I have a suspicion. Not a prediction. Or maybe it's a prediction but I won't frame it as such, because I like to be cautious. The basic fundamentals of American political life have shifted and will continue to shift into 2024. All in the Democrats' favor.
It's Roe. It's the clear lunacy of the GOP. It's the conservative court making multiple anti-left decisions at once, thus tying these same decisions to the conservatives who appointed them. It's also climate. And then Generation Z. And how Gen Z interacts with all of the above.
I'll write more about this later, but I think those who follow me do know I try to be cautious. I am still being cautious & I have felt this way for a while. The feeling becomes stronger. I believe I am right. The fundamentals are changing & it's of descriptive benefit to say so
I almost think it has to do less w/ Trump indictments than it does w/ these interconnected things: 1. Dobbs, 2. climate change, 3. Generation Z's investment in both.
And, for the first time in my lifetime, SCOTUS linking itself so incontrovertibly against several issues at once
I'm not sure how else to say this, but I do not think that disaffected youth voting will be as it has been in other elections, like 2000 or 2016. No matter how "old" Joe Biden is. It's not going to be the same.
Again, no real predictions. We all must vote. No complacency. But can't we feel, for a moment, not complacent, but power? Can we not recognize the objective state of the other sides' weakness while also committing to action? I think we can. They are weak. We are strong.
I am not complacent. They can still win. They are too dangerous to take with a grain of salt. But I feel it--this shift in the political atmosphere--and instead of saying, "Oh maybe we who'll have a Dem primary 😭" maybe we should just start saying, "we're stronger than they are"
This I will say:
Empirical facts: Republicans are weaker than they should be; Dems are stronger, relatively
Subjective impressions: Something is happening. A huge cultural political shift; climate+abortion are drivers.
+ Generation Z.
Democrats & affiliates can be scared because we have reason to be scared. But we can also accurately describe, even in our fear, the strategic position of the other side. And the most accurate description of that other side is that they are weak.
I will add that the more we descriptively portray this clear weakness, the greater the weakness will become. Why do we keep calling these weak, weak, weak people strong?
Look at Ron DeSantis. Did he, prior to the November 2022 election, ever display strength? No. People just wanted him to be strong. And that worked. Until more people came into contact with him.
I propose we use this lesson to address the rest of the GOP.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I have been reading a lot of commentary on the State of Georgia v. Donald J. Trump & a common thread appears to be, "this may be too sprawling to win." My own, very subjective, opinion, is that we need a case exactly as sprawling as this for Americans to get to the truth.
Again, just my opinion, but here it is: no, I would not want prosecutors a clunky, unwinnable case against Trump et al. I would, however, want them to bring the largest case that is *possible* to win, as only such a case will bring us maximal truth. We need the whole story.
Would I make this argument in almost any other case? Likely not. I'd say get Capone on tax evasion, etc. etc. However, in this case, as we face an ongoing threat to our democracy, the truth, the whole tangled web of it, is, to me, is the most essential requisite for true justice
There are concrete reasons to believe this. LGBTQ people in general are stepping up citizen-security at events. Multiple states have passed anti-trans laws. In addition to this, I fear the GOP primary will feature so much anti-trans hate as to be tantamount to stochastic terror
Trans people have a political target on their backs. They are particularly vulnerable b/c their population numbers are small & their communities are geographically dispersed. These are a just subset of many interacting variables that leave trans people in danger.
When I say "danger," I mean physical danger & legal discrimination. I also mean danger of immense psychological harm. The daily stress of one's identity becoming political fodder. Going out into the world after a GOP debate where Trump & DeSantis try to out-anti-trans one another
This is what many people are missing. The current conversation is a politically-motivated attack against sincere scientists in a broader war on science. Private messages can be misleading, particularly to a public that does not understand the science. Republicans banked on this.
It is of grave concern that this is occurring. Let me explain the broader situation, as I see it unfolding. Science has been increasingly politicized over the past decades. COVID accelerated this. Additionally, COVID changed both the academic & public scientific marketplaces.
How and why did the marketplaces change? No matter what your age--Silent Generation to Zoomer--none of us have experienced a scientific event of such *urgent* and *obvious* impact to the *global* public as COVID19, a global pandemic that shut down economies & crashed hospitals
I'm not quote-tweeting this to be aggressive, but, rather, to clearly elucidate my thinking. I believe that criticism of the language in article boils down to the usage of "plausible." I 1. believe these criticisms are made in good faith & 2. disagree w/ the criticisms
I have carefully considered this passage, having also *first* thought that perhaps "we do not believe. . .is plausible" was too strongly worded, which can be an artifact of peer-review; multi-authorship, etc. By which I mean="too strongly worded" doesn't entail "nefarious"
Why did I ultimately weigh on the side of "we do not believe. . .is possible" was fine. B/c the authors are clear from the outset that they are selecting from multiple hypotheses & that they will tentatively weigh in favor of the most parsimonious, given all available evidence.
I reviewed the leaked Slack messages between the authors of "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2" (pub. 3/2020) & I firmly endorse @whstancil's summation, here. The messages reveal no bias, but, rather, the opposite: principled scientists running through every possible scenario.
Perhaps the most infuriating trend is charging @K_G_Andersen w/ some kind of conspiracy when, in fact, he simply showed stringent dedication to the scientific process. I expect this from propaganda agents, but not the mainstream press.
I've struggled with how to "fact-check" the nature of the chat against the claims made by @NateSilver538 & others. Frankly, it's a difficult business. It's very easy to spread conspiracy about science b/c the nature of the science is almost impenetrable to the general public.
It's amazing how so many political analysts have not grasped the fact that Dobbs profoundly changed the fundamentals of American elections. This should have been the lesson coming out of the 2022 midterms, yet it is largely ignored in 2024 prognostications.
For the GOP, Dobbs is the proverbial "dog-that-caught-the car." For decades, they created a landscape in which it was rhetorically--but rhetorically alone--seemingly "ugly" to be pro-choice. There are multiple factors at play here, but at the heart of it there is this. . . .
Americans, by & large, want abortion to exist. Americans also, by & large, didn't want to talk about abortion, at least pre-Dobbs. This, along with the "pro-life" brand, gave Republicans a huge rhetorical--and therefore political--advantage as long as federal protections existed.