Obsidian Wings

Where do these people come from?

by liberal japonicus

Another open thread, the other seems to be I/P and vaccinations, but I'm listening to some things and these two prompted the question above

This first one is an interview of/discussion with Emily Jashinsky by Ezra Klein
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXTjqaTQpYg&t=2509s

One comment that sums up my take "This lady keeps saying things are 'rooted in something real' and the something keeps turning out to be racism". I have to assume that form of an interview rather than a written piece allows enough wiggle room, but unfortunately, some interviews have transcripts, like this one

Inez Stepman: ...But Emily, why don’t you tell us initially, since you wrote about this extensively at The Federalist, what are some of the things that people might not expect that are in this package [Bipartisan Infrastructure Law]? If they’re thinking infrastructure, what are some of the things that you think are the most pernicious elements of this?

Emily Jashinsky:

Universal basic income for illegal immigrants, which is a real thing that this bill does. It’s under the very false label of an expanded child tax credit, which no serious person in the media should use as a label for what the policy actually is. It is direct cash payments to parents with no means testing that, actually, illegal immigrants will qualify under the language that’s currently in the bill. Maybe that’ll change, but whether or not that applies to illegal immigrants, that is an incredibly radical policy that will really, really change our relationship fundamentally with the federal government if parents are relying on monthly direct deposits into their bank accounts from the federal government, all parents. It doesn’t matter. It’s all parents, and that’s a huge, huge change for us as a society and as a culture.

Wow, just wow. In the interview with Klein, she talks about how the DACA was the starting point for this new Right. It's telling to me that a stopgap program that kicked the question of people who entered the US as children, and for the large majority, have no experience living in the country they would have been sent back to, is cited as a flashpoint for every racist to crawl out from under his or her rock.

Our second example is Daniella Pletka sitting in for David Brooks. I get that they have to have the right leaning commentator but Pletka seemed off the rails, she first argued that Biden had all the tools to deal with the border so therefore, he's responsible for the current state of affairs, with nary a word about Trump sinking the immigration bill. And then she goes on a rant about Ukraine and Biden's lack of leadership and complaints that Zelensky's recent trip was turned into a campaign event.

To wrap this up, wj had a question in the comments, which was

Is there any sign that the Japanese are beginning to figure out that their national demographics are going to require them to accept immigrants if the nation is to survive? Or are the cultural barriers still too high to allow reality to intrude on that subject?

My answer was no, not really, but I wonder if that is better than having to deal with people like Jashinsky.

Yet another open thread

by liberal japonicus

Harris is sitting down for an interview with MSNBC (preview here) which seems like as good a reason as any for an open thread. I'm still waiting for Harris to go on Hot Wings though...

Stochastic terrorism and pagers

by liberal japonicus

I recently read this substack piece by Jay Kuo, Donald Trump is a stochastic terrorist, which baffled me a bit, because it seemed to me that terrorism, by it's very definition, is stochastic. A group or person commits an act or acts that are aimed at instilling fear in a larger group because it would be impossible to commit those acts against everyone. But it seems that Kuo's idea of terrorism is the targeting of an individual or a smaller group, and when some randomness is added to the process, it becomes stochastic. I'm thinking about that while reading about pagers (and now, walkie-talkies) in Lebanon. Here's the Guardian's explainer.

There's a lot to wonder about. Israel has not admitted responsibility, but it is difficult to imagine another group being able to undertake this. It also makes one wonder about the timeline. How much earlier was the supply chain entered and what other consumer goods could be sabotaged in a similar way?

Unfortunately, I am headed out the door and will only be on my phone for the next few days, but I'm curious what everyone else makes of this.

The shape of things to come

by liberal japonicus

Feel free to continue to chat about the debate, this post is about what may happen from this point.

I can't speak for others, but it's been like watching a great sports game where you watch the highlights again and again and then watching commentators talk about those highlights. Oh, and your team hasn't really had much success but you kept cheering for them, and finally, they put it all together.

Still, I wouldn't be a liberal without a fair dose of foreboding and impending doom. One thing that gets me is that the anti Trump demographic is getting, like the anti Tory coalition. Look, it's Dick Cheney! 'Rise up as one' is one of those sentiments that is more common on the left than on the right (a quick google has MLK, Mandela, Cesar Chavez, Malcolm X and Barack Obama saying it), but in this case, it is a bit like defining Trump as the North Pole, so that by definition, every one else is south.

In fact, the election strategy of Starmer seemed to be ultra cognizant of that fact, and the way it has unwound, after lots of articles about Labour's first week in power and the breath of fresh air and optimism, it seems things have bogged down again. And I worry that a similar strategy of collecting 'everyone who knows Donald Trump is an idiot' will be foregrounded and a 'what sort of things need to be done' is ignored.

One could relate this to the criticisms of Harris that she is insufficiently progressive, such as this Jacobin piece, but I think it is different. Asking why Harris didn't take time out from emasculating Trump by being clearer about particular policies seems, at least to me, as not understanding what the purpose of the debate was. It was not to present ordered policies to the American people, it was to make Trump behave exactly the way he did. I realize that this still means that Harris is an unknown quantity, and a lot of journalists are always on about how Harris is some mysterious cipher because she didn't go through a long primary beauty pageant answering questions like 'tell me why you think the United States is the greatest country ever', but the fact that she did what she needed to.

To be fair, the campaign hasn't said anything about Cheney, it came about when his daughter was being interviewed on CNN. But I'm curious what everyone else's take on it is.

Jesus wept

by liberal japonicus

I imagine everyone will have their own take about the debate that is about to finish, so I'll crack this thread open. Have at it.

Actually, It's Not

by wj

There’s an old aphorism:

Prediction is hard; especially about the future.

I’ve seen it attributed to various sages, including Yogi Berra and Albert Einstein.  The thing is, it’s not true. Prediction is very, very easy.  What’s hard is accurate prediction.  So, since it’s easy, I’m going to venture a prediction.  (Aided by the fact that being wrong costs me little or nothing.)

Prediction: this year’s American election is going to be a landslide.  As in, Harris not only wins big on the popular vote (pretty much a no-brainer, given how the popular vote has gone this century), she wins big in the Electoral College vote, too.  As in, she wins all of the states that Biden won, plus North Carolina, Florida, and maybe Montana, Texas and Nebraska, too.  Also, Democrats not only keep all of the Senate seats they currently hold (bar West Virginia), but also pick up seats in Florida and Texas.  And get a substantial majority in the House as well. 

Why would I believe such obvious nonsense?  Multiple reasons. 

• First, Harris is turning out to be a far better campaigner than she was in the 2020 primaries. Both in how she does herself and in how her campaign staff handles messaging.  The latter has been effective in making her case to big chunks of the population which normally aren’t expected to show up and vote.  It has also been quite effective in trolling her opponent, leading to a bunch of unforced errors on his part.
• Second, her VP pick is also proving to be a really good campaigner. In particular, he relates well to the blue collar and rural voters that Democrats have often struggled with.  Something that is highlighted by the contrast to just how terrible JD Vance is at human interactions.  Put Walz on local radio, talking football in places where high school football is a religion, and some amazing things might happen.
• Third, Trump is visibly deteriorating, more every day. To the point that we are even seeing headlines in the MSM about how he is ranting, making no sense, etc.  ("Both sides" may be losing its charm for them.)  Even in front of ostensibly friendly crowds, people who once were supporters seem to be rethinking their vote.  They may not vote for Harris, but they may just decide that they have better things to do with their time than vote at all.  (Which helps down ballot Democrats.)
• Fourth, the Dobbs decision isn’t going away. Having Trump flipping back and forth on Florida’s abortion initiative only helps keep the issue front and center.  As do the various draconian laws passed in various red states.  Note that, whenever abortion rights have been on the ballot, even in deep red places like Kansas, they have won big.  Those abortion rights voters might not have bothered to vote at all otherwise.  But once they show up, they aren’t likely to be voting for the people who made the initiative necessary in the first place.
• Fifth, part of winning an election these days is turning out supporters to vote. That takes a big infrastructure spread across the country.  The Democrats have that.  But what little the Republicans did have is withering, as the money which might have paid for it gets siphoned off to Trump’s personal pockets.  (Some of that is going for his legal bills.  But part of it is also going for super-inflated charges by Trump-owned properties and companies to Republican campaign organizations.) 
• Sixth, at the state and local level, Republican organizations have widely been taken over by Trump fanatics who have no clue how to do the actual job of those organizations; all performance and no work. On top of which, there seem to be increasing numbers of internal fights over who is more Trumpy than whom.
• Seventh, in addition to his other campaign skills, Walz’ “Mind your own damn business” message will play really well in Montana. Folks there aren’t nut-job libertarians like so many in Idaho, but they do dislike outsiders telling them what to do.  I can see at least the possibility of this swinging the state to Harris.  At minimum, it should get Tester over the line in the Senate race.  (Aided by his opponent’s newly surfaced recording of remarks about Native Americans – who are around 10% of the vote is they are motivated to turn out.)
• Eighth, the anti-Trump Republican effort is going strong. The Lincoln Project ads are clearly getting to Trump, leading to him doing all manner of unfortunate (for his prospects) things.  And there is the fact that prominent Republicans, from the Mayor of Mesa Arizona to not just Liz but Dick Cheney are coming out to say not only that they oppose Trump but they are actually going to vote for Harris.  By themselves, those are a handful of votes.  But there are a lot of people** who dislike Trump, but have trouble with the idea of voting for a Democrat; this effectively gives them permission to do so.  (No, I don't understand the mindset.  But I can recognize that it exists.)
• Ninth, to focus just on the Senate, Cruz is enormously unpopular in Texas.  His opponent looks to have a plan to capitalize on that, and the state Republican party leaders don't seem inclined to make any special effort for Cruz (they don't like him either).  They'll still do all their usual shenanigans, just no extra effort.  In Florida, Scott is similarly unpopular.  While the Florida Republican voter suppression effort is far more advanced than Texas', they also have an abortion issue on the ballot to turn out non-RWNJ voters.  

There are more reasons, of course.  But I think that gives a flavor of what I think I'm seeing.  What I'm not seeing is any reason for Republicans to do better than expected.  Yes, Harris is female and non-white.  But the voters who really, really care about that are established Trump voters anyway.  Not a pool of potential new votes. 

I admit that the polls appear to be very close.  At the moment.  But consider: before Labor Day, polls only use is entertainment, or to motivate fundraising.  And polls use sub-microscopic samples of the population, which they extrapolate to the entire electorate.  Those extrapolations assume that the people who answer their (typically landline) phones are typical of whichever demographic they fall into.  And, worse, that the demographics of who will vote this time are like those of previous elections.  But a particular candidate, or a particular issue appearing on the ballot, can pull in a completely different set of voters.  Consider that, before the vote, all the polls in Kansas said that their abortion issue was going to be extremely close; it won 60-40, which in our polarized political environment is beyond huge. And there are nearly a dozen states with abortion measures on the ballot this fall.

So, that’s why I’m thinking landslide.  Of course, if the Democrats get overconfident (see 2016) they could slack off – although they appear to have learned that lesson.  Also, there is always the possibility of an “October surprise”.  However, those can go either way.  The best candidate I’m seeing (but why would it be a surprise if I know about it?) is the recent case involving massive Russian financing of right-wing social media operations.  For the moment, it might turn out to be just another 5 day wonder.  But from the number of Republican political operatives who appear to be suddenly twitchy, there may be a lot more shoes left to drop.

Anyway, here is a long overdue Open Thread.

 ** Political junkies find it almost inexplicable that there are people who are actually still undecided.  But the reality is, most people pay more attention to how things are going at work, or in their main social group (whether church, pickleball club, book club, or whatever), or how their favorite sports team is doing.  You know, important-to-them stuff.  Politics only impinges on their consciousness in the last month or two before a (general) election.