Zompist Bboard Again

Also, this is a good read about how the centrist pundit whining about "too progressive" Democrats panned out. Young men (that is, under 45) voted for Spanberger, Shirrell, and Mamdani.

I do think Mamdani is a bit of an outlier— his victory, though cheering, doesn't mean that democratic socialists are going to win everywhere. But he also seems extremely savvy and pragmatic. His proposal for public grocery stores, for instance, has been tried abroad— and worked very well.

zompist wrote: ↑Wed Nov 05, 2025 6:10 pmAlso, this is a good read about how the centrist pundit whining about "too progressive" Democrats panned out. Young men (that is, under 45) voted for Spanberger, Shirrell, and Mamdani.

Under 45 is considered young now? That does make me feel a bit better after noticing my hair thinning and beard graying in recent months.

zompist wrote: ↑Wed Nov 05, 2025 6:10 pm Also, this is a good read about how the centrist pundit whining about "too progressive" Democrats panned out. Young men (that is, under 45)

As flattered as I am at being called a "young man" for the first time in a while, I'm not sure that that description is entirely accurate.

voted for Spanberger, Shirrell, and Mamdani.

I don't know much about Shirrell, but I don't think Spanberger fits into the point you're making. She's clearly from the centrist wing of the party herself. I mean, she's a former CIA employee!

I do think Mamdani is a bit of an outlier— his victory, though cheering, doesn't mean that democratic socialists are going to win everywhere. But he also seems extremely savvy and pragmatic. His proposal for public grocery stores, for instance, has been tried abroad— and worked very well.

I'd say it's a good idea if, if every part of the economy, there's something from the government on offer, not necessarily to replace private enterprise, but simply to keep private enterprise honest. If, in a specific business sector - groceries or whatever - one of the suppliers of goods or services or both is run by the government, then private businesses working in that sector, if they want to stay in business, can't affort to treat their customers even worse than the government treats theirs. Which might be annoying enough from the perspective of today's CEOs.

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Nov 05, 2025 7:03 pm

zompist wrote: ↑Wed Nov 05, 2025 6:10 pm Also, this is a good read about how the centrist pundit whining about "too progressive" Democrats panned out. Young men (that is, under 45)

As flattered as I am at being called a "young man" for the first time in a while, I'm not sure that that description is entirely accurate.

My dudes, you're all young to me. But anyway, exit polls divide off 18-29 year olds, and 30-44 year olds. Both cohorts of men voted for these people. Take it up with the polling firms.

voted for Spanberger, Shirrell, and Mamdani.

I don't know much about Shirrell, but I don't think Spanberger fits into the point you're making. She's clearly from the centrist wing of the party herself. I mean, she's a former CIA employee!

The first point of my post was to point out Clymer's article, so it would be odd if Clymer is not making the point she's making.

I'd say it's a good idea if, if every part of the economy, there's something from the government on offer, not necessarily to replace private enterprise, but simply to keep private enterprise honest. If, in a specific business sector - groceries or whatever - one of the suppliers of goods or services or both is run by the government, then private businesses working in that sector, if they want to stay in business, can't affort to treat their customers even worse than the government treats theirs. Which might be annoying enough from the perspective of today's CEOs.

I have no problem with this; I'd just note that it's far broader than Mamdani's proposal!

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Nov 05, 2025 7:03 pm

zompist wrote: ↑Wed Nov 05, 2025 6:10 pm Also, this is a good read about how the centrist pundit whining about "too progressive" Democrats panned out. Young men (that is, under 45)

As flattered as I am at being called a "young man" for the first time in a while, I'm not sure that that description is entirely accurate.

Although Zompist is right about the polling groups, there's another meaning of young in these kinds of contexts: younger than the round number nearest to the tipping point where you're more likely to vote for party X than party Y. The Tories have started defining young voters as under 50¹. Give it another 10–15 years and they'll be talking about non-pensioners.

¹ To some sniggering and comments about how utterly unimportant they'll be in the future if people carry on which this “not switching to the Tories in meaningfull numbers as they get older” business

Lērisama wrote: ↑Thu Nov 06, 2025 1:50 am The Tories have started defining young voters as under 50¹. Give it another 10–15 years and they'll be talking about non-pensioners.

¹ To some sniggering and comments about how utterly unimportant they'll be in the future if people carry on which this “not switching to the Tories in meaningful numbers as they get older” business

Repeating myself here: People do often get more conservative (which, however, doesn't necessarily mean voting Tory in Britain any more these days) once they get into a certain position in life: when they don't really have to worry about extremely urgent life-or-death stuff any more, and their main remaining worries are relatively trivial things like taxes, the idea that their neighbors' lawn ornaments might be more expensive than their own, or the idea that their teenage children might have more sex than them.

The bad news for right-wingers, however, is that precisely because of the policies that right-wingers support, fewer and fewer people end up in that situation in the first place these days.

In "It would be unintentionally funny if it wouldn't be so sad" news, Nancy Pelosi, who is 85 years old, announces her plan to retire from Congress at the end of her current term: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3xw3dw0zxo

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Nov 06, 2025 3:54 am

Lērisama wrote: ↑Thu Nov 06, 2025 1:50 am The Tories have started defining young voters as under 50¹. Give it another 10–15 years and they'll be talking about non-pensioners.

¹ To some sniggering and comments about how utterly unimportant they'll be in the future if people carry on which this “not switching to the Tories in meaningful numbers as they get older” business

Repeating myself here: People do often get more conservative (which, however, doesn't necessarily mean voting Tory in Britain any more these days) once they get into a certain position in life: when they don't really have to worry about extremely urgent life-or-death stuff any more, and their main remaining worries are relatively trivial things like taxes, the idea that their neighbors' lawn ornaments might be more expensive than their own, or the idea that their teenage children might have more sex than them.

The bad news for right-wingers, however, is that precisely because of the policies that right-wingers support, fewer and fewer people end up in that situation in the first place these days.

I agree with you about this; I should have clarified the tipping point in the most recent (set of) elections we have data for

Even if Mamdani would have been born in the USA, his chances of getting some more powerful office eventually still wouldn't be big, historically speaking: https://nathangoldwag.wordpress.com/202 ... rk-mayors/

Horrible news. The Democrats have shown their true colors (the white of the flag of surrender) and caved on the shutdown. They were finally gaining momentum after the success of the recent elections and now they tossed it away.

malloc wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 7:36 pm Horrible news. The Democrats have shown their true colors (the white of the flag of surrender) and caved on the shutdown. They were finally gaining momentum after the success of the recent elections and now they tossed it away.

Not all of the Democrats gave in, and those who did can be primaried rather than simply giving up.

Maybe but this pretty much torpedoes any chances of the Democrats winning the midterms which means that Trump will have a full four years of unbridled power.

To be honest, I fail to see why this isn’t the blatantly obvious thing for them to do? As far as I can tell, the negative effects of the shutdown (itself a truly bizarre procedure) outweigh any positive effects of trying to force concessions from the Republicans. I agree with how this article in the Sydney Morning Herald put it:

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/days-ago-democrats-won-big-now-they-re-at-war-over-caving-to-trump-20251111-p5n99b.html wrote: On the other hand, the Democrats who did the deal said there was no other choice. The long shutdown was hurting real people for no apparent gain, they argued. Angus King, an independent senator who joined seven Democrats to support the deal, told MSNBC: “Standing up to Donald Trump didn’t work. It actually gave him more power.”

King, 81, was ridiculed on social media for this remark. But he has a point. What was the shutdown actually accomplishing? The base might like the idea of having the fight, but people lining up for food can’t eat that.

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 4:19 am To be honest, I fail to see why this isn’t the blatantly obvious thing for them to do? As far as I can tell, the negative effects of the shutdown (itself a truly bizarre procedure) outweigh any positive effects of trying to force concessions from the Republicans. I agree with how this article in the Sydney Morning Herald put it:

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/days-ago-democrats-won-big-now-they-re-at-war-over-caving-to-trump-20251111-p5n99b.html wrote: On the other hand, the Democrats who did the deal said there was no other choice. The long shutdown was hurting real people for no apparent gain, they argued. Angus King, an independent senator who joined seven Democrats to support the deal, told MSNBC: “Standing up to Donald Trump didn’t work. It actually gave him more power.”

King, 81, was ridiculed on social media for this remark. But he has a point. What was the shutdown actually accomplishing? The base might like the idea of having the fight, but people lining up for food can’t eat that.

Problem is, as one hard-right jingoistic conservative once put it, once you have paid him the Dane-geld... this encourages Trump to hurt even more people even more in the future.

Now things get really interesting: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/liv ... ws-updates

So now the White House line is that, supposedly, “Jeffrey Epstein was a member at Mar-a-Lago until President Trump kicked him out because Jeffrey Epstein was a pedophile and he was a creep.” Aside from the garden path possibilities of the word "he" in that sentence, this raises the question: If Trump supposedly knew back then who and what Epstein was, why did he make the guy who had gotten Epstein his sweetheart deal US Secretary of Labor in his first term?

(And why would a billionaire who apparently spent all his time in extremely luxurious homes he owned and which were designed around his own horrible needs, including several in warm and sunny places, have bothered being a member of a luxury resort club owned by someone else?)

malloc wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 10:15 pm Maybe but this pretty much torpedoes any chances of the Democrats winning the midterms which means that Trump will have a full four years of unbridled power.

I don't know about that.

• The midterms are still nearly a year away. A lot can happen in one year.
• A lot of people in the Democratic Party are angry about this incident. Many are planning to challenge the current party leadership, which could very well ameliorate a lot of damage from this.
• The discharge petition has reached 218 signatures, and a vote on the Epstein files is coming. Depending on how things go there, this incident may well be irrelevant by the time the midterms roll around.

MysteryMan23 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 10:56 pmThe midterms are still nearly a year away. A lot can happen in one year.

Sure although that does also go the other way. Trump has plenty of time to find some way to regain his standing. I hear that he's planning on attacking Venezuela soon and that will undoubtedly boost his popularity considerably, perhaps long enough to win the midterms.

malloc wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 6:57 pm

MysteryMan23 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 10:56 pmThe midterms are still nearly a year away. A lot can happen in one year.

Sure although that does also go the other way. Trump has plenty of time to find some way to regain his standing. I hear that he's planning on attacking Venezuela soon and that will undoubtedly boost his popularity considerably, perhaps long enough to win the midterms.

Even the MAGAts really don't want another major foreign war ─ Trump starting a full-scale war with Venezuela is a great way for him to destroy his support with even his own base.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 7:03 pm

malloc wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 6:57 pm

MysteryMan23 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 10:56 pmThe midterms are still nearly a year away. A lot can happen in one year.

Sure although that does also go the other way. Trump has plenty of time to find some way to regain his standing. I hear that he's planning on attacking Venezuela soon and that will undoubtedly boost his popularity considerably, perhaps long enough to win the midterms.

Even the MAGAts really don't want another major foreign war ─ Trump starting a full-scale war with Venezuela is a great way for him to destroy his support with even his own base.

I don't think there's a single person who thinks "I don't like Trump now but I'd sure support him if he attacked Venezuela."

In fact, I've long suspected that outside the USA, Trump has, now as in his earlier term, limited his belligerency to airstrikes because, while he's not the sharpest tool in the shed, on some instinctive level he understands how "popular" ground wars usually become with the US electorate after a while. But he's clearly declining, so his instincts in that regard might not be as sharp as they used to be any more.