See thread for more.
https://mobile.twitter.com/theatlantic/status/982651107720810496
https://twitter.com/tehdemins/status/982854062264737792
Traub is a radical centrist, not a Democrat - he bounces all over sitting on that fence.
Also, that post in BBS hasn’t aged well at all. Not only did the majority vote, but self-funded rich outsiders appealing to white people that lost money after 2009 continues to be the best strategy to win votes (in case you moved your eye off Michigan in the past few months).
I actually meant to do the second one rather than the first; network glitch while I was posting turned an edit into a double post.
However…I don’t get how the BB link is inaccurate. It says:
- Turnout is more important than conversion.
- Nonvoters are mostly working class.
- You don’t need to appeal to racism to earn their votes.
Is it the nonvoters outnumber voters bit? That was a bit off; I guessed that voter turnout was just under 50% rather than just over (it was about 55% apparently). I don’t see how that changes the basic argument, though.
Hot take on the Syrian gas attack.
-
The attack was probably done by Assad, but I’m not ruling out the possibility that the al-Qaeda linked rebels did it themselves. The White Helmets are not neutral observers.
-
Regardless of how much of a murderous bastard Assad is, dethroning him is going to leave the country in the hands of extreme Wahabi jihadists. This would be worse than Assad.
-
Any military attempt to depose Assad is going to cause mass civilian casualties.
-
Western condemnation of gas attacks is, as always, inconsistent, hypocritical and opportunistic.
- True, but turning people away isn’t a bipartisan issue - just claiming there is a candidate that will increase turnout based on policy has never been and never will be true. The #1 way to increase turnout is simply being a man “unsullied” by Washington with a large chunk of individual financing. There has yet to be any other determining factor.
- That is not true, it’s proportionally the same pretty much across the board. That means there are more working class people that stay home, but as a meaningful statistic it is false.
- No, but appealing to racists has won countless elections in the United States because turnout is so low. It remains a huge factor in the red wave post Obama, and it has famously been a part of the red waves in the 80s. Appealing to race works, because swing states are close enough and there are enough racists that racists have a large control over the electoral college and primary race.
Centrist Dems pushing extra hard on the Bernieslander this week:
I wonder what set them off? Polling on primaries, maybe?
