How does one come up with the list of things it's okay for Democrats to compromise on versus those that it's not okay, without falling for the pundit's fallacy ("taking up the pundit's policy positions is the best possible move")?
I think there likely was already a need for more more moderate candidates (i.e., more of them, and more moderate) than we've seen. And for moderation of the brand. Yes, moving away from *my* policy preferences.
But I don't think that Josh Barro is the most credible messenger on this. He was already preaching this message before Callais. The question is not quieter he can say that same thing again to the same audience. The question is whether anyone who used to think otherwise is now willing to say this.
I don't think anyone is going to be convinced by Josh Barro repeating an old message in a new circumstance.
It's not enough. The Democrat brand is dead in many areas of the country and it will take years to rehab. We need an independent & Dem coalition or something akin to that.
I truly hope this happens! I also hope that a bunch of those who voted for our leader will stay home this time around thinking it isn't important enough to vote. Many of those just vote for the President every 4 years. So I'm going to do a fingers cross move both in the primaries and general election this year.
Josh - liked the post, but curios you wrote: "To win a majority in the Senate, we have to consistently win states like Georgia and be competitive in even more conservative states like Ohio and Iowa. It is a high and unfair hurdle... What is unfair, I did not see an explanation for what you thought was unfair, can you explain?
Thank you for your response, could we discuss this a bit further? What is unfair about Republican Senators winning their elections in the years a Republican President happens to win the Presidency but loses the national popular vote?
It’s the structure that’s unfair, not if Republicans win the presidency and senate races, per se.
The states that Democrats have to win in order to take the senate are center-right and to the right of the median voter. That gives Republicans more breathing room to be able to still win in those states, even they are unpopular and in a down year (like this year is shaping up to be, for example).
If Republicans taking the senate had to go through, say, Colorado or Minnesota, they’d be the ones at a disadvantage.
Is it unfair or a disadvantage. You claim both, but these are 2 different things. I am willing to agree with disadvantage, still cannot see what is unfair.
I guess you can quibble with semantics. Disadvantaged, certainly.
I don’t think it’s fair that each state has two senators, whether it’s North Dakota or California. That’s a structural disadvantage and unfair. But even that depends on your frame of reference. A conservative might call that asymmetrical but procedurally fair (each state is represented with equal senators). Democrats would more convincingly say (in my view) that the asymmetry itself is unfair and structurally disadvantageous.
Actually this is not semantics. Unfair heavily implies that a person or group is being treated poorly, unequally, or dishonestly by others. Disadvantage does not imply one person is being treated poorly by others.
I've never understood why we don't deal with issues like trans kids in sports in more rational ways. For example, boxing has different weight classes. Why not upper limits on strength for soccer teams or certain positions within teams? Or trans kids train in tennis but don't compete in tournaments -- it would hardly disadvantage the top women to train against strong opponents. If we actually wanted to be fair to trans kids and women we would make this work.
I think it's about being practical and strategic, less academic and dogmatic. Josh has pointed out before that some trans interest groups have not been practical and strategic, compared with gay rights groups. And whoever convinced Moslem-Americans in Michigan not to vote for Kamala Harris because she wasn't sufficiently pro-Palestinian obviously committed a grave strategic error.
I've seen Democrats and progressive groups engage in empty tokenism that doesn't actually advance the interests of the disadvantaged and leaves out voters the party needs. One example is the Women's March, which printed beautiful, iconic posters of African-American, Hispanic, and Moslem women. 80-90 percent of actual attendees at the Women's March were white women and at five to 10 percent were white men, and there were Asian-American participants, too. It was a cake walk for Trump to win votes with the slogan, Kamala Harris cares about they/them, Trump cares about you. An obvious lie, given Trump cares only about himself and his family's wealth, but it resonated because of the IMAGE Democrats have chose to present for decades now.
This post is simple, direct, and clearly correct. And it's good to see it written in the first person plural.
Josh is right. And the need is more emphatic than ever before.
Will Dems seize the opportunity? It’s not clear. But I hope so.
How does one come up with the list of things it's okay for Democrats to compromise on versus those that it's not okay, without falling for the pundit's fallacy ("taking up the pundit's policy positions is the best possible move")?
Now, more than ever?
I think there likely was already a need for more more moderate candidates (i.e., more of them, and more moderate) than we've seen. And for moderation of the brand. Yes, moving away from *my* policy preferences.
But I don't think that Josh Barro is the most credible messenger on this. He was already preaching this message before Callais. The question is not quieter he can say that same thing again to the same audience. The question is whether anyone who used to think otherwise is now willing to say this.
I don't think anyone is going to be convinced by Josh Barro repeating an old message in a new circumstance.
It's not enough. The Democrat brand is dead in many areas of the country and it will take years to rehab. We need an independent & Dem coalition or something akin to that.
I truly hope this happens! I also hope that a bunch of those who voted for our leader will stay home this time around thinking it isn't important enough to vote. Many of those just vote for the President every 4 years. So I'm going to do a fingers cross move both in the primaries and general election this year.
Josh - liked the post, but curios you wrote: "To win a majority in the Senate, we have to consistently win states like Georgia and be competitive in even more conservative states like Ohio and Iowa. It is a high and unfair hurdle... What is unfair, I did not see an explanation for what you thought was unfair, can you explain?
It’s unfair because Republicans will typically be able to hold the senate even if they lose the national popular vote by something like 4 points.
Thank you for your response, could we discuss this a bit further? What is unfair about Republican Senators winning their elections in the years a Republican President happens to win the Presidency but loses the national popular vote?
It’s the structure that’s unfair, not if Republicans win the presidency and senate races, per se.
The states that Democrats have to win in order to take the senate are center-right and to the right of the median voter. That gives Republicans more breathing room to be able to still win in those states, even they are unpopular and in a down year (like this year is shaping up to be, for example).
If Republicans taking the senate had to go through, say, Colorado or Minnesota, they’d be the ones at a disadvantage.
Is it unfair or a disadvantage. You claim both, but these are 2 different things. I am willing to agree with disadvantage, still cannot see what is unfair.
I guess you can quibble with semantics. Disadvantaged, certainly.
I don’t think it’s fair that each state has two senators, whether it’s North Dakota or California. That’s a structural disadvantage and unfair. But even that depends on your frame of reference. A conservative might call that asymmetrical but procedurally fair (each state is represented with equal senators). Democrats would more convincingly say (in my view) that the asymmetry itself is unfair and structurally disadvantageous.
Actually this is not semantics. Unfair heavily implies that a person or group is being treated poorly, unequally, or dishonestly by others. Disadvantage does not imply one person is being treated poorly by others.
Could you help me understand, what do you mean by structural disadvantage of 2 Senators per state, I mean specifically what is the disadvantage?
I've never understood why we don't deal with issues like trans kids in sports in more rational ways. For example, boxing has different weight classes. Why not upper limits on strength for soccer teams or certain positions within teams? Or trans kids train in tennis but don't compete in tournaments -- it would hardly disadvantage the top women to train against strong opponents. If we actually wanted to be fair to trans kids and women we would make this work.
I think it's about being practical and strategic, less academic and dogmatic. Josh has pointed out before that some trans interest groups have not been practical and strategic, compared with gay rights groups. And whoever convinced Moslem-Americans in Michigan not to vote for Kamala Harris because she wasn't sufficiently pro-Palestinian obviously committed a grave strategic error.
I've seen Democrats and progressive groups engage in empty tokenism that doesn't actually advance the interests of the disadvantaged and leaves out voters the party needs. One example is the Women's March, which printed beautiful, iconic posters of African-American, Hispanic, and Moslem women. 80-90 percent of actual attendees at the Women's March were white women and at five to 10 percent were white men, and there were Asian-American participants, too. It was a cake walk for Trump to win votes with the slogan, Kamala Harris cares about they/them, Trump cares about you. An obvious lie, given Trump cares only about himself and his family's wealth, but it resonated because of the IMAGE Democrats have chose to present for decades now.