Reposted by Joshua Foust 🪖🎮
The ghouls are wasting no time on this
7 replies
59 reposts
137 likes
They sure will be hard on a black woman of South Asian heritage. They sure will.
1 replies
0 reposts
2 likes
Yeah I mean personalizing this stuff is definitely not helpful because the government is big and has a lot of moving parts.
0 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
I feel like that was his pitch in 2020, but I could be overdetermining that. Personally I think it's not great but that that still represents a better outcome than intentionally repeating 1968 again.
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
I take seriously the criticism of DEI offices as levied by people like Sara Ahmed that they exist to shield the institution not to improve people's experiences within that institution. But that isn't what's going on here.
0 replies
0 reposts
5 likes
Like... this happens when one coverage is favoring one candidate and not favoring the other. Scholars have quantified billions of dollars worth of favorable media coverage of Trump over the years. It's genuinely a crisis for society, this coverage-as-promotion.
www.thestreet.com/politics/don...
0 replies
0 reposts
2 likes
IHE is doing more skeptical, strong reporting on the right wing ecosystem of nonprofits assaulting higher education than any mainstream media outlet. Here, a pressure group based out of a former gubernatorial candidate's home is paying him $200k and he won't disclose his donors.
1 replies
6 reposts
11 likes
Like, it's just interesting to me that Trump directs violence at his enemies, threatens people constantly, has committed multiple sexual assaults and fraud, and there is an ecosystem of judges to protect him from any fallout, and the elite of this country just cannot stop talking about Biden's age.
2 replies
2 reposts
11 likes
Look, I'm just saying, after reading the way the mainstream press has "covered" the debate these past two weeks I am really not surprised that a financial reporter got scammed out of $50,000.
2 replies
11 reposts
35 likes
Right, and I think that’s bad and it should be a primary focus of the campaign not this weird preemptive surrender to a right wing talking point
0 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
Now you’re asking senior democrats to not act like scared lemmings running from a tiger every time a reporter sneezes, which… 🙃
0 replies
0 reposts
3 likes
I do agree the lack of response has been bad, but also there’s been little coverage of his campaign stops and public appearances. The press is refusing to cover that to keep spinning off debate-about-the-debate pieces. I don’t know how that cycle is broken but “more visibility” is already happening.
1 replies
0 reposts
3 likes
I’ve been saying that, but you just said you agree with that bad media coverage so I think we very much have been talking past each other. In fact, now I don’t know what your original point was. Oh well.
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
Yes that’s always going to be a concern and is why I didn’t want him to seek reelection. But it is also baked into the election and there’s evidence that at best there has been a tiny change because of one debate with four months left to campaign. The panic is absolutely baffling to me.
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
And his appearances at rallies and in other settings looks VERY different from the mess he was at the debate. It’s so weird to me that one bad debate performance has led to this degree of elite panic.
5 replies
0 reposts
11 likes
You’re describing movement well within the MOE for these surveys. Neither you nor I have any idea what the real movement is. If the debate really was his campaign’s death knell, we’d see significant movement not microscopic changes that might just be statistical noise.
0 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
There you go. If you’re unpersuadable then we really don’t have much more to debate and I regret wasting my time. Sorry.
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
But it a premise that hasn’t been born out in the data we have. So, the premise is likely wrong! I do not understand the passivity on this.
2 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
See now you’re just saying you agree with the New York Times’ framing, which I have been saying all along is the problem here.
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
It was a bad debate. They happen. If that’s the standard then no one can ever run for president. Debates also don’t matter, debates never really move voters, they only shape coverage. The coverage is what’s doing damage now. You’re contributing to it.
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
Sure but my premise is that they are responding to unprofessional, unfair, and unethical press activism far more than anything substantial, which is why we don’t have new info about some undisclosed infirmity and why the polls haven’t moved much. They’re ducking because of a ghost, essentially.
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
The panic is driven by the idea that the election outcome somehow changed because of the debate and the critical coverage afterward. That hasn’t shown up in two weeks of polling. So yes it absolutely shows the opposite: we can’t measure a change beyond statistical noise. It’s a non-issue.
2 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
You seem to think they’re freaking out about something substantive when the only evidence we’re given is the debate performance and the media feeding frenzy afterward. Every single person on the inside slavishly follows the big three front pages, and it is really clear that is driving the panic.
1 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
Sure but that isn’t what I was saying and it wasn’t what you objected to. I agree that that’s how it will happen because that’s the only way it could happen? But this whole discourse when the polling shows the literal opposite should be pointing to it being an elite freak out not a real issue.
2 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
If there was any messaging strategy from the party, I’d agree with you! Alas.
0 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
Really? Their statements suggest otherwise. Maybe frustration is more accurate than freaking but they are absolutely placing blame on the Times
1 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
I’m pretty certain switching is death for the campaign. Anyone who comes out is permanently compromised. Maybe Kamala can overcome it. Maybe. But it’s an extreme risk and the polling about Biden gaining support post-debate just doesn’t support this discourse at all.
2 replies
0 reposts
5 likes
That’s not at all what I’m saying. Most people engage with simple narratives because they’re too busy to go deeper. “The democrats couldn’t keep their ballot intact” is both true and a simple narrative that is devastating to the election.
1 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
Umm. His staff are quoted on the record saying they are freaking out. What on earth are you reading?
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
Americans blame Biden for Roe being rescinded. They are not, in aggregate or individually, remotely that savvy about politics.
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
Well, I certainly hope your all’s faith in the intelligence of people who blame Biden for Roe being rescinded pans out.
2 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
Are you suggesting John Roberts timed his rulings to maximalize the damage to his partisan enemies
1 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
I agree they need to be metaphorically yeeted into the sun
1 replies
1 reposts
0 likes
“We are the party of law and order and have a duty to enforce the law,” however, does play.
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
I worry those people DO give a shit what the NYT thinks, is the problem
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
Election denial isn’t the same thing as using an existing law on the books to interfere with appearing on the ballot, though. In fact, I’d say those are very different things.
2 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
Can you send me something? I’ve seen concerns over Roe driving turnout but haven’t seen election integrity as a driving motivation for voters. And this issue here isn’t doing something at the poll, which gets attention, it’s over-enforcing a law (filing deadlines) people normally work around.
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
He could call it an official act now, I guess. But I really don’t like the “why don’t we have our own dictator” stuff. It just doesn’t sit right.
2 replies
1 reposts
2 likes
Was it because of election interference or a reaction to Roe? The data I saw showed the latter, not the former.
3 replies
1 reposts
0 likes
I mean this with respect, but you’re doing a frankly insane amount of 4D chess to downplay this risk. Normal people see this shuffling of the deck chairs and go, “oh they’re clearly unable to lead” and either switch votes or stay home.
1 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
In what universe has this behavior damaged Republicans in any way. They’re about to take the senate and have even odds on the presidency.
2 replies
0 reposts
2 likes
I really don’t get why reporters think right wing apparatchiks who have announced their intention to spill blood if they don’t get their way are being honest when they give statements to reporters about an election they have already cheated to try to win.
It’s so guileless, the passivity.
2 replies
7 reposts
30 likes
Again, I don’t think they’d be successful, but the attempt itself will do serious damage: it distracts the campaign, drains resources away from races that might be competitive, sows legitimacy doubts, and creates yet another unwinnable media cycle. With margins as thin as they are that means losing.
3 replies
1 reposts
2 likes
The way the parties usually deal with having their conventions after the 90 day filing deadline is by declaring nominees presumptive. That’s how they got around the Ohio ruling. If Biden is not the presumptive nominee anymore it’s an opening for more right wing law fare to disrupt the vote.
1 replies
0 reposts
4 likes
Even if it fails, Heritage - whose president just threatened mass violence on TV if anyone opposes the judicial coup - is planning a massive push to deny any wriggle room with nominee selection. The people who treat this like some genteel debating society with comity and deference are failing us.
2 replies
13 reposts
34 likes
Absolutely and you’re correct to highlight the language!
0 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
Cops want free access to OnlyFans, but totally not why you'd expect, it's for the children, you see, the children are why the cops need free access to OnlyFans.
0 replies
1 reposts
6 likes
"Federalist 69"
.... nice.
But also, Hamilton says here that the president "is to be re-eligible as often as the people of the United States shall think him worthy of their confidence," aka no term limits, so I don't think we HAVE to take his writing as some kind of gospel.
Still, though, 69
1 replies
0 reposts
4 likes
I agree
0 replies
0 reposts
2 likes