You didn't answer the question, you just restated your original point.
To recap: Who is "we" and did whoever this we is or are previously talk about A and have now "moved" to B, or is it just a different bunch of people talking about a different bunch of stuff?
Who is this "we" who have actually "moved?" A bunch of different people are saying a bunch of different stuff, but I don't see many people moving from A to B, just a lot of people who have decided to talk about B without ever having talked about A.
Edward Bennett Williams, probably the greatest trial lawyer of the generation before mine, said that, assuming minimal competence on both sides (not a trivial assumption, sadly), 40% of all cases that go to trial can't be won, 40% of them can't be lost, and in only 20% of them does the comparative skill of the lawyer make a difference
This is somewhat over-simplified. A manslaughter conviction usually counts as a prosecution win and a defense loss, but if the odds of a murder conviction were strong enough, it could be the opposite. A $500,000 verdict for a plaintiff usually counts as a win for the plaintiff and a loss for the defendant, but if the last settlement demand was for $2,000,000, it could be the opposite. And the comparative skill of the lawyers might have made the difference.
That quibble aside, however, the general point holds.
There isn't any indication that Trump negotiated with anybody. Unless you think floating a self-evidently bad and extremely vulnerable choice out there that he didn't have to make and letting nature take its course counts as negotiating. Even that assumes he had some idea of the likely outcome of the move, wanted it, and had some end in mind that that outcome would serve -- and there's no indication of that either.
This. if we want to go back to situations other than those we found ourselves in, we can stipulate that Biden would not seek renomination and an open primary process might have given us a candidate who could have won. Maybe it would have been Harris with more time to get herself out in front of the voters, but maybe not. Then you can name any pale-skinned penis owner you think might have done better, and you might be right. Not that there would be any way to tell, but it would be a sensible alternative history to pursue. That's a very different question, though, from how well Harris played the hand actually dealt.
A charming faith in the power of speechifying. Aristotle had a few things to say about what it takes to put a point across, and it takes a lot more than that.
I've actually looked at the studies, two of which were the San Francisco Fed studies cited in the WSJ article, and they all converge on similar numbers. (Smith himself doesn't venture a number.) Or do you read them differently?
No. But one beats zero. Unless there's something wrong with the one.
So how much do you think pandemic fiscal policy added to existing inflationary pressures?
There have been several attempts to quantify just how much pandemic-related fiscal policy contributed to the inflation that was already happening. The Wall Street Journal has what looks like a fair assessment:
Fiscal stimulus, approved by both Trump and Biden, accounted for about 3 percentage points of the rise in inflation through 2021, according to the San Francisco Fed. A separate analysis by the bank’s economists estimated the ARP boosted inflation, excluding food and energy items, by 0.3 percentage point a year in 2021 and 2022.
North brought it up, not me. As it happens, I agree with him that a number of folks thought there would be anti-Trump disorder if Trump won. Unlike him, I am completely unsurprised that none of the people who said they thought that would happen will acknowledge "I was wrong about that." They won't even try to Jaybird move of blaming the people they made wrong predictions about for their making wrong predictions about them.
Every developed country in the world experienced inflation and every incumbent party took it in the shorts, whether they were to blame, or whether inflation had been tamed by the time of the election. While there may have been reasons to think we might buck the trend, and it was much closer here than elsewhere, memory ultimately won out over present reality.
I'm sorry. I was unclear. You're quite right on factual and moral grounds that they should cop to it. But what basis was there for expecting them to cop to it?
There are two types of "populist." One type of populist seeks government help for the down and out. Another is more interested in working out resentments against folks not like themselves. Pick your poison and you have your answer.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Huffpo reports that Harris internals *NEVER* had her ahead.”
That would make sense if low-information voters weren't low-information voters, who, by definition, don't know what's true and largely don't care.
On “I Told You So”
You must be new here.
"
You didn't answer the question, you just restated your original point.
To recap: Who is "we" and did whoever this we is or are previously talk about A and have now "moved" to B, or is it just a different bunch of people talking about a different bunch of stuff?
"
Who is this "we" who have actually "moved?" A bunch of different people are saying a bunch of different stuff, but I don't see many people moving from A to B, just a lot of people who have decided to talk about B without ever having talked about A.
On “Open Mic for the week of 11/25/2024”
You can do imaginary math all day, especially if you compare sure losses to conjectural gains.
"
Don't let the door....................
On “Paper: Inflation and the 2024 US Presidential Election”
Edward Bennett Williams, probably the greatest trial lawyer of the generation before mine, said that, assuming minimal competence on both sides (not a trivial assumption, sadly), 40% of all cases that go to trial can't be won, 40% of them can't be lost, and in only 20% of them does the comparative skill of the lawyer make a difference
This is somewhat over-simplified. A manslaughter conviction usually counts as a prosecution win and a defense loss, but if the odds of a murder conviction were strong enough, it could be the opposite. A $500,000 verdict for a plaintiff usually counts as a win for the plaintiff and a loss for the defendant, but if the last settlement demand was for $2,000,000, it could be the opposite. And the comparative skill of the lawyers might have made the difference.
That quibble aside, however, the general point holds.
"
When you set the terms of both sides of the argument, you're guaranteed to win.
On “The Mandate That Wasn’t”
There isn't any indication that Trump negotiated with anybody. Unless you think floating a self-evidently bad and extremely vulnerable choice out there that he didn't have to make and letting nature take its course counts as negotiating. Even that assumes he had some idea of the likely outcome of the move, wanted it, and had some end in mind that that outcome would serve -- and there's no indication of that either.
"
Doesn't seem plausible. Trump doesn't play 11th-dimensional chess and Gaetz apparently pulled out on his own, so there was no Trump "concession."
"
This. if we want to go back to situations other than those we found ourselves in, we can stipulate that Biden would not seek renomination and an open primary process might have given us a candidate who could have won. Maybe it would have been Harris with more time to get herself out in front of the voters, but maybe not. Then you can name any pale-skinned penis owner you think might have done better, and you might be right. Not that there would be any way to tell, but it would be a sensible alternative history to pursue. That's a very different question, though, from how well Harris played the hand actually dealt.
On “All the President’s Nominees: The Legion of Groom”
https://criticalread.substack.com/p/searching-for-the-right-words-to?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email-restack-comment&r=4rsnl&triedRedirect=true
On “Paper: Inflation and the 2024 US Presidential Election”
A charming faith in the power of speechifying. Aristotle had a few things to say about what it takes to put a point across, and it takes a lot more than that.
"
I've actually looked at the studies, two of which were the San Francisco Fed studies cited in the WSJ article, and they all converge on similar numbers. (Smith himself doesn't venture a number.) Or do you read them differently?
"
No. But one beats zero. Unless there's something wrong with the one.
So how much do you think pandemic fiscal policy added to existing inflationary pressures?
On “How Republicans Can Save Trump’s Presidency”
If you're suggesting that anyone who thought that was a loon, I agree with you.
On “Paper: Inflation and the 2024 US Presidential Election”
Was the conclusion incorrect? Were the numbers reported incorrect? Do you have different numbers?
On “How Republicans Can Save Trump’s Presidency”
Yes. So is there someone you have in mind who both: (a) predicted disorder and (b) said "I was wrong?" Derek S. matches (2), but not (1).
"
"Non-zero" isn't much of a standard, especially since we already have Derek S.
And we already know that it is always someone else's fault if you're wrong.
On “Paper: Inflation and the 2024 US Presidential Election”
There have been several attempts to quantify just how much pandemic-related fiscal policy contributed to the inflation that was already happening. The Wall Street Journal has what looks like a fair assessment:
Fiscal stimulus, approved by both Trump and Biden, accounted for about 3 percentage points of the rise in inflation through 2021, according to the San Francisco Fed. A separate analysis by the bank’s economists estimated the ARP boosted inflation, excluding food and energy items, by 0.3 percentage point a year in 2021 and 2022.
On “How Republicans Can Save Trump’s Presidency”
North brought it up, not me. As it happens, I agree with him that a number of folks thought there would be anti-Trump disorder if Trump won. Unlike him, I am completely unsurprised that none of the people who said they thought that would happen will acknowledge "I was wrong about that." They won't even try to Jaybird move of blaming the people they made wrong predictions about for their making wrong predictions about them.
"
They who? And what does that have to do with those who predicted anti-Trump disorder not copping to what actually happened -- or didn't happen?
On “Paper: Inflation and the 2024 US Presidential Election”
Every developed country in the world experienced inflation and every incumbent party took it in the shorts, whether they were to blame, or whether inflation had been tamed by the time of the election. While there may have been reasons to think we might buck the trend, and it was much closer here than elsewhere, memory ultimately won out over present reality.
On “How Republicans Can Save Trump’s Presidency”
I'm sorry. I was unclear. You're quite right on factual and moral grounds that they should cop to it. But what basis was there for expecting them to cop to it?
On “Open Mic for the week of 11/18/2024”
There are two types of "populist." One type of populist seeks government help for the down and out. Another is more interested in working out resentments against folks not like themselves. Pick your poison and you have your answer.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.