So that’s why Megyn was splitting hairs the other day!

If the administration wasn’t pure fucking evil, I’d admire the audicity of taking credit for undoing the terrible policy they enacted months ago.

I hope you are right!

Ha, well put!

Progressive stronghold makes even less sense

Really? NYC? On almost every metric it leans heavily Left. It has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, declared itself an asylum city, had Attorney Generals essentially running on a campaign of “I will indict trump”, has some of the strongest LGBTQ+2S protections in the country, has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the country, has ambitious climate goals…

Even their “Republican” mayors run on platforms that would never fly in the republican party. When Bloomberg ran, he campaigned on free busses, raising taxes on the rich, community grocery stores etc.

But, when we’re talking Zohran, we are talking, generally, economic progressive issues, i.e., raising taxes on the wealthy, free busses, community grocery stores (like republican Mike Bloomberg!) rent control etc. (Personally, I think these are generally workable, though I don’t think Zohran actually has the authority to do a lot of what he’s promised but that’s a whole different issue)

I dunno. The argument on the progressive Left has, for years, been that if the Democrats would only field a truly progressive candidate, people would come out of the woodwork to support them and the Dems would coast to victory. And in Zohran, we pretty much got a perfect avatar of the progressive Left. And in some senses, the progressive Left was correct, folks did come out of the woodwork to support him with landmark turnout! But, almost half of the people in one of the most progressive cities in the nation came out to say No.

but acting more republican doesn’t change the numbers.

Maybe not in blood red states but in the states that the Democrats could conceivably win (the midwest, Georgia etc) the margins are thin. And if our kind of ideal progressive candidate can only squeak through in one of the most progressive places in the country, it is very hard to imagine we could pick up anywhere where we need to.

Maybe progressive stronghold would’ve been less controversial.

But the basic concept, even in a very progressive place, the clear, almost dream progressive candidate barely cracked 50% and a record number came out to oppose him.

I cannot fathom how this looks like a winning recipe for the Democrats in say, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Wisconsin etc.

And what in that equation would change were we to try a similarly progressive candidate nationally? Except for the fact that most of the country is less progressive than New York…

The progressive candidate that we’ve been craving barely cracked 50% in one of the more progressive places in the country.

This doesn’t bode well for say, a very progressive Presidential candidate.

Lumping in former democrats as current ones seems more than a little silly.

The argument has historically been that the Democrats don’t nominate progressive candidates and if they did, progressives would come out and vote for them overwhelmingly (despite not doing so in the primaries.)

In one of the most progressive cities, we had one of the most progressive candidates ever and barely cracked 50%.

So, it doesn’t bode well for the Dems chances if they nominate a very progressive Presidential candidate. (You would probably have the Blue vote similarly, wherein sure, some progressive would win the Democrat label, and some independent would run to the centre and split the Dem vote.

how new york city is being called a “democratic stronghold”

New York City tends to poll more Democrat/Left than the state as a whole. The last time NY State elected a republican Presidential candidate was Reagan.

I like that assumption but am a little doubtful… I remember when we all figured no president could ever be dumber the Bush 2…

10/10 title/reference.

We can both agree that we hate oligarchs and dictators and find a common ground in between.

I really like this take. I pray it’s the attitude we adopt for the midterms.

This whole exchange has been such a delight to read and agree with.

Like you, I don’t think the issue is this system or that, it’s the enforcement of the rules that make the whole thing work. And for decades, those rules and institutions have been sold away bit by bit for tax cuts and lobbyists.

Oh, my apologies, I didn’t meant to jump off the top ropes to defend pop culture etc. And absolutely, all sorts of routes to cool.

That being said, I’m a middle age man and am thus by classic definition, the anti cool.

Believe me, I have an over abundance of confidence, I know I’m cool in all the things that matter. But I also know that my time at the cultural forefront (whether your culture is pop, punk, underground, whatever) has passed, that’s off to the next generation.

I think of it like, while I still go to some of the larger underground events, I’m not one of the tastemakers that some of my friends were in our youth etc and I damn well won’t have heard of any of the bands but on the other hand, I am at the point where I can help out by buying all the merch.

I mean, you could make a credible argument for either but I’m pretty sure Republicans would whine regardless (she was pretty outspoken about how voting trump was a bad idea leading to his comically petulant “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT” tweet.)

Her being allied to Trump does not bode well for the regime after Maduro, though

They have to get to the post Maduro stage first.

I think it’s like Ukraine, yeah, it’d be better if you didn’t have to rely on the States but to whom else can she turn?

If Venezuelans handle it, great and her praising trump costs nothing. If trump helps, there’ll be strings but it’ll almost certainly be better than Maduro.

I think she’s opportunistic and will praise whomever will help get rid of Maduro.

Sadly, US intervention is probably one of Venezuela’s best hopes at regime change and trump is childish enoughed to be influenced by petty praise.

To each their own. I definitely used to just listen to my own punk shit and disdain pop but the older I get, the more I see value in something fun with a catchy beat that a lot of people can dance and sing to at once. The classic tunes I dig were also pop once before they became old people tunes.

It’s like anything, if all you listen to is pop, that’s probably not great but if you refuse to listen to any, you’re probably missing out.

which apparently is worth being downvoted for

Yeah, that surprised me. My guess is that your comment came off a little “how can this be popular if I haven’t hesrd of it?” Which feels kinda boomery.

Don’t know what to tell you, he’s been on Canadian news a few times, subject of at least two Economist articles, BBC articles, Guardian articles etc. Maybe you missed the reports? I mean, if you don’t know the name of the guy announced to headline the Super Bowl (by definition, fairly goshdarn famous) it’s not like you’d be expected to be in touch with who is popular etc.