New Developments III

[OscarGuy]

I've read many people who say that people get more conservative as they age, but in practice, that isn't really true. A lot of what forms a person's political identity is formed in their teens and twenties. They don't magically change as they age. I think this myth is a byproduct of the fact that we've mostly seen the last of the boomers who've realigned politically because they were always a touch racist, but it wasn't until the last quarter century or so where their racism has been rejected by Democrats and thus they find no home in the Dem party any longer. That's why people like Trump and others of his ilk have switched party affiliations, not because they became more conservative, but that the Dems have become less tolerant of casual racism and are more willing to call people out on that bull shit than they used to be.

[Sabin]

Magilla, I'm not going to respond to your post point for point. I'll just say I'm observing different things than you are. I'm observing a lot of grievance from the Millennials (towards Zoomers and towards the world at large) I know both in Los Angeles and Arizona, both first hand and in my feed. It really concerns me. Are they all going to vote Republicans in 2024? No. But the first of them began to do so in 2016 and 2020 in my life and it's shocking me.

I'll also add something that I really should have added to my original post and it's the only thing that gives me hope: the Millennials in my life are divided into the disappointments that I've discussed above and those who have been so activated by Trump and the right-wing's attack on civil liberties that they are blue no matter who for life. That number should be substantially higher and that is what is so frustrating.

[Big Magilla]

Sabin, how do you get another Trump term out of the article you're referencing?

J.J. McCullogh is a Canadian You-Tuber and satirist. He is talking about millennials turning conservative in a decade or two down the road when they're in their 50s and beyond. That may be, but they're not going to vote for Trump in sufficient enough numbers to put him back in the White House in 2024.

I never heard anyone of any age use any of those four phrases, not even the old coots I know in their 80s and 90s, and certainly not millennials.

1. Who are the kids today who are too self-righteous and judgmental? That's something I would ascribe to a good portion of the middle-aged me-too movement, not the "kids".

2. Many people believe that all politicians are corrupt and uninspiring. Most Republicans and some Democrats prove that every day.

3. Donald Trump is worse than most people think.

4. People have always had nostalgia for the past, but few would give up the advances in medicine, technology, and other things we have today to return to "the good old days". That's a pre-World War I phrase, not something anyone has used in the last 100 or more years.

[Sabin]

This is something I've been experiencing from those around me.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... t-wingers/

This guy gets it right. I encounter so many people who parrot exactly these phrases, with special emphasis on the fourth one (which I definitely hold most culpable).

1. The kids today are too self-righteous and judgmental.
2. The Democratic Party is corrupt and uninspiring.
3. Donald Trump wasn’t nearly as bad as everyone said.
4. I miss the good old days.

My question is whether this is a movement or a moment. I'm praying it's a moment and there are plenty of boogie-men this cohort, including but not limited to fading from the zeitgeist. Issue for issue, the Millennials I speak to remain center-left to left-wing. It's just that everything has been consumed by personality not principle and it's easier to participate in culture war bullshit. Assuming that the republic will persist beyond another Trump term (and most days I do), they'll swing back into the fold once they experience the inevitable financial toll that 8-12 years of Republican policy will wreak on their wallets in the end. To put it another way, they're all very lucky to be too young to have experienced the fullest effects of George W. Bush's policies on their wallet as well as too nostalgic for their youth under Bush to carry the lesson they saw but did not feel with them forward in life. To which I say: good, fuck 'em.

[anonymous1980]

How high are the odds that Marcos will finish his entire term?

I'm hearing some rumors that there's a very distinct possibility that he may not even start it. Sara Duterte (daughter of Rodrigo Duterte) is currently leading as Vice President (VP is voted separately here). There are pending disqualification cases against Marcos in the Commission on Elections and the courts. It's wholly possible that he would be disqualified and as the winning VP, Sara Duterte would take over as President. Over here, Presidents get only one six-year term. But if this happens to Sara, she could run for re-election and get another six-year term and she could be president for as long as 12 years. This might have been the plan all along.

[Heksagon]

How high are the odds that Marcos will finish his entire term?

The outlook isn't good anywhere. If the inflation and cost of living keeps increasing, it will be difficult for establishment parties to convince working class people to vote for them, no matter how corrupt, incompetent or "illiberal" the opposition is. In a lot of places people are already upset with the establishment parties after the last depression. Frustratingly, just when the employment numbers start looking better, the cost of living is taking off.

[anonymous1980]

Pray for my country (or let me move to yours). The Philippines just put a Marcos back in power.

[Sabin]

Big Magilla wrote
I never paid any attention to Meghan McCain. I found her shrill and annoying. Didn't realize she was as bad as all that.

I'm not remotely surprised. She's just awful. I watched a little bit of The View during the Trump years. She clearly doesn't know what the hell she's talking about and just reads briefly off the cards they give her.

taki15 wrote
He picked her because he wanted to win and she (theoretically) gave him a chance unlike the other picks (Pawlenty, Romney) who gave him none.
That was of course before he learned, along with everyone else, that she was a publicity-hungry ignoramus.

I remember vaguely that McCain wanted to choose Joe Lieberman but there were some fears that his selection would result in a floor fight at the convention or a third party conservative party run. I could be wrong about that. Palin shored up his base but lost independents and moderates. I'm not sure if John McCain would have done better against Obama with Lieberman by his side, but it would've doubled-down on his message more which is probably a good thing. Certainly, we'd all be better off today.

[Big Magilla]

I never paid any attention to Meaghan McCain. I found her shrill and annoying. Didn't realize she was as bad as all that.

I wonder why the McCain-Putin connection never saw the light of day before. I knew of course that the Russians tried to infiltrate our government before Trump but never knew they got that close. Schmidt says that it was a Putin operative who was in charge of picking Palin for McCain's VP but doesn't say why McCain went along with it.

He picked her because he wanted to win and she (theoretically) gave him a chance unlike the other picks (Pawlenty, Romney) who gave him none.
That was of course before he learned, along with everyone else, that she was a publicity-hungry ignoramus.

Yes, that's the conventional wisdom, but knowing she was the pick of the Kremlin should have given him pause.

[taki15]

I never paid any attention to Meaghan McCain. I found her shrill and annoying. Didn't realize she was as bad as all that.

I wonder why the McCain-Putin connection never saw the light of day before. I knew of course that the Russians tried to infiltrate our government before Trump but never knew they got that close. Schmidt says that it was a Putin operative who was in charge of picking Palin for McCain's VP but doesn't say why McCain went along with it.

He picked her because he wanted to win and she (theoretically) gave him a chance unlike the other picks (Pawlenty, Romney) who gave him none.
That was of course before he learned, along with everyone else, that she was a publicity-hungry ignoramus.

[Big Magilla]

I never paid any attention to Meaghan McCain. I found her shrill and annoying. Didn't realize she was as bad as all that.

I wonder why the McCain-Putin connection never saw the light of day before. I knew of course that the Russians tried to infiltrate our government before Trump but never knew they got that close. Schmidt says that it was a Putin operative who was in charge of picking Palin for McCain's VP but doesn't say why McCain went along with it.

The rallying cry of the left now is over Amy Coney Barrett's flippant and repeated exhortation to pregnant women to "do your nine" and donate to the "domestic supply of infants" instead of having abortions. It is now as infamous as Mitt Romney's "binders full of women" remark and anything that Trump ever said. It's incensed more women than Alito's leaked opinion. Kate McKinnon's Coney Barrett on Saturday Night Live last night is already the most celebrated takedown of an esteemed Republican woman since Tina Fey "could see Russia from her house" as Sarah Palin.

[Sabin]

This has been a dreadful week that has been hitting me in waves when thinking of the implications in years to come. Red states getting redder. Blue states getting bluer. Red states protesting blue states and blue states protesting red states. Political violence as blue states provide outreach to women who need abortions in red states, as we waste the precious years we need to come together and prevent the hell of Earth climate change promises us.

This has been a dreadful week. I needed something to take my mind off and give me some form of happiness.

That something was Steve Schmidt.

Over the last few weeks, Meghan McCain's book has sold dismally. She's posted photo ops by her father's grave. And the final nail in the coffin was when she liked a tweet accusing Schmidt of being a pedophile. That was it. Steve Schmidt went off.

https://twitter.com/SteveSchmidtSES/sta ... 0643088385

I'm not proud of the fact that the most enjoyment I received this week was watching one DC insider bury the other, but it was. It was fantastic. But he wasn't done.

He continued onward into:

Russian infiltration of the GOP: https://twitter.com/SteveSchmidtSES/sta ... 7088128001
Sarah Palin: https://twitter.com/SteveSchmidtSES/sta ... 7353896960

And finally, this one: https://twitter.com/SteveSchmidtSES/sta ... 0968726528

In this one, he settles into the following sentiment: "The Exhausted Majority is what I’m part of. It’s got Republicans, democrats, independents, new voters and new citizens. It’s made up of people of all faiths, creeds religions and no religion at all. It is common sense based and we are sick of the bullshit and will not allow a belligerent minority to hijack our Country, our Families, our Kids, our Faiths, our Communities, our unity, our liberty, our bodies and our future."

I want to believe in the exhausted majority. I'm not sure how it can exist post Roe.

[Big Magilla]

We're getting in the weeds here.

The minutia generally applies to how people feel about abortion for themselves and how they would feel about someone they know having an abortion, not whether it should apply to everyone. The key question is should it be legal or shouldn't it be. It's a question that shouldn't have to be asked on settled law so 70% is the correct number. Even that, though, is too small, for something that is not only settled law in this country but in all civilized countries including Italy and Ireland where its passage was hard fought.

The only other questions should be how many of the 70% care enough about the issue to vote for candidates that share their beliefs and how many of the 22% who are not opposed in all cases will do the same. Given that this could be just the tip of the iceberg, it should in theory be all but most of the remaining 8% who are opposed to abortion no matter what the circumstances are. If the upcoming elections were about this one issue, the overturning of Roe v Wade would create the seismic shift the Democrats are looking for, but elections are never about one issue. Could it be enough? It could, but will it? And even if it is, will it change anything in the Senate?

[Sonic Youth]

Americans Favor Abortion Rights, But It's Complicated

This gets at what I was talking about before, and it's something pro-choice absolutist's (like me) have got to start coming to terms with. 70% of the American people are pro-choice - or at least that's the figure I keep seeing - but what does "pro-" mean? Does it mean "agree with"? Or does it mean "unilaterally vote in support of"? Because if it's the latter, it's much less than 70%. Majorities mean little without a unified front.

[Sonic Youth]

The ironic thing about the Supreme Court decision is that the number of abortions in the U.S. have been plummeting for a while.

Which only makes it easier.