I’ve been saying this for quite some time. The dynamic around social issues that “the Left”TM has constructed its framing means any moderation is an accommodation of immorality and bigotry. However, I have to admit I’ve always been frustrated that the Right’s response to being called stupid is … to demonstrate it’s stupid. Nothing says “shows what you know!” like nominating the dumbest person in American political history three straight times for President as a reaction to an accusation of intellectual lacking. Either you don’t care and therefore you shouldn’t be so sensitive to the criticism or you do care and should fucking demonstrate why the other side is wrong, but to be so put upon and so dug is is pretty stupid.
Excellent! I should memorize this: “ If she loses, it’ll be because people look at Democrats and see them as less welcoming and less in tune with where those voters are, which is expanded upon by liberal activists. In short, they see them as snobs that cater too much to select groups. To win elections, you have to grow in popularity and appeal to people all over the country. You can’t just say “we’re right, you’re wrong, and we have the diplomas to prove it.” “ I would add the diplomas from the “right American universities.”
Hey all, I feel the need to comment here on a few things:
1. Constructive criticism and commentary are fine. Disagreements are cool too. Im fine with it. What I'm not fine with is people coming here and ripping on me. This isn't even a part time gig for me. I make no money on it (although I was doing fine when it was an optional pay site). I keep it free because I am trying to build a community of like minded individuals who don't feel comfortable in either group and to provide some thought about where the middle of the road goes. You're welcome to offer your opinions too, just don't rip on me personally for offering mine. There are plenty of other substacks to go to where you can sop up your own silo of information.
2. If you want a general sense of where I am on things, read more than one article. I'm getting a little tired of doctrinal idealogues coming in here or emailing me because I don't kowtow to their party line. Read the name of the space. Its PurpleAmerica.
3. Specifically calling me a gaslighter, a "MAGA DICKWAD" or some such nonsense is going to get you blocked. I don't have time for shit like that.
4. Most of y'all are great. I value all of you as readers and commentators. I realize tensions are high right now. All I can say is, calm down please. Just because something I found interesting that Fareed Zakaria said this weekend does not conform to your worldview does not mean you have to comment your disagreement with ME about it. Sometimes reading the whole story, taking in the WHOLE story, and then taking a step back to look at the big picture can do wonders. Take an hour off. If you still feel the need to comment, more power to you.
5. If you REALLY think I'm for Trump, please read either of the last two pieces I wrote, one titled "REPUGNANT" about the orange troll and the other "PURPLEAMERICA ENDORSES HARRIS FOR PRESIDENT." Sometimes, a little context helps put things into perspective.
It used to be more as people worked right out of school. The college population has been consistently rising since the 70s though. College educated population passed 20% in 1990 and has been slowly increasing annually since. In 2015, it passed 30%.
Why is it always on the Democrats to moderate? To change? To take into account the feelings of the “snowflake” uneducated?
Also, the Democratic coalition, as it is currently constructed, is quite varied. It ranges from some members of the Squad all the way to David Brooks and Liz Cheney. There are a wide range of opinions in the Democratic coalition.
I agree that, in general, Democrats could be more respectful of their fellow Americans. And working with one’s hands should not be diminished.
But you say nothing about how irresponsible the Republicans elites are and that they should stop promoting fascism.
Ok. You know the rules. She knows the rules. If she can't win the EC then what good is running up the score in NY and CA?
That's emblematic of a SMALLER tent, not a bigger one. A bigger tent would be broader geographically. And if she had it, then we wouldn't be fretting about how close this election is.
It's always on the Democrats to moderate? He says nothing about how irresponsible the Republican are?
Do you read this blog often? I'm pretty sure the last 5 posts were all raging about how terrible Republicans are. 5 posts calling Republicans fascists and saying Trump is the worst candidate in American history, but 1 post stating how democrats can improve is too slanted to the right for you?
The entire point of this blog is PURPLE America, where commentary is made without falling back on the usual team-based politics. The reality is that R's currently suck so bad that it's like 90% Trump hate, which is pretty reasonable given the circumstances, but often you will see discussions about what D's need to do better or ways they can improve.
You can't really expect every article to be like "in this post we are discussing Democrats, but if this makes you sad, here are a bunch of examples where I ripped apart Republicans."
But I'll save you some time and share two articles from the past week you may be interested in:
It's in the line just above the one you quoted dumbass.
"The fact is that if Harris loses, it won’t be because anything she did or didn’t do or who she is as a person; she’s run a flawless and near perfect campaign, wisely deflecting away from many of these hardcore left positions and saying everything she needs to court moderate swing voters. If she loses, it’ll be because people look at Democrats and see them as less welcoming and less in tune with where those voters are, which is expanded upon by liberal activists. In short, they see them as snobs that cater too much to select groups. To win elections, you have to grow in popularity and appeal to people all over the country. You can’t just say “we’re right, you’re wrong, and we have the diplomas to prove it.”
I’ve been saying this for quite some time. The dynamic around social issues that “the Left”TM has constructed its framing means any moderation is an accommodation of immorality and bigotry. However, I have to admit I’ve always been frustrated that the Right’s response to being called stupid is … to demonstrate it’s stupid. Nothing says “shows what you know!” like nominating the dumbest person in American political history three straight times for President as a reaction to an accusation of intellectual lacking. Either you don’t care and therefore you shouldn’t be so sensitive to the criticism or you do care and should fucking demonstrate why the other side is wrong, but to be so put upon and so dug is is pretty stupid.
Excellent! I should memorize this: “ If she loses, it’ll be because people look at Democrats and see them as less welcoming and less in tune with where those voters are, which is expanded upon by liberal activists. In short, they see them as snobs that cater too much to select groups. To win elections, you have to grow in popularity and appeal to people all over the country. You can’t just say “we’re right, you’re wrong, and we have the diplomas to prove it.” “ I would add the diplomas from the “right American universities.”
Hey all, I feel the need to comment here on a few things:
1. Constructive criticism and commentary are fine. Disagreements are cool too. Im fine with it. What I'm not fine with is people coming here and ripping on me. This isn't even a part time gig for me. I make no money on it (although I was doing fine when it was an optional pay site). I keep it free because I am trying to build a community of like minded individuals who don't feel comfortable in either group and to provide some thought about where the middle of the road goes. You're welcome to offer your opinions too, just don't rip on me personally for offering mine. There are plenty of other substacks to go to where you can sop up your own silo of information.
2. If you want a general sense of where I am on things, read more than one article. I'm getting a little tired of doctrinal idealogues coming in here or emailing me because I don't kowtow to their party line. Read the name of the space. Its PurpleAmerica.
3. Specifically calling me a gaslighter, a "MAGA DICKWAD" or some such nonsense is going to get you blocked. I don't have time for shit like that.
4. Most of y'all are great. I value all of you as readers and commentators. I realize tensions are high right now. All I can say is, calm down please. Just because something I found interesting that Fareed Zakaria said this weekend does not conform to your worldview does not mean you have to comment your disagreement with ME about it. Sometimes reading the whole story, taking in the WHOLE story, and then taking a step back to look at the big picture can do wonders. Take an hour off. If you still feel the need to comment, more power to you.
5. If you REALLY think I'm for Trump, please read either of the last two pieces I wrote, one titled "REPUGNANT" about the orange troll and the other "PURPLEAMERICA ENDORSES HARRIS FOR PRESIDENT." Sometimes, a little context helps put things into perspective.
All right, gone. I have to get back to work.
I’m curious: 67% of voters are non-college educated. Do you know how that compares to past election seasons?
It used to be more as people worked right out of school. The college population has been consistently rising since the 70s though. College educated population passed 20% in 1990 and has been slowly increasing annually since. In 2015, it passed 30%.
Why is it always on the Democrats to moderate? To change? To take into account the feelings of the “snowflake” uneducated?
Also, the Democratic coalition, as it is currently constructed, is quite varied. It ranges from some members of the Squad all the way to David Brooks and Liz Cheney. There are a wide range of opinions in the Democratic coalition.
I agree that, in general, Democrats could be more respectful of their fellow Americans. And working with one’s hands should not be diminished.
But you say nothing about how irresponsible the Republicans elites are and that they should stop promoting fascism.
They have to moderate because they don't have a governing majority on their own. They need a bigger tent. Politics 101.
I think you mean “an even bigger tent.” Because the Democratic tent is already very large.
If that were so, we wouldn't be fretting about how the election is so damn close.
Two things can be true simultaneously.
Harris will receive a lot more votes than Trump. It could be as high as 10 million more.
And those votes may not be ideally distributed to enable her to win the Electoral College.
The Democratic tent is much bigger. And Trump may still win because of the EC asymmetry. This is why we are fretting.
Ok. You know the rules. She knows the rules. If she can't win the EC then what good is running up the score in NY and CA?
That's emblematic of a SMALLER tent, not a bigger one. A bigger tent would be broader geographically. And if she had it, then we wouldn't be fretting about how close this election is.
It's always on the Democrats to moderate? He says nothing about how irresponsible the Republican are?
Do you read this blog often? I'm pretty sure the last 5 posts were all raging about how terrible Republicans are. 5 posts calling Republicans fascists and saying Trump is the worst candidate in American history, but 1 post stating how democrats can improve is too slanted to the right for you?
You assume that I have read all of those previous articles. I have not.
One thing that other Substack writers do is reference their previous articles with links. (I am thinking about JVL at the Bulwark as an example.)
I think if Purple had done that I probably wouldn’t have commented.
You're blaming me?
The entire point of this blog is PURPLE America, where commentary is made without falling back on the usual team-based politics. The reality is that R's currently suck so bad that it's like 90% Trump hate, which is pretty reasonable given the circumstances, but often you will see discussions about what D's need to do better or ways they can improve.
You can't really expect every article to be like "in this post we are discussing Democrats, but if this makes you sad, here are a bunch of examples where I ripped apart Republicans."
But I'll save you some time and share two articles from the past week you may be interested in:
https://purpleusa.substack.com/p/repugnant
https://purpleusa.substack.com/p/purpleamerica-endorses-harris
Thanks for the links!
If you had read the whole piece, you'd see I said that Harris has done that. But she is not every Democrat nor every liberal activist.
And I want to sincerely thank you for demonstrating everything I was saying in the piece. Appreciate it.
It's in the line just above the one you quoted dumbass.
"The fact is that if Harris loses, it won’t be because anything she did or didn’t do or who she is as a person; she’s run a flawless and near perfect campaign, wisely deflecting away from many of these hardcore left positions and saying everything she needs to court moderate swing voters. If she loses, it’ll be because people look at Democrats and see them as less welcoming and less in tune with where those voters are, which is expanded upon by liberal activists. In short, they see them as snobs that cater too much to select groups. To win elections, you have to grow in popularity and appeal to people all over the country. You can’t just say “we’re right, you’re wrong, and we have the diplomas to prove it.”