by liberal japonicus
Part 1 and Part 2. Unfortunately, part 2 is behind a paywall, so if anyone has a gift link, send it on.
It was all very careless and confused. They were careless people, Tom and Daisy—they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made. . . .
Discuss.
Unfortunately, I no longer have a sub to Vanity Fair. But this is Jonathan Chait in the Atlantic on the subject. Here is his concluding paragraph:
In this way, the most remarkable revelation from these newly published interviews comes not from what Wiles did or didn’t say, but in how Trump and his enablers are spinning it. Comments that would have precipitated a crisis in any other presidency are now simply being dismissed—knowingly, cynically—as “fake news.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2025/12/real-revelation-susie-wiles-interviews/685281/?gift=cx0iluuWx4Cg7JjlT8ugCSpEPvf5scYMPM_cnV1DeE8&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
Just read about Trump adding commemorative plaques to the set of photos of previous POTUS’ in the White House.
And for “commemorative”, please read rude and insulting, in the most puerile 7th grade bully style.
And a solid third of the country thinks this guy craps rainbows.
We’re never coming back from this.
The survey, which was conducted between December 14 and 15 and measured public opinion based upon the answers provided by 1,000 registered voters, found that if they had their pick between a progressive Democrat, MAGA Republican, moderate Democrat, and moderate Republican, American would most prefer the last, followed by a moderate Democrat, then a progressive Democrat, and then a MAGA Republican. New poll reveals what kind of president Americans want most
The problem with the survey results that I posted is that, as far as I can see, there are no moderate Republicans–in terms of policy. Some are more polite than others but nearly the entire party from top to bottom is fully complicit in all of the excesses of Trumpism from Project 2025 to the DOGE rampage, to the treason, to tax cuts for rich people and the attacks on the not-rich to the ethical, moral, and financial corruption and the violations of the rule of law. Yes, there are individuals here and there and some slight breaking of ranks recently, but moderates? Even the three ladies who get called moderate are complicit with the majority of what the Trump admin has done.
I think people are reacting to style. They don’t want the overt bullying (the pseudo polite hatemongering of pre-Trump Republicans who outsourced their most overt rhetoric to people like Limbaugh is probably still acceptable). They don’t want the shouting and yelling and shrillness.
I’ve always thought that the Republicans erred in nominating Trump because he was a threat to their goal of changing the US into a one party oligarchy. They need a fascist who seems nice.
They’re looking for Charlie Baker.
I don’t think he’s interested in the gig.
Not a complaint about you or your posting that, wonkie, but I hate polls like the one that Emerson College put together because I don’t think that they have any actual relevance to a real election. It’s more about how people label political positions in their heads, and it shows us nothing about what voters actually want or what they respond to.
Who is the person being polled thinking of when they think of “MAGA Republican,” of “moderate Republican,” of “moderate Democrat,” of “progressive Democrat?” What are the tipping point issues that make them choose one over the other? What do they like or dislike about each of them? No idea. Instead, we are left to guess what each of those labels might mean to a group of a thousand strangers.
These surveys pretend to inform, but they don’t do any real work to unpack the assumptions on which they work to find any real information that might make a difference. And politicians are paying people six figure salaries to make this sort of tea and read the leaves.
Kinda sounds like Vance has been cast for that position. He probably wouldn’t have won if the cultists stayed home. (In a snit because their god-king wasn’t nominated in this alternate history.) But as a post-Trump successor, especially if he succeeded a deceased Trump? I can see them believing that could work. And, with a little help from the Democrats, it might.
I harbor the optimistic hope that the Democrats will resist the temptation to nominate someone who self-brands as progressive. A candidate who holds those positions is fine. But in the current culture, brand is going to be important. So, Pritzker could work, but Newsom would not — California’s image is just too radical in too much of the country.
The labels annoy me too because there is no shared meaning. They mean whatever someone wants them to mean–largely unattached to policy responses to issues. Yet the news media and many citizens treat those labels as if they were useful analysis tools for explaining where pols are on policy. It’s annoying.
I don’t think elections are won on policy and certainly not on policy nuances–unless there is a very clear harm done to a large number of people that is simple to see like taking away their health insurance. I think I persistent mistake made by Dems and especially by self-proclaimed progressives is the belief that the majority of voters are moved by policy. “HRC would have won if she had run on Medicare for All” etc.
Most people vote the way they shop: brand, eye appeal, connotations they put on a product, previous experience, what their family always did, etc. I doubt if your typical voter has more than the faintest slogan level understanding of policy. They notice style, though.
Maybe I’m cynical. But I’m looking at elections that were won THREE TIMES by Republicans who cut taxes for rich people and created deficits while blaming the deficits on Democrats before electing a Republican who did it AGAIN–and yet your typical Republican voter claims to be opposed to deficits, and I doubt if many really want tax cuts for the rich. Meanwhile on Blue Sky self-identified progressives say things like, “Democrats are the party of corporate power!”
Everyone says they vote for whoever they think is “better on the issues” but how many people have any idea what policies a candidate is committed to on those issues?
wj – I’d never call Newsom a progressive, but I agree that any reasonable CA pol would be read as a loony leftie by default because that’s the trope everyone knows.
First and foremost, the Dems need someone who is young-ish, charismatic, and a good communicator, and then whoever that is needs to hammer on the idea that the middle class needs saving and expanding, and that tax cuts have not done the job for that. They need to run on restoring dignity and affordability to working people and reducing the influence of corporations and donors over elected officials – basically a pro-labor message without the high church union messaging.
wonkie – agree that policy messaging is a loser, but think that a good fight message needs some sort of big picture policy narrative that resonates and that gets to the core of the party’s values. And they need to take aim at all of the tropes that have harmed us – trickle down, tax cut prosperity; tough on crime justice; making schools compete – and replace them with a focus on investing in the public good.
Newsome’s appearance on Ezra Klein’s podcast was enlightening.
https://youtu.be/PqBsRNUXWfs?si=EwDOTfV4F7dttjQM
I didn’t enjoy it, but I can see he is pulling all the levers to be the next president. My main concern is that he’s all ambition, and while he may be someone to beat Trump and the Republicans, he’s not the person we need.
Everyone says they vote for whoever they think is “better on the issues” but how many people have any idea what policies a candidate is committed to on those issues?
to a good first approximation, zero.
IMO, the person the Dems need is the one who grabs the attention of that huge mass of people whose political outlooks are completely alien to those of us who think we know something about politics.
cycle after cycle we spend a year debating the number of angels on the head of each of the candidates’ pins. and then when the elections happen, the mass of voters go and pick the person who discredits our scholastic philosophies.
so, my vote is for the person who can win for the Dems. and i am 100% sure my own actual criteria are 100% irrelevant.
The challenge will be for such a person to get thru the primaries. Those tend to have a far higher concentration of, for lack of a better term, activists — people who do care, often passionately, about policy. At least some policies.
Convincing primary voters that “someone who can win a general election” should be a necessary criteria (not sufficient, but necessary) will be a non-trivial task. Not least because they, too, tend to live in an information bubble populated by others who care about policy.
i guess what i’m saying is: right now, anyway, i don’t care about policy details; i don’t care about ideological purity; i don’t care about authenticity or ambition. none of that matters to me because time has taught me that my preferences are irrelevant.
i really don’t need to validate my specific policy ideals. they’ll never get implemented anyway.
what matters is what the general public wants.what really matters is stopping The Party of Trump. so, any Democrat will do.
I’m with Cleek. I don’t vote on policy except in the very broad sense that Democrats try to devise policies to solve problems and Republicans don’t.
I vote for whoever wins the primary. During the primary I tend toward whoever seems the most authentic, the best public speaker, and the least likely to do something stupid during the campaign, and the one who isn’t being negatively stereotyped by the msm. Those are some of the factors that contribute to election chances.
My objection to Newsome is that the msm will collaborate with the Republicans to promote a negative stereotype of him and that will significantly impair his chances.
My objections to HRC were: she started out pre-slimed by Republican slander with a 50% negative rating and had a history of stupid decisions (Iraq and her campaign decisions during the primary race with Obama).
I didn’t like Bernie, but he seemed less likely to lose the election to Trump.
I thought Harris would lose because we live in a society that is pretty misogynistic and has a wide and deep disrespect for Black women.
Right now my preferred choice is Pritzker, but that’s tentative. I also like Buttigieg, also tentative. FWIW.
Obvs I can’t vote, but I agree with both cleek and wonkie.
First and foremost, the Dems need someone who is young-ish, charismatic, and a good communicator, and then whoever that is needs to hammer on the idea that the middle class needs saving and expanding, and that tax cuts have not done the job for that. They need to run on restoring dignity and affordability to working people and reducing the influence of corporations and donors over elected officials
nous is spot on with this, and it looks like a perfect description of Buttigieg. Too bad that being gay is almost certainly as big an electoral disadvantage as being female or black.
wj – The challenge will be for such a person to get thru the primaries. Those tend to have a far higher concentration of, for lack of a better term, activists — people who do care, often passionately, about policy. At least some policies.
Convincing primary voters that “someone who can win a general election” should be a necessary criteria (not sufficient, but necessary) will be a non-trivial task. Not least because they, too, tend to live in an information bubble populated by others who care about policy.
We have a real structural problem with the primaries in that the voters who need to be brought on board often don’t pay any attention to the election until after the primaries are done, leaving the primary voters and the donors to pick. None of the Dem coalitions in the primary seem to have any sense of what those people are looking for. I suspect that many of those low-engagement voters don’t know themselves what they are going to go for, so it’s a lot of guesswork. Most of the primary voters seem to have strong preferences and too much faith in the power of reason.
I think primaries are the place where ranked voting actually makes the most sense, in that ranked voting would not just take candidate support into account, but would also give a sense of crossover appeal. And if the primaries were done in two or three rounds it would also give the party a chance to see which candidates were gaining and which were losing support over time, and let the candidates adjust their approaches to some actual feedback.
What this country needs is an antiTrump. That means a Democrat who is as big and boisterous an asshole as He, Trump (for “electability”) but who is ruthless about deMAGAfication (a straightforward “policy”) instead of milquetoast nuance. Someone who demonizes billionaires (a smaller class than trans people, let alone immigrants) and is not afraid to call MAGAts stupid. Someone who has yet to appear, alas.
I’m not kidding. For many years, I have been pointing out that “electability” is a crock. We nominated Kerry in 2004 because he was more “electable” than Dean. We nominated Obama in 2008, but not because he was The Electable One. We nominated Clinton in 2016 partly because Sanders was “unelectable”. Can anybody claim with a straight face that “electability” in any but a post hoc sense was He, Trump’s selling point to the GOP?
“Electability. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
–TP
“I suspect that many of those low-engagement voters don’t know themselves what they are going to go for, so it’s a lot of guesswork. Most of the primary voters seem to have strong preferences and too much faith in the power of reason.”
I think that’s a real problem. I also think that electability IS an factor but we need to remember that elections are based on a lot of voters who think and feel in ways that we, the primary voters, don’t understand very well which makes it hard to know what will make them jump one way or another.
Republicans nearly always vote Republican.
There is a growing population of independents. They are a grab bag of people who arrived at independent from different directions and for different reasons.
There are infrequent voters who come out for charisma or because there is a really visceral issue for them at stake.
There are one issue voters who either vote for the candidate who represents their issue or don’t vote at all.
Democrats nearly always vote for Democrats.
So what we are really fighting for is the votes of the indies and infrequent voters–the people Dem primary activists are least likely to understand.
nous is spot on with this, and it looks like a perfect description of Buttigieg. Too bad that being gay is almost certainly as big an electoral disadvantage as being female or black.
A decade or two ago, it was probably a worse handicap. But the country has changed. Not as much as one might hope, but substantially nonetheless.
Legalizing gay marriage looks (from where I sit anyway) to have brought a lot of gays out of the closet. With the result that a lot of people discovered that their friends and relatives included gay people. And the heavens did not fall. Buttigieg, himself, took things further. High profile (thanks to his Presidential run), “young-ish, charismatic, and a good communicator” — and not particularly scary; not hitting any of the primary bigotry hot buttons.
You can argue that the country still isn’t ready. But the country wasn’t ready for a black President either. Obama won anyway. The bigots predictably freaked out, but he won anyway. Twice. I could see Buttigieg doing the same.
I like Buttigieg. I like Booker a lot as well.
I don’t think that Buttigieg would be a liability. The one thing I do think is that pretty much any candidate is going to be chancy and could well lose because the media is going to lean into the sports model of reporting and focus on the drama rather than on the substance. If Buttigieg did end up losing because something he did, or something about him blew up into a negative, then I’m certain that half of the pundits would have already half-written post-election analyses arguing that his gayness was just too big a feature for swing voters to get past, and they’d blame the loss on “activists” running the Dems. And then it would be a generation before the donors would have the courage to support any LGBTQ+ candidate for national office again.
Same way I don’t think Harris will ever be given another chance at the presidency. Doesn’t matter that she came damn close carrying a lot of baggage that had been forced upon her by the circumstances.
Meanwhile, given where we are right now in our politics, it’s hard to even fathom how The Dean Scream was enough to sink a candidacy. Really? That? What a strange moment in time.
Re: the Dean Scream: The tendency of journalists to mistake their herd instinct for repeating superficialities as inspired insights and then repeat their bullshit ad nauseum has a serious effect on election outcomes. It seems to happen more to Dems than Republicans. I don’t think it is a conscious act on the part of big media. I think it is mediocre people who are way too high on their own supply, have no insights, live in a bubble, and like to sneer. The don’t do this to Republicans because they like to pretend to not be biased.
Unfair and unprofessional as this bullshit may be, it still has an effect. Dems get slapped with these stupid labels and the labels become truths with the low info voters which is most of them, given that so many big media journalists can’t be bothered to do their jobs.
So that’s why as a primary voter I try to figure out which Dem will trigger one of those mindless collective sneer fests from the msm. Newsome will. It’s guaranteed. I also try to see who is best at playing the media, speaking past the media and has the ability to define themselves clearly.
That’s my perception of Buttigeig.