#but more than that even in 2020 he wasn’t even a great candidate | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 6 months ago

Text

Vote Blue

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

August 25, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Aug 26, 2024

The Democratic National Convention buoyed the Democrats. Thirty-four million dollars worth of donations came into ActBlue on the night of Vice President Kamala Harris’s acceptance speech. That money added to the other donations pouring in to make a record-breaking total of $540 million since July 22, when Harris’s campaign launched.

Analyzing voter registrations in Michigan, pollster Tom Bonier found an immediate increase in young women registering to vote in the week of July 21, and his models suggest a 20-point Democratic advantage among those new registrants. FiveThirtyEight shows Harris up 2.7 points over Trump in the national polling average, a six-point improvement from Biden’s last day as a candidate. Across the country, the campaign has 400,000 volunteers.

Harris and Minnesota governor Tim Walz will cross southern Georgia by bus next week to build on the momentum of the convention, working with the 35,000 volunteers, 174 staffers, and 24 campaign offices across the state.

Trump and the MAGA Republicans have not taken the Democrats’ momentum quietly. Trump has been frantically posting.

On Thursday morning he assured readers on his social media channel that “My Administration will be great for women and their reproductive rights,” although he has boasted about ending the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that protected women’s access to abortion and suggested that women who obtain abortions should be punished. Maureen Dowd of the New York Times wrote that his posts “were too ridiculous even for Trump,” and she wondered if his account had been hacked by Iranians.

Then Trump went to Montezuma Pass, Arizona, to praise a section of border wall constructed there. A Border Patrol union leader called it the “Trump Wall,” and Isaac Arnsdorf, Marianne LeVine and Erin Patrick O'Connor of the Washington Post wrote that Trump’s visit was designed to recapture the storyline of this presidential race from Harris. But it turned out that the section he visited was actually built under President Barack Obama. The nearby Trump portion was unfinished and cost at least $35 million per mile. As president, the reporters note, “Trump spent more than $11 billion to finish more than 450 miles of wall along the almost 2,000-mile southern border, one of the most expensive federal infrastructure projects in history.”

Harris’s acceptance speech had Trump apparently beside himself. During her 38-minute speech he posted 59 times on his social media platform, saying, among other things, “WHERE’S HUNTER?” referring to President Joe Biden’s son. After the speech ended, he called in to the Fox News Channel to rant, in what Dowd called a “scream-of-consciousness,” in which he insisted he is “doing very well in the polls,” until host Bret Baier cut him off. So he turned to right-wing media outlet Newsmax, where he continued his diatribe.

That night, apparently increasingly concerned about his chances of election, Trump—or his team, because it didn’t really sound like him—reached out on social media to Georgia governor Brian Kemp, whom he has lambasted since 2021 for refusing to help him steal the 2020 election. As recently as August 3, Trump went after Kemp, but on Thursday he thanked the governor “for all of your help and support in Georgia, where a win is so important to the success of our Party and, most importantly, our Country. I look forward to working with you, your team, and all of my friends in Georgia to help MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo commented: “Nothing tells you Trump is in full panic more than seeing him crawl back to nemesis Brian Kemp begging for help in Georgia.” “Kemp wanted a public groveling,” Ron Filipkowski wrote, “and that’s what Trump did tonight.”

It wasn’t just Trump who was concerned about the Democratic National Convention. A number of prominent Republicans who will be voting for Harris spoke there, providing a permission structure for other Republicans to shift their support to Harris and Walz. But that message did not make it through to viewers of the Fox News Channel. Media Matters, which monitors right-wing media, reported that the Fox News Channel did not air any of the Republicans’ DNC speeches.

In the Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan complained that Democrats “stole traditional Republican themes (faith, patriotism) and claimed them as their own”—as if somehow Democrats shouldn’t be able to claim either faith or patriotism—and worried that Trump “is famously off his game.” His “old insult shtick isn’t working,” and when he tries to read from a teleprompter, “he talks like a tranquilized robot.” Because he has insulted everything, when he now disparages something, she wrote, “it seems part of his act.”

Recognizing the momentum of the Harris-Walz campaign, the Trump-Vance campaign on Saturday sent out a memo predicting a post-convention bump for Harris-Walz but promising the bump would be temporary. It also did not mention that Trump and Vance did not get the normal post-convention bounce after their 2024 convention in July.

Friday brought more bad news for the Trump campaign when twelve Republican lawyers who served in the administrations of presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush wrote an open letter endorsing Harris because they believe Trump is a threat to American democracy and the rule of law. They continued: "[W]e urge all patriotic Republicans, former Republicans, conservative and center-right citizens, and independent voters to place love of country above party and ideology and join us in supporting Kamala Harris."

They join conservative jurist J. Michael Luttig, who endorsed Harris on Wednesday and wrote: “In voting for Vice President Harris, I assume that her public policy views are vastly different from my own, but I am indifferent in this election on any issues other than America’s Democracy, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law, as I believe all Americans should be.”

Also on Friday, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who was running for president as an Independent, suspended his campaign and endorsed Trump. He joined Trump onstage in Glendale, Arizona, to the music of the Foo Fighters, who made it clear the campaign did not ask permission to use the song, they would not have allowed it, and that they will donate all royalties from its use by Trump’s campaign to the Harris-Walz campaign.

It is not clear that Kennedy’s endorsement will help Trump much. He was polling at under 5%, and his numbers were dropping. Kennedy also is a poor candidate to help Trump combat the “weird” label the Democrats have attached to his campaign. His odd past includes recent stories that he claimed in court to suffer from a worm in his brain and that he dumped a dead bear cub in New York’s Central Park and tried to make it look as if a bike had hit it. Josh Marshall added that the endorsement also “puts a spotlight on the fact that [Trump’s] desperate and trying basically anything now to shake up the race.”

Five of Kennedy’s siblings called the endorsement “a betrayal of the values that our father and our family hold most dear. It is a sad ending to a sad story.” Quoting President John F. Kennedy, his grandson Jack Schlossberg endorsed Harris on stage at the DNC.

Trump seemed thrilled with the endorsement, though. On Saturday he shared a post calling himself and Kennedy “the Strongest anti-establishment ticket in American History.” But, of course, Kennedy is not on the ticket. J.D. Vance is.

Vance’s dismal rollout has not gotten better. He appears to have taken on the task of actually campaigning for the ticket, but he is enormously inexperienced, and it’s not going terribly well. An awkward visit to a donut shop in Georgia where Vance ordered “whatever makes sense” has become a viral TikTok meme. An AP_NORC poll has Vance at –17 (27% favorable versus 44% unfavorable); Walz is +11 (36 to 25).

Finally, in a post on his social media site tonight, Trump appears to be hinting that he will pull out of the planned debate between him and Vice President Harris scheduled for September 10. “I watched ABC FAKE NEWS this morning,” he wrote, “and I ask, why would I do the Debate against Kamala Harris on that network?... Stay tuned!!!”

One other item came from Trump this week, but it got little oxygen with everything else that was going on. Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump have been teasing a “big announcement” this month related to cryptocurrency and decentralized finance, or DeFi. On Thursday, Trump announced a new cryptocurrency project called “The DeFiant Ones” and linked to a Telegram channel set up on August 6, the same day Eric posted that such a project was in the works.

Telegram is a social media app launched by Russian-born billionaire Pavel Durov, and it is the main communications tool in Russia. Durov was arrested today in France on charges that Telegram has been used for money laundering and other crimes.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#Letters From An American #Heather Cox Richardson #election 2024 #Kamala Harris #Democratic Convention #volunteers #grass roots organizations

9 notes · View notes

justinspoliticalcorner · 7 months ago

Text

Igor Bobic and Liz Skalka at HuffPost:

Former President Donald Trump spoke for over an hour in a rambling press conference on Thursday, making dozens of false and outrageous claims in an effort to wrest the spotlight away from Vice President Kamala Harris’ surging 2024 presidential campaign. Addressing reporters at his ritzy Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago, the GOP presidential nominee insisted his campaign was the one drawing large, enthusiastic crowds on the campaign trail — even though Harris’ rallies attracted tens of thousands this week — and claimed that the vice president wasn’t “smart enough” to take questions from the media as he was doing. “She’s not smart enough to do a news conference,” Trump said.

Trump also claimed he was willing to do three debates with Harris: Sept. 4 with Fox News, Sept. 10 with ABC News, and Sept. 25 with NBC News (the announcement required a clarification from Trump’s campaign regarding the host networks). Both campaigns had agreed to the Sept. 10 debate when President Joe Biden was still the presumptive nominee, but Trump canceled when Harris replaced Biden. Harris’ campaign hasn’t said whether it’s agreed to all three dates.

Harris, meanwhile, hasn’t done a sit-down with reporters since Biden exited the race and endorsed her for the nomination. But she’s marginally improved on Biden’s position in the polls, and Democrats, at least, appear enthused to have a candidate besides the president. “The honeymoon period is gonna end,” Trump said of Harris’ standing in the race. “She’s got a little period, the convention is coming up [...] Everything she’s touched has turned bad.” It was the first time Trump took questions from reporters since Harris announced Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate on Tuesday. Trump called both Harris and Walz too liberal and dangerous to run the country.

“She picked a radical left man,” Trump said. “He’s got things done that he’s … he has positions that are just not, it’s not even possible to believe that they exist. He’s going for things that nobody’s ever even heard of, heavy into the transgender world, heavy into lots of different worlds having to do with safety. He doesn’t want to have borders. He doesn’t want to have walls. He doesn’t want to have any form of safety for our country.” Trump said he wouldn’t change anything about his campaign or attacks now that he’s running against Harris. “I haven’t recalibrated strategy at all. It’s the same policies — open borders and crime. I think she’s worse than Biden,” he said.

During his press conference, which ran just short of 90 minutes, Trump compared the crowd size at the White House on Jan. 6, 2021, to the audience for Martin Luther King Jr.’s 1963 “I Have A Dream” speech on the National Mall, where about 260,000 people showed up. “Nobody’s spoken to crowds bigger than me,” he said. “If you look at Martin Luther King, when he did his great speech, and you look at ours, same real estate, same everything, same number of people, if not, we had more. And they said he had a million people, but I had 25,000 people.” Trump also falsely claimed that “nobody died” during the attack on the Capitol by hundreds of his supporters seeking to overturn the 2020 election he had lost. At least seven people died in connection to the riot, including several Trump supporters.

[...] Trump gave a head-scratcher of an answer to a question about whether he believed the Federal Drug Administration should restrict access to the abortion pill mifepristone, which survived a right-wing attack before the Supreme Court earlier this year. Some conservatives want the FDA to regulate the pill out of circulation in a future GOP presidential administration. “You could do things that would supplement. Absolutely,” Trump said. “And those things are pretty open and humane.” He added: “But you have to have a vote. The people are going to decide.” Harris’ campaign responded to Trump’s press conference with sarcasm, calling it “very good” and “very normal.” “He hasn’t campaigned all week. He isn’t going to a single swing state this week. But he sure is mad Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are getting big crowds across the battlegrounds,” the campaign said in a press release. “The facts were hard to track and harder to find in Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago meltdown this afternoon.”

DonOld Trump’s chaotic and unhinged presser at Mar-A-Lago yesterday was the same old bullcrap of greatest hits mixed with new lies and delusions, such as falsely stating that he had more crowds than Martin Luther King Jr., baselessly stated that “no one died” on Janauary 6th, 2021, and hinted that he could regulate mifepristone out of existence.

4 more years of DonOld would be embarrassing.

#Donald Trump #Press Conferences #2024 Elections #2024 Presidential Election #Capitol Insurrection #Martin Luther King Jr.#Mifepristone #Tim Walz #Kamala Harris #DonOld Trump

6 notes · View notes

midnightsslut · 7 months ago

Note

Can I ask you what are the specific images of Joe that makes you feel cardigan is about him? I agree with you, but for me it was always a general feeling.

I think the 1 has Matty as a strong candidate as a muse, but I genuinely think it’s so vague that it could be about anyone else, like even Harry. The chosen family could easily be about his one direction days, since he always described them as brothers (I’m not a haylor btw) and didn’t Taylor say back during one of the 1989 secret sessions that Harry even bought a house close to hers? The 1 could’ve been reminiscing of that time

I think Chloe et al. was written after they broke up. It doesn’t have a feeling imho of reminiscing of the past after shit hit the fan, idk it sounds like a prologue to tsmwel in my mind, you know when you’re sad that things didn’t work out before anger kicks in, idk I feel this strong connection with her saying that she changed throughout the years and then saying “normal girls were boring” and him leaving as if saying that she changed and yet he still found her boring and left, idk if I’m making any sense

i agree with you on the general feeling. I’m mostly thinking of ‘living in a gold age, sneak into my bird cage’ (gold and cages), ‘you drew stars around my scars, but now I’m bleeding’ (willow parallel), ‘sequin smile, black lipstick’ (met gala - i generally hate ascribing lyrics to photos because i feel like relationships usually happen in private, but yeah), ‘to kiss in cars and downtown bars was all we needed’ (this is less specific, but it does describe the same timeframe as cruel summer imo). also ‘I knew to love would be to lose my mind’ is soooo 2020 taylor writing about joe.

she did say that about harry; she was describing how i wish you would came about because he would drive past her house every night or something. harry was always the only other real option that made sense to me, mostly because a) the roaring twenties line makes me think they were both in their twenties, and that was the defining early 20s situationship for her, and b) the line in question about the meteor strike makes their relationship sound super intense, way more so than what og 1989 described. it obviously wasn’t jake level, but it was something. the sex was clearly great idk.

that’s interesting about chloe et al. i always see it as fortnight in an alternate universe, but the ‘someone who seemed like he would have bullied you in school’ line def sounds like a post breakup musing lol.

4 notes · View notes

benjaminsblog · 17 days ago

Text

Desert Island TV Shows (DITV) - Part 1

Time for another round! It’s been a while since I did one of these, so in short, I get 8 TV shows to take on my desert island. I always have fun agonising over my choices, but for this version, it was a little tricky deciding on how to approach building my octet – the original rules set some importance on the emotional connection you share with your choices, but I also had to balance that with shows that I would still enjoy rewatching, otherwise I might lump myself with 156 episodes of something that once meant a great deal to me but I could no longer stomach watching (thanks for the memories, Power Rangers).

Happily, those two criteria often overlapped, but there were still some tough decisions I had to make - my initial shortlist yielded 12 results, and after thoroughly weighing up each of their pros and cons, 4 admirable candidates fell just short of making the trip to my desert island:

Match of the Day

1964-present (5,000+ episodes)

Favourite character: Thierry Henry

Favourite moment: The Invincibles Season

I watched MotD more ardently than any other TV show every Premier League weekend for nearly 15 years. I didn’t have many opportunities to see full games when I was younger, so the weekly highlights show became my fix of ‘live’ footie. I therefore spent countless weekends trying to avoid results during the day (a hugely stressful, often futile undertaking) so that when the familiar theme tune started to play, I had no idea what was coming in each game.

Being an Arsenal fan, my enjoyment of the show could fluctuate wildly, but I count myself very fortunate to have witnessed the Wenger years and the achingly beautiful football that his teams could conjure on any given day. I still re-watch that Dennis Bergkamp goal and wonder how on earth he did it…

youtube

The Office (US)

2005-13 (201 episodes)

Favourite character: Dwight

Favourite moment: “Knock-knock”

I’ve never had the pleasure of long-term office work, so I think that’s partly why The Office (UK) never clicked for me. The Scranton branch in Philadelphia opted for a comedic rather than satirical approach, which was more my thing. There are heartwarming moments among the hilarity and the main characters do grow during the series, but it is first and foremost a fabulously funny show, and that's why I love it so much (that's what she said).

youtube

South Park

1997-present (328 episodes)

Favourite character: Cartman

Favourite moment: Cartman vs The Nannies

It's a cartoon, but it certainly isn't family-friendly. No individual or topic has escaped the SP treatment over the years, and the show has withstood countless criticisms during its almost-30-year run. SP's reputation for its absurd shock humour is well-earned if at times misunderstood (there are plenty of moments that I find myself squirming at) but I am in awe of the creators' imagination and audacity.

I totally get why South Park is not for everyone - in fact, it was quite hard finding a somewhat-usable clip for this post (you might want to skip past this one, mum)! But in my opinion SP is a darkly clever, funny show - of this much I am positive. And not just positive...

youtube

Ted Lasso

2020-2023 (34 episodes)

Favourite character: Roy Kent

Favourite moment: Ted plays darts

A wondrously heartwarming series that even got Mr Robot over here a lil’ bit choked up by the end. Like most of the characters in the show, I was initially sceptical when I heard the premise – an American football coach (different sport) with an unfailingly positive outlook on life coming to England to coach one of our soccer football teams?! I wasn’t expecting it to be my cup of tea, being a product of the real world – I fully expected to get sick of Ted’s shtick at some point – but Coach Lasso soon won me and his team over.

youtube

#desert island TV shows #DITV #Match of the Day #MotD #The Office US #South Park #Ted Lasso #Youtube

1 note · View note

ivankahasbeentreatedsounfairly · 3 months ago

Text

Dawn had not yet broken on the election results last week when Democrats began their favored ritual of falling out of love. Reasons were enumerated why Kamala Harris, the candidate who weeks earlier had been a magnet for enthusiasm, was an obvious poor choice to run for President. She was too coastal, it was suggested, too centrist, too un-primaried, too woke, too female. What were they thinking? The remorse is familiar, regardless of the outcome. When Joe Biden ran for President in 2020, many Democrats lamented that the Party hadn’t produced a stronger option—but Biden went on to receive more votes than any candidate in American history. Hillary Clinton transformed, in the Party’s view, from a historic nominee to a terrible candidatealmost overnight. Barack Obama was widely acknowledged as a great candidate—even a once-in-a-generation one—who barely made it to a second term. John Kerry, a “legitimate, good candidate,” lost the popular vote; Al Gore, almost universally considered to be a terrible candidate, won it. One might conclude that the Democrats’ ability to hold the heart of the American public has amazingly little to do with the ideal dimensions of the candidate they put forth, and that their perennial trying and failing to find the perfect figure, followed by rites of self-flagellation, is a weird misappropriation of concern. The Republicans don’t lament the inadequacies of their candidates, clearly. The Republicans have thrice sent Donald Trump.

If the problem this year wasn’t the person, was it policy? Our distance from the close of the polls is still measurable in days, and yet voices have settled into hot debate about which issues Harris undersold, at the cost of the election. She leaned too much on reproductive freedom, we hear, or gave fatally little attention to concerns about immigration or the Palestinian cause or the Israeli cause. The campaign missed what spoke to men, perhaps particularly Black men, or Latino men—or was it women? Also, not enough about the kitchen-table economy.

To anyone who studied the Harris campaign up close, many of those accounts don’t track. The Vice-President talked about illegal immigration, and her work to curb it, all the time. Mobilizing Black men in swing states was among the campaign’s most deliberate projects. The Democrats were faulted for hazy policy long after they released a ninety-two-page party platform and an eighty-two-page economic chaser filled with figures, graphs, footnotes, and detailed plans. Harris spoke at length about taxes and the kitchen-table economy all across the country.

Why didn’t the speeches register? Why did people persist in thinking that Harris was short on policy; that Trump’s programs would boost the American economy, despite a widely broadcast consensus from sixteen Nobel Prize-winning economists to the contrary; or that he would lower taxes for working people, though the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy calculated that he would increase them? Even many of Trump’s critics think his first term marked a high point for border patrol, though more unauthorized migrants have been forced to leave under Biden. (Why was Biden’s Presidency widely dismissed as desultory, when, in fact, as my colleague Nicholas Lemann recently put it, “he has passed more new domestic programs than any Democratic President since Lyndon Johnson—maybe even since Franklin Roosevelt”?) How did so many perceptions disprovable with ten seconds of Googling become fixed in the voting public’s mind? And why, even as misapprehensions were corrected, did those beliefs prevail?

Democrats, during their hair-shirt rituals, gaze into their souls and find “bad messaging.” There is talk of a poor “ground game,” an élite failure to “connect.” But the Harris campaign set records or near-records for fund-raising, volunteer enrollment, and in some districts voter registration; it is hard to imagine what a better ground game or a closer connection might have looked like in three months. And the messaging, which hewed to the middle-class experiences of Harris and her running mate, Tim Walz, neither of whom is Ivy-educated or grew up rich, was hardly misguided in a race that ostensibly came down to the economic and exclusion anxieties of working people. Yet Democrats did make a crucial messaging error, one that probably (as the line goes) lost them the election. They misjudged today’s flow of knowledge—what one might call the ambience of information.

Harris’s approach this year was distinct from her failed effort to run a more identity-centered campaign in the Democratic primary of 2020. Instead, it leaned on strategies that had carried her toward her two most improbable electoral victories: her first race, for San Francisco district attorney, which she entered while polling at six per cent, against a powerful progressive incumbent and a well-known law-and-order centrist, and won by more than ten points; and her election as California’s attorney general, which at least one major California paper initially called for her opponent on Election Night, before Harris gained ground in the continuing count and, in a reputation-making vindication of her strategy, pulled ahead. Her magic in those elections had come largely through micro-targeting—a focussed, intensely local effort to engage voters on tailored terms and to mobilize small communities that traditional campaigning missed. In the early two-thousands, this was the cutting edge of ground strategy. Harris’s political peers regarded her as one of its first virtuosi.

On the trail with the Vice-President, reporting a profile for Vogue, I was struck by how reflexively her mind and methods ran to the local frame. When I noted, in an interview, that one of her policy signatures seemed to be investing in community-development financial institutions (C.D.F.I.s)—which offer capital access to struggling communities—Harris lit up and elaborated a neighborhood-centered theory of market-based improvement. She touted C.D.F.I.s’ contributions to “the economy of the community.” Laying out her middle-class economic-opportunity programs, she invariably talked about a woman who had run a nursery school on her block.

If Americans still arrive at a theory of the world through their communities, the boundaries of those communities have broadened and diffused. Harris’s micro-targeting home run in San Francisco came before the iPhone. Her second unlikely victory, in the race for California attorney general, roughly coincided with Facebook’s introduction of a proprietary sorting algorithm for its News Feed. In the ensuing years, there were major changes to the channels through which Americans—rich Americans, poor Americans, all Americans—received information. As early as 2000, the political scientist Robert Putnam, in his landmark study “Bowling Alone,” noted that technology, not least the Internet, had an individuating, isolating tendency that eroded the network of civic bonds—he called it social capital—that joins and holds people in groups.

It is wrong to suggest that people now relate only through digital screens. (People still show up at cookouts, dinner parties, track meets, and other crossings.) But information travels differently across the population: ideas that used to come from local newspapers or TV and drift around a community now come along an unpredictable path that runs from Wichita to Vancouver, perhaps via Paris or Tbilisi. (Then they reach the cookout.) Studies confirm that people spend less and less time with their neighbors. Instead, many of us scroll through social networks, stream information into our eyes and ears, and struggle to recall where we picked up this or that data point, or how we assembled the broad conceptions that we hold. The science historian Michael Shermer, in his book “The Believing Brain,” used the term “patternicity” to describe the way that people search for patterns, many of them erroneous, on the basis of small information samplings. The patterns we perceive now rise less from information gathered in our close communities and more from what crosses our awareness along national paths.

The Democrats didn’t look past national-scale audiences—Harris sat with both Fox News and Oprah. But she approached that landscape differently. The campaign, it was often noted, shied away from legacy-media interviews. It instead used a national platform to tune the affect, or vibes, of her rise: momentum, freedom, joy, the middle class, and “brat” chartreuse. When she spoke to wide audiences, her language was careful and catholic; one often had the sense that she was trying to say as little as possible beyond her talking points. The meat and specificity of her campaign—the access, the detail, and the identity coalitions—were instead concentrated on coalition-group Zooms, and on local and community audiences. Harris micro-targeted to the end.

Donald Trump did the inverse. He spoke off the cuff on national platforms all the time. He said things meant to resonate with specific affinity or identity subgroups, even if they struck the rest of listening America as offensive or absurd. (“In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs!”) As my colleague Antonia Hitchens reported, his campaign was boosted by a traditional get-out-the-vote ground effort late in the game—despite this apparently not being a priority for Trump—but the canvassing was less about delivering policy information than about tuning voters’ ears like satellites to the national signal. (Election fraud was a theme.) Trump’s speeches at rallies, many people noticed, had a curious background-music quality: they went on forever, aimlessly, and people would come and go at will. The actual speeches didn’t seem to matter; they existed simply to set a vibe and keep certain broad suggestions (immigration big problem! Biden Administration so corrupt!) drifting into the ether. Trump seemed to think that much of the voting public couldn’t be bothered with details—couldn’t be bothered to fact-check, or deal with fact checkers. (“Who the hell wants to hear questions?” he asked at a town hall in October before deciding to dance and sway to music for more than half an hour.) Detail, even when it’s available, doesn’t travel widely after all. Big, sloppy notions do.

Planting ideas this way isn’t argument, and it’s not emotional persuasion. It’s about seeding the ambience of information, throwing facts and fake facts alike into an environment of low attention, with the confidence that, like minnows released individually into a pond, they will eventually school and spawn. Notions must add up to a unified vision but also be able to travel on their own, because that’s how information moves in a viral age. And national media is key. Trump’s command of the ambience of information wouldn’t have been possible without his own platforms, such as Truth Social, as well as allies such as Fox News’ C.E.O., Suzanne Scott, who in 2020 excoriated her team after they fact-checked Trump, and Elon Musk, who, hoping for executive-branch power over his own sector, largely funded more than a hundred and seventy-five million dollars’ worth of pro-Trump outreach, was read into early voting data, and tweeted lies, conspiracy theories, and mistrust of media on his network, X, which boosts his posts. The communications researcher Pablo Boczkowski has noted that people increasingly take in news by incidental encounter—they are “rubbed by the news”—rather than by seeking it out. Trump has maximized his influence over networks that people rub against, and has filled them with information that, true or not, seems all of a coherent piece.

This is the opposite of micro-targeting. The goal is for voters to meet ideas coming and going so often that those notions seem like common sense. The pollster and political-marketing-language consultant Frank Luntz assembled a focus group of men who had previously voted for a Democratic nominee but were voting for Trump this year. Many of their rationales were based on untrue information settled deep in the ambience of information. “Nothing against people from California, but the policies in California are so bad I wouldn’t be surprised if the state goes bankrupt,” a participant in Indiana said. (California has the largest economy in the U.S.) “Kamala from California is too radical . . . she’s too far left.” (Biden’s policies tended to be to the left of Harris’s, when they didn’t align.) These are not convictions that someone acquires from a specific source, neighborhood, or community.

Of all the data visualizations that were churned out in the hours following the election, the one that struck me most was a map of the United States, showing whether individual areas had voted to the left or to the right of their positions in the Presidential race in 2020. It looks like a wind map. And it challenges the idea that Trump’s victory in this cycle was broadly issues- or community-based. The red wind extends across farmland and cities, young areas to old, rich areas to poor. It is not the map of communities having their local concerns addressed or not. It’s the map of an entire nation swept by the same ambient premises.

In a country where more than half of adults have literacy below a sixth-grade level, ambient information, however thin and wrong, is more powerful than actual facts. It has been the Democrats’ long-held premise that access to the truth will set the public free. They have corrected misinformation and sought to drop data to individual doors. This year’s contest shows that this premise is wrong. A majority of the American public doesn’t believe information that goes against what it thinks it knows—and a lot of what it thinks it knows originates in the brain of Donald Trump. He has polluted the well of received wisdom and what passes for common sense in America. And, until Democrats, too, figure out how to message ambiently, they’ll find themselves fighting not just a candidate but what the public holds to be self-evident truths. ♦

0 notes

yourreddancer · 6 months ago

Text

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

August 25, 2024 (Sunday)

Trump and the MAGA Republicans have not taken the Democrats’ momentum quietly. Trump has been frantically posting.

But it turned out that the section he visited was actually built under President Barack Obama. The nearby Trump portion was unfinished and cost at least $35 million per mile. As president, the reporters note, “Trump spent more than $11 billion to finish more than 450 miles of wall along the almost 2,000-mile southern border, one of the most expensive federal infrastructure projects in history.”

0 notes

misfitwashere · 6 months ago

Text

August 25, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

AUG 26

Trump and the MAGA Republicans have not taken the Democrats’ momentum quietly. Trump has been frantically posting.

#heather cox richardson #letters from an american

1 note · View note

whereareroo · 1 year ago

Text

EVERY VOTE COUNTS

WF THOUGHTS (2/29/24).

Most Americans aren’t political junkies. That’s a good thing. The small political junkie population makes more than enough noise. We don’t need a bigger group.

Most people don’t have enough free time to be a political junkie. Thankfully, you have me. I frequently have time to waste. You’re welcome.

There’s a big difference between Democratic political junkies and Republican political junkies. I’m not talking about policy differences. Depending on their party affiliation, the junkies behave differently.

Democratic political junkies overthink everything. They’re a diverse group, and they debate everything. They see problems everywhere. They air their differences in public. For Democratic political junkies, the sky is constantly falling. At the very last minute, they unify and do the right thing.

Republicans political junkies pick a political argument, or a candidate, and they stick with their decision. They reach a unified position quickly and they don’t deviate from that position. They don’t acknowledge other points of view. They don’t admit any weaknesses in their position. They maintain a strong front no matter what.

The news coverage of any presidential race is dominated by political junkies. The Democratic junkies always broadcast their worries about their policy problems and the potential weaknesses of their candidate. The Republican junkies always broadcast a smooth path to victory for their person. All of the political reporters are political junkies too. The media coverage becomes a bunch of political junkies babbling at each other. The average American voter pays no attention to the coverage. They’re too busy with their lives.

The normal political junkie dynamic is on full display in the current presidential campaign. The Democratic junkies are worried about Biden’s political and personal vulnerabilities. The Republican political junkies see a smooth path to victory for Trump. Please remember that the junkies are a very small percentage of the population and their views do not reflect the views of the average voter.

Based upon the spin from the Republican political junkies, there is a view out there that Trump has no vulnerabilities and that he’ll win in 2024. Obviously, that’s hogwash. Don’t take my word for it. Look at the facts. Trump lost in 2020. To win in 2024, Trump needs the vote of every single Republican who voted for him in 2016. Presidential races are extremely tight, and Trump can’t afford to lose a single Republican vote. So far we’ve had three primaries, and the results indicate that it will be very difficult for Trump to keep the votes that he got in 2016. In Trump’s best primary performance, 30% of the Republican voters didn’t vote for Trump. In the other two recent races, Trump lost 40% of the vote and 43% of the vote. Those are very bad numbers for Trump. A large percentage of Republicans aren’t voting for him. Of course, the Republican political junkies totally ignore this bad news.

The Republican political junkies also ignore other news that is terrible for Trump. In a recent national poll, 20% of historic Republican voters said they will not vote for Trump under any circumstances. If that happens, Trump can’t win. At exit polls after the recent South Carolina primary, where Trump only received only 60% of the vote even though it’s “Trump Country,” 33% of the voters said that they would be “dissatisfied” if Trump is the Republican candidate. That’s an indicator that many former Trump voters might stay home in 2024. If 10% of Trump’s previous supporters simply stay home, Trump will lose.

Biden, on the other hand, has recorded great numbers in the two primaries where his name was on the ballot. In one he received 96% of the Democratic vote and in the other he received 82% of the Democratic vote. He even received 64%, as a write-in candidate, in a state where he didn’t campaign and wasn’t listed on the ballot. Trump hasn’t achieved such big numbers anywhere. Despite Biden’s strong numbers, the Democratic political junkies continue to talk about his weaknesses.

Please avoid the talk from political junkies. It’s a distraction. It’s misleading. What should the average American believe right now? The news reports aren’t recognizing Biden’s strength. Also, the news reports are not recognizing Trump’s weaknesses.

Once again, the 2024 election will be decided by a razor-thin margin. Most voters won’t start paying attention until September or October. As I’ve told you before, the choice in this race is clear. This is not an election to focus on policy issues. One candidate wants to dismantle democracy in America. The other candidate wants to defend democracy in America. That’s the only issue. Don’t believe the news reports. Don’t believe the polls. Elections are won at the ballot box. We need to make sure that every eligible American votes, and that they vote to preserve democracy in America. Start planning your vote now, and help others to plan their vote too. I continue to have confidence in the American people.

0 notes

fiercynn · 1 year ago

Text

are you kidding? i write a post about how much people are currently suffering under biden and are trying to influence change, and your response is “well people are terrified of trump”? it sure must be nice to be so insulated from the impacts of what biden’s doing that they don’t have to be terrified now! i guess they don’t have to be terrified about their loved ones being killed by israel or u.s. air strikes, or being murdered by police, or being separated from their families and deported, or of being disabled or dying from covid? cool.

when i referred to biden’s base, i wasn’t talking about tumblr. i was talking about democrats. the poll you linked to was from last november, when democratic support for israel was highest in the immediate wake of al-aqsa flood. here’s a more recent poll from february showing that:

62% of democrats and 52% of independents say the military response from israel in gaza has gone too far

only 46% of democrats approve of biden’s handling of the genocide (my word, not the poll’s)

of those who disapprove of biden’s handling of the genocide, 63% think that he is too supportive israel and only 20% think he is not supportive enough

90% of democrats support a permanent ceasefire – 66% say it is extremely important and 24% say it is somewhat important

44% of democrats favor the establishment of an independent palestinian state that includes the west bank, gaza, and east jerusalem, but perhaps more significantly, only 10% of democrats oppose it, with the remaining 42% neither favoring nor opposing

want more data? here’s a poll from january showing that likely voters are substantially more likely to back candidates for congress if those candidates support a ceasefire, including 51% of voters overall, 61% of democrats, and 52% of independents. and a poll of michigan voters (a key swing state that biden won in 2020 after trump had taken it in 2016, where biden is trailing trump in the polls) published just this week which showed that 53% of all michigan voters are supportive of a ceasefire, including 74% of democrats and 64% of independents – and of those supportive of a ceasefire, only 57% supported biden’s reelection, which, though a majority, is not a great number given that this is primarily democrats.

when I talk about biden’s base being upset about his response to the genocide, i mean the arab-american voters he has alienated in these key states like michigan. i mean black voters who disapprove of the genocide and stand in solidarity with palestinians. i mean voters in the 70 cities, primarily in democratic and swing states, that have passed ceasefire resolutions. i mean young voters who supported him in 2020 over climate change, but who both see palestine as a climate justice issue and are angry about his approval of more oil and gas drilling projects than trump. i mean his own campaign staff.

“well it’s an election year and now there’s no other candidates” is a convenient thing to say when democrats never seriously considered any challengers over the last few years and put their full support behind biden, despite knowing that he was failing on so many of his campaign promises and continuing many key trump-era policies. in fact, it’s not just the last few years: I mentioned 2022 because i think that’s when i came back to tumblr (i cannot exactly remember, because I have long covid and it has impacted my memory), so that’s where I’ve seen the “hold your nose and vote” rhetoric being circulated here. but for years, even under the obama administration, the mainstream democratic response to any criticism of democrats has been to blame the republicans and say “just vote blue in the next election”. even in response to actions that democrats themselves have had control over!

you can’t sustain a political party on “you don’t like what we’re doing? just vote for more of us!” that should be obvious, but apparently it’s not to the democratic party.

voters, on the other hand, have been clear for years that they don’t want biden to run for reelection – including democrats. even just a quick google found that in july 2022, 75% of democrats and democratic-leaning voters wanted the party to nominate someone other than biden; in september 2022, 72% of americans did not want him to run again; in february 2023, only 22% of americans and 37% of democrats said biden should run again; and in september 2023, 67% of democrats and likely democrats wanted the party to nominate someone else. in fact, if you had clicked through to the poll cited in the cnn article that you linked, you would see that in november 2023, 58% of democrats still wanted other candidates to enter the race, as well as 72% of independents.

democrats have known that biden is not popular for long enough to do something about it. and biden has known that his actions – including! fueling! a genocide! – are not popular. yet they are still counting on opposition to trump to help them win, and the “hold your note and vote for biden” posts are reinforcing and legitimating that fucked up strategy.

i understand the terror of trump – i feel it too. but if you are lucky enough to not have to feel terror about what biden is doing right now, then it’s your responsibility to feel it privately, rather than using it to respond to any criticism of biden coming from people who are being harmed by an active genocide. for fuck’s sake.

okay, if you have ever made or reblogged a “hold your nose and vote for biden” post, this is for you.

here’s the fucking thing about these kinds of posts. i've been seeing them since i first returned to tumblr in, I think, late 2022? they've certainly increased in frequency since october 7, but they were there before too, ready to counter any kind of opposition to biden that has cropped up. many of them are not just trying to educate people about what positive things biden has done, which, like, at least I can understand the motivation behind those ones? but so many of them are directly in response to people criticizing biden, and their only real point is “sure you’re upset at this thing biden did, but have you considered the election?” starting YEARS before the next presidential election, mind you.

and october 7 only made that clearer. i don’t think it had been a week before i saw these posts cropping up. can you not see how fucking ghoulish that is? to look at the rightful pain and anger of those whose relatives and communities are being slaughtered with active american support, to respond to one of the few pieces of agency most americans have in influencing what their governments do – their vote – by saying “yes but trump would be worse.” as if the primary people you’re lecturing – palestinians, muslims, arabs, black people, indigenous people, disabled people, other marginalized people – don’t remember exactly how bad it was under trump!

and even if you think not voting is an empty gesture – something i, who studied political science at a mainstream american lib college, who has worked as a field organizer on a previous democratic presidential campaign and for several policy campaigns, who currently works in public policy in america, used to believe, but have absolutely changed my mind on – what is in no way an empty gesture is saying publicly that you will not vote for someone. the arguments people usually have about why simply not voting is bad are that you can’t tell why someone is not voting, so it is as likely to be apathy or disenfranchisement as it is a political statement. but saying publicly that you will not vote for someone, and why you will not vote for them, absolutely is a political statement, and potentially a powerful one! but you choose to negate and/or ignore that by trotting out the “lesser of two evils” bullshit.

and then there’s the whole “yes but people will DIE under trump”. PEOPLE ARE DYING NOW. even if you’re fucking racist and have decided that palestinian lives don’t count, have you forgotten biden’s ongoing covid minimalism and dismantling of the CDC’s covid research and prevention infrastructure? have you forgotten his increase in spending for law enforcement scant years after the murder of george floyd? have you forgotten his recent ramp-up in deportations of undocumented immigrants, including the active continuation of many trump-era policies?

maybe you have forgotten all those things and do purport to care about palestinians, but you just think that biden is doing his best to influence netanyahu and is getting nowhere! but then you must have forgotten all of the things that biden and his administration themselves have done to further this fucking genocide, including:

continuing to send arms to israel

putting together a military task force within days of yemen’s red sea blockade and attacking yemeni ships

bombing yemen

bombing syria

bombing iraq

vetoing three ceasefire resolutions at the united nations

testifying to defend israel and its genocide and occupation at the international court of justice

refusing to rescue palestinian-americans stuck in gaza

halting funding to the united nations relief and works agency for palestinian refugees (UNRWA) based on israeli claims that 12 of UNRWA’s over 30,000 staff were hamas agents, even though u.s. intelligence has not been able to independently verify this

lying that he’s personally seen photos of babies beheaded by hamas when he hadn’t because they didn’t exist (and even when his own staff cautioned him that reports of beheaded babies may not be credible)

questioning the number of palestinian deaths reported by the gaza ministry of health (when even israel has not questioned them, since they are in fact proud of those numbers)

perpetuating lies about hamas having committed the attack on al-aqsa hospital

questioning united nations reports of adults and children raped by israeli soldiers while claiming to have proof (that no one else has seen) of hamas doing the same

honestly so many more things that i can’t remember them all but others feel free to add

or maybe you haven’t forgotten any of that, and think that you’re still justified in lecturing people about why they should vote for biden, because you genuinely believe trump would still be worse. if that is the case, you have still failed to see that by saying you will vote for biden no matter what, you are part of the problem of biden continuing to act like this. because biden is counting on fear of trump to win him this next election no matter what else he does. despite his appalling polling numbers, despite the knowledge that he is losing the palestinian-american vote, the arab-american vote, the muslim-american vote, the black american vote, the youth vote – despite all of that, he is secure in the idea that he will still win because he is better than trump. can you not see how that allows him to act without impunity? how it becomes increasingly impossible for his base to influence what he’s doing if he thinks that they will be with him no matter what? this is how you make yourself cabsomplicit to biden’s actions, by not affording anyone even the slightest power to hold him accountable for anything.

and in most cases, the “hold your nose and vote for biden” thing is the response of people who aren’t even being instructed by others not to vote for biden. it is their response to people saying they themselves are choosing not to vote for biden. fucking ghoulish.

#fuck biden #free palestine #u.s. imperialism #u.s. politics #genocide

4K notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 6 months ago

Text

Steve Brodner

* * * *

DEMOCRACY KNOWS NO PARTY

TCinLA

Aug 23, 2024

“Democracy knows no party … it separates us from tyranny.” - Adam Kinzinger

“We have so much more in common than our differences." - Kamala Harris

Truly, my friends, wee are living in a time none of us have ever seen before; we are in the midst of a revolution unlike any ever seen in the history of democracy anywhere.

Thirty-one days ago, I was doing my best to turn in an Oscar-worth performance of Act As If. Seeing what was happening over the previous month, I was having a hard time believing we would defeat Trump. I even asked my British editor if my British publisher would help their leading author to relocate out of this country.

I argued against making a change in candidate because I had lived through the last time a president withdrew from a re-election campaign, and I had seen the Democratic Party tear itself apart, leaving victory to the candidate whose time in office set us on the largely-downward course we have been on for the past 56 years. I didn’t see how we could avoid that.

And then the presidential withdrawal came. I sat here thinking “What do we do now?”

And 30 minutes later Joe Biden announced his support for Kamala Harris to succeed him as the nominee.

And the world changed.

I’d supported Kamala in 2020, and I hoped that 2024 would be her time, as that year hadn’t, but I didn’t have anything but hope at that point.

In 48 hours, Kamala had gained the near-universal support of party leaders. Amazing!

Do you realize it’s only been less than three weeks since you didn’t know who Tim Walz was?

The Harris-Walz campaign has raised $500 million in less than 30 days, Reuters reported last Tuesday. The campaign previously said it took in $310 million in July, including $200 million in the first week after she entered the race following President Joe Biden’s July 21 withdrawal. And the campaign thinks they can make it $600 million before the end of August.

House Democrats are also raking in money, bringing their cash on hand to nearly $92 million after they took in close to $17.6 million in July.

Meanwhile, Trump raised $47.5 million in July, while spending $24.3 million and bringing his cash-on-hand total to $151.3 million, while Harris reported close to $220 million on hand.

All of this was inconceivable 32 days ago.

On Tuesday night, I wasn’t going to watch the state roll call, one of the great Cheesy Events of American politics, but while I was fast-forwarding through it, the DVR stopped and it came on. I watched for a minute and then hit rewind and watched the whole thing. Was it cheesy? Yes, but this time it was also educational.

The thing that occurred to me while watching was how much the Democratic Party has changed in the 21st century. By estimate, 50% of the delegates at the 2024 convention are black or Hispanic. The comparison is particularly stark when looking at the Republican convention, where white people overwhelmingly dominated.

It’s a look I like.

Tuesday night, Barack Obama said, “As much as any policy or program, I believe that’s what we yearn for – a return to an America where we work together and look out for each other. A restoration of what Lincoln called, on the eve of civil war, “our bonds of affection.” An America that taps what he called “the better angels of our nature.” That’s what this election is about. And I believe that’s why, if we each do our part over the next 77 days – if we knock on doors and make phone calls and talk to our friends and listen to our neighbors – if we work like we’ve never worked before – we will elect Kamala Harris as the next President of the United States, and Tim Walz as the next Vice President of the United States. We’ll elect leaders up and down the ballot who will fight for the hopeful, forward-looking America we believe in. And together, we too will build a country that is more secure and more just, more equal and more free.”

Watching these past four days, seeing the Democratic Party I’ve always hoped to see appear before my eyes, I really believe it’s true.

Yes, we can.

Someone posted this in a Substack discussion page a few days ago:

AMERICAN GREATNESS

American greatness isn’t something you can buy.

Something you can demand.

Or that one man can give you.

American greatness is earned.

It doesn’t look a certain way.

Or worship in a certain church.

Greatness is in all of us.

In every American heart.

It’s always been here.

Through the work and pain and struggle.

To earn the gift so many died for.

American greatness is the gift we all share.

Greatness is in all of us.

You don’t need someone to make you great.

You’re an American.

Greatness was in you all along.

“We are the heirs to the greatest democracy, in the history of the world. And on behalf of our children and grandchildren and all those who sacrificed so dearly for our freedom and liberty, we must be worthy of this moment. It is now our turn to do what generations before us have done.

“Guided by optimism and faith, to fight for this country we love, to fight for the ideals we cherish and to uphold the awesome responsibility that comes with the greatest privilege on Earth.

“The privilege and pride of being an American.”

[TCinLA]

#TCinLA #democracy #Democracy Knows no Party #political #Democratic Convention #election 2024

5 notes · View notes

qqueenofhades · 5 years ago

Note

Re: the post you reblogged about Bush. I'm 21 and tbh feel like I can only vote for Bernie, can you explain if/why I shouldn't? Thanks and sorry if this is dumb or anything.

Oh boy. Okay, I’ll do my best here. Note that a) this will get long, and b) I’m old, Tired, and I‘m pretty sure my brain tried to kill me last night. Since by nature I am sure I will say something Controversial ™, if anyone reads this and feels a deep urge to inform me that I am Wrong, just… mark it down as me being Wrong and move on with your life. But also, really, you should read this and hopefully think about it. Because while I’m glad you asked this question, it feels like there’s a lot in your cohort who won’t, and that worries me. A lot.

First, not to sound utterly old-woman-in-a-rocking-chair ancient, people who came of age/are only old enough to have Obama be the first president that they really remember have no idea how good they had it. The world was falling the fuck apart in 2008 (not coincidentally, after 8 years of Bush). We came within a flicker of the permanent collapse of the global economy. The War on Terror was in full roar, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were at their height, we had Dick Cheney as the cartoon supervillain before we had any of Trump’s cohort, and this was before Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden had exposed the extent of NSA/CIA intelligence-gathering/American excesses or there was any kind of public debate around the fact that we were all surveilled all the time. And the fact that a brown guy named Barack Hussein Obama was elected in this climate seems, and still seems tbh, kind of amazing. And Obama was certainly not a Perfect President ™. He had to scale back a lot of planned initiatives, he is notorious for expanding the drone strike/extrajudicial assassination program, he still subscribed to the overall principles of neoliberalism and American exceptionalism, etc etc. There is valid criticism to be made as to how the hopey-changey optimistic rhetoric stacked up against the hard realities of political office. And yet…. at this point, given what we’re seeing from the White House on a daily basis, the depth of the parallel universe/double standards is absurd.

Because here’s the thing. Obama, his entire family, and his entire administration had to be personally/ethically flawless the whole time (and they managed that – not one scandal or arrest in eight years, against the legions of Trumpistas now being convicted) because of the absolute frothing depths of Republican hatred, racial conspiracy theories, and obstruction against him. (Remember Merrick Garland and how Mitch McConnell got away with that, and now we have Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court? Because I remember that). If Obama had pulled one-tenth of the shit, one-twentieth of the shit that the Trump administration does every day, he would be gone. It also meant that people who only remember Obama think he was typical for an American president, and he wasn’t. Since about… Jimmy Carter, and definitely since Ronald Reagan, the American people have gone for the Trump model a lot more than the Obama model. Whatever your opinion on his politics or character, Obama was a constitutional law professor, a community activist, a neighborhood organizer and brilliant Ivy League intellectual who used to randomly lie awake at night thinking about income inequality. Americans don’t value intellectualism in their politicians; they just don’t. They don’t like thinking that “the elites” are smarter than them. They like the folksy populist who seems fun to have a beer with, and Reagan/Bush Senior/Clinton/Bush Junior sold this persona as hard as they possibly could. As noted in said post, Bush Junior (or Shrub as the late, great Molly Ivins memorably dubbed him) was Trump Lite but from a long-established political family who could operate like an outwardly civilized human.

The point is: when you think Obama was relatively normal (which, again, he wasn’t, for any number of reasons) and not the outlier in a much larger pattern of catastrophic damage that has been accelerated since, again, the 1980s (oh Ronnie Raygun, how you lastingly fucked us!), you miss the overall context in which this, and which Trump, happened. Like most left-wingers, I don’t agree with Obama’s recent and baffling decision to insert himself into the 2020 race and warn the Democratic candidates against being too progressive or whatever he was on about. I think he was giving into the same fear that appears to be motivating the remaining chunk of Joe Biden’s support: that middle/working-class white America won’t go for anything too wild or that might sniff of Socialism, and that Uncle Joe, recalled fondly as said folksy populist and the internet’s favorite meme grandfather from his time as VP, could pick up the votes that went to Trump last time. And that by nature, no one else can.

The underlying belief is that these white voters just can’t support anything too “un-American,” and that by pushing too hard left, Democratic candidates risk handing Trump a second term. Again: I don’t agree and I think he was mistaken in saying it. But I also can’t say that Obama of all people doesn’t know exactly the strength of the political machine operating against the Democratic Party and the progressive agenda as a whole, because he ran headfirst into it for eight years. The fact that he managed to pass any of his legislative agenda, usually before the Tea Party became a thing in 2010, is because Democrats controlled the House and Senate for the first two years of his first term. He was not perfect, but it was clear that he really did care (just look up the pictures of him with kids). He installed smart, efficient, and scandal-free people to do jobs they were qualified for. He gave us Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor to join RBG on the Supreme Court. All of this seems… like a dream.

That said: here we are in a place where Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren are the front-runners for the Democratic nomination (and apparently Pete Buttigieg is getting some airplay as a dark horse candidate, which… whatever). The appeal of Biden is discussed above, and he sure as hell is not my favored candidate (frankly, I wish he’d just quit). But Sanders and Warren are 85% - 95% similar in their policy platforms. The fact that Michael “50 Billion Dollar Fortune” Bloomberg started rattling his chains about running for president is because either a Sanders or Warren presidency terrifies the outrageously exploitative billionaire capitalist oligarchy that runs this country and has been allowed to proceed essentially however the fuck they like since… you guessed it, the 1980s, the era of voodoo economics, deregulation, and the free market above all. Warren just happens to be ten years younger than Sanders and female, and Sanders’ age is not insignificant. He’s 80 years old and just had a heart attack, and there’s still a year to go to the election. It’s also more than a little eye-rolling to describe him as the only progressive candidate in the race, when he’s an old white man (however much we like and approve of his policy positions). And here’s the thing, which I think is a big part of the reason why this polarized ideological purity internet leftist culture mistrusts Warren:

She may have changed her mind on things in the past.

Scary, right? I sound like I’m being facetious, but I’m not. An argument I had to read with my own two eyes on this godforsaken hellsite was that since Warren became a Democrat around the time Clinton signed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, she sekritly hated gay people and might still be a corporate sellout, so on and etcetera. (And don’t even get me STARTED on the fact that DADT, coming a few years after the height of the AIDS crisis which was considered God’s Judgment of the Icky Gays, was the best Clinton could realistically hope to achieve, but this smacks of White Gay Syndrome anyway and that is a whole other kettle of fish.) Bernie has always demonstrably been a democratic socialist, and: good for him. I’m serious. But because there’s the chance that Warren might not have thought exactly as she does now at any point in her life, the hysterical and paranoid left-wing elements don’t trust that she might not still secretly do so. (Zomgz!) It’s the same element that’s feeding cancel culture and “wokeness.” Nobody can be allowed to have shifted or grown in their opinions or, like a functional, thoughtful, non-insane adult, changed their beliefs when presented with compelling evidence to the contrary. To the ideological hordes, any hint of uncertainty or past failure to completely toe the line is tantamount to heresy. Any evidence of any other belief except The Correct One means that this person is functionally as bad as Trump. And frankly, it’s only the Sanders supporters who, just as in 2016, are threatening to withhold their vote in the general election if their preferred candidate doesn’t win the primary, and indeed seem weirdly proud about it.

OK, boomer Bernie or Buster.

Here’s the thing, the thing, the thing: there is never going to be an American president free of the deeply toxic elements of American ideology. There just won’t be. This country has been built how it has for 250 years, and it’s not gonna change. You are never going to have, at least not in the current system, some dream candidate who gets up there and parrots the left-wing talking points and attacks American imperialism, exceptionalism, ravaging global capitalism, military and oil addiction, etc. They want to be elected as leader of a country that has deeply internalized and taken these things to heart for its entire existence, and most of them believe it to some degree themselves. So this groupthink white liberal mentality where the only acceptable candidate is this Perfect Non-Problematic robot who has only ever had one belief their entire lives and has never ever wavered in their devotion to doctrine has really gotten bad. The Democratic Party would be considered… maybe center/mild left in most other developed countries. It’s not even really left-wing by general standards, and Sanders and Warren are the only two candidates for the nomination who are even willing to go there and explicitly put out policy proposals that challenge the systematic structure of power, oppression, and exploitation of the late-stage capitalist 21st century. Warren has the billionaires fussed, and instead of backing down, she’s doubling down. That’s part of why they’re so scared of her. (And also misogyny, because the world is depressing like that.) She is going head-on after picking a fight with some of the worst people on the planet, who are actively killing the rest of us, and I don’t know about you, but I like that.

Of course: none of this will mean squat if she (or the eventual Democratic winner, who I will vote for regardless of who it is, but as you can probably tell, she’s my ride or die) don’t a) win the White House and then do as they promised on the campaign trail, and b) don’t have a Democratic House and Senate willing to have a backbone and pass the laws. Even Nancy Pelosi, much as she’s otherwise a badass, held off on opening a formal impeachment inquiry into Trump for months out of fear it would benefit him, until the Ukraine thing fell into everyone’s laps. The Democrats are really horrible at sticking together and voting the party line the way Republicans do consistently, because Democrats are big-tent people who like to think of themselves as accepting and tolerant of other views and unwilling to force their members’ hands. The Republicans have no such qualms (and indeed, judging by their enabling of Trump, have no qualms at all).

The modern American Republican party has become a vehicle for no-holds-barred power for rich white men at the expense of absolutely everything and everyone else, and if your rationale is that you can’t vote for the person opposing Donald Goddamn Trump is that you’re just not vibing with them on the language of that one policy proposal… well, I’m glad that you, White Middle Class Liberal, feel relatively safe that the consequences of that decision won’t affect you personally. Even if we’re due to be out of the Paris Climate Accords one day after the 2020 election, and the issue of climate change now has the most visibility it’s ever had after years of big-business, Republican-led efforts to deny and discredit the science, hey, Secret Corporate Shill, am I right? Can’t trust ‘er. Let’s go have a craft beer.

As has been said before: vote as far left as you want in the primary. Vote your ideology, vote whatever candidate you want, because the only way to make actual, real-world change is to do that. The huge, embedded, all-consuming and horrible system in which we operate is not just going to suddenly be run by fairy dust and happy thoughts overnight. Select candidates that reflect your values exactly, be as picky and ideologically militant as you want. That’s the time to do that! Then when it comes to the general election:

America is a two-party system. It sucks, but that’s the case. Third-party votes, or refraining from voting because “it doesn’t matter” are functionally useless at best and actively harmful at worst.

Either the Democratic candidate or Donald Trump will win the 2020 election.

There is absolutely no length that the Republican/GOP machine, and its malevolent allies elsewhere, will not go to in order to secure a Trump victory. None.

Any talk whatsoever about “progressive values” or any kind of liberal activism, coupled with a course of action that increases the possibility of a Trump victory, is hypocritical at best and actively malicious at worst.

This is why I found the Democratic response to Obama’s “don’t go too wild” comments interesting. Bernie doubled down on the fact that his plans have widespread public support, and he’s right. (Frankly, the fact that Sanders and Warren are polling at the top, and the fact that they’re politicians and would not be crafting these campaign messages if they didn’t know that they were being positively received, says plenty on its own). Warren cleverly highlighted and praised Obama’s accomplishments in office (i.e. the Affordable Care Act) and didn’t say squat about whether she agreed or disagreed with him, then went right back to campaigning about why billionaires suck. And some guy named Julian Castro basically blew Obama off and claimed that “any Democrat” could beat Trump in 2020, just by nature of existing and being non-insane.

This is very dangerous! Do not be Julian Castro!

As I said in my tags on the Bush post: everyone assumed that sensible people would vote for Kerry in 2004. Guess what happened? Yeah, he got Swift Boated. The race between Obama and McCain in 2008, even after those said nightmare years of Bush, was very close until the global crash broke it open in Obama��s favor, and Sarah Palin was an actual disqualifier for a politician being brazenly incompetent and unprepared. (Then again, she was a woman from a remote backwater state, not a billionaire businessman.) In 2012, we thought Corporate MormonBot Mitt Fuggin’ Romney was somehow the worst and most dangerous candidate the Republicans could offer. In 2016, up until Election Day itself, everyone assumed that HRC was a badly flawed candidate but would win anyway. And… we saw how that worked out. Complacency is literally deadly.

I was born when Reagan was still president. I’m just old enough to remember the efforts to impeach Clinton over forcing an intern to give him a BJ in the Oval Office (This led by the same Republicans making Donald Trump into a darling of the evangelical Christian right wing.) I’m definitely old enough to remember 9/11 and how America lost its mind after that, and I remember the Bush years. And, obviously, the contrast with Obama, the swing back toward Trump, and everything that has happened since. We can’t afford to do this again. We’re hanging by a thread as it is, and not just America, but the entire planet.

So yes. By all means, vote for Sanders in the primary. Then when November 3, 2020 rolls around, if you care about literally any of this at all, hold your nose if necessary and vote straight-ticket Democrat, from the president, to the House and Senate, to the state and local offices. I cannot put it more strongly than that.

#politics for ts #long post #anonymous #ask

20K notes · View notes

kenkamishiro · 4 years ago

Text

20210218 Jack Jeanne Creator Interview with Famitsu - Interview #1 with Ishida Sui

The Jack Jeanne staff (Ishida Sui, Towada Shin, Kosemura Akira, Seishiro) were interviewed by Famitsu, a Japanese gaming magazine for Jack Jeanne’s release. Someone was kind enough to let me read it, so I’ll be translating the 4 interviews. The interview with Ishida I’ll do a full TL, and the other three I may do more of a summary since I’ve been busy lately.

Ishida Sui

Creator / Character Designer / Script Supervisor

Mangaka. From Fukuoka Prefecture. Creator of “Tokyo Ghoul” and “Tokyo Ghoul:re.” 2021 marks his 10th anniversary in the art industry.

Characters that were created based on the idea of “personifying plays”

Please share with us how you honestly felt when you received the commission request for this work.

That it seemed kind of questionable but interesting nonetheless. “If others can do it, I can too,” I thought.

How did fans react after Jack Jeanne was announced?

I still get letters from the readers of Tokyo Ghoul to this day, but some of them would bring up Jack Jeanne, or mention that they like a character and are interested in them even before the game’s release, so it makes me happy seeing that reception.

Please share with us your thoughts about being in charge of the character design.

It was a good learning experience because it was something I’d never done while working on my manga, trying to finalize the 6-member cast of the protagonist and the main characters, and then completely focusing on them as an elite squad. I tend to make too many characters, so...

When coming up with a character, how do you develop their image?

Previously, I decided it based on the character’s name and face. But with Jack Jeanne, it was a trial-and-error process. At first, I envisioned each character as a personification of a play - for example, Fumi was modelled off of “Salome”, Yonaga off of “Shintokumaru”, Shirota from one of Yamamoto Shūgorō’s works... I dropped the idea after that...and that’s how they were developed. They were created in a peculiar way this time.

Which character did you have the easiest time drawing, and on the flipside, which character did you find yourself struggling to draw?

Kai was the very first character I created, followed by Fumi. Those two I was able to draw relatively quickly. I wouldn’t really call this a struggle, but Suzu, the one with the red hair, wasn’t part of the main cast of six at first. Ootori, the blond character with the prickly personality, was actually part of the main cast at first, but since I wanted a simple-minded character, Suzu ended up being promoted.

I’m sure you consider every character your favourite, but if you had to pick only one character, who would it be?

Probably the main character Kisa. She embodies everything I think of in a shoujo manga protagonist, and I’m very fond of her. But I really do love all the characters. They each have their own appeal, so I can’t settle on just one.

Was there anything you had to constantly keep in mind when designing the characters for Jack Jeanne?

Broccoli specially requested that I give every character a strong colour palette. It’s because if I’m left to my vices, I end up using only subdued tones...I also constantly kept in my mind that I was making them look good-looking as boys.

You were also responsible for the event illustrations in the game. Could you give more details about them, and any difficulties that you faced?

For the event illustrations, I had to be aware of what scene would best match the script. Towada-san also specified where the illustrations should be inserted, but if there was a better scene before or after it, I gave priority to it instead. The hardest part...was drawing them all by myself. There ended up being more than 160 illustrations.

I heard it was you who requested Touyama Maki to design the chibi characters. Please share with us the appeal of the chibi characters drawn by Touyama-san, as well as your thoughts when you saw the chibi characters in the game.

Touyama-san’s appeal...is that their art is great! The deformed characters are perfectly balanced and outstandingly stable. I’m also a fan of their art and I like their life-proportion-size characters. It’s really cute seeing them move their tiny limbs around on the game screen.

Despite his humble abilities as an amateur lyricist, he oversaw every song with a burning passion that was second to none.

You supervised the game and the script, but what was the most memorable part of working on this game for you?

For starters, I vividly recall talking with Towada-san all the time. It was common for us to spend 10 hours a day talking to one another, several times a week.

How did production handled between the two of you for the script proceed?

I come up with the general outline. I’d talk about the overall flow and the key developments during the meetings, and Towada-san would take that and organize it, adding descriptions and colour to the details. It would have been impossible to create Jack Jeanne without her.

You wrote the lyrics to all the songs, including the opening song “Jack & Jeanne Of Quartz.” Please share with us how you came to be in charge of the lyrics.

Originally, there were several candidates, and there was even one person that I thought, “This person might be the one.” But I realized that it would take an enormous amount of time to share the understanding of my work to them, so I decided to give it a try, thinking that even an amateur would be the best for the job as long as they were passionate.

How did you come up with the lyrics?

I’m embarrassed to say this since I’m a complete amateur, but I tried my best to associate it with the feelings and information related to the subject, and whether it sounded good when sung...at any rate, I did my absolute best.

Are there any verses in the lyrics that you’d like people to pay special attention to, or any phrases that you really liked?

Avu-chan from Ziyoou-vachi (a 4-member rock band) is a friend of mine, but when I met up with her, I had her look at the lyrics, and the part she liked I also ended up liking. It’s the phrase “charcoal night grey” in the opening song. I also like the last two lines of the ending song because they represent the entirety of the game.

What was the most memorable interaction you had with the composer Kosemura-san?

He was professional in that every time, he exceed my expectations in what I wanted conveyed. We also spent about a week together (?) during the recording boot camp for the demo songs, and the time I spent sitting next to him and listening to the same songs was surreal. I couldn’t believe the person sitting next to me wrote the songs that I listened to as a student.

I want readers to like Kisa. A cover illustration filled with strong emotions.

On October 9, 2020 on Twitter, you tweeted, “Makin’ games is hard.” What was it you found difficult?

I was given a lot of decision-making authority as a producer, but since I’m a company outsider, I had a hard time making decisions without seeing the actual situation or making choices in areas where I had no insight. It was a tweet vexed from my inability to understand due to lack of experience. I wish I had more power...

What do you want people to pay attention to when they play the demo version?

I’d like people to pay attention to the fact that the art and script were created by very few people (almost two people), much like an indie game. Something like, “Ishida really drew all these characters!” or “Towada-san really wrote all the script!”...there is more to come in the full version.

You drew the cover illustration for this issue of the magazine, but I’d like to hear more details regarding this.

I drew it while reflecting on how lucky I was, like, “I’m really drawing for the magazine I’ve read since I was a kid...!?” I drew both male and female forms for Kisa, in the hopes that people would come to love the main character.

Please leave a message to your fans and readers who are eagerly awaiting the release of this game.

I made it so that players of all ages and genders can enjoy the game. There is a lot more in store besides just the illustrations. I hope you will play it!

#Jack Jeanne #Ishida Sui #translations #the others i will get to next week

78 notes · View notes

antoine-roquentin · 4 years ago

Link

It is a measure of Krugman’s increasing despair that by 2013 his jaundiced view of American class society converged with his worries about the intellectual framing of economics. As Republican and Democratic centrists struggled to fashion a bipartisan majority around a programme to slash the deficit, it dawned on Krugman that the entirety of what he had once confidently described as ‘responsible’ economic policy was shot through with class interest. Talk of fiscal sustainability wasn’t just bad economics; it was, Krugman now believed, class war by stealth. In End This Depression Now (2012), Krugman broke one of the taboos that separate mainstream New Keynesians from their left-wing heterodox counterparts. He invoked the Polish economist Michał Kalecki, whose work is commonly cited as having bridged Keynesianism and Marxism. In 1943, in wartime exile in Oxford, Kalecki had explained why delivering stabilisation policy in a sustained way, as Keynes envisioned, might not be possible in a class-divided society. At the depths of the crisis, Keynesians would be summoned by the powers that be to do the minimum that was necessary, but as soon as the worst had passed, well before the economy reached full employment, the same policies would be anathematised as undermining ‘confidence’. The balance of what was ‘sensible’ would be set by the interests of the wealthiest and most secure. Their principal concern wasn’t full employment, but profit, which dictated stimulus in a slump and restraint whenever profits were squeezed by increased wages in a tightening labour market. Five years before Samuelson, in his classic textbook of 1948, laid out his vision of the complementarity of macroeconomic management and market-based microeconomics, Kalecki had already shown why it would end in failure.

As Krugman remarked, when he first read Kalecki’s essay he ‘thought it was over the top. Kalecki was, after all, a declared Marxist ... But, if you haven’t been radicalised by recent events, you haven’t been paying attention; and policy discourse since 2008 has run exactly along the lines Kalecki predicted.’ After a short burst of emergency Keynesianism, by 2010 deficits not unemployment were the problem. And any effort to push for better conditions was immediately countered with the insistence that it would induce ‘economic policy uncertainty’ and hold the economy back. It wasn’t unemployed Americans, Krugman raged, but imaginary ‘confidence fairies’ that were dictating policy.

Krugman reassured himself by adding that Kalecki was far more of a Keynesian than he was a Marxist, but quibbles aside, Krugman’s own transformation could hardly be denied. The members of the American left he had savaged in the 1990s were now his friends. He was talking about power in the starkest terms. But the question was unavoidable: once you lost your faith in the state as a tool of reformist intervention, once you truly reckoned with the omnipresence of class power, what choices remained but fatalism or a demand for a revolutionary politics? Between those alternatives, respectively unappetising and unrealistic, there was perhaps a third option. America had, after all, been here before. FDR’s New Deal too had been hemmed in. It had delivered far less than promised, until the floodgates were finally opened by the Second World War. The Great Depression, Krugman wrote, ‘ended largely thanks to a guy named Adolf Hitler. He created a human catastrophe, which also led to a lot of government spending.’ ‘Economics,’ he wrote in another essay, ‘is not a morality play. It’s not a happy story in which virtue is rewarded and vice punished.’

‘If it were announced that we faced a threat from space aliens and needed to build up to defend ourselves,’ Krugman said in 2012, ‘we’d have full employment in a year and a half.’ If 21st-century America needed an enemy, China was one candidate. On foreign policy, Krugman is perhaps best described as a left patriot. Where he had once downplayed the impact of Chinese imports on the US economy, he now declared that China’s currency policy was America’s enemy: by manipulating its exchange rate Beijing was dumping exports on America. But to Krugman’s frustration Obama never turned the pivot towards Asia into a concerted economic strategy.

You might argue that in Covid we have found an enemy of precisely the kind Krugman was imagining. As far as Europe is concerned, an alien space invasion isn’t an implausible model for Covid. This novel threat broke down inhibitions in Berlin, and the Eurozone’s response was far more ambitious than it was after 2008. But America isn’t the Eurozone. For all Krugman’s gloom, it didn’t take a new world war to flip the economic policy switch. All it took was an election. Almost immediately after Trump’s victory in November 2016, the fiscal taps were opened. As under Reagan in the 1980s and Bush in the 2000s, all fear of deficits disappeared.

Compelling as Krugman may have found the Kaleckian vision, it does not describe the United States in the 21st century. The balance of class forces Kalecki had assumed in the 1940s no longer exists. In America in 2017 big business did not object to running the economy hot. There was no real threat of wage pressure: a flutter of strikes perhaps, but nothing serious. No chance of inflationary expectations becoming embedded in adjustments to the cost of living. No wage-price spiral. Everything to gain from tax cuts for corporations and the rich. The Kaleckian scenario, from today’s point of view, presumed too much countervailing force from the left and by the same token too many constraints on active economic policy.

Trump opened a new era of voluntarism in economic policy. You really could do what you liked. Neither external threats in the form of bond market vigilantes, nor domestic counterpressure in the form of contending social classes, were any longer effective constraints. American conservatives had never been as keen on the slogan There Is No Alternative as Margaret Thatcher or Angela Merkel. Under Trump there was simply no limit to the GOP’s opportunism. Typically, the centre and left did more intellectual work to come to terms with the new situation. The IMF’s former chief economist, Olivier Blanchard, had painstakingly demonstrated the sustainability of much higher levels of debt in a world of low interest rates. Meanwhile, Modern Monetary Theory had its moment in the sun. Blending state theories of money, radical Keynesianism of 1940s vintage and inside knowledge of the plumbing of the modern financial markets, MMT argued that debt wasn’t a problem at all. The only limit on an expansionary economic policy should be the inflation rate; otherwise the overriding priority should be full employment.

It’s telling that despite the apparent political affinity between Krugman and the proponents of MMT, its heresies revived his impulse to play policeman. After long and fruitless exchanges, Krugman declared that MMT was either silly or merely old-fashioned Keynesianism warmed over. In 2020 these doctrinal debates were overtaken by the reality of the Covid shock. In March 2020, as more than twenty million Americans lost their jobs in a matter of weeks, Congress united around a gigantic fiscal stimulus. At the Fed, the centrist Republican Jerome Powell embarked on a programme of intervention that dwarfed anything contemplated by Bernanke. And with a Democratic majority in Congress the impetus has carried through to 2021. The mantra on everyone’s lips is a blunt statement of Krugman’s position. Do not repeat the mistakes of the early Obama administration. Go large. If the Republicans have now decided to be fiscal conservatives, ignore them. There has been no opposition from big business. What the Chamber of Commerce did not like was the $15 minimum wage. Once that was dropped, it did not oppose the $1.9 trillion plan; it seems that business fears legislative intervention more than it does Kalecki-style pressure in the labour market.

The Krugmanification of the Democrats wasn’t won without a fight. There are fiscal hawks in Biden’s entourage. At one point he even counted Larry Summers as an adviser. That didn’t last: the empowered left wing of the Dems wouldn’t stand for it. But although he is no longer in the inner circle, Summers hasn’t surrendered. Opposing untargeted stimulus checks, calling for more focus on investment, he recently declared the Biden administration’s fiscal policy the most irresponsible in forty years – the result, he remarked bitterly, of the leverage handed to the left of the Democratic Party by the absolute refusal of the GOP to co-operate.

The first instinct of the wonks inside the Biden administration is to counter Summers’s arguments on his own terms. Their models show, they insist, that the risks of overheating and inflation are slight. What they don’t say is that being credibly committed to running the economy hot is precisely the point. This is what Krugman meant in 1998 when he called on the Bank of Japan to make a credible commitment to irresponsibility. To avoid the risk of a liquidity trap what you want to encourage is precisely a general belief that inflation is set to pick up. In the late 1990s Krugman, like a good New Keynesian, envisioned monetary and fiscal policy as substitutes for each other. In 2021 America is getting a massive dose of both. As the Fed announced in August last year, the plan is to get inflation above 2 per cent and to dry out the labour market. The bond markets may flinch, but if the sell-off gets too bad, the Fed can always buy more bonds.

30 notes · View notes

canyouhearthelight · 4 years ago

Text

The Miys, Ch. 118

Winding down to the end of 2020, when there will be an announcement regarding the story. No worries: I’m not stopping at the end of the year!

First, thanks for this chapter go to: @zommbiebro for Jokul, @wildforestferret for Hannah, @baelpenrose for Alistair and being an amazing Beta Reader/writing partner, and @raven-fae for originally giving me the NERVE to start posting this so long ago. I never imagined that a one-off response to a writing prompt would become so much!

Housekeeping stuff: I updated the Master List and the page links over the weekend (whew), and also finished all the chapters that will post through the end of the year! Much excite, so relief.

Rushing between appointments, I was trying to multitask by looking over one of the files for the cooking class volunteers. Quiet beeps in the back of my mind should have reminded me to watch where I was going as I kept setting off proximity warnings in people I nearly ran into. I was so focused on my task that I ignored the mutters around me of how rude I was being, until the alert suddenly started getting louder and louder, practically screaming before I snapped out of my trance and stopped walking.

In front of me was a familiar set of broad shoulders, and just past him was a wall that I nearly ran us both into. “Conor, what are you doing?” I asked, started to see him seemingly just staring at a wall and humming away.

He turned toward me with a grin, dropping a kiss on the top of my head in greeting. “I didn’t realize that was you,” he answered. “I heard someone coming, but figured they would either turn or rather run into me than the wall.”

“And why are you staring at the wall?”

“Wasn’t staring,” he corrected. “I was working on this.” He stepped aside with a flourish, revealing one of the wall-tanks set up throughout the Ark for Else. Soft yellow motes drifted in the tank, evidence of Else’s continued breakneck evolution. However, this tank had something new in it…

“You put snowflakes in there?” I asked, confused.

He ran a hand through his hair and laughed. “When Sam, Derek, and I started putting out the Insert Winter Holiday decorations this week, Else got curious and asked what we were doing. Derek explained - he talks to them better than I do - and they wanted something in their habitat, too, like we have.”

“And you decided on snowflakes?”

“Else picked that, actually. They are very curious about snow, since they developed… well, here, where there is no weather…”

“I guess that is fair.” Suddenly, I felt rude for talking about Else like they weren’t present. I still hadn’t gotten in the habit of speaking directly to them. “I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to ignore you…” I cringed a little inside.

Is okay, Else replied. We are not offended. Will we see real snow one day?

I thought about it. “Probably? Von has atmosphere, and the nights are long enough that the temperature probably gets really cold. It may have the right conditions for snow.”

Many humans think snow is beautiful. We would like to see snow.

“You and me both, buddy,” I admitted. “I love it.”

Conor shuddered. “No thank you. You can keep your cold mush.” Checking his databand, he groaned. “I have to get going. See you later, Else.” He dropped another kiss on my head. “I’ll see you at dinner,” he promised.

“No bruises?”

“No bruises.”

I smiled before jumping to check the time myself. “Shit,” I swore softly. “Else, I gotta go, too. I have an appointment five minutes ago.”

Humans can time travel?

“I wish,” I muttered, practically running to get there on time. I prayed that Alistair kept Hannah busy while I raced to our interview.

I showed up breathless and dishevelled, but only ten minutes late. Great first impression you’re giving, I scolded myself as I tried to get my hair somewhat more tidy and catch my breath. Straightening, I scanned my datapad and entered my office.

Hannah was nodding seriously at something Alistair was saying, and all I could do was pray he wasn’t telling her some embarrassing story about me. Both of them looked up as I entered, and Hannah approached me to shake my hand. “Hello, Sophia! Or should I address you as Councillor. I’m not entirely sure…”

“Sophia is fine,” I reassured her. “Did Alistair explain why I asked you to meet with me today?”

She shook her head. “No, we were just talking about Zachary’s work with Councilor Ranganathan.”

“That is part of it,” I agreed. “Zach is one of several people who Pranav is mentoring, hoping to build a pool of candidates to fill his position in the future. I asked you to meet with me to see if you would be interested in doing the same, with me?”

Her eyes widened. “You want me… to learn your job?”

“I assure you, it is much safer than I make it look.” I tried to sound confident, but was already bracing for her to reject the position.

“It’s not that - “ Wait, what? “I just. Do you really think I could?”

“You wouldn’t be here if I didn’t think you could do it,” I assured her, somewhat dumbfounded. Recovering quickly, I pushed on. “I want to be clear - this is an elected position, so there is no guarantee that you would be my successor. The goal of the mentorship is to help you decide if you even want to do it, at all, along with ensuring that the Ark has the opportunity to choose between people who definitely know how to do the job. And more importantly, want to do the job.”

Alistair picked up from there. “In the Before, if you remember, many elections were decisions based on which candidate would do the least harm, rather than the most good. The Council is trying to change that.”

She nodded in understanding. “So there would be other people you are mentoring?”

So far, so good. “Hopefully three, yes.”

“Will you be working with us at the same time?”

“If all three of you accept, I am hoping to work with each of you one day per week individually, and the rest collectively,” I confirmed. “More specific than that, I will meet with all of you to explain once I know who has accepted. But I wanted to extend the offer in person, so I can answer any questions you may have.”

Hannah nodded again. “Would we be working the same hours you do?”

I was very glad Alistair and I already thought that part through, along with Tyche’s input. “Initially, no. You would only work half of my shift, and what half would be at my discretion. However, this would be considered your job allotment, so you would not have to worry about any schedule conflicts. The only reason I will be deciding which half of my shift you work is because it may change due to Council meetings that you may not be privy to, or if there is nothing beneficial to your learning happening during the other half.”

“Why only half?” She asked.

“Councilors generally work double shifts,” Alistair advised her. When her eyes widened again, he continued, “In my experience, as her assistant, she will never ask you to work as much as she does, but she is very insistent that if she is not working, neither are you.”

I shook my head at him. “What he isn’t explaining is that there are also often large gaps in my day when I have no appointments and no paperwork to go through. So being in the office for sixteen to twenty hours sounds grueling, but I am rarely here the entire time. That’s just the window when people are allowed to set appointments, or when the Council can convene outside of emergencies.”

Her shoulders sagged with relief. “I was honestly about to walk out until you explained that a bit better.”

I leaned over to Alistair and hissed. “People skills!”

“Professionalism…” he murmured back.

Hannah smiled at our antics. “Another question: What exactly do you do?”

I groaned, and Alistair smirked at me. Jokul had been so right on that point that it wasn’t even funny. “Since Zach is shadowing Pranav, I’m going to assume you know how the parts about voting in Council sessions works, right?” She nodded. “Okay, so that’s the big part that most people know about. They vote on an issue, their votes go to their representative Councilor, who votes on their behalf, short version. On a day to day basis, each Councilor is responsible for heading up everything on the Ark in a certain field. For me, that’s any large scale events, staffing, or major adjustments to how people are able to live their day-to-day lives. I have one assistant,” I gestured to Alistair, “and an Administrator, my sister Tyche. She handles all of the small staffing concerns, because she is amazing at it.”

“So… Insert Winter Holiday, the annual Food festival…?”

I nodded. “Along with the gravity changes, the day cycle changes, the proximity alerts, creating and maintaining quiet rooms, finding people to back fill gaps caused by large projects or initiatives, large scale announcements to the ship, et cetera.”

“That’s… a lot…” She bit her bottom lip in concern.

“Really, it’s a handful of major events each year, plus the daily stuff. And I work really closely with the other Councilors, largely because once most projects are past a staffing point, it falls under their jurisdiction to execute.”

Slowly, she nodded. “Okay…” After a moment, she nodded much more firmly. “Okay, I’ll try it.”

One down, two to go, I cheered in my head as I resisted the urge to scream with joy.

<< Prev Masterlist Next >>

#the miys #found family #humans are weird #humans are space orcs #aliens #original science fiction #science fiction #scifi #apocalypse #learning to live #hfy #earth is space australia #original writing #my writing

61 notes · View notes

madsdefencesquad · 4 years ago

Text

Okay I got boooored so here’s a Kevison magazine fic I wrote for Kevison nation coz I love yous and we deserve to see Kevin talk about his fam magazine-stylez coz you know he’ll be gushing all the time about them, like you just KNOW IT.

Kevin Pearson on life, fatherhood and what’s next for him by x March 2028, Spring edition

It’s been twelve years since the impassioned The Manny star Kevin Pearson announced to the world that he will be quitting the role that had started it all for him. Pearson’s public meltdown was excruciating, to say the least, but it was this very act of defiance that led the actor towards the path of the actor-crusader that he is now known for—a revolutionary who defied the odds and ultimately defined him as one of the greatest actors of his generation.

After a slew of tabloid-worthy dalliances with famous co-stars including the soap operatic love triangle with Tony award-winner Olivia Maine and his Back of an Egg co-producer and playwright Sloane Sandburg, to the court-ordered rehab stint after a DUI arrest, Kevin Pearson has done nothing but illicit the kind of stories that tabloids are desperate to display and monetise from in full view. All of these seemed the perfect pivot points for the actor, basking in the affordances of all this fame and fortune albeit in a trajectory of a complete career-destruction, but the actor was by no means deterred in proving that he can and should be taken seriously in his acting craft.

Pearson came through with striking, emboldened performances: a soldier with an inability to confront his demons in the Ron Howard-helmed World War II flick opposite Sylvester Stallone, and an embittered cop in the M Night Shyamalan action flick Stairs to Nowhere. But it wasn’t until his role as a disingenuous trial lawyer in the 2020 Jordan Martin Foster film Glass Eye that earned him his first ever Academy Award nomination and eventual win that proved to the world that when he puts his mind to it, Kevin Pearson can truly achieve the kind of acting greatness worth the lauded applause.

Pearson, who was born and raised in Pittsburgh before moving to New York and eventually Los Angeles, has spent a good amount of his life in the public eye. Though his sunny, easy-going persona and physicality have been compared to the likes of Chris Hemsworth and (supposed rival) Chris Evans, the Pittsburgh-bred Pearson doesn’t feel the need now to prove that he is anything but a conscientious actor and a dedicated family man.

It’s a warm, spring afternoon when I ring the buzzer of a sprawling floor-to-ceiling glass residence tucked away in a town in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The little lady of the house, barefoot in a floral-print dress, greets me with an encouraged wave from her father, who is cradling her against him upon opening the front door. “She’s not normally this shy,” Kevin says with an affectionate grin as he leads the way to the sitting room, his little girl curiously taking peeks at me with what I garner is her mother’s soft blue eyes given Kevin’s famous warm browns.

The newly built residence is a remarkably private house perched on a dramatic hillside overlooking a panoramic view of the verdant surrounds, which Kevin says, “keeps the family very safe from prying eyes.” This feature, of course, was at the forefront of his mind prior to laying its foundations there.

“There’s one main reason as to why I chose to build here specifically,” he says. “But I’m not gonna bore you with the details. Let’s just say, I’m honoring a memory. Makes me sound real poetic, doesn’t it?”

Throughout Kevin’s career, he’s been known to talk quite candidly about his love and appreciation for his mother, Rebecca Pearson, with his Oscars acceptance speech having heavily featured his immense gratitude to her as would a loving son. But, as we move along the elegantly furnished corridors with him pointing and elaborating at the various artworks decorating the walls and the spaces, it is obvious that Kevin has an unrivalled affection for his wife that is quite notably special.

We make our way to a sitting area outside where we are entreated to the sounds and sights of a naturally filtered swimming billabong with cascading falls—a modern feature incorporated with the Japanese Zen garden landscaping that is just breathtaking to behold in person. “I wanted to make it feel as authentic as the ones you find in Japan,” he says, sitting on one of the cushioned recliners. He pours me a glass of red wine while he settles for chilled tonic, his little girl now helping herself to some olives and crackers.

There is an air of rare contentment around Kevin as he laughingly recalls his twins’ daily shenanigans. “Nothing really compares to coming home to them,” he says. “And I’m not trying to sound ungrateful or anything, but I’ve been [working my whole life] and I’ve only had my wife and kids just short of a decade, and that’s nothing! So, I do what I can to be home in as most days of the year as I can.”

When asked whether he’s perhaps heading into the territory of acting retirement in favour of other pursuits like directing or producing, Kevin thinks it can go either way.

“The other night in bed my wife suggested I do voice acting,” he says, to which his little girl unintentionally responds to in glee as she, her feet now strapped in light-up sandals, runs the width of the garden (within sight of her dad, of course) with her Jessie and Bullseye dolls held high. “She knows me too well,” he says fondly of Madison, his wife of eight years now. “I’d love to have my kids watch a movie that dad’s in without having to wait till they’re teenagers. And I hate thinking of my babies as teenagers! God, it’s just the worst age!”

Kevin recalls his teenage years with the kind of accepted embarrassment fit for a 48-year-old, but he laughs saying, “But I see a little more of their mom in them than me so that gives me hope. I’d hate to think I passed on angsty teen Kevin to either one of them. Just serious kudos to my parents for putting up with me all those years. I must’ve been a nightmare.”

From endorsing the des Resistance popular eau de parfum for men to his Armani-clad behind splashed on every billboard in the country (much to his chagrin and to his wife’s entertainment), Kevin Pearson has always been quite the go-getter, and though his “yes man” days in the industry are over, he’s always open to other ways in which he can challenge himself in his craft without compromising the time spent with his family.

“They’re my first priority, no questions asked,” he says. For a kid, who grew up in a middle-class family with parents whom had high hopes for their future, Kevin says that now, as a father himself, his perspective has shifted as to what’s really important and what’s not.

“I think a lot of the time there’s an expectation for your kids to meet the standard their parents have set or even go beyond it,” he says. “But that’s just toxic, you know? And it puts a lot of pressure on them to be someone that they’re not and not meant to be.”

Kevin is candid about his insecurities as an actor and as a father and as a husband, but there is a masterful acceptance there that he gives full credit to his wife. “We’re not perfect people, perfect parents,” he says. “And we’ll never be. That’s just a fact of life. But getting to do this with your person, the love of your life makes the biggest difference. I used to think that my parents had the greatest love story ever, and I used to really idolise it, you know, but honestly I think Madison and I can probably rival that.” And he thinks that if he’ll ever write, direct or produce a script, it’ll be about him and his wife’s sweeping and unconventional love story that will be the “tear-jerker of the century. Like, A Walk to Remember or The Notebook level but like better!”

I ask him what Madison would think of his plans to unleash their love story to the world, and as if on cue, he fishes his phone from his pocket and utters a “just a sec” before leaving to grab his daughter and take the call.

Following his game-changing Academy Award win in 2021, Kevin had let himself free fall in the industry as a kind of versatile actor in roles where he sweeps you away with gut-punching monologue deliveries coupled with an intensity that comes in through the eyes. He hasn’t delved into comedy since his Manny days though, but there is a certain cajoling ease in his demeanour that could easily challenge his funny bone.

“It’s Madison,” he returns not long after and settles himself down again, his daughter handing me a pizza-shaped play-dough I pretend to munch on. “She’ll be home soon. You should meet her. You’d love her! Everyone does not that it’s surprising.”

And who could deny that offer?

Kevin shows me a photograph of the twins on his phone at their cousin’s birthday whom they celebrated with in California last week and qualms that they’re growing up way too fast—yet another reiteration that he is as doting of a father as he is a consummate actor. He thinks that though Hollywood is a lot less ageist in terms of film and TV roles, there is still that pressure not to succumb to filling a role just because you’re the right age for it.

“Ever since my kids were born, I’ve been approached to do a lot of dad roles. Like my agent would send me about five scripts a week where my character is supposed to be this stereotypical dad. I’ve rarely taken any of them because I feel like it’s like they’re just trying to fit me in to a role just because I can say, ‘Oh hey, yeah I’m a dad now, I know what that means or what that looks like’, and not that that isn’t a good thing per se, but there’s a difference between the director wanting me to put my own spin to it as Kevin Pearson the actor versus them just wanting Kevin Pearson the dad. The way I approach parenting my kids, the way my wife and I do it, would be different to the way my character in this film would parent his kids. Sure, there may be certain overlaps, but it’s not going to be full Kevin Pearson the dad, you know? So, it’s hard with that kind of expectation.”

As the sun dips a little lower and it gets a little cooler, Kevin takes us back to the house just in time to finally meet Madison and their little boy, who looks strikingly like his father though, upon closer inspection, actually looks a little more like his mother. But there is one undeniable feature of the twins that definitely comes from both parents: the adorable identical dimples adorning their little chins.

Madison Pearson is as beautiful in person as she looks in photographs standing beside her husband in premieres and events. With her light-blue eyes and warm, soothing voice that sounds both delicate and excited at the same time, Madison is nothing but the embodiment of all things lovely.

“She grounds me,” he says adoringly, watching Madison and their kids flit about in the kitchen arranging dinner. “There isn’t much I can say that’s good about me if it hadn’t been for her. I can be ambitious and sometimes there’s always that pull towards something bigger but not necessarily better and she tells me honestly. She calls me out. And everyone needs that, you know? A frank person who won’t sugar coat anything, but they do it because they love you.”

It’s easy to imagine Kevin in gritty noir films playing bad cop, good cop or even as an intimidating trial lawyer, but Kevin as a family man is the role that is perfectly suited for him, almost like it’s created especially for him. As a father, he thrives on the affections of his kids, and as an actor, he finds pleasure in what’s he’s good at. And as a husband, his smile is the widest. “Not gonna lie, her not even being slightly jealous of that one time I did a love scene still gets to me,” he jokes. But it’s obvious that it bothers him not one bit. He enjoys being Madison Pearson’s more than anything.

“It’s crazy to think that people are inspired by what I do and who I am when for most of my life, it was 100% the other way around. It’s a huge responsibility, really, but I take it as it goes. I have my kids on the back of my mind now every time I make any decision, and I have a wife to love and support too, so it’s easier to not feel trapped by people’s opinions and expectations of you when you’re too focused on them and being the best person you can be for you and for them. So, it’s about growing every day, and enjoying all that life has to offer, and making every moment count.” x

Particular shoutout to my GC gals coz like ILY 5EVS @wallofweird @betweensunflowersanddaffodils @thisiskevison @thesocietalmisfit @tryalittlejoytomorrow @lullabiesandgoodbyes @flythesail @ourfinehouse @elephantsneedwater @holding-up-the-universe @smoakingpinklipstick @purpleinthesky

#kevison #kadison #seriously let's get rid of this tag @ sterling better not be annoying af next ep aye!!#hope you enjoyed kevin gushing about his family lol #i'll probs make another one but less formal and more kevison-centric #but I just love love loveeeee imagining dad! and husband!kevin sah much #so don't mind meee #anywhooo #kevin and madison #kevin pearson #this is us madison #kevison fanfic #kevison fic #i have not written in 5eva but boyyyyyy this was sah much fun #Kevin Pearson #TIU #tiu spoilers

55 notes · View notes