"In every roll..." ...role. Or if you want to be all fancy about it, rôle.
Sorry, the editor's eye never sleeps. I would normally reserve such proofreading for a private email, but of course I have no clue what your email address might be.
I'm glad you wrote "I anticipate is that there’s actually not that much election left." I've found US politics get dramatically more boring since the debate. Harris has proven beyond doubt that she's an above average candidate, and while she may not be a good policymaker, you can't have a real policy debate against Trump. He just lies too much.
The most useless Congress in decades is obviously not going to do any legislate this close to an election, and even if you look to foreign policy issues where usually the President has a freer hand, for good or for ill it seems the Biden admin has done all it can, and there's not going to be any progress until the new administration takes over.
So all that's left to do now is cross your fingers and hope the voters make the right call and the MAGAs don't succeed overturning the election.
Nice reflective post, thanks! I worry all the time about the consequences for the Dem party of anything but winning the Senate and WH. I've read quite a lot about the 1850s, and asymmetrical polarization doesn't stay asymmetrical.
If Trump wins, we can blame the cynical and the suckers who support him, but we have to recognize that the Dems’ failure to have a vigorous primary in 2015 led to an inferior candidate then and a Trump victory. And the same goes for 2024. Biden is a hero of sorts for finally relinquishing his grip but he should have stepped aside in 2022 and failing that, the Dems should have had a primary. If Harris loses, it won’t be her fault. She’s done incredibly well under the circumstances but voters don’t like how she became the candidate and a truly democratic process would have resulted in the most popular Democrat in a better position to win. If the Dems lose again, it will be their own damned fault.
Dems had a vigorous primary in 2016. Bernie Sanders lost. I don't know why people thought the DNC had the same obligation to support a guy who had been an Independent when the other primary candidate had long and significant ties to the Party. Clinton was a bad candidate party because the media didn't like the fact that she wasn't a man, and Trump's appeal to boorish misogynists gave him a slight EC edge.
The only "voters (who) don't like how she became the candidate" are Republicans or pedantic fools. Any Democrat who still doesn't like the way it happened is fiddling while Rome is burning. Harris was a terrible candidate in 2020, but she's been great since Biden announced. A post-Biden free-for-all to determine the Dem candidate would have been a giant mess, with - no doubt - the "winner" emerging with battle wounds that Trump would exploit.
As for "if Dems lose, it will be their own damn fault," I disagree. It will be the voter's fault, the media's fault, the education system's fault, the Founder's fault (yes, the EC is stupid). And give the rich oligarchs and Federalist Society judges credit if Trump wins - because their money will be the difference.
For starters, Sanders was a very competitive candidate in 2016. The party has an obligation to be fair to the wishes of their voters. The Democratic Party owes a lot to Sanders. He stood up for the New Deal vision for a party with an egalitarian vision and inspired many voters, young and old. If you appreciate Biden’s progressive legislation and the work his FTC is doing I think it started with Sanders coming to national prominence in 2016.
Some good stuff there, thank you. But don’t forget the leaked DNC emails revealing how they rigged the primary for HRC. And the overwhelming sense that she was somehow entitled to the nomination. And don’t forget how stupid and undemocratic the primary process is for both major parties. The Dems know better. Or should, at least.
My point was that the DNC as an organization had a lot more reason to put their thumb on the scale for Clinton than Sanders (that is, they SHOULD have rigged the primary for Clinton). If only the Republicans had told Trump - sorry, dude, you're not qualified because you haven't been a Republican long enough; besides which you are an asshole and will destroy our Party. Clinton's sense of entitlement was earned - she put in her time and worked hard and did well everywhere.
I do agree with you that Dems often shoot themselves in the foot. They can be as spineless and unprincipled as Republicans, which is saying something. But now is the time to focus on crushing Republicans in every single race they are in, all across the country. There will plenty of time for self-evaluation once MAGA is done.
Thanks again for the thoughtful replies. Brian Beutler had set the table a bit wider than the next few weeks so I’m glad we’re discussing more than that.
I do agree the Dems often shoot themselves in the foot. But I think putting their thumb on the scale for HRC is a great example of that. An unpopular candidate who had a history of scandal and corruption and lack of transparency and entitlement who then went on to run a bad campaign. It’s almost as if they came up with the only candidate who could possibly lose to Donald “grab ‘em by the p*ssy” Trump.
The "history of scandal and corruption" was mostly made up by Republicans - as they admitted during the Benghazi hearings. "Her emails" was another bogus lure that the media took completely and blew well out of proportion.
She certainly wasn't unpopular with the millions of women who thought she might become the first female American President.
As for "bad campaign"? Maybe. She "won" the debates. She lost by less than 100,000 votes total in a few battleground states, while winning the popular vote by 3 million. Fewer third party votes or absent Comey's last minute announcement and Clinton would have been President.
Yeah, I’d have to look up the details but she lied about running from a helicopter “under fire” as Secretary of State. There were other demonstrable lies too, I think. She hid from the press when she was sick. And otherwise. Made it seem like accessibility to her was an imposition. The email thing was obviously way overblown, but she handled it horribly. Really horribly. Benghazi—yes, agreed. But she could have handled that better too. Basket of deplorables was a ridiculous mistake, but unfortunately seemed so perfectly resonated with the caricature the Republicans had created for her. “I’m with her” just made everything worse. People need to connect with change or freedom or some type of action the candidate espouses—lower taxes, fix the border, whatever—not the candidate herself, who was under water in terms of favorability, like 55/45 or something. That was political malpractice as a slogan. She did almost win, sure. In a race that close, even she observed that you can point to a thousand things that would have changed the outcome. But again my point is, it should not have been at all close. We cannot rely on winning a coin toss every four years in order to barely survive as a struggling democracy. The Dems have to do better.
Putting it more simply, I guess—if American democracy fails, it will be because of corruption and hubris on the left just as much as corruption and ignorance on the right.
Thank you, sir. Your comment substantially supports the point I was making 👍 We should of course win this if we can. But let’s not focus on 40 days at a time like goldfish. Even if we eke out a win, we have to critically examine how on earth we could perpetually be so close
"VP debates have historically mattered even less than presidential debates[.]"
Yeah, historically.
I've the feeling this one will matter more than those of the past.
"In every roll..." ...role. Or if you want to be all fancy about it, rôle.
Sorry, the editor's eye never sleeps. I would normally reserve such proofreading for a private email, but of course I have no clue what your email address might be.
I'm glad you wrote "I anticipate is that there’s actually not that much election left." I've found US politics get dramatically more boring since the debate. Harris has proven beyond doubt that she's an above average candidate, and while she may not be a good policymaker, you can't have a real policy debate against Trump. He just lies too much.
The most useless Congress in decades is obviously not going to do any legislate this close to an election, and even if you look to foreign policy issues where usually the President has a freer hand, for good or for ill it seems the Biden admin has done all it can, and there's not going to be any progress until the new administration takes over.
So all that's left to do now is cross your fingers and hope the voters make the right call and the MAGAs don't succeed overturning the election.
Nice reflective post, thanks! I worry all the time about the consequences for the Dem party of anything but winning the Senate and WH. I've read quite a lot about the 1850s, and asymmetrical polarization doesn't stay asymmetrical.
Merrick Garland must go.
Thanks for all you do. I’m a daily reader and am looking forward to another year.
Thanks! Consequences and opportunities follow an election. Very different paths ahead.
If Trump wins, we can blame the cynical and the suckers who support him, but we have to recognize that the Dems’ failure to have a vigorous primary in 2015 led to an inferior candidate then and a Trump victory. And the same goes for 2024. Biden is a hero of sorts for finally relinquishing his grip but he should have stepped aside in 2022 and failing that, the Dems should have had a primary. If Harris loses, it won’t be her fault. She’s done incredibly well under the circumstances but voters don’t like how she became the candidate and a truly democratic process would have resulted in the most popular Democrat in a better position to win. If the Dems lose again, it will be their own damned fault.
Dems had a vigorous primary in 2016. Bernie Sanders lost. I don't know why people thought the DNC had the same obligation to support a guy who had been an Independent when the other primary candidate had long and significant ties to the Party. Clinton was a bad candidate party because the media didn't like the fact that she wasn't a man, and Trump's appeal to boorish misogynists gave him a slight EC edge.
The only "voters (who) don't like how she became the candidate" are Republicans or pedantic fools. Any Democrat who still doesn't like the way it happened is fiddling while Rome is burning. Harris was a terrible candidate in 2020, but she's been great since Biden announced. A post-Biden free-for-all to determine the Dem candidate would have been a giant mess, with - no doubt - the "winner" emerging with battle wounds that Trump would exploit.
As for "if Dems lose, it will be their own damn fault," I disagree. It will be the voter's fault, the media's fault, the education system's fault, the Founder's fault (yes, the EC is stupid). And give the rich oligarchs and Federalist Society judges credit if Trump wins - because their money will be the difference.
For starters, Sanders was a very competitive candidate in 2016. The party has an obligation to be fair to the wishes of their voters. The Democratic Party owes a lot to Sanders. He stood up for the New Deal vision for a party with an egalitarian vision and inspired many voters, young and old. If you appreciate Biden’s progressive legislation and the work his FTC is doing I think it started with Sanders coming to national prominence in 2016.
Some good stuff there, thank you. But don’t forget the leaked DNC emails revealing how they rigged the primary for HRC. And the overwhelming sense that she was somehow entitled to the nomination. And don’t forget how stupid and undemocratic the primary process is for both major parties. The Dems know better. Or should, at least.
My point was that the DNC as an organization had a lot more reason to put their thumb on the scale for Clinton than Sanders (that is, they SHOULD have rigged the primary for Clinton). If only the Republicans had told Trump - sorry, dude, you're not qualified because you haven't been a Republican long enough; besides which you are an asshole and will destroy our Party. Clinton's sense of entitlement was earned - she put in her time and worked hard and did well everywhere.
I do agree with you that Dems often shoot themselves in the foot. They can be as spineless and unprincipled as Republicans, which is saying something. But now is the time to focus on crushing Republicans in every single race they are in, all across the country. There will plenty of time for self-evaluation once MAGA is done.
Thanks again for the thoughtful replies. Brian Beutler had set the table a bit wider than the next few weeks so I’m glad we’re discussing more than that.
I do agree the Dems often shoot themselves in the foot. But I think putting their thumb on the scale for HRC is a great example of that. An unpopular candidate who had a history of scandal and corruption and lack of transparency and entitlement who then went on to run a bad campaign. It’s almost as if they came up with the only candidate who could possibly lose to Donald “grab ‘em by the p*ssy” Trump.
The "history of scandal and corruption" was mostly made up by Republicans - as they admitted during the Benghazi hearings. "Her emails" was another bogus lure that the media took completely and blew well out of proportion.
She certainly wasn't unpopular with the millions of women who thought she might become the first female American President.
As for "bad campaign"? Maybe. She "won" the debates. She lost by less than 100,000 votes total in a few battleground states, while winning the popular vote by 3 million. Fewer third party votes or absent Comey's last minute announcement and Clinton would have been President.
Yeah, I’d have to look up the details but she lied about running from a helicopter “under fire” as Secretary of State. There were other demonstrable lies too, I think. She hid from the press when she was sick. And otherwise. Made it seem like accessibility to her was an imposition. The email thing was obviously way overblown, but she handled it horribly. Really horribly. Benghazi—yes, agreed. But she could have handled that better too. Basket of deplorables was a ridiculous mistake, but unfortunately seemed so perfectly resonated with the caricature the Republicans had created for her. “I’m with her” just made everything worse. People need to connect with change or freedom or some type of action the candidate espouses—lower taxes, fix the border, whatever—not the candidate herself, who was under water in terms of favorability, like 55/45 or something. That was political malpractice as a slogan. She did almost win, sure. In a race that close, even she observed that you can point to a thousand things that would have changed the outcome. But again my point is, it should not have been at all close. We cannot rely on winning a coin toss every four years in order to barely survive as a struggling democracy. The Dems have to do better.
Putting it more simply, I guess—if American democracy fails, it will be because of corruption and hubris on the left just as much as corruption and ignorance on the right.
Spare us the earned helplessness of dems schtick. We have a war to win in 40 days. Focus!
Thank you, sir. Your comment substantially supports the point I was making 👍 We should of course win this if we can. But let’s not focus on 40 days at a time like goldfish. Even if we eke out a win, we have to critically examine how on earth we could perpetually be so close
…to becoming a failed state.