by wj
We're about due for a new thread anyway. And Biden stepping aside from the campaign seems like an inevitable topic. So here we go.
586 thoughts on “After Biden What?”
Comments are closed.
"This was the voice of moderation until 13 Sept, 2025"
Media tomorrow: Is Harris too young?
Media tomorrow: Is Harris too young?
I broke my vow not to read “news” that kneecapped Biden by reading an article about Harris. About halfway through the article the concern-trolling and promotion of Republican smears got so bad that I checked the “news” source. LA Times. Fuck them. They were on my “not read” list for good reason because they are right back at the passive aggressive smearing.
I broke my vow not to read “news” that kneecapped Biden by reading an article about Harris. About halfway through the article the concern-trolling and promotion of Republican smears got so bad that I checked the “news” source. LA Times. Fuck them. They were on my “not read” list for good reason because they are right back at the passive aggressive smearing.
Ugh, that would still be on the harmless side.
I expect: Is America ready for a black female? Will the naturally conservative black male vote for a black female? Is she black enough? …
Also intensive coverage on smears that she slept her way up since childhood.
Ugh, that would still be on the harmless side.
I expect: Is America ready for a black female? Will the naturally conservative black male vote for a black female? Is she black enough? …
Also intensive coverage on smears that she slept her way up since childhood.
wonkie- LA Times is the newspaper of the Hollywood donor class. No surprise to me that it is following the script that was already sketched out for them. In anything editorial in nature they are trend followers and disperser of sponsored content. You have to dig to find actual journalistic content. It’s there, but it’s buried in the regional reporting.
wonkie- LA Times is the newspaper of the Hollywood donor class. No surprise to me that it is following the script that was already sketched out for them. In anything editorial in nature they are trend followers and disperser of sponsored content. You have to dig to find actual journalistic content. It’s there, but it’s buried in the regional reporting.
The actual party endorsement of a candidate has to happen before the convention, and a lot would have to be done behind the scenes to try to cut the convention delegates out of the loop and bring in an alternate group of electors (where have we heard this sort of thing before?).
I don’t know that the people chosen by the political die hards in their state party are going to be in any mood to listen to Aaron Sorkin try an elevator pitch for Romney, or to let Clooney have another crack at things. I think tensions are high between grass roots and donors and the delegates are going to clap back.
The actual party endorsement of a candidate has to happen before the convention, and a lot would have to be done behind the scenes to try to cut the convention delegates out of the loop and bring in an alternate group of electors (where have we heard this sort of thing before?).
I don’t know that the people chosen by the political die hards in their state party are going to be in any mood to listen to Aaron Sorkin try an elevator pitch for Romney, or to let Clooney have another crack at things. I think tensions are high between grass roots and donors and the delegates are going to clap back.
a lot would have to be done behind the scenes to try to cut the convention delegates out of the loop and bring in an alternate group of electors
IIUC, doing that would require the delegates to change the rules to cut themselves out of the process. Which seems unlikely. And there simply isn’t a process to do it any other way.
Someone could (almost cettainly will) try to convince the delegates to abandon Harris. I wouldn’t put money on the succeeding.
a lot would have to be done behind the scenes to try to cut the convention delegates out of the loop and bring in an alternate group of electors
IIUC, doing that would require the delegates to change the rules to cut themselves out of the process. Which seems unlikely. And there simply isn’t a process to do it any other way.
Someone could (almost cettainly will) try to convince the delegates to abandon Harris. I wouldn’t put money on the succeeding.
Thank you, nous. That anyone would take the notion of Romney as the D nominee seriously is a measure of how far through the looking glass we have gone.
No matter how many ways there are to be unhappy with Biden (Gaza, age, etc.), and no matter how messed up the past month has made the Ds seem, Biden has accomplished a lot; he has worked to build and heal where the Rs will destroy and maim.
I think and hope you’re right that grass roots Ds know it, and recognize the notion of Romney as the vicious ratfucking that it is. No, I will rephrase that. Romney is not a serious proposal, it is just another attempt to murk up the picture. It’s idiotic beyond belief. He couldn’t win as an R, he’d be able to win as a D? Ha ha ha ha ha.
bobbyp wrote in the other thread that Clickbait should now step down. I don’t know if bobbyp was smarking or not, but I think Clickbait stepping down, or vacating the top of the ticket by whatever cause, would be a disaster for the Ds.
Hartmut asked in the other thread: So, will this repel more black women* than attract racists and misogynists? I wonder something similar on the other side: are there enough people who would sign in relief at the exit of Clickbait to outnumber the MAGA people who would be furious and leaderless?
I don’t know if there are now going to be tons of legal and procedural barriers put in front of Harris and the D party or what. If I had a cabin in the woods I would be sorely tempted … especially if it was within walking distance of the Canadian border. Just in case.
Hard to string words together at this point.
Thank you, nous. That anyone would take the notion of Romney as the D nominee seriously is a measure of how far through the looking glass we have gone.
No matter how many ways there are to be unhappy with Biden (Gaza, age, etc.), and no matter how messed up the past month has made the Ds seem, Biden has accomplished a lot; he has worked to build and heal where the Rs will destroy and maim.
I think and hope you’re right that grass roots Ds know it, and recognize the notion of Romney as the vicious ratfucking that it is. No, I will rephrase that. Romney is not a serious proposal, it is just another attempt to murk up the picture. It’s idiotic beyond belief. He couldn’t win as an R, he’d be able to win as a D? Ha ha ha ha ha.
bobbyp wrote in the other thread that Clickbait should now step down. I don’t know if bobbyp was smarking or not, but I think Clickbait stepping down, or vacating the top of the ticket by whatever cause, would be a disaster for the Ds.
Hartmut asked in the other thread: So, will this repel more black women* than attract racists and misogynists? I wonder something similar on the other side: are there enough people who would sign in relief at the exit of Clickbait to outnumber the MAGA people who would be furious and leaderless?
I don’t know if there are now going to be tons of legal and procedural barriers put in front of Harris and the D party or what. If I had a cabin in the woods I would be sorely tempted … especially if it was within walking distance of the Canadian border. Just in case.
Hard to string words together at this point.
Does anyone know what happens now with the plan for an early virtual nominating process, the one that was put in place to circumvent possible Ohio shenanigans?
Does anyone know what happens now with the plan for an early virtual nominating process, the one that was put in place to circumvent possible Ohio shenanigans?
Sorry, I don’t have time right now to “do my own research,” lol.
Sorry, I don’t have time right now to “do my own research,” lol.
As a practical question, where should one go to donate to Harris’s campaign at this point. Everything still points to Biden/Harris, and while it seems like Harris should still have access, I’d like to know that those funds won’t get tied up in any delays or legal challenges.
As a practical question, where should one go to donate to Harris’s campaign at this point. Everything still points to Biden/Harris, and while it seems like Harris should still have access, I’d like to know that those funds won’t get tied up in any delays or legal challenges.
Media tomorrow: Is Harris too young?
LOL
I’m glad the whole “will he step down” thing is resolved so that the focus can be returned to (somewhere in the general vicinity of) the substance of what’s at stake this year.
I’m less glad that Biden won’t be POTUS again. He is and has been IMO the most effective (D) President at least since LBJ, and possibly of my lifetime. The man has the skills.
I hope the (D)’s settle on Harris expeditiously, which is to say as of now and without argument. Enough of this “who’s it gonna be?” drama for one election cycle.
And I hope everybody leaves Biden the hell alone.
Is there another debate scheduled? I would look forward to Trump going toe to toe with Harris. She doesn’t take crap from anybody.
Onward and upward y’all.
Media tomorrow: Is Harris too young?
LOL
I’m glad the whole “will he step down” thing is resolved so that the focus can be returned to (somewhere in the general vicinity of) the substance of what’s at stake this year.
I’m less glad that Biden won’t be POTUS again. He is and has been IMO the most effective (D) President at least since LBJ, and possibly of my lifetime. The man has the skills.
I hope the (D)’s settle on Harris expeditiously, which is to say as of now and without argument. Enough of this “who’s it gonna be?” drama for one election cycle.
And I hope everybody leaves Biden the hell alone.
Is there another debate scheduled? I would look forward to Trump going toe to toe with Harris. She doesn’t take crap from anybody.
Onward and upward y’all.
Here’s a quick anaylsis of Kamala’s chances if indeed she runs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akvhkLHnOAM
I think one important tactical advantage is that Trump won’t be able to attack her directly on the basis of her being a.) a woman b.) black/asian – simply because that would dissuade large parts of these voter groups. So he has to tread lightly (I’m sure there will be some dogwhistle).
Kamala can probably make a strong case on abortion rights, appeal to young voters and activists and promise a continuation of the progressive Biden policies. And she’s been pretty tough on Israel’s war in Gaza.
Here’s a quick anaylsis of Kamala’s chances if indeed she runs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akvhkLHnOAM
I think one important tactical advantage is that Trump won’t be able to attack her directly on the basis of her being a.) a woman b.) black/asian – simply because that would dissuade large parts of these voter groups. So he has to tread lightly (I’m sure there will be some dogwhistle).
Kamala can probably make a strong case on abortion rights, appeal to young voters and activists and promise a continuation of the progressive Biden policies. And she’s been pretty tough on Israel’s war in Gaza.
I think a lot of my upsetness about this is my bitterness when the bad guys win. The smug, shallow, wannabe kingmakers and unmakers who smeared Biden and the smug, shallow, wannabe kingmakers and unmakers in the donor class or Dem leadership who forced him out are the bad guys in this situation. Not just wrong, but wrong for illegitimate reasons. In the case of the “news” wrong for reasons that reflect on character and lack of professionalism
m. IN the case of donors wrong out of egotism. IN the case of Dems, wrong out of panic.
I hope Biden makes a huge speech of farewell and lists all the things he did and all the problems Republicans have never even tried to address. He should be given a starring role in the convention.
I think a lot of my upsetness about this is my bitterness when the bad guys win. The smug, shallow, wannabe kingmakers and unmakers who smeared Biden and the smug, shallow, wannabe kingmakers and unmakers in the donor class or Dem leadership who forced him out are the bad guys in this situation. Not just wrong, but wrong for illegitimate reasons. In the case of the “news” wrong for reasons that reflect on character and lack of professionalism
m. IN the case of donors wrong out of egotism. IN the case of Dems, wrong out of panic.
I hope Biden makes a huge speech of farewell and lists all the things he did and all the problems Republicans have never even tried to address. He should be given a starring role in the convention.
Since you know that the right is going to be dog whistling like crazy, I see no reason not to confront that fight head on. I think that either Booker or Buttigieg would be good at showing genuine enthusiasm for Harris’s candidacy and be capable of countering the worst of the attacks while also perhaps provoking the Trump campaign to take those attacks a step too far for minority swing voters who are already a bit nervous about the tone on the right.
I also think a message of hope and change is amplified when tied to younger faces. Not being ageist in that, just noting how the genre works. If you are campaigning for the future, you need faces that speak of the future and not of the past.
Since you know that the right is going to be dog whistling like crazy, I see no reason not to confront that fight head on. I think that either Booker or Buttigieg would be good at showing genuine enthusiasm for Harris’s candidacy and be capable of countering the worst of the attacks while also perhaps provoking the Trump campaign to take those attacks a step too far for minority swing voters who are already a bit nervous about the tone on the right.
I also think a message of hope and change is amplified when tied to younger faces. Not being ageist in that, just noting how the genre works. If you are campaigning for the future, you need faces that speak of the future and not of the past.
Does anyone know what happens now with the plan for an early virtual nominating process, the one that was put in place to circumvent possible Ohio shenanigans?
Still needs to happen in odrder to get on the ballot in Ohio. No difference on that front. Doesn’t matter who the nominee is.
Does anyone know what happens now with the plan for an early virtual nominating process, the one that was put in place to circumvent possible Ohio shenanigans?
Still needs to happen in odrder to get on the ballot in Ohio. No difference on that front. Doesn’t matter who the nominee is.
Still needs to happen in odrder to get on the ballot in Ohio. No difference on that front. Doesn’t matter who the nominee is.
That means the window is very small….
Still needs to happen in odrder to get on the ballot in Ohio. No difference on that front. Doesn’t matter who the nominee is.
That means the window is very small….
Follow up on the donations thing. I’ve received a couple DNC fundraiser emails asking me to donate to them to support whoever is the Democratic candidate.
Nope. Don’t trust them. Any donations of mine are going directly to candidates from here on out for the foreseeable future until the DNC figures out who it is that they are working for.
Follow up on the donations thing. I’ve received a couple DNC fundraiser emails asking me to donate to them to support whoever is the Democratic candidate.
Nope. Don’t trust them. Any donations of mine are going directly to candidates from here on out for the foreseeable future until the DNC figures out who it is that they are working for.
Speculating on Harris’ VP choice. I note that Obama picked an “old white guy” to help make those who were twitchy about electing a black man a little more comfortable.
Will Harris feel it necessary to do something similar? That would probably be the low risk approach. But who? Someone to help carry Pennsylvania (since Trump really has no plausible path to victory if he loses Pennsylvania) — Fetterman? Someone specifically aimed to making life as miserable as possible for Vance? Someone as bland, no drama, as possible?
Or will she go all in on “time for a change”? Buttigieg, even? Higher risk, but….
Speculating on Harris’ VP choice. I note that Obama picked an “old white guy” to help make those who were twitchy about electing a black man a little more comfortable.
Will Harris feel it necessary to do something similar? That would probably be the low risk approach. But who? Someone to help carry Pennsylvania (since Trump really has no plausible path to victory if he loses Pennsylvania) — Fetterman? Someone specifically aimed to making life as miserable as possible for Vance? Someone as bland, no drama, as possible?
Or will she go all in on “time for a change”? Buttigieg, even? Higher risk, but….
That means the window is very small….
The window for those who want someone other than Harris is indeed very small.
That means the window is very small….
The window for those who want someone other than Harris is indeed very small.
Any donations of mine are going directly to candidates from here on out for the foreseeable future until the DNC figures out who it is that they are working for.
…and I just told them this in my response to the latest email. They need to hear that loud and clear. Trust is thin and should not be taken for granted.
Any donations of mine are going directly to candidates from here on out for the foreseeable future until the DNC figures out who it is that they are working for.
…and I just told them this in my response to the latest email. They need to hear that loud and clear. Trust is thin and should not be taken for granted.
Still needs to happen in odrder to get on the ballot in Ohio. No difference on that front. Doesn’t matter who the nominee is.
This, by the way, is not strictly true. Ohio did officially move its date to after the D convention, but the virtual roll call was kept on the schedule because the Ds don’t feel that they can rely on the result of any legal challenges.
From the WaPo just now:
I believe not a single one of the Rs challenges to the 2020 vote in court was upheld. I wish I could hope for the same for any bullshit challenges they try to put in the way of one of the two major parties actually fielding a candidate in a presidential election. But…….
Still needs to happen in odrder to get on the ballot in Ohio. No difference on that front. Doesn’t matter who the nominee is.
This, by the way, is not strictly true. Ohio did officially move its date to after the D convention, but the virtual roll call was kept on the schedule because the Ds don’t feel that they can rely on the result of any legal challenges.
From the WaPo just now:
I believe not a single one of the Rs challenges to the 2020 vote in court was upheld. I wish I could hope for the same for any bullshit challenges they try to put in the way of one of the two major parties actually fielding a candidate in a presidential election. But…….
Also, I’m shaking my head at the number of Biden supporters – understandably crushed and furious – who are directing their rage at “the leftists” in this moment as if all of this was coming from them and not from the donor/beltway crowd.
The left did not do this, nor does the left/labor side of things want any open convention nonsense.
Also, I’m shaking my head at the number of Biden supporters – understandably crushed and furious – who are directing their rage at “the leftists” in this moment as if all of this was coming from them and not from the donor/beltway crowd.
The left did not do this, nor does the left/labor side of things want any open convention nonsense.
@nous: Balloon-Juice connetariat has become an inch from unbearable at this point, although it has been nearly there for the past month and heading that way (for me) for a long time. Still, anyone who hangs out there will have had a good dose of fury and finger-pointing at the donor/beltway crowd. I don’t read widely on the internet (mostly BJ, ObWi, and the occasional DKos or Guardian piece that someone points me to) — I have seen nothing about it being the fault of “the leftists.” That in itself is an interesting comment on the silo-ing of viewpoints.
I suppose I’m somewhere between political junkies online, and ordinary people who actually have lives to lead. I had seen Romney’s name in the headlines but hadn’t even bothered to try to figure out why. …
What a mess.
@nous: Balloon-Juice connetariat has become an inch from unbearable at this point, although it has been nearly there for the past month and heading that way (for me) for a long time. Still, anyone who hangs out there will have had a good dose of fury and finger-pointing at the donor/beltway crowd. I don’t read widely on the internet (mostly BJ, ObWi, and the occasional DKos or Guardian piece that someone points me to) — I have seen nothing about it being the fault of “the leftists.” That in itself is an interesting comment on the silo-ing of viewpoints.
I suppose I’m somewhere between political junkies online, and ordinary people who actually have lives to lead. I had seen Romney’s name in the headlines but hadn’t even bothered to try to figure out why. …
What a mess.
The left did not do this
Even some of us not on the left are very clear on this.
The left did not do this
Even some of us not on the left are very clear on this.
More on blaming “the left”: I was already mistrustful of sources, and totally dismissive of 99.99% of the pundit class. But this is a huge lesson in not trusting *any* source without digging deeper, and probably still being left to make up your own mind. GftNC’s searching out of hilzoy is a good example of having someone you can at least consider a touchstone for intelligence and rectitude.
Everyone I know IRL who doesn’t hang out at “left”-leaning political blogs still things the Times is a left-wing or “liberal” newspaper. (The label, of course, depending on which bogus untrustworthy taxonomy the person defining it uses. 😉 )
More on blaming “the left”: I was already mistrustful of sources, and totally dismissive of 99.99% of the pundit class. But this is a huge lesson in not trusting *any* source without digging deeper, and probably still being left to make up your own mind. GftNC’s searching out of hilzoy is a good example of having someone you can at least consider a touchstone for intelligence and rectitude.
Everyone I know IRL who doesn’t hang out at “left”-leaning political blogs still things the Times is a left-wing or “liberal” newspaper. (The label, of course, depending on which bogus untrustworthy taxonomy the person defining it uses. 😉 )
things -> thinks
things -> thinks
old white guy? Bernie Sanders! 🙂
old white guy? Bernie Sanders! 🙂
Kelly is being discussed for VP. I think that the old white guy route will be chosen.
We need to get the not-MAGGAT vote. That’s some female Republicans, some independents, new voters and people who don’t vote regularly. That’s probably a fairly diverse group of people. If it was up to me, I’d look for a new face, someone with charisma, and someone who can clearly and forcefully state positions in terms of memorable sound bites. If that person is an old white guy, then fine. Otherwise, go with whoever it is.
Kelly is being discussed for VP. I think that the old white guy route will be chosen.
We need to get the not-MAGGAT vote. That’s some female Republicans, some independents, new voters and people who don’t vote regularly. That’s probably a fairly diverse group of people. If it was up to me, I’d look for a new face, someone with charisma, and someone who can clearly and forcefully state positions in terms of memorable sound bites. If that person is an old white guy, then fine. Otherwise, go with whoever it is.
ANd please not Gavin Newsome. Please.
ANd please not Gavin Newsome. Please.
She should throw the GOP a bone and pick Hunter.
She should throw the GOP a bone and pick Hunter.
Newsome is out for P. He endorsed Harris. Also out and endorsing Harris are most of the other names that came up as possible replacements for BIden.
Newsome is out for P. He endorsed Harris. Also out and endorsing Harris are most of the other names that came up as possible replacements for BIden.
“Old white guy” may be half a joke, though I think “white guy” is probably required (not by me, mind you), and “straight white guy” in particular (though Buttigieg makes me think there should be a cabinet position called “Explainer in Chief”; did someone here once suggest that already?).
My point is, I don’t see the necessity for “old.” Wet behind the ears would be bad. Middle-aged would be great.
*****
https://www.axios.com/2024/07/21/joe-manchin-democrat-presidential-run-bid
And someone ought to put a pin into Manchin’s ego and let all the hot air out. The opportunistic asshole took himself out of the party, and now he thinks he can come back in and run for the top office under the D banner? And mind you, we’ve just gone through a monthlong shitshow because Biden is allegedly too old, and Manchin will be 77 in August, and look at that picture, the picture of youth, isn’t he?
Bahhhhhhhhhhhh.
Earlier I mentioned the bubbles we live inside. These politicians certainly live in bubbles of their own.
“Old white guy” may be half a joke, though I think “white guy” is probably required (not by me, mind you), and “straight white guy” in particular (though Buttigieg makes me think there should be a cabinet position called “Explainer in Chief”; did someone here once suggest that already?).
My point is, I don’t see the necessity for “old.” Wet behind the ears would be bad. Middle-aged would be great.
*****
https://www.axios.com/2024/07/21/joe-manchin-democrat-presidential-run-bid
And someone ought to put a pin into Manchin’s ego and let all the hot air out. The opportunistic asshole took himself out of the party, and now he thinks he can come back in and run for the top office under the D banner? And mind you, we’ve just gone through a monthlong shitshow because Biden is allegedly too old, and Manchin will be 77 in August, and look at that picture, the picture of youth, isn’t he?
Bahhhhhhhhhhhh.
Earlier I mentioned the bubbles we live inside. These politicians certainly live in bubbles of their own.
I’m just hoping that the big donors see the $27.5M that small donors gave to Harris in the first 5 hours and step back a bit. There’s an actual election to be won and I don’t want to waste any more time while the big donors smell their own farts and have the media offer up their tasting notes.
I’m just hoping that the big donors see the $27.5M that small donors gave to Harris in the first 5 hours and step back a bit. There’s an actual election to be won and I don’t want to waste any more time while the big donors smell their own farts and have the media offer up their tasting notes.
ANd please not Gavin Newsome. Please.
Not a problem. Harris and Newsom are both from California. No way the ticket wins without California’s electoral votes.** So nobody from California will be Harris’ VP pick.
** If you want to get really, really technical, the restriction is on electors voting for both a presidential and a vice presidential candidate from their own state. So California electors could vote for Harris, but not for Newsom. Which, again theoretically, could leave no VP candidate with enough electoral votes. Which would elect a President, but throw the election of a Vice President into the Senate. And what a fun time that might be!
ANd please not Gavin Newsome. Please.
Not a problem. Harris and Newsom are both from California. No way the ticket wins without California’s electoral votes.** So nobody from California will be Harris’ VP pick.
** If you want to get really, really technical, the restriction is on electors voting for both a presidential and a vice presidential candidate from their own state. So California electors could vote for Harris, but not for Newsom. Which, again theoretically, could leave no VP candidate with enough electoral votes. Which would elect a President, but throw the election of a Vice President into the Senate. And what a fun time that might be!
“Old white guy” may be half a joke, though I think “white guy” is probably required (not by me, mind you), and “straight white guy” in particular (though Buttigieg makes me think there should be a cabinet position called “Explainer in Chief”; did someone here once suggest that already?).
“Old white guy” was a stereotypic joke. Not least motivated by the fact that I work for a brilliant woman of South Asian descent. And every now and then we feel like it helps a sales presentation if I, a white guy with grey hair, am visibly in the room. I don’t even have to say more than a sentence or two. Just be a visible presence.
I’m not sure whether we, as a nation, are quite past that yet. Although it seems to me that, TCFG’s presence and sort-of success (he did, after all, lose the popular vote; twice) notwithstanding, we are getting close overall. But the stakes are high enough this time that it is better (IMHO, but what do I know?) not to take the risk.
As for Buttigeig, I’ve long hoped that he would spend the next 4 years as Secretary of State. Give him the foreign policy experience he currently lacks. Then put him on the ticket in 2028 or 2032.
“Old white guy” may be half a joke, though I think “white guy” is probably required (not by me, mind you), and “straight white guy” in particular (though Buttigieg makes me think there should be a cabinet position called “Explainer in Chief”; did someone here once suggest that already?).
“Old white guy” was a stereotypic joke. Not least motivated by the fact that I work for a brilliant woman of South Asian descent. And every now and then we feel like it helps a sales presentation if I, a white guy with grey hair, am visibly in the room. I don’t even have to say more than a sentence or two. Just be a visible presence.
I’m not sure whether we, as a nation, are quite past that yet. Although it seems to me that, TCFG’s presence and sort-of success (he did, after all, lose the popular vote; twice) notwithstanding, we are getting close overall. But the stakes are high enough this time that it is better (IMHO, but what do I know?) not to take the risk.
As for Buttigeig, I’ve long hoped that he would spend the next 4 years as Secretary of State. Give him the foreign policy experience he currently lacks. Then put him on the ticket in 2028 or 2032.
bobbyp wrote in the other thread that Clickbait should now step down. I don’t know if bobbyp was smarking or not, but I think Clickbait stepping down, or vacating the top of the ticket by whatever cause, would be a disaster for the Ds.
JanieM: It was pure snark. I mean he is old, is he not? Not sure how a Vance/Harris race would shake out. He is, as you know, not the cult leader.
My take on the resignation is pretty much in line with this:
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/07/a-great-act-of-statesmanship
bobbyp wrote in the other thread that Clickbait should now step down. I don’t know if bobbyp was smarking or not, but I think Clickbait stepping down, or vacating the top of the ticket by whatever cause, would be a disaster for the Ds.
JanieM: It was pure snark. I mean he is old, is he not? Not sure how a Vance/Harris race would shake out. He is, as you know, not the cult leader.
My take on the resignation is pretty much in line with this:
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/07/a-great-act-of-statesmanship
I agree with bobbyp, that LGM post is pretty much right, particularly:
Let’s give Biden all the credit in the world for making a very difficult choice in order to advance the cause of American democracy and get behind the vice president. Let’s go.
And immediately followed by this excellent ad:
https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1814799243401699812?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1814799243401699812%7Ctwgr%5Ee07ea883687607b2fab29c64bafc5fd676996c78%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com%2F2024%2F07%2Fa-great-act-of-statesmanship
I agree with bobbyp, that LGM post is pretty much right, particularly:
Let’s give Biden all the credit in the world for making a very difficult choice in order to advance the cause of American democracy and get behind the vice president. Let’s go.
And immediately followed by this excellent ad:
https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1814799243401699812?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1814799243401699812%7Ctwgr%5Ee07ea883687607b2fab29c64bafc5fd676996c78%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com%2F2024%2F07%2Fa-great-act-of-statesmanship
None of these are serious, just thoughts bouncing around in my head.
In the last election, I wanted a women candidate just so the orange canker sore would have gotten beat by a woman. So I’m, illogically and unrealistically, hoping it’s a female for Harris’ VP. Cause getting seeing him get beat by two women would be even better.
Sorkin suggested, though I don’t know if it was a big joke, that Romney be Harris’ VP. Hell, why not go all out and ask Mike Pence.
Again, totally unserious thoughts. To me, Harris could run with a bucket of warm piss or the reanimated corpse of John Nance Garner and I’d be fine with that.
None of these are serious, just thoughts bouncing around in my head.
In the last election, I wanted a women candidate just so the orange canker sore would have gotten beat by a woman. So I’m, illogically and unrealistically, hoping it’s a female for Harris’ VP. Cause getting seeing him get beat by two women would be even better.
Sorkin suggested, though I don’t know if it was a big joke, that Romney be Harris’ VP. Hell, why not go all out and ask Mike Pence.
Again, totally unserious thoughts. To me, Harris could run with a bucket of warm piss or the reanimated corpse of John Nance Garner and I’d be fine with that.
When Obama picked a Senator to be his running mate, it was a Senator from a reliably blue state. I don’t want to see Harris pick a Veep nominee who is a Senator running for re-election in a purple (at best) state.
In my dreams, she’d pick Al Franken, who is not (currently) a Senator but has experience in both The World’s Greatest Deliberative Body AND in the skewering-Republicans trade.
Alternatively, she should pick a popular, accomplished, non-politician — like Warren Buffett, say, if were less than 94 years old.
Realistically, a Governor of some sort might do.
But the VP choice hardly matters.
What matters is whether anti-MAGAts like most of us here are willing to be as vocal and brazen as the MAGAts in our midst. Supposedly there are likely voters out there who (like a man-in-the-street interviewee my sister was telling me about) claim they haven’t really thought about their vote, and will probably just flip a coin to decide at the last minute. I don’t think people like that actually exist in significant number, but even if they do I don’t worry about them — coin flips are 50/50 after all. The sort of people who do exist, IMO, are low-info, low-engagement, maybe-voters who will get persuaded by the message they hear most loudly or most often. Their MAGAt neighbors are not bashful about championing Orange Jesus in daily life, face-to-face. (I say this from personal experience.) Let us be no less vocal, no less brazen.
At the very least, our low-info low-engagement friends, neighbors, colleagues, and acquaintances are less likely to swallow the guaranteed-to-happen MAGAt claims of a stolen election if they are aware that we, as well as MAGAts, live among them.
Bottom line: we can’t let the fascists take over the government just because they want it more.
–TP
When Obama picked a Senator to be his running mate, it was a Senator from a reliably blue state. I don’t want to see Harris pick a Veep nominee who is a Senator running for re-election in a purple (at best) state.
In my dreams, she’d pick Al Franken, who is not (currently) a Senator but has experience in both The World’s Greatest Deliberative Body AND in the skewering-Republicans trade.
Alternatively, she should pick a popular, accomplished, non-politician — like Warren Buffett, say, if were less than 94 years old.
Realistically, a Governor of some sort might do.
But the VP choice hardly matters.
What matters is whether anti-MAGAts like most of us here are willing to be as vocal and brazen as the MAGAts in our midst. Supposedly there are likely voters out there who (like a man-in-the-street interviewee my sister was telling me about) claim they haven’t really thought about their vote, and will probably just flip a coin to decide at the last minute. I don’t think people like that actually exist in significant number, but even if they do I don’t worry about them — coin flips are 50/50 after all. The sort of people who do exist, IMO, are low-info, low-engagement, maybe-voters who will get persuaded by the message they hear most loudly or most often. Their MAGAt neighbors are not bashful about championing Orange Jesus in daily life, face-to-face. (I say this from personal experience.) Let us be no less vocal, no less brazen.
At the very least, our low-info low-engagement friends, neighbors, colleagues, and acquaintances are less likely to swallow the guaranteed-to-happen MAGAt claims of a stolen election if they are aware that we, as well as MAGAts, live among them.
Bottom line: we can’t let the fascists take over the government just because they want it more.
–TP
Franken is a nice suggestion. It’s interesting that Starmer appointed several non-politicans and got praise, but they were tied to particular issues/areas. It is hard for me to think of a non-politician easily fitting into the VP slot in a similar fashion.
Franken is a nice suggestion. It’s interesting that Starmer appointed several non-politicans and got praise, but they were tied to particular issues/areas. It is hard for me to think of a non-politician easily fitting into the VP slot in a similar fashion.
Franken resigned because of sexual misconduct allegations…
Franken resigned because of sexual misconduct allegations…
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/29/the-case-of-al-franken
I feel like he got stiched up.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/29/the-case-of-al-franken
I feel like he got stiched up.
Maybe, but it doesn’t really matter.
Maybe, but it doesn’t really matter.
It would stick to him and give Trump a get-out-of-jail-card, erasing Harris’ advantage in this regard.
It would stick to him and give Trump a get-out-of-jail-card, erasing Harris’ advantage in this regard.
“It would stick to him and give Trump a get-out-of-jail-card”
Trump *already* has a “get-out-of-jail card”, courtesy of the Supremely Deplorable Six.
Biden should focus his remaining (immune!) months drone-striking fascist a-holes. Starting with the Supremely Deplorable Six, who arguably signed their own death-warrants with their immunity ruling.
“It would stick to him and give Trump a get-out-of-jail-card”
Trump *already* has a “get-out-of-jail card”, courtesy of the Supremely Deplorable Six.
Biden should focus his remaining (immune!) months drone-striking fascist a-holes. Starting with the Supremely Deplorable Six, who arguably signed their own death-warrants with their immunity ruling.
Hell, why not go all out and ask Mike Pence.
I had the same very unserious thought. I may have even chuckled out loud to myself at the idea. It would be a riot, wouldn’t it?
Hell, why not go all out and ask Mike Pence.
I had the same very unserious thought. I may have even chuckled out loud to myself at the idea. It would be a riot, wouldn’t it?
I said on the other thread that (to my surprise) I experienced the Biden news physically, as if I had received an actual blow. But now I feel as if the intense anxiety of the previous days was a sort of awful stasis, which now is shattered. The election of Labour was a glowing, hopeful sign, a kind of pushback (maybe almost accidental, but nonetheless real) against the populist, nativist, hateful rhetoric that has been advancing in so much of the world. And now it seems as if there is a chance for America too, and that the flood of donations that immediately started streaming to the Dems was a sign of it. Perhaps I am going mad, but this feels like a really positive development. God bless Joe Biden, in a long life of service this may be his finest hour.
I said on the other thread that (to my surprise) I experienced the Biden news physically, as if I had received an actual blow. But now I feel as if the intense anxiety of the previous days was a sort of awful stasis, which now is shattered. The election of Labour was a glowing, hopeful sign, a kind of pushback (maybe almost accidental, but nonetheless real) against the populist, nativist, hateful rhetoric that has been advancing in so much of the world. And now it seems as if there is a chance for America too, and that the flood of donations that immediately started streaming to the Dems was a sign of it. Perhaps I am going mad, but this feels like a really positive development. God bless Joe Biden, in a long life of service this may be his finest hour.
It’s full blown panic in MAGA-land on twitter. Stephen Miller in particular.
It’s full blown panic in MAGA-land on twitter. Stephen Miller in particular.
@ugh: I love the “we spent all this $ opposing Biden wah wah” aspect of it. Lots of new things to oppose, though. I’m sure they won’t run out.
@ugh: I love the “we spent all this $ opposing Biden wah wah” aspect of it. Lots of new things to oppose, though. I’m sure they won’t run out.
Lots of new things to oppose, though. I’m sure they won’t run out.
But the timing means that they won’t have the free air time of the convention for their attacks on their new target. And their campaign funds are mostly gone to TCFG’s lawyers.
That’s part of why he’s bitching about how the Democrats owe him some kind of refund. He spent all that money and effort attacking Biden and now it’s wasted.
Lots of new things to oppose, though. I’m sure they won’t run out.
But the timing means that they won’t have the free air time of the convention for their attacks on their new target. And their campaign funds are mostly gone to TCFG’s lawyers.
That’s part of why he’s bitching about how the Democrats owe him some kind of refund. He spent all that money and effort attacking Biden and now it’s wasted.
wj — yes to all of that. But also, from another angle, it highlights how much of their effort is simply opposing Ds (cleek’s law at work). They don’t have anything positive whatsoever to offer. Policy? What’s that, the insurance you have to buy on your car? (They’ll probably get rid of that requirement at some point along the path of dismantling anything the gov’t does to hinder their “freedom.”)
wj — yes to all of that. But also, from another angle, it highlights how much of their effort is simply opposing Ds (cleek’s law at work). They don’t have anything positive whatsoever to offer. Policy? What’s that, the insurance you have to buy on your car? (They’ll probably get rid of that requirement at some point along the path of dismantling anything the gov’t does to hinder their “freedom.”)
No reason to get creative with the VP pick. Go with either the popular governor of Michigan or the popular governor of Pennsylvania, each of who won election by over 10 points.
Either one would make a fine contrast with the creepy Republican VP nominee.
No reason to get creative with the VP pick. Go with either the popular governor of Michigan or the popular governor of Pennsylvania, each of who won election by over 10 points.
Either one would make a fine contrast with the creepy Republican VP nominee.
Go with either the popular governor of Michigan or the popular governor of Pennsylvania, each of who won election by over 10 points.
My sense is that Michigan needs to keep Whitmer in place more than Pennsylvania needs to hang on to Shapiro. Plus, we’re going to see more than enough misogyny already. Having two women on the ticket would make it more than twice as bad. Super unfair. Super regrettable. But that’s the world we live in.
No idea who Harris will actually go with. Only hope it’s someone who can shred Vance early and often.
Go with either the popular governor of Michigan or the popular governor of Pennsylvania, each of who won election by over 10 points.
My sense is that Michigan needs to keep Whitmer in place more than Pennsylvania needs to hang on to Shapiro. Plus, we’re going to see more than enough misogyny already. Having two women on the ticket would make it more than twice as bad. Super unfair. Super regrettable. But that’s the world we live in.
No idea who Harris will actually go with. Only hope it’s someone who can shred Vance early and often.
Don’t know how Shapiro’s stance on restricting public employee speech would go over with the newly engaged youth vote. Would prefer to sidestep that whole wrinkle as best left for after the election. Which means that, strategically speaking, there should be nothing but praise for Shapiro (for all the genuine reasons that he’s been good) but a chance to embrace someone else for their own, different strengths.
No need to resurrect a former thorn in the D coalition.
Don’t know how Shapiro’s stance on restricting public employee speech would go over with the newly engaged youth vote. Would prefer to sidestep that whole wrinkle as best left for after the election. Which means that, strategically speaking, there should be nothing but praise for Shapiro (for all the genuine reasons that he’s been good) but a chance to embrace someone else for their own, different strengths.
No need to resurrect a former thorn in the D coalition.
WHitner is out for VP. I do think Harris needs someone who can out-Vance Vance in the “just plain folks” competition.
“I said on the other thread that (to my surprise) I experienced the Biden news physically, as if I had received an actual blow. But now I feel as if the intense anxiety of the previous days was a sort of awful stasis, which now is shattered.”
What she said. Plus, yes god bless Joe for being such a good president and such a decent guy.
WHitner is out for VP. I do think Harris needs someone who can out-Vance Vance in the “just plain folks” competition.
“I said on the other thread that (to my surprise) I experienced the Biden news physically, as if I had received an actual blow. But now I feel as if the intense anxiety of the previous days was a sort of awful stasis, which now is shattered.”
What she said. Plus, yes god bless Joe for being such a good president and such a decent guy.
Still needs to happen in odrder to get on the ballot in Ohio. No difference on that front. Doesn’t matter who the nominee is.
Current Ohio statute, after their special session, says the deadline this year is Sep 1. The Ohio Secretary of State notified all of the county-level officials — who actually have the ballots produced — early in June. Gets tougher to yank the county officials around on scheduling as we get closer to the deadlines.
The Convention’s rules committee is meeting on Wednesday to decide how they’re going to proceed.
Still needs to happen in odrder to get on the ballot in Ohio. No difference on that front. Doesn’t matter who the nominee is.
Current Ohio statute, after their special session, says the deadline this year is Sep 1. The Ohio Secretary of State notified all of the county-level officials — who actually have the ballots produced — early in June. Gets tougher to yank the county officials around on scheduling as we get closer to the deadlines.
The Convention’s rules committee is meeting on Wednesday to decide how they’re going to proceed.
Apparently there is consternation in the R camp because they chose Vance out of cockiness, and now see him (as we hope he is) as a disadvantage. I must say, I like the idea of Harris (DV) fighting a campaign partly on the issue of abortion, against a VP pick whose views on abortion are pretty extreme. Also climate change denial. Good news for the youth and female vote.
Apparently there is consternation in the R camp because they chose Vance out of cockiness, and now see him (as we hope he is) as a disadvantage. I must say, I like the idea of Harris (DV) fighting a campaign partly on the issue of abortion, against a VP pick whose views on abortion are pretty extreme. Also climate change denial. Good news for the youth and female vote.
It’s too bad that Brown is so desperately needed in Ohio. I’d love to see a strong, middle-US voice for working people on the ticket to further fire up younger voters and get the swing votes talking. And Brown could clobber Vance on most of Vance’s talking points.
It’s too bad that Brown is so desperately needed in Ohio. I’d love to see a strong, middle-US voice for working people on the ticket to further fire up younger voters and get the swing votes talking. And Brown could clobber Vance on most of Vance’s talking points.
I think our ticket needs to be Mom and Dad. Safe, reliable, practical, comfortable problem-solvers in contrast to the temper tantrum babies, corner screamers, and TV ranters. Provide a contrast so that Republicans become the kind of people you point at and laugh.
That’s pretty much what Whitner did in MI. She help, of course, because there are no sane people left in the R party there, She and the Dems deliver and the R’s just yell and try to kidnap and murder people. Our biggest problem is Dems who don’t want to do anything like Manchin and Semina, (who are both out( because shitty people like them block the D’s from delivering. So Dems deliver, Republicans rave and rant and have hysterics.
It seems to me that FL should be getting close to the tipping point where people decide that they have real problems and can’t afford to have time wasted on R BS anymore. The senate race is closer than one would think. Of course Republicans know that they can’t win unless they cheat and FL is a voter suppression state–but the state level Dem party has been revived and seems to have much more assertive leadership than in previous cycles. Meanwhile climate change i kicking their asses and anti-woke schools won’t help when you can’t get insurance.
I’ve always seen the Republican agenda as essentially a matter of privilege: a person needs to have their basic Maslow needs met to have the privilege of voting out of anger over imaginary problems. I know that isn’t the complete picture because there are people who vote R out of tribalism or family tradition or the mistaken belief that Rs are good and Ds are evil; nevertheless, as in the Great Depression, a fundamental American belief is that government is supposed to help people who are in trouble, so when the trouble gets bad enough I think even red areas will vote D if they see Ds as a source of solutions while Rs remain hysterical idiots.
I think our ticket needs to be Mom and Dad. Safe, reliable, practical, comfortable problem-solvers in contrast to the temper tantrum babies, corner screamers, and TV ranters. Provide a contrast so that Republicans become the kind of people you point at and laugh.
That’s pretty much what Whitner did in MI. She help, of course, because there are no sane people left in the R party there, She and the Dems deliver and the R’s just yell and try to kidnap and murder people. Our biggest problem is Dems who don’t want to do anything like Manchin and Semina, (who are both out( because shitty people like them block the D’s from delivering. So Dems deliver, Republicans rave and rant and have hysterics.
It seems to me that FL should be getting close to the tipping point where people decide that they have real problems and can’t afford to have time wasted on R BS anymore. The senate race is closer than one would think. Of course Republicans know that they can’t win unless they cheat and FL is a voter suppression state–but the state level Dem party has been revived and seems to have much more assertive leadership than in previous cycles. Meanwhile climate change i kicking their asses and anti-woke schools won’t help when you can’t get insurance.
I’ve always seen the Republican agenda as essentially a matter of privilege: a person needs to have their basic Maslow needs met to have the privilege of voting out of anger over imaginary problems. I know that isn’t the complete picture because there are people who vote R out of tribalism or family tradition or the mistaken belief that Rs are good and Ds are evil; nevertheless, as in the Great Depression, a fundamental American belief is that government is supposed to help people who are in trouble, so when the trouble gets bad enough I think even red areas will vote D if they see Ds as a source of solutions while Rs remain hysterical idiots.
Plus, we’re going to see more than enough misogyny already. Having two women on the ticket would make it more than twice as bad. Super unfair. Super regrettable. But that’s the world we live in.
Yeah. I think the same is true of 2 PoC on the ticket, which narrows the field. I might like Buttigieg. Agree that it’d be better if he had SecState under his belt, but perfect/good and all that jazz. His military and McKinsey experience smooths that somewhat. He’d be an excellent contrast to Vance. And he’s a Michigander now, which doesn’t hurt.
Plus, we’re going to see more than enough misogyny already. Having two women on the ticket would make it more than twice as bad. Super unfair. Super regrettable. But that’s the world we live in.
Yeah. I think the same is true of 2 PoC on the ticket, which narrows the field. I might like Buttigieg. Agree that it’d be better if he had SecState under his belt, but perfect/good and all that jazz. His military and McKinsey experience smooths that somewhat. He’d be an excellent contrast to Vance. And he’s a Michigander now, which doesn’t hurt.
Current Ohio statute, after their special session, says the deadline this year is Sep 1.
Glad to hear it. That also helps me understand the report I saw that Harris has asked that her nomination be done “in regular order.”. That is, a roll call at the convention.
Current Ohio statute, after their special session, says the deadline this year is Sep 1.
Glad to hear it. That also helps me understand the report I saw that Harris has asked that her nomination be done “in regular order.”. That is, a roll call at the convention.
Or will she go all in on “time for a change”? Buttigieg, even?
Getting close. Jared Polis won reelection overwhelmingly in 2022 in Colorado (19 percentage points). It wasn’t an issue for anyone who wasn’t gettable for other reasons (eg, abortion or gun control). He was recently elected chair of the National Governors Association (the chair alternates between Democratic and Republican by rule). The press release didn’t mention that he is gay.
I don’t know if it’s odd or not, but Colorado governors seem to wind up as chairs of the various governors associations to which they belong disproportionately often.
Or will she go all in on “time for a change”? Buttigieg, even?
Getting close. Jared Polis won reelection overwhelmingly in 2022 in Colorado (19 percentage points). It wasn’t an issue for anyone who wasn’t gettable for other reasons (eg, abortion or gun control). He was recently elected chair of the National Governors Association (the chair alternates between Democratic and Republican by rule). The press release didn’t mention that he is gay.
I don’t know if it’s odd or not, but Colorado governors seem to wind up as chairs of the various governors associations to which they belong disproportionately often.
Beshear, KY would do a good job of cutting the knees out from under JD “Hillbilly? As if” Vance.
VP choices can only hurt; they never help, and are mostly neutral. But maybe it’s different this time.
Beshear, KY would do a good job of cutting the knees out from under JD “Hillbilly? As if” Vance.
VP choices can only hurt; they never help, and are mostly neutral. But maybe it’s different this time.
VP choices can only hurt; they never help, and are mostly neutral. But maybe it’s different this time.
Respectfully, I think it is. My tea-reading is historically lousy, but I kinda think we need all those govs/sens where they are. Buttigieg doesn’t move any of those pieces around. I’d like Schiff in for Garland and Porter in for Feinstein –> Schiff, but I’m greedy.
VP choices can only hurt; they never help, and are mostly neutral. But maybe it’s different this time.
Respectfully, I think it is. My tea-reading is historically lousy, but I kinda think we need all those govs/sens where they are. Buttigieg doesn’t move any of those pieces around. I’d like Schiff in for Garland and Porter in for Feinstein –> Schiff, but I’m greedy.
I’m probably wrong but it just feels like this is the year for “Time for a change” even if the actual change is new faces to keep promoting the Biden/Dem ideas for domestic policy.
I have a feeling the Dems will go for older white male on the assumption that they need to compensate for having a black woman on the ticket. Maybe that’s right–but I think the older white male needs to also be seen as a fresh face, a mover and shaker, a new spirit of change because there’s a whole generation of citizens out there who are fully aware that they have been massively screwed by our generation and would like to vote for someone who is willing to face up to and assertively address their issues.
I’m probably wrong but it just feels like this is the year for “Time for a change” even if the actual change is new faces to keep promoting the Biden/Dem ideas for domestic policy.
I have a feeling the Dems will go for older white male on the assumption that they need to compensate for having a black woman on the ticket. Maybe that’s right–but I think the older white male needs to also be seen as a fresh face, a mover and shaker, a new spirit of change because there’s a whole generation of citizens out there who are fully aware that they have been massively screwed by our generation and would like to vote for someone who is willing to face up to and assertively address their issues.
older white male needs to also be seen as a fresh face
This strikes me as a contradiction. ?
older white male needs to also be seen as a fresh face
This strikes me as a contradiction. ?
VP choices can only hurt; they never help, and are mostly neutral. But maybe it’s different this time.
Some examples of how the vice presidential candidate impacted a presidential candidacy.
VP Impacts
VP choices can only hurt; they never help, and are mostly neutral. But maybe it’s different this time.
Some examples of how the vice presidential candidate impacted a presidential candidacy.
VP Impacts
older white male needs to also be seen as a fresh face
This strikes me as a contradiction. ?
Depends how old – Harris, who is 59, is being seen as “young”. I’d think mid-50s or 60s would be OK. Nobody in their 70s, I reckon.
Vance is 39, and a quick precis of his career so far on something I saw yesterday was extremely unimpressive. It looks like apart from writing his book, he has been mediocre at every job he has had, and he has got them all through Tiel. Perfect for a Trump sidekick of course.
older white male needs to also be seen as a fresh face
This strikes me as a contradiction. ?
Depends how old – Harris, who is 59, is being seen as “young”. I’d think mid-50s or 60s would be OK. Nobody in their 70s, I reckon.
Vance is 39, and a quick precis of his career so far on something I saw yesterday was extremely unimpressive. It looks like apart from writing his book, he has been mediocre at every job he has had, and he has got them all through Tiel. Perfect for a Trump sidekick of course.
Probably best to think of Vance as the latest Celebrity Apprentice.
Someone needs to save a picture of Usha Vance to use as a background on which to float all of the racist, sexist, dog whistle things that get said about Harris. Those things won’t play well when attached to an image that they read as being on their own side and in need of defense, and that might just trigger some dissonance.
Probably best to think of Vance as the latest Celebrity Apprentice.
Someone needs to save a picture of Usha Vance to use as a background on which to float all of the racist, sexist, dog whistle things that get said about Harris. Those things won’t play well when attached to an image that they read as being on their own side and in need of defense, and that might just trigger some dissonance.
Deeply frustrated because I have just heard that Biden is calling in live to MSNBC to talk about what’s happening, and say the name at the top of the ticket has changed but the mission has not, and that he’s going to fight like hell for Kamala, and I can’t get access to it in the UK. Absolutely infuriating!
Deeply frustrated because I have just heard that Biden is calling in live to MSNBC to talk about what’s happening, and say the name at the top of the ticket has changed but the mission has not, and that he’s going to fight like hell for Kamala, and I can’t get access to it in the UK. Absolutely infuriating!
OK, just saw it on BBC 24 hour news channel. Confirms the calibre of his character, his generosity, and the absolute correctness of his decision. I am starting to feel really quite optimistic…
OK, just saw it on BBC 24 hour news channel. Confirms the calibre of his character, his generosity, and the absolute correctness of his decision. I am starting to feel really quite optimistic…
Some GOP House member wrote a letter to Harris “demanding” she and the cabinet use the 25th amendment to oust Biden. Lol
Some GOP House member wrote a letter to Harris “demanding” she and the cabinet use the 25th amendment to oust Biden. Lol
One thing that I haven’t seen noted is that Biden stepping back is so effective precisely because it is something that is unimaginable for the orange POS and his entourage, because they imagine their opponent to be just like them.
One thing that I haven’t seen noted is that Biden stepping back is so effective precisely because it is something that is unimaginable for the orange POS and his entourage, because they imagine their opponent to be just like them.
Dear GOP,
You first.
Sincerely,
– K Brat
Dear GOP,
You first.
Sincerely,
– K Brat
lj – it’s all projection. Every accusation is a confession.
lj – it’s all projection. Every accusation is a confession.
@GftNC
Mid 50s-60s isn’t “young”. It’s “not old”. Buttigieg is a few years older than Vance, and his education, military service, and public service run circles around Vance. I get the want for the experienced, steady hand who assuages all fears, but I don’t think that unicorn exists. A 59 yo candidate covers the “wisdom” element. A younger VP suggests a bridge to the future. Biden was a good choice for Obama (unfortunately for a lot of “practical” reasons I find distasteful, but maybe necessary at the time). I don’t think that’s what Kamala needs in a running-mate this go-round.
Grain of salt. One of these days I’m bound to be right. Right? right? 🙂
@GftNC
Mid 50s-60s isn’t “young”. It’s “not old”. Buttigieg is a few years older than Vance, and his education, military service, and public service run circles around Vance. I get the want for the experienced, steady hand who assuages all fears, but I don’t think that unicorn exists. A 59 yo candidate covers the “wisdom” element. A younger VP suggests a bridge to the future. Biden was a good choice for Obama (unfortunately for a lot of “practical” reasons I find distasteful, but maybe necessary at the time). I don’t think that’s what Kamala needs in a running-mate this go-round.
Grain of salt. One of these days I’m bound to be right. Right? right? 🙂
There’s so much conservative flop sweat over at twitter right now I almost drowned.
There’s so much conservative flop sweat over at twitter right now I almost drowned.
There’s so much conservative flop sweat over at twitter right now I almost drowned.
Good.
Pete: from what I know of Buttigieg, he is fairly impressive. My only concern is, in the same way that I would be slightly worried about two women for the reasons already touched on, I can’t help wondering if a mixed race Californian woman and a gay man (much though many of us would welcome it) might be a step too far for some parts of the country. But I don’t know a great deal about some of the other possibilities, so I have no fixed opinion on the VP choice.
There’s so much conservative flop sweat over at twitter right now I almost drowned.
Good.
Pete: from what I know of Buttigieg, he is fairly impressive. My only concern is, in the same way that I would be slightly worried about two women for the reasons already touched on, I can’t help wondering if a mixed race Californian woman and a gay man (much though many of us would welcome it) might be a step too far for some parts of the country. But I don’t know a great deal about some of the other possibilities, so I have no fixed opinion on the VP choice.
I can’t help wondering if a mixed race Californian woman and a gay man (much though many of us would welcome it) might be a step too far for some parts of the country.
Unfortunately, that’s a valid concern. The nation has come a long way on the topic. Frankly, further and faster than I would have believed possible a couple of decades ago. But far enough? Not so sure.
On the other hand, those who are still upset on the subject of gay marriage, or homosexuality generally, aren’t likely Democratic voters. And this election is likely to turn on turning out voters more than anything else. Also the biggest concentrations of bigotry on the subject are in states that Democrats aren’t likely to win anyway. So the downsides may not, in practice, be significant.
I worry that I may be letting the fact that I think he’d be great** is skewing my analysis. But it’s what I’ve got.
** In 2020 he was actually my favorite among the candidates. Didn’t believe he would beat Trump, which was critical. But ignoring that detail, I thought he’d be good at the job.
I can’t help wondering if a mixed race Californian woman and a gay man (much though many of us would welcome it) might be a step too far for some parts of the country.
Unfortunately, that’s a valid concern. The nation has come a long way on the topic. Frankly, further and faster than I would have believed possible a couple of decades ago. But far enough? Not so sure.
On the other hand, those who are still upset on the subject of gay marriage, or homosexuality generally, aren’t likely Democratic voters. And this election is likely to turn on turning out voters more than anything else. Also the biggest concentrations of bigotry on the subject are in states that Democrats aren’t likely to win anyway. So the downsides may not, in practice, be significant.
I worry that I may be letting the fact that I think he’d be great** is skewing my analysis. But it’s what I’ve got.
** In 2020 he was actually my favorite among the candidates. Didn’t believe he would beat Trump, which was critical. But ignoring that detail, I thought he’d be good at the job.
older white male needs to also be seen as a fresh face
This strikes me as a contradiction. ?
Yes it is. And that’s the tension, isn’t it? The conventional wisdom is that you balance a candidate the pushes the envelope with one that totally does the opposite. But is the a year for conventional wisdoms? Maybe this is the year to lean into “We AREN”T the past. We AREN’T the conventional politics of the past. We are the future.” From that perspective a gay white male looks pretty good.
older white male needs to also be seen as a fresh face
This strikes me as a contradiction. ?
Yes it is. And that’s the tension, isn’t it? The conventional wisdom is that you balance a candidate the pushes the envelope with one that totally does the opposite. But is the a year for conventional wisdoms? Maybe this is the year to lean into “We AREN”T the past. We AREN’T the conventional politics of the past. We are the future.” From that perspective a gay white male looks pretty good.
My wife is looking for the Taylor Swift recommendation. I told her Ariana Grande has stepped up (via LGM)
So, rather than think of something substantive, like who her VP should be, I’m wondering how the glitterati have lined up.
My wife is looking for the Taylor Swift recommendation. I told her Ariana Grande has stepped up (via LGM)
So, rather than think of something substantive, like who her VP should be, I’m wondering how the glitterati have lined up.
@wonkie
I apologize. I misread you and thought you were suggesting “conventional wisdom”. We are in accord, I think, for the reasons I wrote above.
@wonkie
I apologize. I misread you and thought you were suggesting “conventional wisdom”. We are in accord, I think, for the reasons I wrote above.
Harris wins, I think.
The good news about the VP choice is that all the top picks look pretty good. The Democrats have an impressive bench.
But I would love to see Pete B debate Vance.
Harris wins, I think.
The good news about the VP choice is that all the top picks look pretty good. The Democrats have an impressive bench.
But I would love to see Pete B debate Vance.
My first choice is Mark Kelly, for multiple reasons. Not least that a Democratic governor would appoint his replacement. I believe I have read that Arizona law requires an appointee to be of the same party, but that would still leave room for ratfuckery (even if the law withstood legal challenges).
My first choice is Mark Kelly, for multiple reasons. Not least that a Democratic governor would appoint his replacement. I believe I have read that Arizona law requires an appointee to be of the same party, but that would still leave room for ratfuckery (even if the law withstood legal challenges).
I am posting this because I find my mind strangely divided. I meant what I said yesterday about God blessing Joe Biden, and that after a life of service this might be his finest hour. But on the other hand, I can’t disagree with much of Ian Leslie’s clear eyed analysis here (although I don’t necessarily agree with what he says about Harris). Real life is very complicated, and I guess two things can be true at the same time, no matter how contradictory they seem.
IAN LESLIE
JUL 23
It took an almighty push from Democrats to get Joe Biden out of the race. After the debate I thought he would be gone within a week, since what was already obvious had suddenly become undeniable to everyone except him and his coterie. But in the following days and weeks he dug in with such ferocity that it seemed as if he might just face everyone down – including the voters, who would then get their revenge in November.
It was an almost awesome display of egotistical stubbornness, and an increasingly infuriating one. Biden seemed prepared to destroy his whole party, and perhaps his country, in order to protect his delusions. Yet as soon as he announced his withdrawal the people who had campaigned hardest to get him out of the race rushed to declare him a hero.
The New York Times virtually performed a 21-gun salute. Its columnist Ezra Klein, who to his great credit did more than anyone else in the media to hasten Biden’s demise, immediately hailed Biden “an actual hero”. He tweeted, “This is what America First looks like when it’s a lived ethos”. Another columnist, Frank Bruni, described Biden’s decision as an act of “fundamental humility”. The same paper’s editorial board said that Biden had “placed the national interest above his own pride and ambition”. It wasn’t just the NYT; virtually the whole of America’s liberal establishment took out their hankies and wiped an eye. The New Yorker’s Evan Osnos wrote, “He has made the rarest of choices in the desiccated, demoralized politics of our time: he has sacrificed his own ambition for the sake of the country.”
What a carnival of cant. To state the screamingly obvious, Biden was forced out of the race. He did not go of his own accord. He got out because there came a point when even he realised that fighting an election when most of your party have declared no confidence in you was an act of suicidal stupidity. The politicians and donors who had already called for him to go were just the first; there were plenty more where they came from. No, Biden did not look deep within himself, channel his inner George Washington, and lay aside personal ambition on behalf of the Republic. He looked up and realised he was surrounded.
This ceremony of moist eyes would have made sense if Biden had announced his intention to serve only one term earlier – say at the start of 2023. He would have been making it from a position of strength. His party had just done remarkably well in the midterms. The economy was motoring again. He had passed several big bills. He had brought together NATO in support of Ukraine. If he’d stepped down then, which he plainly ought to have done, he would have been awarded full canonisation, and deserved it.
This is not just the kind of thing that’s easy to say in hindsight; it made sense at the time. Running for a second term at the age of 81, when you don’t seem in the best of shape, was always an insane proposition. Even though his party had done well in 2022, his own approval ratings were already in the toilet. Voters were sending a clear signal that he shouldn’t try his luck in 2024. But if he had swallowed his ambition at that point, nobody would remember the approval ratings. Biden would be remembered as the hero who lanced the monster and restored America’s global prestige, before sloping off to Delaware, mission accomplished.
As it is, he stuck around long enough to allow the monster to revive, and also to turn his own party into a laughing stock. How did they end up with this guy as their candidate? It wasn’t just the sight of his cognitive or physical decline that was so painfully apparent in the debate; it was the lack of seriousness. He called Trump “a sucker and a loser” and attacked his golf game. The grown-up in the room had become another overgrown kid. Does anyone know what Biden wanted a second term for?
Most infuriatingly, he stuck around long enough to land his party with a candidate who is only marginally stronger than he would have been. …
I am posting this because I find my mind strangely divided. I meant what I said yesterday about God blessing Joe Biden, and that after a life of service this might be his finest hour. But on the other hand, I can’t disagree with much of Ian Leslie’s clear eyed analysis here (although I don’t necessarily agree with what he says about Harris). Real life is very complicated, and I guess two things can be true at the same time, no matter how contradictory they seem.
IAN LESLIE
JUL 23
It took an almighty push from Democrats to get Joe Biden out of the race. After the debate I thought he would be gone within a week, since what was already obvious had suddenly become undeniable to everyone except him and his coterie. But in the following days and weeks he dug in with such ferocity that it seemed as if he might just face everyone down – including the voters, who would then get their revenge in November.
It was an almost awesome display of egotistical stubbornness, and an increasingly infuriating one. Biden seemed prepared to destroy his whole party, and perhaps his country, in order to protect his delusions. Yet as soon as he announced his withdrawal the people who had campaigned hardest to get him out of the race rushed to declare him a hero.
The New York Times virtually performed a 21-gun salute. Its columnist Ezra Klein, who to his great credit did more than anyone else in the media to hasten Biden’s demise, immediately hailed Biden “an actual hero”. He tweeted, “This is what America First looks like when it’s a lived ethos”. Another columnist, Frank Bruni, described Biden’s decision as an act of “fundamental humility”. The same paper’s editorial board said that Biden had “placed the national interest above his own pride and ambition”. It wasn’t just the NYT; virtually the whole of America’s liberal establishment took out their hankies and wiped an eye. The New Yorker’s Evan Osnos wrote, “He has made the rarest of choices in the desiccated, demoralized politics of our time: he has sacrificed his own ambition for the sake of the country.”
What a carnival of cant. To state the screamingly obvious, Biden was forced out of the race. He did not go of his own accord. He got out because there came a point when even he realised that fighting an election when most of your party have declared no confidence in you was an act of suicidal stupidity. The politicians and donors who had already called for him to go were just the first; there were plenty more where they came from. No, Biden did not look deep within himself, channel his inner George Washington, and lay aside personal ambition on behalf of the Republic. He looked up and realised he was surrounded.
This ceremony of moist eyes would have made sense if Biden had announced his intention to serve only one term earlier – say at the start of 2023. He would have been making it from a position of strength. His party had just done remarkably well in the midterms. The economy was motoring again. He had passed several big bills. He had brought together NATO in support of Ukraine. If he’d stepped down then, which he plainly ought to have done, he would have been awarded full canonisation, and deserved it.
This is not just the kind of thing that’s easy to say in hindsight; it made sense at the time. Running for a second term at the age of 81, when you don’t seem in the best of shape, was always an insane proposition. Even though his party had done well in 2022, his own approval ratings were already in the toilet. Voters were sending a clear signal that he shouldn’t try his luck in 2024. But if he had swallowed his ambition at that point, nobody would remember the approval ratings. Biden would be remembered as the hero who lanced the monster and restored America’s global prestige, before sloping off to Delaware, mission accomplished.
As it is, he stuck around long enough to allow the monster to revive, and also to turn his own party into a laughing stock. How did they end up with this guy as their candidate? It wasn’t just the sight of his cognitive or physical decline that was so painfully apparent in the debate; it was the lack of seriousness. He called Trump “a sucker and a loser” and attacked his golf game. The grown-up in the room had become another overgrown kid. Does anyone know what Biden wanted a second term for?
Most infuriatingly, he stuck around long enough to land his party with a candidate who is only marginally stronger than he would have been. …
I can’t disagree with much of Ian Leslie’s clear eyed analysis here
I’m sure there was a large element of ego in Biden’s resistance to stepping down. That said, my own sense of this is that Biden stuck it out until his own reading of the polls etc. made it clear to him that he was likely to lose.
As for “what he wanted a second term for”, Biden was a tremendously effective POTUS and I imagine he wanted to keep doing a job he was really good at. I completely support Harris, but should she win she is not likely to be as effective, simply because she doesn’t have Biden’s range and depth of experience, or his hands-on political skills (yet – that’s a learn-on-the-job thing I think). It’s quite possible all of that was a factor in Biden’s thinking.
I’ll also say that his stepping down right after the end of the (R) convention was a brilliant play, whether intentional or not. It stole their spotlight. And Biden’s a sufficiently able political player that it would not surprise me if the timing was intentional, or at least a matter of seizing a golden opportunity.
People do things for a mixture of reasons. Leslie’s reading of events seems, to me, unnecessarily one-sided and critical. And in the end I’m not sure Biden’s reasons for holding on are that important. Leslie’s piece here seems less clear-eyed than simply contrarian, and unkind and unneedfully sour in tone at that.
I can’t disagree with much of Ian Leslie’s clear eyed analysis here
I’m sure there was a large element of ego in Biden’s resistance to stepping down. That said, my own sense of this is that Biden stuck it out until his own reading of the polls etc. made it clear to him that he was likely to lose.
As for “what he wanted a second term for”, Biden was a tremendously effective POTUS and I imagine he wanted to keep doing a job he was really good at. I completely support Harris, but should she win she is not likely to be as effective, simply because she doesn’t have Biden’s range and depth of experience, or his hands-on political skills (yet – that’s a learn-on-the-job thing I think). It’s quite possible all of that was a factor in Biden’s thinking.
I’ll also say that his stepping down right after the end of the (R) convention was a brilliant play, whether intentional or not. It stole their spotlight. And Biden’s a sufficiently able political player that it would not surprise me if the timing was intentional, or at least a matter of seizing a golden opportunity.
People do things for a mixture of reasons. Leslie’s reading of events seems, to me, unnecessarily one-sided and critical. And in the end I’m not sure Biden’s reasons for holding on are that important. Leslie’s piece here seems less clear-eyed than simply contrarian, and unkind and unneedfully sour in tone at that.
Thank you, russell. You captured what I was groping for, without the snarky parts. 🙂
Thank you, russell. You captured what I was groping for, without the snarky parts. 🙂
I expected the canonization of Biden— in fact I touted it as a useful feature if he chose to resign.
But I mostly agree with Leslie as far as that quoted part goes, but that part says nothing about Gaza. Biden is in violation of the Leahy Law and is complicit in Israel’s war crimes. He recently sent 1700 more 500 lb bombs to them. In an interview with Complex, he said he had done more for the Palestinians than anyone and claimed he was sending defensive weapons, which would be true if we were only strengthening Iron Dome, but of course he was lying. He was talking about the fact that he has pressured Israel to allow more food in. What a saint. ( I watched the part of the interview dealing with Gaza.)
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/15/politics/biden-zionist-speedy-360-interview/index.html
We really don’t have a press corps that asks tough questions on human rights issues. When Biden had his press conference on foreign policy a week or so ago, the only Gaza question was a softball— did he have any regrets? No followup. Democrats might complain that the press went into a feeding frenzy over the cognitive issue, but I would like to see Biden in a one-on-one interview with someone who wouldn’t hold back on Gaza. You could do this politely and in a professional manner. I can’t imagine the MSM ever doing it.
I expected the canonization of Biden— in fact I touted it as a useful feature if he chose to resign.
But I mostly agree with Leslie as far as that quoted part goes, but that part says nothing about Gaza. Biden is in violation of the Leahy Law and is complicit in Israel’s war crimes. He recently sent 1700 more 500 lb bombs to them. In an interview with Complex, he said he had done more for the Palestinians than anyone and claimed he was sending defensive weapons, which would be true if we were only strengthening Iron Dome, but of course he was lying. He was talking about the fact that he has pressured Israel to allow more food in. What a saint. ( I watched the part of the interview dealing with Gaza.)
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/15/politics/biden-zionist-speedy-360-interview/index.html
We really don’t have a press corps that asks tough questions on human rights issues. When Biden had his press conference on foreign policy a week or so ago, the only Gaza question was a softball— did he have any regrets? No followup. Democrats might complain that the press went into a feeding frenzy over the cognitive issue, but I would like to see Biden in a one-on-one interview with someone who wouldn’t hold back on Gaza. You could do this politely and in a professional manner. I can’t imagine the MSM ever doing it.
As it is, he stuck around long enough to allow the monster to revive, and also to turn his own party into a laughing stock.
….
Most infuriatingly, he stuck around long enough to land his party with a candidate who is only marginally stronger than he would have been. …
I’d say this is wrong twice.
The more I think about it, the more it looks like a carefully orchestrated deal. Biden has to have been aware from the srart that he needed contingency plans, in case something happened to him. When something did (and he’d had time to process it; say a week maybe?) the plan went into effect.
Note first that (as russell says) he stuck around long enough that the Republican convention is over. They don’t have a week of free air time to attack Harris, having spent it attacking a target which is now gone. They are locked in, not only to Trump (which was going to happen regardless) but to a VP candidate who is about the best target the Democrats could ask for.
Note also the smooth way that endoresments have flowed in. An initial rush. Then a gradual series of big names, to keep the change in the headlines. All with the biggest names (Obama, Pelosi, etc.) holding back, so it looked like a bottom up reaction rather than something pushed down from the top.
Overall, it looks like some really savvy politicians had it all worked out, including the timing. Yes, Biden had to endure a couple of weeks of increasingly strident calls for him to step aside. Sometimes ya gotta take one for the team.
As for Harris as a candidate, the party seems to be pretty damn enthused. Only look at the ridiculous amounts of money she got in small donor donations. Both on the first day and again on the second day. Elections these days tend to be about turning out your voters. And the folks in the field seem charged up and ready to work hard on that.
Also note that Harris has, for months, been the one hammering on abortion rights. Since Dobbs, it’s been the Democrats strongest issue. Trump has looked (admittedly sporadically) to be attempting to lower the profile of abortion in the campaign. But in picking Vance he’s got someone who is loudly on the extreme end of even the Republicans on the issue.
And then there’s the detail that Trump is suddenly the guy who is OLD. Even if they’d like to forget the issue they have been screaming from the rooftops for the last month, that’s going to be challenging.
It may also be worth noting the chaos in the Republican reaction. The dog has caught the car. Most amusing, at least to me, has been Trump whining about how he’s spent all this time and energy attacking Biden, and now that’s all wasted. He was upset enough to ask for a refund!
As it is, he stuck around long enough to allow the monster to revive, and also to turn his own party into a laughing stock.
….
Most infuriatingly, he stuck around long enough to land his party with a candidate who is only marginally stronger than he would have been. …
I’d say this is wrong twice.
The more I think about it, the more it looks like a carefully orchestrated deal. Biden has to have been aware from the srart that he needed contingency plans, in case something happened to him. When something did (and he’d had time to process it; say a week maybe?) the plan went into effect.
Note first that (as russell says) he stuck around long enough that the Republican convention is over. They don’t have a week of free air time to attack Harris, having spent it attacking a target which is now gone. They are locked in, not only to Trump (which was going to happen regardless) but to a VP candidate who is about the best target the Democrats could ask for.
Note also the smooth way that endoresments have flowed in. An initial rush. Then a gradual series of big names, to keep the change in the headlines. All with the biggest names (Obama, Pelosi, etc.) holding back, so it looked like a bottom up reaction rather than something pushed down from the top.
Overall, it looks like some really savvy politicians had it all worked out, including the timing. Yes, Biden had to endure a couple of weeks of increasingly strident calls for him to step aside. Sometimes ya gotta take one for the team.
As for Harris as a candidate, the party seems to be pretty damn enthused. Only look at the ridiculous amounts of money she got in small donor donations. Both on the first day and again on the second day. Elections these days tend to be about turning out your voters. And the folks in the field seem charged up and ready to work hard on that.
Also note that Harris has, for months, been the one hammering on abortion rights. Since Dobbs, it’s been the Democrats strongest issue. Trump has looked (admittedly sporadically) to be attempting to lower the profile of abortion in the campaign. But in picking Vance he’s got someone who is loudly on the extreme end of even the Republicans on the issue.
And then there’s the detail that Trump is suddenly the guy who is OLD. Even if they’d like to forget the issue they have been screaming from the rooftops for the last month, that’s going to be challenging.
It may also be worth noting the chaos in the Republican reaction. The dog has caught the car. Most amusing, at least to me, has been Trump whining about how he’s spent all this time and energy attacking Biden, and now that’s all wasted. He was upset enough to ask for a refund!
should she win she is not likely to be as effective, simply because she doesn’t have Biden’s range and depth of experience, or his hands-on political skills (yet – that’s a learn-on-the-job thing I think).
Also, she’s had 4 years learning at the elbow of a master.
should she win she is not likely to be as effective, simply because she doesn’t have Biden’s range and depth of experience, or his hands-on political skills (yet – that’s a learn-on-the-job thing I think).
Also, she’s had 4 years learning at the elbow of a master.
On a lighter note
https://xkcd.com/2962/
On a lighter note
https://xkcd.com/2962/
I hope Kamela doesn’t pick Shapiro. He’s great in many ways and on many issues, but he has the kind of kneejerk defensiveness toward Israel that makes him blind to the role of the Israeli government in creating and promoting the violence and conflict between Israel and Palestine. He’s completely dismissive of any concerns about the ethnic cleansing, engineered starvation, and mass murder going on in Gaza and seems to have no appreciation of the role of the apartheid policy, the illegal settlements, the historic ethnic cleansing, and the mass incarceration in creating a motivation for organizations like Hamas.
I hope Kamela doesn’t pick Shapiro. He’s great in many ways and on many issues, but he has the kind of kneejerk defensiveness toward Israel that makes him blind to the role of the Israeli government in creating and promoting the violence and conflict between Israel and Palestine. He’s completely dismissive of any concerns about the ethnic cleansing, engineered starvation, and mass murder going on in Gaza and seems to have no appreciation of the role of the apartheid policy, the illegal settlements, the historic ethnic cleansing, and the mass incarceration in creating a motivation for organizations like Hamas.
I think any reasonably competent Democrat would have achieved what Biden achieved. Any Democrat would have had the same narrow margin and would have had to submit to Manchin and Sinema.
Over at the LGM blog they make fun of the Green Lantern theory of the Presidency that some lefties allegedly hold. I don’t get the reference ( yes,an old TV character but I don’t know what the connection is) but it seems to be the idea that Presidents have magical powers to get what they want.
There was a bare majority of Democrats in the Senate and they were limited by what Manchin and Sinema would allow. I don’t think Biden did anything magical using his political chops. The numbers were what they were.
His Middle East policy has been a disaster. He inherited Trump’s determination to build an Israeli- Gulf Arab alliance against Iran, while shoving the Palestinians to one side, and he went with it.
And he should have been a one term President and allowed the several much younger centrist liberals to compete for the nomination. ( I wouldn’t be crazy about either Sanders or Warren trying again and yess, because of their age, though both are way better off than Biden.)
I think any reasonably competent Democrat would have achieved what Biden achieved. Any Democrat would have had the same narrow margin and would have had to submit to Manchin and Sinema.
Over at the LGM blog they make fun of the Green Lantern theory of the Presidency that some lefties allegedly hold. I don’t get the reference ( yes,an old TV character but I don’t know what the connection is) but it seems to be the idea that Presidents have magical powers to get what they want.
There was a bare majority of Democrats in the Senate and they were limited by what Manchin and Sinema would allow. I don’t think Biden did anything magical using his political chops. The numbers were what they were.
His Middle East policy has been a disaster. He inherited Trump’s determination to build an Israeli- Gulf Arab alliance against Iran, while shoving the Palestinians to one side, and he went with it.
And he should have been a one term President and allowed the several much younger centrist liberals to compete for the nomination. ( I wouldn’t be crazy about either Sanders or Warren trying again and yess, because of their age, though both are way better off than Biden.)
“ allowed the several much younger centrist liberals to compete for the nomination”
I mean earlier. A full primary season. At this point it is Harris.
“ allowed the several much younger centrist liberals to compete for the nomination”
I mean earlier. A full primary season. At this point it is Harris.
the Green Lantern theory
the Green Lantern theory
I’ll also say that his stepping down right after the end of the (R) convention was a brilliant play, whether intentional or not. It stole their spotlight. And Biden’s a sufficiently able political player that it would not surprise me if the timing was intentional, or at least a matter of seizing a golden opportunity.
This.
In decades past, I would think it delayed detrimentally if done at the same point in the race. The news cycle is shorter now. At least from that standpoint, it works. Mounting a campaign this late is difficult, but I think there is enough of a groundswell of enthusiasm (and a sense of relief from the stasis GftNC described a bit ago) that the difficulty can be readily overcome.
People appear to be pretty jacked on the D side and I don’t think tRump is deft enough to pivot effectively to regain the voters who were voting for him (or just sitting it out) primarily over their misgivings about Biden rather than a real desire for another tRump presidency.
I’ll also say that his stepping down right after the end of the (R) convention was a brilliant play, whether intentional or not. It stole their spotlight. And Biden’s a sufficiently able political player that it would not surprise me if the timing was intentional, or at least a matter of seizing a golden opportunity.
This.
In decades past, I would think it delayed detrimentally if done at the same point in the race. The news cycle is shorter now. At least from that standpoint, it works. Mounting a campaign this late is difficult, but I think there is enough of a groundswell of enthusiasm (and a sense of relief from the stasis GftNC described a bit ago) that the difficulty can be readily overcome.
People appear to be pretty jacked on the D side and I don’t think tRump is deft enough to pivot effectively to regain the voters who were voting for him (or just sitting it out) primarily over their misgivings about Biden rather than a real desire for another tRump presidency.
Leslie’s piece here seems … unkind and unneedfully sour in tone at that.
This is the main aspect that bothered me. Whatever the possible equation of ego + stubborness + resentment might have been, it seems to me that he has been a) a very successful president, and b) very gracious in the endgame. In terms of his actual motivation in the last few weeks, I could completely believe that 1. he was understandably bitter at Obama for backing HRC because he thinks he would have won (probably confirmed by win in 2020), 2. given that win, he might well have believed he was the only person who could do it again, 3. he didn’t think the debate performance was as bad as it was (bolstered by Jill Biden’s extraordinary though understandable remarks to him straight afterwards).
I am not letting go of my admiration for and gratitude to Biden, but (as always) I also want to retain the ability to look at events with a clear eye. That doesn’t stop me hoping that the “canonisation” becomes his main takeaway, and that it eases his slide into retirement (easier if Harris wins), and possible increasing deterioration. Unlike Donald, I can compartmentalise my disapproval of his attitude re Gaza, and focus on e.g. Ukraine, NATO etc. Whether the timing (after the R convention) was planned or not, it turns out to be excellent news, as I hope does the choice of Vance. And the groundswell towards Kamala is really heartening.
On Harris’s VP pick, I am agnostic because ignorant about most of them. If what wonkie says about Shapiro is accurate, then that could certainly be very problematic.
Leslie’s piece here seems … unkind and unneedfully sour in tone at that.
This is the main aspect that bothered me. Whatever the possible equation of ego + stubborness + resentment might have been, it seems to me that he has been a) a very successful president, and b) very gracious in the endgame. In terms of his actual motivation in the last few weeks, I could completely believe that 1. he was understandably bitter at Obama for backing HRC because he thinks he would have won (probably confirmed by win in 2020), 2. given that win, he might well have believed he was the only person who could do it again, 3. he didn’t think the debate performance was as bad as it was (bolstered by Jill Biden’s extraordinary though understandable remarks to him straight afterwards).
I am not letting go of my admiration for and gratitude to Biden, but (as always) I also want to retain the ability to look at events with a clear eye. That doesn’t stop me hoping that the “canonisation” becomes his main takeaway, and that it eases his slide into retirement (easier if Harris wins), and possible increasing deterioration. Unlike Donald, I can compartmentalise my disapproval of his attitude re Gaza, and focus on e.g. Ukraine, NATO etc. Whether the timing (after the R convention) was planned or not, it turns out to be excellent news, as I hope does the choice of Vance. And the groundswell towards Kamala is really heartening.
On Harris’s VP pick, I am agnostic because ignorant about most of them. If what wonkie says about Shapiro is accurate, then that could certainly be very problematic.
Oh I can compartmentalize— I was going to vote for Biden. But Americans do way too much of this. Politicians, with very rare exceptions, should be held at arm’s length and not treated as heroes.
When you start seeing them as heroes you push aside the issues where they are not heroes and if anything they are criminals.
What kind of person brags about what he has done for Palestinians when Gaza is hell on earth, in large part because of the bombs he supplied? Just normal human decency should have kept him from pounding his chest like that.
I don’t have a problem with people touting his accomplishments but they have to be put alongside his crime. His accomplishments are real. So is his crime.
Speaking of that, there is a WSJ article I can’t read ( not being a subscriber) which says Harris is well to Biden’s left on Gaza. That wasn’t always the case— she used to be quite the AIPAC fan. But Iif she has shifted that is great. It will also be awkward for her over 5he next several months.
Russell— thanks for 5he link.
Oh I can compartmentalize— I was going to vote for Biden. But Americans do way too much of this. Politicians, with very rare exceptions, should be held at arm’s length and not treated as heroes.
When you start seeing them as heroes you push aside the issues where they are not heroes and if anything they are criminals.
What kind of person brags about what he has done for Palestinians when Gaza is hell on earth, in large part because of the bombs he supplied? Just normal human decency should have kept him from pounding his chest like that.
I don’t have a problem with people touting his accomplishments but they have to be put alongside his crime. His accomplishments are real. So is his crime.
Speaking of that, there is a WSJ article I can’t read ( not being a subscriber) which says Harris is well to Biden’s left on Gaza. That wasn’t always the case— she used to be quite the AIPAC fan. But Iif she has shifted that is great. It will also be awkward for her over 5he next several months.
Russell— thanks for 5he link.
If Harris chooses Mark Kelly, I’m trying to decide if the first set of NYTimes opinion pieces will be (a) the Dems can’t possibly win with two westerners on the ticket or (b) the astronaut ought to be in the top spot.
If Harris chooses Mark Kelly, I’m trying to decide if the first set of NYTimes opinion pieces will be (a) the Dems can’t possibly win with two westerners on the ticket or (b) the astronaut ought to be in the top spot.
We should add Afghanistan to the list of FP snafus.
We should add Afghanistan to the list of FP snafus.
the astronaut ought to be in the top spot.
You don’t think they will protest that, as an ex-astronaut, he is not practical enough? I e. too “spacey”
(Sorry, couldn’t resist)
the astronaut ought to be in the top spot.
You don’t think they will protest that, as an ex-astronaut, he is not practical enough? I e. too “spacey”
(Sorry, couldn’t resist)
I think any reasonably competent Democrat would have achieved what Biden achieved. Any Democrat would have had the same narrow margin and would have had to submit to Manchin and Sinema.
I disagree with this assessment. I don’t think that, for example, Obama would have achieved as much in the same circumstances.
I don’t think that Biden was more effective simply because he was better at presidenting than was Obama. I think there were very different dynamics at play in the opposition that each faced, and that there was less political cost to be paid by Biden’s opponents for compromising at the margins. I don’t think any of us has any confusion over why that might be. But be that as it may, I think that Biden got about as much out of his position as anyone could hope to accomplish.
Part of that is his doing. Part of that is structural. I do not begrudge him either of those things. I’m glad that he was able to capitalize on what he was given.
And as far as Palestine goes, I don’t think there is any respite to be had under any circumstances until after the US elections. So my sense of things is that it is best to get whatever political margin we can out of celebrating Biden’s achievements in this moment, and leave the more critical assessment of his presidency until after he has left office and (gods willing) handed off the keys to Harris.
I think any reasonably competent Democrat would have achieved what Biden achieved. Any Democrat would have had the same narrow margin and would have had to submit to Manchin and Sinema.
I disagree with this assessment. I don’t think that, for example, Obama would have achieved as much in the same circumstances.
I don’t think that Biden was more effective simply because he was better at presidenting than was Obama. I think there were very different dynamics at play in the opposition that each faced, and that there was less political cost to be paid by Biden’s opponents for compromising at the margins. I don’t think any of us has any confusion over why that might be. But be that as it may, I think that Biden got about as much out of his position as anyone could hope to accomplish.
Part of that is his doing. Part of that is structural. I do not begrudge him either of those things. I’m glad that he was able to capitalize on what he was given.
And as far as Palestine goes, I don’t think there is any respite to be had under any circumstances until after the US elections. So my sense of things is that it is best to get whatever political margin we can out of celebrating Biden’s achievements in this moment, and leave the more critical assessment of his presidency until after he has left office and (gods willing) handed off the keys to Harris.
Donald: yes, re compartmentalisation I had said to myself that your willingness to vote for him did show you could when you needed to!
On regarding him as a hero, I am really torn. I do think he has many good and admirable qualities, and I am extremely grateful to him for showing (by providing the contrast) quite what a despicable scoundrel and monster Trump is. But clearly, as novakant reminds us, Afghanistan was a very serious mistake, and Gaza is a really black stain on his record.
I suppose it all just goes to show how impossible it is to be a perfect person and a successful politician. Or maybe just to be a perfect person at all? But, if only Harris can be elected, he will in the end have done his country (and the world, actually) a very great service in disposing of Trump.
Donald: yes, re compartmentalisation I had said to myself that your willingness to vote for him did show you could when you needed to!
On regarding him as a hero, I am really torn. I do think he has many good and admirable qualities, and I am extremely grateful to him for showing (by providing the contrast) quite what a despicable scoundrel and monster Trump is. But clearly, as novakant reminds us, Afghanistan was a very serious mistake, and Gaza is a really black stain on his record.
I suppose it all just goes to show how impossible it is to be a perfect person and a successful politician. Or maybe just to be a perfect person at all? But, if only Harris can be elected, he will in the end have done his country (and the world, actually) a very great service in disposing of Trump.
the astronaut ought to be in the top spot.
My sense is that Kelly would be happy just being in Harris’ orbit.
the astronaut ought to be in the top spot.
My sense is that Kelly would be happy just being in Harris’ orbit.
On regarding him as a hero, I am really torn.
IMO the canonization thing is to be expected, but probably goes a few steps too far. Biden’s overall history in public office is mixed, like most people’s. Including, to follow on Donald’s comments, his deference to Netanyahu re: Gaza.
I doubt anyone else could have beaten Trump in 2020, and I appreciate his willingness to step up to that challenge, even if his own ambition played a large part in it. Ambition is a given for anyone coming anywhere near that position. He could have just retired.
And I think that, on the whole, he has been a very effective POTUS. I note and agree with nous’ comment that a lot of that was down to circumstance, but a lot of it also had to do with his own skill at hands-on politics. Which IMO are considerable, others’ MMV.
IMO it’s sufficient to simply appreciate Biden for actually beating Trump in 2020 – which was no small feat – and for being an effective POTUS at a difficult and divided time.
Not a hero, but a good POTUS when one was sorely needed, and a generally decent human being (while not ignoring the ethical failures Donald calls out).
IMO he was kind of a gift to the country – the necessary person at a critical time – and I’m grateful for it.
On regarding him as a hero, I am really torn.
IMO the canonization thing is to be expected, but probably goes a few steps too far. Biden’s overall history in public office is mixed, like most people’s. Including, to follow on Donald’s comments, his deference to Netanyahu re: Gaza.
I doubt anyone else could have beaten Trump in 2020, and I appreciate his willingness to step up to that challenge, even if his own ambition played a large part in it. Ambition is a given for anyone coming anywhere near that position. He could have just retired.
And I think that, on the whole, he has been a very effective POTUS. I note and agree with nous’ comment that a lot of that was down to circumstance, but a lot of it also had to do with his own skill at hands-on politics. Which IMO are considerable, others’ MMV.
IMO it’s sufficient to simply appreciate Biden for actually beating Trump in 2020 – which was no small feat – and for being an effective POTUS at a difficult and divided time.
Not a hero, but a good POTUS when one was sorely needed, and a generally decent human being (while not ignoring the ethical failures Donald calls out).
IMO he was kind of a gift to the country – the necessary person at a critical time – and I’m grateful for it.
I think any reasonably competent Democrat would have achieved what Biden achieved. Any Democrat would have had the same narrow margin and would have had to submit to Manchin and Sinema.
Like nous, I think this is mistaken. Biden had relationships with senators of both parties, built up over decades, which let him get thru legislation nobody else could have.
Yes, there were limits. But of his three(?) signature achievements, how many would a hypothetical “reasonably competent Democrat” have gotten thru? I’d guess a close approximation of zero.
I think any reasonably competent Democrat would have achieved what Biden achieved. Any Democrat would have had the same narrow margin and would have had to submit to Manchin and Sinema.
Like nous, I think this is mistaken. Biden had relationships with senators of both parties, built up over decades, which let him get thru legislation nobody else could have.
Yes, there were limits. But of his three(?) signature achievements, how many would a hypothetical “reasonably competent Democrat” have gotten thru? I’d guess a close approximation of zero.
Not since 1976 has a Presidential election been without a Biden, Bush, or Clinton on the ticket. But there’s a Kennedy.
Not since 1976 has a Presidential election been without a Biden, Bush, or Clinton on the ticket. But there’s a Kennedy.
I think that russell’s take @02.06 is the most balanced way to look at it (which is just to say that I agree with it!). And, on the gift to the country aspect, if indeed he was the only person who could have beaten Trump (which may well be true), he was the greatest possible gift to the country, and as I keep saying, to the world.
I think that russell’s take @02.06 is the most balanced way to look at it (which is just to say that I agree with it!). And, on the gift to the country aspect, if indeed he was the only person who could have beaten Trump (which may well be true), he was the greatest possible gift to the country, and as I keep saying, to the world.
I wonder if Biden is feeling any sense of relief. Even before all the calls for him to drop out there was so much pressure. And Delaware has nice beaches.
I wonder if Biden is feeling any sense of relief. Even before all the calls for him to drop out there was so much pressure. And Delaware has nice beaches.
“ Biden had relationships with senators of both parties, built up over decades, which let him get thru legislation nobody else could have.”
This might be true of some other legislation that I am not aware of, which is quite possible, but on the Build Back Better bill it passed on party lines with Harris casting the deciding vote, and Manchin had total control. My impression was that Biden thought his old relationships would be more important than they actually were, This isn’t the 1980’s when the idea of bipartisan compromise was still seen as a somewhat good thing.. I vaguely recall Tip O’Neill and Reagan supposedly working together on some issues.
I also remember Sinema being one of the two villains in the Senate, but can’t remember if it was on the BBB bill or something else.
“ Biden had relationships with senators of both parties, built up over decades, which let him get thru legislation nobody else could have.”
This might be true of some other legislation that I am not aware of, which is quite possible, but on the Build Back Better bill it passed on party lines with Harris casting the deciding vote, and Manchin had total control. My impression was that Biden thought his old relationships would be more important than they actually were, This isn’t the 1980’s when the idea of bipartisan compromise was still seen as a somewhat good thing.. I vaguely recall Tip O’Neill and Reagan supposedly working together on some issues.
I also remember Sinema being one of the two villains in the Senate, but can’t remember if it was on the BBB bill or something else.
“Party lines” ignores the work within the coalition to decide what to present as a unified front. It was a quite progressive bill as it went to the floor. Biden had to let that happen, and I think that represents a tangible concession on his part to the progressive caucus.
The votes were always there, but the path to finalize the legislation and the fights along the way are going to be different. Coalition building is really hard.
Biden gave more chances to labor and the environment than any of his recent predecessors had, and fought losing battles to try and keep those goals. He could afford to give AOC more space, and she repaid that opportunity with loyalty.
I wish he could have done the same on Gaza, but I don’t think Obama would have given so much under the same circumstances on any of these issues, so I’m giving credit where credit is due.
I think the coalition that Biden built is a healthier one than what came before for the Democrats.
“Party lines” ignores the work within the coalition to decide what to present as a unified front. It was a quite progressive bill as it went to the floor. Biden had to let that happen, and I think that represents a tangible concession on his part to the progressive caucus.
The votes were always there, but the path to finalize the legislation and the fights along the way are going to be different. Coalition building is really hard.
Biden gave more chances to labor and the environment than any of his recent predecessors had, and fought losing battles to try and keep those goals. He could afford to give AOC more space, and she repaid that opportunity with loyalty.
I wish he could have done the same on Gaza, but I don’t think Obama would have given so much under the same circumstances on any of these issues, so I’m giving credit where credit is due.
I think the coalition that Biden built is a healthier one than what came before for the Democrats.
Time for Harris to go VP shopping
Time for Harris to go VP shopping
Crikey, I’ve just seen (have no idea how reliable it is) that according to new CBS polling, Kamala Harris has opened up a 62-37% lead on Donald Trump among young voters!
Crikey, I’ve just seen (have no idea how reliable it is) that according to new CBS polling, Kamala Harris has opened up a 62-37% lead on Donald Trump among young voters!
Would not surprise me. Biden beat Trump 59% to 35% among voters under 30 in 2020, and they would have been similarly situated in 2024 were it not for the Palestine stuff severely eroding Biden’s numbers there. I’d expect a younger (i.e. non-Boomer*) woman of color to do better than that in a post-Dobbs landscape.
At least that’s how I read things based on the cross section of students I talk to.
*They’d perceive Harris more as being their parents’ age, rather than their grandparents’ age like Biden/Trump.
Would not surprise me. Biden beat Trump 59% to 35% among voters under 30 in 2020, and they would have been similarly situated in 2024 were it not for the Palestine stuff severely eroding Biden’s numbers there. I’d expect a younger (i.e. non-Boomer*) woman of color to do better than that in a post-Dobbs landscape.
At least that’s how I read things based on the cross section of students I talk to.
*They’d perceive Harris more as being their parents’ age, rather than their grandparents’ age like Biden/Trump.
This might be better as a post, but I’m wondering quite a bit about what has been revealed with the media class in all of this and Leslie’s column is of a piece. Been reading the origins of the phrases ‘fellow travelers’ and ‘useful idiots’ and wondering if and how those terms apply. While it is good to avoid a St. Biden, it seems that the media set itself up for that. The Leslie piece, if taken alone, seems like a pretty clear-eyed assessment, but when examined with his other writing, tells a bit of a different story.
Leslie, who I’m assuming is this guy,
https://aeon.co/users/ian-leslie
starts off with his piece on Biden with:
It was an almost awesome display of egotistical stubbornness, and an increasingly infuriating one. Biden seemed prepared to destroy his whole party, and perhaps his country, in order to protect his delusions. Yet as soon as he announced his withdrawal the people who had campaigned hardest to get him out of the race rushed to declare him a hero.
Yet (and I’m assuming this is the same person) Leslie wrote this
https://aeon.co/essays/why-disagreement-is-vital-to-advancing-human-understanding
Open and wholehearted argument can raise the collective intelligence of a group, but the chemistry of a disagreement is inherently unstable. There’s always a possibility it might explode into hostile conflict or vaporise into thin air. Self-assertion can turn into aggression, conviction can become stubbornness, the desire to co-operate can become the urge to herd. I’ve sat around tables at work where most people don’t express a strong point of view and simply accept whatever the most confident person in the room says, or just nod along with the first opinion offered because it seems like the nice thing to do. The result is a lifeless discussion in which the dominant view isn’t tested or developed.
I’ve also sat at tables when different individuals fight their corner, sometimes beyond the point that seems reasonable to do so. That kind of debate can be enormously productive; it can also, of course, tip over into an ego battle that generates more heat than light. Over centuries, we’ve developed processes and institutions to stabilise the volatility of disagreement while unlocking its benefits, modern science being the foremost example. It’s also possible to create these conducive conditions ourselves, as the Wikipedians and the Wrights show us.
The first condition, of course, is to openly disagree. The members of the group must bring their own opinions and insights to the table, rather than just adopting those of whomever they like the most or nodding along with the dominant voices in the room. The more diverse the pool of reasons and information, the greater the chance of truly powerful arguments emerging. It’s pointless having a group of smart people around a table if all they do is nod along with each other.
So the Democratic party had a violent disagreement, and, because of the larger pool of reasons and information, powerful arguments emerged. Right? Err, no.
What a carnival of cant. To state the screamingly obvious, Biden was forced out of the race. He did not go of his own accord. He got out because there came a point when even he realised that fighting an election when most of your party have declared no confidence in you was an act of suicidal stupidity. The politicians and donors who had already called for him to go were just the first; there were plenty more where they came from. No, Biden did not look deep within himself, channel his inner George Washington, and lay aside personal ambition on behalf of the Republic. He looked up and realised he was surrounded.
Again, if this is the same person, he has one article at the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/feb/16/how-to-have-better-arguments-social-media-politics-conflict
from that
Think about what defines low-context culture, at least in its extreme form: endless chatter, frequent argument; everyone telling you what they think, all the time. Remind you of anything? As Ian Macduff, an expert in conflict resolution, puts it, “the world of the internet looks predominantly like a low-context world”.
If humans were purely rational entities, we would listen politely to an opposing view before offering a considered response. In reality, disagreement floods our brain with chemical signals that make it hard to focus on the issue at hand. The signals tell us that this is an attack on me. “I disagree with you” becomes “I don’t like you”. Instead of opening our minds to the other’s point of view, we focus on defending ourselves.
Again, this Ian Leslie wrote a book called Conflicted: How Productive Disagreements Lead to Better Outcomes.
https://nextbigideaclub.com/magazine/conflicted-productive-disagreements-lead-better-outcomes-bookbite/27713/
Where he points out that “Conflict unifies”. Yet he ends his essay with this
As it is, he stuck around long enough to allow the monster to revive, and also to turn his own party into a laughing stock. How did they end up with this guy as their candidate? It wasn’t just the sight of his cognitive or physical decline that was so painfully apparent in the debate; it was the lack of seriousness. He called Trump “a sucker and a loser” and attacked his golf game. The grown-up in the room had become another overgrown kid. Does anyone know what Biden wanted a second term for?
This seems like Murc’s law writ large. The Democrats can be the only adults because they, and only they, are held responsible when they fail. This Axios article
https://www.axios.com/2024/07/21/biden-2024-election-withdrawal-timeline-debate
give the timeline as starting with the debate on 27 June and strangely leaves out his announcement on 21 June. Oh, the obstinancy of taking a month to make a decision! He should timed his resignation when he stepped off the debate stage!
Again, this may be two different Ian Leslies. But if they are the same, that turn towards the easy assumptions and glib judgements of others suggests a successful and profitable career in the future.
This might be better as a post, but I’m wondering quite a bit about what has been revealed with the media class in all of this and Leslie’s column is of a piece. Been reading the origins of the phrases ‘fellow travelers’ and ‘useful idiots’ and wondering if and how those terms apply. While it is good to avoid a St. Biden, it seems that the media set itself up for that. The Leslie piece, if taken alone, seems like a pretty clear-eyed assessment, but when examined with his other writing, tells a bit of a different story.
Leslie, who I’m assuming is this guy,
https://aeon.co/users/ian-leslie
starts off with his piece on Biden with:
It was an almost awesome display of egotistical stubbornness, and an increasingly infuriating one. Biden seemed prepared to destroy his whole party, and perhaps his country, in order to protect his delusions. Yet as soon as he announced his withdrawal the people who had campaigned hardest to get him out of the race rushed to declare him a hero.
Yet (and I’m assuming this is the same person) Leslie wrote this
https://aeon.co/essays/why-disagreement-is-vital-to-advancing-human-understanding
Open and wholehearted argument can raise the collective intelligence of a group, but the chemistry of a disagreement is inherently unstable. There’s always a possibility it might explode into hostile conflict or vaporise into thin air. Self-assertion can turn into aggression, conviction can become stubbornness, the desire to co-operate can become the urge to herd. I’ve sat around tables at work where most people don’t express a strong point of view and simply accept whatever the most confident person in the room says, or just nod along with the first opinion offered because it seems like the nice thing to do. The result is a lifeless discussion in which the dominant view isn’t tested or developed.
I’ve also sat at tables when different individuals fight their corner, sometimes beyond the point that seems reasonable to do so. That kind of debate can be enormously productive; it can also, of course, tip over into an ego battle that generates more heat than light. Over centuries, we’ve developed processes and institutions to stabilise the volatility of disagreement while unlocking its benefits, modern science being the foremost example. It’s also possible to create these conducive conditions ourselves, as the Wikipedians and the Wrights show us.
The first condition, of course, is to openly disagree. The members of the group must bring their own opinions and insights to the table, rather than just adopting those of whomever they like the most or nodding along with the dominant voices in the room. The more diverse the pool of reasons and information, the greater the chance of truly powerful arguments emerging. It’s pointless having a group of smart people around a table if all they do is nod along with each other.
So the Democratic party had a violent disagreement, and, because of the larger pool of reasons and information, powerful arguments emerged. Right? Err, no.
What a carnival of cant. To state the screamingly obvious, Biden was forced out of the race. He did not go of his own accord. He got out because there came a point when even he realised that fighting an election when most of your party have declared no confidence in you was an act of suicidal stupidity. The politicians and donors who had already called for him to go were just the first; there were plenty more where they came from. No, Biden did not look deep within himself, channel his inner George Washington, and lay aside personal ambition on behalf of the Republic. He looked up and realised he was surrounded.
Again, if this is the same person, he has one article at the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/feb/16/how-to-have-better-arguments-social-media-politics-conflict
from that
Think about what defines low-context culture, at least in its extreme form: endless chatter, frequent argument; everyone telling you what they think, all the time. Remind you of anything? As Ian Macduff, an expert in conflict resolution, puts it, “the world of the internet looks predominantly like a low-context world”.
If humans were purely rational entities, we would listen politely to an opposing view before offering a considered response. In reality, disagreement floods our brain with chemical signals that make it hard to focus on the issue at hand. The signals tell us that this is an attack on me. “I disagree with you” becomes “I don’t like you”. Instead of opening our minds to the other’s point of view, we focus on defending ourselves.
Again, this Ian Leslie wrote a book called Conflicted: How Productive Disagreements Lead to Better Outcomes.
https://nextbigideaclub.com/magazine/conflicted-productive-disagreements-lead-better-outcomes-bookbite/27713/
Where he points out that “Conflict unifies”. Yet he ends his essay with this
As it is, he stuck around long enough to allow the monster to revive, and also to turn his own party into a laughing stock. How did they end up with this guy as their candidate? It wasn’t just the sight of his cognitive or physical decline that was so painfully apparent in the debate; it was the lack of seriousness. He called Trump “a sucker and a loser” and attacked his golf game. The grown-up in the room had become another overgrown kid. Does anyone know what Biden wanted a second term for?
This seems like Murc’s law writ large. The Democrats can be the only adults because they, and only they, are held responsible when they fail. This Axios article
https://www.axios.com/2024/07/21/biden-2024-election-withdrawal-timeline-debate
give the timeline as starting with the debate on 27 June and strangely leaves out his announcement on 21 June. Oh, the obstinancy of taking a month to make a decision! He should timed his resignation when he stepped off the debate stage!
Again, this may be two different Ian Leslies. But if they are the same, that turn towards the easy assumptions and glib judgements of others suggests a successful and profitable career in the future.
Thanks for the dissection, lj.
I didn’t know “clear-eyed” was a synonym for snotty, know-it-all, self-aggrandizing condescension.
Thanks for the dissection, lj.
I didn’t know “clear-eyed” was a synonym for snotty, know-it-all, self-aggrandizing condescension.
I mean the Leslie piece itself, not what people have written here. But it’s a prime example of why, in a busy life, I have dropped pundits off the bottom of the to-do list.
I mean the Leslie piece itself, not what people have written here. But it’s a prime example of why, in a busy life, I have dropped pundits off the bottom of the to-do list.
lj: I’m pretty sure they’re all the same Ian Leslie. I must say, as regards your first example (the carnival of cant one) I can’t see that he contradicts himself. After all, the behaviour of individuals, as opposed to the group outcome of disagreements, cannot be predicted and is presumably not really what he is talking about. But, as must surely have become very apparent, I have no objection to the opinions of interesting or knowledgeable pundits, and I observe that linking them here often leads to interesting discussions!
lj: I’m pretty sure they’re all the same Ian Leslie. I must say, as regards your first example (the carnival of cant one) I can’t see that he contradicts himself. After all, the behaviour of individuals, as opposed to the group outcome of disagreements, cannot be predicted and is presumably not really what he is talking about. But, as must surely have become very apparent, I have no objection to the opinions of interesting or knowledgeable pundits, and I observe that linking them here often leads to interesting discussions!
That Aeon piece, exhorting us to beware our confirmation biases, relies pretty heavily on basting the pieces together with some just-so stories given the air of scientific legitimacy through the magic of evolutionary psychology.
Homo Sapiens was just so much better at banding together than their competitors, and that is somehow supposed to be tied to the sort of spirited arguments that the Wright Brothers used to get into, which produced kernels of truth somehow. Sadly, we have lost this trait, thousands of years in the making, in these last few years…
Cool Ted Talk, bro.
And since he brought up Socrates, I’m going to posit that our snub nosed friend, the hemlock sommelier would have an apt description of this sort of argumentation.
S_ _ _ist_ _?
I’d like to buy an even numbered vowel, Pat.
That Aeon piece, exhorting us to beware our confirmation biases, relies pretty heavily on basting the pieces together with some just-so stories given the air of scientific legitimacy through the magic of evolutionary psychology.
Homo Sapiens was just so much better at banding together than their competitors, and that is somehow supposed to be tied to the sort of spirited arguments that the Wright Brothers used to get into, which produced kernels of truth somehow. Sadly, we have lost this trait, thousands of years in the making, in these last few years…
Cool Ted Talk, bro.
And since he brought up Socrates, I’m going to posit that our snub nosed friend, the hemlock sommelier would have an apt description of this sort of argumentation.
S_ _ _ist_ _?
I’d like to buy an even numbered vowel, Pat.
I find it quite hard to see where there is sophistry in, for example, his essay on Biden. I agreed with russell that I thought it ungenerous and somewhat unkind (cannot remember the exact words, and can’t be bothered to go back), but it seems to me a perfectly credible account of what happened, and evaluation of the motives involved, even if I don’t agree with everything in it. And after all, public commentators do not have a responsibility to be kind or generous, particularly where they are evaluating behaviour which (in their opinion and that of many others) might have or have had disastrous consequences.
However, I hold no particular brief for Leslie, except to occasionally find his pieces interesting in one way or another, so far be it from me to mount any particular kind of defence. As I have often said before, Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend.
I find it quite hard to see where there is sophistry in, for example, his essay on Biden. I agreed with russell that I thought it ungenerous and somewhat unkind (cannot remember the exact words, and can’t be bothered to go back), but it seems to me a perfectly credible account of what happened, and evaluation of the motives involved, even if I don’t agree with everything in it. And after all, public commentators do not have a responsibility to be kind or generous, particularly where they are evaluating behaviour which (in their opinion and that of many others) might have or have had disastrous consequences.
However, I hold no particular brief for Leslie, except to occasionally find his pieces interesting in one way or another, so far be it from me to mount any particular kind of defence. As I have often said before, Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend.
In other news, R.I.P. John Mayall. A blues apostle, gone at 90.
He ran a good race.
In other news, R.I.P. John Mayall. A blues apostle, gone at 90.
He ran a good race.
I should say, I’m not trying to bust you or anyone and I appreciate you sharing it. I’m not sure if it is sophistry, it just seems that his claims before that column are diametrically opposed to what he is saying there. That seems noteworthy.
I should say, I’m not trying to bust you or anyone and I appreciate you sharing it. I’m not sure if it is sophistry, it just seems that his claims before that column are diametrically opposed to what he is saying there. That seems noteworthy.
I would say that Socrates would call his argument there sophistic because it is not concerned with trying to arrive at the truth, but rather with arguing strongly for a given position.
It’s a form of controversia, which is also the sort of forensic rhetoric that Leslie is praising in the Aeon piece. I’m not sure, reading that piece, that he has a clear idea of the difference between forensic and deliberative argumentation, since he seems to be treating contention as serving the same purpose as collaboration and deliberation.
Meanwhile, he leaves out what seems to me to be the most likely reading of the situation, which is that Biden had been functioning well enough prior to the debate to believe that he did still have the best chance of beating Trump, and that all of these stories about Biden making the hard choice are not meant to be a form of critical assessment, but rather are meant to reinforce public values and model the sort of behavior we ought to expect from a public servant. So the public rhetoric about Biden’s choice is neither forensic or deliberative, but rather epideictic, and by praising him, the writers implicitly shame Trump for refusing to give up and pass the torch.
Probably more of a lesson in classical rhetoric than anyone here needed, but hey, that’s my schtick.
I would say that Socrates would call his argument there sophistic because it is not concerned with trying to arrive at the truth, but rather with arguing strongly for a given position.
It’s a form of controversia, which is also the sort of forensic rhetoric that Leslie is praising in the Aeon piece. I’m not sure, reading that piece, that he has a clear idea of the difference between forensic and deliberative argumentation, since he seems to be treating contention as serving the same purpose as collaboration and deliberation.
Meanwhile, he leaves out what seems to me to be the most likely reading of the situation, which is that Biden had been functioning well enough prior to the debate to believe that he did still have the best chance of beating Trump, and that all of these stories about Biden making the hard choice are not meant to be a form of critical assessment, but rather are meant to reinforce public values and model the sort of behavior we ought to expect from a public servant. So the public rhetoric about Biden’s choice is neither forensic or deliberative, but rather epideictic, and by praising him, the writers implicitly shame Trump for refusing to give up and pass the torch.
Probably more of a lesson in classical rhetoric than anyone here needed, but hey, that’s my schtick.
Lol, I just realized that nous’ S_ _ _ist_ _ was read by me as ‘sadistic’ (never mind that only has two letters after the s)
Lol, I just realized that nous’ S_ _ _ist_ _ was read by me as ‘sadistic’ (never mind that only has two letters after the s)
all of these stories about Biden making the hard choice are not meant to be a form of critical assessment, but rather are meant to reinforce public values and model the sort of behavior we ought to expect from a public servant. So the public rhetoric about Biden’s choice is neither forensic or deliberative, but rather epideictic, and by praising him, the writers implicitly shame Trump for refusing to give up and pass the torch.
Well, I certainly agree with this. As far as lessons in rhetoric go, I’m always game – although I did have to look up epideictic! My guess is that although Biden might have thought he was functioning well enough before the debate, those around him knew he was not. Clooney said that the man at the fundraiser was the same as the man at the debate, and he was there, and inclined to be well disposed.
lj, I’m glad you appreciate my sharing it. I hold to the idea that unpopular views in certain contexts can still be worth consideration. Myself, I think that his claims before this column are not diametrically opposed to it, because he is talking about two different things: the emergence of consensus among groups, and the motivation and behaviour of individuals (as here). However, it is more than possible that I misunderstood your point, in which case fair enough. The important thing is that, by whatever process, conflict has indeed unified – at least in the Democratic party.
all of these stories about Biden making the hard choice are not meant to be a form of critical assessment, but rather are meant to reinforce public values and model the sort of behavior we ought to expect from a public servant. So the public rhetoric about Biden’s choice is neither forensic or deliberative, but rather epideictic, and by praising him, the writers implicitly shame Trump for refusing to give up and pass the torch.
Well, I certainly agree with this. As far as lessons in rhetoric go, I’m always game – although I did have to look up epideictic! My guess is that although Biden might have thought he was functioning well enough before the debate, those around him knew he was not. Clooney said that the man at the fundraiser was the same as the man at the debate, and he was there, and inclined to be well disposed.
lj, I’m glad you appreciate my sharing it. I hold to the idea that unpopular views in certain contexts can still be worth consideration. Myself, I think that his claims before this column are not diametrically opposed to it, because he is talking about two different things: the emergence of consensus among groups, and the motivation and behaviour of individuals (as here). However, it is more than possible that I misunderstood your point, in which case fair enough. The important thing is that, by whatever process, conflict has indeed unified – at least in the Democratic party.
When Biden first dropped out, I thought it was a sudden decision made possibly while weaken by covid but mostly in response to presure.
Now I think he planned the whole thing. Planned originally to run, but at some point shortly after the debate decided to drop out and planned his departure to fuck up the RNC convention.
Just as he has now planned his big departure speech to upstage Netanyahu.
PLanned or not, he has succeeded. THe whole “he’s old” discussion is now relevant only to Trump. Any bounce or momentum from the convention is gone. The battle of two old dinosaurs is now a battle involving one fossil and a vibrantly alive and articulate woman. THe endorsements for Kamala and gratitude to Biden has provided a ton of positive MSM coverage for Democrats. The parade of possible VPs is providing more positive MSM coverage–and we haven’t had our convention yet!
Biden is a shrewd politician and has never seemed particularly egotistical–(some ego is required to be a politician) and I think it is possible that he planned his departure, starting shortly after the bad debate.
BTW the framing of Republicans as weird seems to be catching on. I can tell because suddenly the Republicans are using that word in regard to Kamala. But I don’t think it will stick to her. She’s attractive in the sense of just seeming to be an approachable and friendly person. Republicans, on the other hand, often are weird.
When Biden first dropped out, I thought it was a sudden decision made possibly while weaken by covid but mostly in response to presure.
Now I think he planned the whole thing. Planned originally to run, but at some point shortly after the debate decided to drop out and planned his departure to fuck up the RNC convention.
Just as he has now planned his big departure speech to upstage Netanyahu.
PLanned or not, he has succeeded. THe whole “he’s old” discussion is now relevant only to Trump. Any bounce or momentum from the convention is gone. The battle of two old dinosaurs is now a battle involving one fossil and a vibrantly alive and articulate woman. THe endorsements for Kamala and gratitude to Biden has provided a ton of positive MSM coverage for Democrats. The parade of possible VPs is providing more positive MSM coverage–and we haven’t had our convention yet!
Biden is a shrewd politician and has never seemed particularly egotistical–(some ego is required to be a politician) and I think it is possible that he planned his departure, starting shortly after the bad debate.
BTW the framing of Republicans as weird seems to be catching on. I can tell because suddenly the Republicans are using that word in regard to Kamala. But I don’t think it will stick to her. She’s attractive in the sense of just seeming to be an approachable and friendly person. Republicans, on the other hand, often are weird.
They now insist that this was a coup but refuse to apply the same term to Jan. 6.
Oh, there are also renewed efforts to impeach Harris (this time for not solving the Southern Border problems).
They are just adding to an already very long* list of impeachment resolutions including one against a prosecutor who successfully goes after Jan. 6 perpetrators.
And they are currently filing claims at the FEC to prevent Harris from using the campaign funds for the Biden/Harris ticket. His Orangeness threatens to sue for reparations because now all the anti-Biden ads were for nothing. Can he find a federal judge (apart from Clarence Thomas naturally) that is willing to decide that all the Biden campaign funds now belong to him because that’s what the founders intended?
Meanwhile religious rightsters compare Harris to queen Jezebel. I guess we will have to wait until next week before they switch to Whore of Babylon.
Jezebel was thrown out a window, so maybe this is a veiled call to Putin for help.
*7 against Biden, 3 against Harris and numerous against at least 6 cabinet members and the FBI director (installed by His Orangeness).
A commentator compared the GOPsters involved to bored kids and impeachment as their toy.
They now insist that this was a coup but refuse to apply the same term to Jan. 6.
Oh, there are also renewed efforts to impeach Harris (this time for not solving the Southern Border problems).
They are just adding to an already very long* list of impeachment resolutions including one against a prosecutor who successfully goes after Jan. 6 perpetrators.
And they are currently filing claims at the FEC to prevent Harris from using the campaign funds for the Biden/Harris ticket. His Orangeness threatens to sue for reparations because now all the anti-Biden ads were for nothing. Can he find a federal judge (apart from Clarence Thomas naturally) that is willing to decide that all the Biden campaign funds now belong to him because that’s what the founders intended?
Meanwhile religious rightsters compare Harris to queen Jezebel. I guess we will have to wait until next week before they switch to Whore of Babylon.
Jezebel was thrown out a window, so maybe this is a veiled call to Putin for help.
*7 against Biden, 3 against Harris and numerous against at least 6 cabinet members and the FBI director (installed by His Orangeness).
A commentator compared the GOPsters involved to bored kids and impeachment as their toy.
re: bored kids. I do think that MAGA is all about the entitlement of people who aren’t experiencing real problems and have no empathy for people who are. It is a privilege to have hysterics about CRT, DEI, pronouns, or whatever the fuck the current panic is about. The idea that MAGA is a working class movement of the left out is mostly a myth. There are working class people who are, in fact, left out and some are under the sway of Faux and other hater “news” sources, but the backbone and most of the voters of MAGA are either well enough off to afford the self-indulgence of ignoring real problems or are wealthy enough to feel immune from the effects fo real problems. Like that real estate agent who caught a flight with a millionaire to fly to the Jan 6 event basically on a lark on the assumption that a blond, white woman could do anything and get away with it. That’s your classic MAGGOT.
Most have no ideas about how to govern or even what government is for except to get money for themselves or to seek opportunities to swan around on some hater site soaking up the adoration of the other haters.
The religious nuts have a legislative agenda–and it, too, is self-indulgent, entitled, and ignores real problems.
re: bored kids. I do think that MAGA is all about the entitlement of people who aren’t experiencing real problems and have no empathy for people who are. It is a privilege to have hysterics about CRT, DEI, pronouns, or whatever the fuck the current panic is about. The idea that MAGA is a working class movement of the left out is mostly a myth. There are working class people who are, in fact, left out and some are under the sway of Faux and other hater “news” sources, but the backbone and most of the voters of MAGA are either well enough off to afford the self-indulgence of ignoring real problems or are wealthy enough to feel immune from the effects fo real problems. Like that real estate agent who caught a flight with a millionaire to fly to the Jan 6 event basically on a lark on the assumption that a blond, white woman could do anything and get away with it. That’s your classic MAGGOT.
Most have no ideas about how to govern or even what government is for except to get money for themselves or to seek opportunities to swan around on some hater site soaking up the adoration of the other haters.
The religious nuts have a legislative agenda–and it, too, is self-indulgent, entitled, and ignores real problems.
Now I think he planned the whole thing. Planned originally to run, but at some point shortly after the debate decided to drop out and planned his departure to fuck up the RNC convention.
Glad I’m not the only one who looks at the course of events and sees orchestration. (I carefully do not say “conspiracy” — leaving that for the enthusiasts in such things.)
It’s not just the timing relative to the RNC. It’s also the tempo and the order of the endorsements after his announcement. I saw lots of complaints about how Democrat X didn’t endorse Harris fast enough. But I see a pattern of bottom up, rather than top down, endorsements — making the point that this wasn’t something imposed from above. Not to mention a rising tempo, keeping the media focused on the spectacle, rather than whatever flailing around the Republicans were doing to try to get attention.
Now I think he planned the whole thing. Planned originally to run, but at some point shortly after the debate decided to drop out and planned his departure to fuck up the RNC convention.
Glad I’m not the only one who looks at the course of events and sees orchestration. (I carefully do not say “conspiracy” — leaving that for the enthusiasts in such things.)
It’s not just the timing relative to the RNC. It’s also the tempo and the order of the endorsements after his announcement. I saw lots of complaints about how Democrat X didn’t endorse Harris fast enough. But I see a pattern of bottom up, rather than top down, endorsements — making the point that this wasn’t something imposed from above. Not to mention a rising tempo, keeping the media focused on the spectacle, rather than whatever flailing around the Republicans were doing to try to get attention.
While we’re on the topic of timing, there’s still the sentencing for the 34 felony charges El Orangino was convicted on. This will be bad press that much closer to the election.
I think the judge was chuckling inwardly when he granted the delay. I don’t think anyone in the press got it. The headlines were all about what a big win it was for the former guy.
While we’re on the topic of timing, there’s still the sentencing for the 34 felony charges El Orangino was convicted on. This will be bad press that much closer to the election.
I think the judge was chuckling inwardly when he granted the delay. I don’t think anyone in the press got it. The headlines were all about what a big win it was for the former guy.
oops my assumption in the previous post:
Trump won’t be able to attack her directly on the basis of her being a.) a woman
has been disproven:
https://x.com/Laurie_Garrett/status/1816147431085498877
But does Trump really think this will work in his favour? Or is he just babbling and nobody cares?
I’m watching “Veep” (very funny) and this VOX article points out, that it’s a bit outdated, because it refers to a time when people still actually cared what politicians said – half the series is about the team trying to put out fires lit by Meyer (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) or members of her team misspeaking. Now it doesn’t really seem to matter all that much anymore.
oops my assumption in the previous post:
Trump won’t be able to attack her directly on the basis of her being a.) a woman
has been disproven:
https://x.com/Laurie_Garrett/status/1816147431085498877
But does Trump really think this will work in his favour? Or is he just babbling and nobody cares?
I’m watching “Veep” (very funny) and this VOX article points out, that it’s a bit outdated, because it refers to a time when people still actually cared what politicians said – half the series is about the team trying to put out fires lit by Meyer (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) or members of her team misspeaking. Now it doesn’t really seem to matter all that much anymore.
@novakant: For what it’s worth, that video is from 2020:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsQVqpl53Jg
Mentioned at the time here:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/us-presidential-elections/nov-3-poll-choice-between-super-recovery-and-biden-depression-trump/articleshow/78840006.cms
Not that I think he wouldn’t say it today if he felt like it.
@novakant: For what it’s worth, that video is from 2020:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsQVqpl53Jg
Mentioned at the time here:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/us-presidential-elections/nov-3-poll-choice-between-super-recovery-and-biden-depression-trump/articleshow/78840006.cms
Not that I think he wouldn’t say it today if he felt like it.
Oh, I wasn’t aware of that, thanks.
It will be interesting to see if he will repeat such stuff now.
Oh, I wasn’t aware of that, thanks.
It will be interesting to see if he will repeat such stuff now.
@novakant: I think you were at least partly right about this part: Now it doesn’t really seem to matter all that much anymore. I say “partly” because with Clickbait I don’t think it ever did. (See “They let you do it [you know what that was] when you’re a celebrity.”)
I just put “attacks on Harris as a DEI hire” into a Google search box, and the results confirm that the attacks started about half an instant after Biden bowed out.
See e.g. this Boston Globe article from yesterday.
Strategists may think it matters (as the article says); I don’t think Clickbait cares. He got elected after bragging about … what he bragged about, and I don’t think his mental state has improved since eight years ago, to say the least.
Also, if the thought they had to worry about women’s votes, or understood the post-Dobb dynamics, I don’t think they’d have chosen Vance.
@novakant: I think you were at least partly right about this part: Now it doesn’t really seem to matter all that much anymore. I say “partly” because with Clickbait I don’t think it ever did. (See “They let you do it [you know what that was] when you’re a celebrity.”)
I just put “attacks on Harris as a DEI hire” into a Google search box, and the results confirm that the attacks started about half an instant after Biden bowed out.
See e.g. this Boston Globe article from yesterday.
Strategists may think it matters (as the article says); I don’t think Clickbait cares. He got elected after bragging about … what he bragged about, and I don’t think his mental state has improved since eight years ago, to say the least.
Also, if the thought they had to worry about women’s votes, or understood the post-Dobb dynamics, I don’t think they’d have chosen Vance.
I understand that Joe Biden will be addressing the nation from the Oval Office at 8pm Eastern time. The BBC will be starting their coverage an hour beforehand (i.e. midnight our time). This is just further confirmation, if anyone needed it, that what happens in the election in November concerns the whole world, not just the USA.
I understand that Joe Biden will be addressing the nation from the Oval Office at 8pm Eastern time. The BBC will be starting their coverage an hour beforehand (i.e. midnight our time). This is just further confirmation, if anyone needed it, that what happens in the election in November concerns the whole world, not just the USA.
That was a fine speech that hit all the necessary marks. The delivery was halting at times, which was unfortunately what was expected, but the vision is clear. It landed a bit harder than I expected. Optimistic, but a drop-shadow of melancholy.
That was a fine speech that hit all the necessary marks. The delivery was halting at times, which was unfortunately what was expected, but the vision is clear. It landed a bit harder than I expected. Optimistic, but a drop-shadow of melancholy.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Why victory, ‘natch.
The victory for low flush toilets is assured.
Why victory, ‘natch.
The victory for low flush toilets is assured.
iPads suck
iPads suck
Well, this is good news:
https://newrepublic.com/post/184182/jd-vance-trouble-heritage-foundation-project-2025-book-foreword
Well, this is good news:
https://newrepublic.com/post/184182/jd-vance-trouble-heritage-foundation-project-2025-book-foreword
I wonder what the rules are: becoming dissatisfied with Vance as people speculate he is (because of Harris’s candidacy, Project 2025 etc), can Trump ditch him and go for someone else? Or persuade Vance to drop out? Obviously, both of those actions would lead to unpleasant repercussions for the campaign, but Trump might think it worthwhile.
I wonder what the rules are: becoming dissatisfied with Vance as people speculate he is (because of Harris’s candidacy, Project 2025 etc), can Trump ditch him and go for someone else? Or persuade Vance to drop out? Obviously, both of those actions would lead to unpleasant repercussions for the campaign, but Trump might think it worthwhile.
A precedent, of sorts:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/frenzy/eagleton.htm
A precedent, of sorts:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/frenzy/eagleton.htm
“That was that *other* JD Vance!”. 🙂
If Trump dumps Vance it’s gonna be hard(er) for him to complain about Biden stepping down. He’ll complain anyway, it’ll just be that much harder to take it seriously.
Trumpers are, by all appearances, unshakeable in their loyalty to him – I can’t think of anything that will change their minds.
But anything that can either (a) nudge folks who are on the fence toward Harris, or (b) get (D)’s to turn out, is a good thing.
This is going to rival 1968 as “craziest election year ever”. And if Harris wins, the crazy will not end after the election.
Here we go!! Buckle up.
“That was that *other* JD Vance!”. 🙂
If Trump dumps Vance it’s gonna be hard(er) for him to complain about Biden stepping down. He’ll complain anyway, it’ll just be that much harder to take it seriously.
Trumpers are, by all appearances, unshakeable in their loyalty to him – I can’t think of anything that will change their minds.
But anything that can either (a) nudge folks who are on the fence toward Harris, or (b) get (D)’s to turn out, is a good thing.
This is going to rival 1968 as “craziest election year ever”. And if Harris wins, the crazy will not end after the election.
Here we go!! Buckle up.
I’ve seen a couple articles about unflattering (to put it mildly) descriptions of the former guy in his nephew Fred Trump, III’s soon-to-be-released book. I don’t know what effect it will have on anyone who’s still able to be swayed, but I don’t see it helping tRump.
I would expect that it will mostly be read by people who already hate his fish-eating guts and that his core supporters will dismiss it as a pack of lies. But talk of it may put a few voters off from voting for him. Staying home or voting 3rd party isn’t as good as a vote for Harris, but either is better than a vote for tRump.
I’ve seen a couple articles about unflattering (to put it mildly) descriptions of the former guy in his nephew Fred Trump, III’s soon-to-be-released book. I don’t know what effect it will have on anyone who’s still able to be swayed, but I don’t see it helping tRump.
I would expect that it will mostly be read by people who already hate his fish-eating guts and that his core supporters will dismiss it as a pack of lies. But talk of it may put a few voters off from voting for him. Staying home or voting 3rd party isn’t as good as a vote for Harris, but either is better than a vote for tRump.
On the Fred Trump III book, I’m hoping that the description of DJT liberally throwing around the n-word when showing his vandalised car might peel off some of the African American men who have been tending towards him. And Harris will presumably have helped with that too.
The Guardian said of Biden’s speech For diehard Democrats it was a case of: if you have tears, prepare to shed them now., and I did find it pretty moving. Whatever the ins and outs of how and why he got here, I kept thinking of Malcolm on the death of Cawdor in Macbeth: Nothing in his life became him like the leaving it. Now let’s hope the desperate attempts to get him to go early fail, and he can do some of the things he said he wanted to, particularly work towards reform of the SCOTUS.
On the Fred Trump III book, I’m hoping that the description of DJT liberally throwing around the n-word when showing his vandalised car might peel off some of the African American men who have been tending towards him. And Harris will presumably have helped with that too.
The Guardian said of Biden’s speech For diehard Democrats it was a case of: if you have tears, prepare to shed them now., and I did find it pretty moving. Whatever the ins and outs of how and why he got here, I kept thinking of Malcolm on the death of Cawdor in Macbeth: Nothing in his life became him like the leaving it. Now let’s hope the desperate attempts to get him to go early fail, and he can do some of the things he said he wanted to, particularly work towards reform of the SCOTUS.
a couple of links I found interesting this morning
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/25/kamala-harris-abortion-rights-biden
Though I knew Biden was Catholic, I didn’t realize the difference between him and Biden.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/25/haley-voters-harris-cease-and-desist/74548097007/
ha ha ha ha ha
Haven’t been listening to her language so much, so this will be interesting
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/25/kamala-harris-speaking-style-memes
a couple of links I found interesting this morning
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/25/kamala-harris-abortion-rights-biden
Though I knew Biden was Catholic, I didn’t realize the difference between him and Biden.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/25/haley-voters-harris-cease-and-desist/74548097007/
ha ha ha ha ha
Haven’t been listening to her language so much, so this will be interesting
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/25/kamala-harris-speaking-style-memes
Trigger warning: this comment contains not only reference to pundits (James Carville!) but also a link to a NYT piece by David Brooks which includes, among some favourable views of Harris, worrying past opinions about her from various anonymous Dem players.
The Carville piece was about his appearance on Morning Joe:
Carville had been vocal in calling for Biden to ditch his reelection campaign following the president’s disastrous debate performance against Republican nominee Donald Trump in June.
Now Biden has done just that, Carville noted on Wednesday’s episode of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that there’s “a real change in mood in the party and around the country” with Harris now likely becoming the presidential candidate.
“But we got to be a little careful,” he told cohost Mika Brzezinski.
There’s “about 10% too much triumphalism going on” and it’s “going to be a very difficult race,” he said. “It’s going to be very close and I understand that people are feeling a lot better and excited but that excitement has got to be tempered with realism, and the realism is she has a tough campaign going on.”
Carville had noticed a “real growth” in Harris, though, he said.
“You can just see the difference,” he added, noting Harris’ apparent increased confidence during her first official campaign rally in Milwaukee.
But it’s going to be “tough sledding ahead” for Democrats, he later warned.
The full piece also contains video of his whole analysis on Morning Joe:
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/james-carville-democrats-kamala-harris-2024_n_66a21c43e4b070e6bd52ca8a
Seriously though, on the trigger warning, I know this sort of thing drives Janie crazy, but personally I prefer to temper my enthusiasm with what appears to be, and may well be, realistic information and analysis. I’m posting this (and no doubt other things to come) on the basis that enough people here are also interested in that approach, or at least have no objection to it. If I’m wrong, and enough of you tell me so, I’ll keep my more sober-inducing, worrying links etc on the down-low.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/25/opinion/kamala-nomination-democrats.html?unlocked_article_code=1.-E0.r-8S.NiPoD98dyQIW&smid=url-share
Trigger warning: this comment contains not only reference to pundits (James Carville!) but also a link to a NYT piece by David Brooks which includes, among some favourable views of Harris, worrying past opinions about her from various anonymous Dem players.
The Carville piece was about his appearance on Morning Joe:
Carville had been vocal in calling for Biden to ditch his reelection campaign following the president’s disastrous debate performance against Republican nominee Donald Trump in June.
Now Biden has done just that, Carville noted on Wednesday’s episode of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that there’s “a real change in mood in the party and around the country” with Harris now likely becoming the presidential candidate.
“But we got to be a little careful,” he told cohost Mika Brzezinski.
There’s “about 10% too much triumphalism going on” and it’s “going to be a very difficult race,” he said. “It’s going to be very close and I understand that people are feeling a lot better and excited but that excitement has got to be tempered with realism, and the realism is she has a tough campaign going on.”
Carville had noticed a “real growth” in Harris, though, he said.
“You can just see the difference,” he added, noting Harris’ apparent increased confidence during her first official campaign rally in Milwaukee.
But it’s going to be “tough sledding ahead” for Democrats, he later warned.
The full piece also contains video of his whole analysis on Morning Joe:
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/james-carville-democrats-kamala-harris-2024_n_66a21c43e4b070e6bd52ca8a
Seriously though, on the trigger warning, I know this sort of thing drives Janie crazy, but personally I prefer to temper my enthusiasm with what appears to be, and may well be, realistic information and analysis. I’m posting this (and no doubt other things to come) on the basis that enough people here are also interested in that approach, or at least have no objection to it. If I’m wrong, and enough of you tell me so, I’ll keep my more sober-inducing, worrying links etc on the down-low.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/25/opinion/kamala-nomination-democrats.html?unlocked_article_code=1.-E0.r-8S.NiPoD98dyQIW&smid=url-share
I don’t mind a reminder to stay grounded, keep alert, etc. I mind concern trolling. “Oh its wonderful to see the enthusiasm for Kamala, but people are saying she smiles too much, and will the voters elect a woman who hasn’t really established that she deserved the nomination?”
Not that Carville did that! He seems pretty straight forward. However, pushing Republican smears while pretending to not be pushing Republican smears is the stock in trade of too many MSM pundits and my worry is that they will decide to “prove their independence and insightful nonpartisan professionalism” by latching onto something stupid and yammering on it until they have shaved some points off her popularity.
BTW, I think the decision by Dems to use the word “weird” as often as possible in regard to Republicans is very smart. They are weird. It is hard to explain how they are fascists or a threat to the rule of law or liars etc but everyone understands “weird.”
A old man who paints his face orange, babbles nonsense, and makes weird hand gestures while talking and his partner, the weird guy who always looks constipated or road-ragey and has a weird thing about pregnant women and cats.
That’s not a winning ticket.
I don’t mind a reminder to stay grounded, keep alert, etc. I mind concern trolling. “Oh its wonderful to see the enthusiasm for Kamala, but people are saying she smiles too much, and will the voters elect a woman who hasn’t really established that she deserved the nomination?”
Not that Carville did that! He seems pretty straight forward. However, pushing Republican smears while pretending to not be pushing Republican smears is the stock in trade of too many MSM pundits and my worry is that they will decide to “prove their independence and insightful nonpartisan professionalism” by latching onto something stupid and yammering on it until they have shaved some points off her popularity.
BTW, I think the decision by Dems to use the word “weird” as often as possible in regard to Republicans is very smart. They are weird. It is hard to explain how they are fascists or a threat to the rule of law or liars etc but everyone understands “weird.”
A old man who paints his face orange, babbles nonsense, and makes weird hand gestures while talking and his partner, the weird guy who always looks constipated or road-ragey and has a weird thing about pregnant women and cats.
That’s not a winning ticket.
Anecdotally, there is relief that all the dangling uncertainty has been removed. And, for those of us at least marginally aware of limitations on campaign finance and operations, relief that the only viable option was embraced in short order. The enthusiasm for the change is real. But just as I was doubting that a black man could be elected, until it happened, I am troubled by the likelihood of a woman being elected. Until it happens. Not that I think anyone else has a better chance of winning, mind you.
Anecdotally, there is relief that all the dangling uncertainty has been removed. And, for those of us at least marginally aware of limitations on campaign finance and operations, relief that the only viable option was embraced in short order. The enthusiasm for the change is real. But just as I was doubting that a black man could be elected, until it happened, I am troubled by the likelihood of a woman being elected. Until it happens. Not that I think anyone else has a better chance of winning, mind you.
I’m not bothered by your bringing up that link, GftNC. I understand the role that people like Carville play for candidates, and I think that his analysis can be useful for them and for the activists that work for their campaigns. I’m not sure what purpose his analysis serves for the rest of us.
I don’t think enthusiasm for Harris can be a bad thing. Enthusiasm is bred from hope. Enthusiasm overcomes despair. Enthusiasm gets you over a sense of powerlessness and fatalism. Treasure it. Nurture it. Spread it.
I hear older people (like us) complain all the time that young people can’t be relied upon to vote, and appealing to them is therefore not a practical strategy.
But they vote when they are enthusiastic, and when we make it easier for them to act on that enthusiasm.
Quenching a youth voters enthusiasm is the easiest and surest way to paralyze them and get them not to vote. Tempering happens after the election if they lose, trying to convince them to do it again after disappointment.
So Carville is fine for older folks who have not yet burned out and who are working as activists, but I’m not going to tell anyone not working for a campaign to temper their enthusiasm.
Believe.
Bronzer and the Couchbilly are beatable.
I’m not bothered by your bringing up that link, GftNC. I understand the role that people like Carville play for candidates, and I think that his analysis can be useful for them and for the activists that work for their campaigns. I’m not sure what purpose his analysis serves for the rest of us.
I don’t think enthusiasm for Harris can be a bad thing. Enthusiasm is bred from hope. Enthusiasm overcomes despair. Enthusiasm gets you over a sense of powerlessness and fatalism. Treasure it. Nurture it. Spread it.
I hear older people (like us) complain all the time that young people can’t be relied upon to vote, and appealing to them is therefore not a practical strategy.
But they vote when they are enthusiastic, and when we make it easier for them to act on that enthusiasm.
Quenching a youth voters enthusiasm is the easiest and surest way to paralyze them and get them not to vote. Tempering happens after the election if they lose, trying to convince them to do it again after disappointment.
So Carville is fine for older folks who have not yet burned out and who are working as activists, but I’m not going to tell anyone not working for a campaign to temper their enthusiasm.
Believe.
Bronzer and the Couchbilly are beatable.
I’m always looking at these things slightly askew, so I’m wondering how Carville measures triumphalism and if 10% is too much, what is an acceptable figure. This had me going on to wonder if he thinks there should be no triumphalism, which then gets into the idea that it would be unseemly for the democrats to do what the Republicans have made a stock in trade for the the past couple of decades.
But then I tell myself that he has a soundbite to toss out and he has to fill that airtime with something, be it 10% triumphalism or whatever. And then I remember that he is married (still according to Wikipedia) to Mary Matalin (who, according to the same Wikipedia article, has changed her registration to Libertarian, but back in the day, was political advisor to the Bushes and Cheney.) so I’m sure that figures in the mix. And of course, a google search under Cheney and nickname turned up this
https://ans-names.pitt.edu/ans/article/view/1848/1847
which is pretty interesting, at least to me. But probably the best conclusion you could draw from this is that I’m procratinating because I don’t want to grade student essays.
I’m always looking at these things slightly askew, so I’m wondering how Carville measures triumphalism and if 10% is too much, what is an acceptable figure. This had me going on to wonder if he thinks there should be no triumphalism, which then gets into the idea that it would be unseemly for the democrats to do what the Republicans have made a stock in trade for the the past couple of decades.
But then I tell myself that he has a soundbite to toss out and he has to fill that airtime with something, be it 10% triumphalism or whatever. And then I remember that he is married (still according to Wikipedia) to Mary Matalin (who, according to the same Wikipedia article, has changed her registration to Libertarian, but back in the day, was political advisor to the Bushes and Cheney.) so I’m sure that figures in the mix. And of course, a google search under Cheney and nickname turned up this
https://ans-names.pitt.edu/ans/article/view/1848/1847
which is pretty interesting, at least to me. But probably the best conclusion you could draw from this is that I’m procratinating because I don’t want to grade student essays.
just as I was doubting that a black man could be elected, until it happened, I am troubled by the likelihood of a woman being elected.
If it will help your level of optimism, only consider the howls of anguish from the Trump campaign. I mean, demanding to be reimbursed for the money spent trashing the wrong candidate? How freaked out do you have to be to even consider that?
P.S. If you have a taste for the bizarre, Google “Vance couch” Apparently someone tossed out an obviously fake story on social media. And a meme was born.
just as I was doubting that a black man could be elected, until it happened, I am troubled by the likelihood of a woman being elected.
If it will help your level of optimism, only consider the howls of anguish from the Trump campaign. I mean, demanding to be reimbursed for the money spent trashing the wrong candidate? How freaked out do you have to be to even consider that?
P.S. If you have a taste for the bizarre, Google “Vance couch” Apparently someone tossed out an obviously fake story on social media. And a meme was born.
I think JD Vance is a gift from heaven to the Democratic Party.
His comments on ‘childless’ political leaders – as per lj’s link above – are a case in point.
Aside from the fact that they are wrong on so many levels and easily disproven (Merkel, Macron, May from the top of my head), the question is:
Who exactly is this kind of talk supposed to appeal to? It just seems so out of sync with the times and the demographics potentially receptive to this seem so small.
I think JD Vance is a gift from heaven to the Democratic Party.
His comments on ‘childless’ political leaders – as per lj’s link above – are a case in point.
Aside from the fact that they are wrong on so many levels and easily disproven (Merkel, Macron, May from the top of my head), the question is:
Who exactly is this kind of talk supposed to appeal to? It just seems so out of sync with the times and the demographics potentially receptive to this seem so small.
Who exactly is this kind of talk supposed to appeal to?
The kind of people who think that exposing your asshole to direct sunlight will boost your general manliness.
These people are hard to parody.
Who exactly is this kind of talk supposed to appeal to?
The kind of people who think that exposing your asshole to direct sunlight will boost your general manliness.
These people are hard to parody.
Here’s a good parody of Vance 🙂
https://x.com/adam_tooze/status/1816609746880708825
Here’s a good parody of Vance 🙂
https://x.com/adam_tooze/status/1816609746880708825
And then there are the historical examples of leaders (male and female) who even made being unmarried and without children part of their official image. Elisabeth I the “Virgin Queen” comes to mind. And something once got explained to me in a museum, there is an image tradition of deliberately unmarried rulers who are portrayed half behind an empty chair with their right hand on the chairback. In the standard portait the wife would be seated there with the man standing, so the man signals his unmarried status. And that usually means one of two things: 1) I am widowed but will not replace her (=> fidelity beyond death) or 2) I am not married, so I can invest all my strength into my job as ruler (=> married to their job or their people (or land) as a collective.). The same as nuns are brides of Christ and thus can’t marry a mortal man.
Childlessness in a leader is usually only seen as a problem, if it’s a hereditary monarchy.
As for cats, I assume Queen Beruthiel is too obscure an allusion to be used by the GOP.
And then there are the historical examples of leaders (male and female) who even made being unmarried and without children part of their official image. Elisabeth I the “Virgin Queen” comes to mind. And something once got explained to me in a museum, there is an image tradition of deliberately unmarried rulers who are portrayed half behind an empty chair with their right hand on the chairback. In the standard portait the wife would be seated there with the man standing, so the man signals his unmarried status. And that usually means one of two things: 1) I am widowed but will not replace her (=> fidelity beyond death) or 2) I am not married, so I can invest all my strength into my job as ruler (=> married to their job or their people (or land) as a collective.). The same as nuns are brides of Christ and thus can’t marry a mortal man.
Childlessness in a leader is usually only seen as a problem, if it’s a hereditary monarchy.
As for cats, I assume Queen Beruthiel is too obscure an allusion to be used by the GOP.
I think JD Vance is a gift from heaven to the Democratic Party.
Barring some strict legal prohibition – and probably not even then – I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see Vance cast aside for a new shiny object if he continues to be a drag on the ticket. The RNC will follow the leader wherever he goes and upsetting the apple cart late in the game is exactly the sort of tactic I’d expect from them if they think they’re underwater. And it might work.
While I’ve heard both referenced, I’m gonna pass on looking up the couch thing and the manliness thing.
I think JD Vance is a gift from heaven to the Democratic Party.
Barring some strict legal prohibition – and probably not even then – I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see Vance cast aside for a new shiny object if he continues to be a drag on the ticket. The RNC will follow the leader wherever he goes and upsetting the apple cart late in the game is exactly the sort of tactic I’d expect from them if they think they’re underwater. And it might work.
While I’ve heard both referenced, I’m gonna pass on looking up the couch thing and the manliness thing.
Who exactly is this kind of talk supposed to appeal to?
Peter Thiel
Full stop.
Who exactly is this kind of talk supposed to appeal to?
Peter Thiel
Full stop.
Barring some strict legal prohibition – and probably not even then – I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see Vance cast aside for a new shiny object if he continues to be a drag on the ticket.
The closest there are to legal prohibitions are the various and sundry state requirements for when they have to be told what names to put on their ballots.
Beyond that, there’s no legal reason why Trump’s name could not appear in splendid isolation. He could hold off telling the electors pledged to him who his VP preference is until as late as when they cast their ballots in December.
Some states have laws requiring electors to vote for the ticket they were listed as pledged to. (But not all. I recall a couple of cases in the last century** where an elector decided he was disgusted with his party’s candidate, and voted for himself instead.) However, if there wasn’t a VP candidate listed on the ballot, they would presumably be at liberty to vote however they wished. Fun times!
** Actually, when I googled “faithless elector” there were several as recently as 2016. That’s electoral votes actually cast. Not counting those invalidated under their state’s faithless elector laws.
Barring some strict legal prohibition – and probably not even then – I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see Vance cast aside for a new shiny object if he continues to be a drag on the ticket.
The closest there are to legal prohibitions are the various and sundry state requirements for when they have to be told what names to put on their ballots.
Beyond that, there’s no legal reason why Trump’s name could not appear in splendid isolation. He could hold off telling the electors pledged to him who his VP preference is until as late as when they cast their ballots in December.
Some states have laws requiring electors to vote for the ticket they were listed as pledged to. (But not all. I recall a couple of cases in the last century** where an elector decided he was disgusted with his party’s candidate, and voted for himself instead.) However, if there wasn’t a VP candidate listed on the ballot, they would presumably be at liberty to vote however they wished. Fun times!
** Actually, when I googled “faithless elector” there were several as recently as 2016. That’s electoral votes actually cast. Not counting those invalidated under their state’s faithless elector laws.
Thanks all for your take on pundit etc links. I will make sure to post short trigger warnings on future ones, in case Janie or anybody else wants to skip.
Interestingly, I didn’t think most of you would really mind the Carville thing, even though I once had a heated ding dong with Janie (and russell a bit) on his advice that the Dems were not doing themselves any favours with a lot of the so-called woke stuff (Latinx etc). Personally, I think his advice and comments are absolutely based on what he thinks is best for the Dems, despite his marriage to Mary Matalin. And because of his past, in my opinion he is worth listening to, always allowing that one can disagree with him.
I did enjoy lj’s paper on nicknames, (although I was a bit surprised that in a paper about language he felt he could say “You know the sort of misspeakment about which I am talking about”). I didn’t finish it, but I was interested in Dubya’s (many’s inc my nickname for him) various nicknames, not all of which I knew. Clearly, many were put-downs (or if you like, demonstrations of power differential) but not all. My own reading of his use of them is that it is a class-based habit. That certainly is the case in the UK in my experience – the upper classes are notorious for using them, well into adulthood and senility. And of course, if I am right, that explains the complete difference between Dubya’s use and Trump’s: Dubya is I gather the US equivalent of upper class, whereas Trump, despite his father’s money, is clearly not. And all Trump’s nicknames are insulting and rather crude, and used purely to denigrate.
No, I thought if anybody really minded either of my links it might be the NYT one. The flaws which Brooks says Harris has, or is said to have, are fairly commonly reported. I am encouraged to think that if true she may have overcome them.
I don’t necessarily know what “concern trolling” is. It seems to me that it presupposes that the people referred to, when examining flaws, must be concealing a malevolent intention. I suspect that some people might call it that when strong Dem supporters talk about their candidate’s flaws, but I do not. I suppose I believe that when your supporters offer critical opinions, it can be (among other things) with the intention of helping you rectify your flaws. I can see, though, that there is a fine line in the media – that your opponents might seize on the flaws your supporters are talking about. It’s a difficult one. I’d hate to think that, for example, here among friends (in the political sense) we ought to hold our tongues. There are the lurkers to consider, of course, but I hardly think that what is said on a reasonably obscure blog could have much of an effect IRL. Anybody else’s MMV, and I am certainly open to evidence to the contrary!
Thanks all for your take on pundit etc links. I will make sure to post short trigger warnings on future ones, in case Janie or anybody else wants to skip.
Interestingly, I didn’t think most of you would really mind the Carville thing, even though I once had a heated ding dong with Janie (and russell a bit) on his advice that the Dems were not doing themselves any favours with a lot of the so-called woke stuff (Latinx etc). Personally, I think his advice and comments are absolutely based on what he thinks is best for the Dems, despite his marriage to Mary Matalin. And because of his past, in my opinion he is worth listening to, always allowing that one can disagree with him.
I did enjoy lj’s paper on nicknames, (although I was a bit surprised that in a paper about language he felt he could say “You know the sort of misspeakment about which I am talking about”). I didn’t finish it, but I was interested in Dubya’s (many’s inc my nickname for him) various nicknames, not all of which I knew. Clearly, many were put-downs (or if you like, demonstrations of power differential) but not all. My own reading of his use of them is that it is a class-based habit. That certainly is the case in the UK in my experience – the upper classes are notorious for using them, well into adulthood and senility. And of course, if I am right, that explains the complete difference between Dubya’s use and Trump’s: Dubya is I gather the US equivalent of upper class, whereas Trump, despite his father’s money, is clearly not. And all Trump’s nicknames are insulting and rather crude, and used purely to denigrate.
No, I thought if anybody really minded either of my links it might be the NYT one. The flaws which Brooks says Harris has, or is said to have, are fairly commonly reported. I am encouraged to think that if true she may have overcome them.
I don’t necessarily know what “concern trolling” is. It seems to me that it presupposes that the people referred to, when examining flaws, must be concealing a malevolent intention. I suspect that some people might call it that when strong Dem supporters talk about their candidate’s flaws, but I do not. I suppose I believe that when your supporters offer critical opinions, it can be (among other things) with the intention of helping you rectify your flaws. I can see, though, that there is a fine line in the media – that your opponents might seize on the flaws your supporters are talking about. It’s a difficult one. I’d hate to think that, for example, here among friends (in the political sense) we ought to hold our tongues. There are the lurkers to consider, of course, but I hardly think that what is said on a reasonably obscure blog could have much of an effect IRL. Anybody else’s MMV, and I am certainly open to evidence to the contrary!
A great recent example of concern trolling is Republicans lamenting the poor Democratic primary voters whom the party is ignoring. And they’re so concerned about democracy, dontcha know.
A great recent example of concern trolling is Republicans lamenting the poor Democratic primary voters whom the party is ignoring. And they’re so concerned about democracy, dontcha know.
I don’t necessarily know what “concern trolling” is.
“Concern trolling is a deceptive tactic used in online discussions where someone pretends to be an ally or sympathetic to a cause but actually aims to undermine or derail the conversation. The “concern troll” typically expresses doubt, fear, or concern about the group’s position or actions in a way that seems reasonable but is actually intended to sow discord, create confusion, or weaken the group’s resolve.”
Concern Trolling
I think this definition can be extended to the media in general.
I don’t necessarily know what “concern trolling” is.
“Concern trolling is a deceptive tactic used in online discussions where someone pretends to be an ally or sympathetic to a cause but actually aims to undermine or derail the conversation. The “concern troll” typically expresses doubt, fear, or concern about the group’s position or actions in a way that seems reasonable but is actually intended to sow discord, create confusion, or weaken the group’s resolve.”
Concern Trolling
I think this definition can be extended to the media in general.
I thought nothing could make Project 2025 look more dangerous. It just goes to show one shouldn’t make assumptions:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/26/kevin-roberts-project-2025-opus-dei
I thought nothing could make Project 2025 look more dangerous. It just goes to show one shouldn’t make assumptions:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/26/kevin-roberts-project-2025-opus-dei
Carville is fine for anyone who is curious about the election. I just don’t find his commentary useful or productive for most people.
Gregory Bateson once described information as “a difference that makes a difference.” I talk about this nearly every term in my writing class. The key thing to understand there, though, is that the person who is communicating needs to make sure that the message they are sending actually makes a difference to the audience they are sending it to.
I think in our current media ecology where clicks are monetized and algorithms are finely tuned to generate clicks, both the media and the pundit class are focused more on engaging than they are on informing.
Which is not to say that Carville’s commentary is valueless. It’s just not of any informational value to the people it’s being delivered to. They can’t do anything with it but worry, and preemptively withdraw their attachment to the goal so they have less to mourn if the dream never happens.
But as long as they click, the media gets paid.
If we want to build a better future, we need to be focused on giving people better information – things within their grasp that do make a difference. There’s precious little of that online or on the air, and the would-be hegemons have their disinformation aimed at drowning that information in noise to prevent it getting to the receivers. That’s the whole purpose of “flood the zone with shit.”
A better future can only be built on the back of better media literacy.
Carville is fine for anyone who is curious about the election. I just don’t find his commentary useful or productive for most people.
Gregory Bateson once described information as “a difference that makes a difference.” I talk about this nearly every term in my writing class. The key thing to understand there, though, is that the person who is communicating needs to make sure that the message they are sending actually makes a difference to the audience they are sending it to.
I think in our current media ecology where clicks are monetized and algorithms are finely tuned to generate clicks, both the media and the pundit class are focused more on engaging than they are on informing.
Which is not to say that Carville’s commentary is valueless. It’s just not of any informational value to the people it’s being delivered to. They can’t do anything with it but worry, and preemptively withdraw their attachment to the goal so they have less to mourn if the dream never happens.
But as long as they click, the media gets paid.
If we want to build a better future, we need to be focused on giving people better information – things within their grasp that do make a difference. There’s precious little of that online or on the air, and the would-be hegemons have their disinformation aimed at drowning that information in noise to prevent it getting to the receivers. That’s the whole purpose of “flood the zone with shit.”
A better future can only be built on the back of better media literacy.
Hmm. The thing about Carville’s “10% too much triumphalism” reminded me very much of how the Labour party was before the recent election: terrified of complacency, and its possible effect of suppressing the Labour vote (both supporters assuming their vote wasn’t necessary, and opponents being more fired up to vote against). They had reason to fear, they have been complacent and punished for it in the past. Carville saying this stuff on Morning Joe could very well influence some, both Dems in broadcasting and those in the audience and their families feeling the said triumphalism. I think any reminder that victory is very far indeed from guaranteed, no matter the enthusiasm at the change, is a good thing: people (not all of whom are obsessives like us) need to know that this will take work.
Hmm. The thing about Carville’s “10% too much triumphalism” reminded me very much of how the Labour party was before the recent election: terrified of complacency, and its possible effect of suppressing the Labour vote (both supporters assuming their vote wasn’t necessary, and opponents being more fired up to vote against). They had reason to fear, they have been complacent and punished for it in the past. Carville saying this stuff on Morning Joe could very well influence some, both Dems in broadcasting and those in the audience and their families feeling the said triumphalism. I think any reminder that victory is very far indeed from guaranteed, no matter the enthusiasm at the change, is a good thing: people (not all of whom are obsessives like us) need to know that this will take work.
See, GftNC, you’re better at this than Carville is. That’s a good message. It speaks to the people about the things that they have control over.
I love your enthusiasm, but we have to remain wary of complacency. It can hurt us in a few places. The most important thing you can do is vote. The second most is helping convince others who agree with you to vote. That means registering, making sure you remain properly registered, and making sure that you vote and that your vote is properly recorded. If we miss any one of those things because of complacency, then we have failed.
So here is how you make sure that doesn’t happen…
…and if we do these things, we can beat them!
See, GftNC, you’re better at this than Carville is. That’s a good message. It speaks to the people about the things that they have control over.
I love your enthusiasm, but we have to remain wary of complacency. It can hurt us in a few places. The most important thing you can do is vote. The second most is helping convince others who agree with you to vote. That means registering, making sure you remain properly registered, and making sure that you vote and that your vote is properly recorded. If we miss any one of those things because of complacency, then we have failed.
So here is how you make sure that doesn’t happen…
…and if we do these things, we can beat them!
Ho ho, flattery will get you nowhere (or everywhere, depending on context!). But we can certainly agree on the need for that approach, whoever takes it and however they make it. It looks to me like Carville needs a “youth whisperer”, he is after all an old Cajun guy (whatever that implies – I have no idea) and you seem pretty suitable for the job!
Ho ho, flattery will get you nowhere (or everywhere, depending on context!). But we can certainly agree on the need for that approach, whoever takes it and however they make it. It looks to me like Carville needs a “youth whisperer”, he is after all an old Cajun guy (whatever that implies – I have no idea) and you seem pretty suitable for the job!
…he is after all an old Cajun guy (whatever that implies – I have no idea)
Mostly it means he talks funny.
…he is after all an old Cajun guy (whatever that implies – I have no idea)
Mostly it means he talks funny.
Hope I’m not mansplaining here, I’m from Mississippi and the history of Cajun culture is absolutely gripping. Just a few quick links to get you started
https://www.acadian.org/history/acadian-history/overview/
https://www.hnoc.org/publications/first-draft/what-does-it-mean-be-cajun-12-stories-understand-identity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuRfYelg3JU
If you aren’t familiar with the Longfellow poem
https://poets.org/poem/evangeline-tale-acadie
which plugs into the history.
I was an assistant des langues in France and another assistant was from Louisiana and spoke Cajun French. It was amazing to watch the french guys hear her speak and would just lose it, and she left a trail of broken hearts.
Hope I’m not mansplaining here, I’m from Mississippi and the history of Cajun culture is absolutely gripping. Just a few quick links to get you started
https://www.acadian.org/history/acadian-history/overview/
https://www.hnoc.org/publications/first-draft/what-does-it-mean-be-cajun-12-stories-understand-identity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuRfYelg3JU
If you aren’t familiar with the Longfellow poem
https://poets.org/poem/evangeline-tale-acadie
which plugs into the history.
I was an assistant des langues in France and another assistant was from Louisiana and spoke Cajun French. It was amazing to watch the french guys hear her speak and would just lose it, and she left a trail of broken hearts.
It’s not mansplaining when the woman in question comes right out and says she knows nothing much about a subject! Thanks, lj, I will follow your links with interest. Also, I would love to hear more about the assistant from Louisiana, and the differences between her French and that of the french guys. I have to say, those two sentences of yours sound like the basis of a really good movie, possibly a rom-com!
It’s not mansplaining when the woman in question comes right out and says she knows nothing much about a subject! Thanks, lj, I will follow your links with interest. Also, I would love to hear more about the assistant from Louisiana, and the differences between her French and that of the french guys. I have to say, those two sentences of yours sound like the basis of a really good movie, possibly a rom-com!
For many years my wife worked for a marketing consultancy based in New Orleans. Every year, they would invite their clients to a multi-day party during Mardi Gras.
One of their clients was a French company, and one of their executives attended with his wife. She didn’t speak much English, so it was a fairly frustrating week for her.
At some point during one of the parades, a Cajun man on one of the floats made a long speech in Cajun French. The wife perked up immediately – finally something she could more or less understand. The husband had studied French language in university and said the Cajun dialect was basically French from the 17th C.
For many years my wife worked for a marketing consultancy based in New Orleans. Every year, they would invite their clients to a multi-day party during Mardi Gras.
One of their clients was a French company, and one of their executives attended with his wife. She didn’t speak much English, so it was a fairly frustrating week for her.
At some point during one of the parades, a Cajun man on one of the floats made a long speech in Cajun French. The wife perked up immediately – finally something she could more or less understand. The husband had studied French language in university and said the Cajun dialect was basically French from the 17th C.
The husband had studied French language in university and said the Cajun dialect was basically French from the 17th C.
Sort of like how “the language of Shakespeare” was actually far closer to American English than to current British English.
The husband had studied French language in university and said the Cajun dialect was basically French from the 17th C.
Sort of like how “the language of Shakespeare” was actually far closer to American English than to current British English.
That’s similar to what I heard on vacation about Canadian French, which is the mother of Cajun French.
That’s similar to what I heard on vacation about Canadian French, which is the mother of Cajun French.
wj: that sounds like an urban legend to me. Quick google result here. But lj is the house linguist, I’d be curious to see what he has to say.
What I’m wondering is why would it make any sense for British English to evolve, but American English to stay static, overall? Ditto for French. (Cajun French must have forked from Quebecois French which forked from 17c. French… “forked” being my term, not a scholarly one, but intended as a metaphor for the fact that the point of one dialect diverting from another is not a dead end.)
Funny story: when I had my linguistics phase almost 20 years ago, the last class I took was field methods. One of the prof’s specialties was the langauges of the Native American tribes of Maine. He had close ties with those communities, and he got two informants for us to work with who were fluent in Passamaquoddy. It was just a priceless experience. (Oddly enough, one of the women reminded me a lot of my Italian grandma 🙂 )
At one point we came across the Passamaquoddy word for elephant, and one of the smart-alecks in the class asked why the Passamaquoddy language would need a word for elephant. The informant (or maybe the professor) shot back: “Why does English need a word for elephant?”
And there followed a sermon on the fact that languages are not static…. Passamaquoddy has survived as a living language useful in the modern world, where there are elephants…..
wj: that sounds like an urban legend to me. Quick google result here. But lj is the house linguist, I’d be curious to see what he has to say.
What I’m wondering is why would it make any sense for British English to evolve, but American English to stay static, overall? Ditto for French. (Cajun French must have forked from Quebecois French which forked from 17c. French… “forked” being my term, not a scholarly one, but intended as a metaphor for the fact that the point of one dialect diverting from another is not a dead end.)
Funny story: when I had my linguistics phase almost 20 years ago, the last class I took was field methods. One of the prof’s specialties was the langauges of the Native American tribes of Maine. He had close ties with those communities, and he got two informants for us to work with who were fluent in Passamaquoddy. It was just a priceless experience. (Oddly enough, one of the women reminded me a lot of my Italian grandma 🙂 )
At one point we came across the Passamaquoddy word for elephant, and one of the smart-alecks in the class asked why the Passamaquoddy language would need a word for elephant. The informant (or maybe the professor) shot back: “Why does English need a word for elephant?”
And there followed a sermon on the fact that languages are not static…. Passamaquoddy has survived as a living language useful in the modern world, where there are elephants…..
Sorry, lots of distractions, I hadn’t seen hsh’s comment when I posted mine.
Sorry, lots of distractions, I hadn’t seen hsh’s comment when I posted mine.
diverting -> diverging
diverting -> diverging
What I’m wondering is why would it make any sense for British English to evolve, but American English to stay static, overall? Ditto for French.
I will yield to lj’s expertise in linguistics. But my sense is that vowel shifts (which is mostly what we’re talking about; although dropped Rs are also a significant factor) occur, or don’t occur, rather randomly. But are influenced both by loans from other dialects and languages and by fashion trends/fads among the upper class.
P.S. By “American English” I tend to mean what, back when I took linguistics, was called “General American.” Effectively (due as much as anything to where Hollywood is located) this is English as it is pronounced in California and neighboring states. As opposed to the English of New England or of the Deep South.
In contrast, by “British English” I mean something like BBC English. While being aware that the UK has a plethora of other dialects.
What I’m wondering is why would it make any sense for British English to evolve, but American English to stay static, overall? Ditto for French.
I will yield to lj’s expertise in linguistics. But my sense is that vowel shifts (which is mostly what we’re talking about; although dropped Rs are also a significant factor) occur, or don’t occur, rather randomly. But are influenced both by loans from other dialects and languages and by fashion trends/fads among the upper class.
P.S. By “American English” I tend to mean what, back when I took linguistics, was called “General American.” Effectively (due as much as anything to where Hollywood is located) this is English as it is pronounced in California and neighboring states. As opposed to the English of New England or of the Deep South.
In contrast, by “British English” I mean something like BBC English. While being aware that the UK has a plethora of other dialects.
wj — a funny California-based language tidbit: I recently watched old X-Files seasons (all but the last, so far), and noticed that no matter where the story was supposed to be set, if route #s were referred to the scriptwriters used the California habit of putting “the” before the number.
E.g. in an episode set in Maine, someone would be told to get on “the 95.” No one in Maine would say that. It would be “I-95” or “the interstate” or “the turnpike.”
https://www.pbssocal.org/shows/lost-la/the-5-the-101-the-405-why-southern-californians-love-saying-the-before-freeway-numbers
I don’t know how I lived before there were search engines. 😉
(I just realized this isn’t the current open thread. Back to work.)
wj — a funny California-based language tidbit: I recently watched old X-Files seasons (all but the last, so far), and noticed that no matter where the story was supposed to be set, if route #s were referred to the scriptwriters used the California habit of putting “the” before the number.
E.g. in an episode set in Maine, someone would be told to get on “the 95.” No one in Maine would say that. It would be “I-95” or “the interstate” or “the turnpike.”
https://www.pbssocal.org/shows/lost-la/the-5-the-101-the-405-why-southern-californians-love-saying-the-before-freeway-numbers
I don’t know how I lived before there were search engines. 😉
(I just realized this isn’t the current open thread. Back to work.)
(I just realized this isn’t the current open thread. Back to work.)
Hey, it’s Obsidian Wings. We’re flexible. Also open minded about such things.
(Besides, I intended an Open Thread. Just neglected to say so.)
(I just realized this isn’t the current open thread. Back to work.)
Hey, it’s Obsidian Wings. We’re flexible. Also open minded about such things.
(Besides, I intended an Open Thread. Just neglected to say so.)
the California habit of putting “the” before the number.
Another bizarro habit. One which particularly grates on me. This one from northern California. The people (obviously not native Californians, or they would know better) who refer to one of the local main roads as “the El Camino”**
** For those from places without Spanish names scattered across the landscape, “El Camino” means “the highway”. Actually, the road in question is technically “El Camino Real”: the king’s highway. From when the king in question was the King of Spain.
the California habit of putting “the” before the number.
Another bizarro habit. One which particularly grates on me. This one from northern California. The people (obviously not native Californians, or they would know better) who refer to one of the local main roads as “the El Camino”**
** For those from places without Spanish names scattered across the landscape, “El Camino” means “the highway”. Actually, the road in question is technically “El Camino Real”: the king’s highway. From when the king in question was the King of Spain.
And then there are the diners that have “beef sandwich with au jus” on the menu.
And then there are the diners that have “beef sandwich with au jus” on the menu.
“the El Camino”
the hoi polloi
“the El Camino”
the hoi polloi
Having many French and a couple of Quebecois colleagues, I’m at least somewhat aware of the language divergence.
Some of it can be chalked up to the French Revolution, I heard.
But the typical French reaction (to male speakers, not cute women) is “why are you making fun of our beautiful language?1??”…until they find out that its coming from a Quebecois, then it’s all good cheer and très charmant!
(In English, you get some of that when talking to Amish, with the “thee” and “thou” stuff; less as time goes on)
Having many French and a couple of Quebecois colleagues, I’m at least somewhat aware of the language divergence.
Some of it can be chalked up to the French Revolution, I heard.
But the typical French reaction (to male speakers, not cute women) is “why are you making fun of our beautiful language?1??”…until they find out that its coming from a Quebecois, then it’s all good cheer and très charmant!
(In English, you get some of that when talking to Amish, with the “thee” and “thou” stuff; less as time goes on)
And what about all the Al-words? Algebra, algorithm, (these days: THE Algorithm), alcohol, elixier (Which is actally the philosopher’s stone, not a liquid) etc. We dropped the al with chemistry though (but kept it at #13).
And what about all the Al-words? Algebra, algorithm, (these days: THE Algorithm), alcohol, elixier (Which is actally the philosopher’s stone, not a liquid) etc. We dropped the al with chemistry though (but kept it at #13).
Effectively (due as much as anything to where Hollywood is located) this is English as it is pronounced in California and neighboring states.
My wife is from northeast Ohio – born in Akron, grew up in nearby Stow.
She and her family insist, and I do mean *insist*, that they speak English with no accent. Theirs, they say, is the version of American English that broadcasters chose as the standard.
But when something is dirty, they say it “needs washed”. And “washed” often comes out as “warshed”.
Effectively (due as much as anything to where Hollywood is located) this is English as it is pronounced in California and neighboring states.
My wife is from northeast Ohio – born in Akron, grew up in nearby Stow.
She and her family insist, and I do mean *insist*, that they speak English with no accent. Theirs, they say, is the version of American English that broadcasters chose as the standard.
But when something is dirty, they say it “needs washed”. And “washed” often comes out as “warshed”.
Pretty decent and accessible article about Shakespeare and phonology:
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20180207-how-americans-preserved-british-english
I can hear the rhoticity of the south in OP productions of Shakespeare, but the diphthongs seem closer to a Cornish speaker than to an Appalachian speaker in my ear.
Also, I think we are conflating linguistics and phonology a bit in this discussion, and I don’t know enough about each to know where they overlap and where they might lead us astray. I do know that my friend the speech and dialect expert has a very different disciplinary foundation than lj’s linguistic training.
Pretty decent and accessible article about Shakespeare and phonology:
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20180207-how-americans-preserved-british-english
I can hear the rhoticity of the south in OP productions of Shakespeare, but the diphthongs seem closer to a Cornish speaker than to an Appalachian speaker in my ear.
Also, I think we are conflating linguistics and phonology a bit in this discussion, and I don’t know enough about each to know where they overlap and where they might lead us astray. I do know that my friend the speech and dialect expert has a very different disciplinary foundation than lj’s linguistic training.
@russell — I am laughing. As I think you know, I grew up in that neck of the woods too. But spending 50+ years mostly in New England has changed my speech a lot, perhaps more from the social class / academia standpoint than the geographical (I am pretty sure there are no hints of a Maine or Boston accent in my speech).
Funny, my ex was from Niagara Falls, and one of my best college friends was from Ithaca, and they both considered me in some ways (ostensibly lovingly) to be a country hick. And yet my ex used that construction “needs washed” — which I don’t remember being common in my growing up years in Ohio. (But then his forbears were from mining country in SW PA. He also said “red up the table” (for clear the table), which I have never heard from anyone else.)
When I went to my 50th high school reunion, I was surprised at the accents. I think there has been some vowel change there over the years — and it’s still in progress, because some of my classmates had changed much more markedly than others (and than my own family members who still live there).
I also lived in Wisconsin, or ‘Sconsin for four years, and that’s a whole ‘nother story. 😉
@russell — I am laughing. As I think you know, I grew up in that neck of the woods too. But spending 50+ years mostly in New England has changed my speech a lot, perhaps more from the social class / academia standpoint than the geographical (I am pretty sure there are no hints of a Maine or Boston accent in my speech).
Funny, my ex was from Niagara Falls, and one of my best college friends was from Ithaca, and they both considered me in some ways (ostensibly lovingly) to be a country hick. And yet my ex used that construction “needs washed” — which I don’t remember being common in my growing up years in Ohio. (But then his forbears were from mining country in SW PA. He also said “red up the table” (for clear the table), which I have never heard from anyone else.)
When I went to my 50th high school reunion, I was surprised at the accents. I think there has been some vowel change there over the years — and it’s still in progress, because some of my classmates had changed much more markedly than others (and than my own family members who still live there).
I also lived in Wisconsin, or ‘Sconsin for four years, and that’s a whole ‘nother story. 😉
I can’t represent phonetically how people in Wisconsin say the name of their state. The guy in this video comes to my aid at about thirty seconds in, although even then it’s not as broad or pronounced as I remember some people doing it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcQazGMnJfo
And then there’s the pronunciation of Bangor, Maine….
I can’t represent phonetically how people in Wisconsin say the name of their state. The guy in this video comes to my aid at about thirty seconds in, although even then it’s not as broad or pronounced as I remember some people doing it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcQazGMnJfo
And then there’s the pronunciation of Bangor, Maine….
Yah dere hey da ‘scånsin is real, eh?
Boats and bubblers.
Yah dere hey da ‘scånsin is real, eh?
Boats and bubblers.
I grew up in the oval shown in this map as being the area where the local accent is closest to General American. My understanding of this oval is that it was generated mid-last century by taking the intersection of several well-regarded academic studies. That is, all of those experts agreed that the people in the oval spoke what would be regarded as General American.
So I grew up with everyone sounding like national newscasters and generic movie and TV actors. I reached an embarrassing age before I realized that the occasional regional accents on TV were still in use rather than just mood-setting historical things.
I grew up in the oval shown in this map as being the area where the local accent is closest to General American. My understanding of this oval is that it was generated mid-last century by taking the intersection of several well-regarded academic studies. That is, all of those experts agreed that the people in the oval spoke what would be regarded as General American.
So I grew up with everyone sounding like national newscasters and generic movie and TV actors. I reached an embarrassing age before I realized that the occasional regional accents on TV were still in use rather than just mood-setting historical things.
nous — bubbler? a water fountain? The latter is what we called it in NE Ohio where I grew up, but in parts of greater Boston when I went there it was “bubbler.” (And pop was soda, and milk shakes were frappes, and chocolate sprinkles were jimmies…)
Boats?????
We called the vessels that carried iron ore and grain and coal around the Great Lakes “lake boats” (or sometimes “ore boats”) — my dad and I think two of my uncles did stints sailing on them before they went into the navy and army respectively during WWII. I’ve been taken to task in adulthood by people who didn’t live there for calling a “ship” a “boat” — but that was the local lingo.
But maybe you mean something entirely different…
*****
The boat my uncle sailed on:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_William_B._Davock
He was injured and had gone home to recover shortly before the Davock went down in a storm on 11/11/1940, all hands lost. My dad was also sailing and heard that the Davock had gone down, and thought his brother was dead. His captain let him get off in our home town and he found his brother lying on the couch with a broken ankle or something. (It’s sometimes an effort to remember that pre-cell phones, people didn’t actually know where all their people were and what they were doing at any given moment.)
nous — bubbler? a water fountain? The latter is what we called it in NE Ohio where I grew up, but in parts of greater Boston when I went there it was “bubbler.” (And pop was soda, and milk shakes were frappes, and chocolate sprinkles were jimmies…)
Boats?????
We called the vessels that carried iron ore and grain and coal around the Great Lakes “lake boats” (or sometimes “ore boats”) — my dad and I think two of my uncles did stints sailing on them before they went into the navy and army respectively during WWII. I’ve been taken to task in adulthood by people who didn’t live there for calling a “ship” a “boat” — but that was the local lingo.
But maybe you mean something entirely different…
*****
The boat my uncle sailed on:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_William_B._Davock
He was injured and had gone home to recover shortly before the Davock went down in a storm on 11/11/1940, all hands lost. My dad was also sailing and heard that the Davock had gone down, and thought his brother was dead. His captain let him get off in our home town and he found his brother lying on the couch with a broken ankle or something. (It’s sometimes an effort to remember that pre-cell phones, people didn’t actually know where all their people were and what they were doing at any given moment.)
Michael’s map reminds me of a different angle on American accents — the Mid-Atlantic accent, of which the wiki says:
Michael’s map reminds me of a different angle on American accents — the Mid-Atlantic accent, of which the wiki says:
Yep, bubbler for water fountain: E Wisconsin, Rhode Island, E Connecticut, S Massachusetts. And also in parts of Australia, for some reason.
Boat, because it always comes out with a very Scandinavian pronunciation. (Båt)
Yep, bubbler for water fountain: E Wisconsin, Rhode Island, E Connecticut, S Massachusetts. And also in parts of Australia, for some reason.
Boat, because it always comes out with a very Scandinavian pronunciation. (Båt)
@nous — thanks.
@nous — thanks.
The Wisconsin clip was fascinating, because when he was analysing it I realised a) despite what he says, I’ve never heard anyone ever pronounce it with the emphasis on the Wis, and b) when he isolated the long “con” and said he was emphasising the “o” sound, to an English ear the sound was more “ah” or “uh”.
The Wisconsin clip was fascinating, because when he was analysing it I realised a) despite what he says, I’ve never heard anyone ever pronounce it with the emphasis on the Wis, and b) when he isolated the long “con” and said he was emphasising the “o” sound, to an English ear the sound was more “ah” or “uh”.
I’ve never heard anyone ever pronounce it with the emphasis on the Wis
That’s the trouble with amateurs trying to do this. 🙂 (I include myself; I took just enough linguistics to be dangerous, and now I’ve forgotten most of it.)
The guy in the video really didn’t explain it correctly. The phenomenon he was trying to get at was that those of us who don’t live there put the stress on the second syllable, just like the locals do, but we also actually pronounce the first syllable the way it looks like it would be pronounced, which they don’t.
The locals, in my experience, basically swallow the “Wis.” That’s what I was trying to get at in my first mention. There’s a faint little fleeting nod toward the fact that there’s a W at the beginning, but then what you hear is “Scahnsin” — to me the “o” is in the direction of the “a” in “cat” — but broader and more nasal.
They do something similar with “Milwaukee” — the first syllable gets a nod but isn’t really fully pronounced, so the word comes out something like “Mwaukee.”
*****
As to Bangor, this video has a bunch of examples that are not all the same. The very first guy has it right, i.e. he says it like a local person says it. The rest vary. The second guy can’t pronounce Bangor quite right and he murders “Aroostook.” (Talk about caution in trusting internet sources!)
I’ve never heard anyone ever pronounce it with the emphasis on the Wis
That’s the trouble with amateurs trying to do this. 🙂 (I include myself; I took just enough linguistics to be dangerous, and now I’ve forgotten most of it.)
The guy in the video really didn’t explain it correctly. The phenomenon he was trying to get at was that those of us who don’t live there put the stress on the second syllable, just like the locals do, but we also actually pronounce the first syllable the way it looks like it would be pronounced, which they don’t.
The locals, in my experience, basically swallow the “Wis.” That’s what I was trying to get at in my first mention. There’s a faint little fleeting nod toward the fact that there’s a W at the beginning, but then what you hear is “Scahnsin” — to me the “o” is in the direction of the “a” in “cat” — but broader and more nasal.
They do something similar with “Milwaukee” — the first syllable gets a nod but isn’t really fully pronounced, so the word comes out something like “Mwaukee.”
*****
As to Bangor, this video has a bunch of examples that are not all the same. The very first guy has it right, i.e. he says it like a local person says it. The rest vary. The second guy can’t pronounce Bangor quite right and he murders “Aroostook.” (Talk about caution in trusting internet sources!)
Ah, I see. That makes sense now, thanks Janie. Now for Bangor…
Ah, I see. That makes sense now, thanks Janie. Now for Bangor…
Also, for those of you who talk about the Green Bay Packers, it often gets the emphasis placed on Green when it’s locals from there or further north. All of that Finnish influence from the UP and the NE corner led to a front loaded Finnish cadence to the local speech.
As in: YAH dere hey, dem GREEN Bey Packers gonna beat da Bears agen, eh?
Also, for those of you who talk about the Green Bay Packers, it often gets the emphasis placed on Green when it’s locals from there or further north. All of that Finnish influence from the UP and the NE corner led to a front loaded Finnish cadence to the local speech.
As in: YAH dere hey, dem GREEN Bey Packers gonna beat da Bears agen, eh?
As a minor correction to nous’ 5:51 – in Massachusetts, the word “bubbler” is used for a drinking fountain approximately from Worcester west to the Berkshires.
So less south Massachussets (which I assume was what was meant by “S Massachusetts”), and more central MA.
A beautiful and often overlooked corner of the world.
As a minor correction to nous’ 5:51 – in Massachusetts, the word “bubbler” is used for a drinking fountain approximately from Worcester west to the Berkshires.
So less south Massachussets (which I assume was what was meant by “S Massachusetts”), and more central MA.
A beautiful and often overlooked corner of the world.
Since wj gave “open thread” sidetracks his blessing, here’s an AI story.
I was joking with a friend about going moose-hunting this fall, and I got curious about when the season is. So I put “moose hunting season in Maine” into a Google search box.
The first google result is (I at least give them credit for labeling it) labeled “AI overview” — and it includes this:
But if you go to the actual maine.gov site (a lower-on-the-page Google result) to see what it says, the $1,500 is not at all what the AI implies:
How many people will know that the AI is basically making shit up?
Since wj gave “open thread” sidetracks his blessing, here’s an AI story.
I was joking with a friend about going moose-hunting this fall, and I got curious about when the season is. So I put “moose hunting season in Maine” into a Google search box.
The first google result is (I at least give them credit for labeling it) labeled “AI overview” — and it includes this:
But if you go to the actual maine.gov site (a lower-on-the-page Google result) to see what it says, the $1,500 is not at all what the AI implies:
How many people will know that the AI is basically making shit up?
How many people will know that the AI is basically making shit up?
Today? All too few. But the word seems to be spreading rather quickly, as more and more examples like this crop up.
And that’s just among the general public. People whose work depends on getting details right have been learning fast. And getting burned when they do not. Let an AI draft a legal brief for you. Lawyers have discovered that the precedents cited by the AI may be totally invented. It’s the kind of thing that can lose you case. Not to mention the severe professional damage — since, for all anyone knows, you did that inventing yourself.
Similarly with academic papers. If you don’t go thru and confirm every single footnote, you can find yourself in big trouble. And teachers below the graduate level are also starting to at least check surprising claims. And take a rather dim view of students submitting work that is not their own.
It was bad enough when people were just finding nonsense on the Internet. But when they can invent their own with an AI? A whole new set of guardrails is going to be needed. And I suspect they will appear sooner rather than later.
How many people will know that the AI is basically making shit up?
Today? All too few. But the word seems to be spreading rather quickly, as more and more examples like this crop up.
And that’s just among the general public. People whose work depends on getting details right have been learning fast. And getting burned when they do not. Let an AI draft a legal brief for you. Lawyers have discovered that the precedents cited by the AI may be totally invented. It’s the kind of thing that can lose you case. Not to mention the severe professional damage — since, for all anyone knows, you did that inventing yourself.
Similarly with academic papers. If you don’t go thru and confirm every single footnote, you can find yourself in big trouble. And teachers below the graduate level are also starting to at least check surprising claims. And take a rather dim view of students submitting work that is not their own.
It was bad enough when people were just finding nonsense on the Internet. But when they can invent their own with an AI? A whole new set of guardrails is going to be needed. And I suspect they will appear sooner rather than later.
Didn’t notice this thread was bubbling along. Haven’t done dialectology for a long time, though was reading about the Antarctic dialect
https://www.iflscience.com/scientists-witnessed-the-birth-of-a-new-accent-in-antarctica-70287
About the “Dialect X preserves Language Y”, it reminds me of one of my favorite jokes.
This guy goes up to Picasso and says “I’m sorry, but how can you say you what you see? This painting of your wife here, it doesn’t look anything like her!” Picasso says “Well, are you married? What does your wife look like?” And the guy pulls out a photo from his wallet and gives it to Picasso and says ‘This is what my wife looks like’. He regards it for a moment and then says ‘Your wife’s head is incredibly small’
Which is to say, when someone says X is just like Y, the question is always exactly what you are saying is the same. You could zero in on vocabulary, noting words like vittles (victuals) or poke (as in ‘pig in a poke’, which meant a bag in Shakespeare’s time) or afeared for afraid. Or you could focus on the retention of older verb forms, such as he done finished or she growed up. Or you could go for vowel quality, which argue that vowels move in concert and where they are in Appalachian English is more of what they were like in Shakespeare’s time. But it isn’t clear that what they are talking about was not also present in other dialects of the time and it’s more likely that there is more of a Scots-Irish origin, in keeping with the migration patterns. But a lot of it is what you are thinking is important and assuming that what occurs in one dialect doesn’t occur in others.
There’s a chapter in Trudgill and Bauer’s Language Myth by Montgomery that, given the title of the book, probably tells you what he thinks. (He also has a bunch of books and chapters about Appalachian English)
This paper is interesting because it surveyed people and found that the idea of Appalachia English from Shakespeare is something only held by older folks (sorry)
https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=lin_facpub
from the article
The rude language of the mountains is far less a degradation than a survival. The [Old English] pronoun ‘hit’ holds its place almost universally. Strong past tenses, ‘holp’ for helped, ‘drug’ for dragged, and the like, are heard constantly; and the syllabic plural is retained in words ending in -st and others. The
greeting as we ride up to a cabin is ‘Howdy, strangers. ‘Light and hitch your beastes.’ Quite a vocabulary of Chaucer’s words, which have been dropped by polite lips but which linger in these solitudes, has been made out by some of our students.” (Frost 1899)
His words provide an interesting juxtaposition, but the purpose of such an expression by a university president appears to do more
than prop up the language he seems to value despite this perceived rudeness. It also served to connect life in Appalachia to the times
of the nation’s forefathers, creating a sort of origin story for America. Such an origin story, one that connects English in America to people like Shakespeare and, as in this example, Chaucer, also serves to create a specific kind of origin story in which preference is given to those seen as being of Anglo-Saxon heritage.
To me, a lot of this strikes me as a reification of Nietzsche’s Master-Slave morality: when the values of the slaves are taken as the overall values, which then flips the power relation upside down. In this telling, Appalachian English is better because it is ‘purer’ and more like the original English.
A fun book related to this is David Hackett Fischer’s Albion’s seed: Four British folkways in America. It’s interesting, and he strongly argues that Appalachian culture is from the north of England, but he wasn’t a linguist and so fails to consider other dialects.
Didn’t notice this thread was bubbling along. Haven’t done dialectology for a long time, though was reading about the Antarctic dialect
https://www.iflscience.com/scientists-witnessed-the-birth-of-a-new-accent-in-antarctica-70287
About the “Dialect X preserves Language Y”, it reminds me of one of my favorite jokes.
This guy goes up to Picasso and says “I’m sorry, but how can you say you what you see? This painting of your wife here, it doesn’t look anything like her!” Picasso says “Well, are you married? What does your wife look like?” And the guy pulls out a photo from his wallet and gives it to Picasso and says ‘This is what my wife looks like’. He regards it for a moment and then says ‘Your wife’s head is incredibly small’
Which is to say, when someone says X is just like Y, the question is always exactly what you are saying is the same. You could zero in on vocabulary, noting words like vittles (victuals) or poke (as in ‘pig in a poke’, which meant a bag in Shakespeare’s time) or afeared for afraid. Or you could focus on the retention of older verb forms, such as he done finished or she growed up. Or you could go for vowel quality, which argue that vowels move in concert and where they are in Appalachian English is more of what they were like in Shakespeare’s time. But it isn’t clear that what they are talking about was not also present in other dialects of the time and it’s more likely that there is more of a Scots-Irish origin, in keeping with the migration patterns. But a lot of it is what you are thinking is important and assuming that what occurs in one dialect doesn’t occur in others.
There’s a chapter in Trudgill and Bauer’s Language Myth by Montgomery that, given the title of the book, probably tells you what he thinks. (He also has a bunch of books and chapters about Appalachian English)
This paper is interesting because it surveyed people and found that the idea of Appalachia English from Shakespeare is something only held by older folks (sorry)
https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=lin_facpub
from the article
The rude language of the mountains is far less a degradation than a survival. The [Old English] pronoun ‘hit’ holds its place almost universally. Strong past tenses, ‘holp’ for helped, ‘drug’ for dragged, and the like, are heard constantly; and the syllabic plural is retained in words ending in -st and others. The
greeting as we ride up to a cabin is ‘Howdy, strangers. ‘Light and hitch your beastes.’ Quite a vocabulary of Chaucer’s words, which have been dropped by polite lips but which linger in these solitudes, has been made out by some of our students.” (Frost 1899)
His words provide an interesting juxtaposition, but the purpose of such an expression by a university president appears to do more
than prop up the language he seems to value despite this perceived rudeness. It also served to connect life in Appalachia to the times
of the nation’s forefathers, creating a sort of origin story for America. Such an origin story, one that connects English in America to people like Shakespeare and, as in this example, Chaucer, also serves to create a specific kind of origin story in which preference is given to those seen as being of Anglo-Saxon heritage.
To me, a lot of this strikes me as a reification of Nietzsche’s Master-Slave morality: when the values of the slaves are taken as the overall values, which then flips the power relation upside down. In this telling, Appalachian English is better because it is ‘purer’ and more like the original English.
A fun book related to this is David Hackett Fischer’s Albion’s seed: Four British folkways in America. It’s interesting, and he strongly argues that Appalachian culture is from the north of England, but he wasn’t a linguist and so fails to consider other dialects.
Strong past tenses, ‘holp’ for helped, ‘drug’ for dragged, and the like
Interesting, indeed!
It occurs to me that, while I haven’t encountered “holp”, “drug” doesn’t seem unfamiliar. If fact, I mostly use it myself. (I think. Odd how, when you try to recall something like this, it’s hard to get a grip on whether you use it 20% of the time or 80% of the time.)
as in ‘pig in a poke’, which meant a bag in Shakespeare’s time
While we retain “poke” for that one phrase (at least I don’t recall hearing it otherwise), the related phrase is “let the cat out of the bag“.**
** For those with a fondness for medieval trivia, apparently there was a scam, especially at fairs, which was common enough to lidge in folk memory. Someone would try to sell some rube a bag, supposedly with a piglet in it. When it comes to scamming the rubes, Trump steaks have a long pedigree.
Strong past tenses, ‘holp’ for helped, ‘drug’ for dragged, and the like
Interesting, indeed!
It occurs to me that, while I haven’t encountered “holp”, “drug” doesn’t seem unfamiliar. If fact, I mostly use it myself. (I think. Odd how, when you try to recall something like this, it’s hard to get a grip on whether you use it 20% of the time or 80% of the time.)
as in ‘pig in a poke’, which meant a bag in Shakespeare’s time
While we retain “poke” for that one phrase (at least I don’t recall hearing it otherwise), the related phrase is “let the cat out of the bag“.**
** For those with a fondness for medieval trivia, apparently there was a scam, especially at fairs, which was common enough to lidge in folk memory. Someone would try to sell some rube a bag, supposedly with a piglet in it. When it comes to scamming the rubes, Trump steaks have a long pedigree.
When I was a kid, my father pronounced help as hope.
When I was a kid, my father pronounced help as hope.
lj, I have noticed that the forms strove, wove etc seem to have been more or less abandoned for strived, weaved etc (although woke might be an exception!). And there is something similar with another form, which I often notice, but cannot now remember. I will mention when I do… Is there any reason in particular for this? I seem to remember that some forms might be from a different root (maybe Old English or something? “en” for plurals etc?) but I don’t know anything about this really, I just notice that obvious forms to me are no longer in circulation.
lj, I have noticed that the forms strove, wove etc seem to have been more or less abandoned for strived, weaved etc (although woke might be an exception!). And there is something similar with another form, which I often notice, but cannot now remember. I will mention when I do… Is there any reason in particular for this? I seem to remember that some forms might be from a different root (maybe Old English or something? “en” for plurals etc?) but I don’t know anything about this really, I just notice that obvious forms to me are no longer in circulation.
GftNC – is the “en” reference about the plurals that come in pairs, like “oxen’ (but no longer “eyen”)?
GftNC – is the “en” reference about the plurals that come in pairs, like “oxen’ (but no longer “eyen”)?
nous, I think (but cannot now find it after a cursory search) that there was a quotation, in the final chapter of Dorothy Dunnett’s Checkmate, I thought maybe from Piers Plowman, in which “steren” or something like it meant stars? I could be wrong…I didn’t know that oxen and eyen were because they were in pairs. I was sure I had heard oxen (now you mention it) as a general plural for ox.
It’s amazing how many quotations Dunnett uses. I knew a reasonable number (not that many!) when I first read her, but I admit I had no idea where the inscription in silver letters, above the mantel in the Hotel des Spheres, came from. It was only quite late in life (my 50s or so) when I finally read Gilgamesh, and recognised it as part of Ishtar’s attempt to seduce Gilgamesh. But the actual quotation Dunnett uses is not on Google as far as I can tell, nor exactly anywhere else I have found, which raises the question of whether Doroty Dunnett could translate Sumerian.
Here it is – I know we have a number of Dunnett fans on here:
I shall harness thee a chariot of lapis-lazuli and gold. Come into our dwelling, in the perfume of the cedars.
nous, I think (but cannot now find it after a cursory search) that there was a quotation, in the final chapter of Dorothy Dunnett’s Checkmate, I thought maybe from Piers Plowman, in which “steren” or something like it meant stars? I could be wrong…I didn’t know that oxen and eyen were because they were in pairs. I was sure I had heard oxen (now you mention it) as a general plural for ox.
It’s amazing how many quotations Dunnett uses. I knew a reasonable number (not that many!) when I first read her, but I admit I had no idea where the inscription in silver letters, above the mantel in the Hotel des Spheres, came from. It was only quite late in life (my 50s or so) when I finally read Gilgamesh, and recognised it as part of Ishtar’s attempt to seduce Gilgamesh. But the actual quotation Dunnett uses is not on Google as far as I can tell, nor exactly anywhere else I have found, which raises the question of whether Doroty Dunnett could translate Sumerian.
Here it is – I know we have a number of Dunnett fans on here:
I shall harness thee a chariot of lapis-lazuli and gold. Come into our dwelling, in the perfume of the cedars.
And, on after Biden, what? Let’s hope it’s this, by Joe Biden in today’s WaPo, on his suggested reforms of the SCOTUS. It ends:
All three of these reforms are supported by a majority of Americans — as well as conservative and liberal constitutional scholars. And I want to thank the bipartisan Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States for its insightful analysis, which informed some of these proposals.
We can and must prevent the abuse of presidential power. We can and must restore the public’s faith in the Supreme Court. We can and must strengthen the guardrails of democracy.
In America, no one is above the law. In America, the people rule.
https://wapo.st/4c9ertE
If he succeeds in this, we can truly say: nothing in his presidency became him like the leaving it. It would be (we have recently been forced to discover) perhaps as consequential for Americans as Obama’s Affordable Care Act.
And, on after Biden, what? Let’s hope it’s this, by Joe Biden in today’s WaPo, on his suggested reforms of the SCOTUS. It ends:
All three of these reforms are supported by a majority of Americans — as well as conservative and liberal constitutional scholars. And I want to thank the bipartisan Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States for its insightful analysis, which informed some of these proposals.
We can and must prevent the abuse of presidential power. We can and must restore the public’s faith in the Supreme Court. We can and must strengthen the guardrails of democracy.
In America, no one is above the law. In America, the people rule.
https://wapo.st/4c9ertE
If he succeeds in this, we can truly say: nothing in his presidency became him like the leaving it. It would be (we have recently been forced to discover) perhaps as consequential for Americans as Obama’s Affordable Care Act.
Unfortunately, the chances of it being becoming reality in the forseesable future are zilch, even if the Dems achieve trifecta. Constitutional amandment for anything is completely out of the question (40 states agreeing on something???) and if it’s ‘just’ by law, the next GOP majority and WH will instantly overturn it. Congress is not a true representation of the majority of the people let alone constitutional scholars and for too many these reforms are a threat not a promise.
Unfortunately, the chances of it being becoming reality in the forseesable future are zilch, even if the Dems achieve trifecta. Constitutional amandment for anything is completely out of the question (40 states agreeing on something???) and if it’s ‘just’ by law, the next GOP majority and WH will instantly overturn it. Congress is not a true representation of the majority of the people let alone constitutional scholars and for too many these reforms are a threat not a promise.
Unfortunately, the chances of it being becoming reality in the forseesable future are zilch, even if the Dems achieve trifecta.
You’ve got to start somewhere.
Saying it out loud from and on a big platform is part of that.
Unfortunately, the chances of it being becoming reality in the forseesable future are zilch, even if the Dems achieve trifecta.
You’ve got to start somewhere.
Saying it out loud from and on a big platform is part of that.
Jesus Christ, watching Biden’s remarks on the Civil Rights Act anniversary, he seems 10 years younger. His face is more mobile, his speech more vigorous. Cripes.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/jul/29/election-updates-trump-harris#top-of-blog
Jesus Christ, watching Biden’s remarks on the Civil Rights Act anniversary, he seems 10 years younger. His face is more mobile, his speech more vigorous. Cripes.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/jul/29/election-updates-trump-harris#top-of-blog
You’ve got to start somewhere.
Saying it out loud from and on a big platform is part of that.
This. It seems likely to be one of those cases where things move (super) slowly, and then suddenly.
You’ve got to start somewhere.
Saying it out loud from and on a big platform is part of that.
This. It seems likely to be one of those cases where things move (super) slowly, and then suddenly.
I mean, the cognitive load on Biden has just dropped a lot. He doesn’t have to run for president anymore, so he can just focus on doing his job and putting the screws to the Republicans’ plans. That’ll give him back a lot of the coping power to deal with any age related mental friction.
I know he has to still feel a bit betrayed, but I wonder if he also isn’t feeling more than a bit relieved.
I mean, the cognitive load on Biden has just dropped a lot. He doesn’t have to run for president anymore, so he can just focus on doing his job and putting the screws to the Republicans’ plans. That’ll give him back a lot of the coping power to deal with any age related mental friction.
I know he has to still feel a bit betrayed, but I wonder if he also isn’t feeling more than a bit relieved.
Been meaning to come back to this:
Similarly with academic papers. If you don’t go thru and confirm every single footnote, you can find yourself in big trouble. And teachers below the graduate level are also starting to at least check surprising claims. And take a rather dim view of students submitting work that is not their own.
Academic paper wise, none of this would matter if academic publishing actually worked to further a public good, rather than to credential careerists looking for job security. If the emphasis were on productive information, there would be no need to use AI. The only people using it then would be the vested interest disinformation squads.
But as it is, there is probably too much being published for it to get much critical attention or any verification/replication beyond a quick look from an overworked reviewer who is only doing it because service like editorial work offsets a lack of publications.
So the only people who get caught are the ones that ran afoul of someone else’s agenda. Those are the only people with the motivation to invest time and resources into checking the claims.
The most that your average scholar is going to have happen with a bad AI claim is that the paper is going to get rejected by the publication to which it was submitted.
It’s the second part of your statement about teachers that really gets me despairing, though. It’s a fair assessment of the attitudes and goals of teachers. Meanwhile, though, the administrators in charge of things like Learning Management Systems are signing deals with the AI dudes to roll out some new feature or time-saver powered by AI, and then telling the teachers that they cannot forbid AI in the classroom anymore because it’s a part of the institutional digital landscape.
No one gets a choice when the damned tech companies cram it into every product they offer. It’s not enshitification, but there is a strong family resemblance.
I know a lot of long-time, excellent teachers who are seriously wondering how long they want to put up with this crap.
It’s that old Shaw line – To be in hell is to drift; to be in heaven is to steer.
The teachers aren’t the ones doing the steering in this.
Been meaning to come back to this:
Similarly with academic papers. If you don’t go thru and confirm every single footnote, you can find yourself in big trouble. And teachers below the graduate level are also starting to at least check surprising claims. And take a rather dim view of students submitting work that is not their own.
Academic paper wise, none of this would matter if academic publishing actually worked to further a public good, rather than to credential careerists looking for job security. If the emphasis were on productive information, there would be no need to use AI. The only people using it then would be the vested interest disinformation squads.
But as it is, there is probably too much being published for it to get much critical attention or any verification/replication beyond a quick look from an overworked reviewer who is only doing it because service like editorial work offsets a lack of publications.
So the only people who get caught are the ones that ran afoul of someone else’s agenda. Those are the only people with the motivation to invest time and resources into checking the claims.
The most that your average scholar is going to have happen with a bad AI claim is that the paper is going to get rejected by the publication to which it was submitted.
It’s the second part of your statement about teachers that really gets me despairing, though. It’s a fair assessment of the attitudes and goals of teachers. Meanwhile, though, the administrators in charge of things like Learning Management Systems are signing deals with the AI dudes to roll out some new feature or time-saver powered by AI, and then telling the teachers that they cannot forbid AI in the classroom anymore because it’s a part of the institutional digital landscape.
No one gets a choice when the damned tech companies cram it into every product they offer. It’s not enshitification, but there is a strong family resemblance.
I know a lot of long-time, excellent teachers who are seriously wondering how long they want to put up with this crap.
It’s that old Shaw line – To be in hell is to drift; to be in heaven is to steer.
The teachers aren’t the ones doing the steering in this.
This is an extremely cheering article on Harris about Katie Porter’s experience of working for her. Really excellent news, in view of all the stuff about staff churn:
https://prospect.org/politics/2024-07-29-member-congress-worked-kamala-harris-katie-porter/
This is an extremely cheering article on Harris about Katie Porter’s experience of working for her. Really excellent news, in view of all the stuff about staff churn:
https://prospect.org/politics/2024-07-29-member-congress-worked-kamala-harris-katie-porter/
You can believe Porter. She’s genuine.
Also, I’ve had some experience with the sorts of programs that she headed up, working with UCI law students who were gaining legal experience heading up projects under the supervision of law faculty. I’ve had three or four student volunteers who have worked with my union helping us to understand and contextualize a lot of the legal issues involved in grievances over unfair dismissals, violations of the ADA, and serious contract violations that cost adjunct faculty hundreds of thousands of dollars. That sort of help really makes a difference when you have a union with very limited legal resources going up against negotiators who have both legal experience and the resources of a vast public university system at their disposal.
Kudos to Porter for training a cadre of young lawyers focused on helping the underdogs.
I’d pay money to help Harris appoint Porter in a corporate watchdog role and give her a camera and a whiteboard.
In fact I have paid money to hopefully do that, voting gods willing.
You can believe Porter. She’s genuine.
Also, I’ve had some experience with the sorts of programs that she headed up, working with UCI law students who were gaining legal experience heading up projects under the supervision of law faculty. I’ve had three or four student volunteers who have worked with my union helping us to understand and contextualize a lot of the legal issues involved in grievances over unfair dismissals, violations of the ADA, and serious contract violations that cost adjunct faculty hundreds of thousands of dollars. That sort of help really makes a difference when you have a union with very limited legal resources going up against negotiators who have both legal experience and the resources of a vast public university system at their disposal.
Kudos to Porter for training a cadre of young lawyers focused on helping the underdogs.
I’d pay money to help Harris appoint Porter in a corporate watchdog role and give her a camera and a whiteboard.
In fact I have paid money to hopefully do that, voting gods willing.
Meanwhile, the war games (with both R and D participants, many from past administrations). Very worrying…
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/30/washington-dc-role-play-second-trump-term
Meanwhile, the war games (with both R and D participants, many from past administrations). Very worrying…
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/30/washington-dc-role-play-second-trump-term
“In America, no one is above the law. In America, the people rule.”
Never has this been true. The founders didn’t even envision this as an aspiration. At best the people get to pick their preferred elite…who have always been above the law.
“In America, no one is above the law. In America, the people rule.”
Never has this been true. The founders didn’t even envision this as an aspiration. At best the people get to pick their preferred elite…who have always been above the law.
That really was Marty, not trying to be coy or anything.
That really was Marty, not trying to be coy or anything.
The founders didn’t even envision this as an aspiration. At best the people get to pick their preferred elite…who have always been above the law.
With, perhaps, the partial exception of Switzerland, nobody does direct democracy. Governing is done via representatives.
It is not at all clear that Congressmen have ever been above the law. Nor, at least until this year, have Presidents.
If you are arguing that elites can buy there way free of jeopardy from the laws to which they, too, are subject, that’s a different discussion. I would suggest that, while that is sometimes true, it definitely does not qualify as “always”
The founders didn’t even envision this as an aspiration. At best the people get to pick their preferred elite…who have always been above the law.
With, perhaps, the partial exception of Switzerland, nobody does direct democracy. Governing is done via representatives.
It is not at all clear that Congressmen have ever been above the law. Nor, at least until this year, have Presidents.
If you are arguing that elites can buy there way free of jeopardy from the laws to which they, too, are subject, that’s a different discussion. I would suggest that, while that is sometimes true, it definitely does not qualify as “always”
FYI, 3 comments from GftNC from earlier this month have been removed from the Spam folder and Published. Apologies for not checking more frequently.
FYI, 3 comments from GftNC from earlier this month have been removed from the Spam folder and Published. Apologies for not checking more frequently.
“ Nor, at least until this year, have Presidents.”
Presidents have always been above the law as far as war crimes are concerned. Biden is probably violating the Leahy Law. How likely is it that he would be prosecuted even before the Supreme Court decision?
“ Nor, at least until this year, have Presidents.”
Presidents have always been above the law as far as war crimes are concerned. Biden is probably violating the Leahy Law. How likely is it that he would be prosecuted even before the Supreme Court decision?
wj, normally if they aren’t too long I just do them again with the correct handle (acronym if a comment contains a link). And if it is too long, and something I really want to get across, I normally make a request. So don’t trouble yourself, a lot of the ones in the Spam folder were probably duplicates, but thanks anyway.
Marty: obviously, the rich for example could always afford the fanciest, tricksiest lawyers. But it is a worthy aspiration, to be repeated and fought for, and one well worth emphasising when the SCOTUS grants absurd and dangerous immunity to presidents.
wj, normally if they aren’t too long I just do them again with the correct handle (acronym if a comment contains a link). And if it is too long, and something I really want to get across, I normally make a request. So don’t trouble yourself, a lot of the ones in the Spam folder were probably duplicates, but thanks anyway.
Marty: obviously, the rich for example could always afford the fanciest, tricksiest lawyers. But it is a worthy aspiration, to be repeated and fought for, and one well worth emphasising when the SCOTUS grants absurd and dangerous immunity to presidents.
Never has this been true. The founders didn’t even envision this as an aspiration. At best the people get to pick their preferred elite…who have always been above the law.
The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward giving Donald Trump a get out of jail free card.
Never has this been true. The founders didn’t even envision this as an aspiration. At best the people get to pick their preferred elite…who have always been above the law.
The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward giving Donald Trump a get out of jail free card.
The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward giving Donald Trump a get out of jail free card.
Certainly it did bend that way. But it rather looks like it may be bending back.
(Feel free to argue that this is because he never really was an elite super rich guy. Just a wanna be.)
The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward giving Donald Trump a get out of jail free card.
Certainly it did bend that way. But it rather looks like it may be bending back.
(Feel free to argue that this is because he never really was an elite super rich guy. Just a wanna be.)
It’s a Schrödinger’s Cat/Quantum/Wave-Particle duality thing. The arc of the moral universe is awash in the competing potential for Trump getting out of jail free, and also for him failing in this just as he has in every other endeavor.
Those potentials hover in the quantum flux, popping into view briefly, but disappearing back into the flux before they solidify into determinacy.
My wish is for both potentials to collide with each other and self-annihilate, along with every other particle entangled in his spin state.
It’s a Schrödinger’s Cat/Quantum/Wave-Particle duality thing. The arc of the moral universe is awash in the competing potential for Trump getting out of jail free, and also for him failing in this just as he has in every other endeavor.
Those potentials hover in the quantum flux, popping into view briefly, but disappearing back into the flux before they solidify into determinacy.
My wish is for both potentials to collide with each other and self-annihilate, along with every other particle entangled in his spin state.
I’m afraid regardless of who wins all his prosecutions go away. If Harris wins I suspect seeking calm will get him a pardon. The state charges will slowly go away. That is all after a few months of very high emotions.
Hopefully the arc is toward the next generation not seeing Trump as a viable role model.
I’m afraid regardless of who wins all his prosecutions go away. If Harris wins I suspect seeking calm will get him a pardon. The state charges will slowly go away. That is all after a few months of very high emotions.
Hopefully the arc is toward the next generation not seeing Trump as a viable role model.
I’m afraid regardless of who wins all his prosecutions go away. If Harris wins I suspect seeking calm will get him a pardon.
I’m guessing not. First off, Harris herself may have been too young to personally remember the Nixon pardon. But she has doubtless heard about it, and what the reaction was. Also, still a bunch of old folks around who would scream bloody murder if there was any hint of repeating that mistake.
Second, sentiment among Democrats (and everybody else with any kind of moral compass), even if they never heard of Nixon’s pardon, is very strong that Trump must not be allowed to get away with just casually ignoring the law. Letting him skate would be the opposite of seeking calm.
I’m afraid regardless of who wins all his prosecutions go away. If Harris wins I suspect seeking calm will get him a pardon.
I’m guessing not. First off, Harris herself may have been too young to personally remember the Nixon pardon. But she has doubtless heard about it, and what the reaction was. Also, still a bunch of old folks around who would scream bloody murder if there was any hint of repeating that mistake.
Second, sentiment among Democrats (and everybody else with any kind of moral compass), even if they never heard of Nixon’s pardon, is very strong that Trump must not be allowed to get away with just casually ignoring the law. Letting him skate would be the opposite of seeking calm.
Okay, that’s 30 minutes lost to distraction:
https://kamala-holding-vinyls.glitch.me/
…Bad Brains – I Against I; Public Enemy – It Takes A Nation Of Millions…; Queen Latifah – Black Reign; Bikini Kill – Revolution Girl Style Now; Devo – Freedom Of Choice; …
She’s winning the meme wars.
Okay, that’s 30 minutes lost to distraction:
https://kamala-holding-vinyls.glitch.me/
…Bad Brains – I Against I; Public Enemy – It Takes A Nation Of Millions…; Queen Latifah – Black Reign; Bikini Kill – Revolution Girl Style Now; Devo – Freedom Of Choice; …
She’s winning the meme wars.
Obama made 2 big mistakes as POTUS.
1) When Dick and Dubya’s tax cuts were due to expire because the Republicans who passed them, on reconciliation no less, had voted for them to expire, Obama did NOT say: “The Bush tax cuts are expiring. Done deal. But I’m prepared to offer an Obama tax cut as soon as they do.”
2) Obama did NOT prosecute Dick and Dubya or any of their minions for the torture regime, because Obama wanted to “look forward, not back”.
But Obama was young. Kamala, we can hope, is a bit older, a bit savvier.
TRUCK FUMP and his prom date JV DANCE.
–TP
Obama made 2 big mistakes as POTUS.
1) When Dick and Dubya’s tax cuts were due to expire because the Republicans who passed them, on reconciliation no less, had voted for them to expire, Obama did NOT say: “The Bush tax cuts are expiring. Done deal. But I’m prepared to offer an Obama tax cut as soon as they do.”
2) Obama did NOT prosecute Dick and Dubya or any of their minions for the torture regime, because Obama wanted to “look forward, not back”.
But Obama was young. Kamala, we can hope, is a bit older, a bit savvier.
TRUCK FUMP and his prom date JV DANCE.
–TP
Much though I like and generally approve of Obama, those were not his only mistakes. His foreign policy was far from perfect too. But nonetheless, compared to what followed, it was a golden age.
Marty, I hope you’re wrong, partly for the reasons wj gives. I think the words carved above the Supreme Court, EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW, are the founding principle of any democracy.
Re Kamala Harris rabbit holes, I spend a disproportionate amount of time checking in with the rapid response feed @KamalaHQ/X partly to see what they consider worth mentioning. I don’t always agree with what they have, or what they leave out, but on the whole I think it’s pretty good. Did you all see Elon Musk tweeted this? Or maybe it’s a spoof – it’s too good to be true!
https://x.com/theliamnissan/status/1818410020364578861
Much though I like and generally approve of Obama, those were not his only mistakes. His foreign policy was far from perfect too. But nonetheless, compared to what followed, it was a golden age.
Marty, I hope you’re wrong, partly for the reasons wj gives. I think the words carved above the Supreme Court, EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW, are the founding principle of any democracy.
Re Kamala Harris rabbit holes, I spend a disproportionate amount of time checking in with the rapid response feed @KamalaHQ/X partly to see what they consider worth mentioning. I don’t always agree with what they have, or what they leave out, but on the whole I think it’s pretty good. Did you all see Elon Musk tweeted this? Or maybe it’s a spoof – it’s too good to be true!
https://x.com/theliamnissan/status/1818410020364578861
2) Obama did NOT prosecute Dick and Dubya or any of their minions for the torture regime, because Obama wanted to “look forward, not back”.
Maybe, but I strongly suspect that Obama was warned that “torture accountability” would get him JFK’d.
2) Obama did NOT prosecute Dick and Dubya or any of their minions for the torture regime, because Obama wanted to “look forward, not back”.
Maybe, but I strongly suspect that Obama was warned that “torture accountability” would get him JFK’d.
A truly outstanding example of a dog whistle (gift link):
https://wapo.st/4fnOmKh
A truly outstanding example of a dog whistle (gift link):
https://wapo.st/4fnOmKh
Judging by my relatives’ feeds, the Trumplings are attempting to combat “weird” with memes about Harris being “cringe.” They’re just not very good at the whole meme thing.* They lack the pop culture fluency and end up sounding weird.
* Or to put a finer point on it – the portion of the right that are any good at memes are the alt-right edgelords, and their memes are completely toxic anywhere but Incelvania.
Judging by my relatives’ feeds, the Trumplings are attempting to combat “weird” with memes about Harris being “cringe.” They’re just not very good at the whole meme thing.* They lack the pop culture fluency and end up sounding weird.
* Or to put a finer point on it – the portion of the right that are any good at memes are the alt-right edgelords, and their memes are completely toxic anywhere but Incelvania.
Trump in Chicago on TV right now, being interviewed by black journalists. However you imagine it’s going, that’s how it’s going.
Holy bejeezus. Who greenlit this?
Trump in Chicago on TV right now, being interviewed by black journalists. However you imagine it’s going, that’s how it’s going.
Holy bejeezus. Who greenlit this?
However you imagine it’s going, that’s how it’s going
Possibly because of cultural confusion, I can’t begin to know what this actually means. Are they giving him a hard time on his dog whistles? Are they being “professional”, and only talking about his laughable (if only) policies? More information please!
Meanwhile, three little girls 6-9 were stabbed to death two days ago at a Taylor Swift themed holiday dance class. The 17 year old perpetrator is still being questioned, and the police have revealed nothing much about his identity, except that he was born in Cardiff. I have read, and don’t know if that’s right, that his parents are from Rwanda, and that mental health issues are a major part of the enquiry.
But, guess what – the far right converged on the town where it happened, Southport, and rioted the day/night after it happened, injuring many policemen and their dogs, and attacking a local mosque, in response to agitprop on social media and the internet (mainly but far from entirely from the US), including fake identifications of the perpetrator which the police have confirmed are false. Some of the parents of the murdered girls have had to issue a request for the rioters to go away (many are not local) or otherwise desist. Nigel Farage, Trump supporter and now an MP at the 8th time of trying, has been issuing coded incitement (“why is information being kept from us” etc etc). So that’s what’s going on here.
However you imagine it’s going, that’s how it’s going
Possibly because of cultural confusion, I can’t begin to know what this actually means. Are they giving him a hard time on his dog whistles? Are they being “professional”, and only talking about his laughable (if only) policies? More information please!
Meanwhile, three little girls 6-9 were stabbed to death two days ago at a Taylor Swift themed holiday dance class. The 17 year old perpetrator is still being questioned, and the police have revealed nothing much about his identity, except that he was born in Cardiff. I have read, and don’t know if that’s right, that his parents are from Rwanda, and that mental health issues are a major part of the enquiry.
But, guess what – the far right converged on the town where it happened, Southport, and rioted the day/night after it happened, injuring many policemen and their dogs, and attacking a local mosque, in response to agitprop on social media and the internet (mainly but far from entirely from the US), including fake identifications of the perpetrator which the police have confirmed are false. Some of the parents of the murdered girls have had to issue a request for the rioters to go away (many are not local) or otherwise desist. Nigel Farage, Trump supporter and now an MP at the 8th time of trying, has been issuing coded incitement (“why is information being kept from us” etc etc). So that’s what’s going on here.
I read about the attack yesterday and I still can’t process children killing children. My heart goes out to you. I didn’t want to address it because… how?
Soldiering on, heartbrokenly, to your question:
It was more of and exactly what you’d expect from TFG. But this wasn’t him in front of a Kid Rock-fueled MAGA audience. This was in front of the National Association of Black Journalists. In the interest of “fair & balanced”, Harris Faulkner was on the panel.
Difficult to tell from TV, but the audience seemed far more reserved than I might have been. But it is an association of professionals, so I appreciate their composure. That said, there’s only so much one can be expected to hold back. I suspect coverage of this will feature prominently in the US political coverage realm over the next news cycle, however long that lasts.
I read about the attack yesterday and I still can’t process children killing children. My heart goes out to you. I didn’t want to address it because… how?
Soldiering on, heartbrokenly, to your question:
It was more of and exactly what you’d expect from TFG. But this wasn’t him in front of a Kid Rock-fueled MAGA audience. This was in front of the National Association of Black Journalists. In the interest of “fair & balanced”, Harris Faulkner was on the panel.
Difficult to tell from TV, but the audience seemed far more reserved than I might have been. But it is an association of professionals, so I appreciate their composure. That said, there’s only so much one can be expected to hold back. I suspect coverage of this will feature prominently in the US political coverage realm over the next news cycle, however long that lasts.
It’s a horrible display by the bigoted EDF yobs on the back of a community tragedy.
I saw in one of the UK papers that the local police have said that the suspect does not appear to have any ties with Islam in an attempt to prevent any further primate threat displays from lagered up Brownshirt McNeckbeards, for whatever little good that will do.
It’s a horrible display by the bigoted EDF yobs on the back of a community tragedy.
I saw in one of the UK papers that the local police have said that the suspect does not appear to have any ties with Islam in an attempt to prevent any further primate threat displays from lagered up Brownshirt McNeckbeards, for whatever little good that will do.
I saw in one of the UK papers that the local police have said that the suspect does not appear to have any ties with Islam
I really hope that’s so, although of course (as I know you know and agree) even if he did, that should be fucking irrelevant. I’m so sick of this kind of shit – these people have no fucking shame.
I saw in one of the UK papers that the local police have said that the suspect does not appear to have any ties with Islam
I really hope that’s so, although of course (as I know you know and agree) even if he did, that should be fucking irrelevant. I’m so sick of this kind of shit – these people have no fucking shame.
OK, plenty of clips from the black journalists’ event on @KamalaHQ/X
If they thought they were worth posting, I’m hopeful he was his normal own sweet self..I’m going to watch for the lolz
OK, plenty of clips from the black journalists’ event on @KamalaHQ/X
If they thought they were worth posting, I’m hopeful he was his normal own sweet self..I’m going to watch for the lolz
OMG, that is so worth watching. I don’t know how long the whole thing lasted, but the 5 or so short clips they show are marvellous.
OMG, that is so worth watching. I don’t know how long the whole thing lasted, but the 5 or so short clips they show are marvellous.
Could we finally be coming to the end of the story of The Emperor’s Weird Clothes?
I don’t know if we can afford that sort of hope.
Could we finally be coming to the end of the story of The Emperor’s Weird Clothes?
I don’t know if we can afford that sort of hope.
This is the first article at the top of the NYT (gift link):
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/31/us/politics/trump-kamala-harris-black-nabj.html?unlocked_article_code=1._U0.AJFs.wZmHcOysVWea&smid=url-share
I have to stop now, or every post will be mine. Sorry, you all.
This is the first article at the top of the NYT (gift link):
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/31/us/politics/trump-kamala-harris-black-nabj.html?unlocked_article_code=1._U0.AJFs.wZmHcOysVWea&smid=url-share
I have to stop now, or every post will be mine. Sorry, you all.
I don’t know if we can afford that sort of hope.
We can definitely afford hope. What we can’t afford is complacency.
I don’t know if we can afford that sort of hope.
We can definitely afford hope. What we can’t afford is complacency.
Holy bejeezus. Who greenlit this [Trump in front of black journalists]?
(In my best sepulchral voice):
“Some things man was not meant to know!”
Holy bejeezus. Who greenlit this [Trump in front of black journalists]?
(In my best sepulchral voice):
“Some things man was not meant to know!”
I think Biden did a wonderful thing with the successful rescue of both Americans and Russian political prisoners.
The wails of butt hurt from the Trump camp are an extra bonus.
Plus fuck everyone who said he was in cognitive decline. He was making personal phone calls to allies while in bed with covid.
(That said, I am glad Kamela is running.)
I think Biden did a wonderful thing with the successful rescue of both Americans and Russian political prisoners.
The wails of butt hurt from the Trump camp are an extra bonus.
Plus fuck everyone who said he was in cognitive decline. He was making personal phone calls to allies while in bed with covid.
(That said, I am glad Kamela is running.)
wonkie, have you reinstated your WaPo and NYT subscriptions? I am glad she is running too, and it was after all mainly the media who, you and others thought, brought it about.
wonkie, have you reinstated your WaPo and NYT subscriptions? I am glad she is running too, and it was after all mainly the media who, you and others thought, brought it about.
Possible trigger warning: pundits ahoy, but maybe not just a pundit (Ezra Klein) but also very interesting interview with Tim Waltz.
Well, for anyone who doesn’t have an NYT subscription, this is a guest link including a very interesting 8 minute interview with Tim Waltz by Ezra Klein. I see it also has an audio of the full hour’s interview, but I don’t know if that will be included in the guest link. But if it isn’t, after the 8 minute short there is an edited transcript of the whole interview*.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/02/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-tim-walz.html?unlocked_article_code=1.AE4.0nOB.2_2S2Mb8Axtq&smid=url-share
I knew virtually nothing about this Waltz guy before, but I have to say on the basis of this (especially the video) I rather like the cut of his jib. Also, I am worried about the effect on the Harris campaign if she goes for Shapiro (which leaks reportedly say she is going to), because of his IDF service and ancient (when he was 20) very dodgy comments about Palestinians. Similarly to my feelings about Buttigieg, I am anxious about anything that the opposition can find to leap on and beat her with. Of course, I don’t know for sure if this Waltz character has any such skeletons, but I guess we’ll know if it’s relevant on Tuesday.
*I have to admit, in the transcript, I find the whole discussion about “real Americans” and the middle versus the coasts very confusing. I thought I understood this issue before (that only the middle contains “real Americans), but I found that part of the transcript hard to disentangle. Maybe the editing down process was not good enough…
Possible trigger warning: pundits ahoy, but maybe not just a pundit (Ezra Klein) but also very interesting interview with Tim Waltz.
Well, for anyone who doesn’t have an NYT subscription, this is a guest link including a very interesting 8 minute interview with Tim Waltz by Ezra Klein. I see it also has an audio of the full hour’s interview, but I don’t know if that will be included in the guest link. But if it isn’t, after the 8 minute short there is an edited transcript of the whole interview*.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/02/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-tim-walz.html?unlocked_article_code=1.AE4.0nOB.2_2S2Mb8Axtq&smid=url-share
I knew virtually nothing about this Waltz guy before, but I have to say on the basis of this (especially the video) I rather like the cut of his jib. Also, I am worried about the effect on the Harris campaign if she goes for Shapiro (which leaks reportedly say she is going to), because of his IDF service and ancient (when he was 20) very dodgy comments about Palestinians. Similarly to my feelings about Buttigieg, I am anxious about anything that the opposition can find to leap on and beat her with. Of course, I don’t know for sure if this Waltz character has any such skeletons, but I guess we’ll know if it’s relevant on Tuesday.
*I have to admit, in the transcript, I find the whole discussion about “real Americans” and the middle versus the coasts very confusing. I thought I understood this issue before (that only the middle contains “real Americans), but I found that part of the transcript hard to disentangle. Maybe the editing down process was not good enough…
Ididn’t know Shapiro had been in the IDF. If he is picked, it should be only after he agrees to a public statement of support for a two state solution, a ceasefire, and a repudiation of anything hateful he previously said about Palestinians.
Ididn’t know Shapiro had been in the IDF. If he is picked, it should be only after he agrees to a public statement of support for a two state solution, a ceasefire, and a repudiation of anything hateful he previously said about Palestinians.
I had the sense there that Klein and Waltz were talking different ends of the us/them in that conversation. Klein is a coastal kid and so there’s more of a national level coast/middle dynamic there in the discussion. Waltz is a rural midwestern kid, so his discussion is more state level urban/rural divide. There’s a lot of overlap in the venn diagrams, but the dynamic is different when talking national vs state politics.
I had the sense there that Klein and Waltz were talking different ends of the us/them in that conversation. Klein is a coastal kid and so there’s more of a national level coast/middle dynamic there in the discussion. Waltz is a rural midwestern kid, so his discussion is more state level urban/rural divide. There’s a lot of overlap in the venn diagrams, but the dynamic is different when talking national vs state politics.
Speaking of diagrams, the google n-gram for weird is interesting
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=weird&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=en&smoothing=0&case_insensitive=true#
Basically, usage of the word starts climbing in 1980 so one can see why the word has hit a sweetspot.
Speaking of diagrams, the google n-gram for weird is interesting
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=weird&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=en&smoothing=0&case_insensitive=true#
Basically, usage of the word starts climbing in 1980 so one can see why the word has hit a sweetspot.
Pedantic note… it’s “Walz”, no t. Pronounced like it looks.
Pedantic note… it’s “Walz”, no t. Pronounced like it looks.
Ha! If one can’t be pedantic on ObWi, where can one be? I hadn’t noticed the missing t, thank you.
nous, thanks, that reversal was sort of what was confusing me, and I didn’t think of the urban/rural aspect.
Does anybody have any thoughts about the theory (which I have seen round and about) that Trump’s appearance at the Black journalists’ conference was primarily aimed at his racist, misogynist base, who consequently got exactly what they want and like? Personally, I believe that could be a side-effect, but I can’t believe that it was the actual aim, since he needs the votes of more than his base to win. I also think it’s a mistake to think of him as a tactician, he’s more like an out of control id (being aimed by slightly despairing tacticians) that connects strongly with similar types.
Ha! If one can’t be pedantic on ObWi, where can one be? I hadn’t noticed the missing t, thank you.
nous, thanks, that reversal was sort of what was confusing me, and I didn’t think of the urban/rural aspect.
Does anybody have any thoughts about the theory (which I have seen round and about) that Trump’s appearance at the Black journalists’ conference was primarily aimed at his racist, misogynist base, who consequently got exactly what they want and like? Personally, I believe that could be a side-effect, but I can’t believe that it was the actual aim, since he needs the votes of more than his base to win. I also think it’s a mistake to think of him as a tactician, he’s more like an out of control id (being aimed by slightly despairing tacticians) that connects strongly with similar types.
Republicans have for many years been trying to get black voters. Their argument goes like this:
The Republican party is the partly of Lincoln and the Dems are the party of the Confederacy.
The Dems have created a plantation system of welfare designed to keep black Americans poor.
Republicans believe in responsibility and lifting yourself up.
Therefore, black people ought to vote Republican.
Trump might actually believe that. Or he may have thought it was a good con. He’s a con man, always looking for a pitch and he may have believed he had a convincing pitch to make and he does have a tendency to get high on his own supply. He lives within a self-reinforcing bubble, too. I can imagine lots of people telling him that all he has to do is go to those black journalists and tell them that they ought to be Republicans, and they will be persuaded (because, after all, they must be at least as dumb and easily conned as MAGAS. Being black, they couldn’t be smarter.)
And then he walked into a buzz saw.
Republicans have for many years been trying to get black voters. Their argument goes like this:
The Republican party is the partly of Lincoln and the Dems are the party of the Confederacy.
The Dems have created a plantation system of welfare designed to keep black Americans poor.
Republicans believe in responsibility and lifting yourself up.
Therefore, black people ought to vote Republican.
Trump might actually believe that. Or he may have thought it was a good con. He’s a con man, always looking for a pitch and he may have believed he had a convincing pitch to make and he does have a tendency to get high on his own supply. He lives within a self-reinforcing bubble, too. I can imagine lots of people telling him that all he has to do is go to those black journalists and tell them that they ought to be Republicans, and they will be persuaded (because, after all, they must be at least as dumb and easily conned as MAGAS. Being black, they couldn’t be smarter.)
And then he walked into a buzz saw.
Does anybody have any thoughts about the theory (which I have seen round and about) that Trump’s appearance at the Black journalists’ conference was primarily aimed at his racist, misogynist base, who consequently got exactly what they want and like? Personally, I believe that could be a side-effect, but I can’t believe that it was the actual aim, since he needs the votes of more than his base to win.
My take is that he honestly believes that he will get a significant part of the black vote. So it was, unbelievable as it may be from the outside, a real attemp to win more black votes.
The interview started late. Trump’s campaign said “technical difficulties.” But the report that I saw said that the delay was because he wanted the interviewers to commit to not doing real time fact checking. (Which says something right there, doesn’t it?) That suggests to me that they thought his usual word salad and fantasies would play well, if not disputed.
In the event, the interviewers did contest some of his statements. And call him on it when he didn’t actually a question. Which got him worked up enough that his staff pulled him off stage and cut off the interview — only 20 minutes into the scheduled 60. He definitely is, at the least, out of practice in dealing with less than obsequious interviewers.
Does anybody have any thoughts about the theory (which I have seen round and about) that Trump’s appearance at the Black journalists’ conference was primarily aimed at his racist, misogynist base, who consequently got exactly what they want and like? Personally, I believe that could be a side-effect, but I can’t believe that it was the actual aim, since he needs the votes of more than his base to win.
My take is that he honestly believes that he will get a significant part of the black vote. So it was, unbelievable as it may be from the outside, a real attemp to win more black votes.
The interview started late. Trump’s campaign said “technical difficulties.” But the report that I saw said that the delay was because he wanted the interviewers to commit to not doing real time fact checking. (Which says something right there, doesn’t it?) That suggests to me that they thought his usual word salad and fantasies would play well, if not disputed.
In the event, the interviewers did contest some of his statements. And call him on it when he didn’t actually a question. Which got him worked up enough that his staff pulled him off stage and cut off the interview — only 20 minutes into the scheduled 60. He definitely is, at the least, out of practice in dealing with less than obsequious interviewers.
Republicans have for many years been trying to get black voters. Their argument goes like this:
The Republican party is the partly of Lincoln and the Dems are the party of the Confederacy.
The Dems have created a plantation system of welfare designed to keep black Americans poor.
Republicans believe in responsibility and lifting yourself up.
Therefore, black people ought to vote Republican.
That’s one version. Another is that a lot of blacks are fairly conservative in their outlook.** (The same goes for Latinos.) A conservative party should be able to take as big a percentage of that vote as it does of the white vote. And the GOP did just that thru the 1960s. (That is, until Nixon’s Southern Strategy kicked in.)
The massive racism of the party these days means that doesn’t happen. But ignoring that detail (and they are quite practiced at ignoring inconvenient facts), it could.
** That’s part of why progressives were so upset at Obama. Their view (the inverse of the Republican one, but just as race-based) is that blacks are inherently liberal. So when a black politician turned out to be generally moderate (or centerist, or whatever your preferred term is), they had trouble coping. He was supposed to be liberal, so why wasn’t he doing all the things they wanted???
Republicans have for many years been trying to get black voters. Their argument goes like this:
The Republican party is the partly of Lincoln and the Dems are the party of the Confederacy.
The Dems have created a plantation system of welfare designed to keep black Americans poor.
Republicans believe in responsibility and lifting yourself up.
Therefore, black people ought to vote Republican.
That’s one version. Another is that a lot of blacks are fairly conservative in their outlook.** (The same goes for Latinos.) A conservative party should be able to take as big a percentage of that vote as it does of the white vote. And the GOP did just that thru the 1960s. (That is, until Nixon’s Southern Strategy kicked in.)
The massive racism of the party these days means that doesn’t happen. But ignoring that detail (and they are quite practiced at ignoring inconvenient facts), it could.
** That’s part of why progressives were so upset at Obama. Their view (the inverse of the Republican one, but just as race-based) is that blacks are inherently liberal. So when a black politician turned out to be generally moderate (or centerist, or whatever your preferred term is), they had trouble coping. He was supposed to be liberal, so why wasn’t he doing all the things they wanted???
wj, I heard that too, particularly the refused fact-checking demand. I’m pretty sure that very few people scour news sources the way we all do, so I’m not sure how many “normal” people know about it – too bad given it’s extremely damning. I don’t think even @KamalaHQ/X posted it, and they post so much that I’m on it too much of the day. I hope it gets out to more people – maybe one of the late night hosts might mention it. It is such a tell about Trump’s outright non-stop lying.
wj, I heard that too, particularly the refused fact-checking demand. I’m pretty sure that very few people scour news sources the way we all do, so I’m not sure how many “normal” people know about it – too bad given it’s extremely damning. I don’t think even @KamalaHQ/X posted it, and they post so much that I’m on it too much of the day. I hope it gets out to more people – maybe one of the late night hosts might mention it. It is such a tell about Trump’s outright non-stop lying.
I think it is obnoxious insist that other people “ought” to vote a certain way. However, if conservatives want to get votes based on conservative values, then their pitch should be their values–whatever those are. Instead, it’s pretty consistent that Republicans who self-define as conservative run for office on outrage over faux issues while failing to discuss their policies which presumably reflect their values. Unless those faux outrage performances are what they genuinely see as important policy issues? I suppose there are African Americans who think the big issues facing us now are trans kids using bathroom, drag queens, discussions of how law has evolved in light of changing attitudes about race, and OH MY GOD BROWN PEOPLE ARE STEALING BLACK JOBS!
It’s hard to see how they can appeal to black voters by “othering” black voters with dog whistles combined with the assumption that black voters won’t notice.
Clearly Republicans do have appeal to some African Americans–there are black Republicans, after all. They tend to be absolute wackos and/or corrupt, but they do exist. I guess that is success of a sort.
I think it is obnoxious insist that other people “ought” to vote a certain way. However, if conservatives want to get votes based on conservative values, then their pitch should be their values–whatever those are. Instead, it’s pretty consistent that Republicans who self-define as conservative run for office on outrage over faux issues while failing to discuss their policies which presumably reflect their values. Unless those faux outrage performances are what they genuinely see as important policy issues? I suppose there are African Americans who think the big issues facing us now are trans kids using bathroom, drag queens, discussions of how law has evolved in light of changing attitudes about race, and OH MY GOD BROWN PEOPLE ARE STEALING BLACK JOBS!
It’s hard to see how they can appeal to black voters by “othering” black voters with dog whistles combined with the assumption that black voters won’t notice.
Clearly Republicans do have appeal to some African Americans–there are black Republicans, after all. They tend to be absolute wackos and/or corrupt, but they do exist. I guess that is success of a sort.
I’m still on the Guardian, only the first of my 4 daily newspapers, so I will try not to deluge you with more links if I can. But I liked this, on the tech titans’ fondness for Trump, and it’s quite short:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/03/silicon-valleys-trump-supporters-are-dicing-with-the-death-of-democracy
I’m still on the Guardian, only the first of my 4 daily newspapers, so I will try not to deluge you with more links if I can. But I liked this, on the tech titans’ fondness for Trump, and it’s quite short:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/03/silicon-valleys-trump-supporters-are-dicing-with-the-death-of-democracy
https://www.rawstory.com/embarrassing-and-gross-trump-approves-of-racial-on-kamala-harris-at-his-rally/
WHo is she? She was involved in an organization created by Candace Owens. https://www.mediaite.com/trump/woman-in-viral-hug-with-donald-trump-is-longtime-conservative-activist-and-blexit-campaigner/
She is also one of the leadership of an organization called America First
So the “conservative values” seems to be…self promotion, support for wacko nut case Owens, and according to the blurb on America First, promoting patriotism.
So yes, there are black Americans who support “conservative” values in the form of wingnuttery and culture war BS.
https://www.rawstory.com/embarrassing-and-gross-trump-approves-of-racial-on-kamala-harris-at-his-rally/
WHo is she? She was involved in an organization created by Candace Owens. https://www.mediaite.com/trump/woman-in-viral-hug-with-donald-trump-is-longtime-conservative-activist-and-blexit-campaigner/
She is also one of the leadership of an organization called America First
So the “conservative values” seems to be…self promotion, support for wacko nut case Owens, and according to the blurb on America First, promoting patriotism.
So yes, there are black Americans who support “conservative” values in the form of wingnuttery and culture war BS.
I believe I am repeating myself but there were also quite a number of (fully assimilated, conservative) Jews who supported what they believed Hitler stood for and could not understand why they got rejected by him and his movement. They hated and/or despised the Eastern European unassimilated ‘Kaftan-Juden’, were ardent German nationalists (110%-ers if not 150%-ers) etc. They mistook the genuine hatred of Jews Hitler displayed as just something to appeal to the rubes and would disappear once he was firmly in power. A fatal mistake as it turned out.
As far as His Orangeness is concerned, I am inclined to believe now that he is an actual personal racist (given his behaviour in his early years as part of his dad’s business) but not an ideologue. He himself has no master plan to go back to the days of Jim Crow or the one-drop-rule but there is a current in the GOP that wants exactly that and he would do nothing to stop them. And that will still be there when he’s not.
I believe I am repeating myself but there were also quite a number of (fully assimilated, conservative) Jews who supported what they believed Hitler stood for and could not understand why they got rejected by him and his movement. They hated and/or despised the Eastern European unassimilated ‘Kaftan-Juden’, were ardent German nationalists (110%-ers if not 150%-ers) etc. They mistook the genuine hatred of Jews Hitler displayed as just something to appeal to the rubes and would disappear once he was firmly in power. A fatal mistake as it turned out.
As far as His Orangeness is concerned, I am inclined to believe now that he is an actual personal racist (given his behaviour in his early years as part of his dad’s business) but not an ideologue. He himself has no master plan to go back to the days of Jim Crow or the one-drop-rule but there is a current in the GOP that wants exactly that and he would do nothing to stop them. And that will still be there when he’s not.
Does anybody have any thoughts about the theory (which I have seen round and about) that Trump’s appearance at the Black journalists’ conference was primarily aimed at his racist, misogynist base…?
I have a more cheerful hypothesis. I think that if Biden were still the candidate, Trump would have received a very different reception from the NABJ. Harris has, in a remarkably short time as these things go, got a bunch of the media thinking that she can win. If Trump’s claim that Fox will sponsor a debate for him blows up in his face, the damage to the Republicans may be severe.
Does anybody have any thoughts about the theory (which I have seen round and about) that Trump’s appearance at the Black journalists’ conference was primarily aimed at his racist, misogynist base…?
I have a more cheerful hypothesis. I think that if Biden were still the candidate, Trump would have received a very different reception from the NABJ. Harris has, in a remarkably short time as these things go, got a bunch of the media thinking that she can win. If Trump’s claim that Fox will sponsor a debate for him blows up in his face, the damage to the Republicans may be severe.
I think the Harris response to Orangina attempting to bully her into a debate on Fox is the correct response. Furthermore, I’d love for someone to bring it back around to the mythology that Orangina has built up around himself as the ultimate negotiator and puncture that aura.
“No one should be surprised by Donald Trump trying to sneak out of a deal he has already agreed to in order to bully his way to a more favorable deal. He’s done that dozens of times after the fact with contractors who have fulfilled their side of the contract. Not this time, Donald. Will you carry through or will you admit that you can’t win in a fair fight?”
Then vacate the ketchup splash zone.
I think the Harris response to Orangina attempting to bully her into a debate on Fox is the correct response. Furthermore, I’d love for someone to bring it back around to the mythology that Orangina has built up around himself as the ultimate negotiator and puncture that aura.
“No one should be surprised by Donald Trump trying to sneak out of a deal he has already agreed to in order to bully his way to a more favorable deal. He’s done that dozens of times after the fact with contractors who have fulfilled their side of the contract. Not this time, Donald. Will you carry through or will you admit that you can’t win in a fair fight?”
Then vacate the ketchup splash zone.
So yes, there are black Americans who support “conservative” values in the form of wingnuttery and culture war BS.
And also those that are rich enough to be part of the GOP “base”.
So yes, there are black Americans who support “conservative” values in the form of wingnuttery and culture war BS.
And also those that are rich enough to be part of the GOP “base”.
Excellent script, nous. You should send it to them. Although, I have to admit their cartoon about it made me smile:
https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1819750067462402408/photo/1
Let’s face it, although puerile that kind of thing probably drives him crazy.
Excellent script, nous. You should send it to them. Although, I have to admit their cartoon about it made me smile:
https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1819750067462402408/photo/1
Let’s face it, although puerile that kind of thing probably drives him crazy.
Not to detract one bit from nous, but my preferred script (in a LGM comment yesterday) for Trump dodging the debate is:
Harris uses the network time, not for a monologue, or even ‘debating’ an empty chair, but rather debating video clips of Trump. Lots to choose from.
EVEN BETTER, take the Trump video and make a MST3K treatment of it.
Not to detract one bit from nous, but my preferred script (in a LGM comment yesterday) for Trump dodging the debate is:
Harris uses the network time, not for a monologue, or even ‘debating’ an empty chair, but rather debating video clips of Trump. Lots to choose from.
EVEN BETTER, take the Trump video and make a MST3K treatment of it.
The video clip approach requires ABC to be not only on board with it, but probably involved in picking the clips. So probably not viable.
That said, convincing Trump that it will happen might be the one thing that would scare him into appearing.
The video clip approach requires ABC to be not only on board with it, but probably involved in picking the clips. So probably not viable.
That said, convincing Trump that it will happen might be the one thing that would scare him into appearing.
Don’t know how much stock to put in the Sunday pundit rumor mill, but I’ve been reading that Pelosi and Sanders have voiced support for Walz, and that Fetterman’s people have told Harris that Fetterman thinks that Shapiro is more about personal ambition than about team support.
I’ll just say that I think Walz will get enthusiastic endorsement from labor, and that I don’t see any prickly factions of the Democratic coalition feeling betrayed if Walz got the nod.
I can see how Harris might be swayed by the idea of a PA bump given the current state of polling, and I think she has a good relationship with Shapiro by many accounts, and trusts him, but I really worry that a sort of game theory approach to election decisions (putting too much emphasis on one state just for electoral college reasons) may rub voters in other states with other concerns the wrong way and dampen a bit of enthusiasm across the board.
I think Walz is the safest pick, and PA can be won in other ways – especially if Shapiro wants to prove that he really is a team player. I’d rather keep everyone feeling good about the campaign and work to keep building momentum rather than make a pick that creates an opportunity to second guess the decision and turn into its own story of trouble in the ranks.
Don’t know how much stock to put in the Sunday pundit rumor mill, but I’ve been reading that Pelosi and Sanders have voiced support for Walz, and that Fetterman’s people have told Harris that Fetterman thinks that Shapiro is more about personal ambition than about team support.
I’ll just say that I think Walz will get enthusiastic endorsement from labor, and that I don’t see any prickly factions of the Democratic coalition feeling betrayed if Walz got the nod.
I can see how Harris might be swayed by the idea of a PA bump given the current state of polling, and I think she has a good relationship with Shapiro by many accounts, and trusts him, but I really worry that a sort of game theory approach to election decisions (putting too much emphasis on one state just for electoral college reasons) may rub voters in other states with other concerns the wrong way and dampen a bit of enthusiasm across the board.
I think Walz is the safest pick, and PA can be won in other ways – especially if Shapiro wants to prove that he really is a team player. I’d rather keep everyone feeling good about the campaign and work to keep building momentum rather than make a pick that creates an opportunity to second guess the decision and turn into its own story of trouble in the ranks.
Walz looked to me like a really good presence – down to earth, normal, strongly on the side of the workers, benign; such a dramatic contrast to the Trump-Vance ticket. Shapiro worries me for the reasons already discussed, and although Buttigieg is obviously terrific in many ways it really could be too dangerous to have a mixed race woman and a gay man together. I deeply regret that I have to say this, because I think they’d both be great, but nothing can be allowed to get in the way of defeating the candidate that, following nous, I am (at least for the time being) happy to call Orangina.
Walz looked to me like a really good presence – down to earth, normal, strongly on the side of the workers, benign; such a dramatic contrast to the Trump-Vance ticket. Shapiro worries me for the reasons already discussed, and although Buttigieg is obviously terrific in many ways it really could be too dangerous to have a mixed race woman and a gay man together. I deeply regret that I have to say this, because I think they’d both be great, but nothing can be allowed to get in the way of defeating the candidate that, following nous, I am (at least for the time being) happy to call Orangina.
Consider that a) the evidence that a VP pick can deliver his home state is, to be generous, slim, and b) there’s nothing to keep Shapiro (and Fetterman!) from serving as surrogates in Pennsylvania. So Walz looks like the best pick.
First, he doesn’t sound anything like an elite type, which will comfort some. Second, to be brutal about it, he’s an old** white guy, which will comfort others. And having those groups comfortable enough with the ticket to vote for it is important. Basically, he serves a similar function that Biden did for Obama: help average voters feel like they aren’t looking at too much change.
** Yes, I know he’s not that old. But he looks significantly older than Harris.
Consider that a) the evidence that a VP pick can deliver his home state is, to be generous, slim, and b) there’s nothing to keep Shapiro (and Fetterman!) from serving as surrogates in Pennsylvania. So Walz looks like the best pick.
First, he doesn’t sound anything like an elite type, which will comfort some. Second, to be brutal about it, he’s an old** white guy, which will comfort others. And having those groups comfortable enough with the ticket to vote for it is important. Basically, he serves a similar function that Biden did for Obama: help average voters feel like they aren’t looking at too much change.
** Yes, I know he’s not that old. But he looks significantly older than Harris.
I also wonder about having two former state AGs on the same ticket. Walz as a teacher or Kelly as an astronaut would give the ticket more diversity of professional background and experience.
With the right already concern trolling the progressives with Harris’s AG record, adding a second AG doesn’t help.
I also wonder about having two former state AGs on the same ticket. Walz as a teacher or Kelly as an astronaut would give the ticket more diversity of professional background and experience.
With the right already concern trolling the progressives with Harris’s AG record, adding a second AG doesn’t help.
“Walz, Buttigieg & Beshear represent a strong departure from this type of reactive politics—instead each appearing to offer positive, assertive visions of an America where govt is focused not on perpetual beltway outrage/gridlock but on tangible ways to improve Americans’ daily lives”
Erin Overbey’s Thread on the State of the VP Stakes
“Erin Overbey’s thread provides a thoughtful and strategic perspective on the importance of the Vice Presidential pick for the Democratic Party. Her analysis underscores the need for a visionary candidate who can unify the base and appeal to a broader electorate through positive messaging and practical solutions. This approach is seen as crucial for not only winning the election but also for addressing deeper societal issues”
Summary and Analysis of Erin Overbey’s Thread on the State of the VP Stakes
“Walz, Buttigieg & Beshear represent a strong departure from this type of reactive politics—instead each appearing to offer positive, assertive visions of an America where govt is focused not on perpetual beltway outrage/gridlock but on tangible ways to improve Americans’ daily lives”
Erin Overbey’s Thread on the State of the VP Stakes
“Erin Overbey’s thread provides a thoughtful and strategic perspective on the importance of the Vice Presidential pick for the Democratic Party. Her analysis underscores the need for a visionary candidate who can unify the base and appeal to a broader electorate through positive messaging and practical solutions. This approach is seen as crucial for not only winning the election but also for addressing deeper societal issues”
Summary and Analysis of Erin Overbey’s Thread on the State of the VP Stakes
I like Walz. He is the opposite of weird.
I like Walz. He is the opposite of weird.
Charles, or as I used to call you “Mr Both Sides are as bad as each other”, has your view changed since the Harris earthquake? Do you now have a preference, or do you still think there’s no real difference, and that even if Orangina wins the country will be just fine? That’s if you don’t mind me asking, of course.
Charles, or as I used to call you “Mr Both Sides are as bad as each other”, has your view changed since the Harris earthquake? Do you now have a preference, or do you still think there’s no real difference, and that even if Orangina wins the country will be just fine? That’s if you don’t mind me asking, of course.
NYT gift link examining the various VP contenders, and their pros and cons as far as party donors, other pols etc are concerned:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/04/us/politics/kamala-harris-vp-democrats-divided.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Ak4.IFtP.QSLJZxKWLmWw&smid=url-share
NYT gift link examining the various VP contenders, and their pros and cons as far as party donors, other pols etc are concerned:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/04/us/politics/kamala-harris-vp-democrats-divided.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Ak4.IFtP.QSLJZxKWLmWw&smid=url-share
My preference is Beshear, then Walz, then Shapiro.
They’re all good, but feeling a bit risk-adverse, and I’d rather Shapiro kept doing good Governor stuff for another term, which Beshear can’t.
To the extent that a VP pick mostly has “little upside, maybe downside”, Beshear could really help make Vance even more “downside” for Trump.
I just hope that Harris makes a good pick.
My preference is Beshear, then Walz, then Shapiro.
They’re all good, but feeling a bit risk-adverse, and I’d rather Shapiro kept doing good Governor stuff for another term, which Beshear can’t.
To the extent that a VP pick mostly has “little upside, maybe downside”, Beshear could really help make Vance even more “downside” for Trump.
I just hope that Harris makes a good pick.
Charles, or as I used to call you “Mr Both Sides are as bad as each other”, has your view changed since the Harris earthquake?
You’ll have to hope the election is over before voters pick themselves up and dust themselves off from the Harris earthquake. The best thing about Harris is that she isn’t Trump. I wish they both could lose. But the other candidates aren’t any better.
As I’ve said before we’re likely to muddle through regardless of who is elected. Our system of governance with its massive bureaucracy, briar patch of laws and regulations, and sheer inertia, seems resistant to being broken easily.
If Harris wins and the Republicans retain the House or Trump wins and the Democrats retain the Senate, it will likely be gridlock for two to four years. From my point of view, gridlock will be the best outcome in most cases. But some of the worst legislation has the votes of both parties.
Charles, or as I used to call you “Mr Both Sides are as bad as each other”, has your view changed since the Harris earthquake?
You’ll have to hope the election is over before voters pick themselves up and dust themselves off from the Harris earthquake. The best thing about Harris is that she isn’t Trump. I wish they both could lose. But the other candidates aren’t any better.
As I’ve said before we’re likely to muddle through regardless of who is elected. Our system of governance with its massive bureaucracy, briar patch of laws and regulations, and sheer inertia, seems resistant to being broken easily.
If Harris wins and the Republicans retain the House or Trump wins and the Democrats retain the Senate, it will likely be gridlock for two to four years. From my point of view, gridlock will be the best outcome in most cases. But some of the worst legislation has the votes of both parties.
Our system of governance with its massive bureaucracy, briar patch of laws and regulations, and sheer inertia, seems resistant to being broken easily.
You seem to have missed Project 2025’s plans for addressing exactly those impediments.
Our system of governance with its massive bureaucracy, briar patch of laws and regulations, and sheer inertia, seems resistant to being broken easily.
You seem to have missed Project 2025’s plans for addressing exactly those impediments.
This is from today’s WaPo, about most of the media’s failure to confront the truth revealed about Orangina in the NABJ interview. I am copying and pasting some of it, because I only get 10 gift articles a month from both the NYT and the WaPo, and it’s only August 4th. I’m happy to cooperate with anybody else who has the subscriptions, so that we can provide important links to the ObWi commentariat in the three months leading up to the election. Anybody interested, just say, and we can devise a system.
The initial reaction to Trump’s NABJ interview appeared to be tepid in many quarters. Relatively benign phrases such as “racially insensitive” to describe such patently bigoted comments serve only to normalize Trump. Too few reports noted that Trump was yanked off the stage by his own staff after 35 minutes. Reports that the event (not Trump) turned hostile or that Trump’s outbursts made this a pivotal moment for Harris wind up blurring Trump’s sole responsibility for infusing racism into the campaign. Likewise, speculation about whether his disastrous appearance was an attempt to “win back the news cycle” reduces campaign coverage to horse race speculation, rather than educating voters about the challenge to pluralistic democracy.
Now, some outlets did provide needed context. “The moment was shocking, but for those who have followed Mr. Trump’s divisive language, it was hardly surprising,” the New York Times reported. “The former president has a history of using race to pit groups of Americans against one another, amplifying a strain of racial politics that has risen as a generation of Black politicians has ascended.” The report also put Trump’s remarks in the context of his racist “birther” attempts to delegitimize the first African American president.
The mainstream media now faces a test of sorts. After the June 27 debate, the media spent three weeks flooding the zone with coverage of Biden’s frailty, in effect demanding every Democrat to defend Biden or distance themselves from him, and consulting a host of experts on aging. Failure to deploy similarly exacting treatment of Trump would confirm Democrats’ complaints that there is a bizarre double standard in coverage that allows Trump to escape appropriate scrutiny. It’s long past time to stop using euphemisms and soft-pedaling his bigotry. (As I have noted, the vast majority of outlets also have steered clear of assessing Trump’s mental and emotional state, despite repeated episodes in which his slurred speech, verbal glitches, incoherent ranting, mixing up people and bizarre references are obvious to anyone watching.)
Truth demands the free press pull no punches, even if that appears to be “taking sides.” (Taking the side of truth is the media’s job.) The NABJ journalists showed how it’s done. Now we wait to see whether others will follow their lead.
This is from today’s WaPo, about most of the media’s failure to confront the truth revealed about Orangina in the NABJ interview. I am copying and pasting some of it, because I only get 10 gift articles a month from both the NYT and the WaPo, and it’s only August 4th. I’m happy to cooperate with anybody else who has the subscriptions, so that we can provide important links to the ObWi commentariat in the three months leading up to the election. Anybody interested, just say, and we can devise a system.
The initial reaction to Trump’s NABJ interview appeared to be tepid in many quarters. Relatively benign phrases such as “racially insensitive” to describe such patently bigoted comments serve only to normalize Trump. Too few reports noted that Trump was yanked off the stage by his own staff after 35 minutes. Reports that the event (not Trump) turned hostile or that Trump’s outbursts made this a pivotal moment for Harris wind up blurring Trump’s sole responsibility for infusing racism into the campaign. Likewise, speculation about whether his disastrous appearance was an attempt to “win back the news cycle” reduces campaign coverage to horse race speculation, rather than educating voters about the challenge to pluralistic democracy.
Now, some outlets did provide needed context. “The moment was shocking, but for those who have followed Mr. Trump’s divisive language, it was hardly surprising,” the New York Times reported. “The former president has a history of using race to pit groups of Americans against one another, amplifying a strain of racial politics that has risen as a generation of Black politicians has ascended.” The report also put Trump’s remarks in the context of his racist “birther” attempts to delegitimize the first African American president.
The mainstream media now faces a test of sorts. After the June 27 debate, the media spent three weeks flooding the zone with coverage of Biden’s frailty, in effect demanding every Democrat to defend Biden or distance themselves from him, and consulting a host of experts on aging. Failure to deploy similarly exacting treatment of Trump would confirm Democrats’ complaints that there is a bizarre double standard in coverage that allows Trump to escape appropriate scrutiny. It’s long past time to stop using euphemisms and soft-pedaling his bigotry. (As I have noted, the vast majority of outlets also have steered clear of assessing Trump’s mental and emotional state, despite repeated episodes in which his slurred speech, verbal glitches, incoherent ranting, mixing up people and bizarre references are obvious to anyone watching.)
Truth demands the free press pull no punches, even if that appears to be “taking sides.” (Taking the side of truth is the media’s job.) The NABJ journalists showed how it’s done. Now we wait to see whether others will follow their lead.
Erin Overbey’s thread provides a thoughtful and strategic perspective on the importance of the Vice Presidential pick for the Democratic Party. Her analysis underscores the need for a visionary candidate who can unify the base and appeal to a broader electorate through positive messaging and practical solutions.
Certainly we all remember how a great visionary name Biden boosted Obama’s candidacy.
Erin Overbey’s thread provides a thoughtful and strategic perspective on the importance of the Vice Presidential pick for the Democratic Party. Her analysis underscores the need for a visionary candidate who can unify the base and appeal to a broader electorate through positive messaging and practical solutions.
Certainly we all remember how a great visionary name Biden boosted Obama’s candidacy.
If you run out of options and you’re so inclined you can use this website.
The NABJ interview with Trump provides a model for media coverage: No other sit-down this cycle has laid bare as much about the candidate.
If you run out of options and you’re so inclined you can use this website.
The NABJ interview with Trump provides a model for media coverage: No other sit-down this cycle has laid bare as much about the candidate.
You seem to have missed Project 2025’s plans for addressing exactly those impediments.
Think tanks churn out policy white papers all the time. This one just happened to get a lot of attention. Trump seems uninterested in it if not outright hostile.
You seem to have missed Project 2025’s plans for addressing exactly those impediments.
Think tanks churn out policy white papers all the time. This one just happened to get a lot of attention. Trump seems uninterested in it if not outright hostile.
Trump seems uninterested in it, if not outright hostile
LOL. I’m assuming you’re joking, because surely you cannot be this naive. Have your AI sources failed to tell you of the ties between Trump and P2025, and the numerous statements he’s made in their praise, until he’s had to distance himself during the campaign? It’s rather like those 3 SCOTUS justices all solemnly swearing during their confirmation hearings that Roe was settled law…
Trump seems uninterested in it, if not outright hostile
LOL. I’m assuming you’re joking, because surely you cannot be this naive. Have your AI sources failed to tell you of the ties between Trump and P2025, and the numerous statements he’s made in their praise, until he’s had to distance himself during the campaign? It’s rather like those 3 SCOTUS justices all solemnly swearing during their confirmation hearings that Roe was settled law…
I’m assuming you’re joking, because surely you cannot be this naive.
Seems hostile to me. But I suppose the Trump campaign could be trying to keep it at arm’s length until after the election. I suspect Trump himself has little interest in policy good or bad.
“Yet Trump has repeatedly disavowed the document, saying on social media he hasn’t read it and doesn’t know anything about it. At a rally in Michigan earlier this month, he said Project 2025 was written by people on the “severe right” and some of the things in it are “seriously extreme.”
“President Trump’s campaign has been very clear for over a year that Project 2025 had nothing to do with the campaign, did not speak for the campaign, and should not be associated with the campaign or the President in any way,” Trump campaign advisers Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita said in a statement.
They said, “Reports of Project 2025’s demise would be greatly welcomed and should serve as notice to anyone or any group trying to misrepresent their influence with President Trump and his campaign — it will not end well for you.””
Project 2025 shakes up leadership after criticism from Democrats and Trump but says work goes on
I’m assuming you’re joking, because surely you cannot be this naive.
Seems hostile to me. But I suppose the Trump campaign could be trying to keep it at arm’s length until after the election. I suspect Trump himself has little interest in policy good or bad.
“Yet Trump has repeatedly disavowed the document, saying on social media he hasn’t read it and doesn’t know anything about it. At a rally in Michigan earlier this month, he said Project 2025 was written by people on the “severe right” and some of the things in it are “seriously extreme.”
“President Trump’s campaign has been very clear for over a year that Project 2025 had nothing to do with the campaign, did not speak for the campaign, and should not be associated with the campaign or the President in any way,” Trump campaign advisers Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita said in a statement.
They said, “Reports of Project 2025’s demise would be greatly welcomed and should serve as notice to anyone or any group trying to misrepresent their influence with President Trump and his campaign — it will not end well for you.””
Project 2025 shakes up leadership after criticism from Democrats and Trump but says work goes on
Heritage and Project 2025 (which Grump is mad at right now because it seems like it’s hurting his chances) have assembled a database of 10,000 vetted potential appointees who can be slotted into governmental positions right away. That’s not a white paper, that’s a transition plan.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-07-16/trump-project-2025-plan-us-election-four-corners/104015688
The plan is to reinstate Schedule F:
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-creating-schedule-f-excepted-service/
Fire the unappointed bureaucracy en masse, replace them with political appointees who have passed ideological vetting and pledged loyalty to the administration, and then plow ahead with the administration’s plans.
As long as the courts don’t put in an injunction, that would give Grump uninterrupted power to achieve his priorities while the challenges work their way through the courts. And we’ve seen how slowly things move through the courts when Grump’s appointees are in charge of the hearings.
Does anyone here seriously believe that Grump and Friends will want to handle the transition personnel decisions on their own? They will outsource it, just as they have their election ground game, to whichever group promises to handle it with the least amount of fuss for them.
Grump will set about getting his revenge and keeping himself out of prison, and leave the day-to-day to others.
If he wins, he won’t care that Project 2025 gave him some bad press, or that JD Vance was unpopular. All water under the bridge the moment that he’s back in the Oval Office. They are there to manage the drudgery while Grump gets on with his vanity projects.
Tell me this doesn’t coincide with everything he has ever done up to this point. It’s 100% on brand for Grump Enterprises.
Heritage and Project 2025 (which Grump is mad at right now because it seems like it’s hurting his chances) have assembled a database of 10,000 vetted potential appointees who can be slotted into governmental positions right away. That’s not a white paper, that’s a transition plan.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-07-16/trump-project-2025-plan-us-election-four-corners/104015688
The plan is to reinstate Schedule F:
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-creating-schedule-f-excepted-service/
Fire the unappointed bureaucracy en masse, replace them with political appointees who have passed ideological vetting and pledged loyalty to the administration, and then plow ahead with the administration’s plans.
As long as the courts don’t put in an injunction, that would give Grump uninterrupted power to achieve his priorities while the challenges work their way through the courts. And we’ve seen how slowly things move through the courts when Grump’s appointees are in charge of the hearings.
Does anyone here seriously believe that Grump and Friends will want to handle the transition personnel decisions on their own? They will outsource it, just as they have their election ground game, to whichever group promises to handle it with the least amount of fuss for them.
Grump will set about getting his revenge and keeping himself out of prison, and leave the day-to-day to others.
If he wins, he won’t care that Project 2025 gave him some bad press, or that JD Vance was unpopular. All water under the bridge the moment that he’s back in the Oval Office. They are there to manage the drudgery while Grump gets on with his vanity projects.
Tell me this doesn’t coincide with everything he has ever done up to this point. It’s 100% on brand for Grump Enterprises.
nous – Putting Project 2025 at arm’s length is “plausible deniability,” and GOPers/Trumpies are perfectly well aware it’s a lie.
But they hope other people believe it.
Like the MSM, which made a big point of Project 2025’s director stepping aside.
Fortunately, the Harris campaign called bullshit on the lie immediately.
nous – Putting Project 2025 at arm’s length is “plausible deniability,” and GOPers/Trumpies are perfectly well aware it’s a lie.
But they hope other people believe it.
Like the MSM, which made a big point of Project 2025’s director stepping aside.
Fortunately, the Harris campaign called bullshit on the lie immediately.
CaseyL – agreed, though I do think that Grump is annoyed with it because he’s mad that it appears unpopular, and he can’t stand looking like he’s done something unpopular. Doesn’t mean he’s not genuinely upset with them. His skin is too thin for it not to get to him.
If he loses, he will curse them and JD Vance the way that Gollum curses Bagginses, and know in his heart of hearts that he never once wanted anything that Project 2025 claimed to want. If he wins, it’s full speed ahead.
CaseyL – agreed, though I do think that Grump is annoyed with it because he’s mad that it appears unpopular, and he can’t stand looking like he’s done something unpopular. Doesn’t mean he’s not genuinely upset with them. His skin is too thin for it not to get to him.
If he loses, he will curse them and JD Vance the way that Gollum curses Bagginses, and know in his heart of hearts that he never once wanted anything that Project 2025 claimed to want. If he wins, it’s full speed ahead.
Seems hostile to me. But I suppose the Trump campaign could be trying to keep it at arm’s length until after the election. I suspect Trump himself has little interest in policy good or bad.
Trump, personally, probably doesn’t care about most of it. (The exceptions being the parts about ramping up the powers of the President.) But the people close to him, including even the ones who didn’t help write it, do care. Oh yes, and the forward was written by one JD Vance.
In short, while he’s now saying he knows nothing about it. Or doesn’t like it. Etc. He also, earlier, was full of praise for it. Granted, I’m sure he hasn’t read it. (900 pages, and his name not appearing multiple times per page? Of course he hasn’t.) But if he wins, there’s no real doubt that big chunks of it will get rolled out fast.
Seems hostile to me. But I suppose the Trump campaign could be trying to keep it at arm’s length until after the election. I suspect Trump himself has little interest in policy good or bad.
Trump, personally, probably doesn’t care about most of it. (The exceptions being the parts about ramping up the powers of the President.) But the people close to him, including even the ones who didn’t help write it, do care. Oh yes, and the forward was written by one JD Vance.
In short, while he’s now saying he knows nothing about it. Or doesn’t like it. Etc. He also, earlier, was full of praise for it. Granted, I’m sure he hasn’t read it. (900 pages, and his name not appearing multiple times per page? Of course he hasn’t.) But if he wins, there’s no real doubt that big chunks of it will get rolled out fast.
Apropos of nothing, it strikes me that Walz is like a cheerful, non-shouty Sanders that doesn’t scare normies with the S-word.
But Harris is making her pick and has to go with who she thinks is best.
Apropos of nothing, it strikes me that Walz is like a cheerful, non-shouty Sanders that doesn’t scare normies with the S-word.
But Harris is making her pick and has to go with who she thinks is best.
Except Walz actually got stuff done. Sanders’ actual accomplishments are thin on the ground.
Except Walz actually got stuff done. Sanders’ actual accomplishments are thin on the ground.
Jenna Ellis has flipped.
Jenna Ellis has flipped.
It seemed pretty certain that somebody would flip. My guess is that the prosecutors were holding out to see who would give them the best deal. And she sounds like someone who can implicate people far beyond the false electors. Wonderful, if true.
It seemed pretty certain that somebody would flip. My guess is that the prosecutors were holding out to see who would give them the best deal. And she sounds like someone who can implicate people far beyond the false electors. Wonderful, if true.
Meanwhile, three little girls 6-9 were stabbed to death two days ago at a Taylor Swift themed holiday dance class.
Commentary on the recent events and on how various levels of government have reacted to them.
Two-Tier Keir —Winston Marshall
Meanwhile, three little girls 6-9 were stabbed to death two days ago at a Taylor Swift themed holiday dance class.
Commentary on the recent events and on how various levels of government have reacted to them.
Two-Tier Keir —Winston Marshall