"I think that leftists who favor the name-calling strategy believe that their harder-edged, zero-sum approach to left populism will appeal more to working class people. But I think the actual center of gravity for this approach is not the people who benefit from the social safety net, but precisely the kind of progressives who went to good colleges and have nonprofit or academic or government jobs and are too affluent to be on Medicaid but not rich enough to be targeted by Democratic tax hikes. To those people, taking businesspeople down a peg in terms of prestige and social esteem is a really big deal. People working normal private sector jobs would like to be paid more, but also recognize that they are not in a zero-sum relationship with their bosses — they all have upside if the business thrives and downside if it fails."
THIS! THIS! THIS! This is what the performative "far left", the Bernie Bros and "The Squad" wing of the democratic party does not yet
Someone said (I am too lazy to google it!) that a socialist revolution in the US is unlikely since everyone is a millionaire who just does not yet happen to have made their millions!
Honestly, I did not watch any of the speech, though I was aware of it when it was happening, but after reading this article I'm totally jazzed and hopeful in a way I haven't been in a while.
Thank you, Matt, and in a way, thank you Senator Booker.
Booker’s is the longest. Yawn. That’s not a great way of judging speeches. When it’s too big to fit (within a human attention span) length becomes a liability.
That's a good point about the targets of hard-edged left-populist messaging.
It is like how the biggest audience for M4A-style appeals isn't the poor or working-class (who mostly either qualify for Medicaid or get health insurance through their employer); it's more or less people making $150k as a podcaster or solo practice attorney mad that government employees making half their salary get health insurance through their job.
I really liked Cory Booker earlier in his career, but he beclowned himself with some of his positions taken in 2019-20, and while he's been quieter about those issues in recent years, I suspect he could have some similar problems to Harris in 2028 (although the global economy being murdered by the opposing party might offset those negatives).
The whole Dem party seemingly beclowed itself during peak wokeness. Even yours truly spent a lot of time thinking and talking about my white/male privilege.
It's one of the weaknesses of being on the forefront of culture that you are susceptable to latching on to trends that don't pan out in the long run.
I think the Democratic Party fundamentally forgot what the job of politics is. It’s not to be at the forefront of cultural changes. It’s to win power and serve your constituents. It’s fine that activist want to push things forward, but it’s politicians job to do politics and understand what their voters will actually support.
Ironically, people seem to to have forgotten, but Obama was great at this. He supported m popular causes (ending the Iraq war) while refusing to support gay marriage and promising to deport illegal immigrants
Privilege is a useful framework for analysis, and it's a good thing more people learned to use it. But treating unquestioning acceptance of that framework as a prerequisite for inclusion in our moral universe, as so many on the left did, was maybe not the best of strategies in a society full of normies.
The problem was less that we had bad ideas (though of course we had many) than that we lost the ability to debate ideas internally--because any attempt to argue for a fractionally more centrist position on almost any issue of identity came to be viewed as an unforgivable betrayal worthy of expulsion from our in-group.
This extreme ideological policing then caused normies to perceive us as a monolithic group of elitists who irretrievably hated anyone who held 2008-era-liberal social opinions. Is it any wonder that so many of them worried that we didn't care about their interests?
“ I saw a focus group recently of ballot-splitting voters who backed Trump in 2024 and also voted for a moderate House Democrat. At one point, they started complaining that Democrats, more so than Republicans, are intolerant and will cast you out over differences of opinion about minor issues. They attributed this less to Democratic leaders than to actual individual rank-and-file Democrats, who they assessed as simply less chill and hospitable.
Is this a rational basis for a voting decision? Not really.”
If a large percentage of rank and file Republicans seem to believe something and elected Republicans either agree with them or will not speak on what they’re doing at all, we comfortably say “Republicans believe”. Not having courage to speak up to your own team matters, in terms of party branding.
I'm usually in agreement with you (which is why I'm a subscriber) but I have to admit I thought Booker's speech was a performative stunt on the order of Al Green shaking his cane at Donald Trump. What exactly did this accomplish? Is there anyone besides you who knows what Booker even said? I consider myself fairly well informed and I know nothing of the content -- only that he went 25 hours without going to the bathroom. (What did that prove, that Democrats have larger bladders?) I have to think AOC and Bernie's rallies were more effective. Democrats can't do ANYTHING until they get a majority SOMEWHERE. Speeches on the Senate floor don't move the needle; you have to get out on the hustings and talk to people and maybe then take back the House in 2026.
I found a video of Booker on YouTube and clicked partway through it pretty much at random, and he just happened to be talking about how the cuts to the NIH will devastate America's scientific advancements. As a scientist, I felt very seen, and what's more, he spoke with a clear level of understanding, not just a knee-jerk "boo, destroying science is bad!" He sounded like he actually knew what indirect costs are. (Do the DOGE bros know what NIH indirect cuts are, beyond "wasteful government spending"? Do they care?)
He is an inspiring figure, who exudes a kind of generous energy that is appealing! But what was the follow-up? A half dozen vague fundraising appeals. I wish he had used his donor list to call for specific actions. Could he have shared information about the rallies taking place across the nation? We long to do something besides sending them our money.
"I saw a focus group recently of ballot-splitting voters who backed Trump in 2024 and also voted for a moderate House Democrat. At one point, they started complaining that Democrats, more so than Republicans, are intolerant and will cast you out over differences of opinion about minor issues."
I would love to know the source of this complaint from ticket splitters. Is it because they have a few super liberal friends in their life and they find talking to them insufferable? Is it because they are spooked by what they saw in 2020-2021 from liberal activists. Is it something they saw on the news?
I mean call me a biased lib but while I agree with Matt there needs to be more space for the Democrats to allow candidates to be more moderate if they want to win swing states and districts, it's pretty nuts to me that apparently swing voters see Democratic voters as intolerant. A huge reason we don't see GOP not confronting Trump more is that any indication of moderation or pushback invites a primary from someone even more crazy. Like good lord talk about proof of intolerance.
I'm genuinely asking here. I'm trying to acknowledge my biases here. Maybe it's another place where Trump's moderation on entitlement cuts (in rhetoric, clearly not in practice given he hasn't done squat about the fact people may not get there social security checks) really does have an effect with swing voters. Given events of last few days, perhaps this is about to change real quick
Wearing a MAGA Hat is more than just being a little old fashioned. True it perhaps means different things to different people, but more often than not it is a signifier of a deep hatred of certain minority groups, gays/trans, etc.
I am from FL as well and I'm friends with plenty of conservative (GOP-voting) people and NONE of them wear MAGA hats casually. Wearing a MAGA hat is like throwing down a gauntlet and saying I'm an enemy of the modern liberal order - you know, the liberal order that believes things like Black people have rights, etc.
I get your point that some liberal spaces are sometimes intolerant of conservative views, but come on, if I put on a MAGA hat I'm basically advertising to the world that I'm a complete asshole. MAGA hat wearers DESERVE the dirty looks they get.
I think this complaint is entirely about woke era interpersonal speech norms, and that it's very obviously correct. The Democrats' reputation as the party of the people who want you to lose your job for having opinions didn't come from nowhere.
While you're right that Republican primary crowds are very intolerant of politicians who criticize Trump (and this is very bad), the people in the focus group are talking about intolerance in day to day interaction, not within political coalitions.
I've got lots of (very unoriginal, forgive me) thoughts on this.
First of all, Cory Booker is awesome, good for him! I admire him greatly for what he's done.
Now let's get into some details!
"But the idea that nastiness and negative affect are going to win the day strikes me as a lazy tactic that people reach for because they lack creativity and skill."
Yes, yes, Matt Y is absolutely right! Remember how Kamala, with her big smile and her emphasis on "Joy" and her campaign ads that said "I want to be President for ALL AMERICANS" handily triumphed over the scowling, angry Trump, who was all about "I AM YOUR RETRIBUTION" and whose campaign surrogate once said "Daddy's home, and he's PISSED! He's going to SPANK his daughter, and it's going to HURT, because she DESERVES it!" People were instantly put off by this kind of vengeful sadism-meets-creepy porn fantasy, and that's why Trump lost.
Oh, wait...
/facepalm
/headdesk
"But the vast majority of Democratic Party politicians could make their engagement with the public more interesting by being more willing to do what Trump did in 2015-2016 and speak more from the heart and less from a standpoint of dogmatic coalition-management."
Jesus Christ on a poppyseed bagel. This is like telling your socially awkward friend, "Being popular is super easy, barely an inconvenience! Just be yourself! [beat] No, no, NOT LIKE THAT!!!"
The Median Non-College-Educated Middle-Aged Guy in Suburban Michigan (MNCEMAGISM for short) doesn't want politicians who "speak from the heart." MNCEMAGISM wants politicians who *appear to speak from the heart* while telling MNCEMAGISM *what he wants to hear.* Remember Hillary? I'm sure she spoke from the heart when she said "half of Trump's followers belong in a basket of deplorables." How'd that work out for her? For that matter, how does it work when any progressive activist speaks very passionately from the heart about climate change or trans rights and the Matt Y's of the world resoundingly slap them down with a "Shut up, you fool, you'll scare MNCEMAGISM away and then we'll never win another election!"
Yes, I get it, the lesson is "don't insult voters," except Trump has insulted various sets of voters repeatedly, and now he's in the White House and the GOP has both chambers of Congress.
Enough people either actively wanted what's in Trump's heart or just didn't pay enough attention to care.
But don't take it from me; read these words of the noted woke fringe lefty activist David Brooks, who puts it thusly in The Atlantic:
"Until January 20, 2025, I didn’t realize how much of my very identity was built on this faith in my country’s goodness—on the idea that we Americans are partners in a grand and heroic enterprise, that our daily lives are ennobled by service to that cause. Since January 20, as I have watched America behave vilely—toward our friends in Canada and Mexico, toward our friends in Europe, toward the heroes in Ukraine and President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office—I’ve had trouble describing the anguish I’ve experienced. Grief? Shock? Like I’m living through some sort of hallucination? Maybe the best description for what I’m feeling is moral shame: To watch the loss of your nation’s honor is embarrassing and painful."
It's hard to remember after all that's happened, but we all voted for Joe because when he spoke from the heart, you could tell that he loved "real America". It's possible but difficult to find a candidate where the contents of their heart is appealing to voters. And it's pretty easy to see that Harris / Clinton in their hearts loved the cosmopolitan values of big cities instead. I am also not particularly fond of "real America" and find them deplorable pretty often, but that's why I'm not running for president! Booker and Obama found a way to speak to the "common man" by relating to inner city kids, and it comes off as authentic in a way that pandering to the rust belt yet again does not.
I mean, Trump's whole slogan from the beginning has been "Make America Great Again", which on its face sounds pretty optimistic! And if you watch his ads, the campaign treats him as someone who's strength as a leader is going to bring back the prosperity and happiness of the good ol days. Both campaigns had optimistic tones contrasted with a warning that their opponent was going to be the worst thing that ever happened to America.
As to Trump himself, there's a reason a majority of the country has never liked him, even if some of that majority has reluctantly voted for him. Given how unpopular the Biden-Harris administration was going into the election, there's an argument that Trump's general nastiness and divisiveness is the only reason that the race was even as close it was.
So I don't come across as a lefty extremist who just reflexively opposes everything you say:
1. Biden and Harris failed badly on illegal immigration. They should have taken it on early, without being racist about it, like, "America is a nation of immigrants but also a nation of laws, we want to decide who stays here, not let others take advantage of us."
2. The student loan relief stuff was bad and politically tone-deaf, further alienating the median non-college-educated voter.
3. There continued to be too much wokery, although much of it, in fairness, was not coming from Biden himself, who always read more as "aw-shucks old white guy from Scranton" than "woke warrior."
Other than than, Biden/Harris policy was... mostly fine! The US economy was the "envy of the world," according to a 2024 article in The Economist. The CHIPS act was good. Sure, prices didn't return to 2019 levels, but nobody was going to achieve that, not even Mr. Penguin Tariffs. International leadership was mostly good, especially on Ukraine (opinions differ on Israel/Palestine, but that's a no-win situation if ever I saw one.) We were governed mostly by boring-but-competent people who didn't make the news every second day for saying something unfathomably stupid.
And Biden didn't feed NIH-funded research into the wood chipper, so there's that.
I am fine with the CHIPS act, also the infrastructure bill. Neither were perfect, but both reasonable bi-partisan compromises (the red tape that was added to them was not fine)
That being said, the best research shows inflation in the US was about 3% higher because of excess stimulus.
I think Biden's reasoning of why to go big was defensible (even though he was warned by people some notable Democrat economists it was too big). But once inflation started to show, why not pull back all the unspent stimulus?
International, I broadly supported Biden on Ukraine (though I wish he was a bit more aggressive with weapon deliveries). But his withdrawal from Afghanistan was a shameful disaster.
Three days late but you do know Trump negotiated the Afghanistan pullout by completely cutting out the Afghan government in negotiations and folding to the Taliban, right? Biden followed through on an awful deal because he ran on restoring America's international standing, showing that the next administration will follow the agreements made by the previous one. If you think the pullout was bad blame Trump for being shit at negotiating, I don't know why your mad at Biden for making the best out of shit situation he was handed.
Yep, I thought Trump should never have negotiated that deal. But it was Biden that followed through with it, and worse royally fucked up the execution.
So he should have not gone through with the deal instead? I also think we shouldn't have pulled out in the first place, but once we sign onto an international agreement it is in our best interests to stick to it. The first Trump admin ripped up so many deal Obama had signed onto, like JCPOA or TPP, and lessened our credibility to counties abroad (and he is doing much greater damage the second time around) Biden was trying to fix that. What about the pullout did you not like? If its because of the sheer chaos, then that again is downstream of Trump sucking at negotiating. The Afghan army disintegrated, because they had no motivation to keep fighting and knew that without the US they would lose to the Taliban. Trump lowered troop levels to 2500 before he left office unwillingly, and during that period of troop reduction the Taliban reignited their offensive. Biden get into office having campaigned on ending the Afghanistan war, as well as reintroducing responsible American foreign policy, and decided to implement a bad deal, only delaying the withdrawal by a few months. Would sending more troops back to protect assets have made sense when we had already "brought back our boy's"?. One side of the political spectrum is demonstrably worse than the other, so I don't understand why you want both parties to lose.
And now we've got four years' worth of policy failures (including irreversible ones; America's reputation among other democracies is shot, and that won't change even if Trump keels over from a heart attack tomorrow and Democrats take both chambers of Congress in 2026) crammed into the past two months! Yay?
/taps the "would you rather have a bowl of plain oatmeal or a bowl of dog excrement" sign
Especially for people like Mark Zuckerberg who had to suffer from Meta's share price more than doubling under Biden which naturally led him to run to Trump in order to see that share price soar by negative 20% since inauguration day. Smart guy, this master of the universe.
He didn't endorse anyone in the 2024 election, and has cozied up to Trump _after_ the election, which, I'm not sure if it's smart or dumb, but not obviously dumb in the way that getting him elected might be.
"While declining to endorse Trump, Zuckerberg told Bloomberg that “seeing Donald Trump get up after getting shot in the face and pump his fist in the air with the American flag is one of the most badass things I’ve ever seen in my life.”
He added: “On some level as an American, it’s like hard to not get kind of emotional about that spirit and that fight, and I think that that’s why a lot of people like the guy.”"
Yes, we sure dodged a bullet by refusing to elect that woke Commie extremist Kamala and instead going with the brilliant businessman Trump, who is working hard (you know, when not golfing) to Make America Great Again!
I wouldn't have thought that trashing our international alliances and sending our economy into a 100% self-inflicted and stupid downturn was a fair price for getting rid of trans people in women's sports and cutting down on illegal immigrant crossings, but that's just me.
1) It would have been the Harris Administration, not the Biden Administration
2) Trump said a ton of crazy sh*t about what he planned to do if reelected, Kamala warned people over and over and over "look, don't reelect him, he'll do crazy/bad things," too bad people didn't believe her
3) you bet your ass I would take another four years of a "shambolic" Democratic Administration that was within the Overton window over the utter fustercluck we have right now
4) I have to get some actual work done now, have a good day.
Yes, it would have been “the Harris Administration,” but I don’t know why you think that mattered in the election.
I am not at all in favor of Trump’s tariffs and wish Congress or the Supreme Court would put an end to that nonsense. And I’m not saying these people should have voted for Trump, only that there were a lot of good reasons not to vote for Harris.
I used to think that the failure to promote younger talent like Booker by the democratic party represented bad leadership decisions or bad luck, but the tariff response makes me wonder if that is true.
There is a deeply held economic nostalgia for the postwar economy, especially in the Midwest, but throughout American culture. When Bernie Sanders, and Joe Biden and Donald Trump talk about working people, you clearly feel that they mean a man in a blue collar job with a union card, who probably does not live in a big city and is probably white. Bernie said that Musk, despite founding huge companies, has done nothing for working people. That statement feels non-sensical, but everyone understands what he means. Bernie speaks in away that appeals to both Youngstown and Austin simply by being so old.
When you hear Booker or Gallego speak, you clearly feel that they are talking to waitresses and janitors and landscapers, and a certain type of voter will never forgive them for it.
TBH, I do see how his performance lifts Democratic spirits but as an independent, I care more about results than performances so I’m unmoved by it.
> feeling sad doesn’t achieve anything and it tends to be demoralizing
These are the insights that keep me reading day after day.
"I think that leftists who favor the name-calling strategy believe that their harder-edged, zero-sum approach to left populism will appeal more to working class people. But I think the actual center of gravity for this approach is not the people who benefit from the social safety net, but precisely the kind of progressives who went to good colleges and have nonprofit or academic or government jobs and are too affluent to be on Medicaid but not rich enough to be targeted by Democratic tax hikes. To those people, taking businesspeople down a peg in terms of prestige and social esteem is a really big deal. People working normal private sector jobs would like to be paid more, but also recognize that they are not in a zero-sum relationship with their bosses — they all have upside if the business thrives and downside if it fails."
THIS! THIS! THIS! This is what the performative "far left", the Bernie Bros and "The Squad" wing of the democratic party does not yet
Someone said (I am too lazy to google it!) that a socialist revolution in the US is unlikely since everyone is a millionaire who just does not yet happen to have made their millions!
Honestly, I did not watch any of the speech, though I was aware of it when it was happening, but after reading this article I'm totally jazzed and hopeful in a way I haven't been in a while.
Thank you, Matt, and in a way, thank you Senator Booker.
Booker’s is the longest. Yawn. That’s not a great way of judging speeches. When it’s too big to fit (within a human attention span) length becomes a liability.
I think you got your motte and bailey reversed in the image here.
I was thinking the same thing. The "on your back" stuff should be the fort, and the "hard left" stuff should be the village.
That's a good point about the targets of hard-edged left-populist messaging.
It is like how the biggest audience for M4A-style appeals isn't the poor or working-class (who mostly either qualify for Medicaid or get health insurance through their employer); it's more or less people making $150k as a podcaster or solo practice attorney mad that government employees making half their salary get health insurance through their job.
I hope he emerges as a new leader for the democrats and runs in 2024. This is a great time for real leadership rather than capitulation!
Very well said except for the odd metaphor
I really liked Cory Booker earlier in his career, but he beclowned himself with some of his positions taken in 2019-20, and while he's been quieter about those issues in recent years, I suspect he could have some similar problems to Harris in 2028 (although the global economy being murdered by the opposing party might offset those negatives).
The whole Dem party seemingly beclowed itself during peak wokeness. Even yours truly spent a lot of time thinking and talking about my white/male privilege.
It's one of the weaknesses of being on the forefront of culture that you are susceptable to latching on to trends that don't pan out in the long run.
I think the Democratic Party fundamentally forgot what the job of politics is. It’s not to be at the forefront of cultural changes. It’s to win power and serve your constituents. It’s fine that activist want to push things forward, but it’s politicians job to do politics and understand what their voters will actually support.
Ironically, people seem to to have forgotten, but Obama was great at this. He supported m popular causes (ending the Iraq war) while refusing to support gay marriage and promising to deport illegal immigrants
Totally agree. We're a political party, not a religion.
Privilege is a useful framework for analysis, and it's a good thing more people learned to use it. But treating unquestioning acceptance of that framework as a prerequisite for inclusion in our moral universe, as so many on the left did, was maybe not the best of strategies in a society full of normies.
The problem was less that we had bad ideas (though of course we had many) than that we lost the ability to debate ideas internally--because any attempt to argue for a fractionally more centrist position on almost any issue of identity came to be viewed as an unforgivable betrayal worthy of expulsion from our in-group.
This extreme ideological policing then caused normies to perceive us as a monolithic group of elitists who irretrievably hated anyone who held 2008-era-liberal social opinions. Is it any wonder that so many of them worried that we didn't care about their interests?
Very true and I must say, elegantly put.
“ I saw a focus group recently of ballot-splitting voters who backed Trump in 2024 and also voted for a moderate House Democrat. At one point, they started complaining that Democrats, more so than Republicans, are intolerant and will cast you out over differences of opinion about minor issues. They attributed this less to Democratic leaders than to actual individual rank-and-file Democrats, who they assessed as simply less chill and hospitable.
Is this a rational basis for a voting decision? Not really.”
If a large percentage of rank and file Republicans seem to believe something and elected Republicans either agree with them or will not speak on what they’re doing at all, we comfortably say “Republicans believe”. Not having courage to speak up to your own team matters, in terms of party branding.
I'm usually in agreement with you (which is why I'm a subscriber) but I have to admit I thought Booker's speech was a performative stunt on the order of Al Green shaking his cane at Donald Trump. What exactly did this accomplish? Is there anyone besides you who knows what Booker even said? I consider myself fairly well informed and I know nothing of the content -- only that he went 25 hours without going to the bathroom. (What did that prove, that Democrats have larger bladders?) I have to think AOC and Bernie's rallies were more effective. Democrats can't do ANYTHING until they get a majority SOMEWHERE. Speeches on the Senate floor don't move the needle; you have to get out on the hustings and talk to people and maybe then take back the House in 2026.
I found a video of Booker on YouTube and clicked partway through it pretty much at random, and he just happened to be talking about how the cuts to the NIH will devastate America's scientific advancements. As a scientist, I felt very seen, and what's more, he spoke with a clear level of understanding, not just a knee-jerk "boo, destroying science is bad!" He sounded like he actually knew what indirect costs are. (Do the DOGE bros know what NIH indirect cuts are, beyond "wasteful government spending"? Do they care?)
He is an inspiring figure, who exudes a kind of generous energy that is appealing! But what was the follow-up? A half dozen vague fundraising appeals. I wish he had used his donor list to call for specific actions. Could he have shared information about the rallies taking place across the nation? We long to do something besides sending them our money.
"I saw a focus group recently of ballot-splitting voters who backed Trump in 2024 and also voted for a moderate House Democrat. At one point, they started complaining that Democrats, more so than Republicans, are intolerant and will cast you out over differences of opinion about minor issues."
I would love to know the source of this complaint from ticket splitters. Is it because they have a few super liberal friends in their life and they find talking to them insufferable? Is it because they are spooked by what they saw in 2020-2021 from liberal activists. Is it something they saw on the news?
I mean call me a biased lib but while I agree with Matt there needs to be more space for the Democrats to allow candidates to be more moderate if they want to win swing states and districts, it's pretty nuts to me that apparently swing voters see Democratic voters as intolerant. A huge reason we don't see GOP not confronting Trump more is that any indication of moderation or pushback invites a primary from someone even more crazy. Like good lord talk about proof of intolerance.
I'm genuinely asking here. I'm trying to acknowledge my biases here. Maybe it's another place where Trump's moderation on entitlement cuts (in rhetoric, clearly not in practice given he hasn't done squat about the fact people may not get there social security checks) really does have an effect with swing voters. Given events of last few days, perhaps this is about to change real quick
"it's pretty nuts to me that apparently swing voters see Democratic voters as intolerant."
Put on a red MAGA hat and walk down the street in your NY neighborhood and see if you believe tolerance is the word of the day.
Wearing a MAGA Hat is more than just being a little old fashioned. True it perhaps means different things to different people, but more often than not it is a signifier of a deep hatred of certain minority groups, gays/trans, etc.
I am from FL as well and I'm friends with plenty of conservative (GOP-voting) people and NONE of them wear MAGA hats casually. Wearing a MAGA hat is like throwing down a gauntlet and saying I'm an enemy of the modern liberal order - you know, the liberal order that believes things like Black people have rights, etc.
I get your point that some liberal spaces are sometimes intolerant of conservative views, but come on, if I put on a MAGA hat I'm basically advertising to the world that I'm a complete asshole. MAGA hat wearers DESERVE the dirty looks they get.
I think this complaint is entirely about woke era interpersonal speech norms, and that it's very obviously correct. The Democrats' reputation as the party of the people who want you to lose your job for having opinions didn't come from nowhere.
While you're right that Republican primary crowds are very intolerant of politicians who criticize Trump (and this is very bad), the people in the focus group are talking about intolerance in day to day interaction, not within political coalitions.
I've got lots of (very unoriginal, forgive me) thoughts on this.
First of all, Cory Booker is awesome, good for him! I admire him greatly for what he's done.
Now let's get into some details!
"But the idea that nastiness and negative affect are going to win the day strikes me as a lazy tactic that people reach for because they lack creativity and skill."
Yes, yes, Matt Y is absolutely right! Remember how Kamala, with her big smile and her emphasis on "Joy" and her campaign ads that said "I want to be President for ALL AMERICANS" handily triumphed over the scowling, angry Trump, who was all about "I AM YOUR RETRIBUTION" and whose campaign surrogate once said "Daddy's home, and he's PISSED! He's going to SPANK his daughter, and it's going to HURT, because she DESERVES it!" People were instantly put off by this kind of vengeful sadism-meets-creepy porn fantasy, and that's why Trump lost.
Oh, wait...
/facepalm
/headdesk
"But the vast majority of Democratic Party politicians could make their engagement with the public more interesting by being more willing to do what Trump did in 2015-2016 and speak more from the heart and less from a standpoint of dogmatic coalition-management."
Jesus Christ on a poppyseed bagel. This is like telling your socially awkward friend, "Being popular is super easy, barely an inconvenience! Just be yourself! [beat] No, no, NOT LIKE THAT!!!"
The Median Non-College-Educated Middle-Aged Guy in Suburban Michigan (MNCEMAGISM for short) doesn't want politicians who "speak from the heart." MNCEMAGISM wants politicians who *appear to speak from the heart* while telling MNCEMAGISM *what he wants to hear.* Remember Hillary? I'm sure she spoke from the heart when she said "half of Trump's followers belong in a basket of deplorables." How'd that work out for her? For that matter, how does it work when any progressive activist speaks very passionately from the heart about climate change or trans rights and the Matt Y's of the world resoundingly slap them down with a "Shut up, you fool, you'll scare MNCEMAGISM away and then we'll never win another election!"
Yes, I get it, the lesson is "don't insult voters," except Trump has insulted various sets of voters repeatedly, and now he's in the White House and the GOP has both chambers of Congress.
Enough people either actively wanted what's in Trump's heart or just didn't pay enough attention to care.
I can't figure out who you're angry at.
Are you angry at Trump for being who he is, or are you angry at the American people for not... being better?
Both.
But don't take it from me; read these words of the noted woke fringe lefty activist David Brooks, who puts it thusly in The Atlantic:
"Until January 20, 2025, I didn’t realize how much of my very identity was built on this faith in my country’s goodness—on the idea that we Americans are partners in a grand and heroic enterprise, that our daily lives are ennobled by service to that cause. Since January 20, as I have watched America behave vilely—toward our friends in Canada and Mexico, toward our friends in Europe, toward the heroes in Ukraine and President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office—I’ve had trouble describing the anguish I’ve experienced. Grief? Shock? Like I’m living through some sort of hallucination? Maybe the best description for what I’m feeling is moral shame: To watch the loss of your nation’s honor is embarrassing and painful."
It's hard to remember after all that's happened, but we all voted for Joe because when he spoke from the heart, you could tell that he loved "real America". It's possible but difficult to find a candidate where the contents of their heart is appealing to voters. And it's pretty easy to see that Harris / Clinton in their hearts loved the cosmopolitan values of big cities instead. I am also not particularly fond of "real America" and find them deplorable pretty often, but that's why I'm not running for president! Booker and Obama found a way to speak to the "common man" by relating to inner city kids, and it comes off as authentic in a way that pandering to the rust belt yet again does not.
I mean, Trump's whole slogan from the beginning has been "Make America Great Again", which on its face sounds pretty optimistic! And if you watch his ads, the campaign treats him as someone who's strength as a leader is going to bring back the prosperity and happiness of the good ol days. Both campaigns had optimistic tones contrasted with a warning that their opponent was going to be the worst thing that ever happened to America.
As to Trump himself, there's a reason a majority of the country has never liked him, even if some of that majority has reluctantly voted for him. Given how unpopular the Biden-Harris administration was going into the election, there's an argument that Trump's general nastiness and divisiveness is the only reason that the race was even as close it was.
It wasn't about Harris's campaign. It was about the 4 years of policy failures of the Biden/Harris administration.
Inflation, immigration and to a lesser extend culture war/trans issues.
So I don't come across as a lefty extremist who just reflexively opposes everything you say:
1. Biden and Harris failed badly on illegal immigration. They should have taken it on early, without being racist about it, like, "America is a nation of immigrants but also a nation of laws, we want to decide who stays here, not let others take advantage of us."
2. The student loan relief stuff was bad and politically tone-deaf, further alienating the median non-college-educated voter.
3. There continued to be too much wokery, although much of it, in fairness, was not coming from Biden himself, who always read more as "aw-shucks old white guy from Scranton" than "woke warrior."
Other than than, Biden/Harris policy was... mostly fine! The US economy was the "envy of the world," according to a 2024 article in The Economist. The CHIPS act was good. Sure, prices didn't return to 2019 levels, but nobody was going to achieve that, not even Mr. Penguin Tariffs. International leadership was mostly good, especially on Ukraine (opinions differ on Israel/Palestine, but that's a no-win situation if ever I saw one.) We were governed mostly by boring-but-competent people who didn't make the news every second day for saying something unfathomably stupid.
And Biden didn't feed NIH-funded research into the wood chipper, so there's that.
So I don't come across as a righty extremist :)
I am fine with the CHIPS act, also the infrastructure bill. Neither were perfect, but both reasonable bi-partisan compromises (the red tape that was added to them was not fine)
That being said, the best research shows inflation in the US was about 3% higher because of excess stimulus.
I think Biden's reasoning of why to go big was defensible (even though he was warned by people some notable Democrat economists it was too big). But once inflation started to show, why not pull back all the unspent stimulus?
International, I broadly supported Biden on Ukraine (though I wish he was a bit more aggressive with weapon deliveries). But his withdrawal from Afghanistan was a shameful disaster.
For me, I REALLY wanted both parties to lose.
Three days late but you do know Trump negotiated the Afghanistan pullout by completely cutting out the Afghan government in negotiations and folding to the Taliban, right? Biden followed through on an awful deal because he ran on restoring America's international standing, showing that the next administration will follow the agreements made by the previous one. If you think the pullout was bad blame Trump for being shit at negotiating, I don't know why your mad at Biden for making the best out of shit situation he was handed.
Yep, I thought Trump should never have negotiated that deal. But it was Biden that followed through with it, and worse royally fucked up the execution.
So he should have not gone through with the deal instead? I also think we shouldn't have pulled out in the first place, but once we sign onto an international agreement it is in our best interests to stick to it. The first Trump admin ripped up so many deal Obama had signed onto, like JCPOA or TPP, and lessened our credibility to counties abroad (and he is doing much greater damage the second time around) Biden was trying to fix that. What about the pullout did you not like? If its because of the sheer chaos, then that again is downstream of Trump sucking at negotiating. The Afghan army disintegrated, because they had no motivation to keep fighting and knew that without the US they would lose to the Taliban. Trump lowered troop levels to 2500 before he left office unwillingly, and during that period of troop reduction the Taliban reignited their offensive. Biden get into office having campaigned on ending the Afghanistan war, as well as reintroducing responsible American foreign policy, and decided to implement a bad deal, only delaying the withdrawal by a few months. Would sending more troops back to protect assets have made sense when we had already "brought back our boy's"?. One side of the political spectrum is demonstrably worse than the other, so I don't understand why you want both parties to lose.
"It was about the 4 years of policy failures"
And now we've got four years' worth of policy failures (including irreversible ones; America's reputation among other democracies is shot, and that won't change even if Trump keels over from a heart attack tomorrow and Democrats take both chambers of Congress in 2026) crammed into the past two months! Yay?
/taps the "would you rather have a bowl of plain oatmeal or a bowl of dog excrement" sign
“Enough people either actively wanted what's in Trump's heart or just didn't pay enough attention to care”
I think they were paying attention, most of them, and saw how bad the alternative was.
Working out great so far.
Especially for people like Mark Zuckerberg who had to suffer from Meta's share price more than doubling under Biden which naturally led him to run to Trump in order to see that share price soar by negative 20% since inauguration day. Smart guy, this master of the universe.
I don’t care about the fortunes of Zuckerberg.
He didn't endorse anyone in the 2024 election, and has cozied up to Trump _after_ the election, which, I'm not sure if it's smart or dumb, but not obviously dumb in the way that getting him elected might be.
"While declining to endorse Trump, Zuckerberg told Bloomberg that “seeing Donald Trump get up after getting shot in the face and pump his fist in the air with the American flag is one of the most badass things I’ve ever seen in my life.”
He added: “On some level as an American, it’s like hard to not get kind of emotional about that spirit and that fight, and I think that that’s why a lot of people like the guy.”"
https://www.aol.com/zuckerberg-reveals-endorsement-decision-2024-002856676.html
Sometimes you endorse even while you're saying you're not endorsing.
That's fair.
Yes, we sure dodged a bullet by refusing to elect that woke Commie extremist Kamala and instead going with the brilliant businessman Trump, who is working hard (you know, when not golfing) to Make America Great Again!
I wouldn't have thought that trashing our international alliances and sending our economy into a 100% self-inflicted and stupid downturn was a fair price for getting rid of trans people in women's sports and cutting down on illegal immigrant crossings, but that's just me.
The question at the time was not about international alliances, it was do you want four more years of the shambolic Biden Administration?
1) It would have been the Harris Administration, not the Biden Administration
2) Trump said a ton of crazy sh*t about what he planned to do if reelected, Kamala warned people over and over and over "look, don't reelect him, he'll do crazy/bad things," too bad people didn't believe her
3) you bet your ass I would take another four years of a "shambolic" Democratic Administration that was within the Overton window over the utter fustercluck we have right now
4) I have to get some actual work done now, have a good day.
Yes, it would have been “the Harris Administration,” but I don’t know why you think that mattered in the election.
I am not at all in favor of Trump’s tariffs and wish Congress or the Supreme Court would put an end to that nonsense. And I’m not saying these people should have voted for Trump, only that there were a lot of good reasons not to vote for Harris.
I used to think that the failure to promote younger talent like Booker by the democratic party represented bad leadership decisions or bad luck, but the tariff response makes me wonder if that is true.
There is a deeply held economic nostalgia for the postwar economy, especially in the Midwest, but throughout American culture. When Bernie Sanders, and Joe Biden and Donald Trump talk about working people, you clearly feel that they mean a man in a blue collar job with a union card, who probably does not live in a big city and is probably white. Bernie said that Musk, despite founding huge companies, has done nothing for working people. That statement feels non-sensical, but everyone understands what he means. Bernie speaks in away that appeals to both Youngstown and Austin simply by being so old.
When you hear Booker or Gallego speak, you clearly feel that they are talking to waitresses and janitors and landscapers, and a certain type of voter will never forgive them for it.
This is very insightful