I’ve heard a lot of takes over the past week, but I think this is the smartest I’ve heard yet
One of the patterns I see in US politics coverage is that the pundits who cover them routinely misunderstand the dynamics at play. When they get it right they do by accident. When they got it wrong it means not only were their predictions wrong but their entire framework is so misaligned with reality that they cannot even learn the right lessons from it and so their ongoing coverage continues to be bad. See the endless discussions in 2016 of “is it racism or economic anxiety?”
Vavrek is a political scientist who specializes in understanding the undercurrents of elections just gone. I think she has demonstrated a better understanding of what actually happened in 2016 than most and that helps her contextualize what happened in the subsequent elections better as well.
I’m genuinely conflicted about this now in the wake of the mid-term results. On the one hand , I can barely imagine anything that would give me more pleasure than seeing Donald J Trump in handcuffs and being paraded along his perp walk for all the world to see. Regardless of any trial outcome that’s already a victory and justice of sorts.
On the other hand , this guy is just so toxic now that it would almost be a shame if the prospect of an indictment would be enough to preclude him from winning the nomination for 2024. (I think it’s almost a given that he will announce his candidacy regardless.) If he is the preferred candidate then the outcome will be another humiliation for him and an utter catastrophe for the party that has enabled him all these years. More sweet justice.
And of course there still remains the possibility that , sensing defeat in the primaries , he could opt for the nuclear option and make good on the threat to start his own party , the GOP’s greatest nightmare.
Any of these things , and many more probably , are possible. But I think where we’re at now , after six years of having to stomach this fascistic ignoramus and his party of self-interested psycophants , is on the cusp of a grand reckoning.
The chickens have finally come home to roost , and it’s time to enjoy the show.
I strongly believe that Trump’s cult members (the 25 to 30%) will continue to suppport him and believe his innocence even if he is convicted and jailed.
They may see any republicans who denounce him as betrayers and turn against them in following elections.
To extend on my posts from yesterday - everyone is so convinced of their existing narratives that they get sustained regardless of what actually happens - it’s amazing how much strength De Santis is taking out of that election. Yes, it was a strong win, but if you take anything from that other than that Florida has strongly turned right you’re going to make wrong conclusions.
Rubio, a much less attractive candidate, won his election in similar run away fashion and did so against a much strong opponent. Why is this being ignored in understanding how De Santis was able to win the way he was? If winning strong in Florida is a measure of presidential bonfides why isnt this reviving Rubio’s stock? Look to Ohio, a state that has taken a similar turn to Florida (once swing now reliably red), but maybe has more the characteristics of the sort of states they’re going to need to win to win a presidential election. Their GOP governor overperformed his party’s winning candidate int he senate race by a bigger margin indicating, at least partly, his personal qualities as a candidate, and no one is coming out of this pointing to a DeWine candidacy.
So, let them get behind DeSantis I say. Let them nominate someone who enables us to continue to hang the MAGA label on the party as a whole. There are plenty of candidates out there who will campaign similarly but with how badly the press characterize issues will not allow the continued association between the party as a whole and Trumpism (see Younkin in VA), but DeSantis will solidify that.
After the press spend the last 6 months decrying the Dems positioning the GOP as too extreme only for the electorate to demonstrate it was a message that resonated, they have quickly moved on to “well, both sides have an extremism problem.”
What this excerpt actually says is that the GOP won 2 key races by campaigning on the idea that black candidates were soft on crime with no basis for saying it other than they are black. So, according to politico, we frame a candidate as extreme based solely on whatever willy horton racist dog whistle the other party says about you. So, in a race where one candidate saying this black person is soft on crime because they have to protect all their fellow black people who are doing all the criming, that candidate is framed as the one without an extremism problem?
I will never cease to be amazed at how people like this all over the world manage to get into position to lead. Simply reinforces my belief that the majority of people are sheep, fuckwits and fucking thick.
I almost put this in the funny jokes thread. Yous got to watch that clip.
