Listening to Harris postmortem podcast now - one interesting point Harris flaks raise is they knew they needed to pivot to the center on several issues, but they judged attempting wouldn’t be credible, would only draw attention to how leftwing her actual policy commitments are
Plouffe says the top five people on the Harris campaign spend hundreds(??) of hours trying to decide how to respond to the they/them ad
The Dem flaks believe that the Trump campaign was explicitly targeting the they/them ad at blacks in Philly and Atlanta markets, but they seem to imply the ultimate effect of the ad was not on blacks but (therefore by implication) on whites
They don’t say this outright but trans issue was tough for them because real problem was voters both (1) hated the Biden/Harris trans policy, and (2) hated that it was a higher policy priority than the economy. I can see how it’s hard to run “I don’t care” ads
Lol. Remember how a few weeks ago Trump’s non-campaign led GOTV effort was pathetically, historically bad? Now it is “so well coordinated it must be criminal”
This is so bizarre. They are so frustrated by the coordination issue. Apparently Dem non-profits are really terrible
Maybe this is why everyone got 30 text messages a day and dozens of flyers, it wasn’t a deliberate strategy but a clusterfudge? (They seem shocked that GOP orgs could take turns doing certain states on alternate weeks or something, so Dems must have been unable to divide tasks)
They are discussing dumb podcast stuff now, so I’m just stewing about how mendacious Dems/journos are. They were gaslighting everyone about how Trump was going to flop because of the “weird” GOTV strategy while privately seething about how good it was.
The Cheneys / neocons / generals / CIA stuff was apparently how the Dem flaks think about median voter theory. They knew they needed to peel away right-leaning voters, didn’t want to debate policy, and thought ex-GOP hawks was the right way to do it. Strange!
Subtext in this whole conversation is all of these flaks knew the economy and especially inflation was a major issue. Zero ambivalence, none of this sad inflation denialism low-level Dem loyalists on twitter feel compelled to engage in
A motif they keep returning to, and one lady is now hitting explicitly, is they think the Harris campaign did “well” because the swing to Trump was way harder in non-battleground states (where they weren’t campaigning). Idk if that’s right, but it’s a reasonable cope
Another theme they return to again and again is “not enough time”. The Harris campaign apparently had shamefully time-intensive management practices - everything burnt time, apparently nothing could be delegated to subordinates despite the huge size of their staff
Earlier they were talking about how the initial weeks of the campaign were dead bc they needed to re-plan the convention. First that’s stupid, second we know they didn’t do it carefully because they didn’t even bother to rewrite the damn DNC platform, ctrl-F “Biden”
… so they must have been dealing with truly criminal shiftlessness and malfeasance from low-level campaign staff. They also discuss internal pushback on ads in a way that suggests all kinds of griping were elevated to the top level… what? That’s a choice and imo a terrible one
All right that’s it. Many ppl are asking, this is Pod Save America “Top Harris Staff reveal what went wrong” (the one where Plouffe admits in the first few minutes their polling always had Kamala behind in all the battleground states)
I think it’s a little different. The main issue is elite consensus. Between roughly 1976 and 2016 there was a large (and gradually growing) list of issues where 70% of Americans felt one way, and 95% of people working in politics and media, and their donors, felt the opposite
It was ALWAYS the case, from the 1890s if not earlier, that leftists were traitors, transgressives, bomb-throwers and were happy to violate social and political norms to score points, or even for its own sake. That has been a political constant for over a century
The thing that changed is that from roughly the 1950s-1970s the US (like many Western powers) had done a ton of experiments with leftism. Most of them had failed and people on the ground didn’t like the results. That is where the 70%+ popular consensus comes from
More to the point, the original definition of “the Dark Age” was the age for which (medieval) historians knew of very few events per year, few names and associated with those events, and little else about the people those names belonged to. That is the *definition*!
Any argument about these periods needs to take that as its starting point, and argue about how bad it “really” was substantively, and/or how bad the long term consequences were
For example, I would say that while clearly peace and order suffered, and both libraries and the intellectual apparatus to interpret them suffered from lack of resources, the Dark Ages were a happy period of capital formation and technical innovation
The POW/MIA issue is one of the most shameful episodes in American history.
1. There were 1200 American POWs in Vietnam at the time of the Paris accords. We know this bc Vietnamese negotiators told Soviet counterparts this, and the Soviet archives were opened 30 years later
2. The Vietnamese intended to tie US POWs to issue of reparations/ransom. We know this bc they told the Soviets, they told the Americans, and they successfully held POWs for ransom after French withdrawal decades earlier
3. In the end the US agreed to a notional $3.25b of reconstruction aid to North Vietnam, *subject to Congressional approval*, and the Vietnamese accepted that and returned ~600 prisoners. What happened to the other 600? They were considered surety for the $3.25b, probably…
If your white, English daughter was in Rotherham during the years the grooming gangs were active, there was a 1 in 3 chance she would be gang-raped by Pakistani men, in some cases repeatedly for months - see next tweet for numbers (which I know, seem insane)
Numbers are from a few years later but population structure didn’t change much. The victims were clustered in an age-cohort of about 4 years: about 5,500 girls that age in all Rotherham. Victims all English, who are only 75% of the population. So … (cont’d)
1.4k / (5.5k*0.75 ) = 33.9% chance of being gang-raped. They were literally just plucking any middle-schooler they wanted off the street to rape, and the Labor government that protected them for years now wants to apply the same principles to the whole UK.
Since everyone seems to have a take: if leftist poors can openly call for assassinations but all other poors can get fired for very milquetoast observations, it creates the impression leftism is legally mandatory. Thus leftist poors must be persecuted to protect the others (1/2)
However this is a dishonorable job and I suggest anyone with self-respect leave hunting cashiers and the like to bottom-feeding grifters who will gladly smear themselves in muck for attention.(2/2)
This is a fairly unpopular position on the dissident/intellectual right, but the climate change policy agenda is an obvious scam and the proof is what do people who claim to fear climate change DO? Do they maximize production of goods in Europe + embargo China and India? No, lol
Remember, in a free market if you make it harder/costlier to produce in UK, the same good can be produced elsewhere and sold to UK. So to a first approximation it makes sense to consider total global product demand as fixed, and ask where the products are manufactured
So you impose a “carbon tax” on domestic production of an aluminim can in UK/EU/Aus, and what is effect? Small decrease in amount of soda westerners drink, and almost same number of aluminum cans produced in India/China with 2x-8x more carbon (+OOM more toxic chemicals)