One of my favorite things about this is that it still would have been a dick move for the Cruzes to fly to Boston (cold, but with electricity), but the headlines would not have been nearly as sticky as WTF CANCUN?! "They went to BOSTON" just doesn't have the same punch.
The Cruzes could have picked nearly any place in the U.S. and they may have gotten criticized for it but the story would have faded. Instead they had to pick Cancun of all places & thus officially entered "Once he tied his dog on top of his car" territory.
republicans do monstrous things all the time and fly under the radar but every once in a while there's the one story that sticks. Typically unrelated to policy, but more to obvious character traits where people will almost universally be appalled or at least afflicted w/ side eye
(Trump is the exception here)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
What even *is* the "Bernie wing of the party"? Are we talking about an online group of people who thrive on mass harassment or are we talking about progressives more generally? If it's the former, sure they hate Tanden. If it's the latter, there's not an issue here.
I keep hearing about the "Bernie wing" having some massive beef with Tanden, and, yet, Robert Reich, Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Barbara Lee, & many others--including several progressive economists--cheered her nomination to OMB.
So is the "Bernie wing" actually just the progressive wing or is it just a collection of anonymous trolls, podcasters, & Bernie's problematic ex-Comms staff? The latter collection of folks sure do hate Tanden, but. . . .
I deleted a thread about Yglesias's "One Billion Americans." From the excerpts I read, I believed that Yglesias was arguing for mass immigration regardless of country of origin &/or ed background. I have now learned he uses the phrase "better immigrants," which is indefensible.
My view: more immigration is good, as is expansion of the safety net. Immigration should not be based on educational background, language, or country of origin. Lots of immigration=good. Any argument that invokes "good" immigrants=bad.
I apologize for having defended a book that uses the term "better immigrants." This terminology is contrary to my understanding of the arguments based on excerpts I read. I regret having defended a work that uses this terminology, which I find very offensive.
This isn't a plausible characterization at all, on multiple levels. It's not a good description of Clinton's campaign and, perhaps more importantly, it's not well supported by data indicating much of Sanders' 2016 support was less ideologically leftist & more anti-Clinton.
I don't know how you can look at how Sanders lost support in Iowa, MI, New Hampshire, & even Vermont in 2020 and come to the conclusion that he was specifically harmed by some kind of "identity politics" campaign in 2016.
If anything, the more reasonable conclusion is that HrC was harmed by "identity politics" (if we must use that term), such that misogyny seemed to help her male challenger. I'm not saying that all Bernie supporters are misogynists, but it's pretty clear that was a factor for some
Daily reminder that "Europe" is not one place. Also: racism exists in all European countries, though the nature of racism & how specific groups are targeted converges in some areas and diverges in others.
Typically, when people say "Europe," I think they mean Western Europe. Or, when they're talking about healthcare, they might mean Northern Europe. They rarely mean Eastern Europe. regardless, even though there are w/in region correlations, countries are still quite distinct.
Such that, for example, political dynamics in France may correlate more w/ other Western EU countries than w/ Poland or Hungary, but French political/social dynamics are still in many ways distinct from political/social dynamics in Germany or Italy.
I'm not sure what "racialized worldview" means in this context, but it doesn't really matter. What we're talking about here is what is empirically true vs. false. Class realignment is occurring *w/in* white voters as a group. Working class POC vote overwhelmingly Democratic.
If you count POC w/in the working class (& I don't know why you wouldn't, unless you have some other agenda), working class voters, as a group, vote for Dems. cnn.com/election/2020/…
(These are 2020 exit polls, so the typical caveats apply. They paint a broad brush, so should be viewed carefully. That said, these exits line up with the broader empirical trend we saw both in 2020 & longitudinally)
There are a lot of things that are wrong with this piece, but to name a few:
WWC voters leaving the Dem party is not a new phenomenon but part of a longer trend that was briefly interrupted by 2008. The trend restarted in 2012, which was why Dems were freaked out about PA.
A lot of this is about "culture" (ahem, racism; abortion) which should be blatantly obvious given the WWC hemorrhage began in the post Civil rights era. What is relatively new is that higher ed voters are re-aligning at a faster pace than they were previously.