Good morning.
I hope you all have 6 minutes to listen to the former president, and then talk about it in the comments.
Listening to this from Barack Obama – it’s maybe 6 minutes long – it’s clear to me that he thinks it’s gonna get worse before it gets better. He seems to be saying that we are all going to have to take risks if we want to preserve democracy. Personal risks.
Chilling thought. But I think he’s likely right. It’s bittersweet for me to remember how hard I worked to get him elected. So much hope! And nearly 20 years later, here we are. How I miss that time, and that presidency, and that hope.
It occurs to me to wonder… if Barack Obama were trying to lead the opposition, would the current guy pull a Navalny? What a terrible thing it is to have to wonder about that in the United States of America.
If you watch the video, let us know what you think. The rest of you, let us know what you think, too. :-)
On a brighter note, props to Barack for his third Emmy! Eat your heart out, you-know-who you worthless piece of shit.
Open thread.
Ella in New Mexico
The minute the Supreme Court repeals term iimits for the President, a whole new door opens on destroying Scrotus Scrump.
Obama would blow his doors off in a General.
zhena gogolia
I’m amused by his discussion of big universities. Academic freedom isn’t really at the top of their list any more, if it ever was.
Great message about stop looking for a “leader.” We have to do it ourselves.
I noticed the same phenomenon about the “trendy” reaction to George Floyd. It always made me nervous. I knew they wouldn’t stick to it when the going got tough.
zhena gogolia
@Ella in New Mexico: Not going to happen. He’s done enough.
Betty
Freedom is not free.
MattF
I’m in the ‘give him another Nobel’ camp.
ETA: As ‘Leader of the American Democratic Opposition’.
hueyplong
@MattF: What if the magical stroke-inducing move were to announce that Hillary Clinton is being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for warning the world about Donald Trump?
And Trump, after learning that, saw video of Clinton “cackling” in response.
Lights out.
Ohio Mom
@Ella in New Mexico: I don’t see any evidence that Obama wants to be President ever again.
Jackie
@Ohio Mom:
Michelle would divorce him in a nanosecond.
bbleh
OMG he thinks about what he says and speaks not just in sentences but in whole paragraphs. The contrast with the Senile Orange POS is jaw-dropping.
As to the substance of it, I’m not quite as pessimistic about “getting worse before it gets better” unless incurring any costs — which is different from taking risks — counts as “getting worse” (although admittedly for some people whose noses are attached to their phone screens, it might do so). I agree entirely with his point about an entire generation or two basically coasting — enjoying the benefits of a rules-based society without doing anything, even voting FFS — to support it. I think he’s saying that has to end, and people on average need to get at least a little more involved. And I think a straightforward implication of that is, if people don’t get more involved, then it could very well get worse, eg his remarks about Russia (which is a nice little dig).
Then again, I’m an optimist.
WaterGirl
@zhena gogolia: But if they start talking about literally changing the law, Obama could make noises like that would be a great opportunity for him, to be allowed to run again, regardless of whether he would actually do it.
zhena gogolia
@bbleh: That was my take on it as well.
zhena gogolia
@WaterGirl: I don’t think he would do that.
WaterGirl
@Ohio Mom: @zhena gogolia:
We don’t think he would run again because we pay attention and we actually know who the man is. But the Rs who think only about power probably can’t conceive of him not wanting to be president again.
I hope, though, that we won’t spend this thread going back and forth about whether Obama should or could or might want to run.
Baud
@bbleh:
Sounds like Obama has been listening to me.
Hello, B! 👋
Elizabelle
In all honesty standing up for free speech when it’s “wrong and hurtful” is how Rupert Murdoch has managed to undermine our democracy.
Flood the zone with shit so that people can’t tell what’s right and what’s wrong. Honestly, that’s not working out very well for us.
Canada is not less free because they don’t allow the Rupert Murdoch’s of the world to profit by spewing shit all the live long day.
iKropoclast
Technically correct, but he led us a good chunk of the way down this road.
Jackie
Thanks for the video, WaterGirl! Just hearing is voice… :-) He’s right. It’s gonna get worse, and it’s up to democrats and us to stop it from getting even farther worse. Republicans seem fine losing democracy and freedoms.
WaterGirl
@iKropoclast: We can either spend our time trying to get out of the burning building or look at everything that contributed to the fire. There’s not the time or energy to do both, because, you know, the building is on fire.
The fire is fucking burning, and I have no interest in “looking back” while the building is still on fire.
We can look back once we have – hopefully – kept the house from burning to the ground.
My opinion is that our energy is better spent trying to put sand in the gears of what’s happening.
WaterGirl
I loved his references to progressives and law firms and universities.
He doesn’t say X law firm sucks, he said if you’re threatened, look at what your practices have been, and if you think they are problematic, then change them. If not, stand up for what’s right. Lose some clients, lose some funding, whatever.
Everything else just leads us down the road to losing it all forever.
iKropoclast
Well, I don’t see any exits, so fighting fires becomes necessary which necessarily includes identifying local sources of fire. And the too-smart-by-half notion of not looking back was among the things at the front of my mind.
bluefoot
@Ella in New Mexico: Even if he wanted to, and somehow SCOTUS “allowed” it, I don’t think in the current state of the country a Black man would get elected, even Obama. FFOTUS and the GOP has given people permission to be their worst selves and people aren’t even pretending to care about not being racist.
Keeping the focus on the OP: I will watch the video but I do agree that things will get worse, and that for it to change we will all have to accept taking on personal risk. That doesn’t mean we can’t be deliberate about it and choose how and when we do that…insofar we can considering how fast things are moving.
Soprano2
@zhena gogolia: I knew most of that DEI stuff was performative, especially on the part of companies. I wasn’t surprised most of them abandoned it at the first bit of pressure to do so.
kindness
Trump’s ICE would certainly take Obama if he led the opposition. He was born in Kenya after all. /s
@iKropoclast: Blaming Obama for Trump. Damn if you aren’t our worst kind of ‘friend’.
Shalimar
@WaterGirl: I won’t take the bait and derail your thread, but his statement was total bullshit meant to derail your thread.
iKropoclast
@Shalimar: I was not aware these threads had a pre-planned course and destination. I will take heed of waypoints and signs to perceive where these threads are meant to go and see that I help them find their way.
I was previously under the mistaken belief that this was a conversation.
Jeffro
I think some prominent Dem – NOT Obama – should make noise about running in 2028.
Not for the Democratic nomination…the Republican one.
“I do this for three reasons. One, the Republican Party very badly needs to rediscover American values, not continue the greed- and hate-driven death spiral that it’s currently in. Two, obviously, trump can’t run again – it’s right there in the Constitution. (Not that he’s like to finish his current term anyway, have you seen or heard the guy?) And Three…look at trump’s potential successors. They’re all worse than him! I didn’t even think that was possible. But they’re just as racist, sexist, and pro-billionaire as he is, on steroids.
Therefore, I’m running for the nomination of the Republican Party in 2028. MAGA, you’re welcome…you can’t vote for trump, and now you don’t have to hold your nose and vote for Vance, Rubio, or any of these other lying slimeballs who hate you just as much as trump did, but are far worse at hiding it.
Vote for someone who’s actually read the Constitution. Vote for someone who’ll quit tariff-taxing your family to the tune of thousands of dollars each year. Vote for someone who isn’t a complete pedo or pedo-enabler like all these trump acolytes and bootlickers. Or just tell yourself you’re doing it to really stick it to…well…whomever you don’t like. If that’s what gets you to the polls, be my guest!”
chemiclord
There’s no “likely” right about this. The only way in which he is wrong is in how bad it’s going to get. At this point, there is no way this ends without violence. Without Americans killing Americans. The reactionaries are too close to their dream nation to surrender it without blood in the streets. The only question is how bad is the Second Civil War going to be?
And this is what America wanted, what the overwhelming majority of Americans, either willfully voting for Trump or deciding that Harris wasn’t “worth their vote” chose, dumb to the consequences of their own decisions. Now people are going to die. Sucks to be us, I guess.
Jeffg166
@Ella in New Mexico:
Constitutional Amendments – Amendment 22 – “Term Limits for the Presidency” Amendment Twenty-two to the Constitution was ratified on February 27, 1951.
It would require another constitutional amendment repealing the 22nd amendment then it would require 3/4 of the states ratifying it.
Belafon
@zhena gogolia:
Maybe not, but in the category of “We must all step up,” just him making that a possibility would be a move.
We shouldn’t be looking for someone to lead us, but our current and former elected officials also need to do their part. I hate invoking my veteran status, but I have more than once needed to, and it has derailed a few “patriot’s” conversations.
Professor Bigfoot
@Jackie: nah. She wouldn’t divorce him.
She would beat him silly with a stick, though.
”No, you are not putting us, me, YOU through that shit again!” <whap whap whap>
Belafon
@iKropoclast: Your “statement” was entirely designed to derail any actual conversation and has not only contributed nothing, but has made us all dumber for it being said here.
Jeffg166
I have a No Kings poster on my front porch. I don’t see any elsewhere around me. I do wonder when my front door will be knocked down and I am dragged off for hurting the felon’s feelings. It’s not going to happen today but it could at some future date if the GQP thinks it has control of the citizens.
Professor Bigfoot
@bbleh: “You have to be twice as good to get half the reward,” as Black kids have been told forever.
Now it looks like “ten times as good.”
ETA (cause I closed the window on accident!) 100% on how Americans* have just skated through on supporting and defending democracy.
Black voters, having had the franchise only since 1965, tend to be more informed and more willing to undergo more hurdles to vote than the Americans* who, for example, brag about how they’re not registered to vote so they are never bothered with jury duty— two of the tentpoles of maintaining freedom.
iKropoclast
@Belafon: I think it’s the people demanding a new Obama Presidency who have derailed the thread. Sounds like they didn’t even listen to the man
ETA: Derailment isn’t “anything that fails to make me feel good as a Democrat.” Though, picking fights because someone didn’t have a blog approved opinion might also be derailment. I notice none of you coming after me are refuting what I said, you’re coming after me personally.
Shalimar
@iKropoclast: When she specifically tells everyone not to pee on the carpet because she’s tired of cleaning it up, you don’t pee on the fucking carpet if you want to be a good guest.
Ohio Mom
@WaterGirl: Yes, it’s a silly discussion. The average normie Republican probably does find the thought that Obama could run again a nightmare but the Republican leadership, though evil, can see as well as we can that is not going to happen.
For me, the larger discussion is getting away from the mindset that any single Democrat is going to be our savoir. Democrats clawing their way back to majority power is going to be a team effort. A Representative there, a Senator there, a judge appointed over there, etc.
In other words, a slog, or as the saying goes, a marathon, not a sprint.
Shalimar
@iKropoclast: And she responded to those posts by saying she hoped the thread didn’t get sidetracked by that discussion either.
Hoodie
Note that he specifically addresses institutions like universities and companies, implying a lack of leadership by such elites. Turning back the Confederacy was largely about Lincoln seizing the moment and providing leadership to enlighten people as to the economic and political risks posed by the slaveholder cabal. Authoritarianism entails the creation of an oligarchy, which will have negative economic effects on everyone not in the club. The PSA guys had a recent interview with Heather Cox Richardson about this and other parallels to the 1850s, specifically talking about how Lincoln seized on the issues of economic democracy raised by the passage of the Kansas Nebraska Act. This was about the creation of oligopoly by slave-holding interests, a direct threat to other businesses that did not use slave labor. Slavery is the ultimate authoritarianism, so it’s no surprise that the right is playing footsie with revisionist histories about slavery.
This is a dimension that Dems need to flesh out with more coherence because we need to enlist as many as possible, including economic elites that have institutional power (e.g., endowments, platforms, etc.), in turning back what the Trumpists are doing. One of the things that consistently comes up is the popularity of the messages of pols like Bernie, AOC and, now, Mamdani. I’d say this is mostly because they all provide a critique of oligopoly that resonates with most Americans. However, their solutions do not necessarily resonate, particularly with an audience to which ideas like democratic socialism seem foreign, suspicious or simply unworkable. A lot of Americans are somewhat skeptical that such solutions will work. This is definitely the case with a lot of the economic elites. However, we need a significant number of them to come along. They too need to understand that Trump is an existential threat to them and that their best interests lie with economic democracy.
cmorenc
I vividly recall the exctatic moment on election night 2008 when the West Coast states were called, clinching Obama’s win as the next President – when it seemed a solid majority of the country had surmounted and passed beyond the mountain of racism and plutocratic greed, especially since his opponent John McCain had so graciously and publicly repudiated any among his supporters, and public blame for the financial crash of 2008 still fell squarely on the shoulders of big money financial manipulators. And even fast-forward to 2012 after Ds had lost both houses in 2010, when we naively thought Mitt Romney was the nightmare vision of the potential comeback of billionaire oligarchs, and we couldn’t imagine something so vastly worse and improbable as Donald Trump might be wating in the wings.
Professor Bigfoot
@zhena gogolia: I don’t either, but damn, it would be funny watching the tops of their little heads explode, wouldn’t it?
Harrison Wesley
What am I doing to fix things? At the moment I have no idea what to do. Will ask my rep in the Manatee County Dems for suggestions.
Ohio Mom
@Jeffro: That is interesting thought experiment. I wonder if it is possible though, with elections being administered on the state level, and so many states being under Republican control. But this is totally out of my area of expertise.
God, I’m in an ornery mood today.
Maybe because I have big clean up projects planned for the day.
Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony
@iKropoclast: I think you are completely wrong.
Jackie
@Professor Bigfoot:
And, per FFOTUS, that wouldn’t even be considered spousal abuse //
Betty Cracker
@Hoodie: I heard that interview, and the part about Lincoln beating back a slaveholding oligarchy was so on point. The oligarchy aspect of it is not something schoolchildren in the U.S. typically learned, even before book-banning fascists like DeSantis set out to whitewash history.
HCR seemed so optimistic that we can do it again. She sounded confident a movement and leaders will emerge to turn the tide. I hope like hell she’s right!
chemiclord
@Hoodie:
They seem “unworkable” because there, frankly, hasn’t been a scenario where it has worked.
White leftists love to fawn about returning to a “better New Deal.” The black people I live around remember that era as, “Oh yeah, that time that concentrated white wealth and froze us out of all the benefits.”
My Guatemalan neighbors listen to Bernie Sanders fawn over Sweden, and see a country that is by white people, for white people, and darker skinned immigrants like them are frozen out of all the benefits while paying into the system as second-class civilians. “Yeah, that’s no better for us than what we’re already facing.”
(Those Nordic countries also turn just as reactionary as any MAGAt the instant an uncomfortable number of brown-skinned humans appear at their port of entries too.)
So yeah, there’s damn good reason why Democratic Socialism isn’t resonating with the general population, and is landing with a heavy thud among the minorities that you’d think would be all-in on the idea of greater equality.
Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony
@Hoodie:
Not just economic elites. Everytime they scream about socialism, a lot of new citizens vote against us.
Melancholy Jaques
@zhena gogolia:
Are you suggesting peak wingnut is real? [NB – Referring to the supreme court repealing presidential term limits & 50% in jest]
Baud
@chemiclord:
There’s already been blood spilled.
Professor Bigfoot
@Ohio Mom: I thought of it as a Democrat actually rodent-fornicating the Republicans for once. I doubt it would go any further than an announcement, but what the hell, eh?
“They’re so bad at actually being the Party of Lincoln that I have to come over here and show ‘em how it’s done!” <snicker>
Hoodie
@Jeffro: Joe Manchin is tan, rested and ready.
Professor Bigfoot
@Jackie: Indeed… although, tbh, could you blame her? ;^)
”Ma’am, that was wrong. WE UNDERSTAND, but still, you’re not supposed to beat your husband with a stick!”
(I am joking of course; but I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that her opposition would be… large. ;^D)
iKropoclast
@Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony: Well, I’d be happy to try to justify my claim. Under President Obama, who came into office under immense economic collapse due to rampant corruption in the finance industry , we made the financiers whole while not doing the same for citizens of more average means and did not hold so much as one soul accountable.
On immigration, he stepped up enforcement as sort of a pre-concession for broader immigration reform that never happened, tacitly accepting the enforcement first narrative of the time. Now it’s enforcement only. Good job.
Then he manages to speak up for his old friend, Joe Biden, before the primaries but was conspicuously silent when the heat turns up. But then embarrassingly trying to play the “Trump so old” game at Harris rallies. Disgusting.
Those are the biggest items on my list. It all comes down to appeasement. Chamberlain would be proud.
Baud
@Professor Bigfoot:
Trump recently endorsed domestic violence. Just saying.
chemiclord
@Professor Bigfoot: The problem I see with that idea is that Republican voters are already devouring their own for not being sufficiently Filth-Reich. Some DINO trying to court the RINOs isn’t even going to budge the needle.
WereBear
A favorite President can enlighten us all he wants, and I understand he’s won a Grammy and an Emmy doing it.
Here’s leadership. Take it.
Professor Bigfoot
@Betty Cracker: They were referred to, back then, as the “Plantation Aristocracy.”
Rich men who owned lands and slaves, for whom the 3/5 clause simply meant more power in their hands.
Now their capital isn’t so much in Enslaved and vast estates… but it’s the direct descendant of the Slave Power.
iKropoclast
Natural born serfs.
chemiclord
@iKropoclast: The problem is that the Obama you wanted was an Obama that would never be allowed to exist in the political sphere. That guy would have been run out on a rail as the stereotypical “Angry Black Man” so fast that you would have wondered how he got elected in the first place.
Professor Bigfoot
They ARE all-in on greater equality; they just recognize that our “left-populists” aren’t offering that— just a different flavor of white supremacy.
Bupalos
@WaterGirl: I don’t think there is any separating the long and short term here. It’s not a building on fire. There is no analogy or need for analogy. It’s a democracy that is degenerating. This isn’t a particularly unusual state of affairs. Democratic states are always moving, towards greater democracy or away from it.
We’ve seen gradual and then rapid degeneration before and we’re seeing it now, and it’s global. It isn’t degenerating in the United States because of one man or one political contingency. It’s degenerating because of world-historical forces that are acting globally, that have been eroding the citizenry here for decades and leaving us with a level of civic incapacity and democratic illiteracy that renders us particularly vulnerable. The administrations leading up to this one collectively did very little to alter the path we were on or display any understanding of where that path led. We need to understand where we came from and where we’re going in order to change course.
By most measures Russia is the most unequal developed economy in the world, and the United States is second. Democracy is simply incompatible with these levels of inequality.
Professor Bigfoot
@Baud: I have been to the gun range a LOT over the last few weeks… and I see that I’m not the only one.
I’ve gone so far as to renew my concealed carry license that I let expire in 2022 (though I haven’t begun regularly carrying— yet) and again, I see that I’m not the only one.
I won’t be opening my front door for anyone I don’t know for damned sure… and again, I’m not the only one.
Omnes Omnibus
Was what he said useful or not? If you think he is an imperfect messenger for some reason, fine. I don’t see any reason to debate that. We are never going to find a perfect message. No LEADER is going to descend from the heavens. It’s all going to be harder work over a long time. So, in that context, was what he said useful or not?
Betty Cracker
@Professor Bigfoot: HCR emphasized that Lincoln managed to build a movement to oppose and then ultimately defeat the slaveholding oligarchy even though only white men were allowed to vote in 1860. Might be some lessons there that apply today.
Professor Bigfoot
@chemiclord: You’re probably right.
TBH we’re too smart around here to know what will work for the vast majority of “the common clay of the New West,” so any ideas we generate are unlikely to be effective, there.
But goddamn, wouldn’t it be fun if, say, a Joe Manchin announced he was running for the GOP nom?
frosty
@Hoodie: Tan, rested, ready, and 78. Good thought though! Who else is out there?
Professor Bigfoot
@iKropoclast: People who understand “socialism” to be something completely different from what YOU think it means.
But of course, YOUR understanding is correct and they’re really just fools to be harvested by the authoritarian machine.
Professor Bigfoot
@chemiclord: White men simply do not understand that for the rest of us, our lives are lived very differently from theirs.
Many simply will not grapple with this.
iKropoclast
@chemiclord: It’s worth noting that at the time, I accepted Obama’s and Democrats’ arguments. That this was this best we could expect, that we shouldn’t take any significant risks (contrast to what Obama is saying in the video), that simply having the right people in charge acting morally would be enough to gradually make things better.
It was all a bunch of canny bullshit. They were wrong. I was wrong for agreeing all these years. It was a siren song to get good people to agree to bad things with the Hope that things might be better down the road.
Obama is right in most of what he says here. These elite institutions should not be making concessions to the administration that threaten their freedoms and those of broader society. But when he was in charge making those decisions, when his personal stakes were lower and societal stakes were high but not recognized, he appeased like these law firms he criticizes now.
And that just covers his Presidency. When and how he chose to insert himself in the Presidential election last year disgusted me. Flat out. Man fanned the flames of a whole new kind of bigotry that had been off most of our radars this whole time. Thanks, Obama.
Professor Bigfoot
@Betty Cracker: Agreed.
BUT— the current GOP have been and are continuing to do everything they can to ensure that only white men can vote… and as other demographers have noted, at this point in history if only white mens votes count, the entire country goes red as a fire truck.
In Lincolns time he could obviously peel back some white men, let’s remember the also won a 4-way race. He didn’t need to peel off as many white men then as any Democrat would today.
Matt McIrvin
@Ella in New Mexico: Anything they did would be crafted so as not to allow that.
Baud
@Betty Cracker:
If I remember history correctly, the movement existed before Lincoln.
Deputinize America
@Bupalos:
The bad news: it requires a catastrophe that threatens everything to bring about systemic change. A massive war, a total economic collapse, a widespread ecological or geological catastrophe are the necessary precursors to the realization that things are not OK.
Its basic social science, rooted in psychology.
Look at the circumstances of revolutions and counterrevolutions over the past 300 years, and what brought them about.
What is very weird this time is the choices of a relatively informed American populace – and not just the Gomers in the hollers of Appalachia. They’re all reasonably prosperous and decently fed, with opportunity for social mobility. Rather than seeking more of the same, they’re willing to blow it up over white identity (not even as an ethnocentric concept, just the skin color). I don’t know the answer or why this is, I just know the manipulation is being imposed and acted on by malign powers.
Splitting Image
@chemiclord:
Exactly. The trouble with populism of any stripe is that when the man on stage is wagging his finger, his supporters see him giving “those people” what for, and everybody else sees a man telling them to sit down and shut up while he and his fellows do the talking.
Smiling Happy Guy (aka boatboy_srq)
@Jeffg166: What would happen if SCOTUS determined that term limits of Amy kind – including the 22nd Amwndment – were contrary to the Constitution overall? The Reichwing is a master of pretzel logic, and I can see Alito/Gorsuch/Roberts/Thomas taking that line.
dww4
@Ella in New Mexico: I’ve not read any other comments yet, but how is it even possible for the SC 6 to repeal an amendment?
Geminid
@Betty Cracker: My Atlanta friend is watching clips from Hakeem Jeffries’ press conference today. He thinks it may have just ended.
One item: when asked about endorsing Mamdani, Jeffries said he would have more to say about the New York mayoral race in short order. My friend said it sounded like an endorsement is imminent, but I guess we’ll know for sure by week’s end.
I expect Jeffries had something to say about a current hot topic; that is his plsns for the Continuing Resolution due by September 30. Jeffries probably covered a lot of other ground as well; he typically does in these press conferences.
Anyway, I would urge people who can to listen to Jeffries’ answers in full and not to rely on cherry-picked quotes.
iKropoclast
So I think socialism is worker control of production. The general narrative around socialism, how people talk about it suggests that most people seem to believe it’s when the government scoops up all your money and does everything for you.
This is, of course, something that is verifiable. But why let that get in the way of some good ad hominem?
Hoodie
@Bupalos: One thing I wonder about is how real, or perhaps more accurately, how robust, that inequality really is. A lot of the wealth we see today is market holdings. A lot of companies have insane valuations that don’t necessarily align with tangible things like physical plant, sales, market share, etc. Yes, Elon Musk is the world’s richest man, but most of his wealth is a meme stock. Tesla is a kind of a shit car company with a decent charging network otherwise. It’s kind of a house of cards, and it’s getting more so with the advent of crypto and other intangible asset classes.
Baud
@iKropoclast:
Me too. That’s not what most Americans on the right or the left mean when they say it.
iKropoclast
@Baud: Words have meaning. That’s important. That’s another fight not many seem to want to take up.
Smiling Happy Guy (aka boatboy_srq)
@Jeffro: While an appealing image, the one problem with it is that today’s prominent Dems are either Eisenhower Republicans (Schumer) or skilled progressive operatives (Newsom/Swalwell/Crockett/AOC) better suited to working on our side. I am ambivalent about giving the GQP a functional person for a potential leader: imagine what they could achieve of their own agenda if they get someone actually capable at the top of the ticket.
My suggestion: go after them with the impression of sponsorship. The GQP got to the state it is in thanks to Reichwing billionaires and strategists: use that design against them. If enough Rethug leaders look like they are getting campaign funding from someplace thwlat smells of Human Rights Coalition, ACLU, SPLC or anything within 6 degrees of Soros, they will get rejected by either their voter base or the other campaign financiers. Chaos could well ensue, with the GOP primaries selecting thoroughly unelectable candidates. That would make for an ideal opening – and all it would take is a small investment and a whisper campaign.
Baud
Swalwell, via reddit
Betty Cracker
@Baud: True, and HCR went into some of the background leading up to Lincoln’s nomination in her remarks; I didn’t mean to imply she said it was just him. But in drawing parallels between that time and the present moment, she did a great job of illustrating how the movement opposing the slave-holding oligarchy prevailed against truly enormous odds. It was refreshingly optimistic in a sea of doom!
iKropoclast
@Baud: Pull out a camera and chase any ICE agent you see chasing our peaceful residents
Smiling Happy Guy (aka boatboy_srq)
@Elizabelle: IIRC Freedom of speech ends where the government can impose penalties. Public condemnation, commercial exclusion, and all the non-governmental brakes can still apply. Fauxnews, for example, is successful because it silences opposing thought as much as because it trumpets its own propaganda.
Just because you can’t be arrested or denied public-sector access doesn’t mean you can speak your mind without consequence. We need to find and expand ways to make the Reichwing feel those consequences.
iKropoclast
@Smiling Happy Guy (aka boatboy_srq): Freedom of speech doesn’t work when rich malefactors can use their money to produce false and confusing speech at industrial scale and the rest of us are just talking to our friends.
Hoodie
@Baud: It’s about as useless a narrative as Defund the Police. We often talk about epistemic closure among the right wing intelligentsia, but the left has similar issues. It may come from falling in love with particular ideas or, more accurately, being overexcited by one’s own ability to understand complex ideas. I wonder if some of this comes from the typical encounter that college students (and some autodidacts) have with Marx and his successors. Marx was a pretty cogent analyst of capitalism, but that was about as far as it went. He was a mess otherwise, like a lot of other inspired artists.
Baud
@Hoodie:
IMHO it’s always easier to describe a problem than to solve it.
Hoodie
@Betty Cracker: She also made a good point about people trying to compare the current situation to post WWI Germany. She was diplomatic, saying she wasn’t an expert on German history, but it was pretty clear that she thinks this is not a helpful analogy. Stick to things Americans actually understand. Context is everything.
iKropoclast
If only there were a class of people we could choose to recognize the relative validity of a group’s concerns, make better arguments regarding those concerns than the average folk in the street, and make decisions to address those concerns.
If only…
Hoodie
@Baud: In my experience in engineering, that is definitely true. However, you do need to be able to model something to begin finding a solution.
RevRick
@zhena gogolia: @Ohio Mom: @bbleh: @WaterGirl:
I’m going to voice an unpopular opinion here, but not only don’t I think Obama should run, but I fear he would lose if he did. We forget that in the summer of 2008 McCain was essentially tied with him, despite the disastrous Bush administration, and it was only when Palin was revealed as an utter boob and the implosion of Wall Street that Obama pulled decisively ahead. And in Romney he had the perfect foil of the predatory hedge fund capitalist.
Trump has reshaped the electorate. We may want a leader who speaks in paragraphs, but the general public, not so much.
We have entered the bared fangs electoral environment, and Barack is not capable of that, for a number of reasons.
But I also want to respond to a post by WG about bashing Democrats several days ago (I just returned from a Danube River cruise). WG was of the opinion that it’s okay to bash Democrats when they deserve it, but I’m a hard NO on that!
Why?
1). It’s dysfunctional. It’s basically triangulation where A tries to form an unhealthy alliance with B against C. If you want to criticize a Democrat, do so directly by calling their office. And if the Democrat in question doesn’t represent you, then he/she is not answerable to you, and what’s the purpose of that, except posturing?
2). We need every ally we can get, and publicly tearing one down is not helpful. Take a cue from FDR , who didn’t bash Uncle Joe Stalin, even though there were millions of reasons to do so. We are in an existential struggle with the same God-damned fascists. We need to present an implacable united front against them.
Betty Cracker
@Geminid: I find the endorsement kabuki maddening. Is the candidate the Democratic Party’s nominee? Yes? Endorsed.
I’ll be interested to hear what Rep. Jeffries has to say about the CR. Looks to me like they’re trending toward a deal on ACA subsidies to avert a shutdown. Hope that’s the right move!
Baud
@Hoodie:
I don’t even know how Marxism as proposed by Marx works as practical matter. And I’m too old and uninterested to try to learn now.
iKropoclast
@RevRick: Reverend, are you revising the 11th Commandment?
Anyway
Doesn’t matter what kind of money he has – he was still able to spend N* billion to buy a media organization that had vast reach in the right places and 250 million to influence an election
Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony
@iKropoclast: I still think you are wrong. I have heard those arguments over and over again. They’ve been debunked and defanged a thousand times because they assume the law was what they think it should have been instead of what it was. It gets REALLY old.
And your reaction to the fact that people fleeing from socialist countries that experienced economic collapse might not want similar policies here is to call them “natural born serfs” just illustrates that either you have zero clue what you are talking about or you don’t want a REAL conversation. You are just here to throw bombs and derail.
iKropoclast
Marx lived in a world that shared some problems with ours but ultimately was a whole lot different. We shouldn’t be looking to long-dead authors for answers.
The principle that workers should have more say in the workplace and a reasonable share of the livelihood they produce is sound, though. You can get there without Marx, and that’s just the diagnosis. For solutions, Marx has nothing to tell us what to do today, he’s been dead a long time.
Ishiyama
I see a whole bunch of liberals on this site who will never admit that their idols have feet of clay.
Baud
@iKropoclast:
Not my ideology. I don’t look to Marx for anything.
Shalimar
Ted Cruz issues warning over Christians being ‘targeted and executed’
His concern is over Nigeria. He shows no interest in fighting against Christians being targeted and removed from the US by ICE.
Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony
@Hoodie:
This is a huge issue. I started noticing how much my leftist friends were completely losing touch with the rest of the world a decade ago. They only listen to each other. They remove any news or information source that doesn’t agree with them ideologically. They think they represent what most people really want politically and they refuse to accept that they hold minority views. They don’t even listen to what right wing politicians say they are going to do, then they are SHOCKED when they win and start doing genuinely terrible things. Until that happens, the Democrats are ‘just as bad’.
Hoodie
@Baud: Oh yes, it’s completely ridiculous and not worth the effort. I’d rather fix the car we already have.
Shalimar
@Ishiyama: And others see people here who do nothing but attack their idols instead of an emerging dictatorship.
schrodingers_cat
Prove this assertion. Where has this message won in purple or red areas?
Baud
Reddit says RFK Jr is blaming video games for mass shootings.
Hopefullly this will reach some incel gamers.
iKropoclast
I’ve been in enough workplaces where the workers have been unhappy with how the corporation has done business but the workers refuse to take any form of concerted action. “I have to buy food next week.” Man, half of us can’t do that now.
So they plod along, inveighing uselessly against problems the owners created unnecessarily, until eventually they leave for something they hope will be better. I’ve watched whole departments quit one person at a time over a few months instead of all together in a way that might make a difference for them, their colleagues, or any future staff.
“Natural serfs” was being kind. Also, I didn’t say a damn thing about people fleeing socialist countries nor did anyone else. Your little rhetorical trick is lazy.
Baud
@Shalimar:
It’s unfortunate because there are areas of the world where people really are persecuted for being Christian.
But US right wing christians care mostly about feeding their own domestic persecution complex.
Trivia Man
Nepal today is helping answer the question “how bad could it get?”
suzanne
@Betty Cracker:
Exactly. Yesterday there was another round of dumping on progressives as bad Democrats. The thought that they’re a necessary component of a winning coalition seems to be anathema to some. Yet….. here’s a progressive dude winning an important race. I have no idea why any Democrat, anywhere on the ideological spectrum, wouldn’t support a Democrat winning.
RevRick
@iKropoclast: Actually, it’s the 9th Commandment (or 8th for Catholics and Lutherans), for as Luther explained it in his Small Catechism: “We should so fear and love God so that we do not tell lies about our neighbor, betray him(sic), slander him, or hurt his reputation, but defend him, speak well of him, and explain everything in the kindest way.”
This is a mighty tall order, especially considering that my neighbor includes Donald J. Trump and his minions. I break this Commandment on a daily basis.
iKropoclast
Your idols elevated this dictatorship. Slowly, over decades. It wasn’t one person or one decision. It was culture-wide complacency and unwillingness to take risks.
Shit, I might be the only person here who agrees with what Obama is saying in the OP video.
Ohio Mom
@RevRick: I agree. As an example, take the current sole Democratic candidate for Ohio Governor, Dr. Amy Acton — Tim Ryan may or may not also step up and then we will have a primary. But for now, she’s our only candidate.
She is a nice person. I don’t think she has the proverbial snowball’s chance in hell and I think she will be terribly ineffective should she win. Some of that won’t be her fault, we have a very gerrymandered statehouse and those Republicans won’t budge for any Democrat, let alone “a girl.”
But I’ll be all in for her, no doubts will spring from my lips except in private (I consider these comment threads more or less private).
For me, voting Democratic is like belonging to a club or a team. I’m voting for the party, to get our team more points. I’m making a statement that I believe Democrats have more to offer and reflect my values better than any Republican could.
Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony
@iKropoclast: LOL. I’m not the one changing the subject. My comment SPECIFICALLY SAID NEW CITIZENS. Only a tiny minority of immigrants to the US are coming from governments that are prosperous and function well. Most new immigrants are fleeing dysfunctional governments. Florida is no longer blue in large part because those newer citizens from Latin America and their descendents fled dysfunctional socialist governments. The right wing leverages this against us constantly. It is very effective.
iKropoclast
No, what you described here was not to lie. Here, you don’t want us telling the truth about these D politicians if it might reflect poorly on them.
So it’s Thou shalt not speak poorly of a fellow Democrat.
Another Scott
Something something old age and treachery something something.
WARNING – TheHill.com:
Best wishes,
Scott.
Baud
@Another Scott:
Always fill the tree.
suzanne
@Ohio Mom:
Agree 100%. I have my (strong) preferences in primaries, but I always vote for the Dems in the general. I figure we have a range of pols, some more moderate, some more populist, some lefty, and it is all okay. We simply do not have the voter numbers to make narrowing appeal a wise strategy.
And yes, these comment threads are not the same as public engagement.
Paul in KY
@Jeffro: So long as it wasn’t someone on our side who could plausibly win as the Democratic candidate.
Paul in KY
@Jeffg166: Just make sure you drag them inside the house after shooting them.
Shalimar
@Baud: Marxism as proposed by Marx failed. He saw Marxism as the inevitable solution to the emerging Gilded Age. We did end up reforming ourselves past the Gilded Age, and Marx’s proposed solutions were not what ended up happening in any major country.
JiveTurkin
@Geminid: I think any deal for a Continuing Resolution should only happen with a signed agreement from Mike Johnson to release all the Epstein files. The Democrats could frame it as a “we need to know who these people are, and are they some of the same people leading our country”. For once show some balls.
Paul in KY
@cmorenc: I (very naively) thought that GWB was the worst the GQP could vomit up. Boy oh boy was I wrong!
Baud
@Shalimar:
Yeah, I’m aware it didn’t happen. My query is about how it would function if it did happen. I just don’t understand how he expected his post capitalist economy to work. IIRC, he expected government to be small or non-existent, not authoritarian.
iKropoclast
Full text of the message I responded to:
Once I responded to that, you then responded by inserting people fleeing socialist countries, I criticized that as a rhetorical deflection, and now here we are.
You know there’s a record of all this, right? With time stamps and, indeed, displayed in time order.
Paul in KY
@Professor Bigfoot: As long as it is no thicker than her thumb, and given the reason, she should be OK.
Belafon
@Anyway: $40B. And it wasn’t that he was able to spend the money. He was able to use the idea that the money existed to get loans that you and I would never be able to, and to convince other investors that he’s good for refunds if it turned into a bad investment.
It’s why one of the things that needs to change is that stocks should never be allowed to be used as collateral. Either cash out or use other assets.
Baud
@Belafon:
You could also treat the gains as realized when stock is used as collateral.
Paul in KY
@Professor Bigfoot: A big problem is that alot of them just don’t give a shit.
StringOnAStick
@Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony: I believe I once read here that there are certain kinds of leftists who care more about tearing down the insufficiently pure D party than about winning against fascists. That observation still holds.
Melancholy Jaques
@Deputinize America:
To them, it is a lot more than just skin color. It’s a bundle of beliefs with whiteness as the top & center. They believe there is one kind of white person & it is themselves. And they feel that they are the victims of oppression, under attack, fighting for the survival of that bundle of beliefs.
I’m a generic white guy raised in generic midwestern white suburbs but I don’t get it and I never have.
Paul in KY
@Baud: As a practical matter it takes all people being alot better and more altruistic than they are now…or were then.
Belafon
@schrodingers_cat: I could probably get people around me to agree with a good chunk of what they say, as long as I never attached a name to them, nor could I point out that what the only way to make those work would be to include minorities in those programs.
Paul in KY
@Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony: I guess they must be on Facebook…
Bupalos
@Hoodie: I would say it’s more real and robust than it’s ever been in the United States, largely because of the role of money in politics and a corresponding drop in social trust and solidarity. This later point makes a strong democratic state that can defend itself against oligarchs very very difficult.
As far as the implication that the economy itself is ‘less real’ Bursting bubbles generally hurt the precarious have-nots more than the haves. And power is always a relative thing.
jonas
Funny, they can never explain why young people in virtually every other country in the world play these violent video games as well, yet mass shootings are incredibly rare in those places.
It’s almost as if there’s this one weird thing about America and access to firearms they can never seem to put their finger on…
Shalimar
@Baud: My opinion from decades ago was that Marxism was impossible because it didn’t take personal greed into enough account. Countries were never going to develop past the USSR transition phase because the people who took power were never going to relinquish it and nepotism would dominate. It will always end in oligarchy.
Shalimar
@Paul in KY: Or ever will be. People are flawed. Any society built by people will be flawed.
Bupalos
@iKropoclast: I agree with you here more than I disagree on the structural reality of our democratic decline. Though I find your rhetoric around Obama and the efforts he made in 2024 borderline silly.
Ishiyama
I had to go look it up, so that I know what I’m talking about, but three of Marx’s proposed programs were the graduated income tax, the abolishment of child labor, and free childhood education. Other parts were draconian.
Baud
@Ishiyama:
Hmm.
Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony
@Paul in KY: Most of them were on Twitter and are on Facebook. They definitely qualify as loud, very online leftists. The change started around the Michael Brown incident. They didn’t feel like the reporting from the news agencies was as accurate as tweets and videos from their friends and other fellow travelers. That’s when they started cutting out contrary information.
p.a.
Putin’s getting feisty with his next targets. CW is USicans don’t care about foreign policy, but I think (yes… with no evidence besides anecdote) all but the hardest of hard core MAGAts are Ukraine supporters, and when (no if) the rest of Eastern Europe is endangered, that’s another chit in the Dem’s hand. Can they shift public perception of the fraudulent immigrant threat into the real threat of the dissolution of NATO and tar (deservedly) the tRumpian Party with it, to effective political effect?
StringOnAStick
@Belafon: Another aspect of this use of stock as collateral for loans is how much instability it injects into the banking system. Musk has so much of the finance system’s money tied up in his companies that it’s dangerous. For example: Twitter, which will never be worth what he paid for it so someone is going to be left holding that bag. I recall that who ended up holding the bag for the 2008 collapse were all the pension funds that Goldman Sacks sold all those CDO’s to. I wonder who they have dumped their Elon crap on?
This also goes to the criticism we have read today about bailing out the banks after the 2008 crisis: countries do really really well (//s) when their banking system fails. Yes homeowners should have been made whole, but letting the US banking system collapse is going for a solution more akin to your average banana republic or Zimbabwe, and people would have revolted on every side of the political spectrum if our banking system (and currency) collapsed. Talk to any Argentinian national who lived through theirs; there is no longer an appreciable middle class in that country, just a few elites and a whole lot of people forced to be “natural serfs” or starve. This is where I finally told the accelerationist anarchist I knew to fuck off; his plan for the utopia that would finally emerge once we destroyed the Fed, the financial system and by extension, the US dollar was basically “yes, people will solve their issues with public governance that we are all deeply involved in”. Stupid as fuck, and completely lacking in any understanding of how humans function. Then he became a Men’s Rights advocate because one bad idea deserves another, right?
Melancholy Jaques
@suzanne:
The explanation – and I’m not saying that I agree with it so don’t @ me – is that the Democratic donor base and the leadership they pretty much select believe that the left side of the party is responsible for election losses. And they don’t mean the True Left that hates Democrats, though they hate them too. They mean the parts of the party that in these times are called progressive. Whenever we lose, that’s who gets the blame.
Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony
@iKropoclast: Comment 58
Bupalos
@schrodingers_cat: It didn’t quite win, but the campaign of Dan Osborn in Nebraska was really a shocking over-performance. And the Trump phenomena itself is a kind of spasm of anti-elitism even as it functionally feeds the oligarchy. Because it’s an anti-elitism specifically crafted for stupidity, anger, and malevolence.
But the reality is that this is an assertion that hasn’t really been politically fully tested, and we basically don’t really have the laboratory to do so. So much of politics in the United States in recent decades is dictated by polarized 2-party game theory dynamics and polarization that it’s hard to find data points. I think it’s fair to say though that in terms of policy preference, economic policy well to the left of where the Democratic Party has been seems to have a lot of resonance.
I mean, as you might think it would in the second most unequal developed economy in the world. The polling seems fairly clear that absence the question of being able to win the general, Bernie Saunders would have bested Clinton in the 2016 primary.
Melancholy Jaques
@iKropoclast:
Not any commandment or rule, but an observation, an empirical view: ragging on Democrats generally or a Democratic candidate specifically does not help to win elections & often contributes to losses.
Trivia Man
@suzanne: In 2016 i was able to put that in action. My state had an early primary and I happily chose Bernie. Then i moved. When my new state had their primary i gladly chose Hillary and worked to get her elected. The laying field shifted and so did my choice.
iKropoclast
Because “vote blue no matter who” was never a real principle. It was a rhetorical tool to shame people into voting for Democrats as elected Democrats continued to support shameful things.
It only works one way, to support the soft authoritarian core of the party. I’m surprised the good Professor who is always commenting about the “black, Jewish, and female led Democrats” hasn’t shown more recognition that Democrats only provide them these leadership roles if they conform to the culture and priorities set by the white men before them.
So, those items I mentioned upthread where I think Obama went wrong; yes, I recognize that the choices he made reflect the culture and that white people would be less accepting of perceived risky choices by a black politician, probably a lot of non-white people too. But that includes many white Democrats.
So, no, it’s not entirely Obama’s fault. But he still made those choices I described and they helped build what we are seeing today.
Which brings me to why should I support Democrats who won’t have a black President’s back for making tough calls or who, two months into BLM, decided it was better (more likely to produce political success) to score points against BLM than to make a serious reform effort? To start…
Matt McIrvin
@StringOnAStick:
If you read them, they’ll tell you that the D party cares more about tearing *them* down than about winning against fascists (which is why the Democrats don’t simply accede to their demands).
Baud
@Matt McIrvin:
That’s the same thing Republicans do. It’s a tactic.
ETA: At least Republicans are roughly equal in size to Dems.
Matt McIrvin
@Hoodie: Elon Musk could lose 99.999% of his wealth and still be richer than me, and I’m kind of rich.
Baud
@Matt McIrvin:
Only one way to find out.
Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony
@StringOnAStick: It does indeed. I wonder if there isn’t an element of not wanting to believe that they are partly responsible for the present and will have to make common cause with people they don’t like to have a future worth fighting for. I get that people are suffering and that we need a solution to the way corporations and private capital are raping and pillaging the country. However, any time you try to have a discussion about how we move forward, some obnoxious leftist comes in having an extended temper tantrum about how everyone except them sucks. Every single time. It is 100 times easier to engage with people who aren’t paying attention or who are right leaning, but not crazy, than it is to engage with people who are hellbent on believing things that are distortions of reality.
chemiclord
@Hoodie:
Marx was a brilliant economist and a shitty sociologist.
Belafon
@Bupalos: The last time we had a party rise up to become a major party, one of the other two (the Whigs) collapsed and disappeared. For whatever reason – and I believe the biggest is that our Constitution doesn’t actually address parties – we will be stuck with two major parties for a long time because you either win or you oppose the winner.
The Republican party is proof that racism, sexism, and a lot of other isms matter far more in this country than economics.
Baud
Donald Trump post, via Reddit. If this is real, what the hell time zone is his phone set to?
Shalimar
@Ishiyama: More than 2 of those 10 were excellent ideas. Obviously, what happened was significantly more complicated than can be summarized in 40 words, but I stand by what I said. We got a better society for awhile, and it was nothing like what Marx said it should be.
Interesting Name Goes Here
@Matt McIrvin: I don’t give a fuck what they say. I pay attention to what they do…and don’t do.
Like I said yesterday, the next time loud-and-proud progressives do something that benefits the country as a whole will be the first time that happens. They talk a lot of shit, but when it’s time to show their hands they disappear. The only power they have is in destruction.
Baud
@Belafon:
People who want to experiment with a multiparty system need to try it out at the state level. I’ve never seen any real movement to make that happen.
Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony
@Bupalos:
I’d be curious to see your source of that, because I don’t recall reading the same. I’ll add that if there was a male version of Hillary (had all the same policies and experience, except as first lady), I don’t think Sanders would have had a chance.
Matt McIrvin
@Melancholy Jaques:
As a generic white guy raised by Midwesterners but adjacent to Southerners in a Northern Virginia suburb, I’m pretty sure I GET it, I just disagree and loathe the attitude. Hear the strains of “Dixie” when it comes up.
Paul in KY
@Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony: That’s what Facebook (spit) does. It silos you and only shows you ‘news’ the algorithms think you will like. Of course, all news has ads, which are what they want you to see above all.
Baud
@Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony:
Bernie Saunders however would have cleaned up.
Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony
@Baud: The Green Party at the state level has been trying and failing to make this happen for decades now. The same with the libertarians and constitutional conservatives, etc. If a majority of Americans wanted a multiparty system, we would have one now.
Geminid
@Betty Cracker: I’ve noticed that Zohran Mamdani himself has not complained about Hakeem Jeffries’ non-endorsement. It’s other people who are flogging this controversy on his behalf, and I think that says more about them than about Hakeem Jeffries.
I don’t know Jeffries and cannot speak to his motives, but I can see one reason Dems are reluctant to endorse Zohran Mamdani, and that is his other party. I’m not as hostile to the Democratic Socialists of America as many here are, but I’ve read up on them enough to know they could be trouble, especially because of their foreign policy platform.
At least one of their caucuses is downright toxic politically, and according to reporting by two DSA members,* their biennial convention last month saw a shift to the Left by the new National Political Committee that governs it between conventions.
The DSA gives Mamdani a lot of latitude to stray from party orthodoxy, as they do fellow member Rep. Ocasio-Cortez. This has allowed them both to take more pragmatic lines since first elected as Congresswoman and Assemblyman.
But they’re still DSA members, and party policy attaches to them whether they like it or not. Other Democrats are wary of it attaching to *them,* and they want to keep the DSA at arm’s length which is harder to do when they’ve endorsed a DSA member.
So I expect Jeffries’ endorsement– if he makes one– to be qualified. That and the timing will keep him on some peoples’ shitlists, but he would be anyway because a lot of the agitation isn’t about holding Zohran Mamdani up, it’s about tearing Hakeem Jeffries down.
* Philip Loder and Stephen Kammele writing for International Viewpoint: “DSA’s 2025 National Convention: A New Chapter Opens Up For The Socialist Movement.”
internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article9126
The article is long and makes this comment look terse. But I wasn’t surprised when I found that it was excerpted from an even longer one available on pdf. These people love to write.
Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony
@Baud: No. Baudie Sanders would have cleaned up, but he just didn’t get his act together to really compete.
iKropoclast
It’s that Democrats would rather chase the votes of white racists than those of a less cohesive group with no institutional support and ideas all over the map in terms of usefulness and tested appeal. Reviewing outside counsel and trying to figure out ways to get workers more autonomy is a lot of intellectual work that is better spent asking millionaires for checks.
Most Democrats, historically, would rather attempt to soothe the frail feelings of white racists than so much as consider anything that might lessen the power of the investor class that mostly supports their political operations, a group which includes many white racists and others who managed to thrive in an environment dominated by white racists.
Soothing the fears of white racists was one of the most repeated arguments to support Biden in 2020. The second edge on that “donor class” sword is a bastard, ain’t it, Joe?
So, of course Democrats accommodate a little racism here and there. Racists’ needs are easier and institutions have long set up to reward anyone who plays ball.
Matt McIrvin
@Baud: Maine’s move to RCV was in part an attempt to make their political system less vulnerable to breaking because of independent/third-party runs (which happen a LOT there). Unfortunately there was a constitutional barrier to making it apply where it mattered the most, the governorship.
But the minor third-party left types often specifically WANT to cause damage to the Democrats, so they may well strategically vote so that no such fixes help.
Paul in KY
@Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony: I read somewhere that the GQP has a warehouse of Bernie-oppo ready for use. They never deployed any of it, as they were hoping he would be our general election candidate.
Melancholy Jaques
@Bupalos:
A lot of resonance is a pretty vague estimation of size. One thing we know for sure, it isn’t large enough to win national elections. It doesn’t even win primaries very often.
Somehow we Democrats have not been able to convince enough people that their votes will determine policy outcomes over the long term.
Remember the commenter here who insisted we couldn’t do anything until we got rid of religion? I’m afraid I am going to sound just like that when I say that until we can convince most white people to vote based on their policy preferences rather than their white tribal identity, we ain’t goin’ nowhere.
suzanne
@Melancholy Jaques: I understand that that is an explanation, but there is no evidence/data that that is true. That is feelings and scapegoating. That is mistaking online drama for real life. All evidence that I have seen indicates that Dems are losing non-college-educated white people by a lot, and we used to win the working class vote. We saw erosion with men of all races. These are not strongly progressive voting cohorts. Meanwhile, college-educated people have become more socially progressive in the last few elections…. and that cohort used to be Republican and is now pretty firmly Democratic.
On the state level, Harris lost Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Georgia. Not states that have ever been regarded as progressive strongholds.
Paul in KY
@iKropoclast: We shouldn’t have to ‘chase their votes’ at the national level, for God’s sake! The alternative would like them in camps (if they had their fever dreams made real)! We are by far the closest to their positions. Why the fuck should we have to waste time and resources wooing them?!?!
Joey Maloney
@Jeffg166: It would require another constitutional amendment repealing the 22nd amendment then it would require 3/4 of the states ratifying it.
Or one unsigned 6-3 Supreme Court opinion
chemiclord
@Belafon:
It really doesn’t matter how you get there. Any political system will eventually boil down to a majority coalition and a minority opposition.
Paul in KY
@suzanne: Michigan was always strongly pro-union (back in the good ole days).
Professor Bigfoot
@iKropoclast: I’m not arguing with you about whether “socialism” doesn’t bring good things with it, I’m arguing that you’re not listening to anyone for whom the word means something other than what you mean.
It’s a typically white male thing to believe that only your understanding is correct and you’ve no need to listen to anyone else’s interpretation, but that’s what it is.
Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony
@Paul in KY: I heard there were 2 warehouses full of !Baud20xx! oppo research out there, too. However, they mysteriously burned down.
Melancholy Jaques
@Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony:
Completely agree. And I would add that in addition to the reluctance of people to vote for a woman, the political media hate Hillary Clinton. They promoted and protected Sanders the entire campaign, including continuing to use his smears against Clinton through the general election.
If Sanders had been running against anyone else, the political media would have savaged him as a socialist fringe character whose ideas were not only impractical but dangerous.
Archon
@Belafon: We have about a 200 year sample size that shows the majority of white Americans are not interested in racially broad-based economic and political prosperity.
Matt McIrvin
@Interesting Name Goes Here: The other thing I see a lot of online is bashing of US liberals by leftists who aren’t actually in the United States, often displaying odd misunderstandings about our political system: sort of reasoning as if the US were a heavily centralized parliamentary system where we could force coalitional shifts by voting for small Green or Marxist parties and the only reason we don’t is stupidity.
Lots of “let’s you and him fight” tough-guy talk too.
Belafon
@suzanne: We also had the audacity to think a woman could be elected president. That’s the sexism equivalent of Prof’s maxim about white people’s attitudes on race.
suzanne
@Paul in KY: Yeah, PA is pro-union, too. Doesn’t mean it’s socially progressive at all. We have discussed here ad nauseum about many white union members supporting Trump, even if their unions endorsed Harris. Much of the white working class is socially conservative and they vote like it.
Belafon
@Melancholy Jaques: See 2020.
Professor Bigfoot
@Baud: EXACTLY.
I’m not arguing that the effects of what you and I and The Formerly Audacious One think the word means when we are trying to get the votes of people for whom the word means *secret police and a loss of freedom.*
Folks talk about “messaging” all the time and here is an example of something that might resonate with white people (who aren;’t gonna vote for the Party of Negroes and Jews any damn way) will dissuade the immigrants and brown people we need in order to win.
But if one INSISTS on never listening to any of those voices and dismissing them as being “uninformed and unimportant,” well, you get what you pay for.
And I will note for the record that it’s a very American white male attitude to take.
suzanne
@Belafon: Joan Williams’ book White Working Class is illuminating on this. This cohort is, by and large, not socially progressive. They’re economically populist, fairly socially conservative (far more likely to attend right-wing-y megachurches), and they have fallen away from the Dems as the Dems have been more outspoken and supportive of minorities, immigrants, LGBTQ people, and abortion.
Melancholy Jaques
@Matt McIrvin:
I’ve certainly seen & heard it my whole life, I just don’t get where it comes from or why they are so fucking angry.
And I mean when they are really angry about stupid shit like Bud Light giving a can of beer to a transgender person who most of them had never heard of until someone told them about the beer can.
Melancholy Jaques
@Paul in KY:
They didn’t really need that. Socialist & Jewish would have done the trick.
Melancholy Jaques
@suzanne:
That’ll happen when our candidate is a woman
Archon
@Melancholy Jaques: Calling someone a socialist doesn’t hit as hard as it used to. The problem is nor does calling someone a fascist.
Professor Bigfoot
@Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony: #NotAllWhiteMen, but definitely some.
iKropoclast
@Professor Bigfoot: I didn’t offer any value judgment on socialism there, I simply defined it. It is a word with a definition.
So, in a situation like you described I would likely engage my interlocutor on the relative merits of what they were actually arguing, likely that government shouldn’t be scooping up all the money and doing all these things.
As a fan of local control, I actually tend to agree with that statement overall. But it has little to nothing to do with socialism. And yes, I would point that out. But it would not be the focus of the conversation unless whoever else wants to argue with the dictionary.
I do, in fact, listen to others. That doesn’t oblige me to agree or even esteem their opinion very highly. If someone wants to tell me the two plus two is five or that the sky is a brilliant neon pink every day at high noon, I’ll hear them out. But that’s it. And if they don’t do me the courtesy of listening in kind, you can bet I’ll have to consider that before choosing to engage them again.
This shit needs to be reciprocal.
Paul in KY
@Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony: Strange how that happened. Supposedly a ring camera showed a shadowy figure running away from scene. They surmise he/she had on very short shorts…
Belafon
@suzanne: And it’ll be something we’ll have to contend with as long as these whites believe that black men, women, immigrants, and LGBTQ are such a threat that they’d rather their children die than treat others as socially equal. Because we already have a party that doesn’t attempt to protect those groups. And I don’t have an answer, because, at the end of the day, economic concerns for these people are not the most important thing. No amount of investment will actually get through to them.
Paul in KY
@suzanne: Sure did this past election.
Bupalos
@Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony: I suppose the way I’ve phrased that is glib enough to be likely just wrong. I’d have to think about how to tighten it up but really my claim is that if you separated out policy priorities, Bernie’s polled marginally ahead of Clinton’s among Democratic primary voters.
As you would expect. She started as a very strong frontrunner, which meant she should be tacking right of her party with an eye to the general election early on
She maintained a perception of greater electability in a general with Democratic primary voters throughout the contest (despite polls not really showing that electability advantage that Democratic primary voters perceived), and I think that is a big reason the southern Democratic establishment stuck with her and functionally ended the primary around Super2.
Matt McIrvin
@Melancholy Jaques: These are people who feel, rightly or wrongly, that the only leg up they have in life is that some aspect of their identity– being white, being male or straight, whatever–makes them innately better than other people. That if they didn’t have that, they’d be on the absolute bottom.
Or that the privileges they already have depend on that and if it goes away, they’re going to be persecuted like their kind persecuted others.
They don’t believe that freedom and equality are even possible in the abstract. On some level they don’t even understand these ideas. There’s always a hierarchy, someone is on top and someone is on the bottom, and if you’re not one you’re the other. “Freedom” to them means “my kind are on top”.
So they are terrified whenever anything threatens the hierarchy.
Professor Bigfoot
It always depresses me the number of white people who believe the OBVIOUSLY white male Christian supremacist GOP is “just as bad” as the Black and Jewish and female led Democrats.
They usually block me when I point this out to them.
Geminid
@Paul in KY: I did my own oppo research on Bernie Sanders during the runup to the 2020 primaries, and I can confirm that Republican would have plenty to throw at him, in 2016 or 2020. The period before he became Mayor of Burlington at age 40 was particularly full of good lines of attack. I could just see Karl Rove licking his chops.
Paul in KY
@Matt McIrvin: LBJ talked about them many years ago. Agree with what you (and LBJ) said.
iKropoclast
Yes.
Uh, no.
There’s a disparity in how the media treats D primary candidates and nominees. They support the safest establishment candidate then rip down the D nominee, even if they were that same safe establishment candidate they were supporting five minutes earlier.
They play the authoritarians among the Democrats against the rest of us before they play us all outright. Again and again. But the authoritarians never learn.
Paul in KY
@Geminid: Have heard about some of his writings from that era and if true, they would have hammered the shit out of him.
suzanne
@Belafon:
YUP.
This idea that progressives are why Dems lost is just not in evidence. We have invited the economically populist/socially conservative white working class to join the coalition, and they have left as we have gotten more progressive. Biden spent a bunch of political capital on them and that still wasn’t enough, because they are seduced by the siren call of white patriarchy. The bleeding is on the right side of the party, not the left. They will put aside their economic interests to vote for their social interests.
Now, I will absolutely grant that much of the progressive left is personally annoying. LOL.
Bupalos
@Matt McIrvin: This is one of the under appreciated dynamics and inheritances of America’s racist history. The profound mistreatment of the bottom rungs of society makes those nearing the bottom more desperately reactionary than those nearing the top.
iKropoclast
Formerly? You’ve seen my new nym, right? I don’t care about your icons, your shibboleths, and your pieties. And if they’re harmful, I’m here to denounce them
ETA: For the record, I like our talks. You do a better job of engaging ideas you don’t necessarily agree with better than most.
Matt McIrvin
@Paul in KY: King made similar remarks. About Jim Crow being the “psychological bird” that poor whites could get fed in lieu of a real one you could eat.
But I will add, a lot of these people today aren’t even poor. They’re just socially insecure, convinced that their status is going to fall catastrophically if people unlike themselves are allowed to make it.
Professor Bigfoot
@Paul in KY: When, really, I’d bet money all she has to do is give him the look… XD
”…awww, ‘Chelle, you know I’m just playin’…”
CCL
@Matt McIrvin: Yes. Nicely put.
Geminid
@Paul in KY: Some of Sanders’ writings were bad enough, but there was conduct as bad or worse. The Republicans would have buried him.
columbusqueen
@iKropoclast: You really love pissing on rugs, don’t you?
iKropoclast
@columbusqueen: I like pointing out the truth, preferably in ironic fashion. It works better when you make them think about it and arrive at the conclusion you’re getting that on their own.
columbusqueen
@Geminid: Exactly. Bernie as our standard bearer in ’16 would have been a monumental clusterfuck. He & Jane have a lot of shady dealings they’ve managed to get away with, but a national campaign would nuke him.
columbusqueen
@iKropoclast: Think so, huh? I think you’re a rude little prick who fancies he’s smarter than everyone else here. I don’t find that an endearing attitude.
Paul in KY
@Professor Bigfoot: I bet Mrs. Obama has a look that would shiver your timbers!
iKropoclast
I think nothing of the sort. Also, putting words in others’ mouths is among the last refuges of scoundrels.
Whatever gets you to believing I don’t have a right to an opinion, I guess.
Ruckus
@Jackie:
That long…….
@bbleh:
First, we all age at different ages and speeds. shitforbrains has aged out, first because he worships his own self and is worshiping a pathetic old fart who doesn’t want to lead he wants to own. And he doesn’t know how to do either.
Joey Maloney
What I’ve never understood is why the 2008 bailout couldn’t have passed through the people’s hands before it was handed to the banksters. Give the money to the mortgagees to pay off the predatory loans they stupidly took out. They turn around and give it to the banks. The banks still get all the money in the end but now we don’t have millions of people losing their homes.
Ruckus
@Paul in KY:
I saw a picture once that says – SHE DOES.
iKropoclast
@Joey Maloney: People need to make good decisions. Banks need to be protected.
Elie
@Ohio Mom:
Professor Bigfoot
@iKropoclast: Ah, so you’re not interested in getting the votes of those people all that much; since you’re unwilling to accept that THEIR definition of “socialism,” however mistaken according to whatever dictionary you might use as evidence, means authoritarianism and economic collapse to THEM.
So you can be correct… but you will lose their votes.
Ruckus
@Professor Bigfoot:
They usually block me when I point this out to them.
Lucky you.
I sometimes wonder if they were given every single clue would they ever learn a damn thing. Over time I’ve pretty much gotten the answer that no, they wouldn’t. Because they do not want to learn, because they know everything. Just ask them. Oh wait you don’t have to ask…..
Interesting Name Goes Here
@Geminid: Some days I wish Bernie had gotten his big moment so the inevitable augering into the ground at Mach Jesus would have put this bullshit to bed for at least a generation.
Professor Bigfoot
@iKropoclast:
Also for the record— likewise.
iKropoclast
Getting their votes? I’m not running for office nor is any socialist of note anywhere that I’m voting.
No. These conversations are typically among friends and colleagues. I’m just sharing ideas. If the listening process works in a good, reciprocal way; these conversations tend to go fairly well regardless of relative agreement on positions.
So, in this halfway- theoretical discussion that has actually happened in a few forms we may discuss scale and role of government. We may share ideas on rights and affordability. If we actually get into the socialism thing, we might even discuss the role of ownership and how it confers power to the individual.
If I’m lucky, they might register that socialism isn’t what they think it is. Here I should probably acknowledge that I do know what the typical view of socialism is, having had it driven into my skull by official society for my entire life. An even greater hope is that they recognize that this particular socialist doesn’t want government dictating all of life, but rather wants people to actually get a livelihood at work, for peaceful people to have the freedom to do as they please, and to have their and their colleagues and their communities needs to have a fighting chance against the Almighty dollar.
It might not change their mind on role or scope of government. We might even agree on the matter more than the initial terms of the proposed discussion night suggest. But if it gets them to be even a tiny bit skeptical when a politician pulls out “socialist” as a bogeyman for “government does stuff,” I believe that’s a good thing.
Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony
@Paul in KY: Indeed.
iKropoclast
@Professor Bigfoot: I appreciate that.
Professor Bigfoot
@Paul in KY: She’s a mom, ain’t she? 🤣
Ruckus
@bluefoot:
I think there is a bit more to it. We have been growing as a country and humanity as a whole seems to be somewhat doing the same.
The communications that we have, like what we are doing here, now has made a difference. Now of course the side of burn it all down other than my bank accounts will never accept the concept that they’ve been making it worse. But they know that if they burn it all down they will suffer as well. OK maybe not all of them get that but more than a few do or at least seem to.
We humans are at a crossroads in history. We see more than we’ve ever been capable of. We have a way to discuss it across boundaries of space and time, what we are doing here. We’ve gotten to the point where whatever is wrong or right can and will be shown and that can be without the premise of corporate communications. That can change the world and it can change how and where business is done. This blog has the history and the commenters of a lot of the sides in the US. And elsewhere. Most walks of life, money and power. Not the entire block of any one group but a least a possible loud voice. We can discuss openly the legal and political sides of issues across the entire nation. This concept is an infant in political time and has growth potential. And one primary reason is that we don’t limit the discussion, more than at a safety level.
iKropoclast
Twice over, if the official narrative is to be believed…
ETA; If it wasn’t clear to some, I’m just goofing on this one. Not you, Professor, but misapprehensions about me run wild here.
lowtechcyclist
@Elizabelle:
This.
But with a bit more detail.
What’s killed us isn’t people paying less attention than people have always done, it’s the absence of the prior restraints on propaganda.
I grew up in a world with three or four channels of commercial TV plus PBS, AM and FM radio. Even when UHF came along, that eventually added maybe another eight or ten channels to the picture.
All of them were covered by the Fairness Doctrine, the FCC rule that if a TV or radio station took sides on an issue, they had to give time to opposing viewpoints. (Not equal time – that only applied to political advertising. But enough time that there was a disincentive to taking sides and stands.)
Two things came along that changed that. One was cable TV. The regulators at the FCC, and presumably the members of Congress exercising oversight, saw the need to regulate free speech on TV as one of scarcity, and they assumed that if there were suddenly dozens and dozens of TV channels, then there would be sufficient room that all major viewpoints would be adequately represented. So cable TV was outside the Fairness Doctrine from the get-go.
The second was whatever combination of the Reagan Administration and the Supreme Court killing off the Fairness Doctrine even for broadcast TV and radio. This happened somewhere around 1986 and 1987. And Rush Limbaugh took full advantage of that – it turned out, because people tried, that the radio stations carrying Rush could refuse to take paid ads expressing contradictory viewpoints, so nothing could pierce his bubble.
And Murdoch saw what Rush was doing, and figured it would work on TV as well, hence Fox News.
Those were the two biggies, but other things happened along the way that reinforced them. 50 years ago, no one entity could own more than seven TV stations and seven radio stations, and no more than one of each in a given media market. That limitation bit the dust long ago. And the Reagan years enabled the rise of the billionaire class so that you could have one person buying up all sorts of TV stations, hence Sinclair Broadcasting.
I don’t know how we stuff all these malevolent genies back into a bottle. I suspect little will be possible until we tax the hell out of the mega-rich to bring them down closer to our level and make the battle more even.
iKropoclast
I hear the rich taste excellent braised with an appropriate dry rub and baste.
Ruckus
@iKropoclast:
It isn’t the name it’s how it’s ended up over time. In a country where equality really is supposed to have zero concept of your monetary value but the fact that you are a human and if you actually act like a reasonable one you have rational, reasonable freedom. But if you act like everything is yours and you own everyone and everything they own that really isn’t the message of this country or this blog.
IOW every situation within humanity has limits or the shitheads will take everything, including your life. In the long run it very likely won’t work out well for them but it won’t for a lot of normal folks either.
We do have to understand that as a population grows, so does the number of assholes. And I don’t mean the exit port I mean the attitude and concepts many have for life, at least their own over others. And we should never forget that survival of the fittest can be understood in many ways. Some of those ways are not at all good.
columbusqueen
@iKropoclast: Claiming you’re not full of contempt while pouring it out isn’t the flex you think it is. Go eat a bag of salty dicks, sonny.
iKropoclast
But which way it ended up over time? It has implemented in a few ways. My primary argument is in favor of simply more worker say in businesses. It’s their community and their work is what makes these organizations thrive. Unionization is one means to that end and large-scale unionization produced the greatest distribution of wealth our nation has ever seen.
As far as state implementations of socialism, those vary. Are we talking generous public services or totalitarianism? Here, I think it’s important for people to listen to one another and especially actually named candidates. Despite what people would have you believe, politicians tend to tell you what they plan to do.
Really, I can think of a few things the government can do that will require very little of it and a few others that require more but address concerns that deregulation seek to address in all the wrong ways. For the former, things like arranging unemployment to cover strikes so people aren’t forced into desperation if they stand as a group against their workplace. Or taking workers’ concerns seriously when inserting the government into a labor dispute (Biden’s admin was actually great at this one, alas). Some of the bigger interventions I’d view might include taking environmental surveys that prospective business owners might have to pay for unto itself. The biggest thing the deregulation push claims to address are the expenses of red tape like licensing and environmental surveys. If the government did these, the cost would be more distributed than having prospective owners pay ad hoc and we’d have better information generally available about what land resources are useful for what purposes and the limits on how they can be sustainably used.
Those are just two ideas. Nothing grand or totalitarian. I don’t necessarily expect they get picked up or that they’re perfect as conceived. Others I have may be more or less useful. But I’m sure there are useful bits in there.
I would like to see more recognition of these useful bits, from others if not myself, among the political class, but they persist in asking voters to shut off their brains if they hear or suspect “socialism.”
This brings me to “a fit population doesn’t shit in its own nest. Usually.”
iKropoclast
@columbusqueen: More with the ascribing attitudes and thoughts to others. Feels like projection.
Ruckus
@lowtechcyclist:
They have the money and the numbers of humans with money. And when I say money, I mean a lot of zeros on the left side of the decimal point. Now money can and does buy humans. It may be their money but if it buys their attitude towards them being above everyone else with less, rather than or inclusive with physical items, that ain’t good. Now I used to work in professional sports and a lot of the upper level/direct supporters had not just money but MONEY. And MONEY is what buys things, sometimes including humans. More often if the price is right. Money makes the world go round. Now you don’t need an armored car to haul around your wealth if you actually have some but that’s the level that more than a few Americans have. I know, I used to work full time in professional motor racing. I have, rarely, had someone talk down to me in ways of trying to be controlling, their only problem was that I remember a lot of things rather well and getting a 15-20 minute lecture on how shitty a person I am and how basically I had to turn my head to anything going on with his personal participant. No direct speech to that end but the words given did not really have any other meaning. What he didn’t know/understand was after his first sentence my entire being towards him and his participant was 1000% negative. His every threatening me word, none of which was direct, was supposed to scare me. It took everything in my power not to laugh at him. He got exactly the opposite response to what he was telling me I HAD TO DO. Never saw him again. I believe he told the highest level person on the team what he’d done. Not exactly the smartest thing, because the person he likely told knew me well and for years. At least I got a good laugh out of it.
Ruckus
@lowtechcyclist:
We do, at least on paper, tax them well. The problem is that owning a corporation and handling all the money is often not the same person. There can be level after level of control of the corporation and the money. Sure the person that owns the big chunk is wealthy but there are often layers and layers of corporations between the big money and the person, which can take a lot of effort to find the end controlling person, which means that person can live very, very well and pay, relatively to many people not much at all, or at least a reasonable amount to the taxed person. Also they have the MONEY and various ways to pay congress people that end up with power but not MONEY, and get what they want. No matter if we like it or not, MONEY talks and often gets the answers it wants.
Ruckus
@columbusqueen:
I like it when the “truth” is shown the menu.
goatmando
Former OFA phonebanker and canvasser here.
I have to comment on this because it’s so depressing and pathetic to see Obama– who once understood organizing and grassroots so well as to have been elected twice– become so clueless and out of touch. He’s been hanging around too many rich people for too long.
Rich people and corporations have always been cowardly. They didn’t lead the BLM movements. They jumped on the BLM and DEI bandwagon not out of altruism or vision or courage, but out of cowardice and fear, because people were out in the streets setting their businesses and police stations on fire and it scared them to death.
BLM was a grassroots movement. The people led, and the rich and corporations followed, relucantly, and out of some combination of guilt and shame and mainly out of sheer terror.
iKropoclast
@Ruckus: Is truth not on the menu here? Explains a lot…
columbusqueen
@iKropoclast: It’s not the opinions, asshole, it’s the condescending attitude. If anyone keeps projecting, it’s you. Lecturing others from a superior posture is obnoxious. Just stop for once & try a little humility for a change of pace.
columbusqueen
@iKropoclast: It’s not the opinions, asshole, it’s the condescending attitude. If anyone keeps projecting, it’s you. Lecturing others from a superior posture is obnoxious. Just stop for once & try a little humility for a change of pace.
iKropoclast
@columbusqueen: I do just fine here, including with people who disagree with me. If they engage earnestly, so do I. There are several people here I don’t often agree with, but who don’t fly into a deranged frenzy whenever I post.
I never called anyone stupid or inferior or morally deficient. I criticized specific decisions and had a nice healthy discussion about ideals. If that makes you feel stupid or morally inferior, maybe that reflects a conversation you need to have with yourself. I’m not here to coddle others, I’d wager you can sympathize there ::eyes our prior discussion::.
Bupalos
@Melancholy Jaques: It actually happened in 2020 as well. It’s a trend that has to do with party narratives and signaling that goes beyond candidate identities at this point.
On a more positive note, young men are currently discovering to their surprise that they actually hate Donald Trump. This is going to be a theme for the next decade or two- an ever growing number of people on bad trajectories are going to reflexively vote for the change agent and vote out the representative of the status quo every single election. There’s going to be a large and growing incumbency penalty. This is simple math on a planet where life is going to generally get worse for the vast majority of people. Just like it was simple math that there was an incumbency advantage on a planet where life was getting better.
Of course, this only matters if there are still free and fair elections. Which the oligarchy is working overtime to make sure isn’t the case.
Gvg
@Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony: no Florida is not blue because of American retirees and business transplants who came for the weather and the No state income tax. Specifically they were fleeing the way things were done in more northern states. Immigration from outside the country is still a smaller percent and those don’t gain the right to vote/citizenship for quite some time if ever. They are noticeable because of language, but they came after the vote change. Florida voted democrat when it was southern Dixiecrat. It started losing that when the white racists changed to republican and went back and forth. It flirted with being truly what we would call blue briefly because of urban growth but can’t quite manage it because we don’t have enough of a crop of good democrats and the local party is a mess. I should mention that a bunch of the old democrats are crooks, sometimes convicted, but re-elected because of a shortage of better democrats who know how to run a campaign. This includes a lot of black politicians here. They have to sit out a cycle or two while the voters try alternatives and then give up and go back to the old guys. The new hopes, if they do get elected also have turned out to be unreliable votes for what people wanted. Yes the republicans are also crooks and worse but this doesn’t help grow better voters.
Scamp Dog
@iKropoclast: The effective definition of socialism, the way that real-life conservatives use the term, is any cooperation between people outside of a private corporation, the military, law enforcement, or a suitably conservative church.
Obama was a socialist, they howled! But he didn’t nationalize healthcare, he set up a scheme that used private sector insurers. He didn’t covert GM into a government-run institution, he bailed it out and put it back into private hands.
WaterGirl
@goatmando: I’m sorry I didn’t see this in real time so I could have released it from moderation when the thread was still active.
I found it disappointing that he didn’t talk about the value of organizing and encourage people to get involved with existing groups or make new ones.
I do think he alluded to the fact that the businesses got on board with BLM and DEI because when it was popular and now their attitude is, meh, who cares, right?
I assume your comment went into moderation because it was your first comment. I hope to see you comment again.
I was very active with the Obama campaign in 2007-2008. I was so bummed when they took down their blog after the election instead of keeping that great community of activists.