Jump to content

Bozo_Casanova

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    15390
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by Bozo_Casanova

  1. I’m not sure I understand. Do you think Greg Casar is Hispanic?
  2. Well OK. I mean, that seems more like “the idea of Greg Casar” than the actual Greg Casar. But I do like him, and more importantly, he wins.
  3. Related to the Hogg thing: right now a small group of traditional Austin Democrats are very quietly feeling around for a “moderate” to primary Greg Casar. Somehow my name came up as a possible supporter or even challenger. What I told them was that even though Greg Casar‘s ideology is not the model for what Democrats need nationally, purging well liked incumbents who represent their district well in a misguided attempt to enforce some kind of hypothetical majoritarian ideological baseline is exactly what we don’t need to do. If someone thinks they can do the job better than Casar, they should run. But I’m not going to participate as a donor or opponent in an attempt to take him down because he wins, and winning is job #1.
  4. They aren’t even unified now. They simply get along well enough to cooperate fully when it involves defeating their tribal/cultural enemies.
  5. Completely disagree. The GOP is so weak it was taken over by a lifelong Democrat who now rules by fiat. “They” didn’t unify.
  6. I don’t think that final part is true. Disruption is the best means of making noise, but scapegoating isn’t required. See also Obama. I’d argue he didn’t do nearly enough scapegoating. Donald Trump wasn’t disruptive because he’s the biggest hater, but because he’s a rizz king with a huge brand, bottomless energy and incredible comic timing who also happened to be the biggest hater, and he was competing against interchangable mediocrities.
  7. This entire framework is wrong and the reason why Trump won. Politics in 2025 is about who, not what.
  8. Great post, well put
  9. To me it’s JB, Pete and Newsom, but I wonder if JB is more our Chris Christie than he is a leader who can galvanize a national majority.
  10. It’s all part of the same complex of being out of touch with their voting coalition. Democrats in 2023 were still operating under the old principle that GDP growth+full employment = good economy. But in an environment of steep and accelerating growth income inequality, that’s not a good economy for most people because the benefit isn’t tangible. And yet, there were literally Democrats saying that people were lying or brainwashed when they said they were hurting, because the economy was supposedly doing so well.
  11. Well, but see our ideologically pure Democratic partisans are living their version of the American dream. They get to drive allies and cobelligerents out of their coalition and lose elections and let the world go to hell, but they keep their hands clean and face no personal consequences. And then, ironically, they blame “the oligarchs.”
  12. There are 1000 places for you to have this argument as vaguely and with as much hand waving as you like, but, you’re ultimately talking about what you only get to do if you win. The part that is relevant to this thread is that Democrats fucked themselves with elements of their coalition that they couldn’t afford to lose.
  13. Wordle 1,455 4/6 ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜ 🟩🟨🟨⬜⬜ 🟩🟩🟩⬜⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
  14. Certainly more than enough to make the difference, absolutely. I think you are fooling yourself. It’s part of the general phenomenon of Democrats getting way out of sync with the financial and class anxieties of their base. There are 55 million people who own at least some crypto directly, that is, they have invested their money in an asset and have an interest in it. Those people are more likely to be Asian, black, or hispanic than voters as a whole. Around 2/3 make under $100k/year. if support among those groups for Democrats erodes from 2020-2024, either in the form of moving towards the GOP or simply staying home, Democrats lose. Which is exactly what happened. Agreed and we should move on. But, there’s a ton of data on this for those who care to look and it’s not even particularly controversial. This forum is a bit of an echo chamber, and as such is representative of the blind spots that have put us where we are. One of those blind spots is crypto. I’m not advocating for anything here or trying to get y'all to like something you think is problematic. I’m simply stating the self-evident fact that the horse has left the barn.
  15. You did, though. Did I stutter? By allowing Elizabeth Warren and her 1965 GOP views on the same banking system set the agenda for the party, dems fucked themselves across the full complex of issues that touch on “crypto.” Not only was the policy angle generally bordering on delusional, but it was also deeply politically damaging, because it was so out of touch with core, foundational parts of their own coalition, ie millennials, male ones especially, minority especially, middle income especially. in other words, not y’all. Nevertheless, there are more of them than there are of you, and weakness with those groups cost Harris the election and pushed the house to the R’s.
  16. Good. Hogg should run for something or be an activist. Otherwise he’s just a noisemaker and has negative value in a party management role. Good. Adopting Elizabeth Warren’s hopelessly out of touch and unrealistic “war on crypto” as the Democratic party default was political malpractice and probably put Donald Trump into the White House. Not bringing stablecoins under some kind of regulatory regime and leaving the whole question in limbo or worse, spending political capital to fight unwinnable battles that have no relevance to the bulk of your coalition is just dumb.
  17. Wordle 1,454 4/6 ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜ ⬜🟩🟨🟩⬜ 🟨🟩🟩🟩⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
  18. Totally agree on all points NYC and Israel have a pretty unique connection. Jews first arrived in New York City in the 17th Century. It’s the largest Jewish population in one place outside of Israel, the home of American Zionism, and I think someone could make a strong argument that there would not be a Jewish nation state called Israel in Palestine without the Jewish diaspora community in New York.
  19. I’m not sure where else to put this, so, enjoy
  20. So there’s this guy, Javert—tremendous law and order guy, okay? Nobody respects the law more than Javert. He believes in rules. Big believer in justice, no exceptions. Some people say too much justice—too tough! But not me. He’s doing what he thinks is right. Very strong! Now there’s this other guy, Jean Valjean—total disaster at first, stole a loaf of bread, can you believe it? One loaf. Sad! But then he turns it around—starts a business, helps people, really classy stuff. But Javert? He’s not buying it. He says, “Once a criminal, always a criminal.” Very tough, very focused. He’s like a border wall with legs—nothing gets by him! But then— Javert starts to crack. He sees Valjean being a good guy and He can’t take it. Doesn’t compute. Law or mercy? Rules or humanity? It’s a mess. A big, beautiful existential crisis. Eventually, Javert can’t handle it, and—boom—he’s out. Walks off the job forever. Very tragic. Very French. In the end, great story, tremendous drama. Very emotional. People cry. I don’t cry, but people do. They cry to me! Big strong guys, with tears in their eyes coming to me all the time they say “sir,” -they always say sir. Javert—strong guy, but not so strong in the end. Very sad.
  21. Sure thing. This is geared towards the audience he’s addressing (an important skill!) but is a very good interview. I particularly like how he connects chaos in cities with the passage of the budget bill, and Democratic party being about stuff working.
  22. Look, people follow leaders and messaging that is clear, tangible and immediate. They don’t understand the magic words or care about checking the boxes The Groups want checked. They don’t follow ideological abstraction and they don’t want to support politicians who run away from the language of class. Cuomo talks about real stuff that matters using short words and definitive, meaning statements people understand. he’s too damaged and too much of a New Yorker to win a national race, but his messaging is good.
×
×
  • Create New...