Does anyone genuinely care about being "ratio'd"?

Can we cut this mishegas already and focus instead on substantial engagement rather than whether something is popular on Bluesky?

10/10 très bien

And, of course, a baguette to serve as a temporary splint.

I don't know what it is, but I find this video to be so unbelievably funny. I'm not sure if it's real or AI, but either way, it just feels like such a distillation of this moment.

What they do say - and something I agree with - is that the Democrats should break free of both the "corporate centrism and the pursuit of progressive ideological purity."

I think that's good advice for building a winning coalition.

They certainly say to "focus less" (#3) and "moderate" (#4), but I don't think that is tantamount to dropping an issue altogether. Combined with the explicit calls to include and learn from politicians like AOC and Sarah McBride, I don't think it's fair to say they want to excise these issues.

A lot of this was willful blindness at a time when he was ascendant. He no longer is, and now he wants to try to re-capture the right wing media ecosystem. He's far too late.

Shameless self plug: my own research on antisemitism and conspiracy beliefs. doi.org/10.1177/1065...

Part of the problem, I suspect, is that the Dems carry a lot of the baggage from the past decade of leftist discourse, even if they don't advocate it themselves. But the memo DOES identify clearly that a big tent party requires moving away from the purity tests that became so common.

I don't claim to know what the Dems need to do to win. And I suspect that we likely agree on many issues. But we need to be able to delineate between broadening the tent and giving up on an issue entirely. I just don't think it's fair or accurate to claim that they are doing the latter.

I interpret their memo as advocating for more focus on a core set of economic issues and away from insisting on maximalist social issue positions.

For example, your piece states that their vision "lacks tent space for climate groups or trans people," but they specifically state otherwise.

The memo makes clear in its first pages that is precisely NOT doing many of the things that @davekarpf.bsky.social accuses it of. One need only actually read the memo.

Engagement has to entail more than trying to dunk on one another and score phony points. We can disagree without being dishonest.

The problem with this analysis is that while it accurately identifies some of the core challenges to the democrats, it inaccurately and dishonestly characterizes the Deciding to Win memo.

The TNR piece seems to be guilty of the crimes it ascribes to the memo: decision first, facts later.

no - wait, but why

I can only imagine what would happen if CNN learned that my oldest son calls each of our family friends "aunt" and "uncle."

Thank you for posting, Dan

This is a very interesting and poignant piece - thank you for sharing!
The author does a good job of detailing how we got here, though I (perhaps naïvely) disagree with his prognosis for liberal zionism.

Is that the main challenge we've had as a field? I'm not so sure. I wonder if perhaps the move toward massive cross-country analysis using big data has perhaps blunted our ability to actually study politics and society.