“Both now and in 2027, the goal must be to get the full story behind this episode and all the administration’s corrupt profiteering. “
Dems should pledge to get the full story of everyone’s profiteering, including the Trump and Kushner families. The GOP set precedent for going after presidents kids so there should be nothing stopping them. Go big on anti-corruption.
Democrats also have a big opportunity to go hard at AI right now, especially since a majority are, at best, quite skeptical of it and the fact they’re planning to put hundreds of millions of dollars into the midterms, mostly going to to republicans.
Democrats, should they win one or both chambers, are going to have a LOT of work to do to show they want to start to de-Trumpify everything. It’s been asked many times but where is the Dem version of project 2025?
But I want to raise a different topic, and maybe I should be waiting for the mailbag, but I have time right now.
We are facing down two enormous threats to our economy, and we (meaning Dems) need to begin preparing for it now. The first is the closed Strait of Hormuz; the second is the AI bubble. Re: Hormuz, if Trump just cuts and runs from Iran (as he should) but the Strait remains closed, the global economy is in serious danger, which means our economy is in serious danger. Massive inflation, climbing unemployment, and so on. The markets might have been boosted by Trump's signalling an end this morning, but that won't last.
The AI bubble is also ready to burst - OpenAI and Anthropic's business model cannot turn a profit, and there's only so long VC will be willing to sustain billion dollar losses. The shortage of necessary minerals and fuel resulting from the Strait being closed is only speeding this up. And while AI investment may not have pervaded our financial institutions quite as thoroughly as mortgage backed securities in 2008, right now, it's the only money propping up the market. When the bubble bursts, it's going to be pretty calamitous.
Dems need to be positioning themselves in advance of the collapse. Sound the alarm, call for regulation and oversight. Make it clear who owns this mess.
And that can be part of the no more funding for this war message - we need our $200 billion for the coming economic crisis. We can't waste it on an illegal war.
100% sign on to this "Dems need to be positioning themselves in advance of the collapse". Caveat obviously, if you and I 100% with certainty knew where interest rates are going to be in a year or what economic "black swan" events are coming 6 months from now; lets start a Hedge fund now and make billions.
But yeah in general, our party is just way to reactive; go where the puck is going not where it is.
I will say though. This is where Brian's podcast colleague has it more right as far as policy. I think you make a compelling case for why inflation is more likely. But that only means higher interest rates which in turns mean interest on the debt goes up, which in turn is going to really harm private investment. GOP calls for deficit reduction have not been in good faith since 2008. But that shouldn't distract us from the fact that deficit reduction really is a course of action that should be on the table (think we really underrate how much Americans dislike regarding the economy is high interest rates; house payments, car payments, interest on credit cards is like what 70% of a typical American's budget?). Which makes the recent tax cut plans from Van Hollen, Booker and Porter all the more indefensible in my eyes.
This is post is as much a response to your podcast with Matt which I'm only about 70% through (only so much time on the train before I have to get to work. Will try to finish on my train ride home. So apologies if you addressed this in the part I haven't gotten to yet) as your article. So caveats aside.
First, I think the part where I feel like the part that Matt is missing when he complains that Democrats have moved way to the left on everything (I disagree with the emphasis on "way", but I think you were in agreement with him that our party has moved left at least some), is the median voter as far I can tell has actually moved left as well. I'm sorry, is anyone going to make the intellectually honesty argument that GOP voters as a whole are as committed to Reaganite economics as they were pre 2008 and especially pre 2016? Matt I think overemphasizes how much politician issue positions directly correlate to voting behavior (especially among swing voters), but even if it's not 1:1 his basic contention is I think correct. And yes I think the fact that Trump ran in 2016 on not getting rid of Medicare, Medicaid, not touching social security and again in 2024 helped him win (I mean he was lying, but I think as has been demonstrated depressingly, a key to his victory is an astonishing number of people and not just MAGA die hards actually believed what he said). But I think that's my point. Bush actually tried to privatize social security and got kind of close in 2006. Heck it was a plot line in a "West Wing" episode where Toby (the supposed Progressive in the administration) tries to find a way to convince a Senator to support cutting social security. And with social issues. Set aside gay marriage, see reaction to overturning Roe vs Wade (and polling), see polling on immigration (the anti immigrant surge 2020-2024 seems very clearly a reaction to the downstream effects of the asylum loophole issue), heck gun control. Matt specifically brought this up that Podesta would admonish them for bringing it up. When Matt was there, support for stricter gun control was 44%, now its 60% (https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx)*.
I think Matt is right (to an extent) that given the Senate map and given realities of primaries and who makes up young staffers, the party and particular candidates have possibly yoked themselves to issue positions (or at least have the perception) that may be costly come November in places like Ohio or Texas. But that is way way different from the idea that Dems need literally go back to it's issue positions in 2008. That would actually NOT be keeping with public opinion on issue after issue.
Second, bone to pick with your electoral history. By far the key to understanding the sorting of political parties is the South. Specifically, the biggest (though clearly not only) factor into the political sorting we see today is Southern Dixiecrats shifting to the GOP. Basically the Dem coalition circa 1932-1964 was inherently unstable once northern Dems committed themselves to civil rights starting in the 30s. We usually cite 1994 as the moment when Dixiecrats shifted into the GOP and that was probably the biggest and most impactful one time shift. But the shift wasn't 100% complete in 1994. There were still Congressmen and Senators who could pick up enough votes likely from older Dixiecrat voters to remain competitive and indeed win. A big part of the 2010 midterms is basically a "finishing the job" election (Similar in 2018 with Claire McCaskill). Now given population/demographic trends in the South in places like Charlotte, Atlanta, Dallas, Austin, the politics of the South are changing to allow Dems to be competitive again.
Upshot is, so so ink spilled about voter party identification is really kind of a "great sort" issue (and yes this applies to places like West Virginia given the "southernification" of rural America. WV had more registered Dems as late as 2021).
* The gun control issue is basically the place where overrepresentation of rural America in state legislatures and the senate is most acutely felt. There is a world difference between "GOP politicians can vote against gun control measures and not feel the backlash at the ballot box" vs. "GOP votes against gun control and lack of backlash means GOP position on guns is the median voter opinion". One thing I really want to consider; how many "Take my gun from my cold dead hands/I can be persuaded to vote dem" voters are still around? At this point, aren't these voters GOP voters (in 2010 think some of these voters might still have voted Dem)
“Both now and in 2027, the goal must be to get the full story behind this episode and all the administration’s corrupt profiteering. “
Dems should pledge to get the full story of everyone’s profiteering, including the Trump and Kushner families. The GOP set precedent for going after presidents kids so there should be nothing stopping them. Go big on anti-corruption.
Democrats also have a big opportunity to go hard at AI right now, especially since a majority are, at best, quite skeptical of it and the fact they’re planning to put hundreds of millions of dollars into the midterms, mostly going to to republicans.
Democrats, should they win one or both chambers, are going to have a LOT of work to do to show they want to start to de-Trumpify everything. It’s been asked many times but where is the Dem version of project 2025?
Excellent. Perhaps a little pressure to restore funding for renewables.
Appreciate and agree with all of this.
But I want to raise a different topic, and maybe I should be waiting for the mailbag, but I have time right now.
We are facing down two enormous threats to our economy, and we (meaning Dems) need to begin preparing for it now. The first is the closed Strait of Hormuz; the second is the AI bubble. Re: Hormuz, if Trump just cuts and runs from Iran (as he should) but the Strait remains closed, the global economy is in serious danger, which means our economy is in serious danger. Massive inflation, climbing unemployment, and so on. The markets might have been boosted by Trump's signalling an end this morning, but that won't last.
The AI bubble is also ready to burst - OpenAI and Anthropic's business model cannot turn a profit, and there's only so long VC will be willing to sustain billion dollar losses. The shortage of necessary minerals and fuel resulting from the Strait being closed is only speeding this up. And while AI investment may not have pervaded our financial institutions quite as thoroughly as mortgage backed securities in 2008, right now, it's the only money propping up the market. When the bubble bursts, it's going to be pretty calamitous.
Dems need to be positioning themselves in advance of the collapse. Sound the alarm, call for regulation and oversight. Make it clear who owns this mess.
And that can be part of the no more funding for this war message - we need our $200 billion for the coming economic crisis. We can't waste it on an illegal war.
100% sign on to this "Dems need to be positioning themselves in advance of the collapse". Caveat obviously, if you and I 100% with certainty knew where interest rates are going to be in a year or what economic "black swan" events are coming 6 months from now; lets start a Hedge fund now and make billions.
But yeah in general, our party is just way to reactive; go where the puck is going not where it is.
I will say though. This is where Brian's podcast colleague has it more right as far as policy. I think you make a compelling case for why inflation is more likely. But that only means higher interest rates which in turns mean interest on the debt goes up, which in turn is going to really harm private investment. GOP calls for deficit reduction have not been in good faith since 2008. But that shouldn't distract us from the fact that deficit reduction really is a course of action that should be on the table (think we really underrate how much Americans dislike regarding the economy is high interest rates; house payments, car payments, interest on credit cards is like what 70% of a typical American's budget?). Which makes the recent tax cut plans from Van Hollen, Booker and Porter all the more indefensible in my eyes.
Good stuff as usual.
Hope someone in the Dem strategists camp reads this regularly.
I’d like to see more emphasis on Trump’s mental health. He’s not compos mentis.
His cheese slipped off his cracker long ago. Why aren’t we talking about this?
This is post is as much a response to your podcast with Matt which I'm only about 70% through (only so much time on the train before I have to get to work. Will try to finish on my train ride home. So apologies if you addressed this in the part I haven't gotten to yet) as your article. So caveats aside.
First, I think the part where I feel like the part that Matt is missing when he complains that Democrats have moved way to the left on everything (I disagree with the emphasis on "way", but I think you were in agreement with him that our party has moved left at least some), is the median voter as far I can tell has actually moved left as well. I'm sorry, is anyone going to make the intellectually honesty argument that GOP voters as a whole are as committed to Reaganite economics as they were pre 2008 and especially pre 2016? Matt I think overemphasizes how much politician issue positions directly correlate to voting behavior (especially among swing voters), but even if it's not 1:1 his basic contention is I think correct. And yes I think the fact that Trump ran in 2016 on not getting rid of Medicare, Medicaid, not touching social security and again in 2024 helped him win (I mean he was lying, but I think as has been demonstrated depressingly, a key to his victory is an astonishing number of people and not just MAGA die hards actually believed what he said). But I think that's my point. Bush actually tried to privatize social security and got kind of close in 2006. Heck it was a plot line in a "West Wing" episode where Toby (the supposed Progressive in the administration) tries to find a way to convince a Senator to support cutting social security. And with social issues. Set aside gay marriage, see reaction to overturning Roe vs Wade (and polling), see polling on immigration (the anti immigrant surge 2020-2024 seems very clearly a reaction to the downstream effects of the asylum loophole issue), heck gun control. Matt specifically brought this up that Podesta would admonish them for bringing it up. When Matt was there, support for stricter gun control was 44%, now its 60% (https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx)*.
I think Matt is right (to an extent) that given the Senate map and given realities of primaries and who makes up young staffers, the party and particular candidates have possibly yoked themselves to issue positions (or at least have the perception) that may be costly come November in places like Ohio or Texas. But that is way way different from the idea that Dems need literally go back to it's issue positions in 2008. That would actually NOT be keeping with public opinion on issue after issue.
Second, bone to pick with your electoral history. By far the key to understanding the sorting of political parties is the South. Specifically, the biggest (though clearly not only) factor into the political sorting we see today is Southern Dixiecrats shifting to the GOP. Basically the Dem coalition circa 1932-1964 was inherently unstable once northern Dems committed themselves to civil rights starting in the 30s. We usually cite 1994 as the moment when Dixiecrats shifted into the GOP and that was probably the biggest and most impactful one time shift. But the shift wasn't 100% complete in 1994. There were still Congressmen and Senators who could pick up enough votes likely from older Dixiecrat voters to remain competitive and indeed win. A big part of the 2010 midterms is basically a "finishing the job" election (Similar in 2018 with Claire McCaskill). Now given population/demographic trends in the South in places like Charlotte, Atlanta, Dallas, Austin, the politics of the South are changing to allow Dems to be competitive again.
Upshot is, so so ink spilled about voter party identification is really kind of a "great sort" issue (and yes this applies to places like West Virginia given the "southernification" of rural America. WV had more registered Dems as late as 2021).
* The gun control issue is basically the place where overrepresentation of rural America in state legislatures and the senate is most acutely felt. There is a world difference between "GOP politicians can vote against gun control measures and not feel the backlash at the ballot box" vs. "GOP votes against gun control and lack of backlash means GOP position on guns is the median voter opinion". One thing I really want to consider; how many "Take my gun from my cold dead hands/I can be persuaded to vote dem" voters are still around? At this point, aren't these voters GOP voters (in 2010 think some of these voters might still have voted Dem)