What is going on in Guatamala that merits an asylum claim?

I don't think it's implausible or anything I just don't think it's a given. If it's at all close it's the same supreme court and same Nader factoring at the margins.

*I feel compelled to say to Chris I don't really blame Nader. He is simply part of the field. It's like blaming a missed field goal on the uprights not being a couple inches further apart.

I'm not totally convinced Gore automatically inherits Clinton's popularity. While I think Gore got an unfair wrap in a lot of ways I don't think I'm being uncharitable to say he had voter connection issues. It's an open question as to whether occupying the oval office fixes that or makes it worse.

Otherwise, excepting Kennedy whose circumstances of uh... leaving office were quite unusual, I believe you have to go back to the 19th century to find an example of 3 consecutive Democratic administrations. Maybe the dotcom boom and relative peace is enough to buck the trend. But that's kind of my point. Him winning would have been against historical currents.

Isn't there some (possibly apocryphal) quote from Winston Churchill, that the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter?

Without getting into the actual questions of right and wrong, or what should or shouldn't have happened with Clinton, I think a lot of the modern conversation about that scandal is a retcon. If Wikipedia isn't lying his popularity peaked at 73% approval after the impeachment and stayed in the 60s through all of the proceedings. I almost wonder if we've reached a point where it is so hard to imagine any president enjoying that kind of popularity that we assume it couldn't possibly have been that way, yet it was.

Someone with better memory can (and should) correct me but my recollection of that election narrative was that it was something like 'Is there a significant difference between these two politicians?' Gore still has his odd persona to contend with, Bush gets the edge by way of SCOTUS, people thinking they'd rather have a beer with him, and general thermostatic forces against a party getting a 3rd term. Always worth remembering that Bush ran in 2000 as the compassionate conservative, moderate, pro business governor of Texas, who favored a humble foreign policy. Not the post 9/11 version from 2004.

I don't know that things go that differently all things considered. Incumbent Gore loses to Bush 2, Hilary still moves to NY and is elected Senator and we're off to the races.

No matter how much Trump likes to pretend he is on Monday Night Raw the GOP remains a plutocratic party in populist clothing.

I think it is fair to assume it means whatever he feels benefits his business interests. At least until proven otherwise anyway.

I have a WaPo subscription so I guess I can be on the lookout.

Someone should tell him about the Economist.

Just to further elaborate on my own point the idea that mass immigration is a core tenet of liberalism without room for much (if any) compromise is younger than my elementary school aged son. In very recent memory the larger political left was at best conflicted and circumspect on this point. Certainly I would say there has been a championing of ethnic diversity in the specific context of the United States since the second half of the 20th century, and a greater consideration of humane treatment towards people in weakened and vulnerable situations.

But liberalism in Germany does not rest on whether they allow a few million refugees primarily from the Syrian civil war to stay in the country indefinitely. That's even moreso the case now that the war is over. Big picture we need to stop talking these crazy ways that assume everything good can be achieved by clinging to increasingly tenuous principles, regardless and in spite of clear political and factual realities.

I don't think restrictive immigration policy is inherently illiberal in the sense you are using the term. Some of rhe most liberal things that have ever happened in the United States occurred during more restrictionist periods. It's just a policy choice and in a democracy it's one that can be revisited down the road.

The way my thinking has evolved I'd limit it to GPA, SAT, with some maybe limited accounting of extra curricular and selection of major.

I used to be more open minded about trying to account for more than that. It's just become clear that left to their own devices admissions offices are apt to decide all of the Asian American students have boring personalities and should be docked while then giving a big boost to the children of well off immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean, because on a power point no one can tell them from a descendant of slaves. They're also still treating women as disadvantaged even as the ratio approaches 60/40 women to men. The former strikes me as very ugly and un-American, the latter as a sign of a worldview stuck decades behind the times that would rather move goal posts to keep discriminating than take the W.

I am more open to ideas like top 5 (or 10 or whatever) percent of high school grads are guaranteed a spot in a state college as long as the criteria is clear and easy to apply.

I think most federal buildings are owned and would assume Congress needs to authorize a sale.

Historically I was a subscriber to pre-woke NPR style diversity. I thought it was a good idea to go out of our way to make sure we were celebrating the contributions of women and minorities to American culture and success. I also saw nothing particularly wrong with being conscientious about visible representations, or for a general toleration of groups designed to do things like help black people in particular adapt after admission to college. Certainly I thought and still think overt racism and sexism should be stigmatized and if a business or the government discriminates on those basis they should be sued into oblivion.

Today though I'm against all DEI and oppose anything that brands itself that way. It's obviously all a cynical bait and switch by people who can't be trusted. Let them go and the next thing you know they're building arcane bureaucracies designed to discriminate or even crazier setting up racist identity tests for air traffic controllers and smuggling the answers to minority candidates. At a certain point the issue becomes not what DEI is but what DEI does and I have personally seen enough.

Personally I think you're talking about the motte, which has never been without it's critics, some pretty nasty ones, but the battle over the last decade and a half or so has been all out in the bailey.

I think the real beef for those who see good in ostensible DEI isn't the centrists, classical liberals, or even conservatives, no matter how reactionary. It's with the people who insisted that, I don't know, MLK day, and black history month, and celebration of the contributions of minority groups needed to be conflated with stuff like:

-disastrous and divisive wastes at universities (see the article on University of Michigan's program)

-implicit bias trainings that prove counter productive whenever objectively scrutinized

-illegal admission methods and almost certainly soon to also be illegal hiring practices and

-any number of embarassing and racist cultural moments like plastering Tema Okun's work all over all kinds of materials.

The MAGA a*shats and equivocating moderates have done a lot of dumb things but not those.

Part of the irony is that there really is a lot of efficiency to be gained and money saved from remote (or at least more flexible) work, including from the government. One thing they should be doing is shutting down a lot of the buildings and selling off the property. My company found it was cheaper to maintain a small HQ for meetings and do short term rentals for big training and/or collaboration sessions than to get stuck on a bunch of long term leases.

To the extent there are problems with the federal workforce I think it's more of a management issue, and probably an over protection of employee issue, than anything else.
The backlash from guys like Trump and Musk isn't about discipline or realism, it's a backwards looking cultural thing.

It's going to keep getting worse until the normal parties get serious about immigration. They've got about 3.5 million people in some kind of indefinite status, many from Muslim countries and with no interest in assimilation into the West.

The only way to start dealing with their political crisis is to eliminate their protected status and start repatriating as many as they can, and to stop letting more in. Unfortunately the mainstream parties have gone the other way by trying to ban citizens from even talking about the issue. This has the effect of making AfD appear as brave truth tellers when they're actually shambolic bufoons.

But make no mistake, the way to save democracy and western norms there, here, everywhere is to just take the L on mass, illegal and/or irregular immigration.

It's possible my line of work is such that it's pretty trivial to meet the 'what would you say you do here' minimal level of accountability. If the contracts aren't moving along, or the analysis around whatever question wasn't provided, it would be noticed and noticed fast.

The harder to measure is the long term value of good legal advice and scrivening. What's the worth of 'nothing bad happened'? Of course I will certainly assure you, for the sake of myself and my various creditors, that the services are both real and invaluable!

I've always found this kind of thing to be a strong sign of bad management in the private sector. Everyone knows who works and who doesn't and paranoid micromanagement rarely works out as a long term leadership strategy.

However I will say I guffawed at the insinuation that the feds listing what they did last week would be a threat to national security. I mean it's absolutely a great line but, man, the chutzpah!

I don't think it will be doomed as a profession but I do think it will become a job fewer and fewer people need to do, with the entry level jobs becoming much more scarce. The efficiency I've seen reported from enabling something like copilot is huge, and have been told that the real learning curve for existing coders is to start thinking of themselves as editors rather than writers.

I foresee a lot of legal work going this way over time. It won't hurt the senior folks like me (we will just become even more editors than we often enough already are) but it's will mean less work at the entry level, and fewer people growing into that senior role.

Heh my outsider's perspective is that CO has an interesting, maybe somewhat unique combination of lifestyle appeal and proximity to the left coast that it will remain a magnet for the voters Democrats do really well with.

My question (concern) is what happens if PA starts to follow something like the trajectory of OH. The only bulwark against that is Philadelphia and it's suburbs but I don't see Philly as the same kind of outwardly emanating blue pillar that BOS, NYC or DC are.

To me the even more important piece than Barro on DEI is this one from Texiera.

https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/one-simple-question-for-democrats

The maps thrown around are devastating not just for the presidency but for the senate, govnernorships, and state legislatures. If the GOP is able to continue to tone down its own ambient politics of racial grievance, which like it or not it's getting better at, the Democrats are in for some real pain. College grads are both too few and too concentrated to make up a broad, national base. Conversely, the GOP doesn't have to win racial minorities outright, it just has to get a big enough chunk of their middle and working class to prevent the Democrats from running up the score like they used to be able to.

I think that's a fair rejoinder to the narrow idea that Democrats could do one weird trick to comprehensively change their electoral fortunes. However what's being suggested (by me at least) is the need for a bigger reinvention. It involves jettisoning a lot of bad cultural baggage but that by itself won't be enough.

Bill Clinton and the New Democrats did something like this in the 90s, kicking the party out of the sclerosis and outdated thinking. Trump has partially done it with the GOP, casting off a lot of the zombie Reganism and neoconservatism. His success is limited by the fact that it rests on a cult of personality and is born of the self interest of the Trump family and hangers on rather than a well thought through political project, but there is a willingness in there to go outside the box.

What I don't get, and what boggles my mind, is that suggesting that the Democrats should also be thinking this way gets you called a racist or told that change is not really effective with the implication that no one should ever try it. That all sounds to me less like wisdom and more like a cope for continued failure.

CJ, I'm trying to figure out your thought process on this. Let's put the presidency aside, and take it as a given that we're in a moment where those elections are going to be relatively narrow.

How would you go about trying to compete for the Senate, and for state houses and governorships? Is there any sort of change in strategy or branding you'd consider or is this in your estimation the best they can possibly do? Because that hasn't been going well either.