U.S. Politics: End Testing, Make Schools Safe Again!

[Zorral]

The Political Times, They Do Not Change, when it comes to white men vs women of whatever skin tone.  It wasn't only Hillary -- it's any women how dare she-they!

https://www.thecut.com/2020/07/aoc-speech-ted-yoho-new-york-times.html#_ga=2.77481237.1424187057.1595884080-1115165932.1595884080

Quote

 

[....]Times reporters wrote that Ocasio-Cortez “excels at using her detractors to amplify her own political brand” (Ocasio-Cortez’s “brand” is the subject of frequent coverage; it’s rare that powerful white men are understood as having built brands; they just have careers). The Times described how, in the wake of Yoho’s words, “the media-savvy Ms. Ocasio-Cortez had sprung into action to create disruptive and viral events.” It may seem innocuous to call her “media-savvy” but that too turns a strength — media fluency and, with it, communicative acuity — into a diminishment and obscures the fact that Ocasio-Cortez had not created the disruption in the first place.

In describing her team’s decisions about how to respond, the Times put scare quotes around their plans “to discuss how she ‘was accosted and publicly ridiculed,’” rather than simply reporting that she had been … accosted and publicly ridiculed. The whole thing suggests that she had somehow connived to set this all in motion; that her actions were the active and self-serving ones, while Yoho was a passive actor, his only contribution to the situation providing the platform from which she might spring. As the Times put it: “Republicans have long labored to cast Ms. Ocasio-Cortez as an avatar of the evils of the Democratic Party, a move that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has used to bolster her own cheeky, suffer-no-fools reputation.”

There is no acknowledgement here that Ted Yoho, not lacking political and professional ambition himself, was also building his brand by deciding to accost Ocasio-Cortez in front of reporters. Nor is there acknowledgment that it worked for him. The percentage of Americans who had ever heard of “Ted Yoho” has risen exponentially in the past 48 hours, and his name will now resonate heroically for a broad swath of AOC/woman-hating Americans.

What is also true and unsaid here is the way in which degradation and dismissal of women — as disgusting, as crazy, but also as Jayapal’s examples remind us, as infantile, incompetent, irrational, and stupid — has been key to the building and maintenance of disproportionately male power in American political, economic, social, and sexual life. And that’s before we get to the ways in which the ubiquity of dehumanizing and aggressive language toward women can have very real violent implications, as the recent murder of Judge Esther Salas’s son by anti-feminist Roy Den Hollander, and so much contemporary mass violence, shows all too often.

How else to clear the field except to render your peers incapable, unlikable, unprofessional? Whether or not men are saying it out loud, via street catcalls or in front of political reporters, the reduction of their would-be female peers — their ideological and electoral adversaries and competitors for power — has helped clear away potential impediment to their own professional trajectories. But white male opportunism, whether in the form of aggressive insult displayed by Yoho this week, or merely accepting the advantages that broad systemic disrespect of others affords them, is rarely examined as the kind of active force that it has always been.

Instead we are trained to recognize the reactions of those who are not white men to white men as some sort of useful path to power. We are told, in lots of ways, that people who are not white men get to play certain kinds of cards — race and gender cards — to get ahead, whereas white men just … get ahead. White male power is so assumed as to be wholly indistinguishable from what we simply recognize as “power,” and with it, the whispered implication that those with authority have somehow earned that authority fairly and squarely, while those who challenge authority and its abuses are wily manipulators. This rankles particularly here, since what Ocasio-Cortez did so well this week was part of her job, the part that is about representing people and their experiences, and communicating effectively on behalf of those who’ve experienced disadvantage. In other words, she actually did earn whatever gains she made this week.

Meanwhile patriarchal power abuse remains so expected as to not be notable as a violation of norms or civility, as disruptive or chaotic. Instead, it simply coexists with the authority, the command, the humanity of white men — it’s just part of what their power looks like. [....]

 

 

[DMC]

26 minutes ago, S John said:

but wasnt the move away from the conclusions of the autopsy pretty much just because Trump happened to come along and completely take over the party by constantly acting like an offensive jackass?

For the most part yeah.  But Cruz came in second in 2016, and his strategy would've been fairly similar to Trump's.  The Bushs and Rubios were clearly overridden by that faction of the party at each level - officeholding, organizational, and electoral.  I suspect if the Trump loses there will be more calls for that shift within the GOP.  Will it work?  Fool me once...

[Fragile Bird]

Robert O'Brien, Trump's National Security Adviser, tested positive for Covid-19. Staff report that he got a phone call and abruptly left the office.

The bastard didn't even tell his staff that he tested positive, they had to find out from reporters. What a scum bag!

[maarsen]

I am hearing stuff about Kushner hiding Republican election money. Repubs are apparently furious whith him . Any info? 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Committing significant resources to Texas is exactly the opposite of using your political capital wisely.  And I think y'all are overrating how much some small victory in Texas will "break the GOP's back."  Obama won Indiana in 2008.  It hardly was the onset of a longterm takeover.

Normally I'd agree, but you watch the polls closer than me. Some of them coming out of states like Texas are shocking, and it's not like they're random one off events from unreliable sources. It could actually flip if our elections are free and fair. 

Quote

Pretty sure that all happened before he got dead in a high school bathroom.

So the robits won?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Will it work?  Fool me once...

Well, I guess it comes down to if you think Haley dunks on everyone in '24. If not, God only knows what the party looks like in four years. 

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Some of them coming out of states like Texas are shocking, and it's not like they're random one off events from unreliable sources. It could actually flip if our elections are free and fair. 

You're simply missing the fundamental strategy of how to win the electoral college here.  There's nothing else to argue about.

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Well, I guess it comes down to if you think Haley dunks on everyone in '24. If not, God only knows what the party looks like in four years. 

I think it's folly to expect Haley could or would rein the party back in.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

You're simply missing the fundamental strategy of how to win the electoral college here.  There's nothing else to argue about.

I'm not talking about simply winning the EC. I'm discussing crippling your political opposition, and doing so in a way that's not dirty pool.
 

Quote

I think it's folly to expect Haley could or would rein the party back in.

She's far more moderate and frankly, normal, and I don't think she'd run to the right of the current GOP. Who do you think the obvious pick would be if not her?

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm discussing crippling your political opposition

And I'm saying it's more important to make sure you win.  Moreover, simply winning Texas once is not "crippling" your opposition in the way you seem to think it is.

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Who do you think the obvious pick would be if not her?

I don't know, but Haley is not some profile in courage, at all.  You see what she's recently been saying?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

And I'm saying it's more important to make sure you win.  Moreover, simply winning Texas once is not "crippling" your opposition in the way you seem to think it is.

Sure, but if you're taking NC, you're already probably going to win. NC isn't a game changer though. Texas is. If Democrats make TX purple, Republicans are fucked for a long time to come and it could be the final blow that makes them a regional party until they actually listen to their long completed autopsy. 

Quote

I don't know, but Haley is not some profile in courage, at all.  You see what she's recently been saying?

No, she is not. I was actually a bit surprised at first that she took a job with this administration, but to her political credit she did get out at a wise time. I just can't think of anyone else who seems like an obvious nominee in the future, and no, I have not seen her recent comments, but they couldn't have been  worse than what Sen. Cotton said over the weekend.

I'm always a bit shocked when these people who are clear idiots get into the top schools in the country. Are they just elite actors who are masters of playing dumb?

[DMC]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Sure, but if you're taking NC, you're already probably going to win.

Probably, but not certainly.  Anyway, we're going around in circles here.  One other thing I'll emphasize - Texas, obviously, is very big.  Which means it's very expensive.  It would be a waste of money.  I think it's worthwhile in terms of a party building exercise to invest some money in a few of few targets - say Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, and Austin - but that's it.  My uncle lives about an hour from Lubbock, hell he practically owns a town.  There is no point in spending money anywhere around there.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

23 minutes ago, DMC said:

Probably, but not certainly.  Anyway, we're going around in circles here.  One other thing I'll emphasize - Texas, obviously, is very big.  Which means it's very expensive.  It would be a waste of money.  I think it's worthwhile in terms of a party building exercise to invest some money in a few of few targets - say Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, and Austin - but that's it.  My uncle lives about an hour from Lubbock, hell he practically owns a town.  There is no point in spending money anywhere around there.

I agree there's no point in wasting time with a circular conversation. Yes, Texas is big, but isn't that half the point? Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the fundraising lately in Biden's favor? If so, making Trump play in a giant state he shouldn't have to normally means you're bleeding him nation wise. And yes, as you said, you can micro target large urban areas without necessarily going state wide, but those media markets still influence most of the state. I just guess I don't get why you want to chase a little fish when the big fish is sitting right in front of you and for once it's not some stupid pipe dream. 

Like you said in so much, I believe in caution. I'm not interested in a bad bet. This could actually be the time to go all in, though when that fails it fails pretty spectacularly. And if so you have to live with your calculated risk not working. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the fundraising lately in Biden's favor?

Trump still has more money on hand.  Even if not, you focus your resources to maximize your potential to win.  For the fourth or fifth time.  Texas is chasing the tail of the dragon.  If it breaks for the Dems this cycle?  Great.  That by no means indicates such a situation will continue in a less forgiving environment - which it would be for the next four years if Biden wins.  Your strategy is myopic and misguided.  You don't secure a state as big and complicated as Texas by a huge investment.  You do it by..I guess I'd call it political osmosis?  As the national demos gravitate towards your side, so too will Texas'.  Anyway, Florida is almost as big a fish as Texas at this point, and much more pliable.  Focus your attention there.  If Trump loses Florida, it's game over.  If Trump loses Texas, that just means the game was already over.  There's simply no valid logic to go all in on Texas.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

22 minutes ago, DMC said:

Trump still has more money on hand.  Even if not, you focus your resources to maximize your potential to win.  For the fourth or fifth time.  Texas is chasing the tail of the dragon.  If it breaks for the Dems this cycle?  Great.  That by no means indicates such a situation will continue in a less forgiving environment - which it would be for the next four years if Biden wins.  Your strategy is myopic and misguided.  You don't secure a state as big and complicated as Texas by a huge investment.  You do it by..I guess I'd call it political osmosis?  As the national demos gravitate towards your side, so too will Texas'.  Anyway, Florida is almost as big a fish as Texas at this point, and much more pliable.  Focus your attention there.  If Trump loses Florida, it's game over.  If Trump loses Texas, that just means the game was already over.  There's simply no valid logic to go all in on Texas.

While Trump is technically ahead, the most recent data I can find suggests it's basically a wash and Biden is doing better month to month and that should only increase.

Look, I get that Texas is the white whale, but even if you just force the opposition to fish for it, you've already won. And as you said I'd figure you'd target FL long before you cared and NC, especially since that idiot governor is sinking everything.

ETA: I'm not arguing that you should go all in on Texas. I'm saying you should invest more than normal there, and be willing to extend yourself a bit considering how open things are. Don't lose just for the sake of making Texas close if you can't win, but also don't ignore it. It's more open than it's been in decades, and once you get your first victory, the second becomes a lot easier.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Look, I get that Texas is the white whale, but even if you just force the opposition to fish for it, you've already won.

Right.  That's why you make a small investment to try to bait him into playing defense.  It doesn't mean neglecting potential tipping point states, which both Florida and NC are.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

21 minutes ago, DMC said:

Right.  That's why you make a small investment to try to bait him into playing defense.  It doesn't mean neglecting potential tipping point states, which both Florida and NC are.

In your opinion, which of the three has the most long term value, say over the course of the next 20 years?

[DMC]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

In your opinion, which of the three has the most long term value, say over the course of the next 20 years?

Florida.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 minutes ago, DMC said:

Florida.

Given the expanding Latino vote, wouldn't you put more faith in Texas? Cuban-Americans, which you know play a huge role in FL, are one of the few groups Trump is expanding his coalition with. 

[Guest]

If I were Senate Democrats, I wouldn't even seriously engage with the HEALS (fucking REALLY???) Act until Senate Republicans can show they have the votes within their own caucus to pass it. 

At this point, that seems doubtful, so let them use their knives on each other.

[Kalbear]

It's always remarkable how much @Tywin et al. wants Texas. From his love of Beto to his continued desperate desire for Dems to pour money into the state for various misguided reasons, it's really cute. I don't know if it's because Klobuchar was turned down by some Texan suitor at some point or if Tywin was, but it's very consistent, I'll give you that.