Yes, that is Trump. That Trump is losing it doesn't mean Kamala has it. We need to see her debate and interview yet. Initial signs are positive but this ain't in the bag yet.
It'd be a pretty shaky hook to hang ones hat on. Fox News' business risk is not that it'll lose viewers to mainstream media but that it'll lose them to the even nuttier wingers to the right. So, to be the network that lured Kamala in and cold clocked her would be a pretty alluring thing for them- and they'd simply deny they did anything wrong and the rest of the media would, eventually, temporize and talk about how awful MSNBS is anyhow. The downside risk seems to massively outweigh the upside risk. And that's ignoring that Fox hasn't done anything to merit such a debate in the first place so why reward them?
It is a complex question. Certainly, the British monarchy had some significant pull well into QEII's reign though it was much more subtle.
As early as George the IIIrds' reign in the late 1700's or earlier scholars were talking about how the Monarchy's temporal powers were steadily migrating into the moral realm.
But, really, the history of the British Monarchy has kindof always been a story of a long devolution of power from the Magna Carta on down. Britain was an island nation so, once Scottland and Wales were incorporated, they didn't have the same requirements for a standing royal army that other nations did which naturally lent itself to more decentralization. Not having a huge army around both reduced revenue needs and also made the Monarch not quite as capable of throwing elbows as would otherwise be the case.
Perhaps but it'd be pretty heavily dependent on their parentage. The internet levels things a lot so, yes, an 80k assistant professor can posture like an elite on social media but you wouldn't mistake them for one in person.
A lottery winner wouldn't automatically be considered elite unless they managed to not squander their winnings immediately but their kids, in the happy scenario they keep their money, would be considered elite. A successful drug dealer, on the other hand, would have no shot since their money would be physical, unlaundered and imperiled.
I think that's a plausible interpretation but since both land ownership and educational attainment tend to go hand in hand with lucre, I think that, at least in modern times, it's mostly blurred over into money in this country.
Sure, imagine it went well. It'd be nice. Now imagine they rigged her mic so they could selectively cut her off and let Don run rampant over her bellowing while his audience cheered and the moderators clucked. I know which outcome I think would be more likely.
Pete goes on and does well from time to time but this would be entirely different motivations, stakes and incentives.
In England, absolutely not. He'd barely be considered new money (especially since how much actual money he has now is an open question).
In America, definitely. Trump was born to money, was given money fished it up and then inherited more money which bailed him out him from his life choices from that point on. Americans generally seem to view class, from my own observation, as mostly a question of money. There's a level of delineations within elite depending on how long you have had your money and your background but that largely only matters to other elites.
I hope you're right, but this assumes evidence not yet present. Harris has had a fine launch- fantastically better than anyone left of Douthat has any right to have hoped for- but we don't know if that's because Harris' team is better (likely) or that these are circumstances she does better in (entirely possible- the 2020 primary in the summer of Floyd and Covid was a clusterfish) or that she just hasn't had a chance yet to do something foolish (possible and scary).
Mmmm I don't think the Fox offer is a good idea. It is Fox after all.
A) Rewarding/giving air to Fox at all is an awful idea all by itself.
B) Being in a studio debate with Trump with Fox media sock puppets ostensibly moderating it in front of a screaming mob of Troompaloompas would be a huge challenge for even the greatest politicians in history to try and come off looking good. That's just begging for a disaster for Harris.
I'm not ready to go full Jaybird yet on Harris' press exposure or lack thereof until, at least, after the convention.
I do think this also speaks to my point elsewhere and earlier that Harris is currently operating, largely, with a campaign team she inherited from Biden.
Pros: They're professional, seasoned and highly capable. They've been running a tight ship and they've guided her pretty well so far. They probably have their own gravitas so if she is, as was alleged in 2020, a boss-zilla it's harder for her to bulldoze them or drive them off.
Cons: Path dependency is a thing and this team has for reasons both merited (the mainstream media's BSDI inclined and horserace fixated bull) and unmerited (they were afraid of their candidate fishing up with unscripted media) this team instinctively wants to keep their candidate away from unscripted journalist encounters.
It's only been a few weeks so changing the course of the campaign on that will take a bit of time, but I think they need to do so. Is Harris at serious risk of blowing a hole in her own campaigns hull in interviews? I mean sure everyone is. Is she more at risk than her boss was? I'd say assuredly not. Is she more at risk than an average politician would be? Remains to be seen- there's arguments for and against. Still, I think she ultimately will have to get out there and engage. HRC, for very justified reasons, loathed the media and they reciprocated in many ways that hurt her badly. Harris has far less reason to avoid the press and far less justifiable reasons to do so.
As for Israel/Palestine? As long as she sticks to nostrums nothing that either side slings is going to sway the voters who'll decide this thing.
You and I both, and if Harris goes down to defeat after losing PA then you can be sure we both will chew this decision over with great rue.
But it bears noting that things have broken our way the last few weeks in a manner that can scarcely be believed. If I had phoned back to my self of July 4th 2024 fame and told him everything that had happened he'd think I was flying high on the devil's lettuce (and he'd want some!).
We may never know now. Without Shapiro being Veep there's not a lot of incentive for the GOP or anyone else to put those whispered rumors on full court roar. Instead, the DUI deafness thing from twenty some years ago and the Summer of Floyd troubles may be what we will hear about endlessly.
I've also heard that Shapiro, himself, was unenthused about taking the gig after such a short stint in PA (though of course he'd say that now). Politics is obfuscating as well as revealing.
Looking at how Harris has performed since Biden stepped down, I'd tentatively offer that it is a very good thing.
Harris in 2020 was allegedly bad at staffing and burned through a lot of staffers. Being bequeathed a veteran staff by her boss seems, so far, to have prevented a repeat performance. Also the campaign has been run well so far and has been pretty tight lipped. Walz wasn't leaked until Tuesday morning for a Tuesday afternoon announcement. That is remarkable.
Indeed, don't mistake my analysis for disapproval. I am not confident enough to say that Walz is a mistake. I think he's more like an assured 12 on a d20 roll whereas Shapiro is an unmodified raw roll. Shapiro could be the better choice but he could EASILY be the worse one. Walz is solid.
Yeah there's not often a formal repudiation, just a kind of awkward reluctance to talk about it, a refusal to step up to defend what used to be passionate and now are defunct positions and a general eagerness to change the subject.
Unless someone can dig up a video of Harris leading a night time mob into a target with a burning torch or something I think the 2020's less peaceful minority events will have limited salience- so long as she, de minimis, sticks to Bidens lines on this.
I don't think Kamala was actually in charge of any jurisdictions when the summer of Floyd happened. She said plenty of dumb stuff while running for the 2020 nod but, in theory, if she says different-opposing things now that should mostly ameliorate it. It helps that I get the distinct vibe that the further left is quietly chastened by the worst excesses of 2020's events- not enough to actually vocally renounce it, mind, but enough to not want to talk about it and, thus, not get exercised if Kamala defects in a centrist direction on most of those subjects.
Yeah I probably should have worded it as the right has the unique capacity to make hay out of nothing. The DUI event, at least, actually happened so that'd be a comparatively easy subject for them to work with.
It's the argument from the Congress in 2010 all over again and I think it cuts in favor of the left. Yes the ACA was passed. Yes they lost their majority. The ACA endures and is even popular now and the majority has been regained and lost a couple times since.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Open Mic for the week of 8/5/2024”
I appreciate Trump lowering the bar for her. He's not exactly brilliant and has gotten less so.
On “Walz-ing Towards Election Day”
Yes, that is Trump. That Trump is losing it doesn't mean Kamala has it. We need to see her debate and interview yet. Initial signs are positive but this ain't in the bag yet.
On “Open Mic for the week of 8/5/2024”
It'd be a pretty shaky hook to hang ones hat on. Fox News' business risk is not that it'll lose viewers to mainstream media but that it'll lose them to the even nuttier wingers to the right. So, to be the network that lured Kamala in and cold clocked her would be a pretty alluring thing for them- and they'd simply deny they did anything wrong and the rest of the media would, eventually, temporize and talk about how awful MSNBS is anyhow. The downside risk seems to massively outweigh the upside risk. And that's ignoring that Fox hasn't done anything to merit such a debate in the first place so why reward them?
"
Seems moot tho, word is Trump's agreed to the original debate. Good news I'd say.
On “The Differences in Identity Politics Between America and Britain”
It is a complex question. Certainly, the British monarchy had some significant pull well into QEII's reign though it was much more subtle.
As early as George the IIIrds' reign in the late 1700's or earlier scholars were talking about how the Monarchy's temporal powers were steadily migrating into the moral realm.
But, really, the history of the British Monarchy has kindof always been a story of a long devolution of power from the Magna Carta on down. Britain was an island nation so, once Scottland and Wales were incorporated, they didn't have the same requirements for a standing royal army that other nations did which naturally lent itself to more decentralization. Not having a huge army around both reduced revenue needs and also made the Monarch not quite as capable of throwing elbows as would otherwise be the case.
"
Perhaps but it'd be pretty heavily dependent on their parentage. The internet levels things a lot so, yes, an 80k assistant professor can posture like an elite on social media but you wouldn't mistake them for one in person.
A lottery winner wouldn't automatically be considered elite unless they managed to not squander their winnings immediately but their kids, in the happy scenario they keep their money, would be considered elite. A successful drug dealer, on the other hand, would have no shot since their money would be physical, unlaundered and imperiled.
"
I think that's a plausible interpretation but since both land ownership and educational attainment tend to go hand in hand with lucre, I think that, at least in modern times, it's mostly blurred over into money in this country.
On “Open Mic for the week of 8/5/2024”
I try not to psychoanalyze people. I'm not a psychologist and I find the output kind of boring.
"
Sure, imagine it went well. It'd be nice. Now imagine they rigged her mic so they could selectively cut her off and let Don run rampant over her bellowing while his audience cheered and the moderators clucked. I know which outcome I think would be more likely.
Pete goes on and does well from time to time but this would be entirely different motivations, stakes and incentives.
On “The Differences in Identity Politics Between America and Britain”
In England, absolutely not. He'd barely be considered new money (especially since how much actual money he has now is an open question).
In America, definitely. Trump was born to money, was given money fished it up and then inherited more money which bailed him out him from his life choices from that point on. Americans generally seem to view class, from my own observation, as mostly a question of money. There's a level of delineations within elite depending on how long you have had your money and your background but that largely only matters to other elites.
On “Walz-ing Towards Election Day”
I hope you're right, but this assumes evidence not yet present. Harris has had a fine launch- fantastically better than anyone left of Douthat has any right to have hoped for- but we don't know if that's because Harris' team is better (likely) or that these are circumstances she does better in (entirely possible- the 2020 primary in the summer of Floyd and Covid was a clusterfish) or that she just hasn't had a chance yet to do something foolish (possible and scary).
On “Open Mic for the week of 8/5/2024”
Mmmm I don't think the Fox offer is a good idea. It is Fox after all.
A) Rewarding/giving air to Fox at all is an awful idea all by itself.
B) Being in a studio debate with Trump with Fox media sock puppets ostensibly moderating it in front of a screaming mob of Troompaloompas would be a huge challenge for even the greatest politicians in history to try and come off looking good. That's just begging for a disaster for Harris.
"
I'm not ready to go full Jaybird yet on Harris' press exposure or lack thereof until, at least, after the convention.
I do think this also speaks to my point elsewhere and earlier that Harris is currently operating, largely, with a campaign team she inherited from Biden.
Pros: They're professional, seasoned and highly capable. They've been running a tight ship and they've guided her pretty well so far. They probably have their own gravitas so if she is, as was alleged in 2020, a boss-zilla it's harder for her to bulldoze them or drive them off.
Cons: Path dependency is a thing and this team has for reasons both merited (the mainstream media's BSDI inclined and horserace fixated bull) and unmerited (they were afraid of their candidate fishing up with unscripted media) this team instinctively wants to keep their candidate away from unscripted journalist encounters.
It's only been a few weeks so changing the course of the campaign on that will take a bit of time, but I think they need to do so. Is Harris at serious risk of blowing a hole in her own campaigns hull in interviews? I mean sure everyone is. Is she more at risk than her boss was? I'd say assuredly not. Is she more at risk than an average politician would be? Remains to be seen- there's arguments for and against. Still, I think she ultimately will have to get out there and engage. HRC, for very justified reasons, loathed the media and they reciprocated in many ways that hurt her badly. Harris has far less reason to avoid the press and far less justifiable reasons to do so.
As for Israel/Palestine? As long as she sticks to nostrums nothing that either side slings is going to sway the voters who'll decide this thing.
On “Tim Walz Tapped to be VP Kamala Harris Running Mate”
You and I both, and if Harris goes down to defeat after losing PA then you can be sure we both will chew this decision over with great rue.
But it bears noting that things have broken our way the last few weeks in a manner that can scarcely be believed. If I had phoned back to my self of July 4th 2024 fame and told him everything that had happened he'd think I was flying high on the devil's lettuce (and he'd want some!).
"
We may never know now. Without Shapiro being Veep there's not a lot of incentive for the GOP or anyone else to put those whispered rumors on full court roar. Instead, the DUI deafness thing from twenty some years ago and the Summer of Floyd troubles may be what we will hear about endlessly.
I've also heard that Shapiro, himself, was unenthused about taking the gig after such a short stint in PA (though of course he'd say that now). Politics is obfuscating as well as revealing.
On “Tim Walz announced as Kamala Harris’s running mate”
Looking at how Harris has performed since Biden stepped down, I'd tentatively offer that it is a very good thing.
Harris in 2020 was allegedly bad at staffing and burned through a lot of staffers. Being bequeathed a veteran staff by her boss seems, so far, to have prevented a repeat performance. Also the campaign has been run well so far and has been pretty tight lipped. Walz wasn't leaked until Tuesday morning for a Tuesday afternoon announcement. That is remarkable.
On “Tim Walz Tapped to be VP Kamala Harris Running Mate”
I think so as well with at least some (mostly internet twitter) subjects.
"
Indeed, don't mistake my analysis for disapproval. I am not confident enough to say that Walz is a mistake. I think he's more like an assured 12 on a d20 roll whereas Shapiro is an unmodified raw roll. Shapiro could be the better choice but he could EASILY be the worse one. Walz is solid.
"
I go back and forth. What Trump and Vance will say is entirely predictable. What team Harris says in return is the big question mark.
On “Tim Walz announced as Kamala Harris’s running mate”
I don't actually disagree much with Koz here either but I would offer a quibble- this is also Bidens' old team Harris is working with.
On “Tim Walz Tapped to be VP Kamala Harris Running Mate”
Yeah there's not often a formal repudiation, just a kind of awkward reluctance to talk about it, a refusal to step up to defend what used to be passionate and now are defunct positions and a general eagerness to change the subject.
"
Unless someone can dig up a video of Harris leading a night time mob into a target with a burning torch or something I think the 2020's less peaceful minority events will have limited salience- so long as she, de minimis, sticks to Bidens lines on this.
"
I don't think Kamala was actually in charge of any jurisdictions when the summer of Floyd happened. She said plenty of dumb stuff while running for the 2020 nod but, in theory, if she says different-opposing things now that should mostly ameliorate it. It helps that I get the distinct vibe that the further left is quietly chastened by the worst excesses of 2020's events- not enough to actually vocally renounce it, mind, but enough to not want to talk about it and, thus, not get exercised if Kamala defects in a centrist direction on most of those subjects.
"
Yeah I probably should have worded it as the right has the unique capacity to make hay out of nothing. The DUI event, at least, actually happened so that'd be a comparatively easy subject for them to work with.
"
It's the argument from the Congress in 2010 all over again and I think it cuts in favor of the left. Yes the ACA was passed. Yes they lost their majority. The ACA endures and is even popular now and the majority has been regained and lost a couple times since.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.