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.
This is one of the areas where she is much better off for not having had a primary.
So much of the primary dynamic involves activists trying to get candidates to commit to positions that are going to be unpopular with the general electorate ahead of time, and Harris [1] just got to totally skip it.
[1] Who just totally flubbed specifically this part of the her 2019 primary run!
I think Walz is a pretty good pick in that he seems unlikely to particularly hurt the ticket with anybody, and Dem partisans are pretty excited about him. Grassroots enthusiasm does not directly translate to votes, but it does get you more money and more volunteers for GOTV efforts.
Given the way the election is probably going to play out (decided by a handful of battleground states with vote margins in the 4 or low 5 digits), that last seems pretty valuable.
It’s the kind of attack that both sides do, both sides should do (norms against drunk driving are Good, Actually!), and are not gonna move a single vote when aimed at the bottom half of the ticket.
But also, it's not only, or even primarily, candidates who peddle this myth.
It is pretty much our whole-ass culture that tells us, at every turn, that our dreams are just within our reach. We get it from ads, of course, and from the whole ad-adjacent world of parasocial relationships with "influencers", from self-help gurus and alleged spiritual leaders, from celebrity-obsessed gossip media, and a million other disreputable sources.
Hell, in a more benign form, one benign enough that a lot of the malignant variants try to nuzzle up against it and look like a part of it, we have the American, well, Dream.
Candidates for office are not powerful enough, or critical enough to our overall cultural identity, to create this on our own, but they sure are crafty enough to use the dreams as forces to conjure with. And like Andrew said, they're sure to disappoint, even more than the beer commercials and grindset hucksters, because our liberal, democratic system of government is at its best when it delivers everybody compromises they can live with, instead of giving a few people a bespoke utopia to lord over everybody else.
I just don’t think, “A variety of Democratic Party stakeholders applied a mix of public and private pressure to get a desired political outcome,” rises to the level of “conspiracy” on its own.
I can envision details that about the private campaign that would make me think it’s a conspiracy (if it involved certain corrupt forms of pressure like bribery or blackmail). I haven’t seen anyone even suggest that’s what happened here, though.
You shouldn’t immediately jump to “a Republican might say that therefore a Republican did and since Republicans lie, I don’t have to take that statement seriously.”
If you say, as pillsy does above, that the only people who said that Biden was too old also say that Harris is unqualified because she’s childless, then you’re not reading the other side
I’m pretty sure that’s not what I said.
I am certain it’s not what I meant.
What I said was a direct response to JB’s suggestion that this means we should trust Republican criticisms more. That’s actually dumb, and following his advice would lead you exactly where I said it would.
It also doesn’t have much to do with your criticism which is actually right. The issue isn’t that I couldn’t see the metaphorical dong, it’s that I was pretty sure I could but didn’t want to say anything about it because it was politically and socially inconvenient to do.
“Republicans, naturally, turn to Criticism sub 2. “Criticism sub 2 is unfounded! It’s a conspiracy theory! Only bad people believe it and even worse people spread it!”
Ok so because Biden really was too old to campaign effectively, we should be more receptive to the claim that Harris is a crazy cat lady who has no investment in the future because she has no biological children?
Makes sense to me.
Also lest I be accused of nutpicking, I hasten to point out that I didn’t select that particular nut. Trump did, when he chose him as a running mate.
You’d say (correct me if I’m wrong) that our system assumes each branch *will* seek to expand its power.
Exactly. I don't think our system imposes any obligation for branches to not expand their power at the expense of other branches.
There are areas where it attempts to prevent the branches from expanding their power at the expense of individuals or state government.
Even those restrictions often require one branch or another to expand its power to prevent other branches from infringing on individual rights or state prerogatives.
Also, I think there is a closely related defect in terms of how institutionalized are parties are there in general, so if one of them is sufficiently rotten (Fact Check: true) it will still have a puncher's chance of taking power.
I keep hearing stuff like this, on liberal blogs as well, about how the intrinsic structure of the American system prevents assertive progressive action and it always goes to this place where it is noted that the structural defect is only now happening because someone is exploiting it.
I'm not convinced this structural defect prevents assertive progressive action. Biden has been, overall, more assertively progressive than his past two predecessors.
It does shift the locus of power to the Courts and the Executive, though.
The people exploiting the defect have a name, and a party. It isn’t “Congress” and it isn’t “politicians” it is the Republican Party.
Yeah but the defect was there for them to exploit. If bank robbers are able to rob your bank because the lock on the vault didn't work, the perfidy of the robbers doesn't mean the lock wasn't actually broken!
First part -- sure, was intended as a related comment, not a second answer.
Second part -- I very much disagree. I think it's a fundamental element of our system that Presidents will attempt to protect, and where possible, grow their power, and that for proper functioning, the other branches will push back against them. But the push to grow is itself not unhealthy, as sometimes executive power and discretion are the right levers to address a problem.
It's just that one of the branches that should be pushing back isn't really doing so in an effective fashion, so the Executive expansion of power goes places it shouldn't, and pushback is both less effective and less sensible than it should be.
EDIT: With your analogy, I'd say that it's closer to law enforcement using violence, rather than specifically beating suspects.
This hasn’t always been true and certainly isn’t any structural defect.
The defect has always been there (veto points plus separation of powers and federalism pushing us towards two institutionalized parties), but weren't really fully exploited until relatively recently.
Our system of government just isn't very good as democratic systems go.
Just in general, the ongoing expansion of Executive power, periodically checked by increasingly erratic action by the courts, is all downstream of our pluperfectly fished legislative branch. The wealth of veto points provided by having a bicameral legislature, with a supermajority requirement in one of the chambers, means that it can't do much of anything that is controversial, and struggles to do even basic tasks.
Given our separation of powers, the other branches are free to step in, and kind of have to step in to avoid the country from completely falling into rack and ruin.
It’s an attitude that has already permeated and destroyed our politics, and might still put a serious dent in our judicial system, now that formerly tough-on-crime Republicans, who used to be just fine with rule of law after otherwise unpopular decisions (the George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse acquittals), are now posing off as Antifa in red hats and khakis — ready to burn the system down on behalf of the Arsonist-in-chief.
Well, they already did that for David Perry, a low-rent white supremacist who literally gunned someone down on an Austin street for being a leftist. No wonder they're doing the same for the MAGA Messiah hypothetically doing the same on Fifth Avenue.
Yeah, while I'm sure this will provide a bit of a lift to Trump on the Right out of anger at the idea that the law might bind a member of the in-group, everything else would seem to push the other way.
I'm going to srake out the following bold contrarian stance: "This major party nominee was just convicted of a bunch of felonies for trying to cover up a really sleazy affair," is not a good story for that nominee or that party.
Will it sway diehards of either the partisan GOP or Trumpist variety? Nyah.
But it makes it hard for the GOP and the Trump campaign to talk about things that it is helpful for them to talk about while providing a stellar excuse for Democrats and the Biden campaign to not talk about things they don't want to talk about.
It also puts a lot of pressure on a candidate who is not particularly known for being disciplined and staying on message at the best of times. He'll be (even more) seething and vengeful and there will be more focus on that then there was before.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Saturday Morning Gaming: Deeper into Assassin’s Creed 2”
I would love to hear how you think AC 4 holds up.
That game was such a good time.
On “Trump News Conference: Watch It For Yourself”
Being the leader of a cult of personality means never having to say you're sorry.
Or, you know, anything remotely coherent.
On “Open Mic for the week of 8/5/2024”
This is one of the areas where she is much better off for not having had a primary.
So much of the primary dynamic involves activists trying to get candidates to commit to positions that are going to be unpopular with the general electorate ahead of time, and Harris [1] just got to totally skip it.
[1] Who just totally flubbed specifically this part of the her 2019 primary run!
"
Yet another YouTube video that could have been a Tweet.
Or a Xeet.
Or whatever the heck we call them now.
On “Tim Walz Tapped to be VP Kamala Harris Running Mate”
HW. Had to wait his turn but was did a decent job once he got it.
Ford is a super-weird special case.
"
Yeah the thing that gave me pause about Shapiro is that he has a couple potential scandals brewing.
Could be and probably are nothingburgers, but the downside risk is he's Andrew Cuomo 2.0.
"
I think Walz is a pretty good pick in that he seems unlikely to particularly hurt the ticket with anybody, and Dem partisans are pretty excited about him. Grassroots enthusiasm does not directly translate to votes, but it does get you more money and more volunteers for GOTV efforts.
Given the way the election is probably going to play out (decided by a handful of battleground states with vote margins in the 4 or low 5 digits), that last seems pretty valuable.
"
It’s the kind of attack that both sides do, both sides should do (norms against drunk driving are Good, Actually!), and are not gonna move a single vote when aimed at the bottom half of the ticket.
On “Political Dreams and Electoral Nightmares”
Very much so.
But also, it's not only, or even primarily, candidates who peddle this myth.
It is pretty much our whole-ass culture that tells us, at every turn, that our dreams are just within our reach. We get it from ads, of course, and from the whole ad-adjacent world of parasocial relationships with "influencers", from self-help gurus and alleged spiritual leaders, from celebrity-obsessed gossip media, and a million other disreputable sources.
Hell, in a more benign form, one benign enough that a lot of the malignant variants try to nuzzle up against it and look like a part of it, we have the American, well, Dream.
Candidates for office are not powerful enough, or critical enough to our overall cultural identity, to create this on our own, but they sure are crafty enough to use the dreams as forces to conjure with. And like Andrew said, they're sure to disappoint, even more than the beer commercials and grindset hucksters, because our liberal, democratic system of government is at its best when it delivers everybody compromises they can live with, instead of giving a few people a bespoke utopia to lord over everybody else.
On “Donald Trump and The National Association of Black Journalists: Watch For Yourself”
Yeah, and in those 40 years he managed to only brag about committing sexual assault on tape once!
On “None Dare Call It A Conspiracy, Because It Wasn’t”
I just don’t think, “A variety of Democratic Party stakeholders applied a mix of public and private pressure to get a desired political outcome,” rises to the level of “conspiracy” on its own.
I can envision details that about the private campaign that would make me think it’s a conspiracy (if it involved certain corrupt forms of pressure like bribery or blackmail). I haven’t seen anyone even suggest that’s what happened here, though.
"
Well yeah I said exactly what you said because I agree with what you said!
But I don’t agree at all with what I thought JB said—he has since rephrased his argument into something I don’t disagree with.
"
You shouldn’t immediately jump to “a Republican might say that therefore a Republican did and since Republicans lie, I don’t have to take that statement seriously.”
Ok. I don’t disagree with this argument.
"
The “Oh, so you’re saying that I have to take everything that Republicans say seriously now?” people
It’s extremely unclear how else you think we could address your complaint.
"
If you say, as pillsy does above, that the only people who said that Biden was too old also say that Harris is unqualified because she’s childless, then you’re not reading the other side
I’m pretty sure that’s not what I said.
I am certain it’s not what I meant.
What I said was a direct response to JB’s suggestion that this means we should trust Republican criticisms more. That’s actually dumb, and following his advice would lead you exactly where I said it would.
It also doesn’t have much to do with your criticism which is actually right. The issue isn’t that I couldn’t see the metaphorical dong, it’s that I was pretty sure I could but didn’t want to say anything about it because it was politically and socially inconvenient to do.
Exactly like the people in the story.
"
“Republicans, naturally, turn to Criticism sub 2. “Criticism sub 2 is unfounded! It’s a conspiracy theory! Only bad people believe it and even worse people spread it!”
Ok so because Biden really was too old to campaign effectively, we should be more receptive to the claim that Harris is a crazy cat lady who has no investment in the future because she has no biological children?
Makes sense to me.
Also lest I be accused of nutpicking, I hasten to point out that I didn’t select that particular nut. Trump did, when he chose him as a running mate.
On “Biden To Do What He Couldn’t Do”
You’d say (correct me if I’m wrong) that our system assumes each branch *will* seek to expand its power.
Exactly. I don't think our system imposes any obligation for branches to not expand their power at the expense of other branches.
There are areas where it attempts to prevent the branches from expanding their power at the expense of individuals or state government.
Even those restrictions often require one branch or another to expand its power to prevent other branches from infringing on individual rights or state prerogatives.
"
Also, I think there is a closely related defect in terms of how institutionalized are parties are there in general, so if one of them is sufficiently rotten (Fact Check: true) it will still have a puncher's chance of taking power.
"
I keep hearing stuff like this, on liberal blogs as well, about how the intrinsic structure of the American system prevents assertive progressive action and it always goes to this place where it is noted that the structural defect is only now happening because someone is exploiting it.
I'm not convinced this structural defect prevents assertive progressive action. Biden has been, overall, more assertively progressive than his past two predecessors.
It does shift the locus of power to the Courts and the Executive, though.
The people exploiting the defect have a name, and a party. It isn’t “Congress” and it isn’t “politicians” it is the Republican Party.
Yeah but the defect was there for them to exploit. If bank robbers are able to rob your bank because the lock on the vault didn't work, the perfidy of the robbers doesn't mean the lock wasn't actually broken!
"
First part -- sure, was intended as a related comment, not a second answer.
Second part -- I very much disagree. I think it's a fundamental element of our system that Presidents will attempt to protect, and where possible, grow their power, and that for proper functioning, the other branches will push back against them. But the push to grow is itself not unhealthy, as sometimes executive power and discretion are the right levers to address a problem.
It's just that one of the branches that should be pushing back isn't really doing so in an effective fashion, so the Executive expansion of power goes places it shouldn't, and pushback is both less effective and less sensible than it should be.
EDIT: With your analogy, I'd say that it's closer to law enforcement using violence, rather than specifically beating suspects.
"
This hasn’t always been true and certainly isn’t any structural defect.
The defect has always been there (veto points plus separation of powers and federalism pushing us towards two institutionalized parties), but weren't really fully exploited until relatively recently.
Our system of government just isn't very good as democratic systems go.
"
Whether they like it, dislike it, or merely pretend to dislike it, expanding Executive power is ultimately part of the President's job.
"
Just in general, the ongoing expansion of Executive power, periodically checked by increasingly erratic action by the courts, is all downstream of our pluperfectly fished legislative branch. The wealth of veto points provided by having a bicameral legislature, with a supermajority requirement in one of the chambers, means that it can't do much of anything that is controversial, and struggles to do even basic tasks.
Given our separation of powers, the other branches are free to step in, and kind of have to step in to avoid the country from completely falling into rack and ruin.
On “Judging Trump’s Greek Chorus After His Verdict”
It’s an attitude that has already permeated and destroyed our politics, and might still put a serious dent in our judicial system, now that formerly tough-on-crime Republicans, who used to be just fine with rule of law after otherwise unpopular decisions (the George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse acquittals), are now posing off as Antifa in red hats and khakis — ready to burn the system down on behalf of the Arsonist-in-chief.
Well, they already did that for David Perry, a low-rent white supremacist who literally gunned someone down on an Austin street for being a leftist. No wonder they're doing the same for the MAGA Messiah hypothetically doing the same on Fifth Avenue.
On “Trump Guilty On All Counts”
Yeah, while I'm sure this will provide a bit of a lift to Trump on the Right out of anger at the idea that the law might bind a member of the in-group, everything else would seem to push the other way.
I'm going to srake out the following bold contrarian stance: "This major party nominee was just convicted of a bunch of felonies for trying to cover up a really sleazy affair," is not a good story for that nominee or that party.
Will it sway diehards of either the partisan GOP or Trumpist variety? Nyah.
But it makes it hard for the GOP and the Trump campaign to talk about things that it is helpful for them to talk about while providing a stellar excuse for Democrats and the Biden campaign to not talk about things they don't want to talk about.
It also puts a lot of pressure on a candidate who is not particularly known for being disciplined and staying on message at the best of times. He'll be (even more) seething and vengeful and there will be more focus on that then there was before.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.