***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[IATT]

 

[RustyShackleford]

i was responding to comment in this thread. not to the democratic party writ large.

my point is if you take the attitude that 90-10 vote share is a lock, then logically it would lower the urgency to deliver for communities of color.


my point is it's not a lock and the level of urgency should remain high.

No one in this thread is a Democratic member of Congress, or a employee of the Democratic Party.

So I don't know how addressing a comment in here, relates to the party's actions, unless you can show me that it does somehow.

 

[deuce king]

it's very strange to me

the implication is that you think that 90% of black people are always going to vote democrat for the rest of time?

I dunno, I don't think democrats should be so complacent,

imo democrats should work harder to deliver material gains for black and brown communities.

because it seems pretty clear that democrats need to hold that 90-10 margin for their coalition to be viable

and it's totally possible for republicans to make a dent in that.

Let me give you the background so I can give you the breakdown champ. As the Republican Party currently stands and the direction they continue to go they have definitely hit their ceiling.

In order for the Republican Party to even gain a good portion of the black community they would have to do the Three R’s. I’m talking about racists, reparations, and repent champ. The Republican Party as a whole would have to condemn and get rid of all the RACISTS/RACISM within their party.....(which is highly unlikely. The Republican Party would have to pass a REPARATIONS bill for the black community...(which is highly unlikely). The Republican Party would have to REPENT for all their past and current sins against all black people....(which again is highly unlikely).

That’s a tall order for the Republican Party to fill. I don’t see how it can be accomplished given their present agenda. Also, are you black osh kosh bosh ??

 

[marikomorose]

@dwalk31

Either the gop reforms & becomes more moderate or self destruct from when they whistleblow some horrendous **** that'll lead anyone w/ half a bird brain to not want to associate w/ that "republican" label. They're looking like the separatist council w/o the diversity.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Let me give you the background so I can give you the breakdown champ. As the Republican Party currently stands and the direction they continue to go they have definitely hit their ceiling.

In order for the Republican Party to even gain a good portion of the black community they would have to do the Three R’s. I’m talking about racists, reparations, and repent champ. The Republican Party as a whole would have to condemn and get rid of all the RACISTS/RACISM within their party.....(which is highly unlikely. The Republican Party would have to pass a REPARATIONS bill for the black community...(which is highly unlikely). The Republican Party would have to REPENT for all their past and current sins against all black people....(which again is highly unlikely).

That’s a tall order for the Republican Party to fill. I don’t see how it can be accomplished given their present agenda. Also, are you black osh kosh bosh ??

1. I don't really know how you have such certainty about the direction the Republican Party is gunna go in. Things seem pretty up in the air right now. but okay.

2. Yah hard disagree. Last I checked reoperations was pulling sub 50% with black Americans. Donald Trump improved his margins in black areas without really toning down the racism. so it seems to me they don't gotta do any of that. to get past 90-8 vote share.

3. Yes im black.

 

[rexanglorum]

I couldn’t see the GOP winning a majority of the black vote unless there is a radical realignment.

That said, Democrats have trouble talking about racism, repentance and reparations in a meaningful way and if they, as a Party, get worse at it over this decade as they pivot towards a more and more white, affluent, moderate voter, the GOP can certainly BS their was to 15-20% of the black male vote. This will especially be true if Trump does not run again and less visibly racist Republicans become the face of the GOP.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

No one in this thread is a Democratic member of Congress, or a employee of the Democratic Party.

So I don't know how addressing a comment in here, relates to the party's actions, unless you can show me that it does somehow.

i think if the conventional wisdom in among liberal people is that 90-10 black vote is a lock, yeah i think that works way up to the politicians eventually.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

I couldn’t see the GOP winning a majority of the black vote unless there is a radical realignment.

That said, Democrats have trouble talking about racism, repentance and reparations in a meaningful way and if they, as a Party, get worse at it over this decade as they pivot towards a more and more white, affluent, moderate voter, the GOP can certainly BS their was to 15-20% of the black male vote. This will especially be true if Trump does not run again and less visibly racist Republicans become the face of the GOP.

i didn't say majority, I just said 90-10 is not the ceiling.

 

[IATT]

 

[RustyShackleford]

i said it sounded like that, if im wrong my bad, you made a point of pointing out Sullivan's and conors thoughts on cancel culture so my assumption was you were implying their views were all aligned.



um ecause it was an example of his opinion on speech and harm vs the younger more progressive vox faculties opinion on speech and harm? the whole point is that there was a tension between me being a vox founder and me just being a opinion columnist and the whole letter incident was an obious example. it's not like he was saying vox is bad, or emily van de worff was bad. he was just pointing out the obvious tension with him being a founder and a sometimes contentious opinion writer.

he also used the tom cotton op-ed as an example



he disagrees?

he didn't say they were bad people, or that vox is bad, or that he was screwed over. or not that ive seen?

he just said as far as i can tll, that it's easier to write opinions, when Im not a former founder beholden to a much more progressive faculty especially on the subject on speech and harm.

like i just don't think this departure is as like dramatic or contentious as you make it sound.

he went into it a bit more on the sub stack. how older management dealing with younger faculty is an issue at every media organization.

maybe im crazy but it doesn't seem like it's really like a heated breakup / firing.

-The situation about him signing the letter didn't involve his work as an opinion writer though. Emily and others didn't take issue with a bad take he made in an article on Vox. He signed the open letter in Harper's. Something I felt those on the left should have shown foresight to know that bad actors on the right would grab onto to peddle their nonsense. But whatever, he did it, and she had her opinion on it. Both actions I don't completely agree with but I understand their points as to why they did.

Emily, is only a few months younger that Matt though. So how the hell is that situation representative of tension between his views and young progressive voices?

So let me get this right, the example he picks about his opinion writing causing tension at Vox is from a situation that a) Did involve and article he wrote b) Involved someone his basically his age.

Bruh, really? So from where I stand dude either picked a trash example, or is acting in bad faith by using that.

-There were issues with the Tom Cotton article beyond young progressives having issues with it. Like the NYT been running these constant "profiles in whiteness" for the past 4 years. They have proved a constant drip of problematic takes and headlines for sometime now. Hell when it was going down, and Bari Weiss was throwing the "young wokes" under the bus. Older writers at the NYT was on Twitter saying she was misrepresenting the situation.

So again, if dude is arguing his point with these examples, he is cherry picking examples, and stripping some context. His take on the situation with Emily comes off as self serving.

-What the **** I'm I making it sound contentious? I am just saying dude is kinda full of it, like many entitled white liberal dudes are. Some of his co-workers directly and indirectly seems to be echoing that sentiment. If he wanted more editorial freedom, then fine, say that. But dude is a critic that likes jabbing people, but couldn't handle criticism from his co-workers. Dude in his official work, Twitter, and on the Weeds will openly say he disagrees with his co-workers takes. A dude who was younger, had take after take about how out of touch older pundits were.

Ok dude, go to Subs stack for you freedom. But your explanation seems like it is some truths, weak examples, mixed in with a self serving framing.

Yeah, that fragility to me. Learn how to deal with the energy you put out there being returned to you.

 

[IATT]

We really are in the dumbest timeline...

 

[Nike Jordan]

Republicans could pull 25% of the Black vote...if the Democrat was George Wallace and I'm not talking about the comedian.

 

[RustyShackleford]

i think if the conventional wisdom in among liberal people is that 90-10 black vote is a lock, yeah i think that works way up to the politicians eventually.

You don't seem the massive assumptions your argument depends on though?

First that it is somehow conventional wisdom (with the main data point being comments in here?), then it will work it way up to Democratic politicians.

Even when observable reality tells us the Dems are trying to do more for black folk now than they have in the past.

Yeah, sure, ok Osh.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

-The situation about him signing the letter didn't involve his work as an opinion writer though. Emily and others didn't take issue with a bad take he made in an article on Vox. He signed the open letter in Harper's. Something I felt those on the left should have shown foresight to know that bad actors on the right would grab onto to peddle their nonsense. But whatever, he did it, and she had her opinion on it. Both actions I don't completely agree with but I understand their points as to why they did.

Emily, is only a few months younger that Matt though. So how the hell is that situation representative of tension between his views and young progressive voices?

So let me get this right, the example he picks about his opinion writing causing tension at Vox is from a situation that a) Did involve and article he wrote b) Involved someone his basically his age.

Bruh, really? So from where I stand dude either picked a trash example, or is acting in bad faith by using that.

-There were issues with the Tom Cotton article beyond young progressives having issues with it. Like the NYT been running these constant "profiles in whiteness" for the past 4 years. They have proved a constant drip of problematic takes and headlines for sometime now. Hell when it was going down, and Bari Weiss was throwing the "young wokes" under the bus. Older writers at the NYT was on Twitter saying she was misrepresenting the situation.

So again, if dude is arguing his point with these examples, he is cherry picking examples, and stripping some context. His take on the situation with Emily comes off as self serving.

-What the **** I'm I making it sound contentious? I am just saying dude is kinda full of it, like many entitled white liberal dudes are. Some of his co-workers directly and indirectly seems to be echoing that sentiment. If he wanted more editorial freedom, then fine, say that. But dude is a critic that likes jabbing people, but couldn't handle criticism from his co-workers. Dude in his official work, Twitter, and on the Weeds will openly say he disagrees with his co-workers takes. A dude who was younger, had take after take about how out of touch older pundits were.

Ok dude, go to Subs stack for you freedom. But your explanation seems like it is some truth mixed in with a self serving framing.

Yeah, that fragility to me. Learn how to deal with the energy you put out there being returned to you.

Nah it's that management get's pressure from the younger faculty to restrain yglesias because as a founder he represents more than just his own opinion. It's not that Emily is young, it's that the way speech = violence is a perspective that skews young.

He wasn't chaffing at criticam he was chaffing at the idea that he couldn't express certian things because he was a founder Vox.

Yeah it all seems reasonable to me.

I get why if youre staff matt isn't just an opinion columnist, he's a looked at as a founder and he shouldn't just be able to spout off and sign letters that don't accord with the values of the faculty.

And get that if youre matt you'd rather just not deal with that and write whatever you want.

 

[freeze]

Cnn running a special on the 08 election right now.

Barry really is the goat man. Chosen 1.

 

[freeze]

Trump said Biden won. But also lost. Cool.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

You don't seem the massive assumptions your argument in based on though?

First that it is somehow conventional wisdom (with the main data point being comments in here?), then it will work it way up to Democratic politicians.

Even when observable reality tells us the Dems are trying to do more for black folk now than they have in the past.

Yeah, sure, ok Osh.

Yah I think politicians are responsive to opinions of the voter base.

And I didn't say that it was the conventional, I said IF it was the conventional wisdom.

I'm was responding to one dudes comment about the vote share being a hard cap.

My point stands, It's not a hard cap, and propegating the idea that's it's hard cap is bad for black Americans.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Nah it's that management get's pressure from the younger faculty to restrain yglesias because as a founder he represents more than just his own opinion. It's not that Emily is young, it's that the way speech = violence is a perspective that skews young.

He wasn't chaffing at criticam he was chaffing at the idea that he couldn't express certian things because he was a founder Vox.

Yeah it all seems reasonable to me.

I get why if youre staff matt isn't just an opinion columnist, he's a looked at as a founder and he shouldn't just be able to spout off and sign letters that don't accord with the values of the faculty.

And get that if youre matt you'd rather just not deal with that and write whatever you want.

Like someone like German Lopez can write this...


Which seems clearly at odd with Matt's take

The "i feel less safe" thing was one part of her letter. She spent much more time saying Matt was entitled to think what he wants, write want he wants, and no ask disciplinary action taken against him, or even apologise. So again, I think it is kinda self serving for him to cherry pick that line as an example, then ignore the numerous lines that are odds with the supposed perspectives of young progressives.

Also there is question of when she wrote safe if she is talking about physical harm. Because she as she continues takes about her job being made more difficult because Matt's opinions and her might get conflated. If anything, that might have been stronger evidence to his point about his profile not giving him the freedom, than the "safe" thing he focuses on.

Also when this blew up on Twitter. People that took Matt's side were saying all kinds of vile **** to Emily, kinda proving her point **** like this has greater consequences for her than people like Matt. Matty couldn't claim **** was so innocuous after yelling at people on Twitter to not attack Emily.

You seem to just be taking Matt's view on things as the official account, and think my main problem is that I'm not.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Yah I think politicians are responsive to opinions of the voter base.

And I didn't say that it was the conventional, I said IF it was the conventional wisdom.

I'm was responding to one dudes comment about the vote share being a hard cap.

My point stands, It's not a hard cap, and propegating the idea that's it's hard cap is bad for black Americans.

That means little though.

Your argument still needs the assumption to be that it is conventional wisdom. Because saying a niche views among some people might become the consensus among Party reps is a reach no one would take serious.

But ok, your point stands, it not a hard cap. You pushback against a sentiment you have no real proof is even close to being widespread view among voters, or even people running the party.

Cool, I guess.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Like someone like German Lopez can write this...


Which seems clearly at odd with Matt's take

The "i feel less safe" thing was one part of her letter. She spent much more time saying Matt was entitled to think what he wants, write want he wants, and no ask disciplinary action taken against him, or even apologise. So again, I think it is kinda self serving for him to cherry pick that line as an example, then ignore the numerous lines that are odds with the supposed perspectives of young progressives.

Also there is question of when she wrote safe if she is talking about physical harm. Because she as she continues takes about her job being made more difficult because Matt's opinions and her might get conflated. If anything, that might have been stronger evidence to his point about his profile not giving him the freedom, than the "safe" thing he focuses on.

Also when this blew up on Twitter. People that took Matt's side were saying all kinds of vile **** to Emily, kinda proving her point **** like this has greater consequences for her than people like Matt.

You seem to just be taking Matt's view on things as the official account, and think my main issue is that I'm not.

German is ...not a founder.

I think both sides are right.

Matt is a foudner, he's not just an opinion writer, so you can't just spout off and sign controversial letters that makes the faculty uncomfortable.

And Matt is within his rights to find that constrainingnand to peace out

 

[elpablo21]

FDB Rev

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Your argument still needs the assumption to be that it is conventional wisdom. Because saying a niche views among some people might become the consensus among Party reps is a reach no one would take serious.

Yah I don't agree

 

[RustyShackleford]

German is ...not a founder.

I think both sides are right.

Matt is a foudner, he's not just an opinion writer, so you can't just spout off and sign controversial letters that makes the faculty uncomfortable.

And Matt is within his rights to find that constrainingnand to peace out

Erza Klein liked that tweet though.

If it is just that as a founder prevented him from being afforded freedom to speak his mind (which is kinda laughable given how long dude been running his mouth while at Vox) , then just say that. Using the Emily situation, specially her behavior, was just seems like a **** example at best, or some bad faith BS at worst.

I never came close to arguing Matt is not within his rights to leave Vox for what he views as a better situation. Pretty sure I took issue with the self serving way he has been trying to frame the situation. If Matty Boy got a safe space he likes now, then good for him.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Yah I don't agree

Ok, cool

But I don't think you have come close to putting forward a cogent argument on the topic.

Especially since the thing you cite as the way the Dems can show they are not taking black voters for granted, they are already doing that.

 

[RustyShackleford]

My favorite part of the Mathew Yglesias...

Matt: As a co-founder my profile is too big and it doesn't give me the freedom to speak my mind at Vox. I gotta leave

Also Matt: I am still hosting a podcast on their network.