Unless it’s a Colorado Rockies game, and then I’m a sorry witness to whatever bunch of nothing is happening on the field.
Allow me to suggest you catch the video of today's Rockies - A's game. Final score 23-9. (On top of which the Rockies actually won.)
The great thing about baseball is that as soon as you thing an upcoming will be a sure thing, you discover anew why a career as a bookie is contraindicated.
my caution with Ohtani is because there may have been hitters better than Ohtani and there may have been pitchers better than Ohtani, but it’s really hard to think that he does both.
The only historical case I can remember, of someone who was both a great hitter and an excellent pitcher, is Babe Ruth. For those who don't know baseball history, Ruth was originally a pitcher. And, from what I've seen, a very good one. In 1916, he went head to head with Walter Johnson, regarded as one of if not the greatest major league pitchers ever (some of his records still stand), 5 times -- won 4, lost one. He also set a major league shutout record that stood until 1978.
Ruth's hitting ability is famous. But it should be recognized that he had the advantage of being followed in the Yankee batting order by Joe DiMaggio** and two other guys hitting over .400 -- famous as "Murderers Row". In short, there was no way to pitch around him.
Ohtani did brilliantly with the Angels, even though he was something of a one man show. And he set hitting and pitching records Since moving to the Dodgers, he's got great players around him like Ruth did. He's setting more records, and looks to be on track to win the Cy Young Award (for the best pitcher in each league) as well as yet another MVP.
** The year Ruth famously set a record by hitting 60 home runs, he was not the MVP. DiMaggio was.
How people become fans, and of what, is an interesting question. Also why they cease to be.** My sister and I are both baseball fans. Probably has something to do with Dad not only playing it, but having spent a few years in the Cubs farm system. Neither of our brothers have the slightest interest. But the two of us spend the season texting comments, notes about particular spectacular plays, and rude remarks about the trades that the front office makes.
I would also note that different sports have to be enjoyed different ways. American football pretty much requires television. Otherwise you can't really understand what is happening; in person is what you do for the crowd, because you can't really tell what is happening on the field in any detail.
Basketball, in contrast, is practically incomprehensible on TV. To follow what's happening, you really have to be there in person.
As for baseball, I'd argue that it's basically a radio game. You can enjoy what's happening in person or on TV. But most of the time, nothing is happening. With the game on the radio, you can be doing something else, and stop occasionally when something happens. In college, I would listen while working thru problem sets: do a problem, stop to listen as something happens, do another problem, stop while something happens. The timing seemed almost perfect.
** I used to watch a lot of NFL football. But as the evidence of the brain injuries that kids were taking mounted I had to walk away.
when you take that rarified group and realize that Ohtani is someone who mightbeis head and shoulders above almost all of them, you get an idea.
Fixed that for you. He is, and it's not even close.
It's easy to forget, for those in the east, just how progressive the western states were a century ago.
Women first got the right vote statewide in Wyoming, IIRC.* (The Utah legislature passed women's suffrage, by unanimous vote!, shortly thereafter. Due to vageries in election dates, women in Utah actually voted first; probably best not to argue that matters, if speaking to someone in Wyoming.) The next 6 were Colorado, Idaho, Washington, California, Oregon, and Arizona. Are you seeing a trend here? Colorado was the first state to elect a woman to the legislature; Nevada was the first to have a majority female legislature.
Things like initiatives and referendums** are routine here -- the results of the Progressive Era. They appear to still be unknown in much of the rest of the country. Some parts of the west are extremely conservative now. But even there, things like that are part of the traditional culture that they want to preserve, no matter how they are viewed elsewhere..
* Technically, women, at least rich women, could vote in New Jersey from Independence. But that was ended after ~30 years.
** Latin purists: be informed that English absorbs foreign nouns from many languages, and rately worries about how, or if, they do plurals.
the first latino elected governor in state history.
To be precise, the first Latino to be elected since California became part if the United States.
You can argue about whether earlier governors were "elected." But that basically involves how widely the franchise must extend to have an election count.
“Unaided winged flight,” it points out, “is a fairly rare skillset.”
But surely it is merely a subset of "unaided flight". Which is, I believe, not uncommon in certain parts of the Russian elite. Speaking English and not Russian might be a differentiator, however....
I doubt even a flood of negative comments will stop it. But failing to make negative comments can make it look like you approve. Think "Silence gives consent" -- so if you don't consent, don't keep silent. You have until June 15 to comment.
the East Coast/Midwestern sponsors had suddenly discovered western Blue states had been building a new, better system and some of their representatives weren’t going to vote to backwards.
A case where the idea of the states as "laboratories of democracy", where new ideas can be tried out, actually worked as advertised.
Voting should be a national holiday (three day weekend).
At which point voting plummets, as people leave town. Just as they always do for 3 day weekends. If you're going to make it a holiday, make it mid-week. Ideally Wednesday.
I'm making what is probably a heroic assumption: that the current stupidity over mail ballots will be abandoned for some new nonsense, probably as soon as Trump is no longer around to stoke it. Or, failing that, that California will continue to make widespread use of mail ballots.
My latest experience is from last Tuesday (the California primary). The polling place I worked covers some 5,000 registered voters. I was one of 7 poll workers at that location. We were open for 13 hours (7 AM until 8 PM). In that time, we had about 125 people come in to vote in person, and another perhaps 180 dropping off their mail-in ballots. Whole lot of nothing happening.
It seems pretty clear that we are going to have to rethink how we do Eection Day in-person voting. The county had only 5 locations for Early Voting. Do we cut way back on the number of physical polling lications on Election Day? We have already cut back from one polling place per precinct; now each polling place has from 3-6 precincts, with ballots for each. So that wouldn't be particularly radical.
Or do we do in-person voting at all? Other places have shifted to 100% mail voting -- several states, the entire country of Australia. There don't seem to have been major problems. Certainly continuing to expend the resources currently required for the tiny number of voters using in-person is not reasonable. It may be that the biggest issue getting in the way is inertia: we've always included in-person voting; how could we change???
But I'm wondering if a bigger problem might be the incoming generations of voters who are accustomed to doing everything electronically. Do they demand getting rid of physical ballots altogether? Not to put too fine a face on it, but electronic communications just aren't as secure, and the audit trails (e.g. for recounts) are less robust. You may assume things are secure. But an amazing variety of supposedly secure systems use cryptographic methods that were long since deprecated because they have known flaws. Plus, quantum computers will break even the best current cryptography. PQC (Post Quantum Cryptography) is being worked on, but is still in its infancy.
the linked paper does admit it might be hard to get the US and China to participate,
"hard"? More like flat impossible. Hard (make that extremely hard) to get the US to do something like that for internal redistribution. Necessary, and I expect we will eventually do it. But it won't be easy.
As for some kind of international redistribution? Not happening. Even something like swingeing tariffs won't do it. Americans are sufficiently inventive, especially when highly motivated, to create work-arounds that would show up Russia's current efforts to get around sanctions for the feeble attempts they are. And that's not even considering that, if the US and China are both outside, they can do an enormous amount of trade with each other to evade those tariffs.
If Steyer does catch Hilton (unlikely, but possible) I’m not sure what that would mean for a Becerra vs. Steyer statewide general election. No idea who the Hilton voters would support, or how many of them would bother to vote.
The more Hilton supporters who stay home**, the fewer nut cases will win local offices. Which are really critical in the long run. And to which the Democrats have an unfortunate history of paying insufficient attention.
** i.e. don't bother to vote. Vote by Mail has changed the world, but the expression endures.
Whatever the case, I think that Hilton is toast in the general election, and that makes me feel a lot better about the world.
These days, it takes an exceptional** Republican politician, combined with a terrible Democratic candidate, to have any chance of winning statewide. From the early 90s, the California Republican Party worked really hard at becoming a party for far right bigots only. Successfully. This in a state where the demographics are terrible for such candidates, and getting worse.
So yeah, Hilton is probably toast. But personally, I'd feel better about the world if we had two viable parties/candidates to choose between.
** Exceptional meaning not just a very talented politician, but one who is somehow the antithesis of the rest of prominent California Republican officeholders. There are such Republicans at the local level. But if they get even as far as the state legislature, the money to run a campaign isn't available. Unless they are also rich enough to self-fund.
I became a Democrat because I thought that there was a better chance to tilt the party more labor and environment friendly than to try to build an alternative party and erode the Democratic hold on the US center left. I though coalitions and solidarity could shift the culture away from neoliberalism. But I’ve lost faith in receiving any solidarity back from the party faithful, and I’m beginning to think that they are just as rooted in their folly as the MAGA are.
I wonder if the path for you might be to try to build a new centerist party. Not because you agree with their positions, because obviously you don't. But because such a party could perhaps lure away those you regard as "party faithful" -- thus leaving the Democratic party to your preferred views. And also, critically, not only attract voters who see themselves as centerists (or independents, or whatever label you prefer to apply), but also those who hate what Trump has done to the Republican Party, but could never vote for someone labeled "Democrat."
It doesn't really matter what you think of those who fall into the last two categories. Because your goal is to achieve a viable party on the left while simultaneously doing as much damage as possible to the far right. Ideally (if I may risk putting words in your mouth) to get to the point where the current "establishment Democrats" and progressives are the only two major parties, with the now reactionary GOP reduced in importance to something like the Libertarians or the Greens.
I'm pretty sure you can't get there by creating a new progressive party. But you might be able to create a centerist party that would leave Democrats to the progressives you favor.
It may not be a huge deal in some senses. But the fact that people keep stepping up to do the little things required for our elections to happen? That really is huge.
My take is, we're all volunteers. Certainly the pay isn't enough to induce much of anyone; pretty sure I would make more if I spent the 16 or so hours washing dishes. In fact, my suspicion (I haven't bothered to check) is that there's some obscure legal or insurance, or similar reason that they need to pay us.
Don’t expect House members to return emboldened when Trump has just gone four for four in the primaries
One caveat: the Congressmen and Senators that Trump primaried no longer have that threat hanging over them. And they might reasonably be looking for some payback. Won't turn them into liberals, of course. But it might revive their devotion to the Constitution that they swore to "support, protect and defend."
I'm aleady seen comments about the folly of trashing people on whom your paper thin majority depends, when they will be in office for over 7 more months.
Good luck with that. Any pro-Palestinian candidate would have been discounted immediately by the DNC. They wouldn’t even allow a Palestinian speaker at the national convention:
I have been unclear. You are looking at a long slog, working for candidates for Congress, and for state office, first. The operative word being long. Sure, you might luck into a candidate who is already in with the DNC, and who turns out to agree with you. But more likely, you have to build up to that. The DNC is probably the last bastion. Even after you've had a couple of Presidential candidates agree with you.
The other thing you do is take a candidate for President who supports you and get them thru to a win in a primary. Any primary. The DNC may still not agree with your position. But they are hesitant to snub someone who has won a primary. Consider 2016, when nobody on the RNC had any use at all for Trump. But once he started winning primaries, they couldn't discount him, much as they would have loved to do so.
Who would be Mohamed Gula, director of Emgage, a Muslim political advocacy group,
Whose gut would be the Muslim voters who, according to the quote from Gula, felt that "the situation was not acceptable and there needs to be change, and we will take whatever comes from that and do what we need to." In other words, they voted for Trump over Harris knowing he was worse. At least, that's how I read it.
“There wasn’t a full belief that Trump was better than Harris – it was that the situation was not acceptable and there needs to be change, and we will take whatever comes from that and do what we need to,” he said.
In short, we're so upset at getting repeatedly shot in the foot that we're going to shoot ourselves in the gut. Just to demonstrate how upset we are. Because that's what this amounts to.
Someone who wants things to change needs to get out there in the primaries, if not before, and work for candidates that will do that. BUT contrary to novakant, anyone who rejects the "lesser evil" in the general election is embracing the greater evil. Nothing else. You may refuse to believe it, but it remains true.
Donald: cleek, do you have any contempt left over for the Biden Administration or voters who favored arming Israel or do you only despise people who were desperate and irrational because Biden’s bombs were killing their families?
I can't speak for cleek, of course. But I didn't read his comments as despising "people who were desperate and irrational because Biden’s bombs were killing their families." His contempt was for those who chose to support instead someone (Trump) who had already made it abundantly clear that his only disagreement with Biden's actions was that Biden was too hard on Israel and not hard (read viscous) enough towards the Palestinians. No matter how desperate you are, supporting someone who is loud and proud about wanting to hurt you worse is beyond irrational.
bobbyp – On the other hand, I have read polls that seem to indicate a growing affinity for “socialist” ideas, especially among the gen Z cohort. Ah, the young.
cleek – never seems to work out, does it? when these amazing policies meet the actual electorate, not people who answer abstract questions in polls, socialism never seems to pull the numbers we’re told it must.by the number of times i’ve read “socialist polices are popular!” we should be awash in them. and yet…
Those policies have, to the best of my recollection, been popular with 15-30 year oldss throughout my lifetime. Many (not all, but many) of them become less popular as people move further into adulthood and into more contact with day to day economic reality. That may have nothing to do with the ideas underlying the policies. But it happens pretty regularly.
Enthusiasts for those policies might want to think about why that might be so. Maybe even something beyond "They are all brainwashed by [insert boogyman of choice]!" Possibly even an approach that hasn't already been tried and failed for reducing the disenchantment that apparently occurs.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Sports fandom”
Allow me to suggest you catch the video of today's Rockies - A's game. Final score 23-9. (On top of which the Rockies actually won.)
The great thing about baseball is that as soon as you thing an upcoming will be a sure thing, you discover anew why a career as a bookie is contraindicated.
"
I did, indeed. Thanks for catching that.
"
The only historical case I can remember, of someone who was both a great hitter and an excellent pitcher, is Babe Ruth. For those who don't know baseball history, Ruth was originally a pitcher. And, from what I've seen, a very good one. In 1916, he went head to head with Walter Johnson, regarded as one of if not the greatest major league pitchers ever (some of his records still stand), 5 times -- won 4, lost one. He also set a major league shutout record that stood until 1978.
Ruth's hitting ability is famous. But it should be recognized that he had the advantage of being followed in the Yankee batting order by Joe DiMaggio** and two other guys hitting over .400 -- famous as "Murderers Row". In short, there was no way to pitch around him.
Ohtani did brilliantly with the Angels, even though he was something of a one man show. And he set hitting and pitching records Since moving to the Dodgers, he's got great players around him like Ruth did. He's setting more records, and looks to be on track to win the Cy Young Award (for the best pitcher in each league) as well as yet another MVP.
** The year Ruth famously set a record by hitting 60 home runs, he was not the MVP. DiMaggio was.
"
How people become fans, and of what, is an interesting question. Also why they cease to be.** My sister and I are both baseball fans. Probably has something to do with Dad not only playing it, but having spent a few years in the Cubs farm system. Neither of our brothers have the slightest interest. But the two of us spend the season texting comments, notes about particular spectacular plays, and rude remarks about the trades that the front office makes.
I would also note that different sports have to be enjoyed different ways. American football pretty much requires television. Otherwise you can't really understand what is happening; in person is what you do for the crowd, because you can't really tell what is happening on the field in any detail.
Basketball, in contrast, is practically incomprehensible on TV. To follow what's happening, you really have to be there in person.
As for baseball, I'd argue that it's basically a radio game. You can enjoy what's happening in person or on TV. But most of the time, nothing is happening. With the game on the radio, you can be doing something else, and stop occasionally when something happens. In college, I would listen while working thru problem sets: do a problem, stop to listen as something happens, do another problem, stop while something happens. The timing seemed almost perfect.
** I used to watch a lot of NFL football. But as the evidence of the brain injuries that kids were taking mounted I had to walk away.
Fixed that for you. He is, and it's not even close.
On “Open Thread”
It's easy to forget, for those in the east, just how progressive the western states were a century ago.
Women first got the right vote statewide in Wyoming, IIRC.* (The Utah legislature passed women's suffrage, by unanimous vote!, shortly thereafter. Due to vageries in election dates, women in Utah actually voted first; probably best not to argue that matters, if speaking to someone in Wyoming.) The next 6 were Colorado, Idaho, Washington, California, Oregon, and Arizona. Are you seeing a trend here? Colorado was the first state to elect a woman to the legislature; Nevada was the first to have a majority female legislature.
Things like initiatives and referendums** are routine here -- the results of the Progressive Era. They appear to still be unknown in much of the rest of the country. Some parts of the west are extremely conservative now. But even there, things like that are part of the traditional culture that they want to preserve, no matter how they are viewed elsewhere..
* Technically, women, at least rich women, could vote in New Jersey from Independence. But that was ended after ~30 years.
** Latin purists: be informed that English absorbs foreign nouns from many languages, and rately worries about how, or if, they do plurals.
"
To be precise, the first Latino to be elected since California became part if the United States.
You can argue about whether earlier governors were "elected." But that basically involves how widely the franchise must extend to have an election count.
"
Surely the horse has already suffered enough.
"
But surely it is merely a subset of "unaided flight". Which is, I believe, not uncommon in certain parts of the Russian elite. Speaking English and not Russian might be a differentiator, however....
"
The case I remember is Georgia.
"
Warning: abrupt change of topic
As you have probably heard Trump has plans for a Triumphal Arch. (Referred to variously as the Albert Speer Memorial Arch, the Jeffrey Epstein Memorial Arch, etc.). You can get a taste of what it looks like here
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:yhwb4flopeavzkwbybtojo2s/post/3mnpxze4i2c2g
The good news is, the National Park Service is taking public comments on the plan. https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=186&projectID=136973&documentID=151576
I doubt even a flood of negative comments will stop it. But failing to make negative comments can make it look like you approve. Think "Silence gives consent" -- so if you don't consent, don't keep silent. You have until June 15 to comment.
"
A case where the idea of the states as "laboratories of democracy", where new ideas can be tried out, actually worked as advertised.
"
Says something that notoriously ultra-liberal states like Idaho and Wyoming do no excuse mail-in voting.
/s
"
At which point voting plummets, as people leave town. Just as they always do for 3 day weekends. If you're going to make it a holiday, make it mid-week. Ideally Wednesday.
"
I'm making what is probably a heroic assumption: that the current stupidity over mail ballots will be abandoned for some new nonsense, probably as soon as Trump is no longer around to stoke it. Or, failing that, that California will continue to make widespread use of mail ballots.
My latest experience is from last Tuesday (the California primary). The polling place I worked covers some 5,000 registered voters. I was one of 7 poll workers at that location. We were open for 13 hours (7 AM until 8 PM). In that time, we had about 125 people come in to vote in person, and another perhaps 180 dropping off their mail-in ballots. Whole lot of nothing happening.
It seems pretty clear that we are going to have to rethink how we do Eection Day in-person voting. The county had only 5 locations for Early Voting. Do we cut way back on the number of physical polling lications on Election Day? We have already cut back from one polling place per precinct; now each polling place has from 3-6 precincts, with ballots for each. So that wouldn't be particularly radical.
Or do we do in-person voting at all? Other places have shifted to 100% mail voting -- several states, the entire country of Australia. There don't seem to have been major problems. Certainly continuing to expend the resources currently required for the tiny number of voters using in-person is not reasonable. It may be that the biggest issue getting in the way is inertia: we've always included in-person voting; how could we change???
But I'm wondering if a bigger problem might be the incoming generations of voters who are accustomed to doing everything electronically. Do they demand getting rid of physical ballots altogether? Not to put too fine a face on it, but electronic communications just aren't as secure, and the audit trails (e.g. for recounts) are less robust. You may assume things are secure. But an amazing variety of supposedly secure systems use cryptographic methods that were long since deprecated because they have known flaws. Plus, quantum computers will break even the best current cryptography. PQC (Post Quantum Cryptography) is being worked on, but is still in its infancy.
"Great and frightening changes." Count on it.
On “What’s wrong with liberalism?”
"hard"? More like flat impossible. Hard (make that extremely hard) to get the US to do something like that for internal redistribution. Necessary, and I expect we will eventually do it. But it won't be easy.
As for some kind of international redistribution? Not happening. Even something like swingeing tariffs won't do it. Americans are sufficiently inventive, especially when highly motivated, to create work-arounds that would show up Russia's current efforts to get around sanctions for the feeble attempts they are. And that's not even considering that, if the US and China are both outside, they can do an enormous amount of trade with each other to evade those tariffs.
"
The more Hilton supporters who stay home**, the fewer nut cases will win local offices. Which are really critical in the long run. And to which the Democrats have an unfortunate history of paying insufficient attention.
** i.e. don't bother to vote. Vote by Mail has changed the world, but the expression endures.
"
These days, it takes an exceptional** Republican politician, combined with a terrible Democratic candidate, to have any chance of winning statewide. From the early 90s, the California Republican Party worked really hard at becoming a party for far right bigots only. Successfully. This in a state where the demographics are terrible for such candidates, and getting worse.
So yeah, Hilton is probably toast. But personally, I'd feel better about the world if we had two viable parties/candidates to choose between.
** Exceptional meaning not just a very talented politician, but one who is somehow the antithesis of the rest of prominent California Republican officeholders. There are such Republicans at the local level. But if they get even as far as the state legislature, the money to run a campaign isn't available. Unless they are also rich enough to self-fund.
"
I wonder if the path for you might be to try to build a new centerist party. Not because you agree with their positions, because obviously you don't. But because such a party could perhaps lure away those you regard as "party faithful" -- thus leaving the Democratic party to your preferred views. And also, critically, not only attract voters who see themselves as centerists (or independents, or whatever label you prefer to apply), but also those who hate what Trump has done to the Republican Party, but could never vote for someone labeled "Democrat."
It doesn't really matter what you think of those who fall into the last two categories. Because your goal is to achieve a viable party on the left while simultaneously doing as much damage as possible to the far right. Ideally (if I may risk putting words in your mouth) to get to the point where the current "establishment Democrats" and progressives are the only two major parties, with the now reactionary GOP reduced in importance to something like the Libertarians or the Greens.
I'm pretty sure you can't get there by creating a new progressive party. But you might be able to create a centerist party that would leave Democrats to the progressives you favor.
On “Open Thread time”
Good on you, Michael.
It may not be a huge deal in some senses. But the fact that people keep stepping up to do the little things required for our elections to happen? That really is huge.
My take is, we're all volunteers. Certainly the pay isn't enough to induce much of anyone; pretty sure I would make more if I spent the 16 or so hours washing dishes. In fact, my suspicion (I haven't bothered to check) is that there's some obscure legal or insurance, or similar reason that they need to pay us.
"
One caveat: the Congressmen and Senators that Trump primaried no longer have that threat hanging over them. And they might reasonably be looking for some payback. Won't turn them into liberals, of course. But it might revive their devotion to the Constitution that they swore to "support, protect and defend."
I'm aleady seen comments about the folly of trashing people on whom your paper thin majority depends, when they will be in office for over 7 more months.
On “What’s wrong with liberalism?”
I have been unclear. You are looking at a long slog, working for candidates for Congress, and for state office, first. The operative word being long. Sure, you might luck into a candidate who is already in with the DNC, and who turns out to agree with you. But more likely, you have to build up to that. The DNC is probably the last bastion. Even after you've had a couple of Presidential candidates agree with you.
The other thing you do is take a candidate for President who supports you and get them thru to a win in a primary. Any primary. The DNC may still not agree with your position. But they are hesitant to snub someone who has won a primary. Consider 2016, when nobody on the RNC had any use at all for Trump. But once he started winning primaries, they couldn't discount him, much as they would have loved to do so.
"
Who would be Mohamed Gula, director of Emgage, a Muslim political advocacy group,
Whose gut would be the Muslim voters who, according to the quote from Gula, felt that "the situation was not acceptable and there needs to be change, and we will take whatever comes from that and do what we need to." In other words, they voted for Trump over Harris knowing he was worse. At least, that's how I read it.
"
“There wasn’t a full belief that Trump was better than Harris – it was that the situation was not acceptable and there needs to be change, and we will take whatever comes from that and do what we need to,” he said.
In short, we're so upset at getting repeatedly shot in the foot that we're going to shoot ourselves in the gut. Just to demonstrate how upset we are. Because that's what this amounts to.
Someone who wants things to change needs to get out there in the primaries, if not before, and work for candidates that will do that. BUT contrary to novakant, anyone who rejects the "lesser evil" in the general election is embracing the greater evil. Nothing else. You may refuse to believe it, but it remains true.
"
I can't speak for cleek, of course. But I didn't read his comments as despising "people who were desperate and irrational because Biden’s bombs were killing their families." His contempt was for those who chose to support instead someone (Trump) who had already made it abundantly clear that his only disagreement with Biden's actions was that Biden was too hard on Israel and not hard (read viscous) enough towards the Palestinians. No matter how desperate you are, supporting someone who is loud and proud about wanting to hurt you worse is beyond irrational.
"
Those policies have, to the best of my recollection, been popular with 15-30 year oldss throughout my lifetime. Many (not all, but many) of them become less popular as people move further into adulthood and into more contact with day to day economic reality. That may have nothing to do with the ideas underlying the policies. But it happens pretty regularly.
Enthusiasts for those policies might want to think about why that might be so. Maybe even something beyond "They are all brainwashed by [insert boogyman of choice]!" Possibly even an approach that hasn't already been tried and failed for reducing the disenchantment that apparently occurs.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.