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.
You and me both. I keep thinking "anyone who's not affirmatively pro-Trump now will surely break for Harris or non-voting instead of Trump barring some black swan" but I fear that is wishful thinking.
Ironically, I am going on a cruise the week of the election, so it is going to be an extra awkward election for me. Bloody friends having 50th's on election week. The cheek!
I'm urban so, of course, Trump support is very low and I don't see any Trump signs. Most of the Harris signs I've seen are home made.
But that is a very curious observation about Trump signs. When I drive out to the country for visits a prominent sign I see is "Vote Republican, they may suck but the other party is INSANE" which strikes me as bold.
I very very much hope you are correct Saul. But I also think about past campaigns where we liberals talked confidently about how we had a large, organized ground game vs the opponents having a rock in a sock and how it turned out. I would really love some happier polls though, I grant, the polls sure are happier now than they were with poor Uncle Joe.
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.
Fair enough and a good point. In HRC-verse she probably gets the trifecta (W and his party were justifiably loathed) but I grant she probably wouldn't have gotten a 60 vote filibuster proof majority in the Senate. And then the butterfly wings get going and history goes wingdings.
And, yes, much as I like ol Uncle Joe, the ACA was historic, significant and is now popular which means it's going to be really tough to get rid of. Nothing Joe did will compare to that though he has accomplished astonishingly much for one term.
Also, in my defense, the "counter intuitive takes" on Obama were my first takes and I'm on record on this very site grumbling about them back when everyone else was over the moon about him. *shakes his cane irritably*
I am not surprised at all. As some people I've read have observed- Trump didn't turn in a bad performance for Trump, he turned in a standard performance in fact. It's just that Trumps performance is pretty lousy and it's unlikely he can do much better than that. So, if he always throws paper, cannot be made to throw rock or scissors and Harris has demonstrated she can throw scissors then the only rational thing for Trumps crew to do is keep him out of the game of Rock, Paper, Scissors.
I feel ya, I was on team HRC in '7-08*, so I always took a jaundiced view of Obama's Hope and Change themes even as I appreciated the victory. He did a fine job overall, and I was entirely happy voting for him in 2012 but he just disdained the business of politics and party building in a way that just drove me batty. I always will wonder if HRC had not been so high on her own supply of inept hangers on* in '08 and had won that year instead, on a more cynical and jaundiced theme towards the GOP, with Obama as her Veep how history would have gone differently. Obama vs Trump would have been a blowout for us I'd think .
And, yes, Obama never loved debating and approached it with some palpable resignation. God(ess?), I still can remember the cold chill I got when he choked the first debate in '12 when Romneybot was running on all cylinders.
*May Mark Penn die painfully and slow roast in agnostic h3ll forever.
Funny I thought she was better than Obama, but I've never loved the man, and I've always felt like Obama approached politics with a kind of disdain for the work of it that really undercut him.
My own hope is that with this win Harris' campaign will relax a little and put her out for more coverage and exposure than they have.
I'd be surprised if Trump agrees to another debate.
On “Why a Trump Loss is Best for Conservatives”
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 “History Will Be Made: Harris VS Trump”
Fingers crossed!
"
You and me both. I keep thinking "anyone who's not affirmatively pro-Trump now will surely break for Harris or non-voting instead of Trump barring some black swan" but I fear that is wishful thinking.
Ironically, I am going on a cruise the week of the election, so it is going to be an extra awkward election for me. Bloody friends having 50th's on election week. The cheek!
"
I'm urban so, of course, Trump support is very low and I don't see any Trump signs. Most of the Harris signs I've seen are home made.
But that is a very curious observation about Trump signs. When I drive out to the country for visits a prominent sign I see is "Vote Republican, they may suck but the other party is INSANE" which strikes me as bold.
"
I very very much hope you are correct Saul. But I also think about past campaigns where we liberals talked confidently about how we had a large, organized ground game vs the opponents having a rock in a sock and how it turned out. I would really love some happier polls though, I grant, the polls sure are happier now than they were with poor Uncle Joe.
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 “Watch And React Live: The Harris Trump Debate”
If Harris wins Biden's single term will be lit in a very golden glow of accomplishment and victory. History will be kind.
"
Fair enough and a good point. In HRC-verse she probably gets the trifecta (W and his party were justifiably loathed) but I grant she probably wouldn't have gotten a 60 vote filibuster proof majority in the Senate. And then the butterfly wings get going and history goes wingdings.
And, yes, much as I like ol Uncle Joe, the ACA was historic, significant and is now popular which means it's going to be really tough to get rid of. Nothing Joe did will compare to that though he has accomplished astonishingly much for one term.
Also, in my defense, the "counter intuitive takes" on Obama were my first takes and I'm on record on this very site grumbling about them back when everyone else was over the moon about him. *shakes his cane irritably*
"
I am not surprised at all. As some people I've read have observed- Trump didn't turn in a bad performance for Trump, he turned in a standard performance in fact. It's just that Trumps performance is pretty lousy and it's unlikely he can do much better than that. So, if he always throws paper, cannot be made to throw rock or scissors and Harris has demonstrated she can throw scissors then the only rational thing for Trumps crew to do is keep him out of the game of Rock, Paper, Scissors.
"
I feel ya, I was on team HRC in '7-08*, so I always took a jaundiced view of Obama's Hope and Change themes even as I appreciated the victory. He did a fine job overall, and I was entirely happy voting for him in 2012 but he just disdained the business of politics and party building in a way that just drove me batty. I always will wonder if HRC had not been so high on her own supply of inept hangers on* in '08 and had won that year instead, on a more cynical and jaundiced theme towards the GOP, with Obama as her Veep how history would have gone differently. Obama vs Trump would have been a blowout for us I'd think .
And, yes, Obama never loved debating and approached it with some palpable resignation. God(ess?), I still can remember the cold chill I got when he choked the first debate in '12 when Romneybot was running on all cylinders.
*May Mark Penn die painfully and slow roast in agnostic h3ll forever.
"
Funny I thought she was better than Obama, but I've never loved the man, and I've always felt like Obama approached politics with a kind of disdain for the work of it that really undercut him.
My own hope is that with this win Harris' campaign will relax a little and put her out for more coverage and exposure than they have.
I'd be surprised if Trump agrees to another debate.
"
As an unabashed partisan I'm pretty chuffed with Harris' performance.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.