The Republicans under Mittler might have been a party worthy of winning compared to Obummer but it wasn't until the Orangefarbener Korporal pulled off a win against arguably the weakest Democratic candidate since Mondale (and he only SQUEAKED a W out).
2020 was weird. BLM, Covid, Impeachment Numero Uno...
And now 2024 had him win against the weakest Democratic candidate since Mondale.
He looks at the data and thinks it's weird in general:
I predict that what we’re seeing here is not each individual child’s learning loss multiplied across all children, but a systemic effect where something about the pandemic made schools worse - in a way that would set back even some hypothetical child who stayed in school throughout the pandemic and suffered no learning loss.
We’ll know more when we get the 2026 test results, and see scores for kids who hadn’t even started school during COVID.
We're getting ever closer to saying "maybe we should have done something else" without opening with "what we did was perfectly justifiable, given the information we had at the time".
It seems silly to go back and relitigate 2016 every time the left loses an election but one thing that strikes me as being a major mistake (with perfect hindsight) that I did not notice at the time was the branding of support for Bernie as being sexist.
The "Berniebros". Remember that? Supporting Bernie not because of Socialized Medicine or because of the millionaires and the billionaires but because they hated women.
And this messaging stuck with a bunch of people. Remember the picture of Bernie sitting outside at the Biden inauguration? Wearing those mittens? That picture was used as evidence that Bernie held Harris in disdain.
Ah, good times.
Anyway, to run with what you've said, I think that movement to the left might be a good play if it is done in such a way that it allows for, for example, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez to remain firmly in the "NOT ME!!! I'M A MODERATE!!!!" camp.
"You cannot be the party of working families when the places you govern are places that working families cannot afford to live."
And so he's arguing for "Abundance". He talks about the high speed rail debacle and how it's evidence that California-style ain't a style that other states will want... because it's incapable of achieving the goals it claims are important.
I like Balko and his three suggestions strike me as fodder for the choir, not the heathen.
I see why the choir would like them... but we're trying to get people back. I'd give Koz a similar speech about how this isn't about people who voted for Trump either.
The one thing I might incorporate from his suggestion might be a little contrition "okay, we got over our skis... we understand why we were a less attractive choice and we've changed. Here's how."
"Look at how awful Donald Trump is!" might not work because I'm not sure that what you see as awful will resonate. Seriously, have Jamie Raskin come out and talk about DEI?!? Are you trying to get Vance elected?!?
But the town halls idea is good. Dems should do that.
Speaking of Video Games, it looks like Ubisoft's talks with Tencent have stalled.
The CFRA has downgraded it from "hold" to "sell". Assassin's Creed Shadows releases in a little over a week. If the game underperforms, it will be bad. They've had a good month but a bad 12 months and an atrocious 60 months.
The Subterranean Border Defense Act just passed the house with a single "No" vote.
402-1.
Remember the black kid with brain cancer that the Republicans clapped for during Trump's speech and the Democrats didn't?
The online backlash has, apparently, started to get to some of the Dems on some of the 80-20 issues in the runup to the most important election of our lifetimes.
There is a Mahmoud Khalil in Montreal as well, a student at Concordia.
He says some stuff that might be considered risible during the various protests celebrating justice and goodness and all that and I'm pretty sure that the two Mahmoud Khalils are being conflated.
I find it relevant. It pretty much explains the backlash happening right now.
But if you don't see what's happening as a backlash, then these are just unconnected anecdotes, if not an attempt to change the subject through whataboutery.
Any Alien Who
...
(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization
The argument is that support for the government in Gaza is support for Hamas.
Hamas has been designated a terrorist group since 1997.
Let me... clarify? With a bunch of premises that strike me as being not only true but uncontroversial.
Over the past few years (decades, maybe?) there has been a fairly raucous argument involving, among other things, "Free Speech" in our culture and it bubbles up especially on campuses. Maybe it bubbles up the most there.
Campuses, and the people who graduate from them, have an outsized influence on the culture.
In recent years, the most vocal have... what's the most non-judgmental way to put this... let's say that they got a little over their skis.
Sometimes in defenses of the indefensible while crying "Free Speech!" (for example, the protests against Gibson's Bakery) and, other times, screaming about "hate speech" or similar terms to call for people to be punished for speech. "Freedom of Speech Doesn't Mean Freedom from Consequences" is one of the ways this manifested... but another was the whole distinction made between punching up and punching down. I'm sure you remember those distinctions as well.
From people on the outside, a lot of these distinctions presented pretty identically to "*I* can do whatever I want while *YOU* have to stay in line."
There were a handful of idealistic types who argued stuff like "we should have a culture that allows a broad space for this sort of thing and we should err on the side of giving a lot of leeway" and that sort of thing got responses of "why are you defending scoundrels?"
And this is where the whole "getting over their skis" thing comes into play.
People who were used to being able to say "Freedom of Speech doesn't mean Freedom from Consequences" are going through a rough time while talking about the importance of a Culture of Free Speech.
While I agree that it is important that we have a Culture of Free Speech, it also seems to me that we're well within experiencing the consequences of *I* can do whatever I want while *YOU* have to stay in line" when the person holding the whip changes.
For what it's worth, I think that it is important that we have a Culture of Free Speech that allows for a lot of leeway when it comes to what people say, even on campus.
I'm pretty sure that the Palestinian Activist made sure that his acts and speech did not provide material support to groups that the federal government has marked as "terrorist".
It's 100% possible to criticize Israel without being anti-Semitic. And, heck, even if the guy skirted the edges of anti-Semitism, that's not illegal either.
And it really sucks that we've reached the point where something like this happens and the response is cheers that something is finally being done than a full-throated defense of the importance of a Culture of Free Speech.
It'd be nice if our universities had an environment that fostered more of an Enlightenment Culture, don't you think?
On “So Let’s Put Together a Democratic Party Ad Campaign”
The Republicans under Mittler might have been a party worthy of winning compared to Obummer but it wasn't until the Orangefarbener Korporal pulled off a win against arguably the weakest Democratic candidate since Mondale (and he only SQUEAKED a W out).
2020 was weird. BLM, Covid, Impeachment Numero Uno...
And now 2024 had him win against the weakest Democratic candidate since Mondale.
I'm not seeing "worthy of winning" anywhere.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/10/25”
In that vein, Scott Alexander asks: What Happened To NAEP Scores?
He looks at the data and thinks it's weird in general:
"
The Boston Globe is running a story on the whole "lockdown" thing: ‘The lockdowns were never really effective’: New research shows COVID stay-at-home orders did more harm than good
We're getting ever closer to saying "maybe we should have done something else" without opening with "what we did was perfectly justifiable, given the information we had at the time".
On “So Let’s Put Together a Democratic Party Ad Campaign”
Well, one of my fundamental assumptions is that there are three groups of voters.
"
It seems silly to go back and relitigate 2016 every time the left loses an election but one thing that strikes me as being a major mistake (with perfect hindsight) that I did not notice at the time was the branding of support for Bernie as being sexist.
The "Berniebros". Remember that? Supporting Bernie not because of Socialized Medicine or because of the millionaires and the billionaires but because they hated women.
And this messaging stuck with a bunch of people. Remember the picture of Bernie sitting outside at the Biden inauguration? Wearing those mittens? That picture was used as evidence that Bernie held Harris in disdain.
Ah, good times.
Anyway, to run with what you've said, I think that movement to the left might be a good play if it is done in such a way that it allows for, for example, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez to remain firmly in the "NOT ME!!! I'M A MODERATE!!!!" camp.
"
Ezra Klein, of all people, has a campaign you should check out.
"You cannot be the party of working families when the places you govern are places that working families cannot afford to live."
And so he's arguing for "Abundance". He talks about the high speed rail debacle and how it's evidence that California-style ain't a style that other states will want... because it's incapable of achieving the goals it claims are important.
So maybe he has one.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/10/25”
How many people does it take to make a bill have bipartisan support?
Two?
"
I guess the question is "is he affiliated with CUAD?"
Because, if he's not, no problem.
If he is, the question is whether "those posts are talking about Bangladesh, not Israel/Gaza!" is a good argument.
"
This guy has a thread about the CUAD (Columbia University Apartheid Divest) and what it talked about online.
If Mahmoud Khalil was affiliated with the CUAD, he's going to have a rough time explaining this.
On “So Let’s Put Together a Democratic Party Ad Campaign”
He's a hair aged at this point. Does he have an inheritor?
"
I like Balko and his three suggestions strike me as fodder for the choir, not the heathen.
I see why the choir would like them... but we're trying to get people back. I'd give Koz a similar speech about how this isn't about people who voted for Trump either.
The one thing I might incorporate from his suggestion might be a little contrition "okay, we got over our skis... we understand why we were a less attractive choice and we've changed. Here's how."
"Look at how awful Donald Trump is!" might not work because I'm not sure that what you see as awful will resonate. Seriously, have Jamie Raskin come out and talk about DEI?!? Are you trying to get Vance elected?!?
But the town halls idea is good. Dems should do that.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/10/25”
Speaking of Video Games, it looks like Ubisoft's talks with Tencent have stalled.
The CFRA has downgraded it from "hold" to "sell". Assassin's Creed Shadows releases in a little over a week. If the game underperforms, it will be bad. They've had a good month but a bad 12 months and an atrocious 60 months.
"
The Subterranean Border Defense Act just passed the house with a single "No" vote.
402-1.
Remember the black kid with brain cancer that the Republicans clapped for during Trump's speech and the Democrats didn't?
The online backlash has, apparently, started to get to some of the Dems on some of the 80-20 issues in the runup to the most important election of our lifetimes.
On “When the Friend Wife Leaves for a Week”
Inside you are two wives and they are always fighting. One can handle you visiting Mister Kelly, one cannot. Which wife wins?
The one you feed.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/10/25”
He wasn't quoting me saying that.
He was quoting Chris saying that.
"
Imagine if Biden even threatened this sort of thing.
"
If only she had removed "And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street" instead.
"
Well, I've already seen one person give a clip of the one guy in response to the question "what did this guy say that was so bad?"
On “So Let’s Put Together a Democratic Party Ad Campaign”
"I chose the impossible... I chose RAPTURE."
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/10/25”
It looks like a Federal Judge has blocked his removal.
So... there's that.
"
There is a Mahmoud Khalil in Montreal as well, a student at Concordia.
He says some stuff that might be considered risible during the various protests celebrating justice and goodness and all that and I'm pretty sure that the two Mahmoud Khalils are being conflated.
"
Where did you think "you can engage in free speech, just not *HATE* speech" would end up?
Expressions of support for Palestine have been huge on campus for decades and have managed to withstand attacks for decades.
What changed in the last few handfuls of years? Anything? Is all of this just coming out of nowhere for you?
"
I find it relevant. It pretty much explains the backlash happening right now.
But if you don't see what's happening as a backlash, then these are just unconnected anecdotes, if not an attempt to change the subject through whataboutery.
"
Folks online are pointing to TITLE 8 / CHAPTER 12 / SUBCHAPTER II / Part II of the immigration law (do a find on the string "terrorist activities") and quoting this part:
The argument is that support for the government in Gaza is support for Hamas.
Hamas has been designated a terrorist group since 1997.
"
Let me... clarify? With a bunch of premises that strike me as being not only true but uncontroversial.
Over the past few years (decades, maybe?) there has been a fairly raucous argument involving, among other things, "Free Speech" in our culture and it bubbles up especially on campuses. Maybe it bubbles up the most there.
Campuses, and the people who graduate from them, have an outsized influence on the culture.
In recent years, the most vocal have... what's the most non-judgmental way to put this... let's say that they got a little over their skis.
Sometimes in defenses of the indefensible while crying "Free Speech!" (for example, the protests against Gibson's Bakery) and, other times, screaming about "hate speech" or similar terms to call for people to be punished for speech. "Freedom of Speech Doesn't Mean Freedom from Consequences" is one of the ways this manifested... but another was the whole distinction made between punching up and punching down. I'm sure you remember those distinctions as well.
From people on the outside, a lot of these distinctions presented pretty identically to "*I* can do whatever I want while *YOU* have to stay in line."
There were a handful of idealistic types who argued stuff like "we should have a culture that allows a broad space for this sort of thing and we should err on the side of giving a lot of leeway" and that sort of thing got responses of "why are you defending scoundrels?"
And this is where the whole "getting over their skis" thing comes into play.
People who were used to being able to say "Freedom of Speech doesn't mean Freedom from Consequences" are going through a rough time while talking about the importance of a Culture of Free Speech.
While I agree that it is important that we have a Culture of Free Speech, it also seems to me that we're well within experiencing the consequences of *I* can do whatever I want while *YOU* have to stay in line" when the person holding the whip changes.
For what it's worth, I think that it is important that we have a Culture of Free Speech that allows for a lot of leeway when it comes to what people say, even on campus.
I'm pretty sure that the Palestinian Activist made sure that his acts and speech did not provide material support to groups that the federal government has marked as "terrorist".
It's 100% possible to criticize Israel without being anti-Semitic. And, heck, even if the guy skirted the edges of anti-Semitism, that's not illegal either.
And it really sucks that we've reached the point where something like this happens and the response is cheers that something is finally being done than a full-throated defense of the importance of a Culture of Free Speech.
It'd be nice if our universities had an environment that fostered more of an Enlightenment Culture, don't you think?