More likely it’s that Trump saw his favorables with youth.

unfortunately for this take Tony Bennett most principled dude of all time. Schumer? Nah.

doubly unfortunate that they aren’t so slow and boring anymore so this is a terrible answer.

I would add that part of the reason they were effectively reframed is because the opposition didn’t mount an aggressive affirmative defense of the issue. Largely because they were following same instincts that guide Yglesias. It’s a self fulfilling, losing strategy.

In other words, candidates who are perceived as better on crime are still able to win over way more votes than they should when crime is at historic lows, because more people still think it's a bigger problem than it really is.

Do people really say they don't matter at all? What I hear is people saying they don't matter *as much* as they should in terms of electoral salience and influencing votes. Directionally it's good, but magnitudinally (word?), still way out of step.

The other part: you just need authentic candidates who believe what they say. This data isn't capturing any of that, and, in fact, the entire project exemplifies a cultural problem among Dems. Endless quant data and risk aversion creates a pipeline of candidates who people don't buy in to.

My hot take is that the party would be wise to manage its (over)reaction. Harris lost popular vote by 1.5%, far less than other incumbents hampered by global inflation and a society emerging from collective trauma after a once in a century pandemic.

But there was plenty of taunting not called.

When was the tea party formed and what had Obama said about race at that point in time.

But, also, not tremendous research? It seems to have some coding issues and pretty substantial underlying theoretical flaws about how to understand terrorism and political violence. bsky.app/profile/john...

Just learned about it, via this podcast. Made me want to die a little. podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/s...

Would love to see you write on how the NGO crackdown might play out in practice and its implications. There seems to be a bigger, coordinated project here. I work on authoritarianism and governance - and put together this list to try to get my head around what might happen. bsky.app/profile/zynt...

I watched this play out first hand, and work on authoritarianism and social movements for a living.

This is downplaying it way too much. It will be much broader than Soros-backed orgs, even though that's the pre-text. Really recommend doing a deep dive into how this played out gradually in India over years. Courts were helpful, at first, and then over time less so.

bsky.app/profile/zynt...

Here is how he would do it. We shouldn't be alarmist, but there is a very bad playbook they are trying to put into practice, which would dramatically worsen things.

bsky.app/profile/zynt...

5/ The result on remaining free speech would be quick, extreme, and utterly chilling. Groups who organize, advocate, and protest stop doing that work. Everyday folks become quieter, more scared.

4/ All these steps follow the playbook in India and Hungary. Create obscure rules to designate nonviolent, law abiding NGOs as "terrorist organizations." Anyone who works for, donates to, reshares information from, etc. these organizations is now at risk of losing their passport - or possible worse.

3/ There is a draft bill in the House to restructure State Department with a provision to allow Rubio to revoke a passport from anyone who has "knowingly aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise provided material support" to a terrorist organization. www.newsweek.com/republican-p...