The answer is actually in your question. Because he is an academic. I know republicans hold academics in disdain, but they are correct more often than Trump nuts who burn books instead of reading them.
Academics are routinely hilariously wrong about basically everything this subject includes: electoral politics, republicans, people outside specific areas, etc
Somebody please honestly try to articulate for me why someone who thinks social media membership suffices to evaluate another's opinion is remotely qualified to tell me literally anything about anything.
The book being discussed is based largely on feedback from local party officials and activists, plus attending some events.
Local party officials and activists are not really a good proxy for typical actual voters.
The ordinary guy posting on social media made a valid point. It’s worthwhile to hear the author’s take. I am not in any way suggesting the book itself is not good, especially if you want to understand the party’s perspective.
However, party officials’ opinions are not a good way to evaluate the opinions of either current or potential voters for that party. Particularly when nearly half of voters are unaffiliated and are currently swinging back and forth between parties.
Nate, the guy whose paid Substack you’re on, has literally entire articles, and subplots of several other articles, discussing the types of people who left Twitter for blue sky and their useless group think on tremendous detail. Nate own twitter page has a massive backlog of tweets on this topic as well. Given that we’re in Nate’s Substack I don’t think I should have to cite his own cannon to you.
Nope. And those swing voters are not “my” preferred group. They are who are potentially in play.
I have watched this play out, with multiple Democratic candidates steered by Saunders making unprecedented headway in a previously red state that is now light blue. That included many blue collar and working class voters not from Appalachia, but culturally similar. I have a pretty decent personal understanding of the culture that they were trying to appeal to and how and why that strategy worked.
I can see the wider opportunity for the country as a whole, in that neither party can get to a majority without this group and culturally similar groups. Both parties’ popularity is currently in the twenties, both parties need them, and Trump very much has not nailed many of those voters down going forward for Republicans.
Those swing voters include rural voters, blue collar voters, and some culturally more conservative immigrant, Black, and Hispanic voters. Many of their concerns are more cultural and populist than partisan, and could be addressed by either party. Right now they’re not well addressed by either, and neither party has done a good job of voicing a unifying message.
Partisan strategists and most academics generally don’t seem to have a good grasp on them, and often don’t particularly care about them, but they are tipping elections back and forth. We’re in the middle of a realignment that still has not solidified, and how the parties ultimately define themselves affects who will wind up where when it does.
The bottom line is that politics is more an art than a science. If you want to win, you use the numbers to plan but to get the voters you worry about the art. If you want to predict, you are not recruiting or defining candidates, you are measuring reaction to that work.
Academics are not trained in the art, they’re trained in the science, and the big issue right now falls squarely into the art part.
I appreciate your response Lisa, but I don't understand why you think it is the wrong skillset. If you say you are not a book-burning Trumper then I am sure you're not, but why is Nate not qualified?
Nate could certainly be wrong, in fact he dedicates much of this post analyzing how he has been wrong in the past, but he is using data and facts to make an educated assessment. That is worth more than all the emotional rantings from the left or right.
As for Dave Saunders, he went to Virginia Tech. He has only slightly less formal education than Nate does. You're thinking of how he focuses on the opinions of rural Americans, but in doing that he also always reminded Democrats to focus on the math, just like Nate.
I was referring to Seth, not Nate. It does apply to both.
Dave is from Appalachia. Tech is the state land grant university, and is also located in Appalachia. It is pretty culturally different from Berkeley or Chicago.
Dave is actually of the culture you’re trying to reach out to, not a tourist.
Dave very effectively got both Mark Warner and Jim Webb into the Senate. He did so by understanding how to appeal to rural and conservative voters who were not dogmatic Republicans and were open to Democrats.
I absolutely do not think that either Nate or Seth have a similar level of instinctive cultural understanding of those voters. That lack of cultural savvy is where Democratic efforts are failing dismally.
Find a Mudcat, pick a good candidate, and you can win those voters. They are up for grabs.
I take your point, and it’s valid because it requires a good faith effort to understand someone not like yourself. But that means it’s rare, not impossible. I haven’t even watched the video yet but I’m going to cross my fingers and hope the guy makes some good points.
Newt Gingrich is a piece of shit. His Wife was dying in a hospital from Cancer when Newt went to ask her for a divorce, and made his wife sign the papers.
I don't know why any Black person could ever vote or support Donald Trump. Trump would get rid of all Black people if He could,
On February 10, 2016, Chris Christie suspended his presidential campaign after New Hampshire. Sixteen days later he endorsed Trump at an event in Fort Worth, Texas; he was the first sitting governor and first former 2016 rival from the establishment lane to publicly back Trump, widely covered as a shock move and a major establishment crack. Two days later, Sen. Jeff Sessions endorsed Trump at a rally in Alabama, becoming the first sitting U.S. senator to back him and delivering a powerful signal from the Tea Party wing with institutional clout.
In just a few days, the Republican Establishment’s expectations shifted from “we can still stop him” to “he’s probably the nominee.”
There have not been more than a handful of profiles in courage from that establishment in the intervening years. I wonder if the GOP will ever recover from this episode.
The question for me is whether the GOP can do a Three-peat ---- like when the popular Ronald Reagan saved the presidency for his VP, George H.W. Bush. That is rare, but I think it could happen, as things are now. (Vance or Rubio, presumably: I know Cruz wants it, but he's too angry. He might be good, though.) If the Dems keep on with their Progressive dreams -- Trannydom for Everyone, take all the money from the successes and distribute it to the failures -- we might well have a Three-peat, but no one is likely to ever be as dramatic as Trump, so it would be a calmer administration, I'd say.
"All of this makes Republicans a deeply unhealthy party."
What BS! Doesn't Silver have a historical consciousness? What about Will Rogers? Rogers said it all when he said, "I am not a member of any organized political party; I am a Democrat." The Republican party is the majority party, just like the Democratic party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930s (Will Rogers party) was the majority party. But it was not a political party at all in any coherent sense - it was a coalition of political interests. That's what the Republican party has become. The Republican party is incoherent by constitutional design. If the Democratic party is not, or can't be, a coalition of political interests, then they can dwell in the political wilderness until they change.
In Europe the political parties are designed into the constitutions. In times of rapid political change, they are not flexible like our system. Talk about unhealthy. A political party that can't change is unhealthy. Political parties need to win elections, that's the definition of party health.
It's not "fever dreams" when right now three major U.S. cities have openly socialist mayors. Same deal is going on today in England --- a socialist or communist is about to become prime minister, apparently, replacing Starmer. And several other highly dubious commie situations bubbling up here: the "strip the wealthy" ploy going on now in California, the openly socialist oyster-farmer Senate candidate in Maine, the one with the sex problem.
Bill Ahern is right, of course: Marx and Lenin ride again. The very yucky stuff coming out of the far-left "ideas" that everyone is required to say they believe in or get cancelled is of course a lot of the foundation of Trump's popularity.
What does it even mean to have a "socialist" mayor? They have no power to socialize anything.
And your "three major cities" is actually just one, or two if you want to include the next mayor of DC. And of course even 3 cities is pretty weak measurement for a "takeover".
If taxing billionaires is socialism, then you might be surprised to find out how many socialists there are in the world.
That said, the total lack of "DSA Takeover" is best shown be the fact that of all the Democratic candidates for California Governor, only one supported the tax, and that person couldn't even win the Democratic nomination.
Your count is off --- New York, D.C., and Seattle. And bumpteen would-be commie pols: Bernie is obvious, Platner admits it, and here comes AOC, and she wants 2028!
We've got people withdrawing to the far left and the far right and a big empty place in the middle. Haven't had that since FDR, I don't think. But it's going on in Europe, too: it's a Movement, to use Trumpian initial caps. Or Arlo Guthrie -----
Seattle is #18, about 800k people. DC is #22 at about 700k If you are going to count that low, where do you draw the line?
A few Federal orgs including the Census folks say 250k, in which case you have a massive takeover of ... about 3%.
It is telling that the number of people you are worried about can be counted on a few fingers.
And you still haven't pointed out any specific policies that should have us quaking in our boots. Bernie has been in Congress 35 years. There should be something you can point to prove there has been a "takeover".
You can fear anything you want at the Right Wing Echo Chamber.
Bernie has been in Congress, isolated and lonely in his Singularity for many years ------- until lately, when only intervention by united Dem party officials kept him from beating out Hillary (and Biden too!) for the run for the White House -- twice. Now he's got all those Bernie Bros, and a lot of support from mayors and "Here we come too!" far-left politicians like Platner and AOC. You can't convincingly pretend there's no attempted takeover going on here! Of course there is, communism coming back and back like Dracula.
As for dreaded commie policies, thanks for the lead-in ----- Bernie's and Progressives' Medicare for All is the forced communist nationalized medical establishment that has failed so grotesquely in both Canada and England. California and New York's attempt at stripping the wealth from its smart people and giving it all to the stupid people (no doubt with a huge cut for the politicians) is mainly leading a big flight to safety by rich people and a windfall for moving van companies: so much for the tax base in those Progressive-afflicted states.
Britain is leading the way again with taxing winning accomplishment out of existence --- or at least out of their country. The Wall Street Journal today has an article on how top tennis players are avoiding British competitions entirely, because the Brits simply take huge amounts of their income if they play in England. I remember the great author Dick Francis sadly complaining over the decades that he had to stay out of England more than half of every year to avoid the confiscatory taxes, more than 50% of all he made on his books. It's difficult to understand how that kind of taxing can be moral, except to an Englishman like Engels.
At the beginning of the video of the interview, Nate does say there will be a transcript. He did not say when, but I am guessing it will be pretty soon.
technical point: the audio kept dropping out for me and it'd be gone for 30 seconds to a minute and come back. no idea why. Not my internet (which is starlink and i was measuring 190Mb/sec down while this was going on). So suspect technical problems with your hosting
Please provide an audio only option when you have a guest. I can't turn off my phone when you have video and any little pressure will cause internet to drop. Thank you, Danny
Nate didn't buy that Harris perhaps did as well as possible in the 2024 election. I think he's wrong and historic data supports me. The Democrats controlled the WH. With only one exception (Bush 1988), from 1948 to 2016, the party in the WH retaining the WH is correlated with having a non-contested primary/convention cycle. And the conventional political logic is this: it is perceived as an admission that the party was not able to keep its promises from four years earlier.
| Party in White House Nominee | After Uncontested Primaries | After Contested Primaries |
Yeah, I like the point in this essay by Nate that there IS (or was) a powerful story that the elites, the party bosses tend to get what they want. And that 2020 was a great example of that, with the Dems: my husband has been complaining about the party shutting down the primary in South Carolina ever since, but that's what they do, to stop the infighting. Same with the coronation of Kamala the next election.
But on the Republican side, Trump broke that mold in 2016. The GOP would-be elites have kind of given up now, but I was amazed how long people like Bill Kristol, the Cheneys father and daughter, and others just moaned and carried on, outraged and clearly astounded that they had suddenly lost all their power. Peggy Noonan, too. There are some old-fashioned Republicans who just never got it.
Yeah - the 2020 response among the Dems seemed to be a reaction to 2016, and a belief that an extended primary would either nominate Bernie, or damage the eventual winner and hand the election to Trump.
Analysis in 2008 had between 16% (exit polls) and 25% (traditional post election polls) of Hillary's voters backing McCain, with about 5% not voting. One wonders what the number would have been if Hillary had not campaigned so heavily for Obama, but in the end the defectors didn't sway the 2008 election.
In 2016, about 12% (traditional polls) of Bernie's voters switched to Trump, but they were probably the deciding vote margin in the rust belt states.
It isn't obvious from that the 2020 decision was accurate (ie was the only way to elect a Dem), but it was effective in that Biden was elected.
I don't think the 2024 situation is quite the same. Yes the Democratic party decided, but the available options were slim because of Biden's timing. Other processes or choices were available, but it isn't clear those would have changed the result in November, beyond just being different.
The whole "The Party Decides" scenario has nothing to do with the process that put Harris on the top of the ticket.
But the Dems certainly have fertilized the garden well for an insurgent outsider to campaign against the leadership.
It is amazingly cynical to imply the Republican anti-Trumper faction was primarily concerned about their loss of power. Clearly some were expressing concern about MAGA-ism, and especially after Jan 6th there was ample support for the idea that Trump's movement was dangerous for the country.
Specifically, you might look at Liz Cheney's actual timeline. The fact is that she gave up power to do what she thought was right after 4 years of carrying Trump's water in the House.
Sure, the whole perceived problem with contested primaries: it is supposed to damage the eventual winner. That didn't actually work against Trump, however, in the 2016 primary. He sure didn't want any of that in 2020, though. I assumed (many did) that a quickie Dem primary in 2024 would have damaged Kamala, excluded her in fact, and she was the conduit for all the campaign money, so I suppose the money was dispositive. It does seem to me the party elites decided on Kamala: Pelosi, Obama, eventually even Biden, unwillingly. It made sense: if she was going to lose, at least she'd clear the decks for the next candidate.
You are perhaps forgetting that both MAGA and Jan. 6 are not at all problems for the Trump faithful --- there is no support for any of those complaints among the people who actually won the election.
I agree that the Dems are ripe for an insurgent outsider: it's the done thing nowadays, after all. Everyone will copy Trump for years, I assume, because: winning.
If I were Giorgia Meloni,I would tell Donald J.TRump to go and fuck himself and not answer a phone call for a text. Trump has no skin or balls; all Trump is a bully, trying to push everyone to a limit. The G7 Meeting, when Trump came into that meeting an hour late and then before Trump sat down, Trump said I am the Boss. Bull shit, Trump is a nobody, pretending to be a president.
I agree with Nate Kamala wasn’t a great candidate. But she wasn’t terrible. Her strategy was kind of bad (she played it safe.. apologizing for immigration / inflation etc instead of shamelessly talking about the stock market (Dems hate bragging about stock market) and global inflation which sadly Dems can’t do… but yes she herself was moslty average milquetoast for this type of race.
But while it’s true Kamala underperformed several statewide dems I actually don’t think that’s all
That meaningful of a measure. Voters might not punish or think of their statewide reps as causing the inflation or they might be more protective of them in some ways for certain reasons.
My broader point is I think there was a ceiling for Dems generally in 2024 and while a better candidate might have marginally done better it feels like voters were looking for change… unless you’re talking about an all star like Ossoff maybe.
Crooked Donald J. Trump, today, on Sunday, is blaming Children for messing with the Lincoln reflection Pool in Washington, D.C. Trump will do anything to not blame this mess on His friends, who caused this mess. Why isn’t the street’s camera not being checked? I’M sure Washington D, C. has street cameras.
When this project first came up, wasn’t the cost going to be $1.4 Million Dollars? Why then, how did the cost go to $14.3 Million Dollars? Or did the first cost estimate not include Donald Trump’s cut?
Somebody please honestly try to articulate for me why a bluesky-only academic is remotely qualified to tell me literally anything about the GOP base.
The answer is actually in your question. Because he is an academic. I know republicans hold academics in disdain, but they are correct more often than Trump nuts who burn books instead of reading them.
Academics are routinely hilariously wrong about basically everything this subject includes: electoral politics, republicans, people outside specific areas, etc
Somebody please honestly try to articulate for me why someone who thinks social media membership suffices to evaluate another's opinion is remotely qualified to tell me literally anything about anything.
The book being discussed is based largely on feedback from local party officials and activists, plus attending some events.
Local party officials and activists are not really a good proxy for typical actual voters.
The ordinary guy posting on social media made a valid point. It’s worthwhile to hear the author’s take. I am not in any way suggesting the book itself is not good, especially if you want to understand the party’s perspective.
However, party officials’ opinions are not a good way to evaluate the opinions of either current or potential voters for that party. Particularly when nearly half of voters are unaffiliated and are currently swinging back and forth between parties.
All valid points, and much better than Adam who thinks "bluesky-only academic" is intrinsically disqualifying from participating in the conversation.
Nate, the guy whose paid Substack you’re on, has literally entire articles, and subplots of several other articles, discussing the types of people who left Twitter for blue sky and their useless group think on tremendous detail. Nate own twitter page has a massive backlog of tweets on this topic as well. Given that we’re in Nate’s Substack I don’t think I should have to cite his own cannon to you.
That doesn't address my question at all.
Clearly Nate thinks this guy is qualified to venture an opinion on this matter, so perhaps you should rethink your criteria.
Being an academic actually isn’t a qualification for that, though. Wrong skill set.
No, I am not a Republican. And academic is arguably the most common job in my immediate family.
Someone in the mold of Dave “Mudcat” Saunders, who is not an academic, is probably a better choice. No idea if Dave himself is still active, though.
So you have a preferred group you think would present an interesting perspective.
That hardly proves that all academics are not "remotely qualified" in this subject area.
Nope. And those swing voters are not “my” preferred group. They are who are potentially in play.
I have watched this play out, with multiple Democratic candidates steered by Saunders making unprecedented headway in a previously red state that is now light blue. That included many blue collar and working class voters not from Appalachia, but culturally similar. I have a pretty decent personal understanding of the culture that they were trying to appeal to and how and why that strategy worked.
I can see the wider opportunity for the country as a whole, in that neither party can get to a majority without this group and culturally similar groups. Both parties’ popularity is currently in the twenties, both parties need them, and Trump very much has not nailed many of those voters down going forward for Republicans.
Those swing voters include rural voters, blue collar voters, and some culturally more conservative immigrant, Black, and Hispanic voters. Many of their concerns are more cultural and populist than partisan, and could be addressed by either party. Right now they’re not well addressed by either, and neither party has done a good job of voicing a unifying message.
Partisan strategists and most academics generally don’t seem to have a good grasp on them, and often don’t particularly care about them, but they are tipping elections back and forth. We’re in the middle of a realignment that still has not solidified, and how the parties ultimately define themselves affects who will wind up where when it does.
The bottom line is that politics is more an art than a science. If you want to win, you use the numbers to plan but to get the voters you worry about the art. If you want to predict, you are not recruiting or defining candidates, you are measuring reaction to that work.
Academics are not trained in the art, they’re trained in the science, and the big issue right now falls squarely into the art part.
I appreciate your response Lisa, but I don't understand why you think it is the wrong skillset. If you say you are not a book-burning Trumper then I am sure you're not, but why is Nate not qualified?
Nate could certainly be wrong, in fact he dedicates much of this post analyzing how he has been wrong in the past, but he is using data and facts to make an educated assessment. That is worth more than all the emotional rantings from the left or right.
As for Dave Saunders, he went to Virginia Tech. He has only slightly less formal education than Nate does. You're thinking of how he focuses on the opinions of rural Americans, but in doing that he also always reminded Democrats to focus on the math, just like Nate.
I was referring to Seth, not Nate. It does apply to both.
Dave is from Appalachia. Tech is the state land grant university, and is also located in Appalachia. It is pretty culturally different from Berkeley or Chicago.
Dave is actually of the culture you’re trying to reach out to, not a tourist.
Dave very effectively got both Mark Warner and Jim Webb into the Senate. He did so by understanding how to appeal to rural and conservative voters who were not dogmatic Republicans and were open to Democrats.
I absolutely do not think that either Nate or Seth have a similar level of instinctive cultural understanding of those voters. That lack of cultural savvy is where Democratic efforts are failing dismally.
Find a Mudcat, pick a good candidate, and you can win those voters. They are up for grabs.
I take your point, and it’s valid because it requires a good faith effort to understand someone not like yourself. But that means it’s rare, not impossible. I haven’t even watched the video yet but I’m going to cross my fingers and hope the guy makes some good points.
Newt Gingrich is a piece of shit. His Wife was dying in a hospital from Cancer when Newt went to ask her for a divorce, and made his wife sign the papers.
I don't know why any Black person could ever vote or support Donald Trump. Trump would get rid of all Black people if He could,
I really don't want to defend Newt Gingrich, who is an asshole..however, a quick Google search shows this not to be true.
Considering the divorce was in 1981 and his wife lived until 2013, it's certainly not literally true.
Sorry, I didn't know. What I was told several years ago. Newt is still an asshole
On February 10, 2016, Chris Christie suspended his presidential campaign after New Hampshire. Sixteen days later he endorsed Trump at an event in Fort Worth, Texas; he was the first sitting governor and first former 2016 rival from the establishment lane to publicly back Trump, widely covered as a shock move and a major establishment crack. Two days later, Sen. Jeff Sessions endorsed Trump at a rally in Alabama, becoming the first sitting U.S. senator to back him and delivering a powerful signal from the Tea Party wing with institutional clout.
In just a few days, the Republican Establishment’s expectations shifted from “we can still stop him” to “he’s probably the nominee.”
There have not been more than a handful of profiles in courage from that establishment in the intervening years. I wonder if the GOP will ever recover from this episode.
Sure. If they come up with different people, plausible deniability, and a change narrative that pulls in enough of their potential voters.
The question for me is whether the GOP can do a Three-peat ---- like when the popular Ronald Reagan saved the presidency for his VP, George H.W. Bush. That is rare, but I think it could happen, as things are now. (Vance or Rubio, presumably: I know Cruz wants it, but he's too angry. He might be good, though.) If the Dems keep on with their Progressive dreams -- Trannydom for Everyone, take all the money from the successes and distribute it to the failures -- we might well have a Three-peat, but no one is likely to ever be as dramatic as Trump, so it would be a calmer administration, I'd say.
"All of this makes Republicans a deeply unhealthy party."
What BS! Doesn't Silver have a historical consciousness? What about Will Rogers? Rogers said it all when he said, "I am not a member of any organized political party; I am a Democrat." The Republican party is the majority party, just like the Democratic party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930s (Will Rogers party) was the majority party. But it was not a political party at all in any coherent sense - it was a coalition of political interests. That's what the Republican party has become. The Republican party is incoherent by constitutional design. If the Democratic party is not, or can't be, a coalition of political interests, then they can dwell in the political wilderness until they change.
In Europe the political parties are designed into the constitutions. In times of rapid political change, they are not flexible like our system. Talk about unhealthy. A political party that can't change is unhealthy. Political parties need to win elections, that's the definition of party health.
Can you explain how 27% is a majority?
https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
Which party wins elections? Polls don't count.
Bravo!! Somebody gets it!!! [:-)
Never mind the polls. Watch who WINS.
Will there be a transcript of the interview?
Yes please. Substack has automated transcript generation.
Struck me as odd that no parallel was suggested between the Trump “takeover” and the DSA takeover that seems to be happening.
There is no DSA takeover, except in the fever dreams of the Right Wing echo chamber.
It's not "fever dreams" when right now three major U.S. cities have openly socialist mayors. Same deal is going on today in England --- a socialist or communist is about to become prime minister, apparently, replacing Starmer. And several other highly dubious commie situations bubbling up here: the "strip the wealthy" ploy going on now in California, the openly socialist oyster-farmer Senate candidate in Maine, the one with the sex problem.
Bill Ahern is right, of course: Marx and Lenin ride again. The very yucky stuff coming out of the far-left "ideas" that everyone is required to say they believe in or get cancelled is of course a lot of the foundation of Trump's popularity.
Hahahah.
What does it even mean to have a "socialist" mayor? They have no power to socialize anything.
And your "three major cities" is actually just one, or two if you want to include the next mayor of DC. And of course even 3 cities is pretty weak measurement for a "takeover".
If taxing billionaires is socialism, then you might be surprised to find out how many socialists there are in the world.
That said, the total lack of "DSA Takeover" is best shown be the fact that of all the Democratic candidates for California Governor, only one supported the tax, and that person couldn't even win the Democratic nomination.
Fever dreams.
Seriously.
Your count is off --- New York, D.C., and Seattle. And bumpteen would-be commie pols: Bernie is obvious, Platner admits it, and here comes AOC, and she wants 2028!
We've got people withdrawing to the far left and the far right and a big empty place in the middle. Haven't had that since FDR, I don't think. But it's going on in Europe, too: it's a Movement, to use Trumpian initial caps. Or Arlo Guthrie -----
Seattle is #18, about 800k people. DC is #22 at about 700k If you are going to count that low, where do you draw the line?
A few Federal orgs including the Census folks say 250k, in which case you have a massive takeover of ... about 3%.
It is telling that the number of people you are worried about can be counted on a few fingers.
And you still haven't pointed out any specific policies that should have us quaking in our boots. Bernie has been in Congress 35 years. There should be something you can point to prove there has been a "takeover".
You can fear anything you want at the Right Wing Echo Chamber.
Bernie has been in Congress, isolated and lonely in his Singularity for many years ------- until lately, when only intervention by united Dem party officials kept him from beating out Hillary (and Biden too!) for the run for the White House -- twice. Now he's got all those Bernie Bros, and a lot of support from mayors and "Here we come too!" far-left politicians like Platner and AOC. You can't convincingly pretend there's no attempted takeover going on here! Of course there is, communism coming back and back like Dracula.
As for dreaded commie policies, thanks for the lead-in ----- Bernie's and Progressives' Medicare for All is the forced communist nationalized medical establishment that has failed so grotesquely in both Canada and England. California and New York's attempt at stripping the wealth from its smart people and giving it all to the stupid people (no doubt with a huge cut for the politicians) is mainly leading a big flight to safety by rich people and a windfall for moving van companies: so much for the tax base in those Progressive-afflicted states.
Britain is leading the way again with taxing winning accomplishment out of existence --- or at least out of their country. The Wall Street Journal today has an article on how top tennis players are avoiding British competitions entirely, because the Brits simply take huge amounts of their income if they play in England. I remember the great author Dick Francis sadly complaining over the decades that he had to stay out of England more than half of every year to avoid the confiscatory taxes, more than 50% of all he made on his books. It's difficult to understand how that kind of taxing can be moral, except to an Englishman like Engels.
I wrote my question prematurely.
At the beginning of the video of the interview, Nate does say there will be a transcript. He did not say when, but I am guessing it will be pretty soon.
https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/republican-lawmakers-sexual-misconduct-2024-f1b584
https://www.govtrack.us/misconduct
technical point: the audio kept dropping out for me and it'd be gone for 30 seconds to a minute and come back. no idea why. Not my internet (which is starlink and i was measuring 190Mb/sec down while this was going on). So suspect technical problems with your hosting
Please provide an audio only option when you have a guest. I can't turn off my phone when you have video and any little pressure will cause internet to drop. Thank you, Danny
Nate didn't buy that Harris perhaps did as well as possible in the 2024 election. I think he's wrong and historic data supports me. The Democrats controlled the WH. With only one exception (Bush 1988), from 1948 to 2016, the party in the WH retaining the WH is correlated with having a non-contested primary/convention cycle. And the conventional political logic is this: it is perceived as an admission that the party was not able to keep its promises from four years earlier.
| Party in White House Nominee | After Uncontested Primaries | After Contested Primaries |
| ---------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------- |
| **Sitting President** | 8–1 (won: 1948, 1956, 1964, 1972, 1984, 1996, 2004, 2012; lost: 2020) | 0–4 (lost: 1952, 1976, 1980, 1992) |
| **Sitting Vice President** | 0–1 (lost: 2024) | 1–3 (won: 1988; lost: 1960, 1968, 2000) |
| **Other** | 0–0 | 0–2 (lost: 2008, 2016) |
(Sorry for the ugly table. My snippet picture of this cannot be posted in this interface.)
A pretty interesting conversation (I gave up waiting and generated my own transcript).
The Republican trend lines from 2008 to the Trump years are definitely a perspective I hadn't thought through.
The "Party Decides" difference between the Dems and the R's in 2016 was pretty clear.
But in the end it is a history analysis and more about what happened than useful insight into what might happen next.
Yeah, I like the point in this essay by Nate that there IS (or was) a powerful story that the elites, the party bosses tend to get what they want. And that 2020 was a great example of that, with the Dems: my husband has been complaining about the party shutting down the primary in South Carolina ever since, but that's what they do, to stop the infighting. Same with the coronation of Kamala the next election.
But on the Republican side, Trump broke that mold in 2016. The GOP would-be elites have kind of given up now, but I was amazed how long people like Bill Kristol, the Cheneys father and daughter, and others just moaned and carried on, outraged and clearly astounded that they had suddenly lost all their power. Peggy Noonan, too. There are some old-fashioned Republicans who just never got it.
Yeah - the 2020 response among the Dems seemed to be a reaction to 2016, and a belief that an extended primary would either nominate Bernie, or damage the eventual winner and hand the election to Trump.
Analysis in 2008 had between 16% (exit polls) and 25% (traditional post election polls) of Hillary's voters backing McCain, with about 5% not voting. One wonders what the number would have been if Hillary had not campaigned so heavily for Obama, but in the end the defectors didn't sway the 2008 election.
In 2016, about 12% (traditional polls) of Bernie's voters switched to Trump, but they were probably the deciding vote margin in the rust belt states.
It isn't obvious from that the 2020 decision was accurate (ie was the only way to elect a Dem), but it was effective in that Biden was elected.
I don't think the 2024 situation is quite the same. Yes the Democratic party decided, but the available options were slim because of Biden's timing. Other processes or choices were available, but it isn't clear those would have changed the result in November, beyond just being different.
The whole "The Party Decides" scenario has nothing to do with the process that put Harris on the top of the ticket.
But the Dems certainly have fertilized the garden well for an insurgent outsider to campaign against the leadership.
It is amazingly cynical to imply the Republican anti-Trumper faction was primarily concerned about their loss of power. Clearly some were expressing concern about MAGA-ism, and especially after Jan 6th there was ample support for the idea that Trump's movement was dangerous for the country.
Specifically, you might look at Liz Cheney's actual timeline. The fact is that she gave up power to do what she thought was right after 4 years of carrying Trump's water in the House.
Sure, the whole perceived problem with contested primaries: it is supposed to damage the eventual winner. That didn't actually work against Trump, however, in the 2016 primary. He sure didn't want any of that in 2020, though. I assumed (many did) that a quickie Dem primary in 2024 would have damaged Kamala, excluded her in fact, and she was the conduit for all the campaign money, so I suppose the money was dispositive. It does seem to me the party elites decided on Kamala: Pelosi, Obama, eventually even Biden, unwillingly. It made sense: if she was going to lose, at least she'd clear the decks for the next candidate.
You are perhaps forgetting that both MAGA and Jan. 6 are not at all problems for the Trump faithful --- there is no support for any of those complaints among the people who actually won the election.
I agree that the Dems are ripe for an insurgent outsider: it's the done thing nowadays, after all. Everyone will copy Trump for years, I assume, because: winning.
If I were Giorgia Meloni,I would tell Donald J.TRump to go and fuck himself and not answer a phone call for a text. Trump has no skin or balls; all Trump is a bully, trying to push everyone to a limit. The G7 Meeting, when Trump came into that meeting an hour late and then before Trump sat down, Trump said I am the Boss. Bull shit, Trump is a nobody, pretending to be a president.
I agree with Nate Kamala wasn’t a great candidate. But she wasn’t terrible. Her strategy was kind of bad (she played it safe.. apologizing for immigration / inflation etc instead of shamelessly talking about the stock market (Dems hate bragging about stock market) and global inflation which sadly Dems can’t do… but yes she herself was moslty average milquetoast for this type of race.
But while it’s true Kamala underperformed several statewide dems I actually don’t think that’s all
That meaningful of a measure. Voters might not punish or think of their statewide reps as causing the inflation or they might be more protective of them in some ways for certain reasons.
My broader point is I think there was a ceiling for Dems generally in 2024 and while a better candidate might have marginally done better it feels like voters were looking for change… unless you’re talking about an all star like Ossoff maybe.
Crooked Donald J. Trump, today, on Sunday, is blaming Children for messing with the Lincoln reflection Pool in Washington, D.C. Trump will do anything to not blame this mess on His friends, who caused this mess. Why isn’t the street’s camera not being checked? I’M sure Washington D, C. has street cameras.
When this project first came up, wasn’t the cost going to be $1.4 Million Dollars? Why then, how did the cost go to $14.3 Million Dollars? Or did the first cost estimate not include Donald Trump’s cut?