Also, not to belabor the grimly obvious, but in addition to all of the deep structural stuff… we elected Donald Trump — Donald Fucking Trump — president of the United States of America.
As the joke goes, you can design buildings, you can feed kids, you can write award winning novels, but if you fuck just one horse… you’re not Joe the Architect, you’re not Joe the Philanthropist, you’re not Joe the Novelist. You’re Joe the Horsefucker. Forever.
Every treaty we negotiate, every alliance we try to shore up, every political stance we now take as a country, externally or internally, now has this priced in for the rest of our lives: we elected a racist game show host with an entourage of grifters, thugs and mafiosos President. And we might well do it again.
The lasting impact to the journalism profession from the Trump years is another bell that cannot be un-rung. Seeing journalists abandon professional ethics, openly advocate for dropping neutrality in reporting, lead the Resistance™ and uncritically accept every outlandish claim against Trump as fact has forever changed the standing of the press in the public's mind.
Taibbi and Greenwald are exceptions, and are writing about journalism's failures during the Trump years. But they are now completely independent from any mainstream publication, and routinely smeared as "Trumpers", fascists or racists (the go-to insults of the progressive left). I don't think their critiques will be heeded and we will have lost a valuable institution for generations.
It's hard to know how important 2020 was, obviously there's a lot of the Biden administration to play out. But, equally, looking at the conduct of the Trump administration post-election with the grown ups all gone, I would not underestimate the potential damage of a Trump 2nd term. (Hopefully we won't find out).
But, I think 2000 was the real "most important election of our lifetime", the difference on Climate and Iraq was big.
May you rot in hell for all eternity. At least your ego will be there to keep you company.
Think of all the discourse and other crap over the past few years that would we would not have been subject to had someone's ego not made him think that press conference was OK. Had someone's ego than not forced him to send that letter 10 days before the election.
According to internal polls from both campaigns, HRC was going to win by about 6 nationally.
"A weird fact about Obama is that he’s regarded as a huge failure by progressive elites"
I have spent less time around DC progressive elites than MY has, but I have spent poop-loads of time around liberal college faculty (am one, married one, drank beers with hundreds), and MY's quote above does not reflect how Obama is regarded in my peer group. I think the vast majority of us would describe Obama as the greatest president of our lifetimes.
Allow me to use a sports metaphor: If I were the kind of person who spent all of my time talking to NBA analytics people, I might think that smart basketball fans think that Russell Westbrook was a huge failure. But if I took a step back and asked serious basketball fans, basically none of them would describe Westbrook as a huge failure. And if I asked the right questions of the analytics people, I could probably get most of them to say that while Westbrook's counting stats look way better than his analytics do, he is still a great NBA player.
I think MY may be spending too much time talking to the liberal policy equivalent of NBA analytics people and using that to represent what most liberals think.
Regarding Hillary Clinton, I don't think anyone of sound mind thought it impossible she could lose.
Look, we all have a friend here or there who secretly admires Trump's viciousness and powerlust. We all of us, even fans, saw Clinton as a distrustful, mediocre politician, albeit with an inspiring resume and roster of achievements. She drove all of us bonkers with her scripted, hesitant manner, political poison in a narcissistic era.
BUT. . . fact remains, had she won, she would have been the first woman president, and the first woman to be the most powerful human on Earth since Catherine the Great, or maybe ever.
That prospect, and temptation, was what led Democrat elites to stick by her, more than anything. More than antipathy for Bernie, or disdain for Biden. Speaking only for myself, and people in my orbit at the time.
Feel like we almost can't overstate how bad the Iran stuff is, especially as it mostly flies under our radar. It's..... it's so bad. Iran is now on a pretty direct path to get a nuclear weapon, I've seen arms control experts compare its current trajectory to where North Korea was just prior to getting the bomb. Obama successfully pulled them off that path, but Cotton and other Republican Party crazies told them (Cotton wrote the mullahs a letter!) that there was no point in abiding by the agreement as a future R President would just revoke it. Now Biden is trying to negotiate another arms agreement with them, and Cotton & Cruz & the other crazies are directly telling Iran again- in writing- 'don't bother agreeing to anything, Republicans will revoke the deal immediately in the future'.
Iran should not have a nuclear weapon, and no matter how bad you think their government is- that's an argument for them *not getting one*. If they do successfully test one, the US would have to at a minimum conduct extreme bombardment to destroy it- thus starting yet another Middle Eastern war. With the US thus distracted, I'm pretty sure China would invade Taiwan posthaste, and who knows what Russia would be up to in Eastern Europe. This is where the hawkish wing of the GOP is leading us, directly to World War 3
One uncomfortable thought I've been having lately, is, to a substantial degree Condi Rice and the Bush people were right not to buy in too heavily to the narrative (apparently being pushed by a lot of senior foreign policy Democrats) circa 2001 that terrorism had overtaken malevolent state actors as the most potent national security threat facing America. After 911 there was plenty of sneering Monday morning quarterbacking about the Bush team's antiquated world view. But turns out they (of course!) were right: ragtag murderers in far away caves and madrassas obviously were never the threat that a resurgent Russia or rising China would or could become.
That administration's mistake, of course, was not doing proper due diligence with respect to the Al Qaeda organization, and, failing that, its tragically inept response to said group's spectacular win in September, 2001. Indeed, in retrospect, had they allowed their original instincts to guide them, the Bush people might have correctly realized that massive overreaction to Islamist terrorism would have diverted critical attention and resources away from actual existential threats (namely, the nuclear armed governments headquartered in Moscow and Beijing), thereby gravely weakening the country with the passage of time.
I suspect the Democratic Party as a whole all wishes they could have taken back the 2016 nomination contest and redone it. Joe Biden is the obvious replacement for Clinton, but hardly the only one. Sherrod Brown could have won, Deval Patrick too, there are others. I suspect the Party had and has far less respect for Biden than he deserves (hence why they didn’t back him).
I think the more important lesson is the Democrats are a big tent coalition in every sense, and need to expand their coalition not shrink it. The political choices made since 2014 have all served to shrink the appeal of Democrats while alienating the largest swath of the American electorate. The assumption a changing country would naturally benefit liberals was wrong; and it’s not clear to me they can reverse course.
You didn't mention RBG, but one big question mark in this counter-factual is whether she retires before 2018 or not. Since the Dems lose the senate in 2018 and the WH in 2020, the Republicans still get to appoint a 5th (more conservative than Kennedy) justice if she still refuses to strategically retire.
One possibility is that the insanity of not retiring in 2017 is even more obvious than in 2013 and this leads both RBG and Breyer to do the right thing. But it's a pretty huge question either way.
I think this ignores the fact that there would have been zero stimulus under a Biden administration with a McConnell Senate, and we would currently be entering a second Great Depression as Republicans happily took power for the next two decades. At least now the economy is good
Very interesting piece, but I don't think Bernie would have won. I didn't think it in 2016, and after spending most of the pandemic era in rural Michigan, my opinion on this is stronger. The former president is a cult of personality, and there are a lot of people, in non-coastal areas at least, who buy what he's selling.
I would like to think that O'Malley would have won--he is my kind of official, competent and workmanlike--but on that I'm not sure. Same with Biden, though I have more confidence on that. Both would, I think, have attracted significant support from actual conservatives/moderates who might not have supported Hillary for a variety of reasons.
I think the biggest alternate history of 2016 is that Marco Rubio wins the Republican nomination. This would happen if Trump doesn’t run, or if the other candidates besides Trump and Cruz drop out before Super Tuesday.*
If that happens, Rubio probably wins an even more decisive victory over the unpopular Hillary Clinton. The GOP wins the senate seats in Nevada and New Hampshire, giving them more of a cushion. 2018 is still tough for them since Repeal & Replace probably succeeds, but the map is good enough for them to expand their senate majority.
Then Covid happens, and I believe Rubio would’ve been much more popular than Trump on this. He would’ve avoided Trump’s insane denial of the severity of the problem while criticizing some of the excesses of blue state governors. He would’ve easily won reelection under these circumstances.
In this alternate timeline the Republicans have over 55 Senators, a House majority, a durable Supreme Court majority and control over redistricting. They are led by a popular president whose just led the country through its greatest crisis since World War II. The party has integrated some elements of Trumpism but is still attached to Ryanism.
That’s an interesting world!
*I actually think if Rubio doesn’t get shredded by Chris Christie at that one debate he probably comes in second during the New Hampshire primary and Kasich drops out.
From a politics perspective, this might be right. But 100,000+ dead Iraqis would probably argue that the 2000 election was more consequential from a real world policy perspective. We also wouldn't have exited the Kyoto Protocol, which would probably be more impactful given that time matters so much on Climate Change.
Also, not to belabor the grimly obvious, but in addition to all of the deep structural stuff… we elected Donald Trump — Donald Fucking Trump — president of the United States of America.
As the joke goes, you can design buildings, you can feed kids, you can write award winning novels, but if you fuck just one horse… you’re not Joe the Architect, you’re not Joe the Philanthropist, you’re not Joe the Novelist. You’re Joe the Horsefucker. Forever.
Every treaty we negotiate, every alliance we try to shore up, every political stance we now take as a country, externally or internally, now has this priced in for the rest of our lives: we elected a racist game show host with an entourage of grifters, thugs and mafiosos President. And we might well do it again.
The lasting impact to the journalism profession from the Trump years is another bell that cannot be un-rung. Seeing journalists abandon professional ethics, openly advocate for dropping neutrality in reporting, lead the Resistance™ and uncritically accept every outlandish claim against Trump as fact has forever changed the standing of the press in the public's mind.
Taibbi and Greenwald are exceptions, and are writing about journalism's failures during the Trump years. But they are now completely independent from any mainstream publication, and routinely smeared as "Trumpers", fascists or racists (the go-to insults of the progressive left). I don't think their critiques will be heeded and we will have lost a valuable institution for generations.
It's hard to know how important 2020 was, obviously there's a lot of the Biden administration to play out. But, equally, looking at the conduct of the Trump administration post-election with the grown ups all gone, I would not underestimate the potential damage of a Trump 2nd term. (Hopefully we won't find out).
But, I think 2000 was the real "most important election of our lifetime", the difference on Climate and Iraq was big.
Thank you, James "The Ego" Comey.
May you rot in hell for all eternity. At least your ego will be there to keep you company.
Think of all the discourse and other crap over the past few years that would we would not have been subject to had someone's ego not made him think that press conference was OK. Had someone's ego than not forced him to send that letter 10 days before the election.
According to internal polls from both campaigns, HRC was going to win by about 6 nationally.
That would have been enough.
"A weird fact about Obama is that he’s regarded as a huge failure by progressive elites"
I have spent less time around DC progressive elites than MY has, but I have spent poop-loads of time around liberal college faculty (am one, married one, drank beers with hundreds), and MY's quote above does not reflect how Obama is regarded in my peer group. I think the vast majority of us would describe Obama as the greatest president of our lifetimes.
Allow me to use a sports metaphor: If I were the kind of person who spent all of my time talking to NBA analytics people, I might think that smart basketball fans think that Russell Westbrook was a huge failure. But if I took a step back and asked serious basketball fans, basically none of them would describe Westbrook as a huge failure. And if I asked the right questions of the analytics people, I could probably get most of them to say that while Westbrook's counting stats look way better than his analytics do, he is still a great NBA player.
I think MY may be spending too much time talking to the liberal policy equivalent of NBA analytics people and using that to represent what most liberals think.
Regarding Hillary Clinton, I don't think anyone of sound mind thought it impossible she could lose.
Look, we all have a friend here or there who secretly admires Trump's viciousness and powerlust. We all of us, even fans, saw Clinton as a distrustful, mediocre politician, albeit with an inspiring resume and roster of achievements. She drove all of us bonkers with her scripted, hesitant manner, political poison in a narcissistic era.
BUT. . . fact remains, had she won, she would have been the first woman president, and the first woman to be the most powerful human on Earth since Catherine the Great, or maybe ever.
That prospect, and temptation, was what led Democrat elites to stick by her, more than anything. More than antipathy for Bernie, or disdain for Biden. Speaking only for myself, and people in my orbit at the time.
Feel like we almost can't overstate how bad the Iran stuff is, especially as it mostly flies under our radar. It's..... it's so bad. Iran is now on a pretty direct path to get a nuclear weapon, I've seen arms control experts compare its current trajectory to where North Korea was just prior to getting the bomb. Obama successfully pulled them off that path, but Cotton and other Republican Party crazies told them (Cotton wrote the mullahs a letter!) that there was no point in abiding by the agreement as a future R President would just revoke it. Now Biden is trying to negotiate another arms agreement with them, and Cotton & Cruz & the other crazies are directly telling Iran again- in writing- 'don't bother agreeing to anything, Republicans will revoke the deal immediately in the future'.
Iran should not have a nuclear weapon, and no matter how bad you think their government is- that's an argument for them *not getting one*. If they do successfully test one, the US would have to at a minimum conduct extreme bombardment to destroy it- thus starting yet another Middle Eastern war. With the US thus distracted, I'm pretty sure China would invade Taiwan posthaste, and who knows what Russia would be up to in Eastern Europe. This is where the hawkish wing of the GOP is leading us, directly to World War 3
One uncomfortable thought I've been having lately, is, to a substantial degree Condi Rice and the Bush people were right not to buy in too heavily to the narrative (apparently being pushed by a lot of senior foreign policy Democrats) circa 2001 that terrorism had overtaken malevolent state actors as the most potent national security threat facing America. After 911 there was plenty of sneering Monday morning quarterbacking about the Bush team's antiquated world view. But turns out they (of course!) were right: ragtag murderers in far away caves and madrassas obviously were never the threat that a resurgent Russia or rising China would or could become.
That administration's mistake, of course, was not doing proper due diligence with respect to the Al Qaeda organization, and, failing that, its tragically inept response to said group's spectacular win in September, 2001. Indeed, in retrospect, had they allowed their original instincts to guide them, the Bush people might have correctly realized that massive overreaction to Islamist terrorism would have diverted critical attention and resources away from actual existential threats (namely, the nuclear armed governments headquartered in Moscow and Beijing), thereby gravely weakening the country with the passage of time.
I suspect the Democratic Party as a whole all wishes they could have taken back the 2016 nomination contest and redone it. Joe Biden is the obvious replacement for Clinton, but hardly the only one. Sherrod Brown could have won, Deval Patrick too, there are others. I suspect the Party had and has far less respect for Biden than he deserves (hence why they didn’t back him).
I think the more important lesson is the Democrats are a big tent coalition in every sense, and need to expand their coalition not shrink it. The political choices made since 2014 have all served to shrink the appeal of Democrats while alienating the largest swath of the American electorate. The assumption a changing country would naturally benefit liberals was wrong; and it’s not clear to me they can reverse course.
That this post isn't about President Mario Cuomo, 1993-2001, is anti-Italian discrimination.
You didn't mention RBG, but one big question mark in this counter-factual is whether she retires before 2018 or not. Since the Dems lose the senate in 2018 and the WH in 2020, the Republicans still get to appoint a 5th (more conservative than Kennedy) justice if she still refuses to strategically retire.
One possibility is that the insanity of not retiring in 2017 is even more obvious than in 2013 and this leads both RBG and Breyer to do the right thing. But it's a pretty huge question either way.
I think this ignores the fact that there would have been zero stimulus under a Biden administration with a McConnell Senate, and we would currently be entering a second Great Depression as Republicans happily took power for the next two decades. At least now the economy is good
Very interesting piece, but I don't think Bernie would have won. I didn't think it in 2016, and after spending most of the pandemic era in rural Michigan, my opinion on this is stronger. The former president is a cult of personality, and there are a lot of people, in non-coastal areas at least, who buy what he's selling.
I would like to think that O'Malley would have won--he is my kind of official, competent and workmanlike--but on that I'm not sure. Same with Biden, though I have more confidence on that. Both would, I think, have attracted significant support from actual conservatives/moderates who might not have supported Hillary for a variety of reasons.
I think the biggest alternate history of 2016 is that Marco Rubio wins the Republican nomination. This would happen if Trump doesn’t run, or if the other candidates besides Trump and Cruz drop out before Super Tuesday.*
If that happens, Rubio probably wins an even more decisive victory over the unpopular Hillary Clinton. The GOP wins the senate seats in Nevada and New Hampshire, giving them more of a cushion. 2018 is still tough for them since Repeal & Replace probably succeeds, but the map is good enough for them to expand their senate majority.
Then Covid happens, and I believe Rubio would’ve been much more popular than Trump on this. He would’ve avoided Trump’s insane denial of the severity of the problem while criticizing some of the excesses of blue state governors. He would’ve easily won reelection under these circumstances.
In this alternate timeline the Republicans have over 55 Senators, a House majority, a durable Supreme Court majority and control over redistricting. They are led by a popular president whose just led the country through its greatest crisis since World War II. The party has integrated some elements of Trumpism but is still attached to Ryanism.
That’s an interesting world!
*I actually think if Rubio doesn’t get shredded by Chris Christie at that one debate he probably comes in second during the New Hampshire primary and Kasich drops out.
From a politics perspective, this might be right. But 100,000+ dead Iraqis would probably argue that the 2000 election was more consequential from a real world policy perspective. We also wouldn't have exited the Kyoto Protocol, which would probably be more impactful given that time matters so much on Climate Change.
Not 2000, where a competent Gore administration would have prevented 9/11?