First, they should admit that their party mishandled Mr. Biden’s age. Leading Democrats insisted that he had mental acuity for a second term when most Americans believed otherwise. Party leaders even attempted to shout down anybody who raised concerns, before reversing course and pushing Mr. Biden out of the race. Already, many voters believe that Democrats refuse to admit uncomfortable truths on some subjects, including crime, illegal immigration, inflation and Covid lockdowns. Mr. Biden’s age became a glaring example. Acknowledging as much may be backward looking, but it would send an important signal.
Second, Democrats should recognize that the party moved too far left on social issues after Barack Obama left office in 2017. The old video clips of Ms. Harris that the Trump campaign gleefully replayed last year — on decriminalizing the border and government-funded gender-transition surgery for prisoners — highlighted the problem. Yes, she tried to abandon these stances before the election, but she never spoke forthrightly to voters and acknowledged she had changed her position.
Even today, the party remains too focused on personal identity and on Americans’ differences — by race, gender, sexuality and religion — rather than our shared values. On these issues, progressives sometimes adopt a scolding, censorious posture. It is worth emphasizing that this posture has alienated growing numbers of Asian, Black and Latino voters. Democrats who won last year in places where Mr. Trump also won, such as Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona and Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, adopted a more moderate tone. They were hawkish about border security and law enforcement, criticizing their own party. They did not make the common Democratic mistake of trying to talk about only economic policy and refusing to engage with Americans’ concerns on difficult social issues.
Third, the party has to offer new ideas. When Democrats emerged from the wilderness in the past, they often did so with fresh ideas. They updated the proud Democratic tradition of improving life for all Americans. Bill Clinton remade the party in the early 1990s and spoke of “putting people first.” In 2008, Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton and John Edwards offered exciting plans to improve health care, reduce inequality and slow climate change. These candidates provided intellectual leadership.
The main part that got me was "Already, many voters believe that Democrats refuse to admit uncomfortable truths on some subjects".
3 weeks ago
You know how, periodically, there's a situation in California that results in house insurance companies leaving the state?
I've heard someone say that the only problem is that Snow White is a post-George Floyd movie in a post-post-George Floyd world and so OF COURSE it'll bomb.
But Disney's flops used to mean stuff like "Million Dollar Duck" (which cost a buck and a half).
There's nothing but speculation on the point but the static seems to date back to stuff like the Variety red carpet interview where Zegler mocked the original.
I suspect that Gal Gadot was tasked with mentoring Zegler and explaining that part of the job of being a movie star is buttering up the rubes to make them buy a ticket.
I know for a fact that one of the producers flew out to talk to Zegler and explain how the industry works to her (that's the comment that kicked all this stuff off).
In more recent months, Zegler has made dismissive comments about her co-star and Disney did what they could to keep them away from each other in public (such as Zegler calling Gadot a "professional pageant queen" in an instagram post following their appearance at the Oscars).
We'll watch "Trumpism requires Trump to work" evolve into "Trumpism doesn't work at all, not even with Trump" and the question that I have is whether Vance is skilled enough to evolve that into "That Wasn't Real Trumpism".
Vance's charisma is not tree stump quality. It's better than that.
I don't know that it's populist, mind... but he's got four years to learn.
Because Gal Gadot was insufficiently supportive of Zegler in the days that followed the disastrous red carpet interview that kicked more or less everything off.
Gal Gadot, as awful an actress as she is, knows which side her bread is buttered on and so, when she talks about the movie, she talks about her kids and her daughter making an "evil queen" joke and the joys of seeing a movie with her children and something that she hopes all families will enjoy.
"Is it because she's Israeli?"
No... well, kind of. It's because she was insufficiently supportive and the best way to strike back is to make a statement like "Free Palestine" that says "screw you" to Gal Gadot without even *MENTIONING* Gal Gadot.
People who know, will know.
If so, why doesn’t Zegler like that she’s Israeli?
Zegler doesn't *CARE* that she's Israeli.
The fact that she's Israeli provides surface area where the attack may be made.
Nothing more than that.
Or is saying “screw you” to Gadot part of the signaling?
It's the point. Well, Gadot and the producer.
You've never encountered something like this? Never seen it in your five-plus decades on God's green earth? Never saw it in the church? Never saw it in the socialist reading circles? You've never even once seen a game like this one?
I find that preposterous to the point where I'm going to need you to lie to my face about it before I drop it... and I assume you have too much self-respect to lie. So my expectation is something like a pivot to an attack or a hard change of the subject in order to avoid saying "of freaking course I know what the goddamn game is but that doesn't make Palestine a cause not worth supporting!"
Huh. Maybe that'd be the best play. "This is about *PALESTINE*. Not some privileged theater kid! How dare you! This is a *GENOCIDE*!"
Okay, good. My question was whether you were familiar with the phenomenon.
I mean, I know you are. You grew up in the church too.
But, sure. We can pretend.
"What I think she is signaling" is "screw you", both to the producer and to her co-star Gal Gadot.
I think that because I'm familiar with the phenomenon. (Also the whole "but all she said was 'free palestine'!" game. Which I assume you are also familiar with but we can pretend that we came down with the last drop of rain, if you want.)
I'm sure that she agrees with the statement "Gaza should be free" and her thoughts on the region amount to little more than that.
Does she sincerely think that Gaza should be free? I think that she sincerely agrees with the statement "Gaza should be free".
I'd compare to California High Speed Rail. "Does she believe that California should have High Speed Rail?"
I think that she sincerely agrees with the statement "California should have High Speed Rail".
Because she’s a celebrity? Because she’s young? I’m confused.
Because I've seen her various carpet interviews. Have you seen them?
This may be something as simple as I have more information than you do.
Oh, you're not going to see it in the theater? Bummer.
I was still hoping to hear from someone who saw it in the theater.
Back to my question: I mean, do you honestly have no idea what I’m talking about? Do you really think “I know exactly what you’re talking about and why you’re seeing this the way you are but, seriously, this is different from the thing both you and I know exists” wouldn’t be a more comfortable play?
I'm sure that her thoughts on Palestine are fleeting.
I mean, do you honestly have no idea what I’m talking about? Do you really think “I know exactly what you’re talking about and why you’re seeing this the way you are but, seriously, this is different from the thing both you and I know exists” wouldn’t be a more comfortable play?
has long been a cancellable offense in this country
Only in a handful of higher-status industries.
To argue that she didn’t mean it, then, requires a bit more than, “I can recognize it when I see it, based on how I was raised.”
It's less of a "she didn't mean it" as much as a "she was giving a different message *ENTIRELY*, one that had nothing to do with the surface level of her comment which was entirely tangential to what she was actually saying."
The surface level of what she was saying does get a great deal of defense from fellow believers, though.
I mean, do you honestly have no idea what I'm talking about? Do you really think "I know exactly what you're talking about and why you're seeing this the way you are but, seriously, this is different from the thing both you and I know exists" wouldn't be a more comfortable play?
Well, lemme tell ya, the whole "cutting remark hiding behind superficial affirmation of membership in good standing" thing is something that the Babtists are pretty good at.
I'm guessing you didn't grow up in the synagogue but were fairly secular?
I ask because, as someone who grew up fairly evangelical, that particular move is visible from a million miles away.
But, of course, you can't *SAY* "they don't even care about Palestine" because... hey. That's a deeply cutting thing to imply.
3 weeks ago
Last thing on Snow White for a while. The kid of one of the producers blames Zegler.
To be perfectly honest, he has a point but there is plenty of room to make lots of points. Sure, Zegler was vaguely offputting in some of her interviews but how many people even know about those?
Hell, the movie has some vaguely of-the-moment politics in it but that's something that people who see it walk out of the movie scratching their heads over, not something before the fact.
The problem, if I had to guess, was that the trailers sucked and the dwarves were more likely to make you say "you're kidding, right?" instead of "holy cow, this looks awesome". The trailers were just enough to get people to say "maybe I'll read a review first..." and the official critic reviews are at 42% on Rotten Tomatoes (which means there's a good chance that the movie reviewer in your local paper gave it a poor grade) and Letterboxd has it at 2.2.
The trailer made people hesitate, the reviews told them that they were right to do so.
Now, with that said, is it possible to put lipstick on a pig? Yes! Disney used to be good at that! And the lipstick process does involves stuff like not being offputting in carpet interviews and not posting "Free Palestine" to your social media in such a way that is as likely to get people to say "that's not a message to her millions of fans, that's a message to two or three very specific people in front of her millions of fans" as to get them to say "from the river to the sea! But I won't see a movie with Gal Gadot in it because she was in the Israeli Military!"
We're in the "finger-pointing and recriminations" part of the post-release now. Not the "it didn't do that bad, all things considered" part.
I would have friends over for a party! There would be 3 or 4 of us and we'd eat ramen and ice cream and watch a movie on the VCR. Then everybody would go home by 9PM!
In our defense, we didn't have yoga pants yet let alone the ability to take pictures of our butts in them and transmit them over miles within seconds.
4 weeks ago
The Jeffrey Goldberg/Atlantic/Leak thing: Everybody involved in the group chat said "it wasn't classified stuff!" and the Atlantic said "you sure about that?" and everybody said "yeah!" and so Goldberg published the group chat and...
Hoo boy. Specific equipment, times *BEFORE THE FACT*, techniques, and a tidbit that indicated that we were getting updates on the ground.
This ain't even in the ballpark of "maybe they deliberately leaked it to see how gullible Goldberg was".
GenX Republican influencers on Twitter have responses that fall into three (general) buckets.
1. "Hahahahahahahahahahahaha" (deep breath) "Hahahahahahahahahahaha"
2. "You did nothing wrong, my man. Don't let the bastards grind you down!"
3. "I thought Harry was gay."
The question: "Are they victims?" has a strange and terrible logic.
If the answer is "yes, those women are victims", then we've got ourselves an old-fashioned scandal.
If the answer is "being dumb and posting pictures of your butt in yoga pants to a guy who is also getting pictures of other chicks' butts in yoga pants does not a victim make", you've got yourselves a new-fashioned scandal.
These chicks need to listen to Beyonce and tell Harry: "No pictures of this cake unless you put a ring on this hand, honey."
I went upstairs to tell Maribou about this and opened with "Do you know who Harry Sisson is?" and she got really apprehensive when I started talking about the Gen Z Sex Scandal because, well, it's a potential minefield, right? Maybe he abused someone. Maybe he hurt someone.
Halfway through my explanation, she started googling and asking "Why in the hell is the Hindustan Times talking about this?" and the realization that "OH HE'S AN INFLUENCER!" and I started telling her some of the pickup lines that Harry used and telling her that I was going to start incorporating them into my repertoire and she told me that she thought I was kidding or exaggerating for effect because as a Geriatric Millennial, she has a *COMPLETELY* different definition of "sex scandal" and while it has room for yoga pants and selfies, it doesn't rely solely on them.
Anyway, I'm glad I got married back in the 90's. I feel like I got on the last chopper out of 'nam.
Yet in general, the information ecosystem in liberal America has proved itself to be, well, liberal. Allergy to dogma and an openness to reason are the very core of the creed. (Read John Stuart Mill.) Liberals got some things about the pandemic correct and other things wrong, and over time, many of them have disavowed or at least moved away from their wrong beliefs.
He also points out that conservatives got a lot of stuff wrong too.
In defense of the Democrats in power at the time: it's 2023 and coming up on the most important election of our lifetimes and they didn't want to just walk up to Donald Trump and hand him the biggest W they possibly could.
Okay, that's good to know. When I'm in your group chat and you add a third party, is there a ding and a little message at the bottom that says "Joe Schmoe has been added to the chat?"
On Tuesday, March 11, I received a connection request on Signal from a user identified as Michael Waltz. Signal is an open-source encrypted messaging service popular with journalists and others who seek more privacy than other text-messaging services are capable of delivering. I assumed that the Michael Waltz in question was President Donald Trump’s national security adviser. I did not assume, however, that the request was from the actual Michael Waltz. I have met him in the past, and though I didn’t find it particularly strange that he might be reaching out to me, I did think it somewhat unusual, given the Trump administration’s contentious relationship with journalists—and Trump’s periodic fixation on me specifically. It immediately crossed my mind that someone could be masquerading as Waltz in order to somehow entrap me. It is not at all uncommon these days for nefarious actors to try to induce journalists to share information that could be used against them.
I'm a Teams user, myself. I have to go up to the "view and add participants" button, scroll down to "add people", click on "add people", type the first part of the guy's name in the chat, then scroll down and find the guy and add him and *THEN* he's in the group chat.
I'm wondering if Signal is something around as onerous or if you'll accidentally do it by typing with all of your fingers one key to the left or right.
One of the problems with 2016 is that this problem was avoided entirely by confidently pointing out that Clinton didn't lose the election so therefore they don't need to change anything and this was followed by Trump losing in 2020.
But now, in 2024...
Well, here are the top 10 theories:
1. It's all Joe Biden's fault.
2. It's all Kamala Harris' fault.
3. Podcasts and social media.
4. "Too woke."
5. Elitist words.
6. Elitist policies.
7. Testosterone.
8. Inflation, inflation, inflation.
9. The border.
10. Trump is one-of-a-kind.
I'd probably argue that you can pick your favorite three out of there and say "this is why" and just point to those three (any of them!).
But the main thing that worries me are the ones that can easily preface a "therefore, the Democrats don't need to change".
It was all Biden's fault. Therefore the Democrats don't need to change.
It was Harris. 100%. Therefore the Democrats don't need to change.
Democrats didn't embrace podcasts. Therefore the Democrats don't need to change policies, they just need a Joe Rogan.
Why does this matter?, you may ask. Well, I'd say that it's hard to win if you don't know why you lost.
The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.
From the NYT: The Democrats Are in Denial About 2024
Here's stuff from the middle:
The main part that got me was "Already, many voters believe that Democrats refuse to admit uncomfortable truths on some subjects".
You know how, periodically, there's a situation in California that results in house insurance companies leaving the state?
Well, it looks like they're working on a way to make health insurance leave the state: Proposed California ballot initiative ‘Luigi Mangione Act’ would make it harder for insurers to deny medical care
I've heard someone say that the only problem is that Snow White is a post-George Floyd movie in a post-post-George Floyd world and so OF COURSE it'll bomb.
But Disney's flops used to mean stuff like "Million Dollar Duck" (which cost a buck and a half).
There's nothing but speculation on the point but the static seems to date back to stuff like the Variety red carpet interview where Zegler mocked the original.
I suspect that Gal Gadot was tasked with mentoring Zegler and explaining that part of the job of being a movie star is buttering up the rubes to make them buy a ticket.
I know for a fact that one of the producers flew out to talk to Zegler and explain how the industry works to her (that's the comment that kicked all this stuff off).
In more recent months, Zegler has made dismissive comments about her co-star and Disney did what they could to keep them away from each other in public (such as Zegler calling Gadot a "professional pageant queen" in an instagram post following their appearance at the Oscars).
We'll watch "Trumpism requires Trump to work" evolve into "Trumpism doesn't work at all, not even with Trump" and the question that I have is whether Vance is skilled enough to evolve that into "That Wasn't Real Trumpism".
Vance's charisma is not tree stump quality. It's better than that.
I don't know that it's populist, mind... but he's got four years to learn.
Because Gal Gadot was insufficiently supportive of Zegler in the days that followed the disastrous red carpet interview that kicked more or less everything off.
Gal Gadot, as awful an actress as she is, knows which side her bread is buttered on and so, when she talks about the movie, she talks about her kids and her daughter making an "evil queen" joke and the joys of seeing a movie with her children and something that she hopes all families will enjoy.
"Is it because she's Israeli?"
No... well, kind of. It's because she was insufficiently supportive and the best way to strike back is to make a statement like "Free Palestine" that says "screw you" to Gal Gadot without even *MENTIONING* Gal Gadot.
People who know, will know.
If so, why doesn’t Zegler like that she’s Israeli?
Zegler doesn't *CARE* that she's Israeli.
The fact that she's Israeli provides surface area where the attack may be made.
Nothing more than that.
Or is saying “screw you” to Gadot part of the signaling?
It's the point. Well, Gadot and the producer.
You've never encountered something like this? Never seen it in your five-plus decades on God's green earth? Never saw it in the church? Never saw it in the socialist reading circles? You've never even once seen a game like this one?
I find that preposterous to the point where I'm going to need you to lie to my face about it before I drop it... and I assume you have too much self-respect to lie. So my expectation is something like a pivot to an attack or a hard change of the subject in order to avoid saying "of freaking course I know what the goddamn game is but that doesn't make Palestine a cause not worth supporting!"
Huh. Maybe that'd be the best play. "This is about *PALESTINE*. Not some privileged theater kid! How dare you! This is a *GENOCIDE*!"
Okay, good. My question was whether you were familiar with the phenomenon.
I mean, I know you are. You grew up in the church too.
But, sure. We can pretend.
"What I think she is signaling" is "screw you", both to the producer and to her co-star Gal Gadot.
I think that because I'm familiar with the phenomenon. (Also the whole "but all she said was 'free palestine'!" game. Which I assume you are also familiar with but we can pretend that we came down with the last drop of rain, if you want.)
I have said what I'm talking about. I won't shut up about it!
It's the people who keep pivoting away to other topics that don't want to talk about it!
I'm sure that she agrees with the statement "Gaza should be free" and her thoughts on the region amount to little more than that.
Does she sincerely think that Gaza should be free? I think that she sincerely agrees with the statement "Gaza should be free".
I'd compare to California High Speed Rail. "Does she believe that California should have High Speed Rail?"
I think that she sincerely agrees with the statement "California should have High Speed Rail".
Because she’s a celebrity? Because she’s young? I’m confused.
Because I've seen her various carpet interviews. Have you seen them?
This may be something as simple as I have more information than you do.
Oh, you're not going to see it in the theater? Bummer.
I was still hoping to hear from someone who saw it in the theater.
Back to my question: I mean, do you honestly have no idea what I’m talking about? Do you really think “I know exactly what you’re talking about and why you’re seeing this the way you are but, seriously, this is different from the thing both you and I know exists” wouldn’t be a more comfortable play?
I'm sure that her thoughts on Palestine are fleeting.
I mean, do you honestly have no idea what I’m talking about? Do you really think “I know exactly what you’re talking about and why you’re seeing this the way you are but, seriously, this is different from the thing both you and I know exists” wouldn’t be a more comfortable play?
As Turing Tests go, I'd say that this passes mine.
has long been a cancellable offense in this country
Only in a handful of higher-status industries.
To argue that she didn’t mean it, then, requires a bit more than, “I can recognize it when I see it, based on how I was raised.”
It's less of a "she didn't mean it" as much as a "she was giving a different message *ENTIRELY*, one that had nothing to do with the surface level of her comment which was entirely tangential to what she was actually saying."
The surface level of what she was saying does get a great deal of defense from fellow believers, though.
I mean, do you honestly have no idea what I'm talking about? Do you really think "I know exactly what you're talking about and why you're seeing this the way you are but, seriously, this is different from the thing both you and I know exists" wouldn't be a more comfortable play?
Well, lemme tell ya, the whole "cutting remark hiding behind superficial affirmation of membership in good standing" thing is something that the Babtists are pretty good at.
I'd have suspected that it was universal.
I'm guessing you didn't grow up in the synagogue but were fairly secular?
I ask because, as someone who grew up fairly evangelical, that particular move is visible from a million miles away.
But, of course, you can't *SAY* "they don't even care about Palestine" because... hey. That's a deeply cutting thing to imply.
Last thing on Snow White for a while. The kid of one of the producers blames Zegler.
To be perfectly honest, he has a point but there is plenty of room to make lots of points. Sure, Zegler was vaguely offputting in some of her interviews but how many people even know about those?
Hell, the movie has some vaguely of-the-moment politics in it but that's something that people who see it walk out of the movie scratching their heads over, not something before the fact.
The problem, if I had to guess, was that the trailers sucked and the dwarves were more likely to make you say "you're kidding, right?" instead of "holy cow, this looks awesome". The trailers were just enough to get people to say "maybe I'll read a review first..." and the official critic reviews are at 42% on Rotten Tomatoes (which means there's a good chance that the movie reviewer in your local paper gave it a poor grade) and Letterboxd has it at 2.2.
The trailer made people hesitate, the reviews told them that they were right to do so.
Now, with that said, is it possible to put lipstick on a pig? Yes! Disney used to be good at that! And the lipstick process does involves stuff like not being offputting in carpet interviews and not posting "Free Palestine" to your social media in such a way that is as likely to get people to say "that's not a message to her millions of fans, that's a message to two or three very specific people in front of her millions of fans" as to get them to say "from the river to the sea! But I won't see a movie with Gal Gadot in it because she was in the Israeli Military!"
We're in the "finger-pointing and recriminations" part of the post-release now. Not the "it didn't do that bad, all things considered" part.
This would have been 90 or 91 and, I assure you, packs of Top Ramen were somewhere around a dime.
"Afghanistan's withdrawal was worse than this. Therefore..."
It should be noted that Afghanistan's withdrawal wasn't Biden's fault and I'm not trying to imply that it was.
I would have friends over for a party! There would be 3 or 4 of us and we'd eat ramen and ice cream and watch a movie on the VCR. Then everybody would go home by 9PM!
To be honest, I don't see what the big deal was.
We'd have to figure out the equivalent to Harry Sisson back in the AOL days.
Ashton Kutcher? Lemme google.
Okay. Okay. Okay... The best thing I can say is that it's not particularly Gen Z.
In our defense, we didn't have yoga pants yet let alone the ability to take pictures of our butts in them and transmit them over miles within seconds.
The Jeffrey Goldberg/Atlantic/Leak thing: Everybody involved in the group chat said "it wasn't classified stuff!" and the Atlantic said "you sure about that?" and everybody said "yeah!" and so Goldberg published the group chat and...
Hoo boy. Specific equipment, times *BEFORE THE FACT*, techniques, and a tidbit that indicated that we were getting updates on the ground.
This ain't even in the ballpark of "maybe they deliberately leaked it to see how gullible Goldberg was".
Or that.
I'm sure that he is confused as to why support for his obviously correct article is so one-sided.
GenX Republican influencers on Twitter have responses that fall into three (general) buckets.
1. "Hahahahahahahahahahahaha" (deep breath) "Hahahahahahahahahahaha"
2. "You did nothing wrong, my man. Don't let the bastards grind you down!"
3. "I thought Harry was gay."
Anyway, #3 is how the gay thing got introduced.
The question: "Are they victims?" has a strange and terrible logic.
If the answer is "yes, those women are victims", then we've got ourselves an old-fashioned scandal.
If the answer is "being dumb and posting pictures of your butt in yoga pants to a guy who is also getting pictures of other chicks' butts in yoga pants does not a victim make", you've got yourselves a new-fashioned scandal.
These chicks need to listen to Beyonce and tell Harry: "No pictures of this cake unless you put a ring on this hand, honey."
Dongs are abundant and low value.
I went upstairs to tell Maribou about this and opened with "Do you know who Harry Sisson is?" and she got really apprehensive when I started talking about the Gen Z Sex Scandal because, well, it's a potential minefield, right? Maybe he abused someone. Maybe he hurt someone.
Halfway through my explanation, she started googling and asking "Why in the hell is the Hindustan Times talking about this?" and the realization that "OH HE'S AN INFLUENCER!" and I started telling her some of the pickup lines that Harry used and telling her that I was going to start incorporating them into my repertoire and she told me that she thought I was kidding or exaggerating for effect because as a Geriatric Millennial, she has a *COMPLETELY* different definition of "sex scandal" and while it has room for yoga pants and selfies, it doesn't rely solely on them.
Anyway, I'm glad I got married back in the 90's. I feel like I got on the last chopper out of 'nam.
Young Democrat Harry Sisson has reportedly been dropped by Palette Management following what might be the most Gen Z sex scandal to have ever happened.
Jonathan Chait has an article in the Atlantic (reprinted here at AOL): Why the COVID Reckoning Is So One-Sided
From the middle:
He also points out that conservatives got a lot of stuff wrong too.
You had two that auto-trashed. I fished them out.
Her resume includes a lot of work for Media Matters.
A wise lord?
Mike Waltz is married. The woman to whom he is married has a sister. This sister is married to Scott Stapp, lead singer of Creed.
Edit: Never mind. They got divorced last year.
In defense of the Democrats in power at the time: it's 2023 and coming up on the most important election of our lifetimes and they didn't want to just walk up to Donald Trump and hand him the biggest W they possibly could.
Okay, that's good to know. When I'm in your group chat and you add a third party, is there a ding and a little message at the bottom that says "Joe Schmoe has been added to the chat?"
It does that for Teams.
Ahura Mazda seems like a pretty wise guy.
How was the food?
Huh. He's on Twitter.
Hasn't tweeted since yesterday.
Probably busy.
Michael Waltz.
I'm a Teams user, myself. I have to go up to the "view and add participants" button, scroll down to "add people", click on "add people", type the first part of the guy's name in the chat, then scroll down and find the guy and add him and *THEN* he's in the group chat.
I'm wondering if Signal is something around as onerous or if you'll accidentally do it by typing with all of your fingers one key to the left or right.
Do we have any Signal users? How easy is it to add someone to a group chat?
Axios has a fun article talking about the importance of figuring out why Dems lost in 2024.
The article states: Why it matters: It's hard to win if you don't know why you lost
One of the problems with 2016 is that this problem was avoided entirely by confidently pointing out that Clinton didn't lose the election so therefore they don't need to change anything and this was followed by Trump losing in 2020.
But now, in 2024...
Well, here are the top 10 theories:
1. It's all Joe Biden's fault.
2. It's all Kamala Harris' fault.
3. Podcasts and social media.
4. "Too woke."
5. Elitist words.
6. Elitist policies.
7. Testosterone.
8. Inflation, inflation, inflation.
9. The border.
10. Trump is one-of-a-kind.
I'd probably argue that you can pick your favorite three out of there and say "this is why" and just point to those three (any of them!).
But the main thing that worries me are the ones that can easily preface a "therefore, the Democrats don't need to change".
It was all Biden's fault. Therefore the Democrats don't need to change.
It was Harris. 100%. Therefore the Democrats don't need to change.
Democrats didn't embrace podcasts. Therefore the Democrats don't need to change policies, they just need a Joe Rogan.
Why does this matter?, you may ask. Well, I'd say that it's hard to win if you don't know why you lost.