"Democrats retain much higher trust in the media than Republicans or independents "
Why would that be? Maybe because most mainstream media, WSJ and Fox excepted, has functioned as a unit in the Democratic Party ad machine.
So Robert Hur's shocking reason why he couldn't press charges against Biden was universally dismissed as a gratuitous pro Trump hack. The NYT ran an extensive piece just before the debate showing how all those videos of Biden were maliciously shot from angles to make him look bad. Scarborough's comments that "this is the best Biden ever" were another example of the media parroting White House talking points.
So if the media is simply regurgitating Democratic Party propaganda, why wouldn't Democrats have more trust in it than Republicans or Independents? There was never a clearer case of confirmation bias.
It is also a feedback loop. The more options there are, and the more that non hard-liners defect from traditional media, the more those sources have to appeal to the people keeping the lights on, so to speak.
Just like you kind of don't really have a job anymore in right-wing media if you didn't find a way to get onboard with Trump at some point. By any normal standard, running Trump this year would be nuts. It's only because Democrats have colossally shot themselves in the foot that Trump is in a relatively good position at the moment.
"MSM" in general is indeed more favorable to the "left", and it shows in the coverage/oped. It's also because probably 99% of the journalists (as academics) are "democrats". And that's usually a problem because then we are essentially having to rely on their professionalism to keep their personal beliefs separate from their work output... which would be hard for anyone, let alone those in a profession that requires "opinion" and "judgement" of what/how/who to cover. It is also sad in general for the nation (regardless of political belief), because it creates a vacuum (perceived AND real) for half the country feeling not represented correctly-- thus allowing arguably less "idealistic minded" players to fill that vacuum (e.g. alt-right media and more and more the "alt-left" if that's a term). The problem is we have maybe as a civilization progressed so far beyond basic facts that almost every story can be nuanced one way or the other... and with few exceptions, there seems to be no more an absolute right or wrong point of view anymore.
I keep thinking about how these folks are behaving now and how they behaved during COVID policy debates: histrionic, dug-in responses to anyone who questions their orthodoxy, anger toward any journalist who pursues a line of inquiry that could jeopardize the broader societal project as they saw it, a belief that hiding or ignoring inconvenient info was tolerable or even necessary if it meant achieving an aim or denying a victory to the baddies.
At the same time, that era had a lot of moments where normal people could see things that were questionable and concerning but they were pilloried for daring to express: should schools really be closed that long? isn't extended shutdown obviously bad for mental health, and why is that so much less important? why is it not OK to gather (even outside) for a funeral but it is OK to scream in huge protests for BLM? Etc.
I don't know fully where I am going with this, other than to say that I remember these same sorts of progressives having outsized and weird reactions during the COVID/BLM era too, though there are key differences, one being that they are now aggressively ANTI-intervention and the other being that their views on COVID/BLM were much more in line with media elites than on this Biden issue. Different situations but still some similar behaviors/dynamics at play.
When restaurants reopened diners were asked to mask while walking to and from their table--but were then free to unmask while in close proximity to people eating, talking, laughing and presumably spraying virus particles into the air. They policy should have disqualified anybody in government who advocated for it.
In our state the reopened bars and restaurants long before day cares and schools.
Because the day-care and school workers were getting paid anyway, so they lobbied against reopening, while the businesses needed to function so they lobbied to open.
I remember watching Biden's first trip to Japan as President: he had a mask coming down the steps of Air Force 1. Once he reached the tarmac and all the waiting officials there, he took the mask off.
The truth is there is no moral or ethical difference between democrats and republicans - at least as far as democracy or the integrity of the Republic goes. If a Democrat president had done what Trump did on January 6th, everything that has happened (lukewarm condemnations while trying to move past it on one side and all-out prosecution with righteous fervor on the other) would have happened in reverse. If your side wins, you blame the other side for cheating. Both sides have done that. Democrats blame an imaginary voter suppression and Republicans blame imaginary vote fraud, neither of which has been empirically demonstrated and both of which you can conjure up a fraudulent case for by abusing statistics. If a Democrat demagogue adopts extreme and insane positions and polls very well among the primary and general electorate, the Democrats are not going to bend their party rules to stop him, they're not going to use convention rules to replace him as the nominee, and they would bend the knee to him just like Republicans did to Trump. Some of them would be lukewarm in their support. Some would backstab him the second his approval ratings dropped. Some would swap to independent or to republicans. We saw all of that with Trump, but just like with Trump the numbers would be minimal.
With all due respect, to believe otherwise is self-delusion: parties are organized to win. And if someone wins, they don't care about how extreme their views are, as long as it's the 'right' flavor of extreme to make the base and donors happy. You can also point to 2016 Dem Primaries as an example: ALL the nominees adopted a commitment to packing the court other than Biden, in order to try to improve their chances of winning the primary. Biden did win, but the fact that Democrats were willing to commit to such an extreme, out of the mainstream position so readily to win the primary highlights that neither party has compunctions about adopting extreme positions (or pretending to do so) to win elections.
My personal rude awakening came a few years back when I realized that if Trump had remained a Democrat and been successful, then we Democrats would have supported him and made excuses for him. Complete disillusionment has followed…another kind of ‘woke’. The debate was a little bit surprising for me, mostly because in my disillusionment I haven’t been paying as much attention and had not realized how bad Biden had gotten. It has been amazing to me to see all the left-leaning pundits and journalists wake up to the emperor having no clothes - I fully expected a bunch of denial etc. I hope it leads to more general awakening about the fallacy of the “good guys” vs the “bad guys”. If being “reality-based” spreads like a virus, our society might have a chance.
Bernie was the Dems Trump. The media made sure his huge campaign rallies early in 2016 got little coverage (while they gleefully covered Trump, thinking him a sure loser).
And then in the South Carolina stitch-up Obama cut a deal where Bernie and Liz got to set the party agenda much of the regulatory staffing, Pete got a cabinet spot and a slush fund, Harris got VP and Biden got to be the meat puppet nominally atop the construction. I don’t think Biden was ever supposed to run again, but name recognition is important (especially against Trump) and the Dems felt it was a risk to put someone unknown outside of partisan circles on the ballot. The lawfare was supposed to irreparably harm Trump. Choosing Smith was a mistake as he always overcharges and is often reversed. For the docs case, he could have already gotten Trump on perjury and obstruction but Smith chose to make the docs themselves the centerpiece (whereas Biden, Clinton, Petraeus, Berger, Pence all got off).
The hope was that Biden and the party could keep fooling people until after the election. Even after the debate, if Biden were ahead in the polls the media and the party would be downplaying his lack of mental competence. It is just about the polls.
Bernie as the Dems Trump. Hm. Does make a certain kind of sense, both are essentially demagogues. So at this point, it’s a little internecine conflict on the left between those who give credence to the polling and those who are so post-truth the polls don’t matter…or who simply don’t believe any other Dem besides Biden can defeat Trump, in spite of the bad poll numbers. They think they can weather this. I think they are seriously underestimating how bad it is for Biden. Time will tell.
That is to say: Your belief was "validated" between 2008 and 2020 only because - in large part - you got lucky and you had a very popular Democrat president followed by a very unpopular Republican one, and until 2021 when Biden was elected, Democrats were not forced to make that choice between what's right and what's popular, or between electoral victory and truth, that has become so problematic in and more common due to partisanship in the last 20 years.
I don't buy this. Al Gore conceded in 2000 in the narrowest election to date (and when the votes legitimately could've been miscounted), there was no violent attempt by Clinton/Gore's administration to stay in power, etc.
What SHOULD have happened is someone should have put on their big boy pants some time in the last 150 years, realized the vulnerability in the system, and passed a constitutional amendment to limit the size of the court and establish a rotation system.
9 justices serving 18 year rotations with the justice with the most seniority retiring every 2 years would be an eminently fair system. Imagine if you could wave a wand and have had that in place at the start of Biden's term. Thomas's term would have expired at the start of Biden's term and then Breyer's term would have expired after the midterms. The next president would get to replace Alito and Roberts, the 2028 president would replace Sotomayor and Kagan, and so on.
Someone should be the adult in the room and lock down this vulnerability in our constitution rather than exploiting it.
In a more sane world, the recent story about the pressure Rachael Levine at HHS put on WPATH to not include minimum ages for sex-change surgeries and hormone replacement would be a major scandal. That's one of the problems of a checked-out chief executive abdicating his presidential power to a committee of ideologues far to the left of the centrist-seeming figurehead.
I'm very interested in who *can* come to an agreement on the definition of a woman. Every attempt I've seen someone come up with (such as "has XX chromosomes" or "has a uterus" or "has a vagina") gets a lot of clear cases wrong, and the defenders of these supposedly simple definitions can't even agree.
This is the best definition that I have heard of. Skip to 7:50 time if you just want the answer to the question but i think the entire video is worth a watch. He also points out that just because biology is "quirky" and you have outliers doesn't mean the data set isn't binary. When over 98.7% of a dataset can be labeled into 2 categories and then you have a bunch of interesting categories after that, I think it's okay to classify that dataset as binary and handle the edge cases. This is especially true in biology where small correlations are the norm. I hope this is helpful.
That's a nice definition! I like the "ordered towards" because it avoids worries about the likelihood or capacity for that individual to actually impregnate/be impregnated (and thus doesn't get things hilariously wrong for post-menopausal women or gay men or whatever). Though I think it does naturally raise the next question of what "ordered towards" means here. I think that there's a natural way that some trans people could perfectly well accept this definition, and say that a major part of that "ordering towards" involves the external presentation of a person, and that by getting hormone treatments and surgery, or even just by wearing appropriate clothing and shaping their voice in a particular way, they are "ordering towards" the relevant external presentation. Even though this ordering doesn't actually provide the function of pregnancy, we note that this was already accepted when we included gay and post-menopausal people as members of the relevant sex or gender.
I think trans people will be among the first to note that 98.7% of our dataset can be labeled in 2 categories, and that there are a bunch of interesting cases out of that - though they'll also note that whether it is good enough to then treat that classification as binary is going to depend on what purpose you want to use this classification for. It's one thing if you're running a zoo or farm that is trying to operate a successful breeding program, but it'll be different if you're a biologist interested in the detailed functioning of this class of organism, including in whatever sort of social realm this organism has.
At some point you are just dealing with an ideologue and not any rational person. I think this definition is good enough that we can say with confidence what a woman is and what a man is.
I'll also point out that while trans people love to point out that there are individuals who aren't XX or XY, trans individuals (for the most part) actually do fall into XX or XY. So... 🤷♂️
Can you actually tell me what it says in your high school biology textbook. In my experience, most people who think there’s a simple definition weren’t actually paying attention to what the books said and just assumed it must be simple because everyone learns the concept from a young age.
Historically, there was never a dispute about what a man or woman was. It was only after the left and their reality-warping wokeness tried to upend actual science.
“Racial resentment and economic self-interest”… you liberals can’t help yourselves. Anyone who doesn’t share your views = bad racist/misogynist/moron…fill in the goddamn blank. Do you have any idea how instinctually insulting you all are?
Oh yes, Republicans are always slaves to the baser instincts while enlightened Democrats always and everywhere can transcend them. It must be a hell of a thing to be so smart AND enlightened.
The MSM, by and large, turned a blind eye to Biden’s infirmities. He’s been stumbling and bumbling around for the last 3+ years and we were told not to believe our own eyes. Thank goodness for X and Substack.
I would push back against this a little bit. The bizarre incident that was the canary in the coal mine for me was, back in 2019 when Biden bit his wife's finger at a campaign stop. Of course that was kind of glossed over after some light coverage.
However, I recently watched a clip of Biden's biggest bloopers in 2021. There were a handful of doozies, but at the same time if this was the worst that someone could find over an entire year, it definitely is some indicator that things weren't as bad three years ago.
On the other hand, I have also seen a lot more clips in the past few months that were much more glaring red flags. If you're going to blank out and say "four more years pause" in some kind of weird NPC voice, the camera angle or the selective editing doesn't really matter.
I see a trend where he was probably at 90%, five years ago, and the past 12-18 months have really been an accelerating downward slope, and the Biden allies were hoping to keep the lipstick on for just a little bit longer. Even if he was in much better shape though, it's already asking a lot of most voters to put in an 81-year old, just based on the likelihood of future problems.
Honestly I felt the same way as Mr. Silver until 2016 when I went to graduate school. It was then that I noticed all the little ways liberal media lies to themselves and to the public. It's much more subtle than what fox News does. They omit arguments, data, or facts to line up with the narrative they want. It's very frustrating. I only started noticing after Trump got elected but now looking back they have been doing it for years. I hope they fix themselves, our democracy needs an independent media that accurately informs the public.
NYTs; First I noticed it was "weapons of mass destruction" which was straight propaganda from the Pentagon reported as investigative reporting. Then, the campus rape situations (Duke Lacrosse, FSU QB, UVA Fraternity) where in each case the NYT reported exactly what the plaintiff attorneys said in their press releases as actual facts and in each case, criminal courts found the "victims" to be lying about the events. Black Lives assertions that weren't backed by science. Covid situation where they said the science supported masks, lockdowns, schools being closed and vaccines stopping the spread/mandates, lab leak theory was conspiracy, etc. None of which was supported by science. Now, Biden's cognitive decline. Seems to me to be much more than just liberal bias going on here....................a total disregard for facts/truths/investigative reporting, etc.
My gut feeling is that the only reason Trump lost in 2020 was the pandemic. In a parallel universe with no Covid I think he would have coasted to victory.
Consider that he's clearly competitive in 2024, leading Biden even before the latest controversy over his mental acuity. In fact if you look around the world you see lots of Trump's who seem to be enjoying their fair share of electoral success right now, so I suspect that something very fundamental and very significant is in play.
I remember having lunch with a friend in October 2019 - he's a leading scholar of Franz Fanon and more-or-less a Marxist - and we both agreed that Trump was rolling to reelection. COVID had a huge impact.
Nate, in terms of what’s going on now, you are far behind Taibbi, Weiss, Shellenberger, Berenson, Greenwald. The media-intel-Democratic Party went full postmodern in 2017. The hoaxes! My heavens, so many. You’ve now seen that there’s been gaslighting about the president’s mental condition. It’s the tip of the iceberg. The best thing for our country would be for people like Nate Silver to see how little the Emperor has been wearing since 2017. Please put on your skeptic hat and keep digging.
He has to retain his social circle though I doubt he would admit it. Follow the person whose integrity has forced them to burn almost every bridge with their friend group, e.g., Taibbi and Berenson. Those guys have paid a social price that most of us would never have the courage to do.
“One of the media’s jobs is to hold people in positions of power to account, and there shouldn’t be exceptions just because those people are Democrats.”
I find this hard to take seriously when the media gleefully relishes in Navarro and Bannon going to prison for the same offenses that Holder and Garland walk around free for. Both have served or are serving four MONTHS in jail for misdemeanors, invoking a very defensible case of executive privilege.
100%. It’s fascinating that those opposed to Biden dropping out simply assert that it can’t be done. Most don’t bother to defend his capacity—so at least they aren’t gaslighting about that. But they claim to know for sure that switching out Joe Biden is the one thing that we Americans can’t do. It’s a classic case of the sunk cost fallacy.
It's probably true that left-wingers are smarter than we conservatives, at least in our era of education polarization.
But because progressives have so many obvious blind spots (and are beholden to toxic, counterproductive identity politics), I think their big brain advantage is pretty much wasted.
The worst aspect of Twitter right now is the Trump whataboutism.
To use a sports analogy, Dems have an ethical obligation to present a credible nominee and presently they are languishing below the Mendoza Line. Until they address that issue -- i.e., expelling Biden as nominee -- there is nothing else to discuss. It's a low bar to clear and yet they have not cleared it.
Once Biden steps down, then we can start talking about how the nominee (likely Harris) matches up against Trump and the strengths & weaknesses of the nominee's candidacy. But the Dems have no *right* to discuss Trump while they do not have a credible nominee.
Sorry what? Why can’t the Dems say the Republicans don’t have a credible nominee either? And why in your books is it ok for Republicans to discuss Biden while Trump is the nominee?
You can make the exact same argument you made about Biden (“ethical obligation to present a credible nominee and presently they are languishing below the Mendoza Line”) and apply it to Trump. What am I missing?
The Dems have an obligation to produce a credible nominee whether they are squaring off against Donald Trump or Abraham Lincoln. You cannot dismiss that obligation by pointing at the opponent.
I never said anything about what Republicans should or should not be doing. If you want to argue that Trump is an inferior nominee then sure, but it isn't relevant to this discussion.
Reality was strangely apparent to more "conservative" media outlets years ago. Why do you think it took so long for the rest of the media to realize this? I wonder....
Psychologically, we are more resistant to facts that challenge our own narratives. Conservative outlets are happy to point out liberals’ foibles, and liberals will argue to the death that what is plain to see for conservatives is not true, and vice versa.
I appreciate the cogent responses. I would, however, like to point out the possibility that such innocuous explanations are seemingly inadequate. Have you considered the the media you consume is simply lying to you? That that are not good people dedicated to speaking truth to power, but instead evil people dedicated to misleading you to further their own interests? That perhaps the things you say about conservative media are AT LEAST as true when applied to your "side"? As an example, I see reporting now that a Parkinson's disease specialist visited the White House 9 times from from July 2023 through March 2024 according to the WH logs. Why is this the first time this has been reported? Why hasn't anyone asked about this doctor and what, precisely, he is doing at the WH? We have all been lied to - I do not seriously believe all these "journalists" had no idea how bad Biden was doing. We could all see it (for years). Why would you listen to these talking heads again after all the lies (and not just about this issue)?
Nate, I very much respect your opinion. First, it is very clear there was a campaign by the mainstream media to cover up Joe Biden's mental acuity. Two, Hunter Biden has NO business advising the President. He is only doing it to get a full pardon for his federal crimes (he is also a convicted felon just like Trump). Three, (this is where you and I will disagree), the NY Times and Washington Post are NOT left of center. They are the like the Squad, totally extreme left.
I land between you and Nate,- the NYT and WAPO are not just left of center,they are extreme liberals in the worst sense of the term , not the classical sense. But they are far from the Squad - who are. I currently traitors to their country and the ideals of the founders, far far left extremists, the most clueless individuals in Congress , and a total clown show- all simultaneously which is hard to accomplish.
"Democrats retain much higher trust in the media than Republicans or independents "
Why would that be? Maybe because most mainstream media, WSJ and Fox excepted, has functioned as a unit in the Democratic Party ad machine.
So Robert Hur's shocking reason why he couldn't press charges against Biden was universally dismissed as a gratuitous pro Trump hack. The NYT ran an extensive piece just before the debate showing how all those videos of Biden were maliciously shot from angles to make him look bad. Scarborough's comments that "this is the best Biden ever" were another example of the media parroting White House talking points.
So if the media is simply regurgitating Democratic Party propaganda, why wouldn't Democrats have more trust in it than Republicans or Independents? There was never a clearer case of confirmation bias.
It is also a feedback loop. The more options there are, and the more that non hard-liners defect from traditional media, the more those sources have to appeal to the people keeping the lights on, so to speak.
Just like you kind of don't really have a job anymore in right-wing media if you didn't find a way to get onboard with Trump at some point. By any normal standard, running Trump this year would be nuts. It's only because Democrats have colossally shot themselves in the foot that Trump is in a relatively good position at the moment.
"MSM" in general is indeed more favorable to the "left", and it shows in the coverage/oped. It's also because probably 99% of the journalists (as academics) are "democrats". And that's usually a problem because then we are essentially having to rely on their professionalism to keep their personal beliefs separate from their work output... which would be hard for anyone, let alone those in a profession that requires "opinion" and "judgement" of what/how/who to cover. It is also sad in general for the nation (regardless of political belief), because it creates a vacuum (perceived AND real) for half the country feeling not represented correctly-- thus allowing arguably less "idealistic minded" players to fill that vacuum (e.g. alt-right media and more and more the "alt-left" if that's a term). The problem is we have maybe as a civilization progressed so far beyond basic facts that almost every story can be nuanced one way or the other... and with few exceptions, there seems to be no more an absolute right or wrong point of view anymore.
I keep thinking about how these folks are behaving now and how they behaved during COVID policy debates: histrionic, dug-in responses to anyone who questions their orthodoxy, anger toward any journalist who pursues a line of inquiry that could jeopardize the broader societal project as they saw it, a belief that hiding or ignoring inconvenient info was tolerable or even necessary if it meant achieving an aim or denying a victory to the baddies.
At the same time, that era had a lot of moments where normal people could see things that were questionable and concerning but they were pilloried for daring to express: should schools really be closed that long? isn't extended shutdown obviously bad for mental health, and why is that so much less important? why is it not OK to gather (even outside) for a funeral but it is OK to scream in huge protests for BLM? Etc.
I don't know fully where I am going with this, other than to say that I remember these same sorts of progressives having outsized and weird reactions during the COVID/BLM era too, though there are key differences, one being that they are now aggressively ANTI-intervention and the other being that their views on COVID/BLM were much more in line with media elites than on this Biden issue. Different situations but still some similar behaviors/dynamics at play.
When restaurants reopened diners were asked to mask while walking to and from their table--but were then free to unmask while in close proximity to people eating, talking, laughing and presumably spraying virus particles into the air. They policy should have disqualified anybody in government who advocated for it.
In our state the reopened bars and restaurants long before day cares and schools.
Because the day-care and school workers were getting paid anyway, so they lobbied against reopening, while the businesses needed to function so they lobbied to open.
The masks and 6 feet rule were completely arbitrary and capricious and history has proven that
I remember watching Biden's first trip to Japan as President: he had a mask coming down the steps of Air Force 1. Once he reached the tarmac and all the waiting officials there, he took the mask off.
Follow the science!
Hard to please your deranged supporters and tax paying employers/businesses at the same time.
Absolute banger of an opening line
The truth is there is no moral or ethical difference between democrats and republicans - at least as far as democracy or the integrity of the Republic goes. If a Democrat president had done what Trump did on January 6th, everything that has happened (lukewarm condemnations while trying to move past it on one side and all-out prosecution with righteous fervor on the other) would have happened in reverse. If your side wins, you blame the other side for cheating. Both sides have done that. Democrats blame an imaginary voter suppression and Republicans blame imaginary vote fraud, neither of which has been empirically demonstrated and both of which you can conjure up a fraudulent case for by abusing statistics. If a Democrat demagogue adopts extreme and insane positions and polls very well among the primary and general electorate, the Democrats are not going to bend their party rules to stop him, they're not going to use convention rules to replace him as the nominee, and they would bend the knee to him just like Republicans did to Trump. Some of them would be lukewarm in their support. Some would backstab him the second his approval ratings dropped. Some would swap to independent or to republicans. We saw all of that with Trump, but just like with Trump the numbers would be minimal.
With all due respect, to believe otherwise is self-delusion: parties are organized to win. And if someone wins, they don't care about how extreme their views are, as long as it's the 'right' flavor of extreme to make the base and donors happy. You can also point to 2016 Dem Primaries as an example: ALL the nominees adopted a commitment to packing the court other than Biden, in order to try to improve their chances of winning the primary. Biden did win, but the fact that Democrats were willing to commit to such an extreme, out of the mainstream position so readily to win the primary highlights that neither party has compunctions about adopting extreme positions (or pretending to do so) to win elections.
My personal rude awakening came a few years back when I realized that if Trump had remained a Democrat and been successful, then we Democrats would have supported him and made excuses for him. Complete disillusionment has followed…another kind of ‘woke’. The debate was a little bit surprising for me, mostly because in my disillusionment I haven’t been paying as much attention and had not realized how bad Biden had gotten. It has been amazing to me to see all the left-leaning pundits and journalists wake up to the emperor having no clothes - I fully expected a bunch of denial etc. I hope it leads to more general awakening about the fallacy of the “good guys” vs the “bad guys”. If being “reality-based” spreads like a virus, our society might have a chance.
Bernie was the Dems Trump. The media made sure his huge campaign rallies early in 2016 got little coverage (while they gleefully covered Trump, thinking him a sure loser).
And then in the South Carolina stitch-up Obama cut a deal where Bernie and Liz got to set the party agenda much of the regulatory staffing, Pete got a cabinet spot and a slush fund, Harris got VP and Biden got to be the meat puppet nominally atop the construction. I don’t think Biden was ever supposed to run again, but name recognition is important (especially against Trump) and the Dems felt it was a risk to put someone unknown outside of partisan circles on the ballot. The lawfare was supposed to irreparably harm Trump. Choosing Smith was a mistake as he always overcharges and is often reversed. For the docs case, he could have already gotten Trump on perjury and obstruction but Smith chose to make the docs themselves the centerpiece (whereas Biden, Clinton, Petraeus, Berger, Pence all got off).
The hope was that Biden and the party could keep fooling people until after the election. Even after the debate, if Biden were ahead in the polls the media and the party would be downplaying his lack of mental competence. It is just about the polls.
Bernie as the Dems Trump. Hm. Does make a certain kind of sense, both are essentially demagogues. So at this point, it’s a little internecine conflict on the left between those who give credence to the polling and those who are so post-truth the polls don’t matter…or who simply don’t believe any other Dem besides Biden can defeat Trump, in spite of the bad poll numbers. They think they can weather this. I think they are seriously underestimating how bad it is for Biden. Time will tell.
That is to say: Your belief was "validated" between 2008 and 2020 only because - in large part - you got lucky and you had a very popular Democrat president followed by a very unpopular Republican one, and until 2021 when Biden was elected, Democrats were not forced to make that choice between what's right and what's popular, or between electoral victory and truth, that has become so problematic in and more common due to partisanship in the last 20 years.
I don't buy this. Al Gore conceded in 2000 in the narrowest election to date (and when the votes legitimately could've been miscounted), there was no violent attempt by Clinton/Gore's administration to stay in power, etc.
The Supreme Court shut down the recount.
Isn't it pretty obvious now that the court should have been packed?
Totally illogical conclusion for anyone who takes a long term Jew and understands game theory.
I think there's a typo there ...
I wouldn't be surprised if that is the phone, it makes some bizarre replacements sometimes.
I think I once had "explicitly" typed "xplicitly" and it autocorrected to "specificity". It makes some crazy choices.
Oh no, even our phones are becoming antisemitic!
I wouldn't be surprised with the political leanings of tech workers.
What SHOULD have happened is someone should have put on their big boy pants some time in the last 150 years, realized the vulnerability in the system, and passed a constitutional amendment to limit the size of the court and establish a rotation system.
9 justices serving 18 year rotations with the justice with the most seniority retiring every 2 years would be an eminently fair system. Imagine if you could wave a wand and have had that in place at the start of Biden's term. Thomas's term would have expired at the start of Biden's term and then Breyer's term would have expired after the midterms. The next president would get to replace Alito and Roberts, the 2028 president would replace Sotomayor and Kagan, and so on.
Someone should be the adult in the room and lock down this vulnerability in our constitution rather than exploiting it.
Or you could just elect people to write laws, based upon policies that have broad popular support.
Bit of a non sequitur.
I prefer to call it democracy, and so I can see why Dems would need to follow in the steps of Orban and Law and Justice.
Case, meet point.
Sorry to burst your bubble Nate but the left can’t even agree on the definition of a woman.
In a more sane world, the recent story about the pressure Rachael Levine at HHS put on WPATH to not include minimum ages for sex-change surgeries and hormone replacement would be a major scandal. That's one of the problems of a checked-out chief executive abdicating his presidential power to a committee of ideologues far to the left of the centrist-seeming figurehead.
Oh, they completely agree: a woman is any person who claims to be.
This is already the law in most blue states, and Biden has called for it to become federal law (the "Equality Act") in every SOTU.
Here, for example, is the form to change your legal sex in Pennsylvania. Just fill it out and turn it in to any DMV office and your new state ID will be sent to you ASAP: https://www.dot.state.pa.us/Public/DVSPubsForms/BDL/BDL%20Form/DL-32.pdf
I'm very interested in who *can* come to an agreement on the definition of a woman. Every attempt I've seen someone come up with (such as "has XX chromosomes" or "has a uterus" or "has a vagina") gets a lot of clear cases wrong, and the defenders of these supposedly simple definitions can't even agree.
This is the best definition that I have heard of. Skip to 7:50 time if you just want the answer to the question but i think the entire video is worth a watch. He also points out that just because biology is "quirky" and you have outliers doesn't mean the data set isn't binary. When over 98.7% of a dataset can be labeled into 2 categories and then you have a bunch of interesting categories after that, I think it's okay to classify that dataset as binary and handle the edge cases. This is especially true in biology where small correlations are the norm. I hope this is helpful.
https://youtu.be/O_tIEGaXgCE?si=7lPBUMjqe-a0OBsv
That's a nice definition! I like the "ordered towards" because it avoids worries about the likelihood or capacity for that individual to actually impregnate/be impregnated (and thus doesn't get things hilariously wrong for post-menopausal women or gay men or whatever). Though I think it does naturally raise the next question of what "ordered towards" means here. I think that there's a natural way that some trans people could perfectly well accept this definition, and say that a major part of that "ordering towards" involves the external presentation of a person, and that by getting hormone treatments and surgery, or even just by wearing appropriate clothing and shaping their voice in a particular way, they are "ordering towards" the relevant external presentation. Even though this ordering doesn't actually provide the function of pregnancy, we note that this was already accepted when we included gay and post-menopausal people as members of the relevant sex or gender.
I think trans people will be among the first to note that 98.7% of our dataset can be labeled in 2 categories, and that there are a bunch of interesting cases out of that - though they'll also note that whether it is good enough to then treat that classification as binary is going to depend on what purpose you want to use this classification for. It's one thing if you're running a zoo or farm that is trying to operate a successful breeding program, but it'll be different if you're a biologist interested in the detailed functioning of this class of organism, including in whatever sort of social realm this organism has.
At some point you are just dealing with an ideologue and not any rational person. I think this definition is good enough that we can say with confidence what a woman is and what a man is.
I'll also point out that while trans people love to point out that there are individuals who aren't XX or XY, trans individuals (for the most part) actually do fall into XX or XY. So... 🤷♂️
My high school biology textbook would beg to differ. Exceptions to the rule don't mean the rule isn't valid.
Can you actually tell me what it says in your high school biology textbook. In my experience, most people who think there’s a simple definition weren’t actually paying attention to what the books said and just assumed it must be simple because everyone learns the concept from a young age.
Historically, there was never a dispute about what a man or woman was. It was only after the left and their reality-warping wokeness tried to upend actual science.
“Racial resentment and economic self-interest”… you liberals can’t help yourselves. Anyone who doesn’t share your views = bad racist/misogynist/moron…fill in the goddamn blank. Do you have any idea how instinctually insulting you all are?
If there is a party of "racial resentment" it is for sure the Democratic Party. No idea what Nate is talking about.
Oh yes, Republicans are always slaves to the baser instincts while enlightened Democrats always and everywhere can transcend them. It must be a hell of a thing to be so smart AND enlightened.
👍👍👍👏👏👏
The MSM, by and large, turned a blind eye to Biden’s infirmities. He’s been stumbling and bumbling around for the last 3+ years and we were told not to believe our own eyes. Thank goodness for X and Substack.
I would push back against this a little bit. The bizarre incident that was the canary in the coal mine for me was, back in 2019 when Biden bit his wife's finger at a campaign stop. Of course that was kind of glossed over after some light coverage.
However, I recently watched a clip of Biden's biggest bloopers in 2021. There were a handful of doozies, but at the same time if this was the worst that someone could find over an entire year, it definitely is some indicator that things weren't as bad three years ago.
On the other hand, I have also seen a lot more clips in the past few months that were much more glaring red flags. If you're going to blank out and say "four more years pause" in some kind of weird NPC voice, the camera angle or the selective editing doesn't really matter.
I see a trend where he was probably at 90%, five years ago, and the past 12-18 months have really been an accelerating downward slope, and the Biden allies were hoping to keep the lipstick on for just a little bit longer. Even if he was in much better shape though, it's already asking a lot of most voters to put in an 81-year old, just based on the likelihood of future problems.
Honestly I felt the same way as Mr. Silver until 2016 when I went to graduate school. It was then that I noticed all the little ways liberal media lies to themselves and to the public. It's much more subtle than what fox News does. They omit arguments, data, or facts to line up with the narrative they want. It's very frustrating. I only started noticing after Trump got elected but now looking back they have been doing it for years. I hope they fix themselves, our democracy needs an independent media that accurately informs the public.
NYTs; First I noticed it was "weapons of mass destruction" which was straight propaganda from the Pentagon reported as investigative reporting. Then, the campus rape situations (Duke Lacrosse, FSU QB, UVA Fraternity) where in each case the NYT reported exactly what the plaintiff attorneys said in their press releases as actual facts and in each case, criminal courts found the "victims" to be lying about the events. Black Lives assertions that weren't backed by science. Covid situation where they said the science supported masks, lockdowns, schools being closed and vaccines stopping the spread/mandates, lab leak theory was conspiracy, etc. None of which was supported by science. Now, Biden's cognitive decline. Seems to me to be much more than just liberal bias going on here....................a total disregard for facts/truths/investigative reporting, etc.
🎯🎯
Media’s job has always been to sell adverts (and views, clicks, subscriptions). It is a business, not a profession.
The few people who want “independent” media find their own ways to read between the lines…..including by subscribing to substacks
Re: Trump in 2020.
My gut feeling is that the only reason Trump lost in 2020 was the pandemic. In a parallel universe with no Covid I think he would have coasted to victory.
Consider that he's clearly competitive in 2024, leading Biden even before the latest controversy over his mental acuity. In fact if you look around the world you see lots of Trump's who seem to be enjoying their fair share of electoral success right now, so I suspect that something very fundamental and very significant is in play.
I remember having lunch with a friend in October 2019 - he's a leading scholar of Franz Fanon and more-or-less a Marxist - and we both agreed that Trump was rolling to reelection. COVID had a huge impact.
Nate, in terms of what’s going on now, you are far behind Taibbi, Weiss, Shellenberger, Berenson, Greenwald. The media-intel-Democratic Party went full postmodern in 2017. The hoaxes! My heavens, so many. You’ve now seen that there’s been gaslighting about the president’s mental condition. It’s the tip of the iceberg. The best thing for our country would be for people like Nate Silver to see how little the Emperor has been wearing since 2017. Please put on your skeptic hat and keep digging.
He has to retain his social circle though I doubt he would admit it. Follow the person whose integrity has forced them to burn almost every bridge with their friend group, e.g., Taibbi and Berenson. Those guys have paid a social price that most of us would never have the courage to do.
“One of the media’s jobs is to hold people in positions of power to account, and there shouldn’t be exceptions just because those people are Democrats.”
I find this hard to take seriously when the media gleefully relishes in Navarro and Bannon going to prison for the same offenses that Holder and Garland walk around free for. Both have served or are serving four MONTHS in jail for misdemeanors, invoking a very defensible case of executive privilege.
100%. It’s fascinating that those opposed to Biden dropping out simply assert that it can’t be done. Most don’t bother to defend his capacity—so at least they aren’t gaslighting about that. But they claim to know for sure that switching out Joe Biden is the one thing that we Americans can’t do. It’s a classic case of the sunk cost fallacy.
It's probably true that left-wingers are smarter than we conservatives, at least in our era of education polarization.
But because progressives have so many obvious blind spots (and are beholden to toxic, counterproductive identity politics), I think their big brain advantage is pretty much wasted.
Maybe more educated but education does not equal smarter.
The left are often just over-credentialed midwits
They are certainly more vicious…those empathic mother fuckers are savage😂
The worst aspect of Twitter right now is the Trump whataboutism.
To use a sports analogy, Dems have an ethical obligation to present a credible nominee and presently they are languishing below the Mendoza Line. Until they address that issue -- i.e., expelling Biden as nominee -- there is nothing else to discuss. It's a low bar to clear and yet they have not cleared it.
Once Biden steps down, then we can start talking about how the nominee (likely Harris) matches up against Trump and the strengths & weaknesses of the nominee's candidacy. But the Dems have no *right* to discuss Trump while they do not have a credible nominee.
Sorry what? Why can’t the Dems say the Republicans don’t have a credible nominee either? And why in your books is it ok for Republicans to discuss Biden while Trump is the nominee?
You can make the exact same argument you made about Biden (“ethical obligation to present a credible nominee and presently they are languishing below the Mendoza Line”) and apply it to Trump. What am I missing?
The Dems have an obligation to produce a credible nominee whether they are squaring off against Donald Trump or Abraham Lincoln. You cannot dismiss that obligation by pointing at the opponent.
I never said anything about what Republicans should or should not be doing. If you want to argue that Trump is an inferior nominee then sure, but it isn't relevant to this discussion.
I am arguing Trump is not a credible nominee. Being a convicted felon, Jan 6, also nearly 80 and clearly not all there mentally, etc.
I agree with you on the Democrats obligation, but ask why you say nothing about the Republicans’ obligation?
I completely agree
Reality was strangely apparent to more "conservative" media outlets years ago. Why do you think it took so long for the rest of the media to realize this? I wonder....
Psychologically, we are more resistant to facts that challenge our own narratives. Conservative outlets are happy to point out liberals’ foibles, and liberals will argue to the death that what is plain to see for conservatives is not true, and vice versa.
I appreciate the cogent responses. I would, however, like to point out the possibility that such innocuous explanations are seemingly inadequate. Have you considered the the media you consume is simply lying to you? That that are not good people dedicated to speaking truth to power, but instead evil people dedicated to misleading you to further their own interests? That perhaps the things you say about conservative media are AT LEAST as true when applied to your "side"? As an example, I see reporting now that a Parkinson's disease specialist visited the White House 9 times from from July 2023 through March 2024 according to the WH logs. Why is this the first time this has been reported? Why hasn't anyone asked about this doctor and what, precisely, he is doing at the WH? We have all been lied to - I do not seriously believe all these "journalists" had no idea how bad Biden was doing. We could all see it (for years). Why would you listen to these talking heads again after all the lies (and not just about this issue)?
Partially cognitive dissonance - which practically everyone engages in occasionally but we should all guard against.
Nate, I very much respect your opinion. First, it is very clear there was a campaign by the mainstream media to cover up Joe Biden's mental acuity. Two, Hunter Biden has NO business advising the President. He is only doing it to get a full pardon for his federal crimes (he is also a convicted felon just like Trump). Three, (this is where you and I will disagree), the NY Times and Washington Post are NOT left of center. They are the like the Squad, totally extreme left.
Keep up the GREAT work.
I land between you and Nate,- the NYT and WAPO are not just left of center,they are extreme liberals in the worst sense of the term , not the classical sense. But they are far from the Squad - who are. I currently traitors to their country and the ideals of the founders, far far left extremists, the most clueless individuals in Congress , and a total clown show- all simultaneously which is hard to accomplish.