Re: the effectiveness of the "democracy is on the ballot" message - not only is it not, but it's also a great example of an argument Democrats should probably abandon if they are serious about cooling down the temperature of our political rhetoric, as both parties (at least temporarily) agree we need to do.
It's of course way too early to establish a motive for the attempted assassination of Trump the other day. But as a hypothetical, it's absolutely conceivable that saving American democracy could be a plausible rationale why someone might do such a thing.
Furthermore, we have been saying democracy is in existential danger for how long exactly? I remember similar arguments directed against the Bush administration in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, for instance when Ari Fleischer admonished critics of the president to "watch what they say". Yet here we are nearly a quarter-century later preparing to undertake a free and fair election in which the incumbent is a Democrat. It's surprising that only recently have we begun hearing Democrats called out for crying wolf on this issue.
Trump refused to accept that he lost the 2020 election and tried to over turn it first through negotiation with the governor of Georgia then through legal avenues and then finally with a riot at the Capitol and pressure on Pence to “make the right choice” in declaring him the winner. That seems anti-democracy.
This is true, and it is also true that there is a difference between trying to flip a close election through skullduggery and ending elections permanently. If Trump wins he will not be on the ballot in 2028 and will vacate the White House in 2029. Punishing him for what he did in 2020 is a good reason to vote against him, and is largely mine. But there is no functional connection between my vote and the operation of the democratic process in the future.
I don't see evidence of that. Most Republicans, not all, but the ones who are most active and intimidating to the Haley backers of the world, don't think they're losing elections, or just think they can create a reality where they didn't lose an election.
I would not call the actions that Trump and those in his orbit took flipping a close election through skullduggery.
1. Tried every legal avenue possible to challenge the accuracy of vote counts in several states
2. Pressured election officials to overturn results in some states
3. Created slates of false electors in 7 states and pressured Pence to either accept the false electors or refuse to certify the election and send it back to the states.
4. Directed a riot to the capital building during the certification process.
5. Call lawmakers sheltering in the capital to pressure them to refuse to certify the election
6. Withhold military/law enforcement support to suppress the riot at the capital
7. Instead of deny that they took any of these actions, Trump's only way to defend himself was to go to the supreme court and argue that he should have absolute immunity for everything he did.
8. Continue to spread lies about the election and poison the public against the institutions of the United States
This is not skullduggery. This is a concerted and organized effort to overturn the results of an election to wrongfully remain in power.
Look, I think Trump is a terrible candidate and I certainly won't be voting for him in November. But, ultimately, I think January 6 is a potent argument AGAINST the idea that democracy is in danger: despite the riot, representatives of both parties came together to overwhelmingly certify the results just as in any ordinary election year, with Biden officially declared the winner as he obviously was. Pretty good performance by our democratic institutions after a couple decades of supposedly being undermined and eroded at every turn.
I think it bent but did not break. I think some democrats, myself included, wonder how many times it can bend like that and survive. He has said he’ll be “dictator” for a day and is seeking revenge against anyone who wrongs him. He's an authoritarian who loves other authoritarians. I think you’re ultimately right that the institutions will withstand his victory but it’s still pretty concerning to see him whine about not having the same power as authoritarians around the world.
As long as representatives of both parties continue to do so in the future, all good. But MAGA is cleaning out those types of Republicans, and no future MAGA candidate will ever concede a free and fair defeat. Let's just hope they're never in a position to do more than whine about it.
Speculating about the future here, I think there's a decent chance the next big battle will be Democrats accusing Republicans of stealing an election.
I haven't forgotten how a ton of Democrats thought George W. Bush stole the 2000 election. I haven't forgotten all the online rumblings from the left about Russian hackers messing with voting machines in 2016. I haven't forgotten the 2018 congressional election in NC that had to be redone after a Republican operative falsified absentee ballots.
Right now, yes, Democrats are all about respecting election results. Right now, they treat "election denialism" as the ultimate sin. But you're in a pretty unstable position if you say "Republicans are fascists who hate democracy and want to grab power at all costs! Of course, they'd never stoop to falsifying electoral returns."
If Democrats ever do go down that road, naturally they won't admit to engaging in election denialism themselves. (That would be a false equivalence.)
That's largely my view as well. It isn't that I think Trump is fit to hold office after Jan 6th, or that he wouldn't do some dictatorial things if he could.... but our systems are more robust than that, and he's not quite as competent as that.
You didn't say concede. You said accept. Not sure why a lack of a concession is a problem when Stacy Abrams and Hilary Clinton have yet to concede they lost. Not only that, but the democrats had Stacy Abrams on as a "governor" at their convention. I hate all this double standard crap.
Both of those people have conceded they have lost. And let me know when HRC tried to use false slates of electors, called governors telling them to find votes, or inciting a riot to overturn the election results.
It's not a "double standard" when only one of them is an actual threat to democracy. You people have your heads in the sand, there's no convincing
"You people"? Can we leave that kind of othering, tribalistic, dehumanizing language out of this? Please stick to rational arguments and evidence.
Hilary Clinton and Stacy Abrams continuously disputed the results of their elections. Hilary blamed Russian interference and Abrams voter suppression. How is that concedIng? If all it takes is a concession speech no matter how laced with qualifiers and followed up by questions then Trump has also conceded already. He gave a concession speech. You can't say the first two conceded but not Trump because they all dispute their election results. It's also not new. Gore disputed the results of his. There are people out there who dispute lopsided elections like 2004, and the Republican landslides of the 80s. This isn't new. What it is is just an avenue to baselessly attack Trump.
Trump pursued every legal recourse he had to dispute the results because he (and millions of others) believed the results were wrong. The alternate state of electors was a plan put forth by his lawyers so he had every reason to believe it was legal. He called the governor to investigate for fraud. He wasn't trying to invent votes, He believed he had them. As for "inciting a riot". That's a lie. He called for peaceful protest. Incitement was never even charged by the democrats who are looking for any reason to imprison their greatest political opponent (a norm Democrats had no problem breaking).
But let me ask you this: if Trump truly wanted to over turn the election, why did he go through lawyers and appeals to voters? He had a far stronger weapon that could have ensured he stayed in power. As the commander in chief he has direct control over the military. Why didn't he declare an emergency and unleash the military to stay in power? Why didn't he launch an actual coup (don't get me started on the disgusting abuse of that word Democrats have been engaged in)?
I mentioned the "democracy is on the ballot" message because Nate also did so in his article.
I try to keep my comments on topic, and given that reasonable people operating in good faith don't just assume everyone is a hypocrite until they explicitly say otherwise, I perhaps naïvely assumed it wasn't worth the effort to try to find a graceful way to shoehorn in a non sequitur about Republican rhetoric that wasn't apropos of anything already said.
Perhaps you should be asking Nate why he didn't give equal time to addressing the "haul out the guillotine" half of the equation.
Nate mentions "Democracy on the ballot" is not a good issue to run on. You respond "only recently have we begun hearing Democrats called out for crying wolf on this issue."
But if your opponent is saying "haul out the guillotine" then it seems like your opponent has some wolf sympathies.
Democracy wasn't on the ballot in the Democratic primaries: no debates, Florida, North Carolina and a few other states only allowed Biden's name on the ballot, New Hampshire threw out the primary votes and replaced them with a "secret nominating event" for party bigwigs only. RFK Jr forced out of the party.
Now the talk is to throw out all the primary votes and use a series of town halls moderated by celebs to choose among candidates chosen by party chieftains.
I mean no democrat wants to throw out or ratfuck elections like Trump does so of course it wouldn't be on the ballot. And Biden being the only big nominee isn't anti democratic, once he was running it didn't make sense for a lot of other candidates to run especially after worries of anothrr bruising primary like in 2016 or 2020. People are saying the DNC interfered because of their lack of interference in forcing Joe not to run or forcing someone else but to run against him.
I'm willing to revise my opinion but so far it seems like the shooter was just a complete rando fruit cake. I would expect much more of an online "paper trail" if there was a serious ideological component to it. Of course, there could be facts that aren't public yet, but at least on social media there's almost nothing.
I don't put much stock into either the $15 left-wing contribution or being a registered Republican. Just seems like more evidence that this young, confused kid was all over the place.
Setting aside the question of whether the "existential threat to democracy" message is true, I agree it's a truly disastrous move for Democrats to emphasize it like they have.
First of all, a lot of people have felt our political system is pretty dysfunctional for a long time. You aren't going to enthuse people by talking about how you want to preserve a dysfunctional system. Instead, Democrats should be talking about how they can make democracy work.
Second, "democracy" is very much an abstraction. You'll be more persuasive when you give people vivid specifics. The line should be "Trump is a guy who can't admit when he's beaten--do you really want a guy like that in the White House?"
Third, it's really been drowning out the sort of pocketbook issues that make a difference to working-class people. Democrats should be talking more about health care, jobs, unions, the minimum wage, etc. etc. They should be coming up with new policy proposals in those areas (personally, I'm favorable to a payroll-tax cut for low-income workers). They should be boasting more about what they've already done, about all the jobs they've created and about how they've brought inflation under control.
As Nate says, the democracy message is most appealing to highly-engaged, college-educated voters. Wouldn't you know it, those are exactly the same kind of people who craft the Democratic Party's electoral strategy. I'm starting to wonder if any of those people originally came from working-class backgrounds or spend time interacting with working-class friends or relatives. If they don't, it would explain a few things.
That isn't how writing to a rep works. They don't all owe it to you to completely turn on a dime and the fact that they disagree with you on policy or messaging does not mean that they don't care about the problem. That is as wrong as someone who likes Biden saying that you don't have an interest in addressing problems because you disagree with them.
Vance is brilliant, graduated from one of the "elite" schools, served in the Marines, wrote a book that was made into a movie that liberals fawned over until he outed as conservative, the book being about the people who have been left behind. He's very young, so he will have fresh ideas that will appeal to the younger men the Dems have basically thrown out. He's happily married. And, I'd pay money to watch a debate between Kamala and him.
As far as the "threat to democracy" messaging, it's literally bouncing right off people. It's been done to death. Someone should bury the poor thing. No one is buying this hysteria messaging anymore. The thing is this: it's easy to win elections if you are doing your job and making American lives better. Your ideas and your record could sell itself. If you need to go too much beyond that in trying to scare people, your choices and policies are bad. Yet, I haven't seen any walk backs on the hard left turn from the Biden administration. The hard left turn is what has him in this position.
If Biden had actually taken a hard left, he would be advocating for issues the Sanders wing of his party pressed for. Medicare for All, a wealth tax, etc. He'd be taking a much stronger line on climate change. He might have even said something about defunding the police. And his position on Gaza would be just a bit different. The truth is that Joe Biden is what he's always been, a center-left politician.
If he did take a hard left turn, I have to wonder exactly when it happened. I distinctly remember a lot of conservative commentators already calling him "far left" back in the spring and summer of 2020. Were all those commentators wrong?
At this point, I'm having to conclude that "far left" and "far right" have lost meaning as actual descriptions of anyone's political position. They've become mere snarl words, terms of abuse that the right and the left respectively hurl at anyone they strongly dislike, synonymous for all practical purposes with "extremely bad."
Biden misinterpreted his mandate. He needed to be less exhausting than Trump is and maybe even continue some of trumps policies: immigration, taxes and small government. Instead he did a lot.
The Democratic Party has transformed into the party of wealthy urban elites while Trump has turned the Republicans into a party that wins the working class vote by 23 point margin:
Very true. From 1929 and the Depression (at least) the Democratic Party was the party of the little guy, the left behind, the ones who felt the system was screwing them over. That started changing at some point, maybe mid-90s. Since 2016 at least, Dems have been the party of educated urban elites and Republicans the party of the left behind. (I'm painting with a broad brush here--obviously there are exceptions.)
Excellent details of how the Democratic Party changed to represent the elites at liberalpatriot.com like the one above and the ones by Ruy Teixeira there.
Explains how top Democratic Party priorities like climate change, school debt, green economy, culture wars matter greatly to elites but not much to working class voters, who may still make up 67% of the electorate in 2024.
Please list a few things that Republicans have done for the working people of this country. Other than giving them a few hundred dollar tax break for a few years
Worked to stop their kids from being taught that this country sucks and has always been primarily about oppressing people?
Worked to stop their sons and daughters from getting their dicks/tits cut off because some activists thinks is a fun new way to be transgressive since no one cares about tattoos/goths/gays anymore?
Worked to stop the left from dismantling the law and order to protect criminals because there are mistakes in policing just like everywhere else in the society?
Worked to stop people from murdering their unborn children in the name of convenience?
I don't necessarily agree with those positions and would have more nuanced takes on all of them myself. But a lot of those of right coded opinions are VERY popular with the working class.
You people on the left really have your head in the sand about a lot of stuff and this is one of them.
Trump reduced legal immigration. He didn't have an impact on illegal immigration. That didn't decline under him until covid and that is because there wasn't work for people to come here form.
This is true, but I'd argue half the problem for Dems is they are terrible at messaging what they've actually done. They could be bragging about a higher minimum wage, defending Medicaid and Obamacare from Republicans, spending billions to support veterans, teachers, and local governments, huge infrastructure spending on roads, bridges, and rural broadband, and many other things.
Obviously these things sound abhorrent to ideological conservatives, but I think another issue is... with their new friends, Democrats actually *want* some of these policies to fly under the radar. The new base is affluent and is doing fine economically, hence that the top talking points are the "democracy"/"Trump lies", and "Roe v. Wade". It's not that the economic issues are *never* mentioned, but they are clearly an afterthought now in the messaging.
Higher minimum wage, in nominal terms, means nothing. What counts is real wages, adjusted for (Biden) inflation. Note the dramatic drop in real wages during the Biden years after a spectacular rise during the Trump years in this Federal Reserve chart
I don't think Vance's nomination will have much of an impact either way. I do think it's a sign that Trump isn't worried about tacking to the middle (Youngkin). I am skeptical that anybody VP could be more controversial than the guy at the head of the ticket so attacking Vance as an extremist seems like a futile exercise.
I find it odd that there is this media narrative that says that J.D. Vance beating Tim Ryan by two points less than Trump won the state shows that he is nothing politically. Vance was a political novice that beat a 20 year veteran of Congress. Vance was in his 30s (11 years younger than Ryan). Tim Ryan was well known and well liked in both Ohio and nationally and was known to be a moderate. Moderate Democrats do win in states like Ohio. Personally, I thought Ryan would easily beat Vance even in “red” Ohio, but Vance pulled it off.
I thought part of the critique was also his meh performance in the primary. He obviously won it, but if I recall, he was desperate for that Trump endorsement and really needed it because he wasn't wowing anyone with his political skills otherwise. I think he was even supposedly kinda lax about the grunt work of campaigning?
Yes, but getting 32% in a five way competitive primary is pretty solid. And getting the right endorsements is part of the job. He succeeded in getting Trump’s endorsement and the others failed to do so. Again, not bad for a political novice.
Yes, it is worth noting, but I just don’t see how it applies to where he is now. He got on the short list for VP for a reason. He was heavily favored by the base for a reason. And that reason is that he has become a successful politician in a very short time. He seems unrelated to that guy that was struggling in the primary before Trump endorsed him.
I'll admit I'm too lazy to look up other primaries right this second, but I don't think it's unusual for an open primary to be split three or four ways. At least, I remember reading several Wikipedia pages about various pols who barely skated in with that first primary, then won the general, and then their next 7 elections were barely contested.
Or in other words, 32% isn't great, but there were a lot of players in this primary.
He was actually trailing in most of the polls until Trumo endorsed him, and the shift was pretty sudden after that. I think the idea is that he was pretty weak as a candidate on his own merits. May not matter now, but I'm just pointing out that it was more than the Ryan matchup that had people concerned.
Vance’s bio is well-read, and his story is appealing to Rust Belt voters. Yes, he has a sharp tongue that the hyper-sensitive can pearl-clutch over, but his barbs will make Trump sound gentlemanly by comparison, which fits a traditional VP role. That’s why he was picked.
Ok so explain to me how JD Vance's tweet is incendiary but all of Biden's rhetoric about Trump as an existential threat to our democracy isn't? If you truly are interested in cooling down the temperature, please call out your own side on this. That would show you're principled on this and not just a partisan using any rhetorical means at your disposal to advance your side's prospects. Of course that would also involve you owning up to your own contributions to the heated discourse.
I think that the left has gone too far in many cases, but that the right has been even worse. I will not be voting for either party this year.
As for Trump, I wouldn't hire the man who wrote this to manage a Best Buy or a gas station. Read this and tell me that Biden has said anything remotely this bad, rhetorically. Like, it's not even close.
"Merry Christmas to all, including Crooked Joe Biden’s ONLY HOPE, Deranged Jack Smith, the out of control Lunatic who just hired outside attorneys, fresh from the SWAMP (unprecedented!), to help him with his poorly executed WITCH HUNT against “TRUMP” and “MAGA.” Included also are World Leaders, both good and bad, but none of which are as evil and “sick” as the THUGS we have inside our Country who, with their Open Borders, INFLATION, Afghanistan Surrender, Green New Scam, High Taxes, No Energy Independence, Woke Military, Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Iran, All Electric Car Lunacy, and so much more, are looking to destroy our once great USA. MAY THEY ROT IN HELL. AGAIN, MERRY CHRISTMAS!"
Yeah you don't want to play that game. Everybody saw the debate. Biden had worse moments even before that. Heck he's never been even half way decent rhetorically. Look up old Trump clips on policy vs old Biden ones. I'm talking from the 80s and 90s. Not only will you see Trump has been very consistent over the decades where Biden just goes where the political winds take him but you'll see Trump is far more cogent.
You speak like it’s a football team. I suppose you’re right: we watch them, root for them but when it comes down to it we don’t share in any of the spoils from any party. We just have to hope and wish they leave us alone.
JD Vance - like him or hate him - literally represents the largest group of Americans totally neglected by elite democrats and republicans - the vast majority of citizens - the working class. If you haven’t read Hillbilly Elegy about his life growing up in the deepest low income communities of Appalachia and the Midwest - go do it. It proves that intelligence is widely distributed but opportunity is not. And that’s compelling.
I've been arguing for a long time that America should prioritize equality of opportunity. That's the only way to "Make America Great Again"; giving everyone an equal shot.
Unfortunately, neither the left nor right really believes in this. The left wants equality of outcome and the right wants oligarchy and to defund education. You shoudln't get a huge leg up because you were born on 3rd base and you shouldn't be left for dead because you were born poor and the wrong skin color. We need a large inheritance tax to prevent massive generational wealth and we need to do a much better job educating those who aren't born into good circumstances.
I don't see the placement of Vance where you have them after the Douthat interview. He seems like he will be unpopular with big and small business owners alike. (I can't square his interview with Project 2025 proposed tax policy at all.) I think his genuinely more Populist than they slotted him. Recency bias on my part? Guilty.
Curious as to the potential VP picks Harris would make? She's not my first choice as a replacement (and I live in San Diego, and cast a vote for her for Senator way back in the Dark Ages of what... 2016?). The one thing I do think she would bring is likely owning Trump in a debate. It really wouldn't be even a fair fight, although it would likely draw some eyeballs.
No governor is giving up their term to run as Harris’ VP. They are all looking forward to the post-Trump 2028 election, with the possible exception of the Kentucky guy.
Heritage foundation is simply a “right wing group” now? Do we call Brookings only a “left wing group” from now on? Is that really the most accurate, information-rich way to describe them? Is it unusual for think tanks to come up with policy recommendations in election years?
Funny enough, “conservative think tank” or “liberal think tank” have the same number of words as “right wing group” or “left wing group” and yet would be more accurate and informative - economy is good, but communication is better.
Lost in all this is that (from memory) Vance would, if he is elected and maintains his beard, be the first President or Vice President in nearly a century to serve with facial hair. Charles Curtis, VP to Hoover, being the last I think.
Honestly, I just can't bring myself to care. VPs seem to me the quintessence of a nothing burger. They seem to have no impact at all on the outcome of elections. Case in point: I just had to search to see who Hilary Clinton's 2016 running mate was. And I live in Virginia! And follow politics far more closely than the average person! Now, in fairness, Tim Kaine has to be among the most bland, low-key senators in U.S. history. But still.
Who wants to be the a-hole who says Quayle should still be TBD in the last two columns? By the time 2028 rolls around, he'll still be younger than Biden is now!
Re: the effectiveness of the "democracy is on the ballot" message - not only is it not, but it's also a great example of an argument Democrats should probably abandon if they are serious about cooling down the temperature of our political rhetoric, as both parties (at least temporarily) agree we need to do.
It's of course way too early to establish a motive for the attempted assassination of Trump the other day. But as a hypothetical, it's absolutely conceivable that saving American democracy could be a plausible rationale why someone might do such a thing.
Furthermore, we have been saying democracy is in existential danger for how long exactly? I remember similar arguments directed against the Bush administration in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, for instance when Ari Fleischer admonished critics of the president to "watch what they say". Yet here we are nearly a quarter-century later preparing to undertake a free and fair election in which the incumbent is a Democrat. It's surprising that only recently have we begun hearing Democrats called out for crying wolf on this issue.
Trump refused to accept that he lost the 2020 election and tried to over turn it first through negotiation with the governor of Georgia then through legal avenues and then finally with a riot at the Capitol and pressure on Pence to “make the right choice” in declaring him the winner. That seems anti-democracy.
This is true, and it is also true that there is a difference between trying to flip a close election through skullduggery and ending elections permanently. If Trump wins he will not be on the ballot in 2028 and will vacate the White House in 2029. Punishing him for what he did in 2020 is a good reason to vote against him, and is largely mine. But there is no functional connection between my vote and the operation of the democratic process in the future.
If a Democrat wins in 2028, do you think Vance and congressional Republicans will certify that outcome?
Vance specifically said he would not have certified the election in 2020.
The grassroots pressure on them not to will be overwhelming, unless it's somehow a real blowout.
I don't see evidence of that. Most Republicans, not all, but the ones who are most active and intimidating to the Haley backers of the world, don't think they're losing elections, or just think they can create a reality where they didn't lose an election.
Yes, but I am concerned enough that I hope we get a normal thermostatic reaction midterm in ‘26 that denies the Republicans a trifecta.
I would not call the actions that Trump and those in his orbit took flipping a close election through skullduggery.
1. Tried every legal avenue possible to challenge the accuracy of vote counts in several states
2. Pressured election officials to overturn results in some states
3. Created slates of false electors in 7 states and pressured Pence to either accept the false electors or refuse to certify the election and send it back to the states.
4. Directed a riot to the capital building during the certification process.
5. Call lawmakers sheltering in the capital to pressure them to refuse to certify the election
6. Withhold military/law enforcement support to suppress the riot at the capital
7. Instead of deny that they took any of these actions, Trump's only way to defend himself was to go to the supreme court and argue that he should have absolute immunity for everything he did.
8. Continue to spread lies about the election and poison the public against the institutions of the United States
This is not skullduggery. This is a concerted and organized effort to overturn the results of an election to wrongfully remain in power.
Look, I think Trump is a terrible candidate and I certainly won't be voting for him in November. But, ultimately, I think January 6 is a potent argument AGAINST the idea that democracy is in danger: despite the riot, representatives of both parties came together to overwhelmingly certify the results just as in any ordinary election year, with Biden officially declared the winner as he obviously was. Pretty good performance by our democratic institutions after a couple decades of supposedly being undermined and eroded at every turn.
I think it bent but did not break. I think some democrats, myself included, wonder how many times it can bend like that and survive. He has said he’ll be “dictator” for a day and is seeking revenge against anyone who wrongs him. He's an authoritarian who loves other authoritarians. I think you’re ultimately right that the institutions will withstand his victory but it’s still pretty concerning to see him whine about not having the same power as authoritarians around the world.
As long as representatives of both parties continue to do so in the future, all good. But MAGA is cleaning out those types of Republicans, and no future MAGA candidate will ever concede a free and fair defeat. Let's just hope they're never in a position to do more than whine about it.
Speculating about the future here, I think there's a decent chance the next big battle will be Democrats accusing Republicans of stealing an election.
I haven't forgotten how a ton of Democrats thought George W. Bush stole the 2000 election. I haven't forgotten all the online rumblings from the left about Russian hackers messing with voting machines in 2016. I haven't forgotten the 2018 congressional election in NC that had to be redone after a Republican operative falsified absentee ballots.
Right now, yes, Democrats are all about respecting election results. Right now, they treat "election denialism" as the ultimate sin. But you're in a pretty unstable position if you say "Republicans are fascists who hate democracy and want to grab power at all costs! Of course, they'd never stoop to falsifying electoral returns."
If Democrats ever do go down that road, naturally they won't admit to engaging in election denialism themselves. (That would be a false equivalence.)
Democracy can fail in more than one way.
That's largely my view as well. It isn't that I think Trump is fit to hold office after Jan 6th, or that he wouldn't do some dictatorial things if he could.... but our systems are more robust than that, and he's not quite as competent as that.
Everything you said here is wrong.
What part is wrong Jeff? Has he conceded that he lost 2020 yet?
I already told you...Everything.
You didn't say concede. You said accept. Not sure why a lack of a concession is a problem when Stacy Abrams and Hilary Clinton have yet to concede they lost. Not only that, but the democrats had Stacy Abrams on as a "governor" at their convention. I hate all this double standard crap.
Both of those people have conceded they have lost. And let me know when HRC tried to use false slates of electors, called governors telling them to find votes, or inciting a riot to overturn the election results.
It's not a "double standard" when only one of them is an actual threat to democracy. You people have your heads in the sand, there's no convincing
"You people"? Can we leave that kind of othering, tribalistic, dehumanizing language out of this? Please stick to rational arguments and evidence.
Hilary Clinton and Stacy Abrams continuously disputed the results of their elections. Hilary blamed Russian interference and Abrams voter suppression. How is that concedIng? If all it takes is a concession speech no matter how laced with qualifiers and followed up by questions then Trump has also conceded already. He gave a concession speech. You can't say the first two conceded but not Trump because they all dispute their election results. It's also not new. Gore disputed the results of his. There are people out there who dispute lopsided elections like 2004, and the Republican landslides of the 80s. This isn't new. What it is is just an avenue to baselessly attack Trump.
Trump pursued every legal recourse he had to dispute the results because he (and millions of others) believed the results were wrong. The alternate state of electors was a plan put forth by his lawyers so he had every reason to believe it was legal. He called the governor to investigate for fraud. He wasn't trying to invent votes, He believed he had them. As for "inciting a riot". That's a lie. He called for peaceful protest. Incitement was never even charged by the democrats who are looking for any reason to imprison their greatest political opponent (a norm Democrats had no problem breaking).
But let me ask you this: if Trump truly wanted to over turn the election, why did he go through lawyers and appeals to voters? He had a far stronger weapon that could have ensured he stayed in power. As the commander in chief he has direct control over the military. Why didn't he declare an emergency and unleash the military to stay in power? Why didn't he launch an actual coup (don't get me started on the disgusting abuse of that word Democrats have been engaged in)?
Well? Do you have reasoned arguments to present?
Ah yes, the old "cool down the rhetoric for thee, but not for me" position.
Why do you assume I don't support both sides cooling down their rhetoric?
Because one side says "haul out the guillotine" while the other says "save democracy" - and you only mention the save democracy side.
I mentioned the "democracy is on the ballot" message because Nate also did so in his article.
I try to keep my comments on topic, and given that reasonable people operating in good faith don't just assume everyone is a hypocrite until they explicitly say otherwise, I perhaps naïvely assumed it wasn't worth the effort to try to find a graceful way to shoehorn in a non sequitur about Republican rhetoric that wasn't apropos of anything already said.
Perhaps you should be asking Nate why he didn't give equal time to addressing the "haul out the guillotine" half of the equation.
Nate mentions "Democracy on the ballot" is not a good issue to run on. You respond "only recently have we begun hearing Democrats called out for crying wolf on this issue."
But if your opponent is saying "haul out the guillotine" then it seems like your opponent has some wolf sympathies.
Democracy wasn't on the ballot in the Democratic primaries: no debates, Florida, North Carolina and a few other states only allowed Biden's name on the ballot, New Hampshire threw out the primary votes and replaced them with a "secret nominating event" for party bigwigs only. RFK Jr forced out of the party.
Now the talk is to throw out all the primary votes and use a series of town halls moderated by celebs to choose among candidates chosen by party chieftains.
I mean no democrat wants to throw out or ratfuck elections like Trump does so of course it wouldn't be on the ballot. And Biden being the only big nominee isn't anti democratic, once he was running it didn't make sense for a lot of other candidates to run especially after worries of anothrr bruising primary like in 2016 or 2020. People are saying the DNC interfered because of their lack of interference in forcing Joe not to run or forcing someone else but to run against him.
"Biden being the only big nominee isn't anti democratic, once he was running it didn't make sense for a lot of other candidates to run "
Not unlike "Fidel Castro is such a great leader it doesn't make sense to offer another choice "
I'm willing to revise my opinion but so far it seems like the shooter was just a complete rando fruit cake. I would expect much more of an online "paper trail" if there was a serious ideological component to it. Of course, there could be facts that aren't public yet, but at least on social media there's almost nothing.
I don't put much stock into either the $15 left-wing contribution or being a registered Republican. Just seems like more evidence that this young, confused kid was all over the place.
Setting aside the question of whether the "existential threat to democracy" message is true, I agree it's a truly disastrous move for Democrats to emphasize it like they have.
First of all, a lot of people have felt our political system is pretty dysfunctional for a long time. You aren't going to enthuse people by talking about how you want to preserve a dysfunctional system. Instead, Democrats should be talking about how they can make democracy work.
Second, "democracy" is very much an abstraction. You'll be more persuasive when you give people vivid specifics. The line should be "Trump is a guy who can't admit when he's beaten--do you really want a guy like that in the White House?"
Third, it's really been drowning out the sort of pocketbook issues that make a difference to working-class people. Democrats should be talking more about health care, jobs, unions, the minimum wage, etc. etc. They should be coming up with new policy proposals in those areas (personally, I'm favorable to a payroll-tax cut for low-income workers). They should be boasting more about what they've already done, about all the jobs they've created and about how they've brought inflation under control.
As Nate says, the democracy message is most appealing to highly-engaged, college-educated voters. Wouldn't you know it, those are exactly the same kind of people who craft the Democratic Party's electoral strategy. I'm starting to wonder if any of those people originally came from working-class backgrounds or spend time interacting with working-class friends or relatives. If they don't, it would explain a few things.
That isn't how writing to a rep works. They don't all owe it to you to completely turn on a dime and the fact that they disagree with you on policy or messaging does not mean that they don't care about the problem. That is as wrong as someone who likes Biden saying that you don't have an interest in addressing problems because you disagree with them.
Vance is brilliant, graduated from one of the "elite" schools, served in the Marines, wrote a book that was made into a movie that liberals fawned over until he outed as conservative, the book being about the people who have been left behind. He's very young, so he will have fresh ideas that will appeal to the younger men the Dems have basically thrown out. He's happily married. And, I'd pay money to watch a debate between Kamala and him.
As far as the "threat to democracy" messaging, it's literally bouncing right off people. It's been done to death. Someone should bury the poor thing. No one is buying this hysteria messaging anymore. The thing is this: it's easy to win elections if you are doing your job and making American lives better. Your ideas and your record could sell itself. If you need to go too much beyond that in trying to scare people, your choices and policies are bad. Yet, I haven't seen any walk backs on the hard left turn from the Biden administration. The hard left turn is what has him in this position.
If Biden had actually taken a hard left, he would be advocating for issues the Sanders wing of his party pressed for. Medicare for All, a wealth tax, etc. He'd be taking a much stronger line on climate change. He might have even said something about defunding the police. And his position on Gaza would be just a bit different. The truth is that Joe Biden is what he's always been, a center-left politician.
If he did take a hard left turn, I have to wonder exactly when it happened. I distinctly remember a lot of conservative commentators already calling him "far left" back in the spring and summer of 2020. Were all those commentators wrong?
At this point, I'm having to conclude that "far left" and "far right" have lost meaning as actual descriptions of anyone's political position. They've become mere snarl words, terms of abuse that the right and the left respectively hurl at anyone they strongly dislike, synonymous for all practical purposes with "extremely bad."
Examples I am referring to:
1. Executive Order to include Equity (equal outcomes) in every department
2. DEI and identity based hiring
3. Removal of the words mother, father, daughter, son, etc from all government language
4. Center-left would stand hard with Israel, no waffling
5. EV pushes and mandates, along with appliances for the home
6. Expanding or creating social handouts
7. Lawfare as a political tactic
8. Advocating and pushing rule to allow males to play on female sports teams, use female spaces, jails, and restrooms
9. Taking Free Speech case to allow censorship to Supreme Court
Biden misinterpreted his mandate. He needed to be less exhausting than Trump is and maybe even continue some of trumps policies: immigration, taxes and small government. Instead he did a lot.
The Democratic Party has transformed into the party of wealthy urban elites while Trump has turned the Republicans into a party that wins the working class vote by 23 point margin:
https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/a-last-hurrah-for-the-brahmin-left
Very true. From 1929 and the Depression (at least) the Democratic Party was the party of the little guy, the left behind, the ones who felt the system was screwing them over. That started changing at some point, maybe mid-90s. Since 2016 at least, Dems have been the party of educated urban elites and Republicans the party of the left behind. (I'm painting with a broad brush here--obviously there are exceptions.)
Excellent details of how the Democratic Party changed to represent the elites at liberalpatriot.com like the one above and the ones by Ruy Teixeira there.
Explains how top Democratic Party priorities like climate change, school debt, green economy, culture wars matter greatly to elites but not much to working class voters, who may still make up 67% of the electorate in 2024.
https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/greenlash-is-here
Please list a few things that Republicans have done for the working people of this country. Other than giving them a few hundred dollar tax break for a few years
Worked to stop their kids from being taught that this country sucks and has always been primarily about oppressing people?
Worked to stop their sons and daughters from getting their dicks/tits cut off because some activists thinks is a fun new way to be transgressive since no one cares about tattoos/goths/gays anymore?
Worked to stop the left from dismantling the law and order to protect criminals because there are mistakes in policing just like everywhere else in the society?
Worked to stop people from murdering their unborn children in the name of convenience?
I don't necessarily agree with those positions and would have more nuanced takes on all of them myself. But a lot of those of right coded opinions are VERY popular with the working class.
You people on the left really have your head in the sand about a lot of stuff and this is one of them.
Martin B for POTUS!
In 12 years!
1. Reduced illegal immigration competing for liw wage jobs
2. Renegotiated NAFTA to require more US content
3. Pushed domestic energy production to lower fuel prices
4. Pressured companies to return offshore production to US
Trump reduced legal immigration. He didn't have an impact on illegal immigration. That didn't decline under him until covid and that is because there wasn't work for people to come here form.
That's not what the data reported by Pew Research in some breathtaking charts shows, a massive increase in illegal crossings after Biden took over
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/15/migrant-encounters-at-the-us-mexico-border-hit-a-record-high-at-the-end-of-2023/
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Nobody is entitled to their own facts"
--Daniel Patrick Moynihan
It's not just Ruy Teixeira. It's also covered on Party of the People as well.
https://www.amazon.com/Party-People-Multiracial-Populist-Coalition/dp/179716824X
This is true, but I'd argue half the problem for Dems is they are terrible at messaging what they've actually done. They could be bragging about a higher minimum wage, defending Medicaid and Obamacare from Republicans, spending billions to support veterans, teachers, and local governments, huge infrastructure spending on roads, bridges, and rural broadband, and many other things.
Obviously these things sound abhorrent to ideological conservatives, but I think another issue is... with their new friends, Democrats actually *want* some of these policies to fly under the radar. The new base is affluent and is doing fine economically, hence that the top talking points are the "democracy"/"Trump lies", and "Roe v. Wade". It's not that the economic issues are *never* mentioned, but they are clearly an afterthought now in the messaging.
Higher minimum wage, in nominal terms, means nothing. What counts is real wages, adjusted for (Biden) inflation. Note the dramatic drop in real wages during the Biden years after a spectacular rise during the Trump years in this Federal Reserve chart
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N/
This is "messaged" every time people check out of the supermarket, no need for additional ad campaigns.
I don't think Vance's nomination will have much of an impact either way. I do think it's a sign that Trump isn't worried about tacking to the middle (Youngkin). I am skeptical that anybody VP could be more controversial than the guy at the head of the ticket so attacking Vance as an extremist seems like a futile exercise.
I find it odd that there is this media narrative that says that J.D. Vance beating Tim Ryan by two points less than Trump won the state shows that he is nothing politically. Vance was a political novice that beat a 20 year veteran of Congress. Vance was in his 30s (11 years younger than Ryan). Tim Ryan was well known and well liked in both Ohio and nationally and was known to be a moderate. Moderate Democrats do win in states like Ohio. Personally, I thought Ryan would easily beat Vance even in “red” Ohio, but Vance pulled it off.
I thought part of the critique was also his meh performance in the primary. He obviously won it, but if I recall, he was desperate for that Trump endorsement and really needed it because he wasn't wowing anyone with his political skills otherwise. I think he was even supposedly kinda lax about the grunt work of campaigning?
Yes, but getting 32% in a five way competitive primary is pretty solid. And getting the right endorsements is part of the job. He succeeded in getting Trump’s endorsement and the others failed to do so. Again, not bad for a political novice.
The point is he was losing until Trump endorsed him. Which, fine, he got the endorsement. But he was failing before that and that's worth noting.
Yes, it is worth noting, but I just don’t see how it applies to where he is now. He got on the short list for VP for a reason. He was heavily favored by the base for a reason. And that reason is that he has become a successful politician in a very short time. He seems unrelated to that guy that was struggling in the primary before Trump endorsed him.
I'll admit I'm too lazy to look up other primaries right this second, but I don't think it's unusual for an open primary to be split three or four ways. At least, I remember reading several Wikipedia pages about various pols who barely skated in with that first primary, then won the general, and then their next 7 elections were barely contested.
Or in other words, 32% isn't great, but there were a lot of players in this primary.
He was actually trailing in most of the polls until Trumo endorsed him, and the shift was pretty sudden after that. I think the idea is that he was pretty weak as a candidate on his own merits. May not matter now, but I'm just pointing out that it was more than the Ryan matchup that had people concerned.
Vance’s bio is well-read, and his story is appealing to Rust Belt voters. Yes, he has a sharp tongue that the hyper-sensitive can pearl-clutch over, but his barbs will make Trump sound gentlemanly by comparison, which fits a traditional VP role. That’s why he was picked.
You misnamed Vivek Ramaswamay as "Victor Ramaswamay"
Vivek Ramaswamay is also not a thing
Ok so explain to me how JD Vance's tweet is incendiary but all of Biden's rhetoric about Trump as an existential threat to our democracy isn't? If you truly are interested in cooling down the temperature, please call out your own side on this. That would show you're principled on this and not just a partisan using any rhetorical means at your disposal to advance your side's prospects. Of course that would also involve you owning up to your own contributions to the heated discourse.
I think that the left has gone too far in many cases, but that the right has been even worse. I will not be voting for either party this year.
As for Trump, I wouldn't hire the man who wrote this to manage a Best Buy or a gas station. Read this and tell me that Biden has said anything remotely this bad, rhetorically. Like, it's not even close.
"Merry Christmas to all, including Crooked Joe Biden’s ONLY HOPE, Deranged Jack Smith, the out of control Lunatic who just hired outside attorneys, fresh from the SWAMP (unprecedented!), to help him with his poorly executed WITCH HUNT against “TRUMP” and “MAGA.” Included also are World Leaders, both good and bad, but none of which are as evil and “sick” as the THUGS we have inside our Country who, with their Open Borders, INFLATION, Afghanistan Surrender, Green New Scam, High Taxes, No Energy Independence, Woke Military, Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Iran, All Electric Car Lunacy, and so much more, are looking to destroy our once great USA. MAY THEY ROT IN HELL. AGAIN, MERRY CHRISTMAS!"
Yeah you don't want to play that game. Everybody saw the debate. Biden had worse moments even before that. Heck he's never been even half way decent rhetorically. Look up old Trump clips on policy vs old Biden ones. I'm talking from the 80s and 90s. Not only will you see Trump has been very consistent over the decades where Biden just goes where the political winds take him but you'll see Trump is far more cogent.
You speak like it’s a football team. I suppose you’re right: we watch them, root for them but when it comes down to it we don’t share in any of the spoils from any party. We just have to hope and wish they leave us alone.
JD Vance - like him or hate him - literally represents the largest group of Americans totally neglected by elite democrats and republicans - the vast majority of citizens - the working class. If you haven’t read Hillbilly Elegy about his life growing up in the deepest low income communities of Appalachia and the Midwest - go do it. It proves that intelligence is widely distributed but opportunity is not. And that’s compelling.
I've been arguing for a long time that America should prioritize equality of opportunity. That's the only way to "Make America Great Again"; giving everyone an equal shot.
Unfortunately, neither the left nor right really believes in this. The left wants equality of outcome and the right wants oligarchy and to defund education. You shoudln't get a huge leg up because you were born on 3rd base and you shouldn't be left for dead because you were born poor and the wrong skin color. We need a large inheritance tax to prevent massive generational wealth and we need to do a much better job educating those who aren't born into good circumstances.
I don't see the placement of Vance where you have them after the Douthat interview. He seems like he will be unpopular with big and small business owners alike. (I can't square his interview with Project 2025 proposed tax policy at all.) I think his genuinely more Populist than they slotted him. Recency bias on my part? Guilty.
Curious as to the potential VP picks Harris would make? She's not my first choice as a replacement (and I live in San Diego, and cast a vote for her for Senator way back in the Dark Ages of what... 2016?). The one thing I do think she would bring is likely owning Trump in a debate. It really wouldn't be even a fair fight, although it would likely draw some eyeballs.
No governor is giving up their term to run as Harris’ VP. They are all looking forward to the post-Trump 2028 election, with the possible exception of the Kentucky guy.
I believe Beto has time in his schedule.
Heritage foundation is simply a “right wing group” now? Do we call Brookings only a “left wing group” from now on? Is that really the most accurate, information-rich way to describe them? Is it unusual for think tanks to come up with policy recommendations in election years?
It is very rare that a description of anything is "the most accurate, information-rich way to describe them". Life's too short.
Funny enough, “conservative think tank” or “liberal think tank” have the same number of words as “right wing group” or “left wing group” and yet would be more accurate and informative - economy is good, but communication is better.
Outgroup bad!
Lost in all this is that (from memory) Vance would, if he is elected and maintains his beard, be the first President or Vice President in nearly a century to serve with facial hair. Charles Curtis, VP to Hoover, being the last I think.
Honestly, I just can't bring myself to care. VPs seem to me the quintessence of a nothing burger. They seem to have no impact at all on the outcome of elections. Case in point: I just had to search to see who Hilary Clinton's 2016 running mate was. And I live in Virginia! And follow politics far more closely than the average person! Now, in fairness, Tim Kaine has to be among the most bland, low-key senators in U.S. history. But still.
I’m thrilled at the pick of Vance. He was my choice all the way back to end of last year.
He’s extremely intelligent and will be a perfect standard bearer for the America First movement long after Trump is gone.
Vance, like Trump, is a class traitor. Someone who entered the ranks of the elites, only to reject them and represent the mainstream people.
Unlike Trump, he came from the poorest of the poor.
The fact that he was once Never Trump makes his conversion all the more authentic.
Vance may mean PA is a lock for Republicans, and if so, then the EC as well.
Who wants to be the a-hole who says Quayle should still be TBD in the last two columns? By the time 2028 rolls around, he'll still be younger than Biden is now!
He endorsed Trump in 2016 and then rejected his election lies in 2020, which makes him an anathema to both parties.