legit either.
I also don't think that Trump has any special knowledge about how the pardons came about.
"
Stupid enough for NPR to deal with them.
There's also the NYT and BBC but, honestly, you're not going to click on those any more than you clicked on the NPR one.
The issue isn't "is the autopen sufficient for a pardon?" because OF COURSE IT IS.
The issue of "did Biden direct these pardons personally?" is troublesome because the possibility exists that he didn't is a larger possibility than "and monkeys might fly out of my butt" due to Biden's severe cognitive decline.
"There is no reason to believe that Biden didn't know about these pardons" is a better argument when there is no reason to believe that Biden didn't know about those pardons.
"
C-SPAN reports that Trump has announced that the JFK files get released TOMORROW.
He announces lots of stuff, though.
I'll believe it when I see it.
On “Spaghetti on the Wall: Autopens and Out to Lunch Presidents”
Would Jake Tapper's new book count as evidence?
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/17/25”
Yes, but I was pointing out that he doesn’t even need to do that. Because pardons don’t even _need_ be signed. Bills need to be signed into laws, pardons do not. Just ‘granting’ them is enough. They are usually printed and signed, just like executive orders are printed and signed, but they have the exact same validity if they’re just…said.
I agree with every word you've said here.
The pardons *ARE* all listen on the official Justice.gov website. All the t's crossed and i's dotted.
"
If someone snuck into the autopen room and put a pardon in the machine and pushed the button WITHOUT THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT TO DO SO, do you believe that this is a legit pardon?
Because that's the debate being forced on us now.
"That's an absurd question!" might be a good counter-argument but Trump is making the allegation that Biden's staffers were running things and not Biden himself.
And I'm not sure that moral indignation will work as a tactic against people who do not recognize your moral authority.
"
We're entering some severe "diminishing returns" territory on the Hitler thing.
Isn't there a Harry Potter reference we could use instead?
"The implication that the Imperius Curse was used to procure these pardons is preposterous!"
"
I don't know that these pardons were done without Biden's knowledge or consent.
I don't know whether they were done with his consent or not.
I am agnostic on whether they were.
If Biden comes out and says "Oh, I'm the guy who directed my subordinate to press the button on these pardons", that would clear everything up.
However, I do think that the question of whether Biden personally directed his subordinate to affix a signature is an interesting enough question that it is in everybody's best interest to have the question cleared up.
"
I don't think that mocking the question is going to be a good play going forward.
I think that it signals the weakness of the position instead of its strength.
"Of course Biden directed the subordinate to issue these pardons and it's offensive to imply that he didn't! Trump is offensive!" is, at least, an argument that addresses the core issue.
"It doesn't matter if Biden knew about the pardons that the autopen signed!" is not an argument that I'd want to defend.
Though I'd probably think that dismissing the issue entirely is the best play...
"
The Office of Legal Council issued an opinion all the way back in 2005 on the topic of signing bills into law:
I think that we can similarly conclude that if Biden directed a subordinate to affix the President's signature to a pardon, then that pardon is officially official and it'd be silliness to say that it wasn't a real pardon.
"But what if Biden didn't direct the subordinate to affix the signature? Like, what if the subordinate was acting on his or her own?"
"What part of 'the president may direct the subordinate to affix a signature' did you not understand?"
"I'm asking about a subordinate affixing a signature without having been directed."
"WE HAVE ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT THE PRESIDENT MAY DIRECT THE SUBORDINATE TO AFFIX A SIGNATURE!!!"
And so on.