No doubt Trump has let the tariffs be imposed so we're definitely forging into uncharted territory even vis a vis his previous stunts.

To be clear his threatening tariffs, getting a market sag then claiming victory over "concessions" that he obtained from his targets that ended up being meaningless happened this term not during his previous one.

Perhaps they will- their own electorates will likely become increasingly unfriendly to the kowtowing that Trump will demand and prevented recessions and waves of unemployment are mostly invisible and thus provide limited upside with voters. At which point we find out if Trump will actually hold firm to this idiocy in the face of a massive market bloodbath or if he'll try and scramble for the exits.

Presumably Trump will try and shake out some "concessions" just like last time or else we're going to see a market cratering like we've probably never seen before and he'll end up backtracking and claiming he never did it.

I can remember, many times in the past, especially under Bush Minor, prophesizing that the day would come when the neocons would be extinct and here we are with that having very functionally come to pass and turns out it was a finger on a monkeys paw.

Sweet agnostic Jesus what a sh*tshow!

Fair point- then President McCain rolls in in 2008? I wonder if he gets an Obama sized trifecta in reverse? Probably too many butterfly wings at that point to even begin to guess but you can bet the Debt would be a lot fishing lower.

All I'm saying is that in 2000 the non-incumbent Gore got within a few hanging chads of winning Florida. It seems unlikely to me that an incumbent Gore would turn in a result that is the same or worse assuming economic conditions remained the same. Especially when we consider we're talking about the turn of the century when all our assumptions about incumbency advantages were minted. I grant, readily, that Gore had connection and politician problems with the voters but let us not forget how gape jawed idiotic W was. An incumbent Gore would have gotten some "things are good- stay the course" low info votes. Maybe that's not a lot of votes but, again, non-incumbent Gore tied W. Any little benefit flips it to Gore.

I mean, as close as VP Gore vs Bush was in 2000 the idea that Incumbent Pres. Gore vs Bush would have had the same outcome strikes me as unlikely. Just the slightest nudge of incumbency advantage would have pushed Gore over the top.

Now whether Gore's admin would have:
A- intercepted the Al'Queda hijackers or
B- not intervened in Afghanistan after 9/11 or
C- not intervened in Iraq or
D- headed off the subprime fiasco
Is a very difficult question. I'd say A: maybe they could have, B: probably not if 9/11 happened; C almost assuredly they wouldn't have gone into Iraq; D- No they wouldn't have Captain Foresight in their cabinet.

Gores VP was... (holy agnostic Jebus!), Liberman and Gore'd be term limited out in 2004 so... a Pres Liberman goes down to McCain after the Great Recession blooms in 2008? But no Iraq? And, good God(ess?) what the countries fisc would look like without the Bush tax cuts and Iraq war on the books?!?!

As, I presume, you're well aware that is utterly and completely meaningless this far out from the next primary contest. More than anything it simply indicates how many of the interviewees recognize a given name.

I mean Georgia and the south eastern (north of Florida) coastal states do look to be improving for Dems and have potential to become a new battleground. It's not hopeless.

The theory is it'd swing a heck of a lot more than continuing on our current course would.

Saul, question, did you read the original article we're discussing? Because Barro is not expressing general, unmoored from reality, DEI sentiment. He's talking about specific, concrete instances of DEI based political (and policy) malpractice.

And I agree with a lot of your analysis about how the election last year went down. The problem is #1, #2, and to a degree #3 (seriously, are you saying that political reality forbids nominating minorities or women? Seriously???) are not actionable assertions.

1.a and DEI in general are things Dems could act on and could in theory control. I agree that, in the Trump era in 2026 and 2028 the Dems probably will have some advantage simply in thermostatic and Trumpian terms. But we don't want to be eking out 50%+1 wins against this flaming dumpster fire/psychotic incoherent clown show of a right wing party; we need to thump them in order to make them change. Not just scrabble out a win, route them. If ditching the performative, stupid and grifty elements of DEI; not (I emphasize -NOT-) the genuine substantive areas where DEI overlaps with our many other principles about helping and protecting minorities and other disadvantaged groups; why the fish should we not do that? Because it'd give some white bros on the internet who'd never vote for the Dems anyhow a happy? Who fishing cares. If they're momentarily tickled because we axed a bunch of stupid DEI stuff they'll be utterly miserable when their entire ring wing project gets consigned to the political wilderness.

For fish's sake, it's like we're sweeping down a river towards a waterfall and some of us are saying "hey let's row to the shore" but all you want to talk about is how the current is evil, physics is unrelenting and going over the waterfall would be a calamity. Yes, fine, sure, but physics won't change, we do not have the power to change the current, let's row to shore!

There could be an element of it but it's unlikely. The majority of the damage is done at the non-profit, government agency and academic level along with social media. Corporate HR types are down with it for very simple incentive matters: You spend a few bucks on kayfabe DEI stuff and that makes it very easy to cheaply deflect any litigation about discriminatory hiring/firing practices. It's pretty good business.

I'm probably not assuming a lot but I think liberals and even centrists would be on very solid ground to contemptuously laugh and disregard every person to the right who ever mentions originalism again if SCOTUS just does the equivalent of ripping off the mask and cackling "you fools, it wasn't principle, it was just will to power all along!"

As Lee is obliquely pointing out, Saul, there's a corollary to your "Defeating Trump is Important!" exclamation. A LOT of the DEI gestures and habits are -not- substantive positions but rather symbolic ticks and a lot of the constituencies DEI helps are not vulnerable, marginalized people who DEI helps or protects. A lot of the DEI beneficiaries (I dare to say most of them even) are wealthy academics, over credentialed consultants and fashionable wealthy capitalists using DEI's precepts for cover, profit or prestige.

If defeating Trump is important (and I agree it emphatically is) then is not discarding the superfluous, useless or posturing fashions of DEI not a very small price to pay to advance the goal of defeating Trump?

I emphasize, before some DEI advocate rushes to hide behind the disadvantaged and marginal, that everyone agrees that a lot of DEI can be discarded without hurting the powerless, marginal or disadvantaged. Wouldn't discarding the DEI faff not be a small price to pay to defeat Trump? It's not like Barro is being vague here- he points to very definite material policies DEI ushered in and how they're HATED by minorities that DEI claims to be protecting.

Well yes, between Trump ineptitude and thermostatic reaction the Dems could realistically swing back quite easily without changing a lot. Personally I'd prefer that they take somewhat more agency in the matter and go for more than a mere thermostatic win.

As for Pete- I agree with your analysis, the problem is I'm not sure where in his laudable characteristics we find a mass voting constituency and he'd very badly need one if the tack he takes is one that, even gently, questions the mores and ticks of the activist/elitist left set.

I still have a warm spot for Pete but I'm not certain how he goes forward. There's talk about him carpetbagging into a Michigan Senate seat and that'd be something, I suppose, and that's better than nothing. Still his mayoral backgrounds and his acceptable but not remarkable stint in the administration is a narrow base to build a national career on. I certainly wish him well.

Well I certainly am not tired of you talking about your opinion on the matter.

Yes I think you and he are sortof saying the same thing. It's kind of moved into being basically just a common language and reflex for almost the whole fashionable activist set.

An interesting analysis from Josh Barro about the real costs of DEI thought among the Dems. I think he is being a bit overwrought on it but I don't know that I strongly disagree either.

https://www.joshbarro.com/p/democrats-need-their-own-dei-purge/comments

Seems like, if that happens, originalism will be toast right along with it and considering that originalism has been the banner of pretty much all right wing judicial philosophy for my entire adult life (or longer) that'll be something the right will miss pretty fiercely when the worm turns again. Unless, of course, they honestly think they can rig it so they never lose an election again.

I sure as heck hope she does something about Adams.

Sure, and that's an argument for the courts which, most likely, Trump will viscously lose because whatever argument one might make about federal funds being used for transportation giving them a say it's unlikely that Trump writing 'repeal it" on a napkin and tweeting it out is the acceptable method to throw that weight around. When it's an unambiguously good program and a strong legal case I think the preponderance of the advantage is in fighting for it.

The legality of this strikes me as black and white and unambiguously outside Don's authority. Your political analysis strikes me as debatable- yes maybe some people who made the tradeoffs and took transit instead will be delighted by this. It's also possible that an equal number of people who enjoyed the noticeably reduced congestion will be less pleased. Could be that this'll please more people than it displeases but, to be blunt, Don isn't winning New Jersey or New York state even if he makes some of their upstaters happy two years away from the next election. Whereas the Dems saying "fish you, that's illegal" strikes me as useful for their sides moral in a way that could snowball forward towards the election. I don't think pre-emptive obedience is going to be helpful.

And that's without touching on Trump declaring himself King. Maybe a few libertarians and righties actually would care about that. Lol I know, sorry, couldn't help but try the joke. Snerk.

What the heck happened? Did Hochul get abducted and replaced with a pod person? Is there some way to make sure the real one doesn't come back?