As a centrist, mostly Conservative unwoke Dem, I have looked at Forward Party which seems muchly about Andrew Yang's ego and No Labels, which most every prognosticator sees as a fifth column for Donald Trump.
It appears that the Dems have been as myopic this term about Joe Biden being four years past his expiration date as the GOP has been about Donald Trump being the reincarnation of Machiavelli.
But below the national level there is a Senate and a HOR. The current polls would have the GOP as having a fair chance of winning the Trifecta. They are now favored by Sabato to get 51.5 in the Senate and they are ahead in the presidential and House votes. The Dems are spending most of their time explaining why they are right about everything and forgetting that it is more important to convince the voters that you are right and they dont buy the Dems on immigration, crime, and the need for white people to feel guilty.
The patron saint of sore losers, Orange Julius, has learned a little from 2022 and is actually endorsing some sane candidates along with the hold over clown show of Kari Lake. Trump may have even picked a loser to go against Sherrod Brown if the polls stay lean Dem, but he has backed more establishment choices, this time around and the non Maga GOP now is about equivalent in power to the Prohibition party.
But Liam, it's so much easier to be a DSA member like AOC or 'Justice Democrat' like Ro Khanna who "flip" a secure blue seat from a rational democrat to a bullshit artist 'progressive', and then support lunatic far-Left ideas like "Defund the Police", helping the Republicans win purple seats elsewhere. Taking over the Democratic Party in order to make it as competitive as in 1968 is the goal of 'Justice Democrats' and other progressives.
Democrats are completely in thrall to woke ideology. Not a single Democrat in Congress supports colorblind policy. Not a single Democrat in Congress supports single-sex locker rooms, prisons, or sports. In fact Biden called for the federal outlawing of all three in his SOTU.
Did you miss that moment? Those would all be consequences of the Equality Act, which Biden once again declared should be passed immediately.
If anyone is interested in genetics from a seemingly apolitical scientist who seems to generally be curious and truth seeking Razib Khan is a good listen. History is being updated and in some cases revised based on genetics. It’s very interesting. 21 and Me is the tip of the iceberg.
I mean, that’s all well and good, but what about Ohio? Tim Ryan was a decent, sensible, non-ultra-woke, champion of the working man, normie Democratic candidate, and he lost to that dipsh*t MAGA sellout JD Vance. [spits on floor]
It’s fun to believe that electing Democrats in swing districts or states is super easy, barely an inconvenience, but how well does it scale?
He probably wouldn't have gotten the ActBlue support he did running as openly pro-life. Also, a pro-choice amendment just won in Ohio by 20 points.
It's not actually abortion why non-college educated voters have turned away from the GOP. We're the party of the Other, and now a kind of racist former retired union guy in Youngstown actually know it in a way he didn't in 2003.
Tiny origins correction: I don't think the Matthew Effect is named for the biblical character for whom interest compounds (i.e. a tax collector). I think it's because of the verse in Matthew that says: "to those who have more will be given. And to those who do not have, even what they have will be taken from them." Still illustrates the idea well since Golden seems to have gobbled up the rest of the 2018 cast's margin and they're all gone.
Great post. Another thing I'd add is the incentive structure for a lot of the institutional funders like the DCCC or donors in The Groups orbit isn't great. Political directors and such tend to be judged by their "win rate" that is how often the candidates they decide to back win the election, not if there overall strategy can lead to broad success in the long run. It's not as clear cut as giving people a batting average but it's the same principle.
The upshot of this is that money tends to follow money and so people who excel at fundraising (usually do to a personal background and networks like say a trial lawyer etc) tend to get the most institutional funding as well. That's all well at good for political directors who can point out how smart they are for future consulting gigs but it's the opposite of what you need collectively as a party in order to maximize the number of seats you win because of the law of diminishing returns on the extra campaign dollar (that extra 500k won't change much in a 40 million dollar air war, but could have made someone else viable) and the tendency of the Dems middle class donor base of political hobbyists to throw dump trucks full of money away on unwinnable races because they think a candidate can "own Trump."
In honor of March Madness here's a sports metaphor: a coach keeps one of their new promising players largely on the bench because they are inexperienced, thus insuring they will never get much game time to actually become experienced. When asked they respond "But we won the game!" when the problem of course is what's the plan for the whole season, or next year?
I don't have any student loans and never did. I did so through a mix of scholarships, choosing a state school, working during school and mostly for my university and often in jobs that came with tuition waivers, and living in crappy apartments that sometimes didn't actually have heat with a lot or roommates. My husband had like $11K in student loans and paid them back. We have already saved enough in my daughter's college savings account that she can go to a state school for undergrad and a year or two of grad school without any debt.
I still support limited student loan forgiveness. The student loan system is a mess of bad policy. We have encouraged 18 year olds with limited financial literacy to take out a bunch of debt that can't be discharged ever. We tell them there will be programs for low income payoffs or public service and then run them in ways that almost no one can actually get their loans forgiven.
I am glad that Biden has actually managed to forgive a small mountain of debt through programs not blocked by the court such as discharging loans for folks with disabilities and fixing some other programs. I am glad that we are trying to do some sort of reset for low income folks. But I think we would collectively benefit from just doing a discharge of a chuck of debt for everyone under a certain income threshold to free up some families to get a chance at achieving some economic stability and start families, etc.
I also think we should start capping loans at a much lower level per year and let schools figure out how they are going to keep filling seats which might require reducing tuition to come more in line with the ceilings of those loans. I think it is a mistake to encourage 18 year olds to take on crushing debt to go to private liberal arts colleges to get four year degrees that are not in highly employable fields. I also think everyone should be able to get a four year degree at a state or 4 year community college who wants to pursue that regardless of their parents' income and without it creating debt that ruins their financial futures.
I think it's bad politics and bad policy but, like, everything politicians do is vote buying! That's part of the argument for democracy: it leads to a more equal allocation of material resources. Many such cases: Trump's farm subsidies, corporate tax cuts, Rx price controls, all of the politics around Social Security, etc.
It's on a spectrum, but I think there is a substantial difference between 'structure things so that my political clients can indirectly benefit' and 'directly give my clients money/forgive their loans'.
I strongly suspect that when the populace at large starts to directly look to the government for unearned/unjustified handouts in exchange for votes, things will start to rapidly fall apart.
Difference in degree maybe. The farm subsidies were money given to farmers. Social Security is literally a check. The difference is that I'm guessing that you're somewhat more personally sympathetic towards farmers or the elderly than college students. That's fine, but these are all the same sort of thing.
You seem pretty set in your convictions and I doubt that I'll be able to persuade you. But I think you should consider the most important reason to hold your nose and vote for Biden, if you live in a swing state: I believe that as Americans we have a duty to uphold our Constitution, the other guy tried to violate the most important part of it—popular sovreignty—and so we have duty to prevent him from returning to office.
Looks like the Haley voters should be very winnable for Biden— but is that mostly because a lot of them are Dems and independents who tactically voted in the R primary this cycle?
Just like the Republicans, Democrats are getting about 50% of the vote and winning about 50% of the seats. They've just each changed the makeup of their coalitions to some degree in a pretty even swap.
Could one party break this stalemate and build a dominant and lasting coalition? Maybe, but that doesn't seem to be on the horizon.
More to the point of the original comment, if one party actually tried to be a broad-tent party they could break the stalemate. But Trump is celebrating kicking Haley-voters out of the party and Biden isn't trying get those Haley-voters to vote for him. This is a base campaign for both Biden and Trump.
The second part of what you said is not true. The day Haley conceded, Biden said that he welcomed her voters, because they disagree a lot on issues but agree on the basics like the importance of democracy, the rule of law, personal integrity etc.
Let’s not both-sides this. Biden is much more into building a big tent (at least that’s his intention, not saying he’s successful at it). Trump is much more like, “love me uncritically or GTFO.”
If Biden is actually trying to build a big-tent coalition, then why isn't he polling a lot better than Trump? There is a difference between telling Haley voters to vote for Biden or else, and actually giving Haley voters positive reasons to vote for Biden.
What does Kerr mean by "The Groups"?
Great article and in introduction to Welcome.
As a centrist, mostly Conservative unwoke Dem, I have looked at Forward Party which seems muchly about Andrew Yang's ego and No Labels, which most every prognosticator sees as a fifth column for Donald Trump.
It appears that the Dems have been as myopic this term about Joe Biden being four years past his expiration date as the GOP has been about Donald Trump being the reincarnation of Machiavelli.
But below the national level there is a Senate and a HOR. The current polls would have the GOP as having a fair chance of winning the Trifecta. They are now favored by Sabato to get 51.5 in the Senate and they are ahead in the presidential and House votes. The Dems are spending most of their time explaining why they are right about everything and forgetting that it is more important to convince the voters that you are right and they dont buy the Dems on immigration, crime, and the need for white people to feel guilty.
The patron saint of sore losers, Orange Julius, has learned a little from 2022 and is actually endorsing some sane candidates along with the hold over clown show of Kari Lake. Trump may have even picked a loser to go against Sherrod Brown if the polls stay lean Dem, but he has backed more establishment choices, this time around and the non Maga GOP now is about equivalent in power to the Prohibition party.
Squad underperforming is fine - they in safe seats.
But Liam, it's so much easier to be a DSA member like AOC or 'Justice Democrat' like Ro Khanna who "flip" a secure blue seat from a rational democrat to a bullshit artist 'progressive', and then support lunatic far-Left ideas like "Defund the Police", helping the Republicans win purple seats elsewhere. Taking over the Democratic Party in order to make it as competitive as in 1968 is the goal of 'Justice Democrats' and other progressives.
WelcomePAC / your dreams were your / ticket out...
Democrats are completely in thrall to woke ideology. Not a single Democrat in Congress supports colorblind policy. Not a single Democrat in Congress supports single-sex locker rooms, prisons, or sports. In fact Biden called for the federal outlawing of all three in his SOTU.
Did you miss that moment? Those would all be consequences of the Equality Act, which Biden once again declared should be passed immediately.
If anyone is interested in genetics from a seemingly apolitical scientist who seems to generally be curious and truth seeking Razib Khan is a good listen. History is being updated and in some cases revised based on genetics. It’s very interesting. 21 and Me is the tip of the iceberg.
I mean, that’s all well and good, but what about Ohio? Tim Ryan was a decent, sensible, non-ultra-woke, champion of the working man, normie Democratic candidate, and he lost to that dipsh*t MAGA sellout JD Vance. [spits on floor]
It’s fun to believe that electing Democrats in swing districts or states is super easy, barely an inconvenience, but how well does it scale?
Tim Ryan flipped on abortion to run for Senate. I’m sure that hurt. Huge own goal to be not only pro-choice but so clearly flip-flopping
He probably wouldn't have gotten the ActBlue support he did running as openly pro-life. Also, a pro-choice amendment just won in Ohio by 20 points.
It's not actually abortion why non-college educated voters have turned away from the GOP. We're the party of the Other, and now a kind of racist former retired union guy in Youngstown actually know it in a way he didn't in 2003.
I agree it probably wouldn't have been enough - Ohio isn't thaaat religious, relatively speaking.
But I think flip-flopping on it is worse. It makes that same guy in Youngstown feel that "he's left our values behind to impress the elites."
I agree guns are a bigger issue than abortion among those types of guys, and immigration is a big one as well.
I don't think Ryan needed extra ActBlue money. I'd still have advised him to remain pro-life. He wouldn't have done worse.
Not saying it’s easy! It’s hard! But the ROI is so massive - what are three House seats worth today?? - that it’s worthy of intense investment
McConnell had to spend tens of millions against Tim Ryan, who ran way ahead of the Dem gov candidate (and ahead of Stacy Abrams)
Hey Matt!
Forgive me if you've already held forth on this. But, what do you think about Peter Zeihan's "China's Population Collapse" idea:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=0qneWkrh9X_oDoC3&v=7Me2G6FJZMI&feature=youtu.be
Many thanks! <3
Bring back Howard Dean as DNC chair, and the 50-state strategy. Obama’s biggest mistake was conceding that.
Tiny origins correction: I don't think the Matthew Effect is named for the biblical character for whom interest compounds (i.e. a tax collector). I think it's because of the verse in Matthew that says: "to those who have more will be given. And to those who do not have, even what they have will be taken from them." Still illustrates the idea well since Golden seems to have gobbled up the rest of the 2018 cast's margin and they're all gone.
Great post. Another thing I'd add is the incentive structure for a lot of the institutional funders like the DCCC or donors in The Groups orbit isn't great. Political directors and such tend to be judged by their "win rate" that is how often the candidates they decide to back win the election, not if there overall strategy can lead to broad success in the long run. It's not as clear cut as giving people a batting average but it's the same principle.
The upshot of this is that money tends to follow money and so people who excel at fundraising (usually do to a personal background and networks like say a trial lawyer etc) tend to get the most institutional funding as well. That's all well at good for political directors who can point out how smart they are for future consulting gigs but it's the opposite of what you need collectively as a party in order to maximize the number of seats you win because of the law of diminishing returns on the extra campaign dollar (that extra 500k won't change much in a 40 million dollar air war, but could have made someone else viable) and the tendency of the Dems middle class donor base of political hobbyists to throw dump trucks full of money away on unwinnable races because they think a candidate can "own Trump."
Very good point. Should have included that.
Can confirm - I ran a state-based organization where stakeholders would ask for “win rate”, not adjusted for likelihood of winning.
In honor of March Madness here's a sports metaphor: a coach keeps one of their new promising players largely on the bench because they are inexperienced, thus insuring they will never get much game time to actually become experienced. When asked they respond "But we won the game!" when the problem of course is what's the plan for the whole season, or next year?
Speaking of tough races, you lot may be interested in this new analysis of Biden defectors and Haley voters: https://drive.google.com/file/d/11AYZZhSYhBHOQt7neaNMz3eeNLlCZthq/view
Tweet summary here: https://x.com/milansingh03/status/1770827356535472523?s=20
I'm a Haley voter, but no way I'm voting for Biden
May I ask why not?
Student loan forgiveness pisses me off to no end.
It's blatant vote buying. Almost as bad as bailing out the Teamsters pension fund.
I don't have any student loans and never did. I did so through a mix of scholarships, choosing a state school, working during school and mostly for my university and often in jobs that came with tuition waivers, and living in crappy apartments that sometimes didn't actually have heat with a lot or roommates. My husband had like $11K in student loans and paid them back. We have already saved enough in my daughter's college savings account that she can go to a state school for undergrad and a year or two of grad school without any debt.
I still support limited student loan forgiveness. The student loan system is a mess of bad policy. We have encouraged 18 year olds with limited financial literacy to take out a bunch of debt that can't be discharged ever. We tell them there will be programs for low income payoffs or public service and then run them in ways that almost no one can actually get their loans forgiven.
I am glad that Biden has actually managed to forgive a small mountain of debt through programs not blocked by the court such as discharging loans for folks with disabilities and fixing some other programs. I am glad that we are trying to do some sort of reset for low income folks. But I think we would collectively benefit from just doing a discharge of a chuck of debt for everyone under a certain income threshold to free up some families to get a chance at achieving some economic stability and start families, etc.
I also think we should start capping loans at a much lower level per year and let schools figure out how they are going to keep filling seats which might require reducing tuition to come more in line with the ceilings of those loans. I think it is a mistake to encourage 18 year olds to take on crushing debt to go to private liberal arts colleges to get four year degrees that are not in highly employable fields. I also think everyone should be able to get a four year degree at a state or 4 year community college who wants to pursue that regardless of their parents' income and without it creating debt that ruins their financial futures.
I think it's bad politics and bad policy but, like, everything politicians do is vote buying! That's part of the argument for democracy: it leads to a more equal allocation of material resources. Many such cases: Trump's farm subsidies, corporate tax cuts, Rx price controls, all of the politics around Social Security, etc.
It's on a spectrum, but I think there is a substantial difference between 'structure things so that my political clients can indirectly benefit' and 'directly give my clients money/forgive their loans'.
I strongly suspect that when the populace at large starts to directly look to the government for unearned/unjustified handouts in exchange for votes, things will start to rapidly fall apart.
Difference in degree maybe. The farm subsidies were money given to farmers. Social Security is literally a check. The difference is that I'm guessing that you're somewhat more personally sympathetic towards farmers or the elderly than college students. That's fine, but these are all the same sort of thing.
He promised to be a moderate, but he's let the hard left run most of his administration
Afghanistan,
immigration,
pushing for huge spending plans (build back better etc)
His support for racist policies like affirmative action
His support for child abuse AKA "gender affirming care"
Note none of this means I'm supporting Trump
You seem pretty set in your convictions and I doubt that I'll be able to persuade you. But I think you should consider the most important reason to hold your nose and vote for Biden, if you live in a swing state: I believe that as Americans we have a duty to uphold our Constitution, the other guy tried to violate the most important part of it—popular sovreignty—and so we have duty to prevent him from returning to office.
Agreed that's a pretty important reason.
Thanks for stepping outside your political preferences a bit and reading Slow Boring!
I try and read good faith arguments from the other side. I think it's important to get out of the echo chamber
Looks like the Haley voters should be very winnable for Biden— but is that mostly because a lot of them are Dems and independents who tactically voted in the R primary this cycle?
That's the dream.
Not really directly related to the article– I met Marie Gluesenkamp Perez at the Slow Boring happy hour and she's cool!
Thanks for coming by!
MGP 2028!
"Catchphrase enthusiast Malcolm Gladwell"
-chef's kiss
Are democrats aiming for a broad tent anymore or just the college educated?
Just like the Republicans, Democrats are getting about 50% of the vote and winning about 50% of the seats. They've just each changed the makeup of their coalitions to some degree in a pretty even swap.
Could one party break this stalemate and build a dominant and lasting coalition? Maybe, but that doesn't seem to be on the horizon.
Trump is making in roads with non-college educated of all races.
More to the point of the original comment, if one party actually tried to be a broad-tent party they could break the stalemate. But Trump is celebrating kicking Haley-voters out of the party and Biden isn't trying get those Haley-voters to vote for him. This is a base campaign for both Biden and Trump.
The second part of what you said is not true. The day Haley conceded, Biden said that he welcomed her voters, because they disagree a lot on issues but agree on the basics like the importance of democracy, the rule of law, personal integrity etc.
Let’s not both-sides this. Biden is much more into building a big tent (at least that’s his intention, not saying he’s successful at it). Trump is much more like, “love me uncritically or GTFO.”
Dropping a $7tb budget isn’t winning over Haley voters. It’s losing the election material.
If Biden is actually trying to build a big-tent coalition, then why isn't he polling a lot better than Trump? There is a difference between telling Haley voters to vote for Biden or else, and actually giving Haley voters positive reasons to vote for Biden.