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.
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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
HIs aides seem to think that MORE exposure of Trump being Trump will help him, but I don't think his performance on prime time went over all that well with anyone outside the cult--and might have been a bit cringy to some cult members. I know Trump and Republican media have degenerated the tone of our public discourse and normalized behavior which should seem disgusting, but even with that, how many people like being shouted at by a red-faced, angry old man?
Previously to this discussion, I assumed that Trump's posts were all his and expressed who he is. I wondered why some staffer person wasn't assigned the job of constantly checking and removing his posts. Then I read this excerpt from a a discussion about his top office manager: “There is this idea that people have that I think was very common in the first administration,” he told me, “that their objective was to control the president or influence the president, or even manipulate the president because they had to in order to serve the national interest. Susie just takes the diametrically opposite viewpoint, which is that she’s a facilitator, that the American people have elected Donald Trump. And her job is to actually facilitate his vision and to make his vision come to life.” So Trump unleashed and uncensored, served straight without a mixer, is her goal. And if he stays up all night broadcasting out his character deficiencies and mental issues, so be it.
I guess I have been assuming that he wrote his own posts on the assumption that even his core supporters in his top admin aren't dumb enough to write that shit.
I used to have a Samoan client who showed me videos of Samoan marching bands--a very big thing there. He said that every town had a marching band. There's a big festival when marching bands from all over come to one city and march in a huge parade. Each band has a clown that messes with the band while they march--laying down in the road, running in and out of the ranks etc. I have no idea why the concept of a marching band resonated with Samoans. Maybe because they have a tradition of drumming and group singing combined with movement?
or a time after my father died I regularly had dreams where I would see him at a distance, sometimes across a large room full of people or on the street driving by. As I would get closer to him, his appearance would change and I’d realize it wasn’t him."
I have dreams like this only about cats. In the dream I see one of my long ago deceased cats and I am overwhelmed with guilt, thinking that I just forgot about the cat and have been ignoring it. Then I get into a fuss about whether or not it's my cat or just one that looks like my cat. I never raised a cat from a kitten. All of my cats were old when I got them and died within five or six years, so I have a lot of dead cats to remember--but I do remember all of them.
I agree with Russel in that I think dreams are often more than just random. I think they often are a way of working out or working on issues that concern the dreamer.
That said, sometimes dreams are just fun.
As a kid, I was able to set my mind to dream of flying. I loved to fly! My dreams were very realistic, right to feeling chilly. Ot scary at all. I wish I could still make myself dream that way.
I quit teaching over twenty years ago, but I still have dreams related to my job. A recurrent dream concerns IEPs--the required paperwork for each student, typically about 20 pages. I did 30 to 40 a year and never was late.
My dream is that it's May and I haven't started. I make futile attempts to find the necessary records and forms but can't. I seriously consider blowing the IEPs off and dumping the mess on other teachers. I've never done that in the dream because I always wake up first.
The other teaching dream involves being in the building on the first day, but I don't know what subjects I will be teaching or where my room is and I have no teaching materials. I used to get frantically worried in the dream but one night I thought, "Fuck it. This isn't my fault. I'm not going to feel bad. I am going to get mad instead."
So now that dream has a different story arc.
I have been trapped asleep but unable to awake multiple times, starting at elementary school age. I have taught myself to wake myself up by moving one of my arms. It can be very difficult, frustrating, and frightening.
The Mad King's Court of Fools Cabinet meeting is...well, a laugh or cry thing. One of the most astonishing aspects of it is that it was videoed and the video made public. The lack of self-awareness...Neom thanking Trump for keeping hurricanes away, Rubio saying that Trump alone can bring peace to the world while Trump slumps next to him, clearly asleep. The meeting started with one of Trump's hour-long rants about Biden. Apparently, that took up all of his energy because he kept nodding off during the rest of the meeting. His sycophants literally watched him sleeping through their suck up attempts. ‘Taking the gloves off’: Trump just held the Cabinet meeting from Hell | The Independent Absolute lunacy.
I always think of the UK as more civilized than us, but they are human too. I'm burning my way through the Slough House series and there's a definite political subtext throughout about politics as cynical, stupid, and dominated by sociopaths. The author also takes frequent swipes at Trump.
I'm terrified of the future. The thought of millions of people dying at borders they aren't allowed to cross--dystopia is here already and science fiction nightmares are coming true.
Meanwhile the dogs are out from under the coffee table but I got a frantic phone call about a cat. The story is that she was seen by various people laying on the pavement and was there all night--supposedly was hit by a car, but she doesn't have any visible injuries. She spent the night at the neighbors' where she ate and was up walking around. Today she is at the sanctuary but not eating, not drinking, not moving. The lady who runs the sanctuary is trying to get her into a vet. She's a skinny little thing and, given the rain and the cold, she might have been hyperthermic and is just recovering. I'm bummed about it.
It seems that backlash against immigrants is a human nature thing that happens everywhere. And also it seems that political parties historically reformist, humane, and focused on public interest will throw someone under the bus to pander to the rightwing.
Meanwhile we are under siege. Horrible, terrifying noises from above. Thunks and bumps and the interminable whine of machinery. The dogs are crouching under the coffee table.
I didn't say moderates can't get elected. I think our problem is the word "moderate" which is so ambiguous in meaning when it comes to politics.
To me, a moderate is a person who is thoughtful, fact oriented, works to solve problems, believes in public service and is not overly ideological or obsessed by any particular issue--temperamentally moderate and open to intellectually honest discussion.
Manchin didn't seem to have much in the way of convictions at all beyond self-promotion and voted R at critical times when his vote could have made a difference in terms of good government--apparently because he saw some advantage to himself.
Another example is Gusenkamp Perez in WA. I sent money to her campaign and wrote GOTV letters for her. She won in a rural red district so I expected support for the timber industry and didn't expect a lot of anti-trump rhetoric. However she voted FOR the Republican voter suppression bill (that failed). Why on earth? Did she do it because Republicans were spreading lies about people voting illegally and she didn't want to contradict the lies? Evidently she felt a need to vote R on an R issue even though her vote was in support of an immoral effort based on lies.
THAT kind of "trying for the middle" is the kind that doesn't work. All she did was piss off her voters and I doubt if she picked up a single R vote. The only reason she won before is because the Rs chose such an obvious wacko to run. They are focusing now on a guy who presents as more normal who will be called a moderate even though he will vote just like the rest do, which is corporate fascist/hater.
Sucking up by supporting a truly evil R initiative won't help her win.
wjca,,, I meant that it doesn't work to get "moderate" Dems re-elected. Sellouts aren't respected by anyone and eventually get replaced by a Republican.
I am grateful and relieved that Ossof is more concerned about pleasing the Dem base than sucking up to Republicans the way Manchin did. The Manchin calculus--betray Dems at critical times in hopes of getting a few R votes--never worked. One of my pet peeves has been Dems who make that mistake. I'm fine with Ossof deciding to dance with those who brung him. I don't see this as meaning Ossof fails to see the fire. He's in GA. He sees the fire.
On “Weekend Music Thread music thread #09 In Russia, Christmas music sings you!”
Re: weather voice. Out here, the voice on the weather channel for boaters is referred to as "The Swede".
On “The Wiles Interview”
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.
"
"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.
"
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.
"
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?
"
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.
"
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
On “Author, author?”
HIs aides seem to think that MORE exposure of Trump being Trump will help him, but I don't think his performance on prime time went over all that well with anyone outside the cult--and might have been a bit cringy to some cult members. I know Trump and Republican media have degenerated the tone of our public discourse and normalized behavior which should seem disgusting, but even with that, how many people like being shouted at by a red-faced, angry old man?
"
Previously to this discussion, I assumed that Trump's posts were all his and expressed who he is. I wondered why some staffer person wasn't assigned the job of constantly checking and removing his posts. Then I read this excerpt from a a discussion about his top office manager: “There is this idea that people have that I think was very common in the first administration,” he told me, “that their objective was to control the president or influence the president, or even manipulate the president because they had to in order to serve the national interest. Susie just takes the diametrically opposite viewpoint, which is that she’s a facilitator, that the American people have elected Donald Trump. And her job is to actually facilitate his vision and to make his vision come to life.”
So Trump unleashed and uncensored, served straight without a mixer, is her goal. And if he stays up all night broadcasting out his character deficiencies and mental issues, so be it.
"
I guess I have been assuming that he wrote his own posts on the assumption that even his core supporters in his top admin aren't dumb enough to write that shit.
On “Weekend music thread #08 How do you get to Carnagie Hall?”
I used to have a Samoan client who showed me videos of Samoan marching bands--a very big thing there. He said that every town had a marching band. There's a big festival when marching bands from all over come to one city and march in a huge parade. Each band has a clown that messes with the band while they march--laying down in the road, running in and out of the ranks etc. I have no idea why the concept of a marching band resonated with Samoans. Maybe because they have a tradition of drumming and group singing combined with movement?
On “How are you sleeping?”
or a time after my father died I regularly had dreams where I would see him at a distance, sometimes across a large room full of people or on the street driving by. As I would get closer to him, his appearance would change and I’d realize it wasn’t him."
I have dreams like this only about cats. In the dream I see one of my long ago deceased cats and I am overwhelmed with guilt, thinking that I just forgot about the cat and have been ignoring it. Then I get into a fuss about whether or not it's my cat or just one that looks like my cat. I never raised a cat from a kitten. All of my cats were old when I got them and died within five or six years, so I have a lot of dead cats to remember--but I do remember all of them.
"
I agree with Russel in that I think dreams are often more than just random. I think they often are a way of working out or working on issues that concern the dreamer.
That said, sometimes dreams are just fun.
As a kid, I was able to set my mind to dream of flying. I loved to fly! My dreams were very realistic, right to feeling chilly. Ot scary at all. I wish I could still make myself dream that way.
"
I quit teaching over twenty years ago, but I still have dreams related to my job. A recurrent dream concerns IEPs--the required paperwork for each student, typically about 20 pages. I did 30 to 40 a year and never was late.
My dream is that it's May and I haven't started. I make futile attempts to find the necessary records and forms but can't. I seriously consider blowing the IEPs off and dumping the mess on other teachers. I've never done that in the dream because I always wake up first.
The other teaching dream involves being in the building on the first day, but I don't know what subjects I will be teaching or where my room is and I have no teaching materials. I used to get frantically worried in the dream but one night I thought, "Fuck it. This isn't my fault. I'm not going to feel bad. I am going to get mad instead."
So now that dream has a different story arc.
"
I have been trapped asleep but unable to awake multiple times, starting at elementary school age. I have taught myself to wake myself up by moving one of my arms. It can be very difficult, frustrating, and frightening.
On “It’s Your Party, you can cry if…”
The Mad King's Court of Fools Cabinet meeting is...well, a laugh or cry thing. One of the most astonishing aspects of it is that it was videoed and the video made public. The lack of self-awareness...Neom thanking Trump for keeping hurricanes away, Rubio saying that Trump alone can bring peace to the world while Trump slumps next to him, clearly asleep. The meeting started with one of Trump's hour-long rants about Biden. Apparently, that took up all of his energy because he kept nodding off during the rest of the meeting. His sycophants literally watched him sleeping through their suck up attempts. ‘Taking the gloves off’: Trump just held the Cabinet meeting from Hell | The Independent Absolute lunacy.
On “Am I missing something?”
I always think of the UK as more civilized than us, but they are human too. I'm burning my way through the Slough House series and there's a definite political subtext throughout about politics as cynical, stupid, and dominated by sociopaths. The author also takes frequent swipes at Trump.
On “Shabana burns the cakes”
I'm terrified of the future. The thought of millions of people dying at borders they aren't allowed to cross--dystopia is here already and science fiction nightmares are coming true.
Meanwhile the dogs are out from under the coffee table but I got a frantic phone call about a cat. The story is that she was seen by various people laying on the pavement and was there all night--supposedly was hit by a car, but she doesn't have any visible injuries. She spent the night at the neighbors' where she ate and was up walking around. Today she is at the sanctuary but not eating, not drinking, not moving. The lady who runs the sanctuary is trying to get her into a vet. She's a skinny little thing and, given the rain and the cold, she might have been hyperthermic and is just recovering. I'm bummed about it.
"
It seems that backlash against immigrants is a human nature thing that happens everywhere. And also it seems that political parties historically reformist, humane, and focused on public interest will throw someone under the bus to pander to the rightwing.
Meanwhile we are under siege. Horrible, terrifying noises from above. Thunks and bumps and the interminable whine of machinery. The dogs are crouching under the coffee table.
It's the guy blowing leaves off our roof.
On “Weekend Music Thread #06 Kile Smith”
Thank you for sharing your friend. A life well lived--and still being lived.
On “Spelunking for fun and profit”
Chris Harden for GA 11!!! (6) | Facebook He seems like a very nice, reasonable guy. I'll follow him and I sent a small donation.
"
I didn't say moderates can't get elected. I think our problem is the word "moderate" which is so ambiguous in meaning when it comes to politics.
To me, a moderate is a person who is thoughtful, fact oriented, works to solve problems, believes in public service and is not overly ideological or obsessed by any particular issue--temperamentally moderate and open to intellectually honest discussion.
Manchin didn't seem to have much in the way of convictions at all beyond self-promotion and voted R at critical times when his vote could have made a difference in terms of good government--apparently because he saw some advantage to himself.
Another example is Gusenkamp Perez in WA. I sent money to her campaign and wrote GOTV letters for her. She won in a rural red district so I expected support for the timber industry and didn't expect a lot of anti-trump rhetoric. However she voted FOR the Republican voter suppression bill (that failed). Why on earth? Did she do it because Republicans were spreading lies about people voting illegally and she didn't want to contradict the lies? Evidently she felt a need to vote R on an R issue even though her vote was in support of an immoral effort based on lies.
THAT kind of "trying for the middle" is the kind that doesn't work. All she did was piss off her voters and I doubt if she picked up a single R vote. The only reason she won before is because the Rs chose such an obvious wacko to run. They are focusing now on a guy who presents as more normal who will be called a moderate even though he will vote just like the rest do, which is corporate fascist/hater.
Sucking up by supporting a truly evil R initiative won't help her win.
"
wjca,,, I meant that it doesn't work to get "moderate" Dems re-elected. Sellouts aren't respected by anyone and eventually get replaced by a Republican.
"
I am grateful and relieved that Ossof is more concerned about pleasing the Dem base than sucking up to Republicans the way Manchin did. The Manchin calculus--betray Dems at critical times in hopes of getting a few R votes--never worked. One of my pet peeves has been Dems who make that mistake. I'm fine with Ossof deciding to dance with those who brung him. I don't see this as meaning Ossof fails to see the fire. He's in GA. He sees the fire.
"
Republicans demand tougher abortion restrictions to extend Obamacare funds
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.