I'll disclose my bias here as a "party insider" for having worked on the Hill for a long time, but I think you could cut this story even shorter by going back to the moment when this all started:...
I'll disclose my bias here as a "party insider" for having worked on the Hill for a long time, but I think you could cut this story even shorter by going back to the moment when this all started: AOC defeats Crowley in the Primary.
Crowley was not the most "exciting" guy and neither was he a woman or a person of color (although when you didn't catch him off guard, he polled well with both groups). But you know what? He busted his ass every day to help other candidates across the country. You would see him every day in the call rooms trying to do more to raise money for candidates across the country who wanted to protect minority voting rights and women's access to healthcare. Pelosi didn't even have to prod him. He just showed up every day and he was good at it. He didn't sit there with a litmus test to see "which side of the party" someone was going to be on: he just put in the work. Honestly, that's why he lost that primary: because he was working to get things done for everyone else.
Now AOC comes along. She actually ambushes other Dems in primaries! People who would vote to support voting rights every time, even if they don't tweet about it. Now instead of a force multiplier helping other Dems, we have a sniper raising herself money to shoot our Frontline candidates off the fence.
The opportunity cost of the Crowley => AOC swap for just about every issue is massive. If they were smarter, you could easily convince me that this was planned by the GOP.
I think your comment reflects a disappointing view of politics as a team sport of Democrats vs Republicans. Ocasio-Cortez is a leftist and is working for leftist policies that Crowley was not. She...
I think your comment reflects a disappointing view of politics as a team sport of Democrats vs Republicans. Ocasio-Cortez is a leftist and is working for leftist policies that Crowley was not. She has consistently supported Democratic candidates whose policies align with her own, has used her platform to raise tons of funds for those candidates and various programs, and in my opinion (though I have a dim view of electoral politics in the first place) has made effective use of her position to push for sorely needed legislation. It is not wrong for her to criticize the candidates that the Democratic party is supporting from the left if they are vulnerable to criticism from their left. If the Democratic party leadership is worried that this legitimate criticism affects their candidate's chance of winning, then they should choose stronger candidates.
"Party insiders" need to stop treating the demands of leftists as politically inconvenient, childish, or purposefully sabotaging the chances of Democrats to win. These demands are real, the problems they are trying to address are real, and the solutions they propose are real. I can say that in my personal experience the work of Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders, and "The Squad" has done more to engage my peers with the political process in this country than anything the DNC has ever done, and dismissing that risks alienating them from politics altogether.
To be lucid, I'm not saying that anyone should be free from criticism just because they caucus with Democrats. The Machine/Sinema debacle is a travesty. They can and should be replaced in their...
To be lucid, I'm not saying that anyone should be free from criticism just because they caucus with Democrats. The Machine/Sinema debacle is a travesty. They can and should be replaced in their primaries for stopping the progress we need to make. My argument here is more that, on balance Democracy is a math problem. You believe in voting rights? Great. For those to be protected you need some number X voting for that to be bigger than Y. Some people can't stomach adding numbers to X if they come from Iowa and Ohio. That's OK: I'm just saying if you really care about the policy instead of the pride we have to set our Purity Badges aside.
Crowley did the work: even for the people in his district. Non-sexy stuff like getting people assistance, helping them get education and whatever else. AOC wouldn't even set up a district office because it didn't help her little Road Show. Wouldn't even help the people in her district. I can't be sold on the idea that we're better off without a guy that made X bigger when it counted. Maybe we wouldn't feel as good about our outrage on Twitter but we'd be closer to Voting Rights than we are now. That's what matters to me.
I had to look this up, and I think you're referring to this NYT article? Not gonna lie, that seems like a pretty reasonable explanation to me, and it seems like she has an office now. Really not...
AOC wouldn't even set up a district office because it didn't help her little Road Show.
I had to look this up, and I think you're referring to this NYT article?
The reality may be much more local: Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s decision not to take over Mr. Crowley’s Jackson Heights, Queens, office complicated her office setup. (He also had an office in the Bronx.)
“If you’re inheriting your predecessor’s offices, that can be relatively seamless,” said Bradford Fitch, the president of the Congressional Management Foundation, a nonprofit that helps lawmakers and their aides. “Opening up a new office has all of the challenges of opening up a new business, along with the red tape.” A month or two for a member changing offices would not uncommon, Mr. Fitch said.
[...]
After receiving questions from The Times about the district office, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez used her official House Twitter account to explain that she did not take over Mr. Crowley’s office because the landlord had wanted to nearly double the rent. The landlord could not immediately be reached.
Not gonna lie, that seems like a pretty reasonable explanation to me, and it seems like she has an office now. Really not sure what the issue is here.
That aside, I think Ocasio-Cortez has absolutely been "doing the work" just as much as Crowley did. She just isn't doing the work that "party insiders" want her to do. The idea that "some people can't stomach adding numbers to X if they come from Iowa and Ohio" cuts both ways -- there is a significant contingent of people all across this country for whom a leftist platform deeply resonates, but a lot of folks can't seem to stomach the idea that reaching those people matters.
Also, and I think this is one of my big issues with electoral politics -- I absolutely despise treating politics as a numbers game to win or a math problem to solve (yes, I know that's how the system is built). Get some honest principles and stick to them; don't triangulate positions based on the latest polling data. Voting rights are not a thing that you either believe or don't believe in; they're rights that need to be fought for relentlessly. If it can't happen electorally and the people in charge -- which, to be clear, is currently the Democratic party -- actually cared about leading and protecting voting rights they would find a way to make it happen some other way.
One lesson I took from the Republicans in 2016 was that solidarity and willingness to fall in line was powerful. Lindsey Graham went from a dozen flavors of: ...to being one of Trump's most vocal...
One lesson I took from the Republicans in 2016 was that solidarity and willingness to fall in line was powerful. Lindsey Graham went from a dozen flavors of:
You know how you make America great again? Tell Donald Trump to go to hell. He’s a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot. He doesn’t represent my party. He doesn’t represents the values that the men and women who wear the uniform are fighting for. … He’s the ISIL man of the year.
...to being one of Trump's most vocal supporters, later willing to pressure Georgia to give the state to Trump. Within a span of months he completely reversed what he was saying. Trump calling long-time friend and former-candidate McCain a loser POW downgraded to "disturbing".
A lesson that was reinforced by Trump in 2016 was in line with Schelling (paraphrased) on the brinksmanship of nuclear war: "in a game of chicken, conspicuously throw the steering wheel out the window."
An "irrational" person may have disproportionate influence, even if that may be used to shoot oneself in the foot. You're not valuable as a voter if you don't vote... but your opinions aren't valuable as a voter if you'd reliably vote for a lesser evil regardless of how little they represent your values. At times being rational can feel a little like being held captive.
I'm probably always going to vote strategically, but I gotta say 2016+ has been pretty disappointing and it's hard to feel enthusiastic about the leadership. I get that there's basic realities of the system in the U.S. (e.g., bias towards small states and rural areas) and momentum (e.g., right wing media or decline of support of the working class) that complicate everything, but there were so many moments with Trump that should have been a softball that fizzled out. I'm less worried about the platform--things ain't perfect in a big tent-- and more about the competency.
How does a president retweeting "the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat" get such a milquetoast response? That's rhetorical, and I could be convinced there's no way to get a "win" from that but that shits frustrating.
There was a 3-part podcast coverage (1, 2, 3) about an internecine fight amongst Alabama Democrats that (iirc) somewhat exemplified this:
I read Nancy’s comments to him.
EMMANUEL: “There have been times here at this party office that I've had to scrub the toilets. We don't have a custodian who comes in once a week but I don't think Doug would be at all interested in doing any of that.”*
*DOUG: No, she's right. She's right but here's the difference.
EMMANUEL: Yes.
DOUG: I've scrubbed toilets before. Okay? (EMMANUEL laughs) I've done it. The difference is she's had to do that because she couldn't raise any damn money to hire somebody to do it. We had no functioning party. Emmanuel, I don't know if you ever went over to that office, but if you looked around that office, there were stacks of papers just papers and papers. You go through, there were things on her desk that were certified mailings to her that were unopened that were dated in 2013.
I could be convinced Florida just isn't winnable, or Feinstein was right for California, or that Pelosi is the right person for the job. It's still frustrating to have her defend trading individual stocks and I don't expect any change of power would be bloodless.
The opportunity cost of the Crowley => AOC swap for just about every issue is massive.
I'm an outsider and I don't pay attention to AOC (or enough to politics in general) outside of what floats to the top due to her being a contentious figure, but it seems hard to quantify what her impact has been. How much ancillary value is there from fundraising $5 million in relief when Cruz flees Texas and blames his daughter? Or the outreach she did by streaming on Twitch? What's the value in having a progressive foil exist as an "extreme" to which you can put forward universally popular position as a compromise?
There's a cost of breaking up a monopoly and an opportunity cost of it remaining. Bloomberg's missing $1.1 billion gives an impression there are at least some other factors at play.
Somewhat off topic, but as an insider do you have any take on the pied piper allegations (that the DNC wanted to promote "less electable/more extreme" candidates like Cruz/Trump/Carson) of the Hillary email leaks?
The legitimacy of all of that was always sketchy, and I'm aware that cherry picking emails can make ordinary discussion appear more prevalent or substantial (ala Climategate or Hillary's involvement in Birtherism based on a staffer brainstorming(?)), but it's something that's continued to bother me that an insider's perspective would help with.
I think this is a nugget that is always overlooked when discussing progressives position in politics. The words of MLK seem much more palatable with the boogie man of Malcom X as the alternative....
What's the value in having a progressive foil exist as an "extreme" to which you can put forward universally popular position as a compromise?
I think this is a nugget that is always overlooked when discussing progressives position in politics. The words of MLK seem much more palatable with the boogie man of Malcom X as the alternative.
One of the other overlooked factors is platform and legislation. Take a look at Bernie and Hillary's platforms from 2016 and then Bernie and Biden's platform from 2020. There a number of agenda items Biden had to get onboard with because Bernie not only gave them the spotlight on a national level, but made them popular.
There's a Wikipedia article describing something like this: Radical flank effect
I think this is a nugget that is always overlooked when discussing progressives position in politics. The words of MLK seem much more palatable with the boogie man of Malcom X as the alternative.
There's a Wikipedia article describing something like this: Radical flank effect
I'll answer that inline with a comment about an earlier point you made about AOC: Wouldn't it be great if things worked that way? Sadly, they don't. James Carville laid this out a while back while...
do you have any take on the pied piper allegations (that the DNC wanted to promote "less electable/more extreme" candidates like Cruz/Trump/Carson)
I'll answer that inline with a comment about an earlier point you made about AOC:
What's the value in having a progressive foil exist as an "extreme" to which you can put forward universally popular position as a compromise?
Wouldn't it be great if things worked that way? Sadly, they don't. James Carville laid this out a while back while rapping about "wokeism": By and large, everyone believes the most extreme thing they hear any Democrat saying represents the "real agenda" of the other 95% of the party regardless of how "moderate" their message is. The same is not true of Republicans. No one believes their rep from Green Bay or whatever has much to do with Marjorie Taylor Greene even if he votes with her 99% of the time. Why does it work that way? I have some theories, but whatever the case it's just a tough dynamic to work around. It requires message discipline we don't have - even with Pelosi at the top who (save the rare gaffe) is heroically good at it.
So the "Pied Piper" memo: Assuming it's real (remember, these were delivered by Putin... Funny side story, some of my files from work were released as part of that.. so some of those things were legit) Whoever wrote that is doesn't understand the effect discussed earlier. But in my view at the time, that wasn't even the biggest problem with Trump. I remember comparing myself to Apollo Creed's trainer in Rocky saying "this guy is all wrong for us". The thing that spooked me was his message control and rhythm: "Mexicans are rapists... We need to stop bad trade deals that send our jobs to China". Say something inflammatory, then when everyone is paying attention, deliver your real payload. Clinton was running the tried and true "raise, spend, bury" play that they won with for the previous two decades. They had nothing in the playbook to handle someone who could run for free off of earned media like Trump.
Anyway, my take as an "insider":
One of the funniest things is watching movies/shows that depict the Hill is seeing what they get right/wrong. House of Cards: everything in the plot was wrong, but the set design was so on pointe I thought I was at work. One thing that came from the movie "Don't Look Up" that struck home was the line when they were talking about the politicians and one of the main characters said something to the effect that you think they are these masterminds who are running these complicated plays but you're "giving them too much credit: they're not that smart". It's a lot more like Veep than House of Cards. So someone probably did write that memo... But there's like hundreds of people writing stupid memos every day in there. It doesn't mean anyone took it seriously.... And even if it was taken seriously, it doesn't mean anyone had any real control or influence over the situation.
Thanks, appreciate the perspective! I was strongly leaning towards the "Pied Piper" memo likely being real but inconsequential. I recall seeing some absolutely crazy propositions from I think LBJs...
Thanks, appreciate the perspective!
there's like hundreds of people writing stupid memos every day
I was strongly leaning towards the "Pied Piper" memo likely being real but inconsequential. I recall seeing some absolutely crazy propositions from I think LBJs term that were the product of a singular fringe voices. Seeing the recent messaging between Hannity/Fox and Trump's administration probably resurfaced concerns about that sort of clout/coordination, so it's good to put them to rest.
It's a lot more like Veep than House of Cards.
And you already answered my follow-up question of what media you feel gets close to depicting your experience. I think I recall hearing about Obama aides giving the same answer?
Why does it work that way? I have some theories, but whatever the case it's just a tough dynamic to work around.
I've seen some theories (e.g., Haidt's moral foundations, age + the availability heuristic) but I'd guess it's an ensemble of causes as complicated as people are. Regardless it's clear that what works well with one side doesn't necessarily translate to the other.
Politics gives me a headache, so I'll end wishing you the best with it
An article looking at progressive representatives' ability to win voters of color, that basically finds that they are different representatives with different electoral bases. But I think it's a...
An article looking at progressive representatives' ability to win voters of color, that basically finds that they are different representatives with different electoral bases. But I think it's a pretty detailed read on how progressive representatives do with voters of color. (This is also why I didn't post it in the US-specific thread.)
Back in 2018, a quartet of Democratic women — known commonly as “The Squad” — broke barriers on their way to Congress: They were young women of color with no prior congressional experience who, in some cases, bested a white incumbent to represent their now racially diversifying districts. They were heralded as the “future of the Democratic Party,” and, for the progressive movement, which had long struggled to make inroads with nonwhite voters, they offered a potential path forward: These four women, and others like them, would motivate people of color to vote for left-leaning candidates to help usher in a seismic shift in electoral politics.
But then the 2020 election happened. The Squad did grow by two members, but progressives failed to win the ultimate prize, the Democratic nomination for president, in large part because voters of color threw their support behind now-President Biden. In addition, many Democrats argued after the 2020 general election that progressive messaging might have cost Democrats seats in the House that year. And while a handful of nonwhite progressive candidates have won important elections this year, 2021 also contained a number of high-profile setbacks for the movement. Not only did Eric Adams, a Black moderate, handily defeat a number of progressives in the Democratic primary for New York City mayor (interjecting here, Eric Adams only defeated ~~Nina Turner~~ Kathryn Garcia by 1 percentage point in NYC, which is not "handily defeating" them all. I think this was disingenuous framing on 538's part.), but a handful of other progressives of color lost their races to more moderate politicians of color, too.
As a result, the buzz over the Squad’s initial wins in 2018 has largely been replaced by a narrative that progressives struggle with people of color, and that Black voters especially prefer more moderate candidates. But the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
We looked back at the Squad’s initial primary wins, and found that they’ve often won sizable blocs of nonwhite voters, especially when they have had strong ties to those communities (or at least stronger than their opponent). But at the same time, they haven’t necessarily performed well with all voters of color in their district. In fact, our analysis found that — despite each member’s very different path of Congress — each Squad member’s wins required a multiracial coalition of both white and nonwhite voters. We only found one instance without a clear racial pattern. But even if there is no surefire strategy for progressives to win voters of color, the Squad’s primaries also push back against the idea that progressives consistently struggle with these voters.
538's verdict for all the squad members is, summarized:
"AOC does well among Hispanic and White people, not so much among black people."
"Rashida Tlaib did well among Hispanic people, White people and Arab people (categorized as white by the census), but not black people, though this is not her fault, because the person she unseated was elected by black people, so it's more about him than her. Also, there were like, 4 candidates running and vote splitting occurred."
"Ilhan Omar did well among everyone, but better among black people like herself than white people."
"Ayana Pressley did well among everyone, but she did the best among black people like herself."
"Jamal Bowman did better among minorities when white people, but the margins weren't that different so it's not that big of a deal."
"Cori Bush did better among White people than Black people, but more of them were her opponent's base, so that was expected. Despite this, she won 40% of them, which we at 538 think is pretty good on her part."
"In general, this is less about whether minorities prefer progressive or moderate ideology and more about whether your candidate has stronger ties to the political influencers of the 3 main racial groups." (See Biden's endorsements in the South Carolina primary.)
I'll disclose my bias here as a "party insider" for having worked on the Hill for a long time, but I think you could cut this story even shorter by going back to the moment when this all started: AOC defeats Crowley in the Primary.
Crowley was not the most "exciting" guy and neither was he a woman or a person of color (although when you didn't catch him off guard, he polled well with both groups). But you know what? He busted his ass every day to help other candidates across the country. You would see him every day in the call rooms trying to do more to raise money for candidates across the country who wanted to protect minority voting rights and women's access to healthcare. Pelosi didn't even have to prod him. He just showed up every day and he was good at it. He didn't sit there with a litmus test to see "which side of the party" someone was going to be on: he just put in the work. Honestly, that's why he lost that primary: because he was working to get things done for everyone else.
Now AOC comes along. She actually ambushes other Dems in primaries! People who would vote to support voting rights every time, even if they don't tweet about it. Now instead of a force multiplier helping other Dems, we have a sniper raising herself money to shoot our Frontline candidates off the fence.
The opportunity cost of the Crowley => AOC swap for just about every issue is massive. If they were smarter, you could easily convince me that this was planned by the GOP.
I think your comment reflects a disappointing view of politics as a team sport of Democrats vs Republicans. Ocasio-Cortez is a leftist and is working for leftist policies that Crowley was not. She has consistently supported Democratic candidates whose policies align with her own, has used her platform to raise tons of funds for those candidates and various programs, and in my opinion (though I have a dim view of electoral politics in the first place) has made effective use of her position to push for sorely needed legislation. It is not wrong for her to criticize the candidates that the Democratic party is supporting from the left if they are vulnerable to criticism from their left. If the Democratic party leadership is worried that this legitimate criticism affects their candidate's chance of winning, then they should choose stronger candidates.
"Party insiders" need to stop treating the demands of leftists as politically inconvenient, childish, or purposefully sabotaging the chances of Democrats to win. These demands are real, the problems they are trying to address are real, and the solutions they propose are real. I can say that in my personal experience the work of Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders, and "The Squad" has done more to engage my peers with the political process in this country than anything the DNC has ever done, and dismissing that risks alienating them from politics altogether.
To be lucid, I'm not saying that anyone should be free from criticism just because they caucus with Democrats. The Machine/Sinema debacle is a travesty. They can and should be replaced in their primaries for stopping the progress we need to make. My argument here is more that, on balance Democracy is a math problem. You believe in voting rights? Great. For those to be protected you need some number X voting for that to be bigger than Y. Some people can't stomach adding numbers to X if they come from Iowa and Ohio. That's OK: I'm just saying if you really care about the policy instead of the pride we have to set our Purity Badges aside.
Crowley did the work: even for the people in his district. Non-sexy stuff like getting people assistance, helping them get education and whatever else. AOC wouldn't even set up a district office because it didn't help her little Road Show. Wouldn't even help the people in her district. I can't be sold on the idea that we're better off without a guy that made X bigger when it counted. Maybe we wouldn't feel as good about our outrage on Twitter but we'd be closer to Voting Rights than we are now. That's what matters to me.
I had to look this up, and I think you're referring to this NYT article?
Not gonna lie, that seems like a pretty reasonable explanation to me, and it seems like she has an office now. Really not sure what the issue is here.
That aside, I think Ocasio-Cortez has absolutely been "doing the work" just as much as Crowley did. She just isn't doing the work that "party insiders" want her to do. The idea that "some people can't stomach adding numbers to X if they come from Iowa and Ohio" cuts both ways -- there is a significant contingent of people all across this country for whom a leftist platform deeply resonates, but a lot of folks can't seem to stomach the idea that reaching those people matters.
Also, and I think this is one of my big issues with electoral politics -- I absolutely despise treating politics as a numbers game to win or a math problem to solve (yes, I know that's how the system is built). Get some honest principles and stick to them; don't triangulate positions based on the latest polling data. Voting rights are not a thing that you either believe or don't believe in; they're rights that need to be fought for relentlessly. If it can't happen electorally and the people in charge -- which, to be clear, is currently the Democratic party -- actually cared about leading and protecting voting rights they would find a way to make it happen some other way.
One lesson I took from the Republicans in 2016 was that solidarity and willingness to fall in line was powerful. Lindsey Graham went from a dozen flavors of:
...to being one of Trump's most vocal supporters, later willing to pressure Georgia to give the state to Trump. Within a span of months he completely reversed what he was saying. Trump calling long-time friend and former-candidate McCain a loser POW downgraded to "disturbing".
A lesson that was reinforced by Trump in 2016 was in line with Schelling (paraphrased) on the brinksmanship of nuclear war: "in a game of chicken, conspicuously throw the steering wheel out the window."
An "irrational" person may have disproportionate influence, even if that may be used to shoot oneself in the foot. You're not valuable as a voter if you don't vote... but your opinions aren't valuable as a voter if you'd reliably vote for a lesser evil regardless of how little they represent your values. At times being rational can feel a little like being held captive.
I'm probably always going to vote strategically, but I gotta say 2016+ has been pretty disappointing and it's hard to feel enthusiastic about the leadership. I get that there's basic realities of the system in the U.S. (e.g., bias towards small states and rural areas) and momentum (e.g., right wing media or decline of support of the working class) that complicate everything, but there were so many moments with Trump that should have been a softball that fizzled out. I'm less worried about the platform--things ain't perfect in a big tent-- and more about the competency.
How does a president retweeting "the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat" get such a milquetoast response? That's rhetorical, and I could be convinced there's no way to get a "win" from that but that shits frustrating.
There was a 3-part podcast coverage (1, 2, 3) about an internecine fight amongst Alabama Democrats that (iirc) somewhat exemplified this:
I could be convinced Florida just isn't winnable, or Feinstein was right for California, or that Pelosi is the right person for the job. It's still frustrating to have her defend trading individual stocks and I don't expect any change of power would be bloodless.
I'm an outsider and I don't pay attention to AOC (or enough to politics in general) outside of what floats to the top due to her being a contentious figure, but it seems hard to quantify what her impact has been. How much ancillary value is there from fundraising $5 million in relief when Cruz flees Texas and blames his daughter? Or the outreach she did by streaming on Twitch? What's the value in having a progressive foil exist as an "extreme" to which you can put forward universally popular position as a compromise?
There's a cost of breaking up a monopoly and an opportunity cost of it remaining. Bloomberg's missing $1.1 billion gives an impression there are at least some other factors at play.
Somewhat off topic, but as an insider do you have any take on the pied piper allegations (that the DNC wanted to promote "less electable/more extreme" candidates like Cruz/Trump/Carson) of the Hillary email leaks?
The legitimacy of all of that was always sketchy, and I'm aware that cherry picking emails can make ordinary discussion appear more prevalent or substantial (ala Climategate or Hillary's involvement in Birtherism based on a staffer brainstorming(?)), but it's something that's continued to bother me that an insider's perspective would help with.
I think this is a nugget that is always overlooked when discussing progressives position in politics. The words of MLK seem much more palatable with the boogie man of Malcom X as the alternative.
One of the other overlooked factors is platform and legislation. Take a look at Bernie and Hillary's platforms from 2016 and then Bernie and Biden's platform from 2020. There a number of agenda items Biden had to get onboard with because Bernie not only gave them the spotlight on a national level, but made them popular.
There's a Wikipedia article describing something like this: Radical flank effect
I'll answer that inline with a comment about an earlier point you made about AOC:
Wouldn't it be great if things worked that way? Sadly, they don't. James Carville laid this out a while back while rapping about "wokeism": By and large, everyone believes the most extreme thing they hear any Democrat saying represents the "real agenda" of the other 95% of the party regardless of how "moderate" their message is. The same is not true of Republicans. No one believes their rep from Green Bay or whatever has much to do with Marjorie Taylor Greene even if he votes with her 99% of the time. Why does it work that way? I have some theories, but whatever the case it's just a tough dynamic to work around. It requires message discipline we don't have - even with Pelosi at the top who (save the rare gaffe) is heroically good at it.
So the "Pied Piper" memo: Assuming it's real (remember, these were delivered by Putin... Funny side story, some of my files from work were released as part of that.. so some of those things were legit) Whoever wrote that is doesn't understand the effect discussed earlier. But in my view at the time, that wasn't even the biggest problem with Trump. I remember comparing myself to Apollo Creed's trainer in Rocky saying "this guy is all wrong for us". The thing that spooked me was his message control and rhythm: "Mexicans are rapists... We need to stop bad trade deals that send our jobs to China". Say something inflammatory, then when everyone is paying attention, deliver your real payload. Clinton was running the tried and true "raise, spend, bury" play that they won with for the previous two decades. They had nothing in the playbook to handle someone who could run for free off of earned media like Trump.
Anyway, my take as an "insider":
One of the funniest things is watching movies/shows that depict the Hill is seeing what they get right/wrong. House of Cards: everything in the plot was wrong, but the set design was so on pointe I thought I was at work. One thing that came from the movie "Don't Look Up" that struck home was the line when they were talking about the politicians and one of the main characters said something to the effect that you think they are these masterminds who are running these complicated plays but you're "giving them too much credit: they're not that smart". It's a lot more like Veep than House of Cards. So someone probably did write that memo... But there's like hundreds of people writing stupid memos every day in there. It doesn't mean anyone took it seriously.... And even if it was taken seriously, it doesn't mean anyone had any real control or influence over the situation.
Thanks, appreciate the perspective!
I was strongly leaning towards the "Pied Piper" memo likely being real but inconsequential. I recall seeing some absolutely crazy propositions from I think LBJs term that were the product of a singular fringe voices. Seeing the recent messaging between Hannity/Fox and Trump's administration probably resurfaced concerns about that sort of clout/coordination, so it's good to put them to rest.
And you already answered my follow-up question of what media you feel gets close to depicting your experience. I think I recall hearing about Obama aides giving the same answer?
I've seen some theories (e.g., Haidt's moral foundations, age + the availability heuristic) but I'd guess it's an ensemble of causes as complicated as people are. Regardless it's clear that what works well with one side doesn't necessarily translate to the other.
Politics gives me a headache, so I'll end wishing you the best with it
An article looking at progressive representatives' ability to win voters of color, that basically finds that they are different representatives with different electoral bases. But I think it's a pretty detailed read on how progressive representatives do with voters of color. (This is also why I didn't post it in the US-specific thread.)
538's verdict for all the squad members is, summarized:
"AOC does well among Hispanic and White people, not so much among black people."
"Rashida Tlaib did well among Hispanic people, White people and Arab people (categorized as white by the census), but not black people, though this is not her fault, because the person she unseated was elected by black people, so it's more about him than her. Also, there were like, 4 candidates running and vote splitting occurred."
"Ilhan Omar did well among everyone, but better among black people like herself than white people."
"Ayana Pressley did well among everyone, but she did the best among black people like herself."
"Jamal Bowman did better among minorities when white people, but the margins weren't that different so it's not that big of a deal."
"Cori Bush did better among White people than Black people, but more of them were her opponent's base, so that was expected. Despite this, she won 40% of them, which we at 538 think is pretty good on her part."
"In general, this is less about whether minorities prefer progressive or moderate ideology and more about whether your candidate has stronger ties to the political influencers of the 3 main racial groups."
(See Biden's endorsements in the South Carolina primary.)Nina Turner did not run to be NYC Mayor. She’s from Ohio. You’re thinking of Kathryn Garcia.
Ah whoops, sorry.