Trump was handed a healthy economy and, after a while, things went bad -- not entirely his fault, but on his watch and, to some extent, because of what he did. Biden was handed a very unhealthy economy, and faced the same problems faced by most of the rest of the world. We hacked our way out of it, better than other countries did, and eventually broke the back of inflation without pitching ourselves into a recession. Now Trump will be handed, again, a healthy economy, which, I predict, he'll f**k up. And his fans won't care.
What people "like" is a false memory. Gas prices are down to Trump-era levels (I paid $2.99 a gallon this past week), egg prices are back close to normal after avian flu (I paid $2.99 a dozen last week), and things are humming. But "vibes" beat reality in the short run.
Probably a lot more than $600 if the suits came, as most of his do, from Brioni. The tailors probably want to wear bags on their heads. Making them fit right would be an easy fix for them.
That's true of many things. For example, most voters say they want to cut foreign aid. And yet when asked what percentage of the budget should go to foreign aid, they pick a number lower than what they imagine the current percentage to be but far in excess of what it really is.
Low information voters believe silly things, part 5932.
Maybe -- maybe -- somebody, or a lot of somebodies, could have done something that would have gotten Biden out of the race early enough to allow a pseudo-primary in which the sitting VP (or acting President in a 25th Amendment situation) would still be a heavy favorite, especially if Biden endorsed her. And maybe -- maybe -- it wouldn't tear the party to pieces if someone out of nowhere jumped over the existing back-up QB. Maybe then we could have "done better" for the 2024 race. Maybe.
But none of that happened, so what was the move in actual reality?
There's no such thing as the absolute best a party could have done. There is always, at least in theory, a better candidate. But when Candidate X wins the nomination, apparently fair and square, it is incumbent on the person who thinks there was a "better" candidate to explain who it was and what path that person could realistically have had to the nomination, not just wave one's hands around and say Somebody Else would have been better.
I have my own short list of people I think would be excellent Presidential candidates if they had such bothersome things as name recognition, a sizeable natural constituency, and a base of built-in supporters who have some strong preference for these candidates over similar folks on other lists.
I remember those threads and took part in some of them -- as well as the later ones that mentioned post-mortems that, necessarily, didn't exist until some time after the election. I also remember your frustration that people didn't want to talk about what you wanted to talk about the way you wanted it talked about, but preferred to talk about other things more interesting to them. And not surprisingly. Once you've said: "Hillary f****d up by not putting more campaign resources into Wisconsin" and the like, there simply wasn't much else to say. That Hillary was not a particularly good candidate was common ground and there was nothing much else to say. Unless you thought Bernie could have won the nomination (he couldn't) or the general election (he wouldn't) or that there was some yet-to-be-named Johnny Unbeatable who had a path to the nomination. The commenters found other topics more interesting (including whether The Big Bang Theory was funny) and preferred to talk about them.
Sometimes, the damn dogs won't eat it.
I was here, all right, and back then I pointed out in real time criticisms of the Clinton campaign, and, later, books on the subject. And, still later, that the mistakes were not repeated. So somebody must have been on the case.
But that didn't interest you then and probably doesn't now. You wanted people to adopt a certain tone of contrition and you didn't get it. But then again your politics are largely aesthetic and not political.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “History Was Made in 2024 Election, Now What?”
Grover Cleveland beat him to it.
"
Trump was handed a healthy economy and, after a while, things went bad -- not entirely his fault, but on his watch and, to some extent, because of what he did. Biden was handed a very unhealthy economy, and faced the same problems faced by most of the rest of the world. We hacked our way out of it, better than other countries did, and eventually broke the back of inflation without pitching ourselves into a recession. Now Trump will be handed, again, a healthy economy, which, I predict, he'll f**k up. And his fans won't care.
What people "like" is a false memory. Gas prices are down to Trump-era levels (I paid $2.99 a gallon this past week), egg prices are back close to normal after avian flu (I paid $2.99 a dozen last week), and things are humming. But "vibes" beat reality in the short run.
On “2024 Election Day Live Stream, Reaction, Open Thread”
Oh my, someone won an election. How insufferable!
"
Yeah, we'll be bringing frivolous lawsuits and storming the Capitol any day now.
"
Class always shows.
On “The Joy Of Opening Time Capsules: The Night Before the 2024 Presidential Election”
To save everyone a lot of time:
https://www.cjr.org/covering_the_election/bad_media_takes_election.php
On “Open Mic for the week of 10/28/2024”
Well, yes, I saw. Hence the comment.
Eric sends his regards.
"
Probably a lot more than $600 if the suits came, as most of his do, from Brioni. The tailors probably want to wear bags on their heads. Making them fit right would be an easy fix for them.
"
Newsom
"
When they tell you who they are, believe them.
On “The Way Through is Donald Trump for President”
That's true of many things. For example, most voters say they want to cut foreign aid. And yet when asked what percentage of the budget should go to foreign aid, they pick a number lower than what they imagine the current percentage to be but far in excess of what it really is.
Low information voters believe silly things, part 5932.
"
Thus proving my point.
On “Open Mic for the week of 10/28/2024”
What did Dumbya have against Liz Cheney?
"
Two things can be true at once. Liz Cheney is generally loathsome and she is doing the right thing this time.
On “The Way Through is Donald Trump for President”
It may be simple, but it isn't serious -- or even legal.
"
Whose? To do what? And when?
Maybe -- maybe -- somebody, or a lot of somebodies, could have done something that would have gotten Biden out of the race early enough to allow a pseudo-primary in which the sitting VP (or acting President in a 25th Amendment situation) would still be a heavy favorite, especially if Biden endorsed her. And maybe -- maybe -- it wouldn't tear the party to pieces if someone out of nowhere jumped over the existing back-up QB. Maybe then we could have "done better" for the 2024 race. Maybe.
But none of that happened, so what was the move in actual reality?
"
If things were different, they'd be different.
"
It seems we agree on what was possible in the situation we found ourselves in.
"
There's no such thing as the absolute best a party could have done. There is always, at least in theory, a better candidate. But when Candidate X wins the nomination, apparently fair and square, it is incumbent on the person who thinks there was a "better" candidate to explain who it was and what path that person could realistically have had to the nomination, not just wave one's hands around and say Somebody Else would have been better.
I have my own short list of people I think would be excellent Presidential candidates if they had such bothersome things as name recognition, a sizeable natural constituency, and a base of built-in supporters who have some strong preference for these candidates over similar folks on other lists.
"
I remember those threads and took part in some of them -- as well as the later ones that mentioned post-mortems that, necessarily, didn't exist until some time after the election. I also remember your frustration that people didn't want to talk about what you wanted to talk about the way you wanted it talked about, but preferred to talk about other things more interesting to them. And not surprisingly. Once you've said: "Hillary f****d up by not putting more campaign resources into Wisconsin" and the like, there simply wasn't much else to say. That Hillary was not a particularly good candidate was common ground and there was nothing much else to say. Unless you thought Bernie could have won the nomination (he couldn't) or the general election (he wouldn't) or that there was some yet-to-be-named Johnny Unbeatable who had a path to the nomination. The commenters found other topics more interesting (including whether The Big Bang Theory was funny) and preferred to talk about them.
Sometimes, the damn dogs won't eat it.
"
Avian flu was a b***h, wasn't it.
Been grocery shopping lately?
"
Lack of self-awareness is tough to work through.
On “What If Trump Wins?”
I'd say only you would come up with something like that, but I'm no longer sure.
On “The Way Through is Donald Trump for President”
I guess we'll have to take your word for it.
"
I was here, all right, and back then I pointed out in real time criticisms of the Clinton campaign, and, later, books on the subject. And, still later, that the mistakes were not repeated. So somebody must have been on the case.
But that didn't interest you then and probably doesn't now. You wanted people to adopt a certain tone of contrition and you didn't get it. But then again your politics are largely aesthetic and not political.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.