Jump to content

Bozo_Casanova

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    16278
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by Bozo_Casanova

  1. So then what happens? We spend a few years to find out they are protected but not bound? Seriously, in situations like this people have many options when it comes time to seek justice. Why on earth would they choose the law?
  2. When you’ve already iced 600k kids and then celebrated it with cake, does it make this one harder to enjoy @Anastasis?
  3. I didn’t. That’s one of the shocking realities of brand loyalty. Loyalty is very durable and brand loyal people are, by and large, willing to put up with injury. Isn’t that weird? And yet it plays out that way over and over, at individual and population level scales. You can hurt them, over and over, and then the sun shines, and people forget.
  4. Of course not. What’s a few hundred thousand dead kids, right?
  5. Their economic status quo has been getting worse for five decades- that’s how brand loyalty works. It’s an elasticity killer. That’s literally how you measure the value of the brand: how much more loyal customers are willing to pay, just for the brand. There are only a couple of things that can damage brand loyalty: insult, indifference, and incoherence. What’s happening to the Republican Party right now is all three- they keep saying “we’re winning,” when they are losing, and they are speaking to their least loyal (ie most persuadable)customers in a way that ignores their concerns and tells them explicitly that their values don’t matter. Democrats do that constantly of course, but at the moment, they aren’t in charge so they don’t have to defend themselves.
  6. Yeah, but Harris really doesn’t have it. Not like Clinton or Bush II or Obama or Trump, anyway. Trump is horrible but he’s got authentic swag. That’s why he got along so well with Mamdani. Game recognizes game. I think you and I see the behaviors of the voting public differently. You’re describing voters as semi-rational actors making a direct connection between the tangible impact of policy and the messaging around it. I don’t think that’s how this works right now. I see the voting public as a market where about 85% of the buyers have near-total brand loyalty, and the ability to take and hold share among the remaining 15% is a function of wholistic marketing execution and discipline that is maintained through consistency across all four Ps: relevant Product, at the right Price, with the right Promotion, for the right People. A fractured party is going to struggle with any of that.
  7. No. Young adult women win. That is the singular lesson of revolutions in western societies since the Renaissance: whoever has the preponderance of young women behind them will win. It’s not always for good- the grass roots of the Nazi movement, for example, was powered in many ways by the mothers of young children. But in a revolutionary moment a majority of young adult women will coalesce around the eventual winners. And that’s not what is happening here. So what we are looking at right now is just a chaotic interim step. Towards what, I have no idea.
  8. That’s fine as far as it goes, but they hate themselves too. There are historical forces at work here, and they are actors but not agents, and they ultimately won’t be beneficiaries either. Look, we agree that the Pax Americana is over and the American Empire is in terminal decline. Fine. But even though we also agree that the moral arc of the universe doesn’t incline towards justice, it absolutely inclines towards swag, and those dorks have none. So take heart. I don’t know who will be left standing when the dust settles, but it won’t be them.
  9. JD Vance makes Mike Dukakis seem like Steve McQueen
  10. Well I’m not a B School Prof, but after a few decades in private enterprises ranging from my own startup SaaS company to a global enterprise of 300k+ employees, I’ve actually got a really good understanding of the reality of internal controls at private companies. I think you would be very surprised. If anything, the public sector is probably a little better.
  11. No. That’s your Helsinki Syndrome talking. What I “imagine will happen” is that the Republican house caucus will continue to fracture without a captive Democratic minority to stick it together, because the majority can’t operate in the environment they created. Meanwhile:
  12. And this is why I keep saying that despite his many shortcomings as a communicator or strategist (Pelosi had the same issues), Jeffries has been very good at his actual job, which is legislative caucus leader. Turns out his bet that he could hold his caucus together and force R mods to cave was the right one. I’ve never seen a Democratic minority using leverage this ruthlessly. Well played.
  13. This is well said and correctly locates the problem - the Democratic Party used to be a middle/working class party that drew candidates and leadership from the diverse organizations that were representative of the interests of those populations, such as unions. The Democratic Party is now an elite party, led by affluent whites, and primarily draws leadership from social and charitable advocacy and activist groups.
  14. Wordle 1,642 4/6 🟨⬜⬜⬜⬜ ⬜🟩⬜🟨⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
  15. Yes, that’s it precisely. Party safe seats lead to poor representation. Glad you agree.
  16. She wants your heart! She wants to eat his children! All praise to Allah!
  17. The first time I saw that list it showed up on the fax machine.
  18. 100% agree. This isn’t a lboth sides” thing. Both parties are bad on the healthcare market. Republicans are infinitely worse.
  19. Sure, but you’ve got two political parties devoted to stopping that.
  20. Fuck yeah
  21. The reverse: We do not have a healthcare insurance system for anyone except poor people, but unfortunately, we sell it at a huge markup to wealthier people. in other words- if you are making 100k-400k, your families is buying healthcare insurance products that are really designed to meet the needs of families making <100k, who cannot afford said insurance products.
  22. For what it’s worth, your insurance broker (or whoever) shouldn’t have created that situation. In a structured designed set of choices, your situation should have resulted in significant savings with an HDHP. In other words, a high deductible plan should always have lower total costs (ie premiums+deductible) than the lower deductible plan in a year where healthcare costs exceed the cost of the deductible+premiums. Otherwise, what would be the point of a high deductible plan?
  23. Agreed. She has real juice and she knows what she's doing. That said, I'm having trouble seeing the play.
×
×
  • Create New...