The "Two governors in key states" section removed Rodriguez when she dropped out (though the section title hasn't changed). Should Crowley take her place going into the general election?
For people wanting to donate, but fight against the deluge of spam that accompanies it, here's a link to donate to these candidates through Oath (mentioned a few other places in the comments). It won't stop you from getting spam, but it should prevent this donation from making it worse and hopefully will help build a norm against political spam
Extra motivation for SlowBoring readers. The incumbent Eileen Hartnett Albillar is challenging was the lone vote against an ADU bill that just got passed out of committee.
It’s interesting being here in Dallas, TX for work as the midterms carry on and just seeing/ hearing people’s thoughts. I see Talarico’s ads on like every morning during breakfast at my hotel, regardless of the channel. I work with non-college people and no one I’ve meant had a negative opinion of him. It ranges from lukewarm to massive stan. Most people are just like “ yeah he’s cool” and then don’t think any more than that but it’s still good territory to be in.
Have heard some Bobby Pulido songs at the Mexican places I’ve gone to and regardless if he wins or not I’ve become a fan of his.
Could Matt recommend to these or other candidates to a) make appeals for money at least interesting, contain some new thing that the candidate did or said. 'Help us meet the monthly goal' is the worst! b) Even better make the message appealing to swing voters, somethig that one might want to pass on to an undecded friend, why they are not a generic Democrat.
It’s extremely interesting to me how thoroughly Latin candidates with politically-nontraditional backgrounds seem to be overrepresented in this slate. I think the animating project for moderation and/or Schmoderation needs to be an obsession with not coming off as ‘establishment,’ and I think the generally-more-conservative orientation of Black and/or Latin candidates/voting blocs is likewise core to that project.
This will probably be my last act as a paid SB subscriber because I think MattY's focus on fighting against the party instead of the GOP works against winning, but now that the dust is settled, I will grit my teeth and send this to my friends who make political donations.
I wish MattY was actually focused on winning instead of factional battles. Or at least understood how much of a factional partisan he is. The inter-factional war he's fighting has alienated me completely, despite sharing the slow boring and pragmatic theory of politics. He can't even stop himself from making a donation guide about the general election into a factional piece.
And who knows who is really electable, right? People like el sayed in Michigan were deemed to be unelectable but when someone wins despite being outspent by a ridiculous margin, who is really less electable??? I think candidate quality and passion is very important these days because democrats have to fight a very ruthless MAGA party that Trump is obviously pushing as hard as he can! Democratic voters want fighters not bland centrist moderates that will compromise! And you are right, spending too much in the primaries can REALLY be a waste of money and time!
It is a bit hypocritical to repeatedly castigate the left of the party for "not caring about beating Trump" because they contest primaries, and then put out a list of supposed "midterm endorsements" that contains several who are fighting hotly contested primaries and not general elections.
I suppose the putative distinction is that these are nominally competitive seats (although, at what point of competitiveness does fighting a primary become "caring about beating Trump" instead of not doing so?), but some of them are a real stretch and do not seem remotely like good investments. I don't think factional warring over who gets to lose FL-7 is a disciplined use of money.
I didn't get that far down! Yeah, MattY is a terrible political strategist. He writes wonderful articles about policies and history, but he has never challenged the conflicts in his worldview. He understands that insulting voters is not a good idea, but then insults the majority of primary voters.
I'll miss a lot people of this community, but Matt works against me being more open minded in my politics and often annoys me. That's not a winning combination.
"He understands that insulting voters is not a good idea, but then insults the majority of primary voters."
He insults political advocates and commentators a great deal, but not so much voters. The latter he tends to view as earnest if sometimes wrong. The former seem to be invested in the wrong things and should know better.
He insults primary voters because he insults their preferences and views. He doesn't get that the advocates and commentators very often reflect the views of those primary voters.
Since the election, I've shifted from frequently sharing his articles to thinking he's wrong far more often than right, and that he's not going to persuade anyone to change their mind. Actually, he changed my mind and made me more suspicious of self-identified moderates and centrists. Matt is an enemy of coalition building and bad for the cause of slow boring and pragmatic politics. I'm done with him.
I think this is completely wrong. Summarize Matt's various arguments into points, I would outline this:
1) Leftist Democrats are a critical part of the Democratic party as a left party
2) Activists and political advocates in the party are further to the left than the median party member and much further to the left than general public.
3) It is very reasonable to expect that Democrats nominated in very progressive spaces will be further to the left
*4)* The left polices candidates and pushes in areas that are *not* progressive spaces for candidates to be more progressive and to the left
5) This makes it increasingly difficult for Democrats to win outside of progressive areas
6) Progressive activist mostly don't care because they focus more on factional power within the Democratic party than they do on the Democratic party winning power.
7) Moderates need to learn to push back against this left activism and instead hold their ground. This will broaden the tent of the party and make it more electable.
The issue he has is not that progressive activists are going to nominate left candidates in NYC, MA, etc. Its that they push *the party* to take stances that make the party weaker and moderates in power cave to this pressure because its hard to stand up against powerful members of the coalition who control resources that candidates need/want.
Is there a particular step in this sequence you disagree with? Are there particular quotes that you can share where he insults the preferences and views of primary voters?
I would challenge that Matt does 1-3, but I don't agree with the 1-7 analysis. We appear to be in a period where people feel alienated from "the system," left, right, and middle, and are looking for people who can articulate that alienation. Moderates usually suck at this.
Recently he mentioned City That Works as fellow travelers. They are so good at sidestepping the dumb X takes and focuses on uniting the party (locally, because they're focused locally). They help get legislation passed. Matt argues on X.
The path to victory is very often opening up instead of pushing back. if Matt wants a big tent, he needs to persuade people and invite them in. He is god-awful at persuading anybody who is not in the choir. Did he change your mind on anything or he just serving up comfort food to the ideologically aligned? I'm just one person, but Matt's persona and approach has driven me away. If he had been more inclusive and invited me in, I would have easily been persuaded.
Fun fact about Hong: her state legislative district (Madison Wisconsin around campus) is probably in the top 10 most left wing state leg districts nationwide (hard to pick the most lefty, but it's saying something when there are 7,386 of them in total, and a great illustration of how the progressive left has embraced a "shoot the moon*" strategy here)
*or perhaps the metaphor is a "hard eight" bet in craps? Generally regarded as one of the worst bets in the game, even if it seems cool at the time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOPB9c4t0Ok
The "Two governors in key states" section removed Rodriguez when she dropped out (though the section title hasn't changed). Should Crowley take her place going into the general election?
For people wanting to donate, but fight against the deluge of spam that accompanies it, here's a link to donate to these candidates through Oath (mentioned a few other places in the comments). It won't stop you from getting spam, but it should prevent this donation from making it worse and hopefully will help build a norm against political spam
https://app.oath.vote/donate?ref=DBLJEQ0G&p=checkout&shopping-cart=9d7dd96f-8891-4f17-9c78-6e01cf611929%2Ca79593e0-9173-4577-b598-9adfbfe821cc%2C8920ebe0-16e2-40ea-a3eb-4595cf49a19e%2C12d8cc67-6844-478d-a7a7-178169dff026%2Cce592893-b475-4fa3-a9bf-3857df4e7edc%2C717f96ef-91cc-437e-b04a-5b7ea55eab4b%2C96e65ad8-012b-4154-86cf-afc4034a2faa%2Cff5339e4-fa5a-4e1e-9b3b-a9a9ca21d94e%2C701c3c21-5ad3-478f-9dbf-038b24bc37e6%2C49e6d694-8208-4fe2-aeb2-f42f82c7c5e8%2C7faaf8d9-2eea-473c-8fd1-7985d26cc667%2Cf5a8982f-ae38-47bb-8f57-efa91984d503%2C5a9453b2-92a4-4cd4-9bd2-d453c0ed00ea%2Cbee97113-6b10-4492-818d-b79c1ab840d6
Extra motivation for SlowBoring readers. The incumbent Eileen Hartnett Albillar is challenging was the lone vote against an ADU bill that just got passed out of committee.
It’s interesting being here in Dallas, TX for work as the midterms carry on and just seeing/ hearing people’s thoughts. I see Talarico’s ads on like every morning during breakfast at my hotel, regardless of the channel. I work with non-college people and no one I’ve meant had a negative opinion of him. It ranges from lukewarm to massive stan. Most people are just like “ yeah he’s cool” and then don’t think any more than that but it’s still good territory to be in.
Have heard some Bobby Pulido songs at the Mexican places I’ve gone to and regardless if he wins or not I’ve become a fan of his.
Could Matt recommend to these or other candidates to a) make appeals for money at least interesting, contain some new thing that the candidate did or said. 'Help us meet the monthly goal' is the worst! b) Even better make the message appealing to swing voters, somethig that one might want to pass on to an undecded friend, why they are not a generic Democrat.
Is there a reason this isn't on actblue anymore?
Just donated to Bale Dalton, which makes perfect sense as I live in his district.
It’s extremely interesting to me how thoroughly Latin candidates with politically-nontraditional backgrounds seem to be overrepresented in this slate. I think the animating project for moderation and/or Schmoderation needs to be an obsession with not coming off as ‘establishment,’ and I think the generally-more-conservative orientation of Black and/or Latin candidates/voting blocs is likewise core to that project.
I’m nervous about the Rodriguez plan now. She just fired her campaign manager.
This will probably be my last act as a paid SB subscriber because I think MattY's focus on fighting against the party instead of the GOP works against winning, but now that the dust is settled, I will grit my teeth and send this to my friends who make political donations.
I wish MattY was actually focused on winning instead of factional battles. Or at least understood how much of a factional partisan he is. The inter-factional war he's fighting has alienated me completely, despite sharing the slow boring and pragmatic theory of politics. He can't even stop himself from making a donation guide about the general election into a factional piece.
And who knows who is really electable, right? People like el sayed in Michigan were deemed to be unelectable but when someone wins despite being outspent by a ridiculous margin, who is really less electable??? I think candidate quality and passion is very important these days because democrats have to fight a very ruthless MAGA party that Trump is obviously pushing as hard as he can! Democratic voters want fighters not bland centrist moderates that will compromise! And you are right, spending too much in the primaries can REALLY be a waste of money and time!
It is a bit hypocritical to repeatedly castigate the left of the party for "not caring about beating Trump" because they contest primaries, and then put out a list of supposed "midterm endorsements" that contains several who are fighting hotly contested primaries and not general elections.
I suppose the putative distinction is that these are nominally competitive seats (although, at what point of competitiveness does fighting a primary become "caring about beating Trump" instead of not doing so?), but some of them are a real stretch and do not seem remotely like good investments. I don't think factional warring over who gets to lose FL-7 is a disciplined use of money.
I didn't get that far down! Yeah, MattY is a terrible political strategist. He writes wonderful articles about policies and history, but he has never challenged the conflicts in his worldview. He understands that insulting voters is not a good idea, but then insults the majority of primary voters.
I'll miss a lot people of this community, but Matt works against me being more open minded in my politics and often annoys me. That's not a winning combination.
"He understands that insulting voters is not a good idea, but then insults the majority of primary voters."
He insults political advocates and commentators a great deal, but not so much voters. The latter he tends to view as earnest if sometimes wrong. The former seem to be invested in the wrong things and should know better.
He insults primary voters because he insults their preferences and views. He doesn't get that the advocates and commentators very often reflect the views of those primary voters.
Since the election, I've shifted from frequently sharing his articles to thinking he's wrong far more often than right, and that he's not going to persuade anyone to change their mind. Actually, he changed my mind and made me more suspicious of self-identified moderates and centrists. Matt is an enemy of coalition building and bad for the cause of slow boring and pragmatic politics. I'm done with him.
I think this is completely wrong. Summarize Matt's various arguments into points, I would outline this:
1) Leftist Democrats are a critical part of the Democratic party as a left party
2) Activists and political advocates in the party are further to the left than the median party member and much further to the left than general public.
3) It is very reasonable to expect that Democrats nominated in very progressive spaces will be further to the left
*4)* The left polices candidates and pushes in areas that are *not* progressive spaces for candidates to be more progressive and to the left
5) This makes it increasingly difficult for Democrats to win outside of progressive areas
6) Progressive activist mostly don't care because they focus more on factional power within the Democratic party than they do on the Democratic party winning power.
7) Moderates need to learn to push back against this left activism and instead hold their ground. This will broaden the tent of the party and make it more electable.
The issue he has is not that progressive activists are going to nominate left candidates in NYC, MA, etc. Its that they push *the party* to take stances that make the party weaker and moderates in power cave to this pressure because its hard to stand up against powerful members of the coalition who control resources that candidates need/want.
Is there a particular step in this sequence you disagree with? Are there particular quotes that you can share where he insults the preferences and views of primary voters?
I would challenge that Matt does 1-3, but I don't agree with the 1-7 analysis. We appear to be in a period where people feel alienated from "the system," left, right, and middle, and are looking for people who can articulate that alienation. Moderates usually suck at this.
Recently he mentioned City That Works as fellow travelers. They are so good at sidestepping the dumb X takes and focuses on uniting the party (locally, because they're focused locally). They help get legislation passed. Matt argues on X.
The path to victory is very often opening up instead of pushing back. if Matt wants a big tent, he needs to persuade people and invite them in. He is god-awful at persuading anybody who is not in the choir. Did he change your mind on anything or he just serving up comfort food to the ideologically aligned? I'm just one person, but Matt's persona and approach has driven me away. If he had been more inclusive and invited me in, I would have easily been persuaded.
Perez Washington 3 should be on the list.
> targeted form of student debt forgiveness
Not the most important thing, but what’s Rutinel’s idea here?
As a moderate republican, I really hope the moderate democrats win, and that it pushes republicans to moderate as well
We need two competent sane parties in the country. Not two parties ruled by the extremes.
What’s better, small donations to many candidates or bigger donations to less candidates?
I think Matt's telling us that it is the former.
Fun fact about Hong: her state legislative district (Madison Wisconsin around campus) is probably in the top 10 most left wing state leg districts nationwide (hard to pick the most lefty, but it's saying something when there are 7,386 of them in total, and a great illustration of how the progressive left has embraced a "shoot the moon*" strategy here)
*or perhaps the metaphor is a "hard eight" bet in craps? Generally regarded as one of the worst bets in the game, even if it seems cool at the time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOPB9c4t0Ok
Very worthwhile list of candidates! I came no where near the limits but I managed 40 for candidates from TX FL WI and AK