Lots of good food for thought here. I do think it is time to retire the blithe use of “progressive” and “centrist” as labels. They have lost any coherent meaning. I am considered highly progressive when it comes to policy, particularly on economic policy, where I am almost always in agreement with the assessments made by David Dayen and others at the American Prospect magazine. In 2020, the candidate I supported was Elizabeth Warren. So, those are my “progressive” bona fides, in brief. In 2016, I supported Hillary Clinton, not because I am “centrist,” but because I assessed that she had far superior experience and capability to govern intelligently and effectively. These are factors that should, in my view, be much more prominent in journalist political reporting and voter assessment, and I do not think they fall neatly into either a “progressive” or “centrist” bucket. We need a lot more focus on competence, and a lot less on ideological litmus tests. Thankfully, likely because of the many unusual circumstances, Harris has managed to navigate her way past the litmus test minefield this year, at least so far.
So all it took was a plague, a fascist and the destruction of women’s rights to convince everyone to get along. I’ll never understand why so many people are unable to simply vote for the best candidate. We are a big country! We don’t want the same things! We are choosing a leader, not a spouse. Don’t expect total compatibility.
More extraordinary still is that Harris is pulling in anti-Trump Republicans. This can only help with the election but it is intriguing to think what it might apply for governing coalitions going forward. One can only hope that it will consign MAGA to the extreme fringes of American politics where it belongs.
I will note managing the press is an important task. The press apparently has decided it has two priorities.
1) Look for anything that can be used as a negative against Harris and Walz.
2) Normalize Trump to maintain ‘balance’ and pretend he is a legitimate candidate.
The NY Times has a guest opinion piece by Lindsay Graham on how Trump can win. It is as delusional as anything Trump might say, but the Times didn’t bother to fact check it. They’re also running an article comparing tax proposals from the two sides, as though Trump actually has a real plan other than giving the rich another tax cut. The Times still treats anything Trump says that isn’t blatantly false or delusional as having credibility. SMH.
As TPM Josh Marshall has pointed out, Kamala Harris' favorability nos. just keep rising, regardless of voting-poll +/- movements, and this can only be translated as "enthusiasm", which then leads to high turnout, which leads to narrow but assured wins in the "swing states". tRump's favorability rating have always been below 50%, and now are slowly moving down to ca. 44-45%.
Let's hope the trend-line continues to favor Kamala Harris, and we get a W in November...it ain't over 'til it's over.
Also her avoidance of identity politics - putting We, the People first. E Pluribus Unum. Middle Class Exonomics. Patriotism. Truth, Justice & The American Way. For the People, not "I'm with her."
By current polls of swing states, the outcome is too close to call. We may still get a president the majority of the US doesn’t want.
This is what comes of decades of center-drifting, “third rail” Clintonesque Democratic Party inutility. Even the Great Hope Obama followed along.
So here we are. Our last best chance, only winnable by a squeaker, if at all, and followed upon by open war between MAGA and the rest of us that we can only hope does not break out into open violence.
No exaggeration - Summer over, kid back in school, I had unearthed my copy of The Truce, and wasn't going to comment about the Harris campaign online again until I had read it. But here you are, pup of bluesky, in this (rare) medium-length format, and I can't help myself.
My enthusiasm was buoyed yet again today, just as it was when Harris/Walz started their bus tours, by the announcement that her campaign is donating to Senate, House and state-level races!
I don't think it can be emphasized enough that this is going to be won state-by-state, and even community-by-community (and many of us are parts of communities where there aren't many folks we can sway, either because we are united, or conversely, are polarized.) The re-emergence of Dem leadership at the state level has been one of the silver linings of the cloudy 2017-2020 administration, and any reporting about the economy, especially, but also civil rights and immigration 2021-2024 must be filtered through what we know about who has been (poorly) running some states.
Over the summer, I looked in more detail at Clinton's 2016 loss, and would argue she was quite popular > where she campaigned < despite the headwinds she had with media coverage and repub dirty tricks. I hope the donations keep coming in for Harris, and she keeps being able to push the electoral map, both through bringing her game and building up her team.
Kamala is driving DJT crazy because she won’t take the bait and argue with him. She learned never to wrestle with a pig. You’ll get dirty and the pig will love it.
I will never forgive that arrogant prick Sanders for sandbagging Clinton in 2016. Whatever good he has done in his life is FAR FAR FAR outweighed by that evil. I feel the same about Nader too. F*** the two of them.
Lots of good food for thought here. I do think it is time to retire the blithe use of “progressive” and “centrist” as labels. They have lost any coherent meaning. I am considered highly progressive when it comes to policy, particularly on economic policy, where I am almost always in agreement with the assessments made by David Dayen and others at the American Prospect magazine. In 2020, the candidate I supported was Elizabeth Warren. So, those are my “progressive” bona fides, in brief. In 2016, I supported Hillary Clinton, not because I am “centrist,” but because I assessed that she had far superior experience and capability to govern intelligently and effectively. These are factors that should, in my view, be much more prominent in journalist political reporting and voter assessment, and I do not think they fall neatly into either a “progressive” or “centrist” bucket. We need a lot more focus on competence, and a lot less on ideological litmus tests. Thankfully, likely because of the many unusual circumstances, Harris has managed to navigate her way past the litmus test minefield this year, at least so far.
Ditto for me on this. But don't tell Matt Y. I like D-Day as well, but Matt is not a fan!
So all it took was a plague, a fascist and the destruction of women’s rights to convince everyone to get along. I’ll never understand why so many people are unable to simply vote for the best candidate. We are a big country! We don’t want the same things! We are choosing a leader, not a spouse. Don’t expect total compatibility.
More extraordinary still is that Harris is pulling in anti-Trump Republicans. This can only help with the election but it is intriguing to think what it might apply for governing coalitions going forward. One can only hope that it will consign MAGA to the extreme fringes of American politics where it belongs.
I thought the most important lesson of all was "friendship"...
😊💙😊💙😊💞
I will note managing the press is an important task. The press apparently has decided it has two priorities.
1) Look for anything that can be used as a negative against Harris and Walz.
2) Normalize Trump to maintain ‘balance’ and pretend he is a legitimate candidate.
The NY Times has a guest opinion piece by Lindsay Graham on how Trump can win. It is as delusional as anything Trump might say, but the Times didn’t bother to fact check it. They’re also running an article comparing tax proposals from the two sides, as though Trump actually has a real plan other than giving the rich another tax cut. The Times still treats anything Trump says that isn’t blatantly false or delusional as having credibility. SMH.
As TPM Josh Marshall has pointed out, Kamala Harris' favorability nos. just keep rising, regardless of voting-poll +/- movements, and this can only be translated as "enthusiasm", which then leads to high turnout, which leads to narrow but assured wins in the "swing states". tRump's favorability rating have always been below 50%, and now are slowly moving down to ca. 44-45%.
Let's hope the trend-line continues to favor Kamala Harris, and we get a W in November...it ain't over 'til it's over.
Also her avoidance of identity politics - putting We, the People first. E Pluribus Unum. Middle Class Exonomics. Patriotism. Truth, Justice & The American Way. For the People, not "I'm with her."
(Could you picture "White Dudes for Hillary?")
Small business bankruptcies are up 61% under her and Bidenomics. Seriously, she is out of touch?! https://shorturl.at/EEccf
By current polls of swing states, the outcome is too close to call. We may still get a president the majority of the US doesn’t want.
This is what comes of decades of center-drifting, “third rail” Clintonesque Democratic Party inutility. Even the Great Hope Obama followed along.
So here we are. Our last best chance, only winnable by a squeaker, if at all, and followed upon by open war between MAGA and the rest of us that we can only hope does not break out into open violence.
I remember you from Twitter ! I remember when you announced that there were 17 generations of Luppe Luppens! Good to see you again.
No exaggeration - Summer over, kid back in school, I had unearthed my copy of The Truce, and wasn't going to comment about the Harris campaign online again until I had read it. But here you are, pup of bluesky, in this (rare) medium-length format, and I can't help myself.
My enthusiasm was buoyed yet again today, just as it was when Harris/Walz started their bus tours, by the announcement that her campaign is donating to Senate, House and state-level races!
I don't think it can be emphasized enough that this is going to be won state-by-state, and even community-by-community (and many of us are parts of communities where there aren't many folks we can sway, either because we are united, or conversely, are polarized.) The re-emergence of Dem leadership at the state level has been one of the silver linings of the cloudy 2017-2020 administration, and any reporting about the economy, especially, but also civil rights and immigration 2021-2024 must be filtered through what we know about who has been (poorly) running some states.
Over the summer, I looked in more detail at Clinton's 2016 loss, and would argue she was quite popular > where she campaigned < despite the headwinds she had with media coverage and repub dirty tricks. I hope the donations keep coming in for Harris, and she keeps being able to push the electoral map, both through bringing her game and building up her team.
Kamala is driving DJT crazy because she won’t take the bait and argue with him. She learned never to wrestle with a pig. You’ll get dirty and the pig will love it.
Old white guys in blue wall states. Biden ate into Trump's big margin and that was just enough to put him over the top. So???
I will never forgive that arrogant prick Sanders for sandbagging Clinton in 2016. Whatever good he has done in his life is FAR FAR FAR outweighed by that evil. I feel the same about Nader too. F*** the two of them.
Is not the evidence equal that Clinton sandbagged Sanders?