And insofar as it’s not dumb, the only prescription you can get from it is that the Dems need to be waving “Mass Deportation Now!” signs in order to win, which is probably true, but man, fuck that.
Need thoughts. I have a buddy who is in the final stages of being offered an IRS job. He is well established in his current job and it would be a pretty big risk to leave it but the perks way outweigh his current spot.
Obv he is devastated by the Trump win and with Trump’s rhetoric about the IRS he is nervous about saying yes and possibly blowing up a made thing for a job that could possibly be nuked by a madman.
You go and troll the fuck out of all of them. Post TR here.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1968
this was nixon’s platform in 68. He was a terrible human being and an opportunist but can you see much of this that wouldn’t play today?
Some level of “purity testing” is of course inevitable, it’s what defines the limits of the coalition. It needs to be kept to a minimum though, especially on issues which don’t really affect policy goals.
An example I have used before is healthcare. It is acceptable within the Democratic coalition to say “I essentially support the current system where people in the richest country in the world just get bankrupted if they have a health issue at the wrong time in their life”. The amount of “purity testing” on this issue is more or less zero.
For something a bit more in the middle, look at Israel/Palestine. The Democratic coalition contains both hardcore Zionists and hardcore anti-Israel campaigners. Holding this coalition together completely in the face of the enormous salience of this issue currently was an impossible task. The Dems clearly made the decision for whatever reason(s) that they were going to keep all the Zionists in the coalition and accept some bleeding at the other end of the spectrum. But there was at least some rhetorical attempt to limit the damage. They didn’t get up there and be like “let me be clear: we are 100% behind Israel and if you’re not, you are not welcome here”.
Compare this to the furore in 2020 when Sanders went on Rogan. Rogan holds what some would argue are mildly socially regressive views. Not only are you not allowed to hold those views, your place in the Democratic Party is questioned if you even associate with someone who holds them. Or Rogan was criticized for platforming people with objectionable opinions, in which case you can’t go on his shows because you’re associating with an associate of objectionable people. These are vastly stricter parameters than other issues and the transgressions here are also the least consequential in actual policy terms. Many Democrats are oblivious to this because it’s just the air they breathe.
I don’t really have any answers, but I think the fact that speculation of Kamala going on Rogan this cycle caused very little backlash does point to a growing realization that standards will have to be relaxed, because the current parameters on what is acceptable in a Democratic coalition lead directly to a coalition which might already be too small to win elections and is shrinking at an alarming rate.
6 Likes
So why is it good when the GOP does it?
That sounds like some doctors I know
1 Like
I wouldn’t take it. Don’t forget about all the government shutdowns that are also going to occur.
What is “purity testing” even supposed to mean here, in an objective sense? Everyone hates “purity tests” when it comes to issues that they aren’t particularly worked up about, it gets a lot harder when we’re talking about stuff that offends your core values. There are voters who can’t support the Dems out of principle because of their support for the Arab-Israeli conflict. There are people who won’t compromise on LGBT politics or guns or etc. You can think Harris should appear on Rogan or Fox News but maybe she shouldn’t try palling around with Andrew Tate. Everyone has a point where they draw the line and calling it “purity testing” sort of dismisses the real challenge of herding a coalition of groups with conflicting priorities.
Good example of how people are never content: There are still people ripping the Chiefs front office and doom and glooming about the season on Chiefsplanet.
We are 8-0 and haven’t lost a must-win game since Jan 2022. Doesn’t matter. That’s all been internalized.
This from a user base that suffered either terrible seasons or agonizing playoff defeats for 50 years, and most CPers are old enough to remember most of those.
1 Like
There are 44 million of them of voting age and more coming of voting age every year. The ipad generation behind them has no indication of being any better. It seems silly to ignore their issues as a campaign focus, especially, IMHO, more and more people are going to be subjected to the effects of climate change as they age, especially the youngest of us. I have a theory millennials especially feel this as their kids enter the 5-15 year old range and imagine the future their kids face. That’s an absolutely massive voting bloc that was essentially ignored. It’s also an easy emotional argument. There are a lot of reputable studies out there I’ve read that I will link if interested that state millennials spend more time with their kids than any other previous generation measured so far, but especially boomers, who largely do not seem to care about their children as perceived by their children. They also essentially control all of the wealth - the wealth transfer of which will be fascinating. There is a booming class of boomer-lite millennials we will have to deal with or maybe already are.
Anyway, my point is, It’s very easy to craft an anti “boomer” message among young people with the core theme being they destroyed your planet and now you are voting for them? It’s ageist and terrible but there is enough tinge of truth in it to be effective. Why no one capitalizes on this is beyond me. JD fucking vance is our first actual millennial serious candidate. How/why did that happen?
Like, had biden not gone on stage our choices would have been two octogenarians (sp?). No one can convince me that is not exploitable. Even bernie is old as fuck.
Interesting thing about this, one of his friend told him that furloughed IRS workers receive full back pay once the shutdown is settled, so its like a paid vacation if that happens.
The Austin Statesman talked to some illegal and recent immigrants. They want Trump because he’ll improve the economy and curb illegal immigration
Yeah almost all govt workers get their back pay.
Not sure why we would get a govt shutdown if they have all 3 branches.
It’s been some time since anyone mentioned Joe Biden trying to run for a second term as a big part of the problem, but I don’t want to forget that.
1 Like
lol, it’s just coming to my attention that Harris ran ahead of Sanders in Vermont. Should, but will not, give pause to the “the lesson of 2024 is that Bernie Sanders should run for president” crowd.
2 Likes
Besides, he said, “Trump wants to deport those who do bad things. … I haven’t broken any laws.”
-Final words of Austin man before a leopard finished eating his face
I think I am just going to reduce myself to a bot that says “people want villains more than helpful policy.”
2 Likes
The crowd you just invented in your mind?
I have a buddy that works for the government. He said it’s horrible because you don’t know when the shutdown will end. He’s essential so he has to work. But if there’s a shutdown for 6 weeks, he still has to wait 6 weeks to get paid. When it’s 2-3 days, it’s not a big deal. But you can’t plan for it being 2-3 days.