Jump to content

Bozo_Casanova

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    14283
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by Bozo_Casanova

  1. Meanwhile on Twitter
  2. Some were, but working class people in high crime neighborhoods were broadly in favor of it. The bill was a disaster, but that and DADT were more in line with legacy Democrat coalition social politics than NAFTA or the repeal of Glass Steagall.
  3. I agree with the impact of the policy, but thats completely different from how he was perceived at the time. Second, however, I think we agree fundamentally that Bill (and Hillary) Clinton were fundamentally oriented to serve corporate interests and affluent college grads, and to the extent that they were interested in the middle class non-college graduate skilled labor force, it was in the form of expanded government services and job training.
  4. Relative to the coalition that elected him? Absolutely. And his wife even more so. and for what it’s worth- you’re looking at the crime bill from the perspective of a white progressive in 2025, not the resident of a high crime neighborhood in 1994.
  5. I generally agree with you, save 3 points: 1) first, I realize I’m in a minority here, but Im very skeptical about the salience of ideologies as a motivator for voting behaviors. 2) I don’t see Clinton era “triangulation”in terms of ideological shift but a reordering of who was important to the Democratic Party. College graduates and professionals became more important, and non-college skilled labor became much less important. 3) College graduates and professionals are generally progressive on social issues, as were the Clintons by 1992 standards, and gradually that posture became the center of the party. But that’s my whole point about the progressive reordering of Democratic Party priorities. The Democratic Party was successful when it was a coalition built around protecting the class interests of middle class and working class families, and included a majority of those who also wanted to advance various social justice causes. But the social issues weren’t litmus tests or at the center of coalition building. From 1992 to the present moment, that order gradually reversed- the Democratic Party is now a coalition orbiting around a grab bag of required social issue positions, and also includes the class interests of working people as long as they aren’t problematic and don’t try to run for office or go to the wrong college or work in the wrong industry or …
  6. What on earth? I didn’t say anything about the *white* working class or BLM. They abandoned the entire American working class, which is to say that Democrats have abandoned the class interests of minorities disproportionately. That’s quite a projection, though- curious how to got there. Anyway, do you disagree with the point that progressives have essentially substituted social issues for the working class economic interests that used to be at the center of the party coalition?
  7. Really? I thought it was it was because progressives sacrificed the well being of 2 generations of working class families for the benefit of affluent boomers in thriving cities, and used representational issues and language policing to acquire the moral license to do it.
  8. It’s 2025 and Progressives still think they can be picky
  9. Exactly. Speaking as the rare example of a middle aged white man with the quads to pull off short gym/running shorts and swimsuits, I'm happy to see them come back.
  10. Father Coughlin has entered the chat
  11. First, I’m not acting like it has nothing to do with it, I said I can’t tell “what role, if any” it played. HOWEVER, the reason why I’m making that point is because I think it dehumanizes the victim of a crime to turn them into a symbol of an issue, and is even more dehumanizing and ghoulish when we don’t know yet that the issue was involved. If the facts of the crime or the perpetrators indicated some nexus to the general environment of anti-trans violence, that would be one thing. If the facts emerge that there is a nexus, the dialogue will make sense. But right now it doesn’t. I mean fuck it, if the facts don’t matter, why not just use pick things at random? Old person gets hit by a car? Anti-trans political rhetoric. You stepped in dogshit at the park? Stochastic terrorism. It’s just this war and that lying son of a bitch Johnson. When, not if, but when right-wing political rhetoric gets people killed I’m ready to assign blame. But it’s very telling that the name of the victim, Sam Nordquist, hasn’t been mentioned since the first post on this thread, and he deserves to have his story told, not just get relegated to the role of “victim” in the story of the Trump era.
  12. 1) I don’t have enough details about this horrific crime to know what role, if any, anti-trans political rhetoric played. 2) Of course that rhetoric diffuses into all of society, but a cursory examination of the social media profiles of the accused only don’t indicate any sort of political awareness 3) what those profiles do indicate is that they are a mix of lesbian women and male sex criminals who live on the margins of society. Until we know more, this case doesn’t seem like the right vehicle for a dialogue about how our politics are causing anti-trans violence.
  13. It’s a very weird story. These five are … quite a group. Doesn’t feel political.
  14. New levels of pettiness - Grant Afseth is the Mavs blogger who Tim McMahon called a “wannabe reporter” on ESPN when actually checked with the Dallas police about McMahon’s “death threats” story.
  15. Yep, and that’s assuming Cornyn even stays in the race once Paxton announces. I have heard that Cornyn tells people privately he has no intention of retiring if Paxton challenges him, which tells me he has every intention of retiring if Paxton challenges him.
  16. Speaking of Mitch McConnell, the face that’s about to get eaten in Texas is John Cornyn’s because Ken Paxton is going to primary him and I’m going to laugh and laugh.
  17. Fuck him. Very few people have done more to damage the Republic.
  18. Also nonsense. Good local candidates live off the land. This is one area where politics is distinct from product marketing. Contesting every race with good candidates is 100% accretive. And if it isn’t accretive, they aren’t good candidates.
  19. Nonsense. Money is cheap nowadays. Attention is precious. Having the most money has never been less important in our lives. What’s important now is being interesting. Agreed, let’s get back to some face eating.
  20. No, my advice is “recruit and run good candidates.” If they do that, all the empathy and effective messaging takes care of itself. I am talking about partisan offices at the statewide and local level, but that’s inclusive of everything from county courthouses to congressional races. Presidential race outcomes get all the attention but tend to be a lagging indicator. Well, a lot of these people were behind the scenes figures and the more public ones would disavow that they did, but: “Dry powder” is most closely associated with the late Kelly Fero and the Molly Beth Malcolm era. The idea was that Bush’s coattails would make 2000 a waste of resources, so they would eke their powder dry in preparation for the notorious Ron Kirk/Tony Sanchez “dream ticket” in 2002, in which Sanchez wondered aloud why he was running and Ron Kirk actually debated John Cornyn about who was closer to George Bush. A lot of county level people thought it was asinine and said so, but some of the more well known figures doing the warning at that time were Jim Mattox and (giving credit where it’s due) Hightower.
  21. I don’t think so. I actually see positive signs at the grassroots and donor level. This thing is really close. It’s not as though Republicans have some massive dominance or anything. Democrats have finally lost the luxury of self-deception. I’m open to the idea that they might change the way they do business. I haven’t seen it yet, but at least right now when party apparatchiks discourage a good candidate from entering a race people are outraged about it.
  22. What does “should“ mean? You have to win to win. Elections are high stakes popularity contests. I’m not sure what I would add to that. Waiting to fail up is a bad strategy and they were warned at the time. I don’t think people understand that Democrats in Texas chose to lose, explicitly, at key times, from 96-2016. Hell, in 2000 they publicly “kept their powder dry” and didn’t fully support their own statewide ticket. I was at the state convention. It was … quite a moment. The top three issues in my community are the cost of living, homelessness and traffic, but addressing them is much less important in an election than connecting to how people feel about them.
  23. Oh to be clear- it’s not a proposal I’m stating the nature of the problem which is that the institution is currently constructed is built to lose.
×
×
  • Create New...