Re Newsom, the main problem with Harris wasn’t racism or sexism, or even leftish history because of California politics. It was pusillanimous campaigning.
Trump has shown the way in all respects. Former Democrat? Former pro-choicer? Who cares, say his voters. The key thing is aggression and performativeness.
That’s why Matt is wrong. Newsom is the most electable guy we have.
Finding a nice centrist candidate who can win in '28 is simply not enough. Would such a centrist be able to accomplish anything important? If not the Republicans will come roaring back.
Time to stop focussing so much on electability. By '28 trump will have screwed things up to the point where winning the election will be easy. But actually satisfying voters after the election will be extremely difficult. Who's up to that challenge. That's the question.
Psst...Let’s just not tell them they have a cancer. It is coming, and every politician should be talking about it. I don’t think surprising the American public is a good idea. Trump should be doing it. His time is past.
The biggest thing wrong with Gavin Newsom as a presidential candidate is not that he's running a dysfunctional state, but that he's Gavin Newsom. During the brief period in 2024 when Democratic insiders were considering replacements for Joe Biden, one was quoted anonymously as calling Newsom too "cartoonish" an example of a West Coast progressive. That's it in a nutshell. To unpack the nutshell: Newsom is a slick, glib, self-satisfied high-flyer who thought COVID precautions were for the little people (whom he, as a Democrat, devoutly wishes to serve) while he could tear a pheasant or whatever at the French Laundry. When it comes to haircuts, he's a regular John Edwards. And he's the latest embodiment of some Democrats' belief that Hollywood-star quality will carry everything before it. ("We've got Meryl Streep! We've got Robert De Niro! How can we lose?") Hillary Clinton's onstage hugs with famous entertainers only earned her derision, because people recognized it as politically meaningless shilling. Gavin Newsom might save us (Democrats) some expense by serving as both the candidate and the flashy shill -- I don't doubt that he can hug himself. But he won't win.
When I was a single person many eons ago before the Internet as we know it (there was the Internet and I did use it), I had no problem going out to dinner or a bar or a movie theater or concert by myself. I also had no TV.
I get why most people don’t like being a singleton, and I kind of want to say, just get over it, but that really doesn’t work does it.
Newsom isn't my personal first pick, but I must admit after listening to him on Ezra Klein, I was sold and realized I could see various people in my life who swung to Trump, swing back to the left for him. Time will tell.
On the United Healthcare CEO thing, the last I heard is that he was actually interpersonally a nice dude who came from a working class family and also helped organize some response to COVID stuff. So I don’t agree with the assessment that everyone roughly agrees that he sucks.
But beyond that, why is it always the insurer who is seen as the bad guy? I doubt the estimates of 10k people dying that activists throw around. But even if there is a single person who would die without super expensive treatment, why is their death the insurer’s fault? They made a calculation about the sustainability of the system. It’s easy to oppose “you can’t cover everyone” with righteous indignation, but if you believe that, then shouldn’t you also be mad at the hospital that could’ve saved the patient pro bono but chose to let them die instead?
The issue with insurance is that you pay in every month and then you have to trust that they’ll pay out even though they are incentivized to deny your claim and if they do there’s not much you can do. It’s a trust-based system and denied claims weaken social trust. Also in a lot of cases people are forced to have insurance so they can’t even decide “I don’t trust insurance so I’ll self-insure.” A lot of insurance is pretty scammy this way, for example when I bought my house, I learned about this thing called “title insurance” which apparently only pays out 6 cents for every dollar of premiums so basically a total scam but banks make you have it.
Obviously this doesn’t justify murder but it’s why people are upset with insurance.
We should just have some kind of neutral arbitration board of medical providers that is independent of the insurance company and doesn’t have a financial stake in the outcome that people with denied claims could go to adjudicate their claim and the insurance company should have to pay double or triple if they lose.
One good reason that we blame insurers is that they deny that they are making decisions for the sustainability of the system; they pretty categorically deny that they deny coverage just to save money. Their claim is that they are making a medical decision about what is medically necessary. But they of course cannot be held accountable for that decision the way anyone else claiming to make a medical judgment would be.
If my physician spouse decides a treatment is unnecessary and doesn't provide it they are liable for every foreseeable consequence of that poor decision, including compensation for pain and suffering for the patient and their family. The insurance company, if it makes the same mistake, has to refund that month's premium.
The pricing of museums/concerts thing reminds me that everytime I am at an NHL game I am amazed the incentives aren't there to reduce the lines. During an 18 minute intermission, I can either pee or buy food/drinks. I think there would be a lot of profit in reducing those lines, so I'm surprised arenas/stadiums aren't designed to get the bathroom and concession queues a lot shorter.
2) If you buy the really expensive tickets they'll bring your food and drink to you, which is consistent with Matt's take. When I lived in Ohio and the Bluejackets were really terrible, I availed myself of those seats a few times.
Fair point. There are different food options for more expensive seats. But it still feels they're leaving money on the table by not getting more people through the lines.
I just ambled over to frenemy-of-Matt FdB’s Substack, where he posted his bi-monthly roundup of links to other people’s Substacks. I read one of these pieces, by a very nice liberal woman who, along with her husband, tries to meet Trump supporters where they are and gently, respectfully turn them away from Trump.
The author describes how she and her husband met a Trump supporter at a bar. They engaged him with some small talk, he regaled them with some conspiracy theories, and then the talk turned to ICE. The Trump voter said something like “if they’re here illegally, they need to be deported,” which, legit!
A bit of back-and-forth on the acceptable level of ICE brutality ensued, until the nice liberal husband asked the Trump voter:
“What if ICE started shooting illegal immigrants in the streets? Would you support that?”
There was a looooong pause followed by the Trump voter saying: “ I’m not sure.”
I just… obligatory disclaimer, I have no idea how typical this man is (not very, I devoutly hope). But, just, what do you do about voters like that?
How do you reach out/appeal to someone who’s basically like, “I’m cool with an American version of Einsatzgruppen”?
Mad props and respect to the liberal husband-and-wife duo for refraining from saying “wtf is wrong with you” out loud, but not everyone has such degree of self-control.
(For extra context, this conversation took place in California’s Central Valley.)
I'm sorry to do a whataboutism, but for the sake of calibrating, In this same comments section, there are anecdotes about people who support murdering insurance executives (no one here thankfully).
You can try to persuade this person, or you can persuade regular people and soft Republicans that this is actually the ideology running MAGA. A lot of people who aren’t following Republican leaders and official government accounts on Twitter actually have a hard time believing how evil MAGA is which is why you saw things like minority voters going to Trump.
There is a missionary mindset necessary to reach people who are true believer MAGAs. Maybe some rich billionaire or well endowed NGO should fund that kind of outreach the same way the LDS church does --- send out well meaning and sincere lefty college students for a year's crusade, but for the rest of us, it's more effort with less return than any cost benefit calculation could justify.
The infuriating thing about left-wing political persuasion is that a large majority of the targets of your persuasion are in fact completely unreachable people with virulently awful views (the basket of deplorables, in other words, although I think it's actually much larger than even Hillary made it out to be) but it is very hard to tell which of the opposition are actually in the persuadable category and thus very easy to go on very long slumps that result in you mentally dismissing the entire enterprise as futile.
It would be useful for persuaders to get some insights from baseball hitters or other athletes who have to mentally wrap their brains around the knowledge that most of their efforts are going to fail.
>How do you reach out/appeal to someone who’s basically like, “I’m cool with an American version of Einsatzgruppen”?
Leave them alone and politely exit the establishment. California’s Central Valley is quite rural and red. Large empty parts of neighboring Nevada are the same.
A voter who hesitates to condemn out-right killing of illegal immigrants is on the right tail of politics. You are not going to change their mind. Liberals are better off focusing on economic development in the Central valley as there are many non-enthno nationalist subpopulations that still vote GOP. They are much more reachable.
It's funny that for a time at the beginning of his political career Newsom was coded more as moderate. Maybe it was just in comparison to other SF pols. It wouldn't surprise me that he could pivot that way again. After all I would bet a lot of progressives don't consider him one of them but see him as to their right.
If they really hammer him during the primaries and he _still_ wins he might be able to pivot in the general.
RE: Brian's question: I'm a bit disappointed that Matt chose to focus on the part of the question he's already written about (never been an easier time to sit in a room alone) and ignore the part that was novel: is some part of the problem not asocialness per se, but greater pickiness in insisting that a partner be into the same things you're into?
Before I met my wife, I was certain that I needed to be with someone who was really into hiking, and then she slipped through my defenses and I married her in spite of her barely matching that description. Meanwhile, one of my hiking buddies told me about rejecting women, who clearly loved hiking, for being either not into hiking enough (suggesting hiking trails that were too well-known, popular and/or easy as date locations) or too into hiking (trying to set time records on trails). I wonder if people are more prone to that sort of specificity than in the past.
I agree this feels like a much bigger thing that in decades past. Anecdotally I see tons of men saying things like "I don't have any friends because I can't find a group of people who are into the exact same 4 hobbies as me" (and then, often, throw in political alignment and religion too).
I feel like a lot of social engagements suffer from this same kind of "it must have absolutely zero downsides". People will look for literally any tiny excuse to bail on practically everything nowadays.
I think there's also a kind of "exercise" aspect of it. Just like how once you skip a few gym sessions it becomes harder to ever go back, I think once you start bailing on social commitments (often for semi good reasons at the start) it then becomes a slide to eventually ghosting and flaking on most invites.
I was disappointed in a similar way (although the actual answer could have been a response to my technically unanswered “experience machine” question). But I think you’re on to something here. I think apps and social media probably give the impression of both infinite supply and the possibility that the “perfect” person, one who literally ticks all of one’s preference boxes, exists. But your great story illustrates the missing component of ineffable human connection.
I also wonder whether that perfect-as-enemy-of-good dynamic also extends to non-romantic hanging out. If none of one’s actual possibilities can live up to some celebrity/influencer feed, why bother planning a potentially lame get-together?
As a Reagan Republican, I am desperately hoping for a Democrat nominee I can vote for. Newsom, JD Pritzker, lord no.
The bar is fairly low for my vote. Be normal. Believe in merit, capitalism and a liberal democracy. Tell me you will follow the Constitution, the Rule of Law. You will not attempt to aggregate more power for the Presidency. Actually discuss solutions for SS and Medicare's looming insolvency. Think about what to do about our debt, which is eating into budgets. Recognize that we cannot borrow our way out of this problem.
Fire every single MAGA appointee available, and if Trump forgets to pardon some of his criminally negligent cabinet members, charge them, but only with provable crimes. Take Trump's security clearance away from him, rip every single piece of gold he has used to pimp up the White House with. Take his name off any and every building he has put it on.
"Actually discuss solutions for SS and Medicare's looming insolvency. Think about what to do about our debt, which is eating into budgets. Recognize that we cannot borrow our way out of this problem."
I would argue a public, honest commitment to these issues would render any candidate, Republican or Democrat, completely unelectable.
Moreover, even if the Democrat doesn't articulate such specifics, NEITHER WILL THE REPUBLICAN. But the Democrat is at least going to be opposed to snuffing out our democracy.
“Hey everyone, SS and Medicare are insolvent, and we can’t borrow our way out of this. If you elect me, I promise to raise your taxes *and* cut SS and Medicare to deal with this problem! Who’s with me?”
Yeah, it's easy for someone who in fact does not want the left to succeed to suggest that the left eat shit from the irrational voterbase by straight-talking them about said voterbase's completely unrealistic expectations about the costs of social programs.
I propose that the right eat shit on that issue. How's that?
i was looking through the conditions for becoming a german citizen (for no reason in particular ...) and in addition to the usual requirements (duration of residence, language proficiency, ability to support oneself etc...) the ten point list includes:
``You declare your commitment to Germany’s special historical responsibility for the tyrannical National Socialist regime and its consequences – in particular for the protection of Jewish life – and to the peaceful coexistence of peoples and the prohibition on waging a war of aggression.''
it is notable to me that the large number of syrian migrants who have been naturalized by germany in recent years (a quick google tells me it is more that 160,000) signed on to this.
I just don’t agree that what you’re describing below is predictably meaningful when you are talking about a POTUS candidate:
“a demonstrated track record of winning difficult elections”
Beshear, for example, is a nepo baby (no shade really) whose success in KY is not as relevant nationally as you would suggest. Gallego - winning one US Senate election! - might be on his way up but hasn’t really proven anything. If you have not been tested in a POTUS type crucible, your home state success is of fairly small relevance.
POTUS level is the majors; nothing else compares. I am open to those candidates - any candidate who can win - but a Governor or Senator who has put it together in their idiosyncratic state does not impress me.
There is a reason Newsome is surging - not just visibility, not just personal charisma (I guess that’s what he sort of has), but it’s because he is proving himself as tough and a fighter and someone who can stand up to pressure and communicates well. He clearly has some weird history, but I doubt his left positions will be what brings him down. How he handles those past positions will be much more important.
i strongly agree with this. the ability to form a broad national base of support is just really important, and it is just very hard to tell if any of the untested state politicians have that, no matter how swingy their state is. the rest comes later and has its own momentum. this is why primaries are so crucial. in other words, i'm really not convinced that the ability to win a particular swing states generalizes well beyond that state, and that it is positively (rather than negatively) correlated with building a national following.
Re Newsom, the main problem with Harris wasn’t racism or sexism, or even leftish history because of California politics. It was pusillanimous campaigning.
Trump has shown the way in all respects. Former Democrat? Former pro-choicer? Who cares, say his voters. The key thing is aggression and performativeness.
That’s why Matt is wrong. Newsom is the most electable guy we have.
Finding a nice centrist candidate who can win in '28 is simply not enough. Would such a centrist be able to accomplish anything important? If not the Republicans will come roaring back.
Time to stop focussing so much on electability. By '28 trump will have screwed things up to the point where winning the election will be easy. But actually satisfying voters after the election will be extremely difficult. Who's up to that challenge. That's the question.
Psst...Let’s just not tell them they have a cancer. It is coming, and every politician should be talking about it. I don’t think surprising the American public is a good idea. Trump should be doing it. His time is past.
The biggest thing wrong with Gavin Newsom as a presidential candidate is not that he's running a dysfunctional state, but that he's Gavin Newsom. During the brief period in 2024 when Democratic insiders were considering replacements for Joe Biden, one was quoted anonymously as calling Newsom too "cartoonish" an example of a West Coast progressive. That's it in a nutshell. To unpack the nutshell: Newsom is a slick, glib, self-satisfied high-flyer who thought COVID precautions were for the little people (whom he, as a Democrat, devoutly wishes to serve) while he could tear a pheasant or whatever at the French Laundry. When it comes to haircuts, he's a regular John Edwards. And he's the latest embodiment of some Democrats' belief that Hollywood-star quality will carry everything before it. ("We've got Meryl Streep! We've got Robert De Niro! How can we lose?") Hillary Clinton's onstage hugs with famous entertainers only earned her derision, because people recognized it as politically meaningless shilling. Gavin Newsom might save us (Democrats) some expense by serving as both the candidate and the flashy shill -- I don't doubt that he can hug himself. But he won't win.
I visited the Vatican in January 2020 and had a great, non-crowded experience. The Uffizi gallery was similarly non-crowded. Visit Italy in January!
When I was a single person many eons ago before the Internet as we know it (there was the Internet and I did use it), I had no problem going out to dinner or a bar or a movie theater or concert by myself. I also had no TV.
I get why most people don’t like being a singleton, and I kind of want to say, just get over it, but that really doesn’t work does it.
I don’t understand why people are stressing about Newsom. 2028 is infinity years away in our current attention economy.
Enjoy the tweets and wait for better candidates to incorporate his strategy.
Newsom isn't my personal first pick, but I must admit after listening to him on Ezra Klein, I was sold and realized I could see various people in my life who swung to Trump, swing back to the left for him. Time will tell.
On the United Healthcare CEO thing, the last I heard is that he was actually interpersonally a nice dude who came from a working class family and also helped organize some response to COVID stuff. So I don’t agree with the assessment that everyone roughly agrees that he sucks.
But beyond that, why is it always the insurer who is seen as the bad guy? I doubt the estimates of 10k people dying that activists throw around. But even if there is a single person who would die without super expensive treatment, why is their death the insurer’s fault? They made a calculation about the sustainability of the system. It’s easy to oppose “you can’t cover everyone” with righteous indignation, but if you believe that, then shouldn’t you also be mad at the hospital that could’ve saved the patient pro bono but chose to let them die instead?
The issue with insurance is that you pay in every month and then you have to trust that they’ll pay out even though they are incentivized to deny your claim and if they do there’s not much you can do. It’s a trust-based system and denied claims weaken social trust. Also in a lot of cases people are forced to have insurance so they can’t even decide “I don’t trust insurance so I’ll self-insure.” A lot of insurance is pretty scammy this way, for example when I bought my house, I learned about this thing called “title insurance” which apparently only pays out 6 cents for every dollar of premiums so basically a total scam but banks make you have it.
Obviously this doesn’t justify murder but it’s why people are upset with insurance.
We should just have some kind of neutral arbitration board of medical providers that is independent of the insurance company and doesn’t have a financial stake in the outcome that people with denied claims could go to adjudicate their claim and the insurance company should have to pay double or triple if they lose.
One good reason that we blame insurers is that they deny that they are making decisions for the sustainability of the system; they pretty categorically deny that they deny coverage just to save money. Their claim is that they are making a medical decision about what is medically necessary. But they of course cannot be held accountable for that decision the way anyone else claiming to make a medical judgment would be.
If my physician spouse decides a treatment is unnecessary and doesn't provide it they are liable for every foreseeable consequence of that poor decision, including compensation for pain and suffering for the patient and their family. The insurance company, if it makes the same mistake, has to refund that month's premium.
The pricing of museums/concerts thing reminds me that everytime I am at an NHL game I am amazed the incentives aren't there to reduce the lines. During an 18 minute intermission, I can either pee or buy food/drinks. I think there would be a lot of profit in reducing those lines, so I'm surprised arenas/stadiums aren't designed to get the bathroom and concession queues a lot shorter.
1) Which team are you a fan of?
2) If you buy the really expensive tickets they'll bring your food and drink to you, which is consistent with Matt's take. When I lived in Ohio and the Bluejackets were really terrible, I availed myself of those seats a few times.
I am a Flyers fan.
The Oilers.
Fair point. There are different food options for more expensive seats. But it still feels they're leaving money on the table by not getting more people through the lines.
Hi everyone.
I just ambled over to frenemy-of-Matt FdB’s Substack, where he posted his bi-monthly roundup of links to other people’s Substacks. I read one of these pieces, by a very nice liberal woman who, along with her husband, tries to meet Trump supporters where they are and gently, respectfully turn them away from Trump.
The author describes how she and her husband met a Trump supporter at a bar. They engaged him with some small talk, he regaled them with some conspiracy theories, and then the talk turned to ICE. The Trump voter said something like “if they’re here illegally, they need to be deported,” which, legit!
A bit of back-and-forth on the acceptable level of ICE brutality ensued, until the nice liberal husband asked the Trump voter:
“What if ICE started shooting illegal immigrants in the streets? Would you support that?”
There was a looooong pause followed by the Trump voter saying: “ I’m not sure.”
I just… obligatory disclaimer, I have no idea how typical this man is (not very, I devoutly hope). But, just, what do you do about voters like that?
How do you reach out/appeal to someone who’s basically like, “I’m cool with an American version of Einsatzgruppen”?
Mad props and respect to the liberal husband-and-wife duo for refraining from saying “wtf is wrong with you” out loud, but not everyone has such degree of self-control.
(For extra context, this conversation took place in California’s Central Valley.)
I'm sorry to do a whataboutism, but for the sake of calibrating, In this same comments section, there are anecdotes about people who support murdering insurance executives (no one here thankfully).
You can try to persuade this person, or you can persuade regular people and soft Republicans that this is actually the ideology running MAGA. A lot of people who aren’t following Republican leaders and official government accounts on Twitter actually have a hard time believing how evil MAGA is which is why you saw things like minority voters going to Trump.
There is a missionary mindset necessary to reach people who are true believer MAGAs. Maybe some rich billionaire or well endowed NGO should fund that kind of outreach the same way the LDS church does --- send out well meaning and sincere lefty college students for a year's crusade, but for the rest of us, it's more effort with less return than any cost benefit calculation could justify.
The infuriating thing about left-wing political persuasion is that a large majority of the targets of your persuasion are in fact completely unreachable people with virulently awful views (the basket of deplorables, in other words, although I think it's actually much larger than even Hillary made it out to be) but it is very hard to tell which of the opposition are actually in the persuadable category and thus very easy to go on very long slumps that result in you mentally dismissing the entire enterprise as futile.
It would be useful for persuaders to get some insights from baseball hitters or other athletes who have to mentally wrap their brains around the knowledge that most of their efforts are going to fail.
You don’t have to persuade hardcore MAGAs, it’s enough to persuade swing voters that the hardcore MAGAs are running the show and that they’re bad.
agree with Das P’s response practically speaking but also I would just ask, why? Like, keep asking questions to get them to keep thinking it through.
>How do you reach out/appeal to someone who’s basically like, “I’m cool with an American version of Einsatzgruppen”?
Leave them alone and politely exit the establishment. California’s Central Valley is quite rural and red. Large empty parts of neighboring Nevada are the same.
A voter who hesitates to condemn out-right killing of illegal immigrants is on the right tail of politics. You are not going to change their mind. Liberals are better off focusing on economic development in the Central valley as there are many non-enthno nationalist subpopulations that still vote GOP. They are much more reachable.
It's funny that for a time at the beginning of his political career Newsom was coded more as moderate. Maybe it was just in comparison to other SF pols. It wouldn't surprise me that he could pivot that way again. After all I would bet a lot of progressives don't consider him one of them but see him as to their right.
If they really hammer him during the primaries and he _still_ wins he might be able to pivot in the general.
>If they really hammer him during the primaries and he _still_ wins he might be able to pivot in the general.
Good point, it depends on how he reacts to the attacks though.
In order to stave off attacks from the left wing, the moderates have two strategies. Either
- Use identity groups as a shield. (Biden, Hillary)
- Indulge in Sister Soulja/Hippe punching. (Bill Clinton)
It does not look like Newsom is occupying the Hippie-puncher lane and he does not have any identity group that is loyal to him.
There is a third lane that is now open
- The economic populist, culturally moderate lane
Let's see if Newsom goes there.
RE: Brian's question: I'm a bit disappointed that Matt chose to focus on the part of the question he's already written about (never been an easier time to sit in a room alone) and ignore the part that was novel: is some part of the problem not asocialness per se, but greater pickiness in insisting that a partner be into the same things you're into?
Before I met my wife, I was certain that I needed to be with someone who was really into hiking, and then she slipped through my defenses and I married her in spite of her barely matching that description. Meanwhile, one of my hiking buddies told me about rejecting women, who clearly loved hiking, for being either not into hiking enough (suggesting hiking trails that were too well-known, popular and/or easy as date locations) or too into hiking (trying to set time records on trails). I wonder if people are more prone to that sort of specificity than in the past.
I agree this feels like a much bigger thing that in decades past. Anecdotally I see tons of men saying things like "I don't have any friends because I can't find a group of people who are into the exact same 4 hobbies as me" (and then, often, throw in political alignment and religion too).
I feel like a lot of social engagements suffer from this same kind of "it must have absolutely zero downsides". People will look for literally any tiny excuse to bail on practically everything nowadays.
I think there's also a kind of "exercise" aspect of it. Just like how once you skip a few gym sessions it becomes harder to ever go back, I think once you start bailing on social commitments (often for semi good reasons at the start) it then becomes a slide to eventually ghosting and flaking on most invites.
I was disappointed in a similar way (although the actual answer could have been a response to my technically unanswered “experience machine” question). But I think you’re on to something here. I think apps and social media probably give the impression of both infinite supply and the possibility that the “perfect” person, one who literally ticks all of one’s preference boxes, exists. But your great story illustrates the missing component of ineffable human connection.
I also wonder whether that perfect-as-enemy-of-good dynamic also extends to non-romantic hanging out. If none of one’s actual possibilities can live up to some celebrity/influencer feed, why bother planning a potentially lame get-together?
As a Reagan Republican, I am desperately hoping for a Democrat nominee I can vote for. Newsom, JD Pritzker, lord no.
The bar is fairly low for my vote. Be normal. Believe in merit, capitalism and a liberal democracy. Tell me you will follow the Constitution, the Rule of Law. You will not attempt to aggregate more power for the Presidency. Actually discuss solutions for SS and Medicare's looming insolvency. Think about what to do about our debt, which is eating into budgets. Recognize that we cannot borrow our way out of this problem.
Fire every single MAGA appointee available, and if Trump forgets to pardon some of his criminally negligent cabinet members, charge them, but only with provable crimes. Take Trump's security clearance away from him, rip every single piece of gold he has used to pimp up the White House with. Take his name off any and every building he has put it on.
"Actually discuss solutions for SS and Medicare's looming insolvency. Think about what to do about our debt, which is eating into budgets. Recognize that we cannot borrow our way out of this problem."
I would argue a public, honest commitment to these issues would render any candidate, Republican or Democrat, completely unelectable.
Moreover, even if the Democrat doesn't articulate such specifics, NEITHER WILL THE REPUBLICAN. But the Democrat is at least going to be opposed to snuffing out our democracy.
“Hey everyone, SS and Medicare are insolvent, and we can’t borrow our way out of this. If you elect me, I promise to raise your taxes *and* cut SS and Medicare to deal with this problem! Who’s with me?”
A+++ political strategy right there!
Particularly in a world where the sole Republican political strategy on the economy is constant, shameless lying.
Yeah, it's easy for someone who in fact does not want the left to succeed to suggest that the left eat shit from the irrational voterbase by straight-talking them about said voterbase's completely unrealistic expectations about the costs of social programs.
I propose that the right eat shit on that issue. How's that?
i was looking through the conditions for becoming a german citizen (for no reason in particular ...) and in addition to the usual requirements (duration of residence, language proficiency, ability to support oneself etc...) the ten point list includes:
``You declare your commitment to Germany’s special historical responsibility for the tyrannical National Socialist regime and its consequences – in particular for the protection of Jewish life – and to the peaceful coexistence of peoples and the prohibition on waging a war of aggression.''
it is notable to me that the large number of syrian migrants who have been naturalized by germany in recent years (a quick google tells me it is more that 160,000) signed on to this.
I just don’t agree that what you’re describing below is predictably meaningful when you are talking about a POTUS candidate:
“a demonstrated track record of winning difficult elections”
Beshear, for example, is a nepo baby (no shade really) whose success in KY is not as relevant nationally as you would suggest. Gallego - winning one US Senate election! - might be on his way up but hasn’t really proven anything. If you have not been tested in a POTUS type crucible, your home state success is of fairly small relevance.
POTUS level is the majors; nothing else compares. I am open to those candidates - any candidate who can win - but a Governor or Senator who has put it together in their idiosyncratic state does not impress me.
There is a reason Newsome is surging - not just visibility, not just personal charisma (I guess that’s what he sort of has), but it’s because he is proving himself as tough and a fighter and someone who can stand up to pressure and communicates well. He clearly has some weird history, but I doubt his left positions will be what brings him down. How he handles those past positions will be much more important.
i strongly agree with this. the ability to form a broad national base of support is just really important, and it is just very hard to tell if any of the untested state politicians have that, no matter how swingy their state is. the rest comes later and has its own momentum. this is why primaries are so crucial. in other words, i'm really not convinced that the ability to win a particular swing states generalizes well beyond that state, and that it is positively (rather than negatively) correlated with building a national following.