***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[Belgium]

How it started:


How it ended:


Excerpts:

 

[yasuke.]

It def worked, trump lost because he lost the suburbs, and college educated voters.
his gains with black and brown voters kept him in striking distance.

he lost in the end.
but to pretend like it didn't work is crazy talk.

he increased his share of the black vote, that is the very definition of working.



imo you better hope Tim Scott never wins the nomination.


The idea that you'd win any demographic group 92-8 for the rest of time is also makes zero sense.
The republicans have def not hit their ceiling yet with black voters.

Tim Scott ain't getting a nomination, though IMO. Like, ever. My whole post was talking about how the GOP, regardless of their operations they put up, are at their core anti-black. Both rhetorically and in their actions. Part of that is why people like Tim Scott will never get a nomination. Additionally, they have zero interest in even addressing or acknowledging the systemic racism and inequities that their policies make worse. Denying one of the biggest ails for Black folk in America won't do much in whatever gains they've made this election. I just can't see the GOP making serious inroads without reversing multiple stances that their base of white males align with.

 

[aepps20]

Kentucky's attorney general joins federal lawsuit against governor's order halting in-person learning | CNN

Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron has joined a federal lawsuit against an executive order issued by Gov. Andy Beshear to close schools to limit the spread of Covid-19.

www.google.com

Look at this Deplorable. I root against this clown everyday. Spending more time enabling death than actually holding Breonna Taylor's murderers accountable for her death.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I mean as a general principle, if you feel that your arguments or even your character is being consistently misrepresented by your colleagues, it maybe is better to move on.

That doesn't seems to be the case with Matt Yglesias though. It seems like he signed onto a letter with a transphobic subtext, he got called on it but one of his colleagues really hurt him by saying that they felt unsafe and it probably festered. Yglesias certainly considers himself an ally of the trans community and its an awkward position to be in when you feel that you’ve been treated unfairly and that person treating you unfairly is using your allyship with their community to get away with it. It’s a tough call since the left needs webs of allyship/solidarity to succeed.

I suppose that could be fragility but whatever it is, it seems different than Weis and Sullivan’s departures. Those two consistently called for genocide, their colleagues engaged with their arguments, as they were constructed, and those two moved on so they could advocate for genocide in a more supportive environment.

Put him signing the letter aside, what came afterward is where the real ****ty behavior starts imo.

That is not what his coworker did though. She didn't report him to HR, she didn't throw him under the bus, she actually said Matt has been nothing but kind to her, she didn't there to be any official pushback from Vox management toward him. She was apparently one of many people at Vox used a letter to the editor program to make their disagreement with Matt more official.

So I don't how she came close to doing what you characterized. Like she called him an ally, called him kind, what to make sure no disciplinary action was taken against him. In return Matt cherry picks parts of the story to craft a narrative, this results in Emily getting attack and threaten online, to the point Yglesias had to demand people stop it.

Now he quits, runs to conservatives writers to be a posterboy of free speech being stifled, and then cites that one instance again, misrepresenting what Emily did. Which results in another wave of disgusting **** being thrown at her.

If anything, Yglesias is an example of a practice many white affluent liberals like to do. Use their claim allyship as a shield to do ****ty things against marginalized groups. Then when the pushback comes, they pearl clutch. Yglesias doesn't seem like he is pissed his allyship for used against him, he is pissed that his feelings were not central to the discourse around the situation. Even worse, he keeps hinting there is more to the story, yet the only thing he is talking freely about is this one instance. How he was wronged by a transgender coworker who....checks notes...disagreed with him disagreeing with others.

Seems to me that Yglesias is a privilege white dude that loves to kick the hornet's nest whenever he a) thinks it is necessary b) for his own assumment, but this time the right person pushed back, and he ended up with egg on his face. And the thing is that his handling of the situation is not an outlier when it comes to left wing spaces. Sure he is a much better actor/human being/writer than Sullivan and Weis. Weis and Sullivan are entitled bigots. But I think it is a fair comparison to make considering how he is behaving just like them after he quit. Telling a convenient story that paints him as the the only one that was wronged.

Dude is a critic that couldn't handle criticism. A person that couldn't handle the same energy he puts out in the world being return to him in the smallest way.

I think there is a difference between saying members of marginalized groups on the left should have some patience with other members because solidarity is necessary, people are not perfect, and disagreements should be able to exist within the coalition without breaking it. I am all for stop the purity testing. But I am not sympathetic to someone that confuses that sentiment (intentionally or unintentionally) with being allowed to say whatever you want, even if you are an *******, with no pushback.

I think calling him fragile is me letting him off easy.

 

[Based Jesus]

Barring any drastic changes to party demographics and platforms it seems premature to devote any measure of time to worrying about Republicans winning a more significant amount of the black vote. The larger concerns are the anti-democratic institutions and policies that would make even a slight (yet still improbable) shift a major issue, assuming it happens while republicans are still blatantly anti-black. Anyways, for Tim Scott to even make it to the General Election republican voters would have to send him there. Hoping that doesn't happen is like hoping lightning doesn't strike you on a sunny day.

 

[RustyShackleford]

-2004 happened (Bush actively went after black voters), midterms happen. I am sure many Dems know that getting over 90% of the black vote is not a lock.

-The Dems have been focused on securing the black vote. Maybe they could do better. But the black vote has also been severely weakened over the past 10 years also. The Dems are fighting a two front war already. So many are aware how losing voters in close elections severely hurts their political prospects.

-Like is the point of this whole argument for people to acknowledge the GOP has not hit their ceiling with black voters? That black people can fall victim to the same nonsense white people do. And what is the solution to this problem exactly? What gameplan are the Dems just ignoring. Because if there was some easy fix to stopping people from believing lies and propaganda, the Dems would be blowing the GOP out consistently.

Like the main takeaway is suppose "if a more talented politician, uses a more effective strategy, then they might be more successful". Like yeah ok, thanks for that.

But sure cool, throw it on the pile of other **** people have to worry about. But it might get buried in a year when I have to worry about the undemocratically appointed Supreme Court strikes down the rest of the VRA, and black voters are targets of even more voter suppression.

 

[dinyc3st]

Karma don't miss!



Neither does Meidas! LOL

 

[deuce king]

The republicans have def not hit their ceiling yet with black voters.

LOL. Bless your heart.

 

[Belgium]

This man is a lawyer. I can't even

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Put him signing the letter aside, what came afterward is where the real ****ty behavior starts imo.

That is not what his coworker did though. She didn't report him to HR, she didn't throw him under the bus, she actually said Matt has been nothing but kind to her, she didn't there to be any official pushback from Vox management toward him. She was apparently one of many people at Vox used a letter to the editor program to make their disagreement with Matt more official.

So I don't how she came close to doing what you characterized. Like she called him an ally, called him kind, what to make sure no disciplinary action was taken against him. In return Matt cherry picks parts of the story to craft a narrative, this results in Emily getting attack and threaten online, to the point Yglesias had to demand people stop it.

Now he quits, runs to conservatives writers to be a posterboy of free speech being stifled, and then cites that one instance again, misrepresenting what Emily did. Which results in another wave of disgusting **** being thrown at her.

If anything, Yglesias is an example of a practice many white affluent liberals like to do. Use their claim allyship as a shield to do ****ty things against marginalized groups. Then when the pushback comes, they pearl clutch. Yglesias doesn't seem like he is pissed his allyship for used against him, he is pissed that his feelings were not central to the discourse around the situation. Even worse, he keeps hinting there is more to the story, yet the only thing he is talking freely about is this one instance. How he was wronged by a transgender coworker who....checks notes...disagreed with him disagreeing with others.

Seems to me that Yglesias is a privilege white dude that loves to kick the hornet's nest whenever he a) thinks it is necessary b) for his own assumment, but this time the right person pushed back, and he ended up with egg on his face. And the thing is that his handling of the situation is not an outlier when it comes to left wing spaces. Sure he is a much better actor/human being/writer than Sullivan and Weis. Weis and Sullivan are entitled bigots. But I think it is a fair comparison to make considering how he is behaving just like them after he quit. Telling a convenient story that paints him as the the only one that was wronged.

Dude is a critic that couldn't handle criticism. A person that couldn't handle the same energy he puts out in the world being return to him in the smallest way.

I think there is a difference between saying members of marginalized groups on the left should have some patience with other members because solidarity is necessary, people are not perfect, and disagreements should be able to exist within the coalition without breaking it. I am all for stop the purity testing. But I am not sympathetic to someone that confuses that sentiment (intentionally or unintentionally) with being allowed to say whatever you want, even if you are an *******, with no pushback.

I think calling him fragile is me letting him off easy.

seems to me you're doing a lot of mind reading when the dudes stated rationale makes total sense.
he wants to write more provocative takes but was told that with him as a Vox founder he has to be more diplomatic in public,


combine that with the fact that younger people at Vox have further left than him and he's no longer in a management position it was worth to go for more independence and take a shot trying the sub stack game.


all this stuff about using ally ship as a shield, and fragility just seems like mind reading. he didn't say he was wronged by anyone, or that he should be a poster child for free speech or anything like that.

i dunno seems to me like you're drawing a lot of extreme inferences when the reality, it's just a dude switching jobs.

 

[Upptempo]

The Republicans hit their ceiling in 2004.

You're thinking of the Detroit Pistons

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Additionally, they have zero interest in even addressing or acknowledging the systemic racism and inequities that their policies make worse.

yah i think this is our principle disagreement.

it seems to me their are plenty of black voters, particularly older non college educated males. who either don't care, or don't understand the modern conception of systemic racism.

according to pew

22% of black people believe we talk too much about race.

48% of black people believe individual racism is a bigger problem than institutional.

seems to be their are ton of people a conservative populist message could appeal to. maybe the party is too dysfunctional to make it happen. but to it's clear the votes are there.

 

[rexanglorum]

Big picture, 2020 Trump had pretty much the same, as Ta-Nehisi Coates put it in 2016, vast, white coalition as the last time around. The GOP is neither a workers’ party nor is it a multi racial party nor will it become that any time soon.

That said, every part of the Democratic coalition should be concerned that in such a high turnout election, Democrats didn’t romp. With this turnout and with a Republican incumbent facing a huge crisis of his own making, like 2008, but not getting 2008 results should be of grave concern.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

LOL. Bless your heart.

it's very strange to me

the implication is that you think that 90% of black people are always going to vote democrat for the rest of time?

I dunno, I don't think democrats should be so complacent,

imo democrats should work harder to deliver material gains for black and brown communities.

because it seems pretty clear that democrats need to hold that 90-10 margin for their coalition to be viable

and it's totally possible for republicans to make a dent in that.

 

[RustyShackleford]

seems to me you're doing a lot of mind reading when the dudes stated rationale makes total sense.
he wants to write more provocative takes but was told that with him as a Vox founder he has to be more diplomatic in public,


combine that with the fact that younger people at Vox have further left than him and he's no longer in a management position it was worth to go for more independence and take a shot trying the sub stack game.


all this stuff about using ally ship as a shield, and fragility just seems like mind reading. he didn't say he was wronged by anyone, or that he should be a poster child for free speech or anything like that.

i dunno seems to me like you're drawing a lot of extreme inferences when the reality, it's just a dude switching jobs.

So he is not talking to Conor Friedersdorf (a known complainer of so called liberal cancel culture) and Andrew Sullivan (the ultimate complainer of liberal cancel culture), giving a one sided take on a situation as a prime example of why he felt he should leave Vox. He didn't do that?

He doesn't spend his time on Twitter, day after day, being flippant and trollish toward people on the left whenever he feels like it He doesn't do that?

Tons of people journalist switch jobs, do they do they all act like Matt has done on his way out. Hell is Ezra acting like him.

German Lopez openly stated multiple time he dislikes woke politics, and pretty much subtweet that Matt is full of it

Seems like though you are a fan of him, and you are just want to give him the benefit of the doubt. You will rant about ****ty white liberals all day, but it stops at the ****ty white liberal you like.

I guess it all makes sense if I listen to Matt, and only Matt.

 

[RustyShackleford]

it's very strange to me

the implication is that you think that 90% of black people are always going to vote democrat for the rest of time?

I dunno, I don't think democrats should be so complacent,

imo democrats should work harder to deliver material gains for black and brown communities.

because it seems pretty clear that democrats need to hold that 90-10 margin for their coalition to be viable

and it's totally possible for republicans to make a dent in that.

That's the simple solution to the issue?

Damn, never thought about it that way.

They should just ask Mitch to take a vote on the dozens of bills that would improve the material conditions of black communities

Or they could push for policies when they don't have the White House, even though the GOP might take credit for it, and use those things as talking points. Like criminal justice reform, expansionary monetary policy, and stimulus checks.

I wonder why they never try that stuff.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

So he is not talking to Conor Friedersdorf (a known complainer of so called liberal cancel culture) and Andrew Sullivan (the ultimate complainer of liberal cancel cluture), giving a one sided take on a situation as a prime example of why he felt he should leave Vox. He didn't do that?

you make it sound like because he talked to x person it makes his point more extreme than it actually was. it's not like by talking to Friedsersdorf or Sullivan he automatically agrees with all their takes on cancel culture.

again the claim does not sound that extreme or crazy.

the claim just doesn't sound that crazy. it's obvious that younger progressives have different views on speech and harm caused by speech and he disagrees with them he said as much.

“Something we’ve seen in a lot of organizations is increasing sensitivity about language and what people say,” he told me. “It’s a damaging trend in the media in particular because it is an industry that’s about ideas, and if you treat disagreement as a source of harm or personal safety, then it’s very challenging to do good work.”

it's natural as you get older, the younger people are more progressive than you are. and that culture clash can make it harder to do your job.

it just seems to that Ygleiasis is just popular enough that he start his own thing and not have to deal with it.

im not even making value judgment claims about who is right about this cancel culture stuff. it seems to me that minds can differ on the subject and it's not that big of a deal.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

That's the simple solution to the issue?

Damn, never thought about it that way.

They should just ask Mitch to take a vote on the dozens of bills that would improve the material conditions of black communities

Or they could push for policies when they don't have the White House, even though the GOP might take credit for it, and use those things as talking points. Like criminal justice reform, expansionary monetary policy, and stimulus checks.

I wonder why they never try that stuff.

yah you know im aware all that

im saying when they have the power to do stuff they should work harder to deliver for black and brown and not take the vote for granted.

when people act like 90-10 republicans is a hard ceiling as some have said in this thread, it strikes me like that's a recipe to take black voters for granted.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

I think there is a lot of nuance in this "cancel culture" debate that gets lost.

it seems like people get lumped into

"cancel culture is a scurge that's destroying society" or "cancel culture is not real at all."



I used to be more on the it's not at all real and white people are just complaining that they actually have to listen to the concerns of black, brown, gay trans people now.

but as time as gone on I think that's not totally true. I think the social morae's young progressive have generated around speech can definitely be harmful and unproductive a times

and the nature of social media and the internet exacerbates this. if you define that as "cancel culture" than yah id be inclined to believe it's real.

 

[RustyShackleford]

you make it sound like because he talked to x person it makes his point more extreme than it actually was. it's not like by talking to Friedsersdorf or Sullivan he automatically agrees with all their takes on cancel culture.

again the claim does not sound that extreme or crazy.

the claim just doesn't sound that crazy. it's obvious that younger progressives have different views on speech and harm caused by speech and he disagrees with them he said as much.

“Something we’ve seen in a lot of organizations is increasing sensitivity about language and what people say,” he told me. “It’s a damaging trend in the media in particular because it is an industry that’s about ideas, and if you treat disagreement as a source of harm or personal safety, then it’s very challenging to do good work.”

it's natural as you get older, the younger people are more progressive than you are. and that culture clash can make it harder to do your job.

it just seems to that Ygleiasis is just popular enough that he start his own thing and not have to deal with it.

im not even making value judgment claims about who is right about this cancel culture stuff. it seems to me that minds can differ on the subject and it's not that big of a deal.

Did I say that?

Is not that they signed the letter, or he left, or he even talked to those people, is that he is using a ****ty one sided take on a situation as an example too. If dude's beef was that his editors didn't give him freedom to do good work. Then why the hell is he bringing up a situation where someone went out there way to be critical of him but make sure there was no fromal profession blowback.

Something you seem to want to handwave to paint it as though I am reaching to criticize the dude.

If minds could differ and it not be that big a deal. Then why the **** does he even have an issue with his coworkers criticism then.

Walk your *** out the door and shut the **** up, because at the end of the day all your co-workers did was disagree with you.

 

[IATT]

dwalk31

 

[RustyShackleford]

yah you know im aware all that

im saying when they have the power to do stuff they should work harder to deliver for black and brown and not take the vote for granted.

when people act like 90-10 republicans is a hard ceiling as some have said in this thread, it strikes me like that's a recipe to take black voters for granted.

Huh?

So your point is that the Dems should do what they were planning to do if they got the trifecta?

Cause unless you can name the leaders of the Democratic Party than advocate for doing nothing for black voters, cause 90% will always vote Dem, seems like you care take a sentiment that might exist among a few individuals, and applying it to every Dem.

 

[IATT]

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Did I say that?

Is not that they signed the letter, or he left, or he even talked to those people, is that he is using a ****ty one sided take on a situation as an example too. If dude's beef was that his editors didn't give him freedom to do good work. Then why the hell is he bringing up a situation where someone went out there way to be critical of him but make sure there was no profession blowback.

i said it sounded like that, if im wrong my bad, you made a point of pointing out Sullivan's and conors thoughts on cancel culture so my assumption was you were implying their views were all aligned.

If dude's beef was that his editors didn't give him freedom to do good work. Then why the hell is he bringing up a situation where someone went out there way to be critical of him but make sure there was no profession blowback.

um ecause it was an example of his opinion on speech and harm vs the younger more progressive vox faculties opinion on speech and harm? the whole point is that there was a tension between me being a vox founder and me just being a opinion columnist and the whole letter incident was an obious example. it's not like he was saying vox is bad, or emily van de worff was bad. he was just pointing out the obvious tension with him being a founder and a sometimes contentious opinion writer.

he also used the tom cotton op-ed as an example

If minds could differ and it not be that big a deal. Then why the **** does he even have an issue with his coworkers criticism then.

he disagrees?

he didn't say they were bad people, or that vox is bad, or that he was screwed over. or not that ive seen?

he just said as far as i can tll, that it's easier to write opinions, when Im not a former founder beholden to a much more progressive faculty especially on the subject on speech and harm.

like i just don't think this departure is as like dramatic or contentious as you make it sound.

he went into it a bit more on the sub stack. how older management dealing with younger faculty is an issue at every media organization.

maybe im crazy but it doesn't seem like it's really like a heated breakup / firing.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Huh?

So your point is that the Dems should do what they were planning to do if they got the trifecta?

Cause unless you can name the leaders of the Democratic Party than advocate for doing nothing for black voters, cause 90% will always vote Dem, seems like you care take a sentiment that might exist among a few individuals, and applying it to every Dem.

i was responding to comment in this thread. not to the democratic party writ large.

my point is if you take the attitude that 90-10 vote share is a lock, then logically it would lower the urgency to deliver for communities of color.


my point is it's not a lock and the level of urgency should remain high.