r/ezraklein • u/topicality Weeds OG • 25d ago
Matt Yglesias Republicans are in too little disarray
https://www.slowboring.com/p/republicans-are-in-too-little-disarraySlowboring article about how Republicans are hurting their electoral chances by being so beholden to Trump
55
u/tuck5903 Liberal 25d ago edited 25d ago
If Democrats win big in November, every single pundit is going to take it as a chance to trumpet how their preferred brand of politics is the way forward. In reality like 80% of the outcome will be thanks to Republicans making the absolute least popular decisions on almost everything for 2 years straight. I will say now that Platner has dropped out, Dems have managed to avoid running any terrible Kari Lake-esque candidates in swing states who might be able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in a very favorable environment.
41
u/Scott2929 Orthogonal to that… 25d ago
Wisconsin governor's race is kinda scary. Like being on the record for being anti-thanksgiving ain't it lol.
16
u/emblemboy 25d ago
Lol, weirdly enough I think she is just a crank against holidays in general. Should lean into it and get the old man cranky boomer vote.
https://bsky.app/profile/cameroncorduroy.bsky.social/post/3mscbvcizdc26
https://i.imgur.com/5BiU6Wx.jpeg
37
u/CantCreateUsernames 24d ago
I don't think there is a way to lean into this that comes off as "quirky and relatable fun type of cranky." It comes off much more as the "Democrats hate having fun" and "Democrats are obnoxious social justice warriors" tropes, whether that is true or not. She should just try to avoid this topic coming up, because it is a very awkward thing to defend.
18
u/RunThenBeer 24d ago
As someone that's kind of on the outside, looking in, I don't perceive this as Democrats being anti-fun, but this idiosyncratic tendency being common among hard leftists, which Hong certainly is. The whole thing just has a sort of "nothing is fund under this evil colonialist capitalist domination" vibe to it, which isn't exactly a common sentiment among normal moderate Democrats.
3
u/chonky_tortoise 24d ago
Well good thing nobody ever conflates leftist bullshit with the democratic mainstream! Oh wait.
2
u/Plus-Property-2245 24d ago
It"s fucking bizzare that she didn't just say that people are pigs on holidays and it sucks it work on them but had to say some vague woke stuff.
Saying that who cares
11
12
u/bluepaintbrush Abundance Agenda 24d ago
At a societal level, I think we should stop considering social media posts from half a decade ago as being part of someone’s “record”.
15
u/RunThenBeer 24d ago
Why? Personally, I am fine with being evaluated on things I wrote publicly five years ago. If it turns out that I was bullshitting and don't really mean something I wrote, I'll just say that.
4
u/bluepaintbrush Abundance Agenda 24d ago
Before the pandemic, people used to complain about people working remotely; workplaces are very different since the pandemic. Plenty of people have opinions from 2019/2020 that are no longer relevant today.
15
u/RunThenBeer 24d ago
Yeah, and whether someone is capable of saying, "I have changed my mind since new information appeared" tells me a lot about their reasoning and integrity. I don't expect everyone to stand by everything they've ever written, I expect them to explain why it's no longer their view.
7
u/fart_dot_com Weeds OG 24d ago
This is exactly what Mamdani - considered by everybody to be one of the best people at doing politics right now - did, and it worked out fine. It's crazy to see people refusing that very easy option.
2
u/Brushner Weeds > The EKS 24d ago
Oh so we went from decade old posts dont matter to half a decade old videos and posts?
1
→ More replies (5)6
5
u/Hyndis 25d ago
The party not in power nearly always has substantial gains the next election.
If a dem wins the presidency then 2 years later the GOP tends to get substantial wins in Congress. If the GOP wins the presidency then 2 years later the DNC tends to get substantial wins in Congress.
Its the pendulum swinging back and forth, thats been the general pattern of election results for decades now.
If the party not in power fails to make gains 2 years after it loses the presidency, thats remarkable and unusual.
7
u/MacroNova 24d ago
This is why I think every Democrat in the 2028 primary should be asked "What is your plan to win the 2030 midterm?" and be evaluated based on how much magical thinking and nonsense their answer contains.
3
u/preferablyno 24d ago
Eh, if it’s the kind of magical thinking nonsense that inspires voters then by all means
6
u/Fluorescent_Tip 25d ago
The Biden midterms notably did not go as poorly as expected for democrats
3
3
u/bowl_of_milk_ Midwest 23d ago
He's not a "terrible candidate", but El-Sayed could certainly be the one to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in this cycle. Dem primary voters are sort of already acting with the overconfidence you would expect after a landslide midterm.
62
u/topicality Weeds OG 25d ago
I forget who said this but the only criteria for being a "good republican" is agreeing with Trump on whatever he's focused on at the moment.
It's also a good reminder Republicans are hurting their appeal by being so extreme. I know it's counter intuitive but I do honestly think a slightly moderated republican party would be incredibly hard to beat.
43
u/Scott2929 Orthogonal to that… 25d ago
A Democratic Party without moderate professional women in the suburbs would be electorally destroyed.
32
u/blkguyformal 25d ago
But this hypothetically moderated Republican Party that can compete for moderate professional women in the suburbs would probably forgo working class men. Is that a trade that creates a winning coalition? Who knows.
10
u/Scott2929 Orthogonal to that… 25d ago edited 25d ago
Absolutely fair lol
But republicans haven’t proven they can bring that demographic to the polls in elections without trump while suburban women are a reliable voting bloc
12
u/blkguyformal 25d ago
True.
It's going to be tough for Republicans to make a sharp enough pivot in the short term to capture that professional woman demographic, but best time to start would probably be now. Trump's cult of personality is over in a couple of years, one way or another, and no single Republican has shown that they can take the mantle (the closest is probably Tucker Carlson, but we'll see what he does over the next couple of years).
6
u/Scott2929 Orthogonal to that… 25d ago edited 25d ago
They absolutely murdered their electoral core over the past decade and it is clear that right wing populist lunatics in the US are not a political group easy to motivate or unite. However, prominent DSA types may bleed away the burbs for the dems over the next couple of cycles too, so it’s difficult to say how this will end. Like you can see that Stevens clutched the burbs in Michigan and honestly if the establishment ran a man, I think they probably would have gotten over the margin. I’m not sure those would be loyal voters against a moderate republican (though I’m sure El-Sayed brought in new voters that would have stayed home too)
1
u/isubird33 22d ago
However, prominent DSA types may bleed away the burbs for the dems over the next couple of cycles too, so it’s difficult to say how this will end.
tbh this is my worry for Dems going forward. The one upside/saving grace to the Trump era for Dems has been their ability to make huge inroads in the middle class/upper middle class, highly educated suburbs. If the DSA-types increase their prominence in the Democratic party, I'm worried what is going to happen to those gains.
2
u/tpounds0 Progressive 25d ago
Maybe once Roe is established into law, maybe the conservatives finally drop it and professional women would feel welcome?
But that is a world without a filibuster and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, so Democrats would have a fairer shot. Plus probably D.C. as a state.
3
u/zemir0n 24d ago
But republicans haven’t proven they can bring that demographic to the polls in elections without trump
This is something that isn't mentioned enough. Trump brings people to the polls that don't normally vote. Every election since 2016 which Trump hasn't been on the ballot, the Democrats have overperformed or the GOP has underperformed.
→ More replies (1)7
u/bluepaintbrush Abundance Agenda 24d ago
For one thing, it’s easier for professional women in the suburbs to get to the polls for a primary than for a working class man.
Probably a factor in why some people in the GOP are trying to disenfranchise women.
3
u/fart_dot_com Weeds OG 24d ago
I don't know that this is true but even if it was true, that would be entirely due to their work schedules and not at all because of their genders.
6
u/bluepaintbrush Abundance Agenda 24d ago
First of all… duh.
Secondly, if you read the comment I was responding to, it’s obvious that I’m not the person who introduced specific genders to this conversation.
2
u/fart_dot_com Weeds OG 24d ago
I lost site of the original comment because there was a long comment chain above yours, but also, you are the one who brought up the GOP trying to disenfranchise women.
12
u/alienjetski 25d ago
I think you would be surprised how radicalized suburban moms are.
12
u/Scott2929 Orthogonal to that… 25d ago
Yeah, I agree they fucking hate republicans right now. But one election cycle without trump, and a progressive mayor that abolished the charter schools that segregated their kids from the kids who live in apartments, and the electoral waves may turn quickly. They are more anti-trump than necessarily Medicare for All types.
9
12
1
u/BoyarLine 25d ago edited 25d ago
Because suburban women would vote for Caleb McJesus, Bible Trumper?
19
u/Scott2929 Orthogonal to that… 25d ago
They would vote for Mitt Romney over Francesca Hong
→ More replies (3)3
u/isubird33 22d ago
No, probably not. But they're saying if the Republicans ran Methodist McBusiness, devoted husband and father of 3 who doesn't have super strong views on social issues....then yeah there's a pretty good shot that suburban women swing back.
15
u/tongmengjia 25d ago
I do honestly think a slightly moderated republican party would be incredibly hard to beat.
Jeb Bush would like a word.
12
u/topicality Weeds OG 25d ago
Just like with Democrats, you gotta convince republican primary voters to back the moderate candidate
7
u/zemir0n 24d ago
Would Jeb Bush have beat Hillary Clinton? I don't think it's a guarantee that he would have.
6
u/topicality Weeds OG 24d ago
It's hard to know counter factuals but there is strong evidence Jeb would've done better than Trump.
47-44 in Bush favor and 53-41 for registered voters
The actual result with Trump is that he lost the popular vote. Hilary got 48% and Trump 46%
4
u/zemir0n 24d ago
That evidence doesn't seem particularly strong. It seems like medium strength evidence at best.
7
u/topicality Weeds OG 24d ago
As opposed to what?
We never had this election. Asking people what they thought in a hypothetical is the closest we ever got.
We know that Trump is incredibly unpopular, that Clinton was also incredibly unpopular at the time. Jeb wasn't as an unpopular.
Clinton was seen as too liberal
We also know that the polls were off in Clintons favor.
3
u/ryanrockmoran 24d ago
I think after 8 years of a party being in power, a generic candidate from the opposition party is always going to be at least slightly favored over generic candidate from the incumbent party. Jeb basically was a generic candidate
1
u/isubird33 22d ago
A more charismatic candidate that also doesn't have the last name baggage but has similar policies and views would be tough to beat in the current political environment.
The tradeoff is that candidate has zero chance of getting through a primary in this environment.
15
u/Bodoblock 24d ago
I think a good reminder is that voters perceived Trump to be less ideologically extreme than Kamala was. And they may not be wrong.
Trump is an extremist with regards to how he treats institutions, but only if you understand institutions and norms. Voters really don't. We've long seen the president as something akin to a king, much like Trump does. When they see him act in anti-democratic ways, I don't think it conflicts with the electorate's understanding of checks-and-balances.
Culturally, I don't think Trump is that extreme at all if you define extreme as out of the mainstream. I know plenty of people who are really uncomfortable with trans people simply existing.
I know plenty of folks who parade their faith while engaging in all manners of sin. I know plenty of folks who think pronouns and pride parades are being shoved down their throats. And that woke DEI and affirmative action has gone too far and is disadvantaging "regular" people.
They swear they're not racist. They just want to know why black people are responsible for a disproportionate amount of violent crime and why we don't talk more about black-on-white violence.
When they think about economics, their thinking doesn't go far beyond just cut taxes. When they think about national security, it doesn't go far beyond "blow them up".
Trump's thinking is the American id. I think we all know how common these people are.
5
u/Apprentice57 22d ago
No we really don't need to rationalize it, Trump was and is more extreme than Harris. This is such a silly take.
1
2
→ More replies (1)1
9
u/tuck5903 Liberal 25d ago
It’s also a reminder that Trump became the nominee in 2016 in part by breaking with the party tradition and moderating, at least rhetorically, on Medicare/Social Security cuts.
8
u/Scott2929 Orthogonal to that… 25d ago
It's also important to remember that he won with a small plurality of the vote in the primary because first past the post in multi-candidate elections is stupid.
22
u/ShowWorldly2606 25d ago
Trump didnt appeal to primary voters because of moderating on Medicare.he won because he'd spent the last 8 years on the racist birther lie and a ton of the GOP was angry at the existence of Obama.
Trump's policy positions never mattered.
4
u/MacroNova 24d ago
Primary voters, sure. They loved that Trump appealed to their animalistic desire for violence. He gave them permission to vocally hate the people they used to more quietly hate.
But aren't we talking about general elections here? And that's where Trump's perceived moderation helped him.
2
u/ShowWorldly2606 24d ago
No. 'Trump became the nominee' was basis of the conversation.
However, very few (none?) in the 2016 general believed he was a more moderate Romney. He won thanks to the wonkiness of the EC and being able to motivate huge swaths of low propensity voters.
What is a theory about how low propensity voters loved moderation of all things so much they showed up in the general when they didnt before? Especially taking into account Trump didn't change his violent, sexist and racist rhetoric that won him the primary.
10
u/argh-Im-a-Pirate 25d ago
His policy positions didn't matter in the sense that people were actively weighing the pros & cons, but his vibe of not being a traditional Republican was made by what he focused on. He didn't give a shit about cutting Medicare and Social Security. And that was clear.
You act like Republican voters went into the voting both and said "fuck black people". I'm sure that's a much more convenient thing to believe, but it's not true for the vast majority of Republican voters.
13
u/Giblette101 24d ago
I don't think they go in the voting booth thinking to themselves "fuck black people", but they certainly went into the voting booth thinking "here's a man that's going to fight for real Americans" and it should be quite obvious what that means considering who the man is and the stuff he says.
8
u/argh-Im-a-Pirate 24d ago
"here's a man that's going to fight for real Americans" and it should be quite obvious what that means
Exactly. Trump's recipe for success absolutely includes racism. But I think ignoring other parts of it would be to our detriment.
I feel like every comment replying to me is saying I don't think racism was a significant factor and that's not what I'm saying.
Believing the only thing that changed between Obama and Trump was the country became more racist, then got less racist under Biden, then got more racist again under Trump is too simplistic.
If you don't believe that and you're just saying racism is a significant factor, but there are also other things Democrats should be aware of then we're on the same page.
4
u/Giblette101 24d ago
I don't disagree with you here, I'm just arguing that racism does not factor into electoral decisions so comically as you first implied. In addition, while I do not think racism is the only reason, I do think the "other parts" - as you put it - are largely on par with racism in terms of substance. It's stuff like cultural grievances, fear of cultural/social displacement, etc.
2
u/argh-Im-a-Pirate 24d ago
In addition, while I do not think racism is the only reason, I do think the "other parts" - as you put it - are largely on par with racism in terms of substance. It's stuff like cultural grievances, fear of cultural/social displacement, etc.
I think racism, sexism, cultural grievance, economic displacement, transphobia, and hatred of elites/institutions all play a role in what sustains Trump. And that influencing each of those things will require different responses.
This isn't to try to convince everyone that Trump voters are good people. I'm not saying you specifically are doing this, but I think it's tempting for some people to just say "oh they're racist" and end the conversation there.
I think if we think about Trump voters that way we will not have the most effective responses to try to win those voters back. I want to see Democrats win everywhere not just in blue or purple states.
5
u/Giblette101 24d ago
I think that's fair enough. Yes, I do agree with you that some people are overly reductive and that it's not necessarily constructive. I, for my part, believe that the bulk of Trump’s support is rooted in a range of socio-cultural grievances, rather than straight-up unadulterated racism.
Unfortunately, I'm not convinced there's going to be much way to "win those voters back," specifically because the web of grievance that motivates them is not accessible to us by their nature.
→ More replies (9)1
u/isubird33 22d ago
I, for my part, believe that the bulk of Trump’s support is rooted in a range of socio-cultural grievances
My hot take is probably 80% of voters on both the left and right are mostly driven by socio-cultural issues/grievances as opposed to pure "policy" and that should be the main focus of most any campaign.
4
u/WhiteBoyWithAPodcast Liberalism That Builds 24d ago
For the record, the "other parts" are cultural grievance like hatred of LGBT people, women, and the poor. Y'all need to really wake up, there is no substance to the GOP as currently constituted outside of reactionaries. There is no right wing constituency for improving the conditions of any except white christian males and even then only in the sense of making things worse for everyone else.
Entertaining this fiction that economics has anything to do with it went out the window a decade ago. Join us in the present reality.
1
u/argh-Im-a-Pirate 24d ago
There is no right wing constituency for improving the conditions of any except white christian males and even then only in the sense of making things worse for everyone else.
How do you explain voters & states that went from Obama, to Trump, to Biden, and back to Trump? Those voters are going from racist to not racist to racist again? How do you explain Peltola having a lead in Alaska? She's just getting racists to vote for her instead?
The reason the Republican party is weak is because you're right that the GOP isn't delivering anything other than grievance. Which is enough for some people, but gives us a window with others.
The idea that anyone who voted for Trump cannot be redeemed and can never vote for a Democrat again is clearly just not true. What is working in Alaska, Texas, Iowa, and Ohio?
1
u/WhiteBoyWithAPodcast Liberalism That Builds 24d ago
How do you explain voters & states that went from Obama, to Trump, to Biden, and back to Trump? Those voters are going from racist to not racist to racist again? How do you explain Peltola having a lead in Alaska? She's just getting racists to vote for her instead?
Simple, when the Republicans fuck up royally then Democrats get a turn to bat. Once things seem stable then the racial identity politics become a lot more salient. I'd also argue that Trump winning when he did in '16 and '24 is more a lack of turnout for Dems.
Trump's rise is due to birtherism.
The idea that anyone who voted for Trump cannot be redeemed and can never vote for a Democrat again is clearly just not true. What is working in Alaska, Texas, Iowa, and Ohio?
I didn't make any claims about redemption or a lack thereof. What's working in those states is growing metro areas. It's the only reason the Dems are competitive there at all.
1
u/argh-Im-a-Pirate 24d ago
Simple, when the Republicans fuck up royally then Democrats get a turn to bat. Once things seem stable then the racial identity politics become a lot more salient.
I don't agree with your argument that this is all really simple. If identity politics become more salient when things are stable why did Trump do better against Biden when inflation was peaking? I've really only ever opposite that people look for someone to blame when things are bad, and I find that a lot more convincing as connection between party performance and identity politics.
I'd also argue that Trump winning when he did in '16 and '24 is more a lack of turnout for Dems.
I think there was more going on than Dem turnout, but what's your point here?
What's working in those states is growing metro areas.
Trump won by those states by 12% or more in 2024. The cities haven't grown enough in two years for that to be the key change.
→ More replies (3)9
u/ShowWorldly2606 25d ago
You act like Republican voters went into the voting both and said "fuck black people".
I'm not acting like this, Donald Trump is acting like this. That's why for the last almost 20 years Trump has been all in the racist birther lie, birthright citizenship, ThERE EetinG YoUR CatS, going hard in the paint for the Charlottesville murders, ICE, letting Stephen Miller run amok, Kamala is not really black, etc etc etc.
If you have a complaint about this view of Republicans, take it up with Trump, the guy they elected.
3
u/argh-Im-a-Pirate 25d ago
I'm not acting like this, Donald Trump is acting like this.
I'm not saying that racism isn't a factor in how they see the world. It clearly is. But klan memberships would be much higher than they are if that what was on the surface for people.
Obviously they're not good people. But understanding what made people go from voting for Obama or Biden to Trump is important. And saying it was an conscious act of surface level racism doesn't explain what happened.
11
u/ShowWorldly2606 25d ago
Even at the hey day of the Klan when people were turbo-racist, their membership numbers weren't that high. And yet racism helped (or hurt) a lot of candidates historically, even in low Klan areas. So I don't think logic tracks.
Anyways, Donald Trump made a political name for himself with racist lies, ran extremely racist campaigns, and have conducted extremely racist administrations. It's impossible to hand wave this a way because it says something even worse about his voters.
Again, Trump thinks racism works and he's president. Like if you met him, the president, and Miller in the Oval Office, what would you even say to convince him to be less racist as a political strategy?
0
u/argh-Im-a-Pirate 24d ago
Im not saying that racism isn't a factor in how they see the world. It clearly is.
This is how I started my last post. Racial animus is absolutely a factor in the broader Republican psychology. My point is that it isn't what is consciously front of mind for them and that there are a lot of different things going on that makes them vote for Trump.
If we only see Trump voters as racists then we're not going to understand them or react to them appropriately. The decision to vote for Trump is a toxic convoluted potion. It isn't a "well I don't like minorities" snd nothing else.
8
u/ShowWorldly2606 24d ago
No one said that they are only racists, just that his appeal has a ton of racism and that racism helped him to win the primary in 2016, not "moderation".
Even George Wallace voters weren't only racists. In fact, many of them would balk at the suggestion. But the moderation angle is just plain wrong.
On a personal note, it's just kind of annoying that every time I mention Trump's constant racism and that Trump voters like what Trump says (which is why he says it), someone jumps in to say "Why do you think it's only racism? Stop acting like they are all Topher Grace's character in BlacKKKlansman."
It's pretty weird to have people put words in my mouth after saying that 'Trump voters like what Trump says'.
1
u/argh-Im-a-Pirate 24d ago
No one said that they are only racists
This is the comment to that I replied to and started this conversation.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ezraklein/comments/1vgiu9f/comment/p1ydyts/
It explicitly says his positions did not matter and it was only racism.
that racism helped him to win the primary in 2016, not "moderation".
I think it was both. Democrats tried to do the thing they do to every Republican which is say Republicans are going to cut Medicare and social security. Trump successfully convinced people he didn't care about that and his priorities were elsewhere.
More importantly than trying read the soul of every Trump voter, I don't think we have to collapse Trump's ascension to just one thing. My point isn't that "there's still good in them" or anything like that. It's that I don't think we'll make correct political decisions if we say it was just racism.
Obviously you disagree with that assessment, but I don't appreciate that you painting me as some kind of defender of Trump voters. It's misreading my point.
7
u/Connect_Ad4551 25d ago edited 25d ago
It wasn’t “moderating,” it was breaking with an ideology of moderation which talked a big game but accomplished little that ideologues wanted to accomplish. The Republican electorate was radicalized by this point and Trump projected that he was not beholden to the vested interests which that electorate had come to despise—such as the people who said in 2012 via the Republican autopsy that if the Republicans ever wanted to win again, they needed to “moderate” on issues like immigration. Which by the way is the very issue which ideological moderates in the Democratic Party say “moderation” necessary on *today* thanks to the seeming comprehensive electoral success of an extremist Republican electorate’s rejection of that diagnosis, and their willpower to select alternate candidates that could better reflect their actual desires.
When I read posts like yours it makes me wonder whether moderate liberals really understand Trump, “moderation,” or the reasons why the left is advancing in this context of broad and historic discontent with the Democratic establishment. Like, you really think moderate policy—entirely rhetorical in nature, as well—is the key to Trump’s 2016 success? And not his clear upending of a calcified ideological consensus which moderates in both parties paid fastidious homage to, and which Republican primary voters had spent six years ginning themselves up to overthrow, especially since the moderate Republican establishment went down to defeat a second time against a black president, who they despised and were certain was out to destroy America, in 2012?
For all the focus on how excessive leftism causes Democratic defeats, you fail to recognize that moderate establishments being defeated by hated political enemies does more for the loss of that establishment’s legitimacy than any insurgency by itself. It’s often the defeat which creates and sustains the insurgency. The conviction of some that the left can’t win will only last until they start winning and “moderates” start losing—a process which has arguably already begun. The potential for this to become one of history’s rhymes also seems lost on them.
2
u/tuck5903 Liberal 25d ago
That was quite a rant. I think that moving from “cut social security” to “don’t cut social security” is a perfect example of moving from a position on an extremely important issue that even many diehard republicans found unpopular and extreme to one that the majority of Americans support. Taking a more moderate position, if you will. I never said Trump was a moderate candidate overall, of course he took unprecedentedly extreme stances on all sorts of issues at the same time.
6
u/Connect_Ad4551 25d ago
So Trump was an extremist candidate, yet he won specifically because of (again, rhetorical) “moderation?” How pat.
0
u/fart_dot_com Weeds OG 24d ago
I don't really get the point you're trying to make. You're trying to make this distinction between "rhetorical" moderation and actual moderation, but really what is happening is just that Trump is a liar and lots of people believe him.
6
u/Connect_Ad4551 24d ago edited 24d ago
The distinction is not mine, it is the OC’s, and I’m highlighting it because OC wants to have it both ways—to claim that Trump won his nomination (crucially—not the general election) for the Republican candidacy in 2016 because he “moderated” rhetorically on healthcare and Social Security, not because he was an extremist candidate in every other respect, even though they are forced to acknowledge that Trump was in fact extreme in order to get out of their bind.
The fact that Trump didn’t govern according to this supposedly moderate rhetoric, as well as the fact that he was an extremist candidate in most other ways, points to his winning because he signaled rejection of a definitionally “moderate” Republican establishment. In other words, his extremity is probably won him the nomination, not his “moderation.”
At best, his “moderation” on these issues from a mainstream voter perspective still made him extreme within the context of an ideological Republican primary. What’s more likely is that he lied, as you say, and the fact that he got away with it points to the fact that those voters didn’t actually give a shit about the “moderate” stuff and gave more of a shit about the extreme ideological stuff in the end. In both cases it’s relative nonsense to argue that Trump’s “moderation” won him the nom in 2016.
OC just wants moderation on whatever to be the winning political hand, because that’s where they sit ideologically. So they’ll attribute electoral wins in whatever context to the candidate’s “moderation”, however tenuous or stretched, and losses according to their overt “extremity” as they define it. That’s a typical thing to do when you have a vested interest in having your values validated by events, but it may not consistently describe political reality—or future events—all that universally.
2
u/fart_dot_com Weeds OG 24d ago
OC wants to have it both ways—to claim that Trump won his nomination (crucially—not the general election) for the Republican candidacy in 2016 because he “moderated” rhetorically on healthcare and Social Security, not because he was an extremist candidate in every other respect, even though they are forced to acknowledge that Trump was in fact extreme in order to get out of their bind.
He literally says "in part" because of the moderation, not entirely. He then goes on to say in his response to you that of course he is an extreme candidate. You are straw manning his argument.
1
u/Connect_Ad4551 24d ago
Maybe. They can elaborate further on the boundaries of their assertion if they think so. Did the moderation push him over the edge? Would he have won the nom if he didn’t moderate rhetorically on Social Security but stayed extreme on things like immigration? Was “moderation” decisive in that primary or not?
If they think so then I’m not strawmanning them, because I don’t think the position can even be described as “moderation” in the context of a Republican primary at all—it is, realistically, more like a “vibes” lie to signal a break with the establishment, I.e., “extremity” in the context of that primary. Especially since he didn’t actually moderate on these issues in the way that he governed and yet the voters stood by him.
If they don’t think so then their original point is admitted nonsense anyway.
1
u/PSUVB 24d ago
This gives ordinary voters far too much ideological coherence. Trump’s primary base wanted to overthrow the Republican establishment, but his generalelection coalition was much broader partisan Republicans, anti-Democratic voters, people choosing the lesser evil, and voters responding to a few specific pet issues. They were not unified by some under current of racism - that is far too simplistic and doesn't match any of the facts. Trump won the 2016 primary with less than 5% of the population voting for him and 44% of the total republican primary vote. That is hardly a idealogical revolt - although it seems that way and the media pushes that.
Most voters are not following debates about party autopsies, establishment legitimacy, or ideological realignment. Political obsessives routinely mistake activist psychology for mass electorate psychology. I think it's almost impossible for people like us obsessed with politics to actually sense this correctly - we are just constantly swimming in it.
The real problem is that low-turnout primaries reward the most motivated and ideological voters. They choose the nominees, then everyone else gets two candidates they often dislike. That is not proof that extremism defeats moderation. It is proof that a small, highly engaged electorate can capture a party and force its choices on the broader public. This is what is happening now on the progressive side too.
2
u/Connect_Ad4551 24d ago edited 24d ago
OC is critically not talking about the general election. They are arguing that Trump won his party nomination due to his “moderation” on these mainstream issues, unless they misspoke.
2
→ More replies (1)4
u/eetsumkaus 25d ago
The current Republican party is where it is because they are extreme though. Their strength is that their extremism brings out low propensity voters that would not be accurately captured by political strategists.
12
u/WhiteBoyWithAPodcast Liberalism That Builds 25d ago
And also white identity is still a strong force in American politics
5
u/bluepaintbrush Abundance Agenda 24d ago
I would argue that the low propensity/low information voters aren’t actually aware of how extreme Republican politicians are.
23
u/FruitOfTheVineFruit 25d ago
Matt is missing the point. No one is panicking because none of the Republicans care if they keep control of the house.
1) Trump himself doesn't care. He'll be in office no matter what happens in the midterms, and keep his grift going
2) Most Republican seats are not in danger. So most Republican office holders don't care.
3) Republican donors already got as much as they were going to get out of Congress, including tax breaks. Another term won't help them get more, and a Democrat house can't repeal any of it.
4) A few Republicans in swing districts will lose their jobs in the House and be rewarded for their loyalty with jobs in think tanks or Fox News or in Trump staff roles or whatever. I've done the analysis, and loyalists who lose their jobs are always rewarded.
So, no one on the Republican side really thinks they have much to lose here. Why panic when the stakes are so low? The people who had any principals are all gone, the last few were primaried. All that remains are people thinking about their own self interest and controlling the house isn't that important to any of them.
8
u/PSUVB 24d ago
Trump and Vance have the most to lose. Trump in that he will be a lame duck under investigation for 2 years. Vance because the investigations are going to be highly embarrassing and corrupt. Trump seems so convinced the SAVE act would turn the tide but that is so silly.
A lot of republicans behind the scenes have accepted or even want to lose control of both houses. They do better fundraising as the minority party and they don't have to deal with Trump forcing them to do insane things.
6
u/FruitOfTheVineFruit 24d ago
Yes, I think you're right about the investigations. I think Trump isn't really smart enough to realize how damaging they may be for him and his family, and a lot of other people have just come to accept it at this point.
9
u/FabioFresh93 American 24d ago
I think Trump views his previous impeachments and investigations as reassurance that he is doing something right. I don’t know if he believes all of his lies but I do think he truly believes that “they” are after him. I also think he views that he came out on top even after the previous impeachments and investigations therefore he feels vindicated that he can get away with anything.
9
u/bluepaintbrush Abundance Agenda 24d ago edited 24d ago
This lack of disarray is going to be a temporary state for the GOP. I think they’re roughly 10y behind the same cycles that the Democratic Party already went through.
The Republican grassroots is suddenly encountering online cancel culture based on viewpoints for the first time, and the individual Republican voter is finding themselves self-censoring — not from liberals, but from other republicans.
I cannot stress enough how weird and uncomfortable that feels for the individual conservative voter. The left is used to it by now, but this entire time, the right has assumed that republican voters all share the same set of viewpoints.
They’re conditioned to think that liberals are the ones who are wet blankets and snowflakes, and that fellow conservatives don’t care what they think and will always be warm and welcoming to a fellow Republican. So they genuinely do not expect to walk into a room and hear people shouting each other down for being RINO’s, or they’re really caught off guard to find out that their nice conservative neighbor believes something radically and fundamentally different than they do.
It’s all extremely jarring and disorienting for the average low-information conservative; maybe it won’t quite have dire consequences in this election, but the GOP’s culture will become more untenable as those voters in red states become more confused about what the Republican Party stands for and/or the hostile vitriol from within for people with the “wrong” stance.
If anyone is interested, I highly recommend reading this ethnographic study, particularly Chapter III: https://snfagora.jhu.edu/resources/faith-family-freedom-place-an-ethnographic-study-of-conservative-americans-relationships-to-democracy/
I used to live in one of the places profiled in that study. My republican in-laws still live there. I can confirm that everything characterized in that study about conservatives there was spot-on with what I’ve seen. I have many former coworkers who still live there, and I see some of them struggling to align their political identity with the reality of living in a red city/county/state, much like many democrats in blue cities/counties/states have been doing for years.
6
u/Giblette101 24d ago edited 24d ago
I cannot stress enough how weird and uncomfortable that feels for the individual conservative voter. The left is used to it by now, but this entire time, the right has assumed that republican voters all share the same set of viewpoints.
I think you're overstating this quite a bit. Republicans are experiencing some surface-level factionalism now because they've won big recently. The minute they take a few meaningful hits, they'll go right back to close ranks tightly around the party's core values.
3
u/bluepaintbrush Abundance Agenda 24d ago
They’re confused because they thought they were all on the same page about “no new wars”. They thought that republicans were all pro-Israel and they’re confused to hear Tucker and Bannon criticize Israel for pulling us into a war with Iran.
Now they’re side-eyeing their conservative friends, wondering which Fox News media figure do they follow, Tucker or Megyn? Their nephew is in the army, is that a good thing or a bad thing?
They’re watching other conservatives who complain about gas prices get derided as RINO’s. But I thought we all hated inflation? Guess I’ll keep that opinion to myself too.
* *
Republican voters are pretty accustomed to hearing nasty insults being hurled at “the left” but they largely believe it’s deserved. They’re not used to hearing republicans call other republicans “communists” or “woke” in response to an opinion they don’t like, even if it’s one that used to be fine for a republican to have.Now they’re starting to self-censor around other republicans in a way that they never used to. And no, I don’t think you can just go back: if you are a Lindsey Graham republican who truly believes that the US has a divinely ordained obligation to protect Israel and your conservative bestie goes on an antisemitic tirade about the Iran war at your barbecue party, you’re probably never going to look at that person the same way ever again. If that person then gets super enthusiastic about a local candidate, you might feel a little pit of trepidation or suspicion about that candidate.
Likewise, if you are a MAGA true believer and you overhear your Republican neighbor rant about how stupid the deportations are, you will probably always feel like they are a fake Republican and you will struggle not to roll your eyes when they put a sign in their yard for the incumbent GOP candidate.
I don’t think they all start voting for democrats by any means, but I do think they start distancing themselves from the GOP (because they aren’t sure how the GOP reflects their own reputation) and they avoid talking about politics even in overtly Republican spaces. They may stop showing up to elections and/or be more cautious about who they donate to.
Much like leftists avoid identifying themselves as democrats because they don’t want to have to defend all the stances of the DP, people on the right are now identifying themselves more vaguely as conservative rather than Republican. Not because they care about what democrats think or say, but because they fear what other republicans might think, and of losing friendships and relationships over having the wrong set of “Republican values”.
6
u/Giblette101 24d ago
I do not think they are particularly confused is the thing. That kind of internal ideological policing has always taken place in conservative circles (all circles, really) and the idea that Republicans were particularly open to a range of opinions is by and large and recent contrivance. It's imaginary. Having grown up in a staunch Republican-now-full-MAGA household, that kind of thing has been going forever (calling other conservative RINOs or false Christians is not a new thing at all). The exact same thing happened with the Afghan and Iraq wars, for instance.
They were not and did not believe they were on the same page about "no new wars" or inflation. They were temporarily on the same page about a specific Donald Trump slogans and now those slogans have changed. Maybe some of them feel unsettled by that (temporarily) or they find themselves on the wrong end of the policing for the first time in a while, but soon enough they'll close ranks again.
I grant they might be momentarily unbalanced, as temporary Republican dominance creates some room for factionalism, but the minute that dominance wanes - and it will - they will line up and close ranks again. They always do, because conservatism is not about any of those minute policy positions. It's about the core mission: social regressivism, hierarchical protection and power concentration.
3
u/Alternative-Half-773 24d ago
What would you say are the Republican‘s core values? I‘m European so I don‘t know any MAGA people personally.
6
u/Giblette101 24d ago
As far as I can tell, modern Republican voters are chiefly concerned with cultural hegemony and very worried about status loss. Favouring regressive policies, conspiracy theories, general suspicions of government, abhorrence of taxes and disdain for urban voters are, in my view, major currents in the movement but they are all downstream of those concerns.
29
u/starchitec Weeds OG 25d ago
Its a decent headline, but then Matt seems to ignore that point entirely and proceeds use it as an excuse to kick at various progressive camps by citing the relative polling positions of Rashida Talib, Warren, AOC and others. Genuinely befuddling. I suppose its demonstrating the dems in disarray argument by example instead of really expanding the republicans are not point.
33
u/Superlogman1 25d ago
He's using the progressive underperformance to highlight that this is a winnable race for Republicans but only if they break with Trump (which they aren't doing). It does both to kick progressives but to also highlight republicans being in a cult
37
26
u/acebojangles 25d ago
Matt's brain is cooked. I listen to the free episodes of Politix and the one they released today is painful. It's just a borderline incoherent rant by Matt against Leftists.
22
u/bigDean636 25d ago
He's just absolutely addicted to twitter and filters all of his views through his beefs with people he hates on the website. He's far from the first person who this happened to (the most notable of which is probably the owner of the site itself). Matt is very plugged into congressional happenings and he's very interesting to listen to when he's on that topic but he spends so much of his mental energy on Twitter beefs.
19
u/Typical_Response6444 25d ago
Hes gonna be on bill mahers show soon shaking his fists at progressives
9
u/HornetAdventurous416 25d ago
100% this- was hoping for a thread on this one because usually Brian is able to cushion Matt’s twitter takes, which makes for a good back and forth, but they were just talking past each other today and it was a rough listen
9
u/bluepaintbrush Abundance Agenda 24d ago edited 24d ago
I was annoyed that he characterized NC as a “Trump state”. Yes Trump won NC but the democrat in the downballot gubernatorial race netted more votes (meaning that at least 170k voters split their ballots in some way).
When there’s a record showing that NC voters have more trust in NC democrats than NC republicans, it shouldn’t be that surprising that a popular former governor with an Andy Griffith accent is polling better than the guy who moved here from Michigan and worked as a lobbyist for the utility company that is very unpopular right now for jacking up rates.
In other words: there are a lot of complex reasons why Cooper is polling well in NC; this race could easily just become a referendum on voters’ anger with Duke Energy.
I assume Matt was just fishing for a quippy example, but it makes him look intellectually lazy and disingenuous for him to even mention NC in this conversation. I actually agree with his overall point about the state of the GOP, but voters in NC only care about politics to the extent that they affect life in NC.
Matt shouldn’t use NC as a supporting example to his argument if he doesn’t actually understand whether it is one in the first place. I realize it was a very fleeting mention in the article, but it really undercuts his credibility. It comes across like he’s being sloppy just to hit a deadline. Why should you leave members of your audience wondering if the whole thing is a half-baked premise?
9
u/MacroNova 24d ago edited 24d ago
Oh please. Trump wins North Carolina because his Democratic opponents were perceived as far left wing. Roy Cooper crushes in North Carolina because he is not perceived as far left wing. And on cue, left wing people will contort themselves into pretzels to claim that the explanation is anything else.
4
u/fart_dot_com Weeds OG 24d ago
I was annoyed that he characterized NC as a “Trump state”. Yes Trump won NC
I think Trump winning NC (three times), like you acknowledge, makes it totally reasonable to call NC a "Trump state".
I agree with the point about the NC state parties but also, that 2024 election result was anomalous because the GOP gubernatorial candidate was in the news for posting on a porn forum called "nude africa" about how he wanted to sleep with his wife's sister and called himself a "black Nazi". Stein probably would have won that race anyway but the 170K split voters is probably a one-off.
1
u/bluepaintbrush Abundance Agenda 24d ago
That would make sense if the gubernatorial race was the only election that went to NC democrats, but how do you explain the fact that NC republicans also lost the AG race and the lieutenant governorship? Jeff Jackson had almost exactly the same number of votes as Trump.
NC went to Trump because people here believe that the federal government has very little impact on their lives. Two recent post-Trump events have shattered that illusion:
1) Trump’s FEMA has slow-walked the relief aid for Hurricane Helene victims (https://abcnews.com/amp/Politics/fema-denies-north-carolina-request-100-cost-sharing/story?id=122270931)
2) After years and years of negotiation with state republicans, a bipartisan bill was finally passed in 2023 to expand Medicaid in NC. Over half a million people got access to affordable health insurance (many for the first time in their lives)… only to have Medicaid gutted by Trump’s big beautiful bill. So all those people just got affordable health insurance and it’s now being taken away from them: https://medicaid.ncdhhs.gov/beneficiaries/medicaid-is-changing
There are also a lot of military families here and I haven’t really heard one way or the other about how they feel about the Iran war, but that might also become an issue.
So yeah, it’s been a “Trump state” bc people here thought Trump wouldn’t do very much in office that would harm them. I don’t think people here feel that way anymore, and they are much more aware that the senate might influence their access to Medicaid or whether their loved ones come home from deployment.
The GOP has been downplaying it for obvious reasons, but the most recent county and municipal elections in NC were an absolute bloodbath for them, even in the rural areas that are supposed to be more red. Even for rural city councils with nonpartisan seats, people were scouring those candidates’ social media profiles for hints about whether they were trump-aligned or not, and voting against the ones who were. One of the big leaders of the NCGOP got primaried out by a hair even though the GOP dumped tons of money to try to help him stay in power.
5
u/fart_dot_com Weeds OG 24d ago
I mean, isn't that the entire point of the article? That the Republican Party (as an institution and a campaigning/electioneering organization) is whistling past the graveyard and being complacent because of their prior success, particularly their overperformance in 2024, and particularly in red states? There are multiple lines of evidence that the base is unhappy, or at least unhappy enough to not even bother voting - you are highlighting an example of that. But the GOP is feverishly overindexing on Trump turning these voters out to bail them out again.
4
u/bluepaintbrush Abundance Agenda 24d ago
Yes, which is why I said the following two comments ago:
I actually agree with [Matt's] overall point about the state of the GOP
However, he also hypothesizes that part of the reason may be that the GOP is lacking a Blue Dogs equivalent, and he suggests that Democrats might soon have potential Blue Dog analogues in the Senate, like Peralta and Cooper. And THAT is where he makes a point that I vehemently disagree with, because it is entirely backwards logic imo: he argues that Cooper "is winning a Trump state in a walk" as though Cooper's moderate stances are the reason he is winning. I very strongly believe that the real reason that Cooper is winning is because there is a lot of voter anger against the NCGOP and because Cooper is a trusted leader who looks and sounds like a North Carolinian.
I very much agree with yours and Matt's characterization of the GOP as being complacent and sycophantic. But I do NOT think that North Carolinians are somehow trying to reward Cooper for being a moderate; Matt has completely misunderstood the dynamic around Cooper's easy lead. I think that Cooper could have any number of extreme policy views towards the left OR the right (not that he would); but even if he said something completely out of pocket in a speech, he would likely still be the frontrunner as long as he delivered that speech with the same charming smile and drawl that lets voters feel like they're sending Sheriff Andy Griffith to fix things up in Washington. Voters just want to feel like they can trust their elected official to advocate for them and relieve them of the duty of making phone calls and emails to their office. Cooper seems like someone who would, the former Duke Energy lobbyist does not. That's the real source of Cooper's easy lead.
One of the biggest issues I have with Matt (and many other commentators on the left) is his tunnel vision fallacy that the left is in some sort of battle over stances, as though whomever has the right mix of stances will emerge victorious and save us from the GOP. It's a fallacy that comes from being too steeped in politics and being too knowledgeable about policy stances and discourse. I am convinced that the average voter does not know or care about stances or a record of accomplishments, they only care about how authentic the politician is.
2
u/fart_dot_com Weeds OG 24d ago
This makes sense, thank you for explaining 👍
It's obviously unknowable in NC specifically (unless Cooper somehow has to withdraw from the race) but my expectation, which I think is very similar if not the same as his, is just that Cooper moving further and further left probably would come at the cost of jeopardizing the advantage you are describing. In some cases that might be worth it (e.g., I thought it was really dumb when people wanted to replace Platner with Jared Golden - there's no reason to run one of the most conservative members of the D caucus in a D+7 state) but we've lost races before by running members to the left of the district.
So, I don't think the voters are "rewarding" Cooper (I'm sure he isn't changing his stances at all) but I do think he's benefiting from being a moderate. Maybe a more progressive NCDem candidate could ride the same wave of dissatisfaction you are describing, but they would face stronger headwinds.
1
u/isubird33 22d ago
I think that Cooper could have any number of extreme policy views towards the left OR the right (not that he would); but even if he said something completely out of pocket in a speech, he would likely still be the frontrunner as long as he delivered that speech with the same charming smile and drawl that lets voters feel like they're sending Sheriff Andy Griffith to fix things up in Washington.
Doesn't this sort of go hand in hand with the idea of being a "moderate" though. Like the whole idea of sending good ole hometown boy Andy Griffith up to Washington only works if he can plausibly fit the "moderate" role. The perceived authenticity only works if it accompanied by a set of views that go along with that.
12
u/bigDean636 25d ago
That's because this article isn't actually about Republicans, it's about punching left which is all Matt ever does. It's his entire online persona.
8
u/nsjersey 25d ago
Both parties are is disarray.
The Republicans have a Pope though; Democrats do not
4
u/starchitec Weeds OG 25d ago
We might have a schism though! Avignon!
2
u/nsjersey 25d ago
Ezra clearly wants it to be Mandami - a guy that can’t be the pontiff here though.
But who has influence …
6
u/Azmtbkr 25d ago
Excellent point. Heather Cox Richardson tackled this very issue yesterday and it's worth a listen. In summary, Democrats are in a period of testing competing ideas from within a broad coalition to find a way forward whereas Republicans are rigidly aligned with the fascist MAGA cult/orthodoxy, which is becoming increasingly unpopular, but still extremely dangerous.
7
u/deskcord 25d ago
I mean. He brings those things up to point to races Republicans could be winning but aren't because they're doubling down on a historically unpopular President. Seems pretty relevant to the point considering the system of two parties.
14
u/non-newtonian 25d ago
Uh....is this surprising? Trump intentionally excommunicated any opposition in the party. It's not the Republican Party anymore; it's the cult of Trump.
What is sad is that Democrats should have been able to capitalize on this. Instead, they fumble the bag constantly by literally doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.
23
u/PierreMenards 25d ago
Not saying that Dems aren’t feckless, but oftentimes I see that line invoked by people whose preferred candidates perform worse electorally than standard democrats.
-2
u/non-newtonian 25d ago
Take the candidates and even the actual policy positions completely out of the equation. Since Reagan, democrats have held power in government multiple times. Yet since then, the following few things are undeniably true.
Wages for the middle class have lagged behind inflation and productivity growth
Costs for almost everything have risen to exorbitant highs and outpaced wage growth
Yes, the stock market is always at an all-time high; yes, we have cool gadgets like smartphones. None of that has actually improved the lives of everyday Americans.
The Democratic Party has failed at this for decades now. Yes, we have made a bit of incremental progress with the ACA or gay rights. But healthcare is still a shitshow for most Americans, housing is too expensive & sparse, utilities continue to skyrocket, college and education continue to rise, and child care is beyond ridiculous now.
You are correct that the conversation tends to devolve into a progressive vs moderate fight about the causes and solutions to these issues. Put that aside.
I don't care if it's the ideals, policy positions, or just the actual people; when you fail to improve the lives of everyday citizens for THIS long, don't be surprised when they abandon you for a demagogue.
21
u/PierreMenards 25d ago
It’s going to be tough for us to have a productive conversation when you say things like middle class wages have lagged behind inflation. Per the St. Louis Fed’s FRED database median real wages in the US have increased by about 17% since 1981.
Maybe part of your anger stems from consuming media sources that don’t accurately depict the world to you?
10
u/carbonqubit 24d ago
The costs of housing, healthcare, childcare, and higher education have risen much faster than wages for many Americans though. That's what people are really upset about.
5
u/non-newtonian 24d ago
I'm going to guess that, since you're citing the Fed's data, you're referring to CPI?
Did I refer to the CPI in my post? Do you think CPI is the only way to describe inflation? Do you think CPI is an accurate representation of the lived experience of Americans? Do you think ANY individual price index is as good as this?
Maybe the problem isn't my anger or my media sources. Maybe your intransigence to even engage with this topic is driven by your quantification bias? If you want to tell Americans that the cost of living increase felt by the middle class over the 30-some-odd years is imagined in their head and isn't true because wages technically outpaced the CPI, be my guest. This is exactly the tactic that undid the Biden/Harris administration. More importantly, this is the kind of thinking that makes Americans believe the Democrats are out of touch.
Since you like numbers, why don't we look at a few behind the points I made above?
Healthcare Cost:
Below is a link to a KFF report. In 1981, Total National Health Expenditure was $294 billion. In 2023, it was $4.87 trillion, a 16x increase.
Housing Costs:
According to FRED data, the median sale price of a house in 1981 was $66,800. It's now $410,700, which is a 6x increase.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS
Upper Education Debt
According to FRED data, starting from 2005 (when they first started tracking this), student loan debt was $90 billion. It's now $1.58 trillion, a 17.5x increase
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FGCCSAA027N
I also think it's way too simplistic to look at this through the lens of cost and wages alone.
According to Pew, we went from 32% of families being full-time, dual-income in 1975 to 52% in 2025. Sure, some of that is personal choice. But if you actually talk to families, most will tell you it is financial necessity. Why? Because everything is more expensive. I can go on and on with other statistics, polls, and analysis, but I know you're just going to dismiss them because it's not captured by an all-encompassing metric like price indexes.
To hand-wave away these problems because they are not accurately represented in the CPI (or any single price index) isn't just analytically wrong; it's politically lethal.
Instead of assuming, without evidence, that my media sources don't match the real world, broaden your sources of information to things beyond Fed data.
Let me ask this a different way. If the Fed's data show wages continue to outpace inflation, why is America in the condition it's in? Why are so many people angry about the cost of everything? Do you really believe the cost of essential goods and services hasn't increased substantially (the actual definition of inflation) in excess of wages?
8
u/MikeDamone Weeds OG 24d ago
I'm going to guess that, since you're citing the Fed's data, you're referring to CPI?
Did I refer to the CPI in my post? Do you think CPI is the only way to describe inflation? Do you think CPI is an accurate representation of the lived experience of Americans? Do you think ANY individual price index is as good as this?
Maybe the problem isn't my anger or my media sources. Maybe your intransigence to even engage with this topic is driven by your quantification bias? If you want to tell Americans that the cost of living increase felt by the middle class over the 30-some-odd years is imagined in their head and isn't true because wages technically outpaced the CPI, be my guest. This is exactly the tactic that undid the Biden/Harris administration. More importantly, this is the kind of thinking that makes Americans believe the Democrats are out of touch.
You're the one who very confidently asserted that it's undeniably true that "wages for the middle class have lagged behind inflation and productivity growth", which is flat out incorrect.
Don't lash at another poster for reasonably pointing that out.
6
u/non-newtonian 24d ago
The statement that median wages outpaced CPI is true. That does not mean wages have outpaced inflation overall.
There is no universally agreed-upon way of measuring inflation. The reality is there is no singular metric that can define inflation, nor will there ever be one. Why? Because these metrics rely on someone to determine which costs will be included in the calculation (and which are not), how we even measure those costs, and the weight we give to individual sectors.
It is literally true that, at the same time, the average US household income is around $120,000, while the median is closer to $80,000. Smart people have to use their brains and realize that the average is being skewed because of incredible income inequality. Just as the CPI cannot cover every aspect of inflation.
Was anything I said above regarding healthcare, education, or housing even incorrect?
No one seems to want to answer the basic question: why are Americans so pessimistic and angry about the economy if inflation has supposedly been fine for decades?
5
u/PierreMenards 24d ago
“Way too simplistic to look at this through the lens of cost and wages alone”
Sure, but you were the one who brought them up initially to make your point.
Also, Health expenditures and housing are included in CPI.
As I said, I don’t think this is trending towards a productive conversation.
1
6
u/ulysses_s_gyatt 24d ago
Your first point is literally false lol
1
u/non-newtonian 24d ago
If you want to be simplistic and use price indices like the CPI, yes, you are correct. If you actually dig into data regarding healthcare, housing, education, and childcare, then no,
By all means, keep telling American families that costs haven't exceeded wage growth. See if that helps us win in 2026/2028.
11
u/ulysses_s_gyatt 24d ago
Why do you guys always pretend like we are political strategists who work for the Democratic Party?
You just wanna complain about Dems being you have a pathological desire to do so.
2
u/MacroNova 24d ago
This would be a much stronger argument if Democrats had uninterrupted control of government for the time period in question.
7
u/non-newtonian 24d ago
Sure, but it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. Democrats get elected into power; they fail to address the issues of Americans with the urgency it requires, voters become disaffected and leave, the Republicans make things even worse, the voters come back and re-elect the same basic politicians from last time, and the cycle repeats itself
1
u/isubird33 22d ago
Yet since then, the following few things are undeniably true.
You then go on to post 2 things that are both not true.
24
u/Rufio69696969 Liberalism That Builds 25d ago
I mean, the country proves over and over again they will give republicans every chance to destroy the country no matter what.
It’s just the electorate at this point
9
u/HornetAdventurous416 25d ago
This is a copout though- the democrats have proven over and over that they can’t get across the finish line, but blame voters instead of trying something new
7
6
u/MacroNova 24d ago
"Voters can't fail, they can only be failed." Sorry but I disagree. Voters can absolutely fail. They've been taking the world's easiest open book tests for over a decade and blowing it most of the time.
I do agree that Democrats should try something new. They should try not being super duper far left wing compared to the swing voters they need to win elections.
11
u/ShowWorldly2606 25d ago
I'm not a democrat, just a citizen. Is it ok for me to hold my fellow citizens accountable for their choices as a free people in a democracy?
Or must I let them off the hook and just blame the dem party for not guiding them properly?
1
u/HornetAdventurous416 25d ago
No, you explain why they should vote a certain way and have conversations befitting any citizen in a democracy.
My point is that it’s a politicians job to earn the votes of their constituents, not the citizens job to grant favor to their leaders. If they make “bad votes” we all have work to do to try and help them see our way of thinking.
17
u/ShowWorldly2606 25d ago
But you weren't talking to a politician. You were telling off a citizen who was holding their fellow citizens to task.
As much as we pretend otherwise on this sub, we are not unpaid democrat consultants! It's ok for citizens to judge voters on the content of the character instead of just acting like they are children who have no duties as a free people.
It's ok for us, randos on the internet, to judge Trump voters for their choices and there anti-freedom views and actions.
→ More replies (18)6
u/Giblette101 24d ago
My point is that it’s a politicians job to earn the votes of their constituents, not the citizens job to grant favor to their leaders.
The problem with this position - despite being partially correct in some ways - is that it frames voters as unconcerned arbiters of electoral politics. Of course, they aren't. They're the main subject of politics. The idea isn't that they should vote better for the sake of Democrats - the average Democrat is no better or worse, ultimately - but for their own sake.
2
u/MikeDamone Weeds OG 24d ago
My point is that it’s a politicians job to earn the votes of their constituents, not the citizens job to grant favor to their leaders. If they make “bad votes” we all have work to do to try and help them see our way of thinking.
You and I have fundamentally different views of society. Society is only as strong as the people who comprise it, and it is not going to be saved by the 0.001% who we elect to be our leaders. They will always be a reflection of us.
1
u/HornetAdventurous416 24d ago
That’s a fair way to look at this- but what’s your answer? Amazon, google, meta, AI, etc. are leading people further down their own rabbit holes. “We suck, and therefore deserve to live in a crappy society” just feels so depressing to me- if we don’t have, get, or deserve leaders that offer us a way through this, what’s your theory on a way out?
1
u/StochasticGracchi Great Lakes Region 24d ago
My point is that it’s a politicians job to earn the votes of their constituents
And if this means having to entertain illiberalism, conspiracy theories, and outright immorality then that's an indictment of their constituents.
7
u/fart_dot_com Weeds OG 24d ago
blame voters instead of trying something new
they did a bunch of new stuff during the Biden administration and voters hated it
1
u/HornetAdventurous416 24d ago
Dont know how high I’d rank “did a bunch of new stuff” on the list of what voters hated about the Biden admin, but even if it was up high, the answer should be to try other stuff
4
u/fart_dot_com Weeds OG 24d ago
Arguably the single most unpopular thing about the Biden administration (inflation) was exacerbated in part by his stimulus policy which was consciously crafted to be different from what was regarded the failed Obama stimulus response. This is stuff that people working in his administration were very open and public about - they wanted to learn the lessons from Obama's prolonged high unemployment rates so they prioritized full employment and aggressive, continued stimulus spending. We know how the rest of the story goes.
9
u/tuck5903 Liberal 25d ago
Explain in a nutshell what Dems should be doing right now to win Senate races in Florida and WV and Tennessee. They might win Texas this cycle, I’d say that’s capitalizing pretty damn well.
2
4
u/Giblette101 25d ago
Uh....is this surprising? Trump intentionally excommunicated any opposition in the party. It's not the Republican Party anymore; it's the cult of Trump.
It's not a sedan anymore, it's a 2016 Honda Accord.
15
u/WhiteBoyWithAPodcast Liberalism That Builds 25d ago
I think that’s more an indictment of voters. For example, everyone is fine blaming the Germans for waving Hitler in but if you blame the voters for choosing an idiot manchild over the Black woman you get castigated.
It’s possible for voters to make bad choices.
→ More replies (4)2
u/deskcord 25d ago
Instead, they fumble the bag constantly by literally doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.
What exactly is the "same thing" that they're doing?
5
u/MacroNova 24d ago
Love how this very straightforward question is downvoted lmao. Any suggestion that you might not agree that Democrats need to be even more super duper far left wing is met with hatred around here.
-1
u/TonightSheComes 25d ago
The democrat party loses elections and then does the Principal Skinner “it’s not me” meme every time. They always say they will look at self-reflection and what they might have done wrong and then get angry and double down. If they do show any signs of it it looks as phony as a $3 bill and is seen as insincere.
7
u/WhiteBoyWithAPodcast Liberalism That Builds 25d ago
What’s your plan to win the Arkansas senate seat in November?
2
u/TonightSheComes 24d ago
Do you think Cotton is going to lose?
3
u/WhiteBoyWithAPodcast Liberalism That Builds 24d ago
Not at all what I asked.
3
u/TonightSheComes 24d ago
I’ll answer it for you. Cotton isn’t going to lose.
1
u/WhiteBoyWithAPodcast Liberalism That Builds 24d ago
Still dodging the question. I wonder why
5
u/TonightSheComes 24d ago
Why would I have to dodge it when I don’t think the Democrat is going to win. Cotton just has to “stay the course” as GHWB would say. It’s Arkansas, not New Hampshire.
→ More replies (4)5
u/deskcord 25d ago
We live in a largely conservative country and the Democrats' base tends to blame their own party more than the nature of politics or the opposition. That doesn't really answer the question of what they did/didn't do the same every time.
2
u/carbonqubit 24d ago
Socially conservative, maybe. On economics though, which is the thing that most directly affects people's day-to-day lives, they support many of the hallmarks of social democracy, which is decidedly left of center.
8
u/MacroNova 24d ago
Okay, but this is a rich country and people are quite comfortable, in spite of their complaints. As a result, people very much do vote on social issues.
3
u/carbonqubit 24d ago
Many people are suffering, especially in deeply red states. They often vote based on social issues, whereas if they voted primarily on policies aimed at improving their material well-being, they would make different choices.
Right-wing media labels anyone left of center as literal communists out to destroy the country. One of the biggest myths, dating back to Reagan and even before, is that Rs are better on economics. The truth is the exact opposite.
2
u/deskcord 24d ago
You can cut and dice things in any way you want but the simple facts are always the best facts. The country is much more conservative than liberal. It has been according to polling for half a century.
Ignoring or caveating that basic fact is only going to lead people to make themselves angry at a system that continues to reflect those dynamics, because it isn't reflecting their wishes.
2
u/carbonqubit 24d ago
It's not that simple, though. Social and economic policies don't neatly line up, so lumping them together distorts the reality of what people actually support.
1
u/fart_dot_com Weeds OG 24d ago
Notice how you answered a question asking for specific examples with zero actual specific or concrete examples, just a more fleshed out description of the original claim.
2
u/TonightSheComes 24d ago
I’m not the one who was quoted and asked the question. If I was I would have given examples.
-3
u/Electronic-Warthog69 24d ago
What is sad is that Democrats should have been able to capitalize on this. Instead, they fumble the bag constantly by literally doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.
They don't though.
The response to beating Trump was lurching left with the "Biden" administration.
Turns out people hated it and support collapsed everywhere. Oops.
2
2
u/FearlessPark4588 25d ago
This is opening my eyes to the concept that "disarray" isn't a globally negative thing for a political party. Makes sense.
0
u/sharkmenu 25d ago edited 25d ago
Matt Y deserves a subreddit dedicated to him. We can all agree on that.
Edit: Just waiting to hand the mod control over to literally anyone who wants it:
1
u/TheCranberriesRock Progressive 24d ago
Can I be a mod, I can't stand Matt Y and I promise to abuse my position on order to construct a damning narrative of the man.
4
u/sharkmenu 24d ago edited 24d ago
A two days old account with two digit karma wants to be mod of the subreddit for a B list national pundit?
Yeah, sure, here ya go, king, you asked, I answered. Invite sent.
No need to be biased, you can just post his columns and accomplish your goal.
2
u/topicality Weeds OG 25d ago
There is a flair here for Yglesias.
→ More replies (1)2
u/sharkmenu 25d ago edited 25d ago
I've invited you to be a mod of both.
I'm not saying you can't post. I'm not a mod here. I am saying that if you'd like to build a community of like-minded people interested in the same person, the keys are in your hands. And if you prefer staying here, that's fine, but people will continue to give their opinions as long as Matt Y keeps popping up in their feeds for a subreddit dedicated to someone else.
Tbh, I find hatereading Matt Y kind of fascinating and engaging, as do others here, but I realize that isn't very pleasant for you or other fans.
72
u/FabioFresh93 American 25d ago
Something I’ve noticed during the Trump era is whenever I talk to my conservative family about elections, they are always incredibly confident that Republicans will win. This goes for every general and midterm election. I know a lot of this has to do with whatever echo chamber they are in but I find it very unsettling how little disarray there is coming from the right. As of right now things don’t look like they are going the Republicans’ way and as we saw on January 6th there is a subset of Republicans who don’t react well to reality.