Can we not illustrate an article that says that young people don’t prioritize Gaza with a picture showing people protesting about Gaza. It’s lazy. Do better.
I'm very skeptical that people's self-reports saying "it's the economy" really tell you much about how to win their votes.
I think the right model is basically that people develop a holistic sense of which canidate they trust more based on aesthetic/attitude (do they show the kind of emotional affect around issues that resonates with me) and then they also tell you what issues they feel affect then most -- but it's not true that they pay attention to either economic indicators nor economic policy in a way which means that changing tack on those is the best way to win their vote.
I think the difficulty democrats have with young men speaks to this. It's not the policies per se but the rhetoric about them.
This seems to conflate "liberal" and "progressive" in the polling and thus in the results. I'm old, almost as old as Biden, but for me, moderate and liberal are not distinct, whereas moderate is clearly different from progressive. I hate to see the label "liberal" re-demonized this way. For decades it was an epithet and only recently have people like me of all ages, center-left, been able to reclaim it. I'm really a lot like those kids, except on the issue of Biden's age, which is akin to Hillary's emails in 2016.
The closing statement that the young are wrongly portrayed as a liberal block is an instance of a fallacy I see a lot. I don’t have any statistics at hand, but I would expect to find that pro-Palestine protesters are overwhelmingly young. Yet it is not at all valid to infer from this that most young people have participated in the protests. Similarly, the ranks of the richest and most powerful are dominated by white men, yet most white men are neither rich nor powerful.
Fact-based journalism is refreshing, thanks. But speaking as a non-young voter: I consider myself a conservative liberal. To me, the current effort to align views along a "conservative" to "liberal" axis is misleading. At best it misuses words, but I don't think the issue is just pedantic or semantic. I consider the stereotypical MAGA prototype very far from conservative, just as I consider the stereotypical culture-war progressive to be far from liberal.
Yes (or at least for the past 40 or so years; pre-1980, there was less emphasis on people's homes being a major investment vehicle for retirement and people also made much less use of repeated cash-out refinancing, so I suspect falling home prices were viewed less cataclysmically in that era).
It’s wild that 60% of people list being too anti-Palestinian as a major concern about Biden. I assume these same people have the same concern about Trump, but it just doesn’t make the list of their *biggest* concerns about Trump. But that proves that people just have fewer concerns about Biden. And yet he’s still not leading!
Not necessarily. Biden is I believe a self-identified Zionist, who obviously has a very deep and long held sympathy for Israel, even if his policies and interests often conflict with that of the current Israeli government. Trump by contrast is probably incapable of much sympathy or empathy (to anyone), and has no deeply held convictions on foreign policy (or much else). He is more likely to be heterodox and chaotic in foreign policy, and has sympathy for the likes of Putin. All this makes him less predictable but overall more likely to be less pro Israel (or any other traditional American allies!).
P.S.
Trump also currently hold a personal grudge against Netanyahu - for the only kind of reason Trump cares about, Netanyahu recognizing Biden's victory and congratulating him! - should trump be electing and netanyahu remain in power until then (god forbid for both prospects!), it would probably add additional strain.
MSN involuntary clickbait news splash page, as of 1030 AM on Wednesday, politically related headlines sampler: On any average day, these are zone-flooded from the right, and tilt more unfavorable to Biden and Democrats and more favorably to conservatives, Republicans, and by extension Trump. Let’s look at today – Bad for Donnie, better for Joe- Crime and Punishment! (3) Joe Biden Suddenly Leads Donald Trump in Multiple Battleground States (msn.com) GOP’s Biden-Manhattan conspiracy theory suffers a double blow (msn.com) Trump said Clinton shouldn't run under investigation. Now he's running as a convict (msn.com) GOP in disarray! (5) Matt Gaetz Splits With Donald Trump (msn.com) Donald Trump Facing 'Five-Alarm Fire' Over Election—GOP Strategist (msn.com) Donald Trump Suffers Huge Vote Against Him in New Mexico Primary (msn.com) Trump-backed candidate defeated in Republican Senate primary in New Jersey (msn.com) Marjorie Taylor Greene Gets Schooled On NATO Amendment | Watch (msn.com) A bad investment? (1) Trump Stock Down Amid 'Serious Anomalies' (msn.com) Bad for Joe, better for Donnie- Joe Biden Suffers Huge Primary Vote Against Him in South Dakota (msn.com) (1) - and fairly meaningless Good news for the gun gal! (1) Lauren Boebert Gets a Huge Boost in Colorado (msn.com) This morning’s 9:2 ratio doesn’t look so bad to me at all.
Not on topic with Milan's informative guest article, but over in Brian Beutler's substack, he just had a little bit of an empathy breakthrough today, and was more insightful and less repetitive than he can be at times. I complimented the good work thusly. Where I use quotes, I quoting him:
Brian - *this* is one of your most insightful pieces of the last few weeks, because of what it identifies: "“Trump is now a felon, ergo he shouldn’t be president” treats the conclusion as self evident." YES!!!! VERY FEW conclusions or "truths" are self-evident in American society or modern western societies any more, especially when they have political or identity implications. Further argument drawing the conclusions needs to be made, clearly and simply and persuasively as possible. One must "do the math" for the audience. "it’s that they frequently didn’t fill in the gaps for people who weren’t already read in." YES again! Progressives and Democrats are doing fine at basic alarm and warning of orange man bad for people who are read-in. And that's helped! In off-year elections and specials. But where they fall down, and it is admittedly harder, is in "filling the gaps" for persuadables, *not read-in*. Anticipate people *not* having your own value commitments and saying "so what"? "Add it up" for them. Then try to connect it a more likely universal self-interest, or a remaining value that may still be universal or not be seen as political or identitarian. Don't try to sell someone on an identitarian value that does not fit their identity (politics 101). "Why is promising to ban Muslims bad, as opposed to just abnormal? The answers are obvious to me and you, but not necessarily to all persuadable people." Correct. Complete the argument with. And this is bad because....... Or, better yet, "and this is bad for you, and people you care about because...." "And my fear is that repeated invocations of the f-word (for felon), divorced from any values-based arguments about what exactly is so disqualifying, risks acclimating persuadable people in the same way. " That's basically how Trump started his campaign in 2016, by *declaring* his own desensitization to accusations of being told "you're racist, you're racist, you're racist", and his base has found that enormously liberating and appealing. You're not adding many percentage points drumbeating on the racism theme. But maybe you can on dishonesty, unfairness, and crookedness themes. "But they will understand their own instincts better if public servants who aren’t felons fill in the reasoning for them." It is a nice touch when you can explain your own points as an explanation or elaboration of people's own instincts - their discomfort with Trump, for one great example. Another example is advising them to go with their opinions on their own personal economic situation, community situation, or state economic situation rather than their more negative hearsay perception on the national economic situation. People, including is swing states, tend to rate the economic circumstances of circles closer to them more highly (net positive) than that of the country as a whole (net negative), *even when accounting for price discontent*.
TLDR version: of Rob H. statement above Yes, you need to fill in the gaps of why the criminality is bad, using (universal, apolitical) values-based and self-interest based arguments.
It is not enough to scream your own sense of outrage and offended values, which may be less universal or less understood (especially in the vocabulary you habitually use for them) than you realize. Campaigning is a time to argue with passion, but not a time to grow frustrated and dismissive of people who don’t prioritize things exactly as you do, or who do not describe social and political concepts using your preferred vocabulary.
“Luca Girodon, one of my classmates at Yale, is a rising junior studying Global Affairs. He’s French-American (born in Paris), the son of two war reporters.”
It remains extremely disappointing that guys ask guys about stuff and you get perfectly predictible results. Try asking women and try asking them about abortion. Gabe at least is paying attention.
I was going to snark on Milan having mainly dude friends as friends he talked politics with and sampled opinions from. And I think he went to some of his closest pals.
But I decided not to snark, because at his age, yep, my closest friends were all also other guys and the ones I had the lengthiest and most open conversations about philosophical and public matters. That's still the case in my middle age with my friend group except now my wife and I have shared more shared friends, and work friends/colleagues are more mixed.
As a heterosexual and hormonal young college guy in the early 90s, usually uncoupled, I certainly could have manners and hold conversations across gender lines, but the ever-present calculation of "could this become a dating thing?" or would I want it to, or might they get that idea if I overengaged and that's not what I wanted, sort of caused self-censorship and limited extensive and frank conversation.
Since I went to school in DC, political interest was well above average, and there were plenty of women with conservative/Republican "false consciousnesses" or whatever you might call it at the time, as well as conservative women. The same for men. And variety among Democrats.
All that said, I *am* counting on women, women's good judgment, and women's more habitual studiousness and follow-through to save this country from Trump. I get the impression that women under 35 or under 30 are far more solidly progressive or liberal than older women of Gen X (some of us Gen X are the worst - on politics, on overall demeanor not so much). I really do think much of the messaging in the liberal, democratic progressive sphere has to push young female turnout, and single women of all ages [because, to be crassly cynical, and grossly overgeneralize, straight married women turn traitor to stout feminism as a statistical aggregate, and young mothers go soft on abortion rights]. And part of the message for the female vote is "It's up to you/us, because men/boys really could eff this up and blow the election and put us into Trump Season Two, because these dunderheads can't tell government apart from pro-wrestling, videogames or NASCAR or axe-throwing."
The accompanying frontpage illustration of pro-Palestine demonstrators, which I doubt Mr. Singh had any voice in selecting, does the points he's trying to make no favors. It would have been much better to use the chart from his article.
Doesn’t this show a quite high concern about excessive support for Israel, albeit lower than a few other topics?
Can we not illustrate an article that says that young people don’t prioritize Gaza with a picture showing people protesting about Gaza. It’s lazy. Do better.
Gotta get those clicks
I'm very skeptical that people's self-reports saying "it's the economy" really tell you much about how to win their votes.
I think the right model is basically that people develop a holistic sense of which canidate they trust more based on aesthetic/attitude (do they show the kind of emotional affect around issues that resonates with me) and then they also tell you what issues they feel affect then most -- but it's not true that they pay attention to either economic indicators nor economic policy in a way which means that changing tack on those is the best way to win their vote.
I think the difficulty democrats have with young men speaks to this. It's not the policies per se but the rhetoric about them.
This seems to conflate "liberal" and "progressive" in the polling and thus in the results. I'm old, almost as old as Biden, but for me, moderate and liberal are not distinct, whereas moderate is clearly different from progressive. I hate to see the label "liberal" re-demonized this way. For decades it was an epithet and only recently have people like me of all ages, center-left, been able to reclaim it. I'm really a lot like those kids, except on the issue of Biden's age, which is akin to Hillary's emails in 2016.
The closing statement that the young are wrongly portrayed as a liberal block is an instance of a fallacy I see a lot. I don’t have any statistics at hand, but I would expect to find that pro-Palestine protesters are overwhelmingly young. Yet it is not at all valid to infer from this that most young people have participated in the protests. Similarly, the ranks of the richest and most powerful are dominated by white men, yet most white men are neither rich nor powerful.
Fact-based journalism is refreshing, thanks. But speaking as a non-young voter: I consider myself a conservative liberal. To me, the current effort to align views along a "conservative" to "liberal" axis is misleading. At best it misuses words, but I don't think the issue is just pedantic or semantic. I consider the stereotypical MAGA prototype very far from conservative, just as I consider the stereotypical culture-war progressive to be far from liberal.
This article could also be titled, “Home Affordability Surges!”
https://www.newsweek.com/california-condo-prices-crash-40-some-areas-1908388#:~:text=The%20drop%20of%20condo%20prices,of%20its%20downtown%20offices%20empty.
Has the media always been, “Ahhh Home Prices are high and it’s terrible. Ahhh home prices are falling and it’s terrible?”
Yes (or at least for the past 40 or so years; pre-1980, there was less emphasis on people's homes being a major investment vehicle for retirement and people also made much less use of repeated cash-out refinancing, so I suspect falling home prices were viewed less cataclysmically in that era).
It’s wild that 60% of people list being too anti-Palestinian as a major concern about Biden. I assume these same people have the same concern about Trump, but it just doesn’t make the list of their *biggest* concerns about Trump. But that proves that people just have fewer concerns about Biden. And yet he’s still not leading!
Not necessarily. Biden is I believe a self-identified Zionist, who obviously has a very deep and long held sympathy for Israel, even if his policies and interests often conflict with that of the current Israeli government. Trump by contrast is probably incapable of much sympathy or empathy (to anyone), and has no deeply held convictions on foreign policy (or much else). He is more likely to be heterodox and chaotic in foreign policy, and has sympathy for the likes of Putin. All this makes him less predictable but overall more likely to be less pro Israel (or any other traditional American allies!).
P.S.
Trump also currently hold a personal grudge against Netanyahu - for the only kind of reason Trump cares about, Netanyahu recognizing Biden's victory and congratulating him! - should trump be electing and netanyahu remain in power until then (god forbid for both prospects!), it would probably add additional strain.
Proud Moderate here.
Liberal on most social issues but not to the extent that some on the left take it.
Against Affirmative Action.
More welfare state, marginal income tax rates should be bought back.
More tough on crime and investigation policies.
MSN involuntary clickbait news splash page, as of 1030 AM on Wednesday, politically related headlines sampler: On any average day, these are zone-flooded from the right, and tilt more unfavorable to Biden and Democrats and more favorably to conservatives, Republicans, and by extension Trump. Let’s look at today – Bad for Donnie, better for Joe- Crime and Punishment! (3) Joe Biden Suddenly Leads Donald Trump in Multiple Battleground States (msn.com) GOP’s Biden-Manhattan conspiracy theory suffers a double blow (msn.com) Trump said Clinton shouldn't run under investigation. Now he's running as a convict (msn.com) GOP in disarray! (5) Matt Gaetz Splits With Donald Trump (msn.com) Donald Trump Facing 'Five-Alarm Fire' Over Election—GOP Strategist (msn.com) Donald Trump Suffers Huge Vote Against Him in New Mexico Primary (msn.com) Trump-backed candidate defeated in Republican Senate primary in New Jersey (msn.com) Marjorie Taylor Greene Gets Schooled On NATO Amendment | Watch (msn.com) A bad investment? (1) Trump Stock Down Amid 'Serious Anomalies' (msn.com) Bad for Joe, better for Donnie- Joe Biden Suffers Huge Primary Vote Against Him in South Dakota (msn.com) (1) - and fairly meaningless Good news for the gun gal! (1) Lauren Boebert Gets a Huge Boost in Colorado (msn.com) This morning’s 9:2 ratio doesn’t look so bad to me at all.
Not on topic with Milan's informative guest article, but over in Brian Beutler's substack, he just had a little bit of an empathy breakthrough today, and was more insightful and less repetitive than he can be at times. I complimented the good work thusly. Where I use quotes, I quoting him:
Brian - *this* is one of your most insightful pieces of the last few weeks, because of what it identifies: "“Trump is now a felon, ergo he shouldn’t be president” treats the conclusion as self evident." YES!!!! VERY FEW conclusions or "truths" are self-evident in American society or modern western societies any more, especially when they have political or identity implications. Further argument drawing the conclusions needs to be made, clearly and simply and persuasively as possible. One must "do the math" for the audience. "it’s that they frequently didn’t fill in the gaps for people who weren’t already read in." YES again! Progressives and Democrats are doing fine at basic alarm and warning of orange man bad for people who are read-in. And that's helped! In off-year elections and specials. But where they fall down, and it is admittedly harder, is in "filling the gaps" for persuadables, *not read-in*. Anticipate people *not* having your own value commitments and saying "so what"? "Add it up" for them. Then try to connect it a more likely universal self-interest, or a remaining value that may still be universal or not be seen as political or identitarian. Don't try to sell someone on an identitarian value that does not fit their identity (politics 101). "Why is promising to ban Muslims bad, as opposed to just abnormal? The answers are obvious to me and you, but not necessarily to all persuadable people." Correct. Complete the argument with. And this is bad because....... Or, better yet, "and this is bad for you, and people you care about because...." "And my fear is that repeated invocations of the f-word (for felon), divorced from any values-based arguments about what exactly is so disqualifying, risks acclimating persuadable people in the same way. " That's basically how Trump started his campaign in 2016, by *declaring* his own desensitization to accusations of being told "you're racist, you're racist, you're racist", and his base has found that enormously liberating and appealing. You're not adding many percentage points drumbeating on the racism theme. But maybe you can on dishonesty, unfairness, and crookedness themes. "But they will understand their own instincts better if public servants who aren’t felons fill in the reasoning for them." It is a nice touch when you can explain your own points as an explanation or elaboration of people's own instincts - their discomfort with Trump, for one great example. Another example is advising them to go with their opinions on their own personal economic situation, community situation, or state economic situation rather than their more negative hearsay perception on the national economic situation. People, including is swing states, tend to rate the economic circumstances of circles closer to them more highly (net positive) than that of the country as a whole (net negative), *even when accounting for price discontent*.
TLDR version: of Rob H. statement above Yes, you need to fill in the gaps of why the criminality is bad, using (universal, apolitical) values-based and self-interest based arguments.
It is not enough to scream your own sense of outrage and offended values, which may be less universal or less understood (especially in the vocabulary you habitually use for them) than you realize. Campaigning is a time to argue with passion, but not a time to grow frustrated and dismissive of people who don’t prioritize things exactly as you do, or who do not describe social and political concepts using your preferred vocabulary.
But youngsters don’t vote, so Bernard Sanders would be finishing up his second term right now.
This focus group is hilarious.
“Luca Girodon, one of my classmates at Yale, is a rising junior studying Global Affairs. He’s French-American (born in Paris), the son of two war reporters.”
When you're a freelance writer, you focus the group you have, not the group you want.
“I don't like to be too ideological because I feel that it tends to cloud judgment.”, also "I'm voting for RFK" was quite a ride.
It remains extremely disappointing that guys ask guys about stuff and you get perfectly predictible results. Try asking women and try asking them about abortion. Gabe at least is paying attention.
I was going to snark on Milan having mainly dude friends as friends he talked politics with and sampled opinions from. And I think he went to some of his closest pals.
But I decided not to snark, because at his age, yep, my closest friends were all also other guys and the ones I had the lengthiest and most open conversations about philosophical and public matters. That's still the case in my middle age with my friend group except now my wife and I have shared more shared friends, and work friends/colleagues are more mixed.
As a heterosexual and hormonal young college guy in the early 90s, usually uncoupled, I certainly could have manners and hold conversations across gender lines, but the ever-present calculation of "could this become a dating thing?" or would I want it to, or might they get that idea if I overengaged and that's not what I wanted, sort of caused self-censorship and limited extensive and frank conversation.
Since I went to school in DC, political interest was well above average, and there were plenty of women with conservative/Republican "false consciousnesses" or whatever you might call it at the time, as well as conservative women. The same for men. And variety among Democrats.
All that said, I *am* counting on women, women's good judgment, and women's more habitual studiousness and follow-through to save this country from Trump. I get the impression that women under 35 or under 30 are far more solidly progressive or liberal than older women of Gen X (some of us Gen X are the worst - on politics, on overall demeanor not so much). I really do think much of the messaging in the liberal, democratic progressive sphere has to push young female turnout, and single women of all ages [because, to be crassly cynical, and grossly overgeneralize, straight married women turn traitor to stout feminism as a statistical aggregate, and young mothers go soft on abortion rights]. And part of the message for the female vote is "It's up to you/us, because men/boys really could eff this up and blow the election and put us into Trump Season Two, because these dunderheads can't tell government apart from pro-wrestling, videogames or NASCAR or axe-throwing."
I'm counting on my sisters from another mother.
The accompanying frontpage illustration of pro-Palestine demonstrators, which I doubt Mr. Singh had any voice in selecting, does the points he's trying to make no favors. It would have been much better to use the chart from his article.