The problem is threefold -
1.) Money hits a saturation point - ask any resident of Pennsylvania, Georgia, etc.
2.) ActBlue does a better fundraising job at times for Democrat's and is a better gauge on enthusiasm than 14 rich people.
3.) Those rich right-wing donors get Republicans to support unpopular things like continue tax cuts, abortion bans, or allow unpopular candidates to win primaries because they manage to find a political sugar daddy.
Ironically, the GOP would be better off under European-style campaigning, assuming no other changes, where there are no primaries, campaigns are limited, and actually financially restrained.
The true problem for 'it's inherent for women to want to have babies' arguments isn't PMC girlbosses in suburban Virginia or whatever people may think are destroying society. It's that even in places like Iran or Saudi Arabia, where women continue to be very socially conservative in a variety of other ways - marrying early, openly religious, and so on, are also happily controlling their own reproduction instead of just jumping into babies as quickly as possible.
pop-country sellouts who helped destroy country music.
Pop country had already destroyed "real" country music either 10 years ago, 20 years ago, or hell, 30 years ago depending on what generation you are. Unless your girlfriend's into some real obscure alt-country honkytonk sort of stuff, whatever she considered real country that might've been playing on the radio in 1995, 2003, or whenever she was younger was considered as 'ruining' country music by the next generation up.
I'm old enough to remember Garth Brooks being seen as the Taylor Swift of his time by country music fans.
Sure, because ironically, the 'moderate Republican' was really an Obama-era Democrat who would've actually won by a wider margin if she had stayed as a Democrat, but I legitimately think didn't understand the Top 2 voting system in Washington, so thought she had to run as a Republican to be in the general. Like, if she'd just been the normal Democrat she basically was, she could've won with 65% of the vote instead of allowing said police abolitionist to run as the only Democrat in the race, and probably getting the votes of plenty of low-info normie voters.
Like I said, voters will vote for tough on crime Democrat's, but they're not going to vote for Guiliani-style Republican's as long as crime is still far below 90's levels.
Bonds even before he got (rightly) upset over the attention McGwire & Sosa got and started taking roids was a HOF player.
Especially since he was going up against plenty of roided up pitchers himself, I'd argue 2001-2004 Barry Bonds is the among the scariest athletes when it comes to ability to take over a game, and it's in a sport where he only gets 5 chances to do so.
The thing is, and I say this as a dirty open borders social democrat, there are plenty of actual bad cases, as you'd expect in a nation of 350 million people to use for examples, and even with families who will support you using their case, as opposed to the poor kid in Springfield, Ohio, whose family is against Trump or anti-immigration folks using their child as a bludgeon against immigration.
So why make up stuff?
There may be a religious revival among a very certain set of previously agnostic to atheist right-leaning people in specific industries who spend a lot of time on Twitter, I see no evidence in church attendance numbers or other factors of any actual shift in religiosity among the larger population.
Here's the thing - as a left-winger, I agree there's wasteful spending in the federal government and bad regulations. We might even agree, if we went line by line on some. But obviously, there's a lot we would disagree on.
But, what I would agree too is a commission with equal numbers of liberal, libertarian, conservative, and left-wing economists. Of the regulations or spending, if a supermajority of all four groups agree a regulation or spending line on the federal budget is inefficient, they all go to an immediate up or down vote in both the House & Senate immediately after the end of the commission, if a supermajority of three out of the four agree, it's put forth in the pertinent committees, etc.
I'd actually probably agree with her on which sort of country music is better, but unfortunately, the market has spoken on this.
While it's probably just semantics, I'd also wouldn't say the shift is so much to going after an urban audience, but rather a more upscale exurban/suburban audience - instead of the more downscale working class audience (which has drifted to rap/hip-hop no matter their race), modern country music is aimed the type of guy who can buy the fully kitted out Ford F150 to drive to his car dealership job and maybe out to a lake cabin he rented, but never actually hauls anything or the woman who posts on Instagram about Jesus, but also had a fun time at college and so on. But in some ways, it's just the inevitable end of the fall of rock music (as there's lots of big songwriters in Nashville today that used to work in Los Angeles in the 80's) + the southernization of all of rural/exurban America, which made the culture of country music more available, but also flatter.
For all the talk of safety in art, the 'safest' genre as far as being afraid to offend anybody is absolutely modern country music.
It's fine to not like her, but Taylor Swift was not the first of her type, she was just the most successful by a giant margin.
https://www.newsweek.com/muslim-white-evangelical-gay-marriage-907627
"Muslims, by a margin of 51 percent to 34 percent, favor same-sex marriage, compared to just four years ago when a majority, 51 percent, were opposed. There were similar results for black Protestants, with 54 percent opposing gay marriage in PRRI's 2014 American Values Atlas, compared with 43 percent in the latest findings.
Indeed, opposition to same-sex marriage is now limited almost entirely to white conservative Christians. Fifty-eight percent of white evangelical Christians and 53 percent of Mormons—an overwhelming majority of whom are white—are opposed to allowing gay couples to marry."
This is from 2018, but there's polling show even black Protestant's have become more socially liberal (as seen here on abortion - https://x.com/ryanburge/status/1817372877538074993).
Now, maybe there's some backlash on this in recent years, but that means there's also been some on the evangelical side as well. Plus, on other social issues such as abortion, abortion is just a generally less important thing even in conservative Islamic law, from what I know.
Even then, I'd argue American Muslim's are closer to black Protestants than white evanglicals, in that even if they're socially conservative, they're largely not voting on it.
OTOH, to be fair, Gretchen Whitmer lost support in the Dearborn area of Michigan (about 30 points), even as she increased her overall support in her re-election bid for Governor.
Again, Europe is different, but I've seen no real evidence of the same issues w/ second or third generation Muslim immigrants as Europe is having.
As I've said before, the problem is the core of the anti-immigration people aren't willing to give up some of their other right-wing policy goals.
Meloni in Italy seems to be doing fine, if not doing as much as perhaps she promised (like all politicians), but there's no deep state plot to remove her or whatever people claim about anti-immigration politicians, because she's pro-NATO and acts like a normal politician within the Overton Window of Italian politics.
But also, there was a super anti-immigration party on the ballot for the UK. Eighty six percent of the population chose somebody else. That 14% doesn't get veto power via rioting, and that's why you see strong support among the populace for harsh measures for the rioters.
I mean, you can vote for those things, if you start to care less about other things. For instance, there are still plenty of people who don't like gay people in the Democratic coalition, they're just mainly old black people who don't care that much about it.
Like, I'm not a leftie who doesn't think there are people with legitimately cross-pressured opinions, but at a certain point, I have to say, "OK, you care more about thing x than thing y we agree on. I'm not going to change my view on thing x or agree we need to compromise, because I care deeply about that issue as well. Good luck on finding a candidate that matches what you care about.'
That's why primaries happen - people vote for their preference, then they decide on whether the person that won is acceptable. I voted for Edwards in '08 and Bernie in '16 & '20, but Obama, Hillary, and Biden were all acceptable, because the alternative in all cases was a in my view, right-wing reactionary to fascist party.
There are also people who feel politically homeless - that was many, many, many progressive people from basically the late 80's to mid-00's, people who thought the New Deal consensus was terrible from the late 30's to early 60's, and so on.
Plus, on the issues you mentioned, there has been advancement - the new IBR plans for student loans, expansion of ACA subsidies, a CTC for one year (damn you Manchin), and so on. It's not enough, but it's still better than anything being offered up by the other side.
I'm also going to be honest and say I thought you were likely trolling, but it took me five minutes max to write-up that response, so why not actually give the pro-Democratic position that basically doesn't exist here.
I think a legitimate argument is stress over Hunter pushed him over the edge - there's interesting stuff that specific family stress can make otherwise fairly normal older people decline much quicker.
Now, it's local front page news that'll disappear in a day or two if nothing else new pops up, instead of part of the wider culture war and part of the Presidential election.
I mean, I think the timing in the US is more coincidental and proof of other things going on, like the dramatic drop in teen pregnancy and general increase in access to good contraception. As I've said elsewhere, the overall birthrate slope lines up with pre-Depression rate continuing to drop, outside of the Baby Boom being an outlier. It's increased far recently, which may be a cultural thing, or like I said, things like IUD's being given to teenagers essentially eliminating a lot of accidental births, but the general shift was already happening when our grandparents were still children.
For example, in Iran, the percentage of women in the workforce reached a peak of 20% of the workforce (which means by simple math, a lot weren't) in the early 2000's, and hasn't significantly increased since then. Despite this, outside of a small 0.5 TFR rise in the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution, the birthrate continued to drop from it's heights to about 2.0 in 2002, but despite women in the workforce not increasing and by some measures, decreasing TFR has continued to drop.
Now, what has changed is education. The literacy rate has quadrupled, primary & tertiary school attendance went up a lot more. Also, and I think this is highly undervalued - maternal mortality rate has also dropped by 2/3 in the past 20 years from 45 to 15 - so from quasi-Third World to nearly first world numbers. Oh, and also, contraception usage is ~75%.
Sure, entering the workforce is probably part of it, but I use countries like Iran as an example as if a quasi-authoritarian religious state can't really pull this is off if they educate women for rational reasons, even if they have limited access to the workforce by Western standards, then nothing in the the Western world is stopping this.
I mean, even many rationalists are coded as weirdos who aren't getting laid to plenty of people.
J.D. Vance is the person closest to be associated with the movement to actually get a national stage, and some of his views, that have been decently popular here and other rationalist or rationalist-adjacent spaces implode when in contact with actual voters. The guy's impressively below water approval wise, and is actually probably hurting Trump among secular swing voters in the Midwest.
I mean, you still need to convince something more than a small sliver of the population that women basically choosing when they have children is hurting society. The problem this argument, societally, isn't so much left-wing college students at NYU, it's sorority girls at Alabama & LSU who are putting off kids almost just as much. Look at how quickly even an Alabama legislature had to scramble when one judge made that ruling on IVF.
Probably because the Alabama Republican's were hearing from their very own Trump-voting, pro-life, very conservative aunts, wives, and daughters to fix it, now.
So, while there were legitimate issues with Obama and his team's larger running of the Democratic Party, it's important to remember that of the supposed 1,000 legislative seats lost, 150 were in NH alone (because NH is weird and has a massive 400 seat legislature with lots of weird swings), and a lot more were in rural Yellow Dog seats in places like Arkansas, Mississippi, and so forth that were basically doomed the moment they could be put in a flyer next to a black Democratic President in a way that wasn't true of John Kerry or Al Gore.
I would say the nomination of Hillary and James Comey's choices of what to announce and when is what led to the election of Trump, but I'm aware the latter is the minority position here.
DEI is still pretty popular as a basic idea - https://thehill.com/homenews/race-politics/4727744-americans-favor-dei-programs-poll/
Now you can argue people don't know what DEI really is or just not believe polling, but just throwing it out there isn't a boogeyman outside of right-wing circles.
I worked at a grocery store a couple of summers after you mention. I don't remember anybodies name who worked there, I have no paychecks, it's unlikely I have my tax records, there are no photos of me working there, and probably the only reason the supermarket would be able to have records of me is it's part of a giant corporate chain, not a franchisee.
Throw things back another 20 years and throw in the fact it's a franchisee, I have zero doubt Kamala could've worked there a few shifts every week and she has no real records.
I think it's also determined by what you base your votes on.
My fellow lefties sometimes still think if they just got the right candidate in the rural parts of the country and really sell the non-college educated populace there on Medicare for all or whatever, they'd look past said candidate being pro-abortion and pro-LGBT or whatever, when that's just not happening, because those rural non-college educated folks legitimately care more about abortion, LGBT rights, immigration, et al than progressive economic policy, even if they'd say they're for union rights or single-payer health care in poll. Those people are conservatives, even if they have some left-leaning views, they just don't vote on those views.
By the same token, if you're a former Democrat PMC and all you deeply care about is transgenderism in schools, COVID rules, and various other Internet culture war issues on the conservative side, and you base you votes on that, and may be pro-choice or pro-union, but don't vote on that, you're just a conservative now. Or at the least, a partisan Republican.
I'm not saying that as an attack or a dunk, but rather I'm treating the college-educated anti-woke centrist with the same respect as a religious pro-life activist when it comes to their political views.
All Western European abortion laws have late-term exceptions you can drive a truck through, and also, abortion is far more easily available in the first two trimesters.
For all the talk of European laws and how moderate they are, any Democrat in a red state who proposed them as a compromise would be called a baby killing radical all the same.
Atlantic article on it - (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/07/roe-overturned-europe-abortion-laws/670539/) - Use archive.is or whatever.
Is there that sort of person really, though?
Or, maybe to put it more accurately, is there anybody who can appease this website, the Daily Wire/Federalist/etc. types, and also not cause non-colleged educate pro-choice women in Wisconsin to get, 'ewww.' Like, it may be true there's not a majority of liberal wokeism, but there's even less of a majority of conservative populism. Especially among people under 50.
I know there's this view it's all about optics and charisma, but if you throw 1997 George Clooney up there and start talking about it's OK if states are banning abortions, you're going to have issues. Like, Obama rolled a natural 20 on charisma, but even he had issues in 2012 because things weren't great and the ACA wasn't popular yet. Hell, Reagan had a massive mid-term loss in 1982, and then had another in 1986 due to unpopularity.
The problem with this line of argument is that if you directly, anonymously ask normal people about their preferences, many of the answers are so far right that they couldn't be stated in polite society. Especially on the topic of enforcing borders or trans ideology.
This just isn't true, at least in the United States. Even in polling that shows support for harsh measures, there's also still strong support for amnesty for a number of current undocumented and stuff like the DREAM Act. On the transgender issue, the vast majority of people don't care, think it's at best an issue for their school boards or local government to deal with when it comes to kids, but there's the general American-speciifc libertarian view on it when it comes to adults.
If that was the message from the GOP, they could win on this, and indeed they did when that was the message combined with general worry over school closings. But, as we're seeing, even in places like Florida, the Mom's for Liberty types go off the rails and then lose elections, and when the GOP tries to run ads in abortion referendums about how this actually means something something transgenders will take your kids, they lose on that too.
Yes, the median American is to the right of the median Democrat politician on immigration and transgenderism. In both cases, they're to the left of the median Republican politician and they don't really care about the latter, so they find it, "weird", when GOP politicians and media obsess over it.
Again, people say this, but all of society is basically to find "freedom from consequences" whether it's penicillin, germ theory, or better ways to keep a building warm or cold. You just don't like this way of a avoiding a consequence. You take antibiotics? Why are you trying to avoid the consequence of dying of a minor cold like millions, if not billions of people had to do for the entire history of the world until incredibly recently?
More options
Context Copy link