Some, but if it's just a question of money then I'm entirely unconcerned. The Dems are doing fine for money because most donors, big and small, recognize their party for that it is.
I didn't call it a strawman and would, rather, call it an exaggeration if it's intentional or, if as I suspect you're just getting a bit twitter brained, just misunderstanding that social media is not meatspace.
Sure, but unfortunately for the money wing AOC represents the left most fringe of the Democratic Party, not its actual operational or even ideological position.
Musk doesn't appear to be thinking mainly in money terms anymore. He's crossed over into culture warring spurred, it seems, primarily by his conflict with his child. He's Culture!Right rather than Money!Right now.
Thiel seems to be a more complicated question. He might just be Money!Right making culture noises or he might be drinking his own kool-aid.
On the one hand I think you may well be correct but on the other hand there are structural reasons why you (and I) could be proven wrong.
Specifically... money. The money wing of the GOP is very real, very rich and very not changing. These are the people who have money, want more of it and care little for much else beyond that consideration which means they care deeply about taxes and very conditionally about regulation*. They don't command votes directly but they carry a lot of intellectual heft- they virtually own libertarian discourse, for instance, which, until Trump, meant they also owned the entire right wing brain trust.
Now Trump and the populists are bucking that trend but they're also so nakedly corrupt or inept (or both!) that there isn't, really, a very concrete ideology that stands in opposition to the republitarian default that the money wing of the GOP embodies. Neocon foreign policy, note, is a seperate and very feeble wing that is discredited and used as an opportunistic stick to hit Dems with but is, when the rubber hits the road, mostly defunct.
So, with the alternative right wing ideologies incoherent and undermined the money wing still rules the roost whatever mouth noises the party otherwise makes. The money wing isn't going to go Democratic (if they were they'd have joined the large corporate Dem** contingent long ago) and they have every reason to believe that when Trumpism burns out they'll be left ruling the ashes.
*Not like libertarians but as in "if this regulation makes me money I like it and if it impedes me from making money then I hate it and it's the devils' dandruff."
**Basically people who care about money most of all but take a longer view saying "we'll have a lot less money if we provoke an uprising of the proles, an authoritarian takeover or a deficit crisis so we have to swallow a certain degree of taxation, regulation and redistribution."
In the open mic channel you linked to a very strongly pro-Israeli plank in the platform of the Democratic Party, one that is representative of all of the Israeli relevant planks in the actual Democratic party as opposed to the imaginary one that is represented on twitter. I responded asking you if that plank surprised you and you seemed to elide that your only surprise was that it was present at all.
It seems, from this comment, that you were actually very surprised that the actual Democratic party is strongly pro-Israel, so surprised in fact that you somehow forgot that the Dems pick Israel as an ally over the Palestinians. Am I misreading you?
I'm going to defend David a bit by pointing out that his point stands despite what you say being right. Trump may well be (and I say is) what conservativism is now; but the path to that changing starts with Trump losing.
I have doubts that there's a lot more she can do, given the Israeli government that she and Joe are dealing with, that would improve anything over silence.
This is commensurate with my own more limited experiences and observations. I appreciate you sharing as I'm not deep into most of the really lefty communities.
Good summary, doesn't make for soothing reading to me though which is probably for the best.
One other lift for Harris that I'd like to note is that the lefts' purity dragon seems absent. In 2000 and in 2016 coming off two term Democratic presidencies the left went on purity kicks and seriously considered what they deemed more "pure" alternatives like Nader in 2000 and Bernie in 2016. I haven't gotten much vibe that Biden is facing this issue. Trump really horrifies the left now, Biden's only had one term, Biden's been much less right wing than the left expected, Harris ticks several identity boxes. I'm not sure which factor is decisive but I don't think that charlatan Jill is going to pull material numbers.
There's so much reason to be cheerful. I can't help but think that the undecided who're unwilling to commit to Trump probably generally will break for Harris at the last minute for instance- if they aren't for him now they won't be later. But it's just to close for any sense of tirumphalism.
For sure, I can't speak to it myself though- I may have a general understanding of conservatism but I don't think I'm qualified to be able to say what would count as in or out.
Sure, it's a big state with a lot of moving parts. Trump moved a lot of parts in different ways, some in ways that they haven't or shouldn't been moved before. I certainly wouldn't describe his admin as particularly rightward if you can define the right by libertarian terms. But by the end of his term he'd moved the right trump-ward and that's probably his bigger impact. The republitarian GOP and right of my youth, already mortally wounded by W, seems more far from life than ever in my experience.
All correct but irrelevant Lee. InMD pointed out that Trump moderated the GOP message and he did. He did it by lying and then running his administration as a particularly corrupt and inept version of a standard GOP deficit exploding, tax cutting outfit when he'd claimed he wouldn't.
That doesn't change the fact that he moderated the GOP's message.
What happened happened Saul. If anything, it speaks worse of Trump that it happened because he immediately went back on that moderated message but it DID happen. Trump campaigned in 2016 on refusing to cut Social Security and Medicaid. He campaigned for the nomination in 2016 denouncing Bush W's war in Iraq. Those positions were all full on apostacy to the pre-Trump GOP. In taking those positions Trump did moderate from the normal GOP positions and it assuredly helped him greatly against HRC. Personally, I think that she would have probably beaten a standard GOP politician like a sack if they were campaigning on the old Ryanomics line.
Yes, the fisher lied about it but he did moderate the GOP's messaging. I’m baffled by your outrage here. It’s like saying Trump wore pants in 2016. He absolutely did. That did happen.
I'm certainly waiting with bated breath. On one hand Harris has a rep as being an able enough prosecutor and performing well in Senate hearings. On the other hand she hasn't done any of that stuff recently and her most recent debate performances were in '19 which were not particularly good.
Trump strikes me as more of a known factor. The only question is if he changes debate manners to address Harris. Heck I have doubts he even can. He's not shown a great command of details in the past so I'm unsure if he can bring specific talking points against Harris specifically. I also am unsure how Harris will react to Trumps word salad manner of "debating" which is its own very distinct thing.
One thing is for sure, the "Debates are meaningless and accomplish little" coterie should be considered well and truly thumped after this cycle.
On “Why a Trump Loss is Best for Conservatives”
They won't, of course, because they're money republicans. They'd support anyone so long as said person was promising tax cuts.
"
Some, but if it's just a question of money then I'm entirely unconcerned. The Dems are doing fine for money because most donors, big and small, recognize their party for that it is.
"
It makes it so much easier to sigh in jaded disdain at both sides being equally irrational.
"
I didn't call it a strawman and would, rather, call it an exaggeration if it's intentional or, if as I suspect you're just getting a bit twitter brained, just misunderstanding that social media is not meatspace.
"
True, but even if the path to recovery is Trump losing and then losing again the first step, still is Trump losing.
"
Sure, but unfortunately for the money wing AOC represents the left most fringe of the Democratic Party, not its actual operational or even ideological position.
"
Musk doesn't appear to be thinking mainly in money terms anymore. He's crossed over into culture warring spurred, it seems, primarily by his conflict with his child. He's Culture!Right rather than Money!Right now.
Thiel seems to be a more complicated question. He might just be Money!Right making culture noises or he might be drinking his own kool-aid.
"
I agree, but that is because most of the Pro-Palestinian faction in American politics exists primarily in the gauzy realm of online media.
"
Uh huh and that is... *checks policy and dialogue from the actual Democratic party actors* ... just about nil.
"
God(ess?) if fishing only. NC would be just the chefs kiss.
"
On the one hand I think you may well be correct but on the other hand there are structural reasons why you (and I) could be proven wrong.
Specifically... money. The money wing of the GOP is very real, very rich and very not changing. These are the people who have money, want more of it and care little for much else beyond that consideration which means they care deeply about taxes and very conditionally about regulation*. They don't command votes directly but they carry a lot of intellectual heft- they virtually own libertarian discourse, for instance, which, until Trump, meant they also owned the entire right wing brain trust.
Now Trump and the populists are bucking that trend but they're also so nakedly corrupt or inept (or both!) that there isn't, really, a very concrete ideology that stands in opposition to the republitarian default that the money wing of the GOP embodies. Neocon foreign policy, note, is a seperate and very feeble wing that is discredited and used as an opportunistic stick to hit Dems with but is, when the rubber hits the road, mostly defunct.
So, with the alternative right wing ideologies incoherent and undermined the money wing still rules the roost whatever mouth noises the party otherwise makes. The money wing isn't going to go Democratic (if they were they'd have joined the large corporate Dem** contingent long ago) and they have every reason to believe that when Trumpism burns out they'll be left ruling the ashes.
*Not like libertarians but as in "if this regulation makes me money I like it and if it impedes me from making money then I hate it and it's the devils' dandruff."
**Basically people who care about money most of all but take a longer view saying "we'll have a lot less money if we provoke an uprising of the proles, an authoritarian takeover or a deficit crisis so we have to swallow a certain degree of taxation, regulation and redistribution."
"
In the open mic channel you linked to a very strongly pro-Israeli plank in the platform of the Democratic Party, one that is representative of all of the Israeli relevant planks in the actual Democratic party as opposed to the imaginary one that is represented on twitter. I responded asking you if that plank surprised you and you seemed to elide that your only surprise was that it was present at all.
It seems, from this comment, that you were actually very surprised that the actual Democratic party is strongly pro-Israel, so surprised in fact that you somehow forgot that the Dems pick Israel as an ally over the Palestinians. Am I misreading you?
"
I'm going to defend David a bit by pointing out that his point stands despite what you say being right. Trump may well be (and I say is) what conservativism is now; but the path to that changing starts with Trump losing.
On “Open Mic for the week of 9/23/2024”
Does this surprise you? It doesn't at all surprise me.
On “History Will Be Made: Harris VS Trump”
I have doubts that there's a lot more she can do, given the Israeli government that she and Joe are dealing with, that would improve anything over silence.
"
This is commensurate with my own more limited experiences and observations. I appreciate you sharing as I'm not deep into most of the really lefty communities.
"
Yes, and even the I/P stuff is a tempest in an online teapot.
"
Good summary, doesn't make for soothing reading to me though which is probably for the best.
One other lift for Harris that I'd like to note is that the lefts' purity dragon seems absent. In 2000 and in 2016 coming off two term Democratic presidencies the left went on purity kicks and seriously considered what they deemed more "pure" alternatives like Nader in 2000 and Bernie in 2016. I haven't gotten much vibe that Biden is facing this issue. Trump really horrifies the left now, Biden's only had one term, Biden's been much less right wing than the left expected, Harris ticks several identity boxes. I'm not sure which factor is decisive but I don't think that charlatan Jill is going to pull material numbers.
On “Is the Logjam About to Break?”
There's so much reason to be cheerful. I can't help but think that the undecided who're unwilling to commit to Trump probably generally will break for Harris at the last minute for instance- if they aren't for him now they won't be later. But it's just to close for any sense of tirumphalism.
On “The Party of the Middle”
For sure, I can't speak to it myself though- I may have a general understanding of conservatism but I don't think I'm qualified to be able to say what would count as in or out.
"
Sure, it's a big state with a lot of moving parts. Trump moved a lot of parts in different ways, some in ways that they haven't or shouldn't been moved before. I certainly wouldn't describe his admin as particularly rightward if you can define the right by libertarian terms. But by the end of his term he'd moved the right trump-ward and that's probably his bigger impact. The republitarian GOP and right of my youth, already mortally wounded by W, seems more far from life than ever in my experience.
"
All correct but irrelevant Lee. InMD pointed out that Trump moderated the GOP message and he did. He did it by lying and then running his administration as a particularly corrupt and inept version of a standard GOP deficit exploding, tax cutting outfit when he'd claimed he wouldn't.
That doesn't change the fact that he moderated the GOP's message.
"
What happened happened Saul. If anything, it speaks worse of Trump that it happened because he immediately went back on that moderated message but it DID happen. Trump campaigned in 2016 on refusing to cut Social Security and Medicaid. He campaigned for the nomination in 2016 denouncing Bush W's war in Iraq. Those positions were all full on apostacy to the pre-Trump GOP. In taking those positions Trump did moderate from the normal GOP positions and it assuredly helped him greatly against HRC. Personally, I think that she would have probably beaten a standard GOP politician like a sack if they were campaigning on the old Ryanomics line.
Yes, the fisher lied about it but he did moderate the GOP's messaging. I’m baffled by your outrage here. It’s like saying Trump wore pants in 2016. He absolutely did. That did happen.
On “Brace Yourselves: The Debate is Coming”
I'm certainly waiting with bated breath. On one hand Harris has a rep as being an able enough prosecutor and performing well in Senate hearings. On the other hand she hasn't done any of that stuff recently and her most recent debate performances were in '19 which were not particularly good.
Trump strikes me as more of a known factor. The only question is if he changes debate manners to address Harris. Heck I have doubts he even can. He's not shown a great command of details in the past so I'm unsure if he can bring specific talking points against Harris specifically. I also am unsure how Harris will react to Trumps word salad manner of "debating" which is its own very distinct thing.
One thing is for sure, the "Debates are meaningless and accomplish little" coterie should be considered well and truly thumped after this cycle.
On “The Party of the Middle”
I was thinking that too, heh.