This is very unconvincing analysis, and Kraushaar is a right-wing hack with a whiny anti-mask agenda. Biden and Polis's approval on COVID is quite obviously a function of their overall popularity and not their divergent approaches to masking.
Rather than determining the popularity of mask rules through strange bankshot-style reading of overall approval ratings, we can directly ask poll questions about masking. And poll after poll shows that people are simply not very bothered by masks or mask mandates.
Frankly, the reason we keep looking for ways to prove that people are up in arms about masks is that a small segment of the population, badly overrepresented in political writing, finds them personally annoying, and are sure their preferences are of huge political consequence.
Of course, all of our Official Very Smart Boys have bought into the "get rid of masks, become popular" theory, which of course has nothing to do with the fact they personally have spent the entire pandemic talking about how all the precautions are an overreaction.
If you're going to assign political outcomes directly to COVID messaging (which I'm skeptical of), this is a MUCH more plausible interpretation, that fits better with two years of polling data showing support for vaccines and masks, than Kraushaar's theory about "alarmism"
The vast majority are vaccinated, the vast majority are concerned about COVID, majorities support masks and mandates. It makes a lot more sense that people want politicians who will crack down on COVID and its anti-vax enablers, not politicians who will ease off and chill out.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If you can stand watching them, the videos of the LAPD mall shooting really are revealing. You can see in real time how a bad situation was only worsened by the introduction of a bunch of scrambling cops armed with military weaponry and dim-bulb grasp of commando tactics.
There's a moment where they get off the top of the escalator that could be a comedy in a different context - one cop shouts, not reassuringly, "ALL VICTIMS COME TO US," while another keeps hectoring the rest of the group to get into "diamond formation."
Then someone spots the suspect and the whole tactical thing seems to break down as they run directly at him, with the cop who pulled the trigger barging to the front while everyone else shouts for him to slow down. And he immediately blows away the suspect and a 14-year old.
This the problem, though. The top tier of political punditry functions like any other fraternity. You assume all brothers are good brothers. If someone does something that isn't good, you look the other way. And it functions this way for much the same reason fraternities do.
This requirement, that you look the other way and extend everyone a presumption of good intentions, becomes a tool for policing entry. They say "Anyone is welcome as long as you don't impugn motives!" ...and then pull out some guy who thinks Dems should embrace racialized slurs.
Guess who survives that test? Hint: not a lot of black and brown people, for starters.
Great piece by @ryanlcooper, this part in particular. Liberals sometimes seem to struggle to sort between things that FEEL smart ("They go low, we go high," "People want a boring president") and what actually WORKS (shouting at the top of your lungs 24/7). msnbc.com/opinion/biden-…
@ryanlcooper As liberals I think we're susceptible to the idea that politics is a delicate fencing match, likely to be won by the smartest person, with the savviest, most sophisticated plan. But that just doesn't comport with the reality, where Donald Trump's party keeps eating our lunch.
@ryanlcooper No one is saying Biden should "emulate Trump's behavior." They're saying that Biden is receiving no credit for presiding over a remarkably strong economy, and it's probably partly because Democrats aren't making enough noise about that economy.
I still really think it was a huge mistake for the White House and other Democrats to center Manchin so much. They were trying to flatter him with solicitous attention, but the more attention he's gotten, the more of a petulant diva he has become.
Imagine a scenario where the bill was what it was, negotiated among the caucus, but the line to Manchin from the start was "Either you support it and this party does something, or you don't and it doesn't." Deny him the opportunity to spend a year as shadow president.
Instead, what's happened is, the BBB negotiation was conducted in a way where Manchin raised his profile by being obstinate. The more temper tantrums he threw, the more everyone rushed to hear his every whim. Can't cater to that toxic dynamic.
In case you want to diagnose what's wrong with the Democratic Party, consider this: 1. The entire agenda of the party appears miserably dead 2. There isn't even a hint of a suggestion among strong partisans that different people should be in charge
Dems make fun of the GOP's slavish devotion to Trump, but the GOP actually has a much better track record of rotating leaders after failure, while Democrats respond to failure by producing ever-more-elaborate excuses for why the same network of people should stay in charge
The problems Democrats are suffering are the problems you see when accountability fails in an institution: buck-passing after failure, leaders so long entrenched that changing them becomes unthinkable, a power structure built around personal loyalty rather than performance
Yes, Dems need every single vote. That means progressive senators are going to have to vote for a bill they can support, but don't love. Why doesn't Manchin also have to compromise in the same way?
This only makes sense if we assume that THE ONLY BILL MANCHIN WILL VOTE FOR is one that MEETS HIS EXACT PREFERENCES, which is possible, but deeply improbable.
Come on guys, if Manchin says "I don't care, I'll walk away right now, final offer," the correct response is "This is the oldest bartering tactic in the known universe," not "Oh my god! Give him everything he wants! We're beaten!" medium.com/@whstancil/the…