Did she loose because she wasn't woke enough? I doubt it myself.

All correct but was that because she didn't do the identarianism enough or because (at least partially) she couldn't distance herself from it and was too risk averse to try actively turning against it? I'd say the latter. And she did downplay and turn away from identarianism and did not suffer some vast revolt from the identarian leftists (not that they seem to command that many votes anyhow).

If this election had left because Kamala's left wing stayed home- well that'd be an enormously different conversation than we've 'enjoyed' since the election.

She lost by a hair and suffered no particular revolt, defection or uprising from the intersectional left. So by your own terms, yes, she got away with it.

Likewise her convention was one giant celebration of doing exactly what you described and it's generally viewed as one of the high points of her campaign so she definitely got away with it.

I mean, you're flagrantly wrong about that. Harris had multiple instances of doing this exact thing you're describing during her campaign and she "got away with it" just fine from the Dems and even the identarian lefties. She lost, partially, because she hoped she didn't have to go from mostly not talking about it to actively talking against it, sure, and couldn't because of her mistakes in 2020 but she did do exactly what you're referring to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1n7QBi53Zs

You and I don't disagree much Saul. DEI is assuredly, along with a terrifyingly large number of NGO's and nonprofits, the left wing equivalent of the rights' megapastor Christian circuit. And, much like the megapastor Christians before it, the whole thing has made the left look bad and steered the left in unproductive cul de sacs.

I would never, ever, say that Trump is worth getting rid of DEI. We seemed to be steadily rolling it back on our own. But I have no qualms about saying that Trump tossing it out is probably more good than bad. Those highly educated folks will simply have to find other jobs instead.

Well, to be clear, the centrists said "this seems not very helpful as a practical matter and pure poison as a political matter", the idealists answered "even trying to assign a name to this, let alone critiquing it, is racist" and then the voters said "yup, woke is worse". And here we are. Though, let us be clear, the question of wokeism is only one of many elements many of which make the centrists look bad too.

Yup.

Yes really. The reason we keep talking about Sista Soulja is because it was an unusual thing for Clinton to do and because Clinton managed to pull it off. I already agreed that Harris was too associated with further left wing views to be able to silently ignore them the way your standard Dem politician does but Kamala was a unique candidate in a variety of negative ways that aren't typical for her party. That doesn't change my wider point which is that even though none of these left wing fringe positions are formally embraced by the Dems as a matter of course they are expected to be renouncing and policing them whereas the GOP are not.

And you're recapping my main point- why does the GOP not need to? It's not like the right wing fringe ideologies are popular- they're toxic and despised. My own theory is that it may be an artifact of Trump; a kind of reverse Obama field where every possible supporter says of Republicans more toxic positions and associations "well those are who Trump is going to con."

And yes, I know there're more than two groups of voters, and I'm asking you, since you give the vibe of being one of the view from nowhere unaligned voters, why the Dems have this obligation while the GOP doesn't. This isn't just Harris- Biden faced it when he won narrowly in 2020 for instance.

Left wing fringers are generally not Dems. They consider Dems picayune sellouts, despise them and go with the Greens; Dem Socialists or other similar left wing failure parties. This doesn't strike me as controversial to observe.

Why do these fringers reflect on the Dems when right wing fringers, it seems, don't reflect on the GOP? Why do we generally not hear our various unaligned centrists calling on the GOP to denounce their fringers?

Harris didn't denounce left wing fringers. I agree. She generally just ignored them or distanced herself from them. And it can't be denied that her 2020 positions, which were not wildly left wing fringe but were assuredly in viewing distance of wild left wing views, didn't help.

Still, Harris aside, the general political rule is there's very little hay to be made making war on your own fringe- it annoys and turns off your base, signal boosts said fringe and your opponents will always claim you're disingenuous or insufficiently vehement. I'm just curious about this double standard (I certainly don't deny it exists I just am puzzled as to why). Why must Dems make war on or answer for their fringers while the GOP has no similar obligation vis a vis their own? Heck, if the Dems embraced and nominated their nuts the way the GOP does their own the media's collective heads would >pop< explode.

Ah, then your position is that the Democrats must police their left wing fringes even though these are people who aren't Democrats because those fringes deranged fringing reflects poorly on the Dems because... reasons. But the GOP has no need to do the same for their right wing fringe nuts possibly because they elect them as Republican Senators, Congressfolk and President and manage to eke out wins about half the time? And who sets these rules?

I mean, yes, he's won twice (and lost once) but both the first time was incredibly close and the second time was not as historically narrow but not particularly a big win. Then again, considering what he has to work with in terms of the right and the GOP, those wins remain remarkable so maybe you are in grandfather sucking eggs territory.

Err.. you're using a left wing academic example for the right? Could you unpack that more?

Frankly I'd find you opining about the first one to be interesting in telling me a bit about your morals. I'd find you opining about the second interesting as to how you think the electorate works. And I'd find both interesting to have an idea as to what you'd be saying if, say, you hadn't been banned from Redstate. So I'd welcome you opining on both.

I think there's a pretty persuasive case to be made that Bibi isn't afraid exactly of Trump but uneasy because he knows a lot of people who don't like him have Trumps' ear. The Saudi/'s, for example. I think it's not so much fear of Trump trying to fish Bibi over so much as fear that Trump will be too unpredictable for Bibi to continue to do the fan dance he's been doing.

I'm curious. Are there any subjects where the Republicans should, or should be expected to, be policing the right?

Really makes some of his stories, Calliope in Sandman especially, land very differently.

It's really really tough. The core root of NIMBY is naked self interest and property is a huge portion of most home owners fiscal worth. I'm very pro-development but when a ten bedroom apartment went up next to my home replacing a little bungalow (core urban neighborhood) I couldn't even pretend to be happy. I am proud that I did nothing to discourage it or encumber it in any of the hearing or planning stages but having the south side of the house cast in perpetual shadow stung like a mother-fisher and that's without even thinking about if it actual impacted the property value.

There's a very real parochial interest in NIMBYism but it's wildly, desperately, important that city management doesn't succumb to it because the downstream impacts of succumbing to is have proven to be utterly catastrophic- particularly to liberalism.

That appears to be economically illiterate. Holding premiums the same in fire prone, or flood prone, areas doesn't produce steady profits- it produces catastrophic losses. Increasing premiums in higher risk areas doesn't produce larger profits- it simply prevents catastrophic losses. We see this on the right, Florida's flood insurance debacle, and on the left, California fire insurance mess.

Well done.

Yeah I like his work.

Yes, precisely, it's a grade curve. If that is the objective grade outcome then, in political and human terms, we'd be the A+ nation and people will still be clamoring to come to the US.

The only consolation is that we don't need to do well on the question in an objective sense- merely better than our peers and competitors.

I don't think it was a particular failure prior to 10-7. Had the IDF been in position when the "armed up" enemy attacked on 10-7 there'd have been a small mountain of dead Hamas militants and a spare handful of Israeli casualties (and few to no hostages).

We can look at Lebanon for another example. Hezbollah armed up and, indeed, got up to other shenanigans in Syria while Israel looked on quietly. But the Israeli's didn't waste this time either and were able to extensively identify and compromise their opponents assets, communications and leadership. When they elected to strike, all of Hezbollahs time arming up availed Hezbollah only a slow sprinkling of blown up people and missile stocks and even greater exasperation and dislike from the people of Lebanon.

As for if Israel is expected to live with hostility and potential genocidal armies sitting outside its border? I suppose so, but now probably also less so than any time her short history except perhaps the brief period before Bibi took charge in the early teens.

That's understandable- they're the people you have to rub elbows with as they're extremely loud and prominent on the internet. They're the libertarians of the left. Noisy, influential but in command of very little love or votes in meatspace.

Maybe the UN would, maybe it wouldn't that and two bucks would buy ya a cup of coffee. If Israel was no longer controlling the territories and had granted citizenship to all the people who lived in the land it formally annexed then most of the world would stop paying attention.

As for Gaza and Lebanon the lesson is probably more along the lines of, you shouldn't redivert your defense forces to keep their boots on West Bank Palestinians while you get up to shenanigans in the West Bank when there're avowed genocidaires behind you. Bibi probably hopes the Israeli public will forget who midwifed those groups and who funneled money to them- it might even work.