@mistermix.bsky.social

A while back, I posted about Michel Podhorzer’s election analysis showing that Harris’ loss was driven by stay-at-home anti-MAGA voters who sat on their couches rather than voting.  Now another analyst, Eric Levitz at Vox, disputes three of Podhorzer’s conclusions:

1) Voters who backed Biden in 2020 — and then stayed home in 2024 — are not necessarily resolutely anti-Trump.

Podhorzer’s argument assumes that Biden voters who stayed home in 2024 could not have done so out of sympathy for any of Trump’s messages. But there’s little basis for that assumption. Low-propensity voters are less ideological than reliable ones, and voters often choose to sit out elections because they are conflicted, agreeing with some of what each party has to say. There’s reason to think that this dynamic drove part of the Democrats’ turnout problem in 2024: Both polling and geographical voting patterns indicate that low-propensity voters became more Republican-leaning during the Biden era.

2) Young, first-time voters turned against the Democratic Party.

The electorate’s youngest voters appear to have been far more right-wing in 2024 than in 2020. This is not a problem that can be attributed to mobilization. Republicans seem to have simply had greater success in appealing to first-time voters last year than they have for a long time.

3) In the Biden era, American voters did become more conservative in some of their values and priorities.

Contrary to Podhorzer’s suggestion, there is considerable evidence that voters grew more right-wing in their attitudes toward immigration and criminal justice and more likely to prioritize those issues. Meanwhile, the electorate also grew more confident in the GOP’s economic judgement.

Since I posted  about the Podhorzer piece, I thought I’d also post a piece that pushes back a bit on his conclusions.  That said, Podhorzer’s piece is more numbers-driven (relying more on real turnout data), and Levitz’ piece is more polls driven (relying on both pre-election surveys and exit polls).  The best case he makes is for (2) since it also relies on registration data (specifically in North Carolina).  He also thinks that Democrats don’t necessarily need to moderate their positions on crime and immigration (since they already have) and that they should avoid over-reaction (such as what’s happening with the Laken Riley act.)

Finally, I think the main conclusion that I’ve come to in reading the serious post-election pieces (by which I mean those that use real numbers to back their arguments) is that a tight election like this one is open to a lot of different interpretations that seem plausible depending on which numbers you pick.

Contra PodhorzerPost + Comments (125)

I listened to a couple of (new to me) podcasts in the gym today and thought they were both good:

Boom! Lawyered is from the Rewire News Group, and hosted by Imani Gandy (Angry Black Lady) and Jessica Mason Pieklo.  This week’s episode was on the possible PornHub ban.  What I’ve always liked about ABL is that she’s a lawyer who understands power politics, lawfare or whatever other term you want to use for the intersection of law and politics.  So, she and her co-host examined the vagueness of the Texas law at issue here, and the possibility that it will be used to shield “the children” from things like sex education, as well as from porn.

Greg Sargent’s new-ish podcast is called “The Daily Blast” and his episode interviewing Paul Krugman was good.  Since there was some discussion of the Laken Riley bill in the comments, here’s his take on that horrible piece of legislation.

Of course, the Josh Marshall podcast is another must-listen in my book, and the Progress Pondcast with Martin Longman and Brendan Skwire is also a good listen.  (That’s a Spotify link for the Pondcast, but it’s available on all the platforms.)

If you have recommendations, please put them in the comments.  Also, Kay mentioned that she’s enjoying the content aimed at normie Dems at TikTok and mentioned Hope Walz and Michelle Obama.  If you have recommendations for that platform, let’s hear them.  I think TikTok is going to be around for at least the weekend, but probably much longer.

(Thanks for Betty for reminding me to post about Rose’s Books of All Time podcast.  My wife and I recently listened to the Aesop’s Fables episode which was quite good.)

Podcasts and SuchPost + Comments (39)

Got to the gym later than usual this morning, and who did I see but South Dakota ex-Governor Kristi Noem, Trump’s nominee for Homeland Security, testifying at her confirmation hearing.

I don’t think many tears were shed over the loss of Kristi by (certainly) South Dakota Democrats and even a fair number of Republicans.  She was a always angling for attention on right wing media, building a TV studio at taxpayer expense so she could do more TV hits, trying to get her faildaughter a real-estate appraisers license even though daughter Kassidy couldn’t pass certification, and insisting on having fireworks shows at Mount Rushmore despite fire danger, so she could bring Trump into the state for a big show.

Kristi is a show horse not a work horse, so my question, as with the other shitty Trump nominees, is who the other political appointees are going to be at Homeland Security, since they’ll be the ones in charge of pushing that gigantic bureaucracy to do what Daddy wants.  In the case of ICE, however, she’s going to find some very willing allies for the supposed mass deportation that’s coming.

Anyway, Kristi is pretty lucky that Trump’s other nominees are a crazy anti-vaxxer, and an (alleged) rapist, in addition to being incompetent.  She’s just incompetent, so she’ll get through without any major issues.

Show PonyPost + Comments (102)

Trump is going into office instead of prison because of one bad hire, and he’ll have two popular things to brag about because of another bad hire and a bad decision.

Let’s start with Normy McNormerson and his slavish devotion to the norms surrounding the rule of law.  This is from Garland’s farewell address:

We must understand that there is a difference between what we can do — and what we should do.

That is where our norms come in.

[…]

Our norms are a promise to treat like cases alike — that we will not have one rule for the powerful and another for the powerless, one rule for friends and another for foes.  [ed: LMFAO with tears in my eyes.] […]

Those norms include our commitment to guaranteeing the independence of the Justice Department from both the White House and the Congress concerning law enforcement investigations and prosecutions.

“Norms” occurs ten times in that speech.  This is like the Captain of the Titanic giving a farewell address on the bridge after the collision, explaining that the White Star line must always be on time, he was right to go as fast as possible through a sea full of icebergs, and that the ocean isn’t as cold as it looks.

Second, Trump is going to take credit for the ceasefire in Gaza and he’s going to spin it as Bibi being scared that Trump will actually do something, unlike Biden.  I’m sorry to report that that explanation will be well-received, because Bibi sure showed that he wasn’t scared of Biden, as this ProPublica piece shows:

• Empty Threats: Since Oct. 7, 2023, Biden has repeatedly issued threats that Israel ignored. U.S. officials tried to enforce consequences — but they couldn’t.
• Internal Dissent: The State Department disregarded its own experts and cracked down on leaks. Some human rights officials said they were prevented from pursuing evidence of Israeli abuses.
• Costs of Inaction: Experts say Biden’s failure to follow through led to impunity for widespread human rights abuses, including blocking aid deliveries, even after explicit U.S. warnings.

Blinken was another bad hire, though this one might be more on Biden, and he’s certainly getting the blame.

Finally, here’s the thing that’s really going to get Trump some good press:  he’s going to stop the TikTok ban and work out some deal to “sell” TikTok’s owner to a US company.  Let’s remember who wanted that ban:  174 Democrats and 186 Republicans in the House, including Pelosi, Jeffries and some other local heroes.  Of course the Progressive caucus and a few other House members with brains (e.g., Andy Kim) got it right, as usual, and opposed it.  Then, in the Senate, only Voldemort, Merkley and Welch opposed it from the Democratic side.  Yesterday, Schumer went to the floor to beg for an extension of the ban he voted for.  (That link goes to a press release from Senate Democrats, insert mordant chuckle here)  And even though the ban should happen on Sunday, Biden says he won’t enforce the ban he signed.  As he shouldn’t, because if you’re going to ban foreign influence from social media companies, you need to look at US companies, too, but we won’t, because money.  (John Oliver has a good, evenhanded overview of the TikTok stuff that ends up with that conclusion.)

My view of losing is that you need to figure out what went wrong and not do it again.  Hiring a DC insider for AG who didn’t get the job done, looking like Bibi Netanyahu led you around on a leash, and supporting a dumb ban of a service that is very popular with younger voters (who should be our voters) are three big mistakes.  The first led to Trump even being eligible to run.  The second gives Trump a “win” that he’ll be happy to claim as he and Bibi hold each other in multiple warm, loving embraces.  And, yeah, Trump supported the third (TikTok ban), but just like Chuck Schumer, he sees that it’s unpopular now, so he’ll be more than happy to do exactly what Schumer is doing, which is to reverse his bad decision, and do something that will be very popular.

These are three things we need to sear into our minds and demand better from the next set of Dems who ask for our vote, if elections still exist in 2026 and beyond.

Three Things to Remember for Next Time (If There is One)Post + Comments (213)

Zuckerberg is getting a lot of press about this comment on the Joe Rogan show:

“I think a lot of the corporate world is pretty culturally neutered. Masculine energy is good, and obviously, society has plenty of that, but I think corporate culture was really trying to get away from it,” Zuckerberg told Rogan. “I think having a culture that celebrates the aggression a bit more has its own merits that are really positive.”

Zuckerberg said he is surrounded by women as a father of three daughters and a brother to three sisters. In his view, his recent passion for martial arts has “turned on a part of [his] brain that… should have been there.”

I wonder if anabolic steroids helped turn on that part of his brain — masculinity fetishists sure seem to like their ‘roids.  And, yeah, this fucker is headed for a divorce, if he’s not there already.  As I’ve remarked on BlueSky, hopefully his wife, Priscilla Chan, will be another Mackenzie Scott (Bezos) and give most of her half of the community property away.  She’s a pediatrician so maybe she’s got the common sense he so clearly lacks.

The view of masculinity that these clowns cling to (I hunt, I do MMA, blah blah blah) is mostly performative, and they come off like giant posers.  I wonder what their hunting guides and MMA coaches say about them behind their backs.

Anyway, speaking of masculine energy, my wife and I got sucked into Landman and watched it, even though the “masculine energy” portrayed there is pretty shallow.  This is the new Taylor Sheridan drama, set in the oil fields around Midland/Odessa, Texas.   We’ve watched some of his last big series, Yellowstone, and as someone who grew up around real cowboys, they don’t get into fights quite as often as that show would portray it.  And they spend a lot more time on four-wheelers than on horses.  So I’ve got to assume that Sheridan has about a shallow a view of the oil fields as he does of ranch life in Montana.  But the most shallow part of both of the series is his portrayal of women.  The only kinda-sorta fully realized character of the dozens of women in those to series is the crazy-but-smart Beth in Yellowstone.  Almost all the rest are decorative, including Billy Bob Thornton’s ex and daughter in Landman. (The attorney in Landman is smart, I grant, but otherwise she’s poorly written.)  Generally, it’s just the flattest and least imaginative characterization of women that I’ve seen in a popular series in a long time.

So I guess the real key to masculinity, in the minds of both a big deal TV writer like Sheridan and a self-hating nerd like Zuck, is a complete inability to understand or recognize the complexity of women.

‘Masculine’ EnergyPost + Comments (155)

The all-knowing YouTube algorithm served me up a video from a guy who calls himself the CityNerd about people who call themselves “rural”.  It’s a long, involved path, but it relies on peer-reviewed medical literature and a widely used measure of rural vs. urban (RUCA), so I think it’s at least reliable enough to post about.

The nut of the video is that people who live in areas that are absolutely urban (1 on a RUCA scale of 1-10 on urban vs rural), self-identify as residents of a rural community.  The graph from this study (above) shows that 30% of RUCA 1 (truly urban) think they’re urban dwellers.

This is important to medicine because a person’s conception of themselves as a rural or urban person is tied to their health.  Rural-identifiers health habits (obesity, drug and alcohol use, smoking) are worse, so their outcomes are worse — and studies show it’s rural identification, not actual physical location.

A psychological attachment to rural identification has also been correlated with anti-intellectualism, and that distrust of science and learning in general is of course politically relevant as well as relevant to health outcomes.

CityNerd has a whole agenda about figuring out why rural cosplayers drive F-150s from the suburbs into the city to work,  but that’s not what I found interesting about his video.  We think a lot about “suburbs” and the voters there who swing a lot of elections, but the RUCA scale is urban vs rural, there’s no “suburb” involved.  Given that rural self-identification, not location, is key to some attitudes that I’m sure correlate with voting preference, it’s not that someone lives in a suburb that’s important.  Maybe our concentration on the “soccer mom” vote or other suburban-located demographics isn’t the right way to look at suburban voters, or to figure out who’s reachable.  It’s the attitude not the location.

Second, this kind of rural self-delusion is bad for Democrats — we’re the urban party.  These rural cosplayers are urban dwellers benefitting from their proximity to a city.  Cities are the engines of growth and jobs in the US.  Presumably the media these folks consume glorifies rural life and denigrates city life, so they address the cognitive dissonance of their dependence on the cities by adopting the attitudes, dress, vehicles and other signifiers of rural culture.  I sure don’t know how to handle that other than by pointing and laughing, but that’s generally not an effective political technique.

Anyway, I thought the video was interesting, and the video description has links to a bunch of studies and articles on this topic.  This is the only one of his videos that I’ve watched, so let me know if you’ve watched others and consider him a reliable source.

Rural CosplayPost + Comments (114)

The Democrats’ social media account staffed by (some) former KamalaHQ folks is posting through the hearings, and doing a good job.

This is the BlueSky version but my understanding is that other platforms also have this account.

FactPostPost + Comments (88)