Here
2hr ago
I remember the Obama era narratives of the “Coalition of the Ascendent.” If demographics were truly destiny, Republicans wouldn’t touch the Presidency again. Obama’s “resounding” 2012 victory prompted the infamous Republican “Autopsy.”
This narrative ignores the numbers, though. 2012 wasn’t a triumph for Democrats, but a warning – while the Republican candidate had gained just under 1 million more votes than the 2008 Republican candidate, the Democrat had lost a little over 3.5 million voters. While Hillary Clinton eked out a plurality of the popular vote,* this trend continued in 2016: the Republican candidate gained about 2 million more votes than in 2012, while the Democratic candidate lost ~60k votes. A minor number, to be sure, but a trend nonetheless. 2012 wasn’t a victory lap, but instead a demonstration that the “Obama coalition” was a mirage, a flash in the pan – a demonstration that we all missed at the time.
As the 2024 election is mulled over by pundits to see what, exactly, went wrong, I wonder if we are missing similar “warning signs” in trends. The Bernie-Bro-turned-Trump-supporter pipeline a la Joe Rogan could be symptomatic of voters aligning more along an axis of “insiders vs. outsiders” instead of policy preferences, education, age, or race; while there are correlations with each of those things to an “insiders vs. outsiders” axis, none of them are definitive. Are we similarly looking at the 2024 election the wrong way, especially as we make judgment calls while several million votes have yet to be counted?
Some of the most prominent Republicans right now identified as Democrat-aligned during the Obama era (Trump, Vance, Elon, Tulsi; I’d throw RFK in there too but I’m not sure that he views himself as a Republican). Republicans are winning over tech bros and unions, and bleeding college-educated voters. There’s talk about this just being a Trump thing, it’ll go away. It was a big anti-incumbency year, worldwide. The elite will reclaim their rightful place as the only right, correct, egalitarian way forward. Etc.
*Talking heads bicker about how Trump “only” receiving a plurality of the popular vote decreases his significance, even while clinging to Clinton “winning” the popular vote in 2016 despite also receiving a plurality, and not a majority. The semantics are amusing from a culture war perspective – the war on language continues – but ultimately meaningless.
Here
19hr ago
The Gaetz drama did take the heat off of Hegseth, though, who is now having his own sex allegations circulate.
Here
20hr ago
Isn't that what specialists are for, though? If you need a guy who knows what to do with a knuckleball, you go to that guy, who specialized in it. But if you're dealing with fastballs and curveballs, then your local guy is good enough.
There's a death of generalists in medicine underlying a lot of this, in part because everyone wants the guy who's good with knuckleballs. But not everyone is going to face a knuckleball, and you don't need to go to the specialist otherwise.
Here
20hr ago
There's also the pressure to publish and research while also being a doctor that downgrades the focus the profession has on actual patient care.
My friends jumping through the residency hoops rn are kind of frustrated about it; they have to explain their "side hustle" almost instead of being able to say "I just want to be a doctor" to get "good" residency spots.
Here
7d ago
The 4B movement has already been disavowed by the American Left for not being inclusive of trans ideology (i.e., transwomen who may still have their initial bits and parts are not getting laid by a 4B chick; transmen are also encouraged not to do the same; it inherently focuses on reproductive functions; it started on a message board that includes anti-trans sentiment), which makes all of this somewhat odd to me - the gender divide isn't going to swing back to the Democrats by Democrats telling biological women that they can't have feminists movements without biological men being lifted up within those movements.
Here
10d ago
After the election, the president of the Student Advisory Committee of Harvard’s Institute of Politics insinuated that the IOP’s longstanding commitment to non-partisan civic engagement would be put aside to stand against the “threat” of Trump.
The Director of the IOP quickly rebuked the student, as did alumni. The original op-ed was modified to clarify that this was a student proposal, and not an official act of the IOP that could potentially endanger its tax status as a nonprofit in association with the school.
I was more shocked by the quick response than by the student’s comments; it’s taken for granted that the academy is the stronghold of Democrats. As friends and I contemplate government service, we’ve talked often about what doors we’d be closing off entirely by entering the administration now, and how that would impact our trajectory. Mentors have suggested waiting until certain milestones to provide easier routes back into the private sector, but we all agree that academia is DOA outside of like Hillsdale.
Part of these discussions included off-handed references to China’s “loyalty pledges” for students attending plum universities or receiving scholarships to study abroad. Given the academy’s existence as another wing of the Democratic Party, is there a possibility of colleges or universities ensuring students meet certain political beliefs in order to attend their institution? Would it impact their tax status to do so, and if yes, is that the only thing stopping them?
Private non-profit Christian institutions make their students sign statements of faith in order to attend. BYU is an example, although their agreement is slightly more complicated than faith, per se (as TracingWoodgrains has spoken about before). Patrick Henry College includes a bit about the number of books in the Bible to keep out Catholics. It’s not a stretch to thing secular colleges could have students sign statements about their culture war/social beliefs in order to attend. Will the privileges of Ivy League degrees be gatekept for the “woke?”
Is that, in a way, what diversity statements have been doing for years? Maybe diversity statements weren’t about meeting racial categories, but instead to ensure a certain level of “buy-in” to DEI ideology. As an aside, in the post-SFFA world, the number of students interested in the Federalist Society doubled at my law school. It could just be an “election year” thing (the last data point we are able to access easily is 2020, which doesn’t count due to the remote education) or it could be a “freeing” of conservatives entering the upper echelons of professional education. More data is needed here to support this anecdata.
Purity testing at schools is, of course, nothing new. For instance, we had a professor banned from teaching first-year mandatory courses because he donated to the Republican party in 2012, a thing that still doesn’t sit quite right to me. Why are people looking through their professor’s donation records? As people uninvite family members to Thanksgiving due to who they voted for, can universities deny students on the same grounds? Would some universities feel inclined to?
I’m not entirely sure. The demographic cliff means that universities have to start making themselves more enticing somehow. Degrees are too expensive for their value, nowadays, and many are choosing to forego higher education in favor of the trades or other endeavors. Schools like America University saw their acceptance rate almost double and yet still didn’t hit their enrollment targets. Can schools (even elite schools) afford to have an ideological purity test for entry?
Here
10d ago
The University of Michigan Central Student Government voted to impeach their president and vice president for (i) incitement to violence (an instagram post on the "SHUT IT DOWN" account encouraging students to pack a CSG budget meeting in early October); (ii) cybertheft of CSG property (changing the password on the student government instagram account and voicing support for the student protestors; and (iii) dereliction of duty (attempting to defund student orgs at Michigan and attempt to send the money to Gaza).
The student leaders had explicitly run on a "shut it down" ticket, receiving 47% of the vote back in March (granted, less than 20% of the student body voted). The leaders had pledged to "halt all CSG activity and associated funding until the University fully divests from companies profiting off Israel’s military campaign in Gaza," were voted in, and then proceeded to do... exactly what they had promised. But living up to their promises is, apparently, enough to impeach them for.
There were some challenges to their campaign, citing unfair election tactics, but they were ultimately sworn in to their posts back in April - and only now has impeachment been brought forth, eight months later.
Is this a window into a changing tide of how culture war issues are discussed on college campuses, or do students just get frustrated when they start feeling the actual impact of their actions (no funding for their organizations)? Is "support" for Gaza dying, and if yes, what is the new cause de jour that will rise to take its place?
Here
10d ago
Why? Because she is a recent convert to the Republican party, or are there other concerns with her?
Here
13d ago
NYC is ending their voucher program, although it's not clear that Trump has anything to do with it. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4980386-new-york-city-ending-migrant-debit-card-program/
Previously, illegal migrants were given ~$1k a month ($350 a weeks) for groceries via prepaid debit cards while they were staying in hotels. It started in part because the free food vendor previously used by the city wasn't cutting it, so it was viewed as more cost efficient to switch to the cards.
Here
17d ago
There's about 16 million votes cast but not yet counted as of right now, with a reasonable expectation of 55% of those votes going to Harris. Trump will still handily win the popular vote, but turnout almost rivals 2020. I wouldn't be shocked to see Harris hit 75 million, which, even if it's not quite Biden numbers, is still better than how Trump did in 2020.
Here
17d ago
I think that also came out in those ads and texts about "your friends can see whether you dated" or the like "Men, women won't want you unless you're a voter, and she can check" stuff. Our Democracy assumed that anyone engaged in the civic process for the sake of their peers would be on the side of Our Democracy. They could not understand that the social pressure to vote may actually involve the exercise of democracy against Our Democracy.
Here
18d ago
Realistically, what, if anything, is going to change from a culture war perspective because of this? Will the DNC conduct an election "autopsy" to determine what they got wrong here? They outspent and our raised Trump, a convicted felon with a negative approval rating, and still could not win. Will the Democratic party take a hard look in the mirror? Will the Republican party completely abandon moderates/the establish in favor of the winning populist rhetoric? Will nothing change at all?
Here
19d ago
The Chinese voter in Michigan: https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/30/politics/michigan-chinese-citizen-charged-after-illegally-voting/index.html
Charged with the crime, but the vote still is getting counted.
Here
19d ago
Felons CAN vote - depending on their state. Different states have different rules.
Even if someone can no longer vote because they became a felon after breaking the law in a state that does not allow felons to vote, they still have the ability to challenge the law - a successful challenge would make them no longer felon, thus meeting redressability and other standing requirements.
It isn't actually that hard to get IDs, and I respect the states that allow things like university IDs to count. The main mechanism is cost - should first time IDs be covered by the government? While not prohibitively expensive, the amount of friction that can be lessened doesn't hurt. Also, DMVs suck.
Asking others to sign your picture leads to perhaps more racism, because people with accents who may very well be citizens will face more battles convincing someone to sign their picture. However, it's not that hard to get an ID. I have trouble believing the vast majority of Americans have never opened a bank account, bought alcohol, bought a cigarette, gotten on an airplane, picked up certain medications, or any of the myriad of things that require an ID. IDs are required in so much of our lives here.
It's unlikely we can have a federal voter ID law unless we tie some form of federal funding to the request (example: raising the legal drinking age by tying road funding to the request). The methods by which states conduct their elections is inherently the province of the states and not the purview of the federal government. It's why each state does things so differently from its neighbors, and why we have wacky things like hanging chads or what not. It's why we included poll taxes as an amendment to the Constitution. It's why certain attempts to standardize voting have failed or have been chipped away at in court.
Here
26d ago
You can't register day-of in PA; registration has closed for this election.
First time voters are required to show ID, but it doesn't have to be a government issued ID - school IDs count, for instance.
Our "early voting" is basically picking up a mail-in ballot at certain locations and then immediately sticking it in the mailbox there. I'm not sure if an ID is needed for that or not, though. Our early voting stuff is weird.
Here
27d ago
MSNBC played footage of Nazis from their 1930's rally in MSG while covering Trump's rally. Coverage of the event has conveniently ignored other events at MSG, including a bunch of DNCs.
Here
1mo ago
Harris released an "Opportunity Agenda for Black Men." Highlights include:
"(1) Providing 1 million loans that are fully forgivable to Black entrepreneurs and others to start a business.
(2) Championing education, training, and mentorship programs that help Black men get good-paying jobs in high-demand industries and lead their communities, including pathways to become teachers.
(3) Supporting a regulatory framework for cryptocurrency and other digital assets so Black men who invest in and own these assets are protected.
(4) Launching a National Health Equity Initiative focused on Black Men that addresses sickle cell disease, diabetes, mental health, prostate cancer, and other health challenges that disproportionately impact them.
(5) Legalizing recreational marijuana and creating opportunities for Black Americans to succeed in this new industry."
There feels like no kind of focus-grouping on what Black men actually would like to see. It also feels like it was released without any kind of cost-benefit analysis on how literally any other group would respond to these proposals, which seem blatantly terrible even if unfeasible. We already tried (1) with the PPP, which went kind of off the rails. None of this would survive strict scrutiny before the courts, and it's a bad look to the majority of voters. What was the perceived benefit in releasing this? How did this get approved?
Here
4mo ago
Couldn't Trump just pardon himself for all federal cases and render them effectively moot? He'd still be on the hook in Georgia (if they ever pull themselves together, cuz imo that is actually the strongest legal arg they have) and would have to finish out the fight in NY, but none of the federal cases would matter anymore.
Here
4mo ago
J.D. Vance, a young freshman senator from Ohio, is Trump’s VP. Vance wrote Hillbilly Elegy, which some Democrats read after 2016 to understand what happened (Obama even put it on his suggested reading list, lol).
At first blush, Vance brings nothing new to the ticket. Ohio seems safely red, and if anything, a graduate from THE Ohio State University isn’t going to play well in Michigan (I only sort of joke; football team rivalries might trump political team rivalries). Vance doesn’t have high name ID, and he’s significantly further right than Trump is while the party is supposedly trying to court suburban women. Vance also once compared Trump to Hitler. Sure, Vance is 39 and a Marine Veteran, which is Something, given geopolitical circumstances. But the man has even less experience governing than Obama did when Obama ran.
I wonder if Vance is a pick not to reach moderates or swing voters, but to calm down the populist elements of the base. Trump is upsetting party insiders by distancing himself from Project 2025 and by removing abortion from the platform (which anti-abortion groups quietly decided not to contest during the convention today). In an era where VP picks haven’t seemed to matter, quieting a core constituency is not nothing. The left seems almost thrilled about Vance as the VP pick, viewing it as a change to get back in the game after their past few news cycles.
But this is also the most geriatric American election, and Trump has to be even more brutally aware that his VP is a heartbeat away from the presidency after this weekend. There's a modest undertone in political discourse that this election is really VP vs. VP instead of about the Presidential candidates at all (especially since the shooting has quashed all conversation around Biden potentially dropping out). Is it possible that Trump truly believes that Vance is the future of the party? Trump likes to play kingmaker, after all. This choice defines where the party is trudging towards in the future – turning away from the center, doubling down on populism. The establishment is dead. Long live MAGA.
Choosing JD Vance also underscores the continued party re-alignment we’re watching unfold before us. Blue-collar Midwesterners have traditionally held up the Blue Wall, but now one is Trump’s running mate. Vance came from generational poverty as a straight white male and Has Made It; I’ve found few Democrats who can resonate in the same way, as both parties attempt to distance themselves from the “elites,” even as Vance holds a Yale law degree. The Democrats have unequally become the wealthy, stodgy cultural controllers, and the Republicans have become the edgy, gritty protesters against The Way Things Are. I'm only 30, so my understanding of where parties have historically stood is skewed, but this feels very different from previous messaging about wealth and power in America; please correct me if I am wrong.
Vance is also fascinating to me in general. He met his wife in law school, and had their wedding separately blessed in Hindu tradition. He later converted to Catholicism in 2019 (same time I did, actually); it’s unclear if his (very hot, but that’s not important) wife also did. He worked at the same law firm as the Obamas did (Sidley) (obviously years later).
Here
4mo ago
I wonder if Vance being a veteran will help Trump feel better, or at least provide optics.
Here
4mo ago
I mean, there are mechanisms to remove him, they're just not super likely to be invoked. The dem electors can hypothetically invoke the "in all good conscience" clause at the election and remove him. He could be impeached and convicted and thus cannot hold public office ever again. The cabinet invokes the 25th amendment and all hell breaks loose, although it's unclear if invoking the 25th would remove him from campaigning as well.
Here
4mo ago
Ohio moved the date back to Aug. 23; Dems still want the roll-call vote early because they don't really trust Ohio (which is fair but Ohio changing the date again would also create easy litigation re: promissory estoppel concepts that would likely still protect Aug. 23 as the date).
Random theories about this election I’ve seen discussed so far:
We have left-wing musings that the failure to reach low-propensity voters comes from a “lack” of a left-wing media ecosystem, which makes me scratch my head somewhat, given the disproportionate skew of media to the left. There doesn’t appear to be any introspection or soul-searching here. The issue might not be a lack of left-wing media, but a lack of trust in that media; becoming more online creates a healthy level of skepticism about what we consume, especially as AI becomes more prevalent.
Some pundits are decrying the existence of right-wing echo chambers as corrupting our young men while fleeing to Bluesky and Threads so they don’t have to interact with conservatives. Bluesky “block lists” of conservative voices appeared almost overnight, to overcome the lack of algorithmic protections.
And, of course, everyone’s bringing up their favorite culture war issues as the “reason” why Trump won, but I don’t think it’s that simple. It’s not that factory workers in the rustbelt are transphobic, it’s that factory workers in the rustbelt are tired of someone’s pronouns being given more attention than their grocery bills. Abortion received a ton of support on referendums while their states still went to Trump; is it because we made having children a “women’s issue” instead of an economic one? Telling women they should lie to their husbands who they voted for isn’t a great way to win over men who already feel scorned by today’s society.
I also don’t understand how the party who claim to be championing women and minorities is also the party fighting so hard for mail-in ballots. Secret ballots are a feature of the system, not a bug. Filling out the ballot at your kitchen table makes it really hard to hide it from your husband, or your employer. The weird creepy ads about “people can look up your voting record and won’t date you if you don’t” also don’t help with this, especially when several of these ads didn’t clarify that while whether you voted is public, who you voted for is not. The social stigma of voting Trump is still high, as people get uninvited from Thanksgiving with their own families for leaning conservative.
In the meantime, my guilty pleasure is watching liberal election-denier conspiracy theories. arr “SomethingIsWrong2024” displays a shockingly bad grasp of data analysis, because “all my neighbors had Kamala signs!!” and the like. I feel like I’m in an alternate reality when I see things stated “Vance was a bad pick, no one was excited about him” because I remember the enthusiasm for having someone young and capable on the ticket. Maybe I’m just stuck in my own echo chamber, and don’t realize it; I should do my own introspection.
More options
Context Copy link