Yes, I think some people think "Dems will lose" is an objective analysis & will say, "My job is to tell the truth & not advocate for Dems." Here's the "truth," as I see it. Dems have an uphill battle. There are also many things that make this year different than previous midterms
Dems have a structural disadvantage, to be sure. And typical midterm dynamics favor the out-party. But this disadvantage is not necessarily a force of gravity that applies equally every season. What factors are different this time around?
The relevant midterm seasons to use as points of comparison are w/in presidents' 1st terms. 2002 doesn't count. So looking at 1994, 2010, & 2018:
-Young voters fall off in midterms. Many didn't even know 2010 was happening. Now, tho, elections are more visible due to social media
-Biden's agenda is also popular & doesn't appear to be losing steam w/ the public. By this point in 1993, 2009, & 2017, the presidents' agendas were generating backlash.
-GOP is making *no* economic argument against BBB, except that it "costs too much."
-In fact, the GOP is not making any economic argument at all. It's all culture war all the time. 1994 & 2010 were highly fueled by culture wars, but this was all wrapped up in a disingenuous economic bow. Not so this time around.
-There was just an insurrection. This hurts the GOP. It helps them to hide from it, just like what happened in VA
-The GOP is so radically right-wing at this point, that they will likely nominate a bunch of extremely radical far-rightists. These far-rightists will get media att'n
-GOP was HELPED in VA by cancelling their primary & preventing their own voters from having a say.
-That's not going to happen in every contest. GOP voters will nominate extremists. These extremists, due to social media, will get more att'n than in 2010
Am I pollyannish about 2022? No. Like I said, Dems have an uphill battle. But there's no reason--whether you're a Dem advocate or a neutral analyst--to treat any election as a foregone conclusion. And there is every reason to note many factors distinguish this season from others.
And really pay attention to how the extremists GOP voters nominate *could* spread negative attention to other races. The GA primary is set to be ugly & racist. And Stacey Abrams is a national figure. This could turn more eyes to elections everywhere.
Were people on social media en masse talking about the 2010 midterms in 12/09? Not really. That alone makes this year different. So if you *are* a Dem advocate, your job is to cement this election in the minds of everyone you know. To start registering voters + organizing *now*
Remember the GA Special in January? Dems weren't at *such* a disadvantage there than they will be overall in 2022, but they still weren't really favored to win. Perdue & Loeffler--esp. Loeffler--pissed off the Black church & paid the consequences.
Time to stop doing what? I regret to inform you, but there will be COVID restrictions in responsible places as long as there are enough unvaccinated people who get sick enough to crush hospital systems. It's not gonna stop until there's some level of community-immunity.
I can't take it w/ the "when will it stop" questions anymore. Mass vaccination won't solve everything, but it will make this situation much more manageable. That's the first step in it "stopping." Until then, yeah, governments have to ensure their hospitals still work.
Sorry.
We've been yelling this since March 2020 and people still do not get it. At the bottom line, this is about ensuring hospitals can function. When hospitals don't function, everyone suffers. Transplants & cancer care delayed. Car crashes are infinitely more dangerous.
Public awareness of the GOP's ongoing anti-democratic actions is, I think, rather weak. Our electoral system is so convoluted that the danger is obscured. That's one reason why we need to start calling Trump's plan to overturn the 2020 election what it was: an attempted soft coup
I don't know that everyone is connecting the dots about the state electors. That's not the public's fault. Unless you're *deep* into this stuff, "replacing state electors" doesn't sound that nefarious, nor is the relevance of this action for the next election very clear.
If we call the plan that unfolded from November 2020 to January 2021 by its proper name--an attempted soft coup--this will provide the public with a more salient framework for understanding the GOP's current plan vis a vis 2024.
Per Politico, Mark Meadows sent an email on Jan 5th about having National Guard on standby to protect "pro-Trump" people. Per previous reporting by the WAPO, some Pentagon leaders feared Trump would misuse the National Guard. Others feared the Guard would be baited into violence
Per the WAPO report, Top Brass even changed the chain of command for ordering deployment of the National Guard, which, reportedly, may have led to a delay on January 6th. washingtonpost.com/politics/inter…
Also per the WAPO, on 1/3, the Capitol Police Chief requested National Guard be stationed at the Capitol. He was rebuffed. Mayor Bowser was also worried about the Guard abandoning their posts on Jan 6 (being pro-Trump). Others, in military & in Congress, cited optics concerns
I deleted my tweets about student loan reform b/c it's an issue that matters a lot to me personally & politically & I felt I was being misunderstood, which was perhaps my own fault. I was maybe not very clear. I do, however, continue to stand by my thoughts.
Here is what I think, hopefully more concisely:
-I am pro-forgiveness
-Student debt affects me personally
-I don't think people should be shut out of the economy for a paper they signed when they were 18
-I also think that pro-forgiveness people should be more inclusive
I have always been passionately for some level of relief, both b/c it would materially impact my life & the lives of many others, & b/c I think it would be objectively good for the economy. I also think that folks like me need to listen to disadvantaged people who feel left out.
Will we ever be completely COVID-free? Probably not. But the way to get to a much more manageable situation and "normal life" is to get as much of the population vaccinated as possible & to also invest in vaccinating the world.
Just because a set of people insist on lighting the off ramp on fire does not mean the off ramp does not exist. Stop setting it on fire and it will work really great.
I listened to this full segment & what's ultimately most frustrating is that Bruenig is taking an isolationist stance & couching it in terms of moral reasoning. "The US shouldn't be the world's police therefore intervention is bad" is not a thoughtful analysis of human welfare
I should say that I agree w/ Bruenig that military action should be avoided at all costs. I also agree we have other tools at our disposal. And I agree we shouldn't be the world's police.
What's frustrating about Bruenig's analysis is the rather facile way she approaches the humanitarian question. She says the only justification for intervention would be 3rd Reich Level actions. When asked to clarify this point, she only says we shouldn't be the world's police.