This is not a strong critique; it exaggerates his views to mock them, ignores that campaigns and situations change over time, and it's a little too full of spit words. It may be possible to trim it down to a more moderate and decent critique, but it'd take some work and intellectual humility the author at least doesn't exhibit here.
Simple eg - Complimenting the convention in August does not represent a full throated endorsement of the entire campaign leading up to Election Day.
Yglesias is popular because he pumps out well-researched, original, relevant, self-aware, incisive prose like a Gatling gun. Claiming he’s an average blogger who ‘got lucky’ doesn’t wash.
Not saying he’s above criticism, but try again…this reads like a political ad. Next time use less bile- turn down the personal/petty-meter.
"The same smoke-and-mirrors is present in the rest of his Manifesto, which, among other things, scolds Democrats for dismissing economic growth, prioritizing immigrants over American citizens, and succumbing to DEI mania"
Like dude, talk to any normal person and they all say that dems focus on DEI and open borders. It literally doesn't matter to what degree it's true, the judgment is there. On the borders, they waited 3 YEARS to do any executive action, which even your savior Bernie admitted was an admission that they CHOSE to do nothing (aka open borders).
This article is trash and laughably bad. Please go understand why AOC underperforms in her blue district time and time again.
Generally agree with you here. Worth noting that AOC ran ahead of Kamala in 2024 by like 4% it not huge but still. She did get flack for not being anti Israel enough so idk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'll leave responding to this to Joe since the message was directed at him (and also because I don't feel like I'd tackle the points adequately), but I just wanna leave this here:
To pretend Biden governed as a moderate is massively delusional. By far the most Progressive President of my lifetime and most since FDR. But he got no credit for any of the things he did from the dipshit cosplay left, so I doubt any Democrat in near future will pursue the same path
“Most progressive president since FDR” this is just false. Biden wasn’t nearly as progressive as LBJ and the Great Society. Hell, Nixon’s price controls on oil during the oil crisis was far more progressive than anything Biden did.
He and Kamala didn't "get credit" for the admin's actual accomplishments (mostly through Lina Khan's inspired antitrust crusade) because they didn't campaign on them.
Oh please. We just had the most left wing president in last 50 years, arguably history, who implemented as much of the Sanders-Warren agenda as was feasible and catered to the cultural extremists and what happened? The whole time the left screamed about how he was doing austerity (in fact, Biden’s stimulus, which was partly responsible for later inflation, was way more generous than any other developed country) and then called him “genocide Joe” and rat fucked him the entire way. And every thing we know about the last election tells us in very stark terms that the reason Harris lost was because voters thought she was too extremely leftist. You might not think that Harris was leftist but that says more about how fringe you yourself are relative to most voters.
Seriously, you guys are delusional. As delusional as maga, with your arrogance, self satisfaction, detachment from reality, echo chambers, and yes, viciousness towards anyone who disagrees with you. What you should be doing is a lot of introspection and soul searching - how did we alienate people we claim to speak for? How did we piss off even our close allies? If you can’t do that, then at least shut the fuck up, or better yet, go away.
You are talking nonsense. She lost not because she was too leftist. Quite the opposite she lost because other than abortion she stood for nothing and fought for nothing. It was not Biden's stimulus but Insane Clown's clownish pandemic response that bears full responsibility for inflation. Insane Clown was the one who effectively surrendered to the Taliban by releasing 5,000 prisoners and drawing troop levels down from 13,000 to 2,500 and was prepared to order a mass exodus after he lost the election. Insane Clown disavowed any knowledge of Project 25. Kamala let all that horseshit stand. She preferred to twist herself into knots trying to explain her fracking flip flop than speak the unspeakable forbidden words Climate Crisis. Her attempt to portray herself as a gun enthusiast was embarrassing. A show of strength was all anyone wanted from Kamala. Insane Clown cannot take a punch if Kamala would have just put the damn pom poms down and thrown just one punch Insane Clown would drop like a rock and wouldn't get up. It didn't have to be this way and that is a damn shame.
Literally every poll, analysis and examination of the result finds that voters founder her to be too far to the left. Whether that is an accurate characterization of her positions is a different question. It is how she was perceived and no amount of wishful thinking can change that.
I agree with the stuff relating to the “Insane Clown”
Voters found her that way because Insane Clown day after day called her a radical left lunatic and all she did was smile and wave and smile some more and wave some more. If she would have put the damn pom poms down long enough to say he belongs in jail for his treasonous criminal acts and had to plead like a bitch for immunity, his 4 years of non-stop clowning as president, and for good measure attach him to Project 25 and Putin she would have shut him up and would have won easily.
Actually, I do care about shoplifting and all the other crimes being committed repeatedly in our neighborhoods. I love my blue state except for the revolving door of criminals and the no bond/low bond problem. We've lost our sense of security as well as financial impacts of these crimes.
'But evidence of a spike in shoplifting, it turns out, was mostly anecdotal. In fact, there’s little data to suggest that there’s a nationwide problem in need of an immediate response from city councils or state legislatures. Instead, what America seems to be experiencing is less of a shoplifting wave and more of a moral panic.'
The article goes into more detail, but the funniest part about this-Which Joe already pointed out in this very article-is that this is on Vox, which Matt co-founded, and was made a year and 3 days before he went on Vox to play into this.
Yes, all these store are locking up their stuff because of .... vibes? Like use some common sense. CVS decides to spend millions on locks and keys and cabinets to just ... stick it to the libs?
I don’t think there’s been a nationwide rise in shoplifting. But I do think a deemphasis on enforcing the law in some of the most high profile progressive cities, especially San Francisco, has rightly led normal people to question whether or not progressives care about enforcing the law, especially when that would involve punishing disadvantaged groups like black people, homeless people, and drug addicts. It is indisputably true that SF police won’t even pursue lower value property crimes like shoplifting to the point where chains like Target and CVS are either shutting down stores or locking up virtually all merchandise. People don’t want to live like that, and they hate the thought of voting for people who take they feel take the side of criminals over law abiding Americans.
It all stemmed from prop 47, which you can look up if you’re interested. The measure made property crimes under $950 in value misdemeanors instead of felonies, which resulted in basically no effort going towards enforcing the law for smaller property crimes leading to a bad enough rise in thefts and car break-ins that last year they passed prop 36 to raise the penalties for many of those crimes again.
It did have effects, though. I was in DC a lot at the time. It made going to CVS for anything insane. Apparently, at one store, it was theft from employees. Same old, same old.
One of the more thorough critiques of the Democratic Party and liberals I have seen in years. However, I read virtually no criticism of the left. Biden was arguably the most left-wing president we’ve ever had (I know that’s not saying much) but every demographic, every single county, shifted to Trump.
The electorate looked at the current incarnation of liberals and the left and said “Not that!”
Liberals and Democrats need to go away but the left needs to do some serious self reflection too.
I'm glad you liked the article! Though I would dispute the notion this election was a referendum on the left. Biden might be "the most left president in our lives," but only because ever president has been center or right. And look at Bernie. He's drawing 10k plus crowds in Republican states with a left message. Americans seem very responsive to that message.
When will you all understand that rally sizes are meaningless? The median voter is too busy working and taking care of their families to attend this crap. No matter the politician. It's all feel good nonsense.
To focus just on economic issues, Biden maybe WAS the farthest-left president in half a century, and probably the most pro-union one, but that is an incredibly low bar to clear.
First, remember that among the 2020 primary candidates, he was the farthest-right candidate of anyone save Bloomberg. He was leftist compared only to Republicans; he's on the right within the Democratic party, just not as much as Obama or Clinton. They both had the political talent to campaign on economic populism but then "pivot" once in office, e.g. "it's the economy, stupid" suddenly become concern for the budget deficit after Clinton's election.
Second, Harris wasn't Biden. The appointment of serious antitrust enforcers was the most "leftist" thing he did, as it was the first real policy defeat for plutocracy in my adult lifetime, but it was obvious Harris was not on board and if she had won Khan was probably gone. (Probably Kanter, too, but it was Khan that both the UAW and megadonors made competing demands about.)
The only real, anti-plutocracy "leftists" in the 2020 primary were Bernie and Warren, and you don't read critiques of their policy because they've never been in power. All they have right now is messaging, and as Bernie is proving the messaging is popular - it's always easier to be on the outside offering criticism.
Harris and Biden couldn’t string together a paragraph of complete sentences when it was on the teleprompter right in front of them. They were corrupt empty suits and most of the organized left went along with it because they thought some of those crumbs you mention would be worth it.
Warren and Bernie say better things than a typical Democrat but they’ve proven time and again that they will never stand up to the Democrats in any meaningful way. It’s painfully obvious that they are phonies who have no self respect. That’s why they don’t get broader support despite their economic politics being fairly popular.
I mostly agree with you, though in Warren's case it was more than talk. She was very effective as a political insider in fighting against plutocracy. The only reason she ran for office was because she ran out of road getting the CFPB created. When Obama stiffed her for the job (because he wasn't willing to annoy Wall Street further), they offered her a Senate seat to go quietly.
The problem is she is still an insider at heart, trying to make quiet changes within the system (she and Sherrod Brown torpedoed Larry Summers's bid for Fed chair) rather than overthrowing it.
Bernie's a different case. His heart's in the right place on policy, and he is making a personal effort with his anti-oligarchy tour that is conspicuously absent among the Dem leadership. But he believes too much in solidarity and won't break with the Dem leadership when it matters. His leading his followers "back into captivity", as FdB put it, is an unfortunate and underappreciated event in recent politics.
Forgive my cynicism but I think you hold politicians in too high esteem. They are driven by more by ambition and narcissism than by personal courage and integrity.
Nobody is going to organize to save the constitutionally-dubious CFPB. But I want to make charging amortized interest a crime and I bet I could get 80% of MAGA on board.
The organized left has forgotten how to think like this.
I suppose "too high" is a matter of opinion, but I think it's important to distinguish between those who have merely have big egos and a lot of ambition (because that's all of them, or they wouldn't be running for office) and those who are complete narcissists (Trump) or political climbers completely without principle (Harris).
I have been following Warren's career since I read one of her books 20 years ago, and while she has been willing to shapeshift on some issues, e.g. pretending to want M4A when populists demanded it during the 2020 primary, she has been consistent in fighting Wall Street for 20 years despite being in a party that has become devoted to it.
Tulsi Gabbard is another good example. She was marked as a rising star ever since she joined Congress in 2013, but she has always been a one-issue candidate, devoted to opposing neocon warmongering. Most politicians with her ambition (she ran for president still in her 30's) would have decided to "go along to get along" once they discovered that Dem foreign policy had been completely taken over by neocons, but instead she threw down, resigning as DNC vice-chair to endorse Bernie, calling Clinton "queen of the warmongers". The result is that she was eventually run out of the party, and now gets slandered about her loyalty to the country after Clinton got even by calling her a "Russian asset" and loyalist media outlets backed Clinton.
Cynics looked at Gabbard's willingness to switch sides and yelled "grifter!", but it was a consequence of refusing to bend on her signature issue.
I think it's important recognize people who have *some* principles, because that is the best you can hope for, and if you don't appreciate them you'll just end up with more like Harris (or Clinton, for that matter).
I see/hear a lot of rhetoric about voters "look[ing] at the current incarnation" of their options, "knowing what they were voting for" because so-and-so supposedly told "them" what so-and-so was going to do, etc.
I haven't bought that monolithicizing since well before Dominion Voting Systems settled out of court.
Show me that whatever polls/studies/records you're referencing established that their participants were demonstrably familiar with clearly stated policy platforms (as opposed to demonstrably swallowing regurgitated horseshit like "Republicans are always better for the economy", "Democrats campaigned too hard on trans issues" et al.)
I don’t have polls or studies and I never suggested people voted “for” anything. All I can tell you is what I know and what I see:
It’s not supposed to be this hard to get by. Something about the economy is fundamentally broken. It might be capitalism or the monetary system but no policy is going to fix anything until the corrupt and unserious people in government are replaced by honest, competent people.
I don’t care if some stranger thinks a policy communist or fascist. I care about is it going to help the families in my neighborhood living three-generations in a 70s split level who can barely afford water and trash.
My brother has a child with permanent disabilities. I want to know he can afford proper and quality care. But single payer isn’t going to work if we keep the same corrupt people and infrastructure.
MAGA types talk about corruption all the time. They do so in kinda kooky ways so I wonder if that’s why the left misreads them.
Much clearer, thank you. I hope your nephew can survive the churn too, but I don't see the present administration doing half of what the previous one did to cut actual costs for actual taxpayers...
I think the corruption talk that's fueled by right-wing media paints anything but accurate targets, and anything even vaguely equivalent that's pointed out by lefties is thoroughly ignored by both of the Big Two Party System and all "legacy" media. So sure, there was always some "swamp" that needed to be "drained", but (a) the people who believed Boss T was the one to actually do that work were actively deluded, (b) the ones who have genuine insight into what needs to be cut away aren't the ones anybody in power are listening to. (Otherwise the real evidence against righteous targets would be all over at least one media outlet — or at the very least the white house website — unless of course even that is bought and paid for.)
What would you say the left needs to examine about itself? I know being technically correct doesn't actually put anything real on the table ...
To be fair, the Harris campaign wasn’t beaten badly. It was a small margin, but that only reinforces your argument. There was barely any difference there to choose. Full on fascism, or just imperialism and corporate rule with less austerity. Not a catchy bumper sticker. If we had a Bernie, or AOC, or Jasmine Crockett running? How many blue collar voters would vote for us if they knew their kids could go to college for free, and have universal healthcare when they get there? It’s better than, well, we won’t give the oil companies quite so many undeserved subsidies. FFS
That's true about the margin. I was referring more to Republicans winning all three branches, plus their control on the Supreme Court. Couldn't agree more about the last part!
In 2024 Kamala Harris received 235k votes in Vermont while Bernie received only 229k for Senate. The idea that ‘if Bernie would run in a general election he’d get so many more votes’ is a fantasy.
That's a good question but worth noting that Insane Clown also outperformed Bernie's Republican opponent Malloy 119K to 116.5K, and if you add in the 6K for RFK that's a bigger margin for Bernie than for Kamala (113K to 110.4K). More likely that people in Vermont who just voted for president and left the rest blank would account for that discrepancy not voters splitting their ballot for Kamala and Malloy. I have to believe that Bernie would have kicked Insane Clown's fat ass into oblivion in 2016. Insane Clown's own pollster Fabrizio believes likewise. Recall that in 2016 Insane Clown challenged Bernie to debate and wasted no time punking out.
'Insane Clown's own pollster Fabrizio believes likewise. Recall that in 2016 Insane Clown challenged Bernie to debate and wasted no time punking out.' Can you elaborate and cite your sources? I never heard of this and now I'm curious
I was speaking about someone that is more progressive. We keep trying to run from the center. And we keep losing because of it. The fact that the Senate snd House are virtually tied year after year speaks to the fact that the Democratic party has become a softer version of what the right was twenty years ago, and that’s sad.
"We don’t know if a leftist, pro-working class message and candidacy could defeat Donald Trump."
You know why? People those candidates can't even beat moderates in a dem primary, yet you somehow think there are millions of lefties who will come out and support them in the general. Totally unhinged from reality.
Impossible to take this article seriously with nonsense like this.
"As a labor organizer, who actually talks to workers instead of imagining them, I can tell you, struggling working-class voters care about workplace protections, increasing wages, and better healthcare. Not shoplifting."
Nothing proves you are completely out-of-touch with the reality of low-income people (who have to deal with the consequences of left-wing crime policies) living in cities than this.
People are allowed to care about more than one thing. In fact, they can even prioritize their concerns, such as shoplifting, among others, like cost of living.
It doesn't take much of an imagination to see how cost of living and shoplifting might be connected.
Are you saying that they care more about shoplifting than workplace protections, increasing wages, and better healthcare? Do you think they care about it more than inflation?
It's a bit out of touch to handwave away any of those concerns.
I write mainly about US monetary policy, US fiscal policy, trade/industrial policy, and climate change policy.
I have my opinions about which US political party is by far the least bad and they are not hard to figure out, but I try to keep my analysis of the issues non-partisan.
Keynes said, “Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.”
Well maybe you should ask him. My off hand recollection is that the said he supported the Iraq invitation but now thinks that was a mistake. He believed that Bided was competent to stand as a candidate and then changed his mind. He thought student loan forgiveness was a good way to do “stimulus” in early 2021 but later did not.
Of course he has the advantage of having written opinions so it’s each for him to document changes of opinion. Most of us do not, so it’s easier to think we’ve always been right about everything.
Can you think of anything you’ve ever changed your opinion about?
I write mainly about US monetary policy, US fiscal policy, trade/industrial policy, and climate change policy.
I have my opinions about which US political party is by far the least bad and they are not hard to figure out, but I try to keep my analysis of the issues non-partisan.
Keynes said, “Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.”
Honestly I think giving him enough rope to hang himself is the best way to show people he's full of shit. His claims are getting more erratic by the day. On a political level, it will take dislodging the centrist establishment of the Democratic party. That's a much larger task though.
Too often we ascribe negative traits to people who disagree with us and think differently than us. I think that’s a core driver of toxic polarization and we should try to avoid that. I stopped reading your post when you used words like selfish and cynical (and more) to describe Matthew, as nothing I’ve seen from him makes me think that. I think he makes many good points about Democrat failures. We can disagree and still seek to engage in good faith.
This is not a strong critique; it exaggerates his views to mock them, ignores that campaigns and situations change over time, and it's a little too full of spit words. It may be possible to trim it down to a more moderate and decent critique, but it'd take some work and intellectual humility the author at least doesn't exhibit here.
Took the words right out of my mouth Improv.
Simple eg - Complimenting the convention in August does not represent a full throated endorsement of the entire campaign leading up to Election Day.
Yglesias is popular because he pumps out well-researched, original, relevant, self-aware, incisive prose like a Gatling gun. Claiming he’s an average blogger who ‘got lucky’ doesn’t wash.
Not saying he’s above criticism, but try again…this reads like a political ad. Next time use less bile- turn down the personal/petty-meter.
Which claims do you think I exaggerated?
Literally all of it?
"The same smoke-and-mirrors is present in the rest of his Manifesto, which, among other things, scolds Democrats for dismissing economic growth, prioritizing immigrants over American citizens, and succumbing to DEI mania"
Like dude, talk to any normal person and they all say that dems focus on DEI and open borders. It literally doesn't matter to what degree it's true, the judgment is there. On the borders, they waited 3 YEARS to do any executive action, which even your savior Bernie admitted was an admission that they CHOSE to do nothing (aka open borders).
This article is trash and laughably bad. Please go understand why AOC underperforms in her blue district time and time again.
Generally agree with you here. Worth noting that AOC ran ahead of Kamala in 2024 by like 4% it not huge but still. She did get flack for not being anti Israel enough so idk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'll leave responding to this to Joe since the message was directed at him (and also because I don't feel like I'd tackle the points adequately), but I just wanna leave this here:
https://www.filesforprogress.org/datasets/2024/8/dfp-battleground-issues-crosstabs.pdf
To pretend Biden governed as a moderate is massively delusional. By far the most Progressive President of my lifetime and most since FDR. But he got no credit for any of the things he did from the dipshit cosplay left, so I doubt any Democrat in near future will pursue the same path
“Most progressive president since FDR” this is just false. Biden wasn’t nearly as progressive as LBJ and the Great Society. Hell, Nixon’s price controls on oil during the oil crisis was far more progressive than anything Biden did.
He and Kamala didn't "get credit" for the admin's actual accomplishments (mostly through Lina Khan's inspired antitrust crusade) because they didn't campaign on them.
https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/why-does-the-biden-white-house-hate
https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/billionaire-orders-kamala-harris
Antitrust is pretty popular and even has some bipartisan support, why avoid it unless you're afraid the campaign contribution checks will stop coming?
Avoiding them altogether makes them seem like an accident that would be rectified in a potential 2nd term.
The Biden Administration taking policy ideas from the Slow Boring newsletter is profoundly depressing.
It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.
Oh please. We just had the most left wing president in last 50 years, arguably history, who implemented as much of the Sanders-Warren agenda as was feasible and catered to the cultural extremists and what happened? The whole time the left screamed about how he was doing austerity (in fact, Biden’s stimulus, which was partly responsible for later inflation, was way more generous than any other developed country) and then called him “genocide Joe” and rat fucked him the entire way. And every thing we know about the last election tells us in very stark terms that the reason Harris lost was because voters thought she was too extremely leftist. You might not think that Harris was leftist but that says more about how fringe you yourself are relative to most voters.
Seriously, you guys are delusional. As delusional as maga, with your arrogance, self satisfaction, detachment from reality, echo chambers, and yes, viciousness towards anyone who disagrees with you. What you should be doing is a lot of introspection and soul searching - how did we alienate people we claim to speak for? How did we piss off even our close allies? If you can’t do that, then at least shut the fuck up, or better yet, go away.
You are talking nonsense. She lost not because she was too leftist. Quite the opposite she lost because other than abortion she stood for nothing and fought for nothing. It was not Biden's stimulus but Insane Clown's clownish pandemic response that bears full responsibility for inflation. Insane Clown was the one who effectively surrendered to the Taliban by releasing 5,000 prisoners and drawing troop levels down from 13,000 to 2,500 and was prepared to order a mass exodus after he lost the election. Insane Clown disavowed any knowledge of Project 25. Kamala let all that horseshit stand. She preferred to twist herself into knots trying to explain her fracking flip flop than speak the unspeakable forbidden words Climate Crisis. Her attempt to portray herself as a gun enthusiast was embarrassing. A show of strength was all anyone wanted from Kamala. Insane Clown cannot take a punch if Kamala would have just put the damn pom poms down and thrown just one punch Insane Clown would drop like a rock and wouldn't get up. It didn't have to be this way and that is a damn shame.
Literally every poll, analysis and examination of the result finds that voters founder her to be too far to the left. Whether that is an accurate characterization of her positions is a different question. It is how she was perceived and no amount of wishful thinking can change that.
I agree with the stuff relating to the “Insane Clown”
Voters found her that way because Insane Clown day after day called her a radical left lunatic and all she did was smile and wave and smile some more and wave some more. If she would have put the damn pom poms down long enough to say he belongs in jail for his treasonous criminal acts and had to plead like a bitch for immunity, his 4 years of non-stop clowning as president, and for good measure attach him to Project 25 and Putin she would have shut him up and would have won easily.
Sure guy, “won easily”
Yeah won easily. Insane Clown was unbeatable you think?
Adding onto what the other guy is saying:
https://www.filesforprogress.org/datasets/2024/8/dfp-battleground-issues-crosstabs.pdf
Actually, I do care about shoplifting and all the other crimes being committed repeatedly in our neighborhoods. I love my blue state except for the revolving door of criminals and the no bond/low bond problem. We've lost our sense of security as well as financial impacts of these crimes.
Sure, but the shoplifting craze wasn't real. The NFR had to retract its claims.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Every store in DC has the basics locked up. There is a reason for this. (Left-wing policies)
https://www.vox.com/politics/24025691/shoplifting-scare-criminal-justice-reform
'But evidence of a spike in shoplifting, it turns out, was mostly anecdotal. In fact, there’s little data to suggest that there’s a nationwide problem in need of an immediate response from city councils or state legislatures. Instead, what America seems to be experiencing is less of a shoplifting wave and more of a moral panic.'
The article goes into more detail, but the funniest part about this-Which Joe already pointed out in this very article-is that this is on Vox, which Matt co-founded, and was made a year and 3 days before he went on Vox to play into this.
Yes, all these store are locking up their stuff because of .... vibes? Like use some common sense. CVS decides to spend millions on locks and keys and cabinets to just ... stick it to the libs?
I hope you are a parody account lol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic
Again, you clearly have not owned or operated a business. Sounds about right.
I don’t think there’s been a nationwide rise in shoplifting. But I do think a deemphasis on enforcing the law in some of the most high profile progressive cities, especially San Francisco, has rightly led normal people to question whether or not progressives care about enforcing the law, especially when that would involve punishing disadvantaged groups like black people, homeless people, and drug addicts. It is indisputably true that SF police won’t even pursue lower value property crimes like shoplifting to the point where chains like Target and CVS are either shutting down stores or locking up virtually all merchandise. People don’t want to live like that, and they hate the thought of voting for people who take they feel take the side of criminals over law abiding Americans.
'It is indisputably true that SF police won’t even pursue lower value property crimes like shoplifting'
Can you cite your sources for that?
It all stemmed from prop 47, which you can look up if you’re interested. The measure made property crimes under $950 in value misdemeanors instead of felonies, which resulted in basically no effort going towards enforcing the law for smaller property crimes leading to a bad enough rise in thefts and car break-ins that last year they passed prop 36 to raise the penalties for many of those crimes again.
It did have effects, though. I was in DC a lot at the time. It made going to CVS for anything insane. Apparently, at one store, it was theft from employees. Same old, same old.
One of the more thorough critiques of the Democratic Party and liberals I have seen in years. However, I read virtually no criticism of the left. Biden was arguably the most left-wing president we’ve ever had (I know that’s not saying much) but every demographic, every single county, shifted to Trump.
The electorate looked at the current incarnation of liberals and the left and said “Not that!”
Liberals and Democrats need to go away but the left needs to do some serious self reflection too.
I'm glad you liked the article! Though I would dispute the notion this election was a referendum on the left. Biden might be "the most left president in our lives," but only because ever president has been center or right. And look at Bernie. He's drawing 10k plus crowds in Republican states with a left message. Americans seem very responsive to that message.
Bernie lost his presidential run how many times? When will you people give up this lie that his ideas are popular? Jesus.
What "common sense liberal ideas" are drawing crowds like that outside of an election year?
The only crowds those seem to draw are pay for play speaking arrangements
https://www.npr.org/2016/10/15/498085611/wikileaks-claims-to-release-hillary-clintons-goldman-sachs-transcripts
But that's ok, more neoliberalism will definitely get us out of the hole that 50 years of neoliberalism got us into.
When will you all understand that rally sizes are meaningless? The median voter is too busy working and taking care of their families to attend this crap. No matter the politician. It's all feel good nonsense.
"Neoliberalism" lol.
I guess everything is meaningless if you decide to ignore it. I bet you were very surprised when Trump won.
Are the Gaza protests meaningless?
People are fed up with this status quo, and they showed it. Do you think its a coincidence that fewer people voted? Is that meaningless?
Yes they are meaningless because nobody actually cares outside a tiny group. Sorry.
Wow, 10,000. More than that came to Harris's rallies. She lost.
Adding onto this: https://www.filesforprogress.org/datasets/2024/8/dfp-battleground-issues-crosstabs.pdf
So 10,000 people are majorities in red states? TIL
That's not the point Joe was trying to make
Yeah, but it’s a pretty reasonable one.
To focus just on economic issues, Biden maybe WAS the farthest-left president in half a century, and probably the most pro-union one, but that is an incredibly low bar to clear.
First, remember that among the 2020 primary candidates, he was the farthest-right candidate of anyone save Bloomberg. He was leftist compared only to Republicans; he's on the right within the Democratic party, just not as much as Obama or Clinton. They both had the political talent to campaign on economic populism but then "pivot" once in office, e.g. "it's the economy, stupid" suddenly become concern for the budget deficit after Clinton's election.
Second, Harris wasn't Biden. The appointment of serious antitrust enforcers was the most "leftist" thing he did, as it was the first real policy defeat for plutocracy in my adult lifetime, but it was obvious Harris was not on board and if she had won Khan was probably gone. (Probably Kanter, too, but it was Khan that both the UAW and megadonors made competing demands about.)
The only real, anti-plutocracy "leftists" in the 2020 primary were Bernie and Warren, and you don't read critiques of their policy because they've never been in power. All they have right now is messaging, and as Bernie is proving the messaging is popular - it's always easier to be on the outside offering criticism.
Harris and Biden couldn’t string together a paragraph of complete sentences when it was on the teleprompter right in front of them. They were corrupt empty suits and most of the organized left went along with it because they thought some of those crumbs you mention would be worth it.
Warren and Bernie say better things than a typical Democrat but they’ve proven time and again that they will never stand up to the Democrats in any meaningful way. It’s painfully obvious that they are phonies who have no self respect. That’s why they don’t get broader support despite their economic politics being fairly popular.
I mostly agree with you, though in Warren's case it was more than talk. She was very effective as a political insider in fighting against plutocracy. The only reason she ran for office was because she ran out of road getting the CFPB created. When Obama stiffed her for the job (because he wasn't willing to annoy Wall Street further), they offered her a Senate seat to go quietly.
https://archive.vanityfair.com/article/share/f907ad7e-1ef4-4ed9-a79c-d5dd3ff0db4f
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/why-obama-dragging-his-heels-appointing-elizabeth-warren-head-cfpb/
The problem is she is still an insider at heart, trying to make quiet changes within the system (she and Sherrod Brown torpedoed Larry Summers's bid for Fed chair) rather than overthrowing it.
Bernie's a different case. His heart's in the right place on policy, and he is making a personal effort with his anti-oligarchy tour that is conspicuously absent among the Dem leadership. But he believes too much in solidarity and won't break with the Dem leadership when it matters. His leading his followers "back into captivity", as FdB put it, is an unfortunate and underappreciated event in recent politics.
Forgive my cynicism but I think you hold politicians in too high esteem. They are driven by more by ambition and narcissism than by personal courage and integrity.
Nobody is going to organize to save the constitutionally-dubious CFPB. But I want to make charging amortized interest a crime and I bet I could get 80% of MAGA on board.
The organized left has forgotten how to think like this.
I suppose "too high" is a matter of opinion, but I think it's important to distinguish between those who have merely have big egos and a lot of ambition (because that's all of them, or they wouldn't be running for office) and those who are complete narcissists (Trump) or political climbers completely without principle (Harris).
I have been following Warren's career since I read one of her books 20 years ago, and while she has been willing to shapeshift on some issues, e.g. pretending to want M4A when populists demanded it during the 2020 primary, she has been consistent in fighting Wall Street for 20 years despite being in a party that has become devoted to it.
Tulsi Gabbard is another good example. She was marked as a rising star ever since she joined Congress in 2013, but she has always been a one-issue candidate, devoted to opposing neocon warmongering. Most politicians with her ambition (she ran for president still in her 30's) would have decided to "go along to get along" once they discovered that Dem foreign policy had been completely taken over by neocons, but instead she threw down, resigning as DNC vice-chair to endorse Bernie, calling Clinton "queen of the warmongers". The result is that she was eventually run out of the party, and now gets slandered about her loyalty to the country after Clinton got even by calling her a "Russian asset" and loyalist media outlets backed Clinton.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/18/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-trump-russia.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/16/trump-cabinet-tulsi-gabbard-democratic-reactions
Cynics looked at Gabbard's willingness to switch sides and yelled "grifter!", but it was a consequence of refusing to bend on her signature issue.
I think it's important recognize people who have *some* principles, because that is the best you can hope for, and if you don't appreciate them you'll just end up with more like Harris (or Clinton, for that matter).
I see/hear a lot of rhetoric about voters "look[ing] at the current incarnation" of their options, "knowing what they were voting for" because so-and-so supposedly told "them" what so-and-so was going to do, etc.
I haven't bought that monolithicizing since well before Dominion Voting Systems settled out of court.
Show me that whatever polls/studies/records you're referencing established that their participants were demonstrably familiar with clearly stated policy platforms (as opposed to demonstrably swallowing regurgitated horseshit like "Republicans are always better for the economy", "Democrats campaigned too hard on trans issues" et al.)
I don’t have polls or studies and I never suggested people voted “for” anything. All I can tell you is what I know and what I see:
It’s not supposed to be this hard to get by. Something about the economy is fundamentally broken. It might be capitalism or the monetary system but no policy is going to fix anything until the corrupt and unserious people in government are replaced by honest, competent people.
I don’t care if some stranger thinks a policy communist or fascist. I care about is it going to help the families in my neighborhood living three-generations in a 70s split level who can barely afford water and trash.
My brother has a child with permanent disabilities. I want to know he can afford proper and quality care. But single payer isn’t going to work if we keep the same corrupt people and infrastructure.
MAGA types talk about corruption all the time. They do so in kinda kooky ways so I wonder if that’s why the left misreads them.
Much clearer, thank you. I hope your nephew can survive the churn too, but I don't see the present administration doing half of what the previous one did to cut actual costs for actual taxpayers...
I think the corruption talk that's fueled by right-wing media paints anything but accurate targets, and anything even vaguely equivalent that's pointed out by lefties is thoroughly ignored by both of the Big Two Party System and all "legacy" media. So sure, there was always some "swamp" that needed to be "drained", but (a) the people who believed Boss T was the one to actually do that work were actively deluded, (b) the ones who have genuine insight into what needs to be cut away aren't the ones anybody in power are listening to. (Otherwise the real evidence against righteous targets would be all over at least one media outlet — or at the very least the white house website — unless of course even that is bought and paid for.)
What would you say the left needs to examine about itself? I know being technically correct doesn't actually put anything real on the table ...
I read “centrism is dead” not the left
To be fair, the Harris campaign wasn’t beaten badly. It was a small margin, but that only reinforces your argument. There was barely any difference there to choose. Full on fascism, or just imperialism and corporate rule with less austerity. Not a catchy bumper sticker. If we had a Bernie, or AOC, or Jasmine Crockett running? How many blue collar voters would vote for us if they knew their kids could go to college for free, and have universal healthcare when they get there? It’s better than, well, we won’t give the oil companies quite so many undeserved subsidies. FFS
That's true about the margin. I was referring more to Republicans winning all three branches, plus their control on the Supreme Court. Couldn't agree more about the last part!
How do you make sense of the fact that Sanders and Warren ran behind Harris?
?
In 2024 Kamala Harris received 235k votes in Vermont while Bernie received only 229k for Senate. The idea that ‘if Bernie would run in a general election he’d get so many more votes’ is a fantasy.
I wouldn't consider six thousand votes in Vermont indicative of the country. Having lived there for a half-decade, it's a unique demographic.
That's a good question but worth noting that Insane Clown also outperformed Bernie's Republican opponent Malloy 119K to 116.5K, and if you add in the 6K for RFK that's a bigger margin for Bernie than for Kamala (113K to 110.4K). More likely that people in Vermont who just voted for president and left the rest blank would account for that discrepancy not voters splitting their ballot for Kamala and Malloy. I have to believe that Bernie would have kicked Insane Clown's fat ass into oblivion in 2016. Insane Clown's own pollster Fabrizio believes likewise. Recall that in 2016 Insane Clown challenged Bernie to debate and wasted no time punking out.
'Insane Clown's own pollster Fabrizio believes likewise. Recall that in 2016 Insane Clown challenged Bernie to debate and wasted no time punking out.' Can you elaborate and cite your sources? I never heard of this and now I'm curious
Google fabrizio trump sanders 2016. Any number of sources will show up. Google trump sanders 2016 debate and likewise.
That's fair, I guess
I was speaking about someone that is more progressive. We keep trying to run from the center. And we keep losing because of it. The fact that the Senate snd House are virtually tied year after year speaks to the fact that the Democratic party has become a softer version of what the right was twenty years ago, and that’s sad.
?
"We don’t know if a leftist, pro-working class message and candidacy could defeat Donald Trump."
You know why? People those candidates can't even beat moderates in a dem primary, yet you somehow think there are millions of lefties who will come out and support them in the general. Totally unhinged from reality.
He should rename his newsletter The Ratchet.
Nah. It’s actually unhinged smug self righteous wackos like you who are incapable of processing the fact that most people don’t agree with them.
Impossible to take this article seriously with nonsense like this.
"As a labor organizer, who actually talks to workers instead of imagining them, I can tell you, struggling working-class voters care about workplace protections, increasing wages, and better healthcare. Not shoplifting."
Nothing proves you are completely out-of-touch with the reality of low-income people (who have to deal with the consequences of left-wing crime policies) living in cities than this.
People are allowed to care about more than one thing. In fact, they can even prioritize their concerns, such as shoplifting, among others, like cost of living.
It doesn't take much of an imagination to see how cost of living and shoplifting might be connected.
Are you saying that they care more about shoplifting than workplace protections, increasing wages, and better healthcare? Do you think they care about it more than inflation?
It's a bit out of touch to handwave away any of those concerns.
This post is a long series of snarky strawmen, wild oversimplifications, and begging questions that many reasonable people can disagree over.
If you're interested in a more fair-minded refereeing of the competing election autopsy narratives, see here: https://open.substack.com/pub/exasperatedalien/p/move-past-the-progressive-v-moderate?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=ksl93
Yeah that essay is way way better than this nonsense
He fairly frequently says what he was wrong about Iraq, Biden, student lon forgiveness.
What are your three?
He does indeed. So when Joe claimed he never admits he was wrong, I knew I was just reading a rant.
Hi
As you are not already a subscriber, may I invite you to subscribe (for free) to my substack, "Radical Centrist?"
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/
I write mainly about US monetary policy, US fiscal policy, trade/industrial policy, and climate change policy.
I have my opinions about which US political party is by far the least bad and they are not hard to figure out, but I try to keep my analysis of the issues non-partisan.
Keynes said, “Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.”
I want to be that scribbler.
Thanks,
Can you elaborate?
Well maybe you should ask him. My off hand recollection is that the said he supported the Iraq invitation but now thinks that was a mistake. He believed that Bided was competent to stand as a candidate and then changed his mind. He thought student loan forgiveness was a good way to do “stimulus” in early 2021 but later did not.
Of course he has the advantage of having written opinions so it’s each for him to document changes of opinion. Most of us do not, so it’s easier to think we’ve always been right about everything.
Can you think of anything you’ve ever changed your opinion about?
I see
Hi
As you are not already a subscriber, may I invite you to subscribe (for free) to my substack, "Radical Centrist?"
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/
I write mainly about US monetary policy, US fiscal policy, trade/industrial policy, and climate change policy.
I have my opinions about which US political party is by far the least bad and they are not hard to figure out, but I try to keep my analysis of the issues non-partisan.
Keynes said, “Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.”
I want to be that scribbler.
Thanks,
You’re far more delusional than he is.
Well that's just Ad Hominem.
So, how does one dislodge Matt the Egg and his ilk from their positions of prominence?
Honestly I think giving him enough rope to hang himself is the best way to show people he's full of shit. His claims are getting more erratic by the day. On a political level, it will take dislodging the centrist establishment of the Democratic party. That's a much larger task though.
Surely the Biden staffers should have been sent to the gulags just for following heretical unperson Nate Silver. I am shocked that was tolerated.
I see you are immune to irony.
This guy is a troll, they admitted to such on a previous comment section.
Too often we ascribe negative traits to people who disagree with us and think differently than us. I think that’s a core driver of toxic polarization and we should try to avoid that. I stopped reading your post when you used words like selfish and cynical (and more) to describe Matthew, as nothing I’ve seen from him makes me think that. I think he makes many good points about Democrat failures. We can disagree and still seek to engage in good faith.