Tbh @Tyler_A_Harper, the “pipeline” is very real—it describes so many young men I know.
The problem is Democrats see Bernie as *causative* here; he drove them away from Dems and to MAGA. Of course, the opposite is true: they would’ve stayed Dems with a Bernie-style platform
We should absolutely talk about the reality that tons of low-info, low-propensity, and politically disengaged voters loved Bernie and flocked to him. But he put off the highly-engaged base of the Democratic Party.
Problem is, Dems needed those low-info voters after all
And once Dems ceded them—not only by ditching Bernie, but by *deliberately trying to alienate* those voters, with explicit calls to fuck off and get out of Our Party—Trump started picking them up. Because, like Bernie, he can articulate a broad moral narrative about the economy
It’s a very different moral narraitve. It blames different groups and it proposes awful solutions. But Bernie and Trump could both speak to the kind of voters that need a low-resolution, generalized understanding of economic life. “Things hurt. Here’s who to blame. I’ll fix it.”
Dems win the voters who actually pay attention to policy and have some kind of reasonable political memory, sure. But I have a coworker who, in early 2024, forgot Trump was President. She thought Hillary had won. She used to be a Dem and now she’s a Trump voter.
Bernie spoke to people like that, and I know Democrats absolutely loathe the idea of being in coalition with such people, but you need them to win. Problem is, Dems don’t want to win. They want to get the votes from The Good People, they don’t want Bad Person votes!
For a party premised on technocratic proficiency, instead of on values, the goal is to have The Right People in charge
Which, of course, naturally spills over into having The Right Voters. The party self-conceptualizes as being about competency, not moral vision. Not values.
So, to a party that thinks about itself this way—a party for the top performers, the 4.0 students, the science-believers, the experience-respecters, the credentialed professionals who love a Slow Boring chart—it would be a bad sign to win low-info, low-propensity voters
The perfect form of this Democratic Party is one that keeps expanding its margins in DC while shrinking everywhere else. It’s a party for people who Get It, the Insiders, the Ball-Knowers, and, yes…the “elite.” It’s an elitist self-conception! They like that!
So Dems will keep screeching at the kind of low-info voters that Bernie was so good at moving. And they’ll pat themselves on the back with smug certainty when those voters leave to the GOP. “See? I knew they were rotten all along. That why I told them to fuck off.”
The Dems will trot out Liz Cheney a million times, in vain, because they don’t *want* the low-info Gen Z male swing voter. They don’t want the disengaged Latino family in south Texas. They only swing voters they want, talk like Mitt Romney.
Because the Dems don’t want to win. They only want to win The Correct Voters. The smart people. The degreed and credentialed defenders of norms and democracy. And they’re fucked as long as they stay stuck in that framework.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I really think if Harris loses, it won't just be about a bad campaign and a bad candidate. Looking at the polling on immigration, homelessness, and crime (among other issues), the country has lurched right pretty hard in just the last few years. I think because of COVID
People experienced a collective crisis, which demanded concerted action and sacrifice in order to protect the whole public--but especially the most vulnerable. And they hated it! They got exhausted with it very quickly. They wanted to go "back to normal" ASAP
This exhaustion seems like a big part of the rightward shift of the median voter. Where before they might've felt compelled to care--or at least pretend to care--about, say, homeless people, now there's a misanthropic apathy. "just lock 'em up, or kill 'em."
It seems bad that once our society started to take child sexual abuse more seriously, people became increasingly fixated on the “sexual” part and not the “abuse” part.
Like, we now have a society where a shockingly large number of people think children will be suffer harm analogous to CSA by *reading* about sex and sexuality, but are totally uninterested in dismantling the systems of authority and hierarchy that abusers exploit to find victims
We are utterly uninterested in restricting the kind of petty tyrannies wielded by bosses, coaches, priests—and yes, unfortunately, parents—that consistently result in abuse, but we are very interested in putting some on who says “balls” out loud at Disneyland into the stockade
Taibbi has obviously gone insane, but an interesting nugget here:
He says republicans have “very little institutional power”, and cites schools, universities, and newsrooms. No mention of business, police, or…government. That’s invisible in his analysis of power! Fascinating
This obsession with media and education is pretty universal among Taibbi-style “why I left the left” types, or what you might call cosmopolitan reactionaries
Ironically, they replicate the cultural turn of the New Left that shaped them—they’re obsessed with cultural reproduction
And they have a corresponding lack of focus on institutional power in the realms of organized capital and organized violence.
Like, “if power is ever transferred to the opposition, then they’ll destroy the institutions which enable peaceful transfer of power” means you’re already cooked. It’s over. The liberal order is fatally weakened.
Dems cant admit this, though
Dems can’t admit that the liberal institutions they love are dying, because those institutions are their whole raison d’etre as a party. They are proceduralists above all else. Their faith is in *a way of doing things* more than specific outcomes
Cause, see, she had $8k after rent to pay for her other needs back in 2020. Now, she has $9k after rent. Again, that’s good right? $1k gain!
Except…that’s only a 12.5% increase in her *ex post rent* income. Not that big lovely 20% increase in her gross income.
Which means, her income *after paying rent* actually hasn’t kept pace with inflation, which, excluding cost of shelter, is up 16% compared to her post-rent 12.5% increase in income. And food is up 24%, so after rent and food—the shit you need to live!—she’s even MORE behind.
Honestly “trans women are women” had to be one of the worst political slogans of all time.
It’s the kind of messaging that calls attention to the idea that there’s a debate—it’s the classic “don’t think of an elephant” problem—and sounds condescending & platitudinal
Like, it simultaneously makes clear that this is a contested ontology, then asserts its position without any persuasion at all.
We’ve seen in persuasion science how this kind of messaging works, this sort of authoritative voice that nonetheless implies objections exist
Generally speaking, this kind of messaging produces a *negative* reaction in audiences and makes them *less likely* to agree with the speaker.
We’ve seen this with for example “vaccines are safe and effective!” type messaging. It makes people trust vaccines *less*