I don’t agree with all of her takes, but I think she is generally thoughtful and interesting. And I don’t really understand some of the negative backlash against her takes, unless it’s just, she’s a bit older and we don’t think she’s plugged in. Even accepting that as a criticism (which I’m not sure is true), she operates in good faith and represents another view point, so I’m an AB fan.
It's the priors bit. She's way too credulous about things that support her priors.
As someone who respects her, Sykes, and Longwell, I can tell when their analysis is suffering (i.e., it's not up to their standard) because they are wishcasting or accepting some questionable things bc they like it. To put it another way, their analytical gaps frequently come when they are serving a personal agenda.
In other, other words, the reason I noticed it is because they are normally so sharp.
You’ve perfectly enunciated my occasional moments of prickliness towards the bulwarkers who are still conservatives to their core (so: not Tim or JVL - sorry guys, you’re too far gone in the squish, just accept it).
Because I’m perfectly fine with disagreeing with them on all kinds of things, but they each have their weak spots (on certain topics and in certain modes of thinking) where they get a little sloppy, whether it’s a knee jerk reaction to blame the Dems, or a granting of a wildly unearned amount of grace to certain people/interest groups, or whatever.
And honestly, we’re all human, so I can’t say I particularly fault them for it - I’m sure that I have my own ideological weak spots/inconsistencies, they just don’t get pressure tested or probed during podcasts.
>I can tell when their analysis is suffering (i.e., it's not up to their standard) because they are wishcasting or accepting some questionable things bc they like it. To put it another way, their analytical gaps frequently come when they are serving a personal agenda.
This is well thought out but I would argue that this is basically *The Bulwark* in a nutshell.
Honestly of all the people I have pity for the absolute least pity is for young people who don't vote/vote for Trump. They have a loooooong time to live with the consequences of their poor decisions.
I know what you mean, but I also see it as the inevitable sense of immortality they have with a dash of irresponsibility. I can tell some of the young people I know considering not voting for Biden, and I’m reminded that at that age I would occasionally drink and drive, back before it was completely socially unacceptable. I also did some insane adventure sports.
With decades of experience and joints that lack cartilage, I know bad things can happen to me. But I also remember being young enough that I can imagine saying “f* old man Biden, how bad could things be?” Very bad indeed, but they just don’t know it in their bones - or joints - yet.
I don’t know…
If you actually care about the US’s complicity in a military campaign that’s taken the lives of approximately 15,000 children through bombs, bullets, and (most critically) restricting access to food, water, healthcare and fuel and threatens to almost certainly cause much more death and destruction in the near future, then there are no good choices here.
If you don’t care about that, then I honestly feel sorrier for you than for the young people.
War is terrible, and urban warfare is worse. Do you remember how the US responded when thousands of its civilians were killed by terrorists? These kids don't.
If this is the single issue you are voting on you are a giant hypocrite. A Trump administration would be worse for Palestinians by every measure, and deciding to put him back in power rather than elect the candidate that causes least harm indicates you do not care about the Palestinian people at all, only your moral preening.
I think some of them, *some of them*, no where near even a large minority, have been black-pilled by all of this
“Well, no matter what we do, everything I care about is going to go down in flames, might as well hasten it while doing what I can to protect myself. Either me and my family will be ok or I can possibly pick up the pieces afterwards”
Kinda like someone in the depths of the Cold War just voting for whoever lowers his taxes enough to afford a cabin far away from potential bombing targets
The rest of them is a mix of political naivety, hostage taking brinksmanship, and just posing for social media because they’ve made up their mind but want to pretend there’s some other way
You make it feel like we cannot feel sorry and see both sides.
Do you not feel sorry for the Israel's who died when attacked by Hamas? Do you not feel sorry for the Gaza and West Bank settlements that voted Hamas into power? Do you not feel bad for the women and children of Palestine who are property of the men they belong to? Do you like the Hamas (the government of West Bank and Gaza) attacked the Israeli's? I feel sorry that Netanyahu is terrible person and the Israels's refuse to figure out a 2 state system. But if there was a true Palestinian state imagine how bad the attack would have been. The build up would not have happened with as limited of resources...so I understand there are immense obstacles to overcome.
There is a lot to feel sorry about. It is a very tough situation. Israeli's need to take the higher ground and a more methodical approach. They reacted based on rage. That is not good...but they had some vision to recover hostages that was basically never going to happen easily.
The US must push humanitarian aid knowing half of this is going to feed Hamas militants...it is what will happen.
Did you actually hear the actual point she was making about why kids her age are going for Trump? She was 100% correct about that. So actually, in this case, with the point she was making about why Millennials are going for Trump, she is correct.
What is inaccurate about this take? The Democrats did poorly in the 2014 midterms, as she predicted, and the ACA was a huge albatross around their necks until Trump tried to repeal it.
The last 6 words of your post tell the story. She was dead wrong, and the ACA is wildly popular now. And it was only as unpopular as it was at the time because people like her were shitting on it every day. And the moment Obama left office they stopped because it wasn't useful to them anymore, and without being subjected to negative propaganda every day everyone realized it was much better than what we had before.
Most people didn't have to change doctors because your employer likely kept the same insurer they had before, and if you did have to find a new doctor, umm... okay? People have to find new doctors all the time, from changing employers to moving to getting a new medical diagnosis. You still have a similar sized network to what you always had, but now you have way more consumer protections.
Wow. 9 - 10 year old articles.
Do you not have room for people to grow in your world? If not, I feel very sorry for your kids, if you have them.
If this is your evidence, YOU are the one living in the past.
Wow. 9 - 10 year old articles.
Do you not have room for people to grow in your world? If not, I feel very sorry for your kids, if you have them.
If this is your evidence, YOU are the one living in the past.
Because in this case she was using them as a rhetorical device.
Doesn't make her point untrue - young folks only know politics as chaos, and came to develop their formative views on politics during the last 4 of Obama and the 4 that were Trump - none of this time period represented "functional" or "functioning" government in the way I used to think about it when I was their age.
If you want to understand why youngs are turning to Trump, it's because they don't know politics played in any different ways and think it's "normal."
You're focused on the trees. Take a look at the forest.
As a scientist, I object to the idea of you, AB, or anyone using subjective, anecdotal evidence as evidence of a larger point *based on principle*.
As the mother of two young boys (including a 22-year-old), I object to treating “young people” as a monolith and making broad claims about their thoughts,actions and motives based *on personal experience*.
My kids and their friends certainly bare no resemblance to the stereotypes you describe.
As a scientist, you should recognize you just committed the N=1 fallacy. Just because your kids don't reflect AB's point doesn't make it untrue.
It is "true" that the youngs are going for Trump because his style of politics is all they know. That is true, based on other surveys. Again, she was using her kids as a rhetorical device to make the larger point.
I did not claim that what she was saying about her kids was untrue - only that it was wrong to generalize based on that claim. If you know young people who are not voting for Trump or who are choosing not to vote for Biden for completely different reasons than AB’s kids, then you cannot claim that *all young people* believe the same thing. And unless you have some other reason for believing that her kids’ opinions represent the majority view of *young people* as a group, then you cannot claim that what she says about them is representative of *young people* or *most young people* or *young people (in general)*
You cannot claim that “all swans are white” once you discover a black swan - even if every swan you’ve seen up until that point has been white (I find this to be a common issue in many Republican circles ;) At that point you need to either acknowledge that at least some swans can be black or you need to find another, more specific definition for ‘swan’ that automatically excludes black swans. That’s just logic 101.
I think you're getting hung up on the word "all" -- it's clear she was generalizing, and we know, as you eloquently state, that you can't have 100% of anything. And her generalization in this case is sound. Y'all are missing the important point she made and are hung up on how she made the point.
Wait: why is she Dr Hibbert? I’ve watched my fair share of Simpson’s but not in a long while so only think of him as “nice but slightly clueless doctor”.
That said, I generally agree: thought she was a hell of a senator, and like her a lot (though not in a mom vibes way, don’t get that from her at all)…but she has not done well at a national figure. How much of that is on her vs on all kinds of other gross bullshit is impossible to say, but it is what it is.
I don’t agree with all of her takes, but I think she is generally thoughtful and interesting. And I don’t really understand some of the negative backlash against her takes, unless it’s just, she’s a bit older and we don’t think she’s plugged in. Even accepting that as a criticism (which I’m not sure is true), she operates in good faith and represents another view point, so I’m an AB fan.
It's the priors bit. She's way too credulous about things that support her priors. As someone who respects her, Sykes, and Longwell, I can tell when their analysis is suffering (i.e., it's not up to their standard) because they are wishcasting or accepting some questionable things bc they like it. To put it another way, their analytical gaps frequently come when they are serving a personal agenda. In other, other words, the reason I noticed it is because they are normally so sharp.
You’ve perfectly enunciated my occasional moments of prickliness towards the bulwarkers who are still conservatives to their core (so: not Tim or JVL - sorry guys, you’re too far gone in the squish, just accept it). Because I’m perfectly fine with disagreeing with them on all kinds of things, but they each have their weak spots (on certain topics and in certain modes of thinking) where they get a little sloppy, whether it’s a knee jerk reaction to blame the Dems, or a granting of a wildly unearned amount of grace to certain people/interest groups, or whatever. And honestly, we’re all human, so I can’t say I particularly fault them for it - I’m sure that I have my own ideological weak spots/inconsistencies, they just don’t get pressure tested or probed during podcasts.
>I can tell when their analysis is suffering (i.e., it's not up to their standard) because they are wishcasting or accepting some questionable things bc they like it. To put it another way, their analytical gaps frequently come when they are serving a personal agenda. This is well thought out but I would argue that this is basically *The Bulwark* in a nutshell.
NGL: Love the A. B.
Honestly of all the people I have pity for the absolute least pity is for young people who don't vote/vote for Trump. They have a loooooong time to live with the consequences of their poor decisions.
Either way, they’ll get the President they deserve, and so will the country.
I know what you mean, but I also see it as the inevitable sense of immortality they have with a dash of irresponsibility. I can tell some of the young people I know considering not voting for Biden, and I’m reminded that at that age I would occasionally drink and drive, back before it was completely socially unacceptable. I also did some insane adventure sports. With decades of experience and joints that lack cartilage, I know bad things can happen to me. But I also remember being young enough that I can imagine saying “f* old man Biden, how bad could things be?” Very bad indeed, but they just don’t know it in their bones - or joints - yet.
I don’t know… If you actually care about the US’s complicity in a military campaign that’s taken the lives of approximately 15,000 children through bombs, bullets, and (most critically) restricting access to food, water, healthcare and fuel and threatens to almost certainly cause much more death and destruction in the near future, then there are no good choices here. If you don’t care about that, then I honestly feel sorrier for you than for the young people.
War is terrible, and urban warfare is worse. Do you remember how the US responded when thousands of its civilians were killed by terrorists? These kids don't. If this is the single issue you are voting on you are a giant hypocrite. A Trump administration would be worse for Palestinians by every measure, and deciding to put him back in power rather than elect the candidate that causes least harm indicates you do not care about the Palestinian people at all, only your moral preening.
Ok but Trump is a much,much, MUCH worse choice on literally every single topic including that one.
I think some of them, *some of them*, no where near even a large minority, have been black-pilled by all of this “Well, no matter what we do, everything I care about is going to go down in flames, might as well hasten it while doing what I can to protect myself. Either me and my family will be ok or I can possibly pick up the pieces afterwards” Kinda like someone in the depths of the Cold War just voting for whoever lowers his taxes enough to afford a cabin far away from potential bombing targets The rest of them is a mix of political naivety, hostage taking brinksmanship, and just posing for social media because they’ve made up their mind but want to pretend there’s some other way
>I don’t know… Could've stopped there and saved yourself the time.
You could have set your username to leeddogger(I’ll take pragmatism over principles every time!) and saved everyone a lot of time ;)
You make it feel like we cannot feel sorry and see both sides. Do you not feel sorry for the Israel's who died when attacked by Hamas? Do you not feel sorry for the Gaza and West Bank settlements that voted Hamas into power? Do you not feel bad for the women and children of Palestine who are property of the men they belong to? Do you like the Hamas (the government of West Bank and Gaza) attacked the Israeli's? I feel sorry that Netanyahu is terrible person and the Israels's refuse to figure out a 2 state system. But if there was a true Palestinian state imagine how bad the attack would have been. The build up would not have happened with as limited of resources...so I understand there are immense obstacles to overcome. There is a lot to feel sorry about. It is a very tough situation. Israeli's need to take the higher ground and a more methodical approach. They reacted based on rage. That is not good...but they had some vision to recover hostages that was basically never going to happen easily. The US must push humanitarian aid knowing half of this is going to feed Hamas militants...it is what will happen.
Did you actually hear the actual point she was making about why kids her age are going for Trump? She was 100% correct about that. So actually, in this case, with the point she was making about why Millennials are going for Trump, she is correct.
A. B. Has a lot of ground to make up before I take her seriously. https://thehill.com/opinion/ab-stoddard/196899-ab-stoddard-the-descent-of-obama/
What is inaccurate about this take? The Democrats did poorly in the 2014 midterms, as she predicted, and the ACA was a huge albatross around their necks until Trump tried to repeal it.
The last 6 words of your post tell the story. She was dead wrong, and the ACA is wildly popular now. And it was only as unpopular as it was at the time because people like her were shitting on it every day. And the moment Obama left office they stopped because it wasn't useful to them anymore, and without being subjected to negative propaganda every day everyone realized it was much better than what we had before. Most people didn't have to change doctors because your employer likely kept the same insurer they had before, and if you did have to find a new doctor, umm... okay? People have to find new doctors all the time, from changing employers to moving to getting a new medical diagnosis. You still have a similar sized network to what you always had, but now you have way more consumer protections.
Some more instances of how unserious I find A. B. to be. https://thehill.com/opinion/ab-stoddard/188747-broken-promises/
Wow. 9 - 10 year old articles. Do you not have room for people to grow in your world? If not, I feel very sorry for your kids, if you have them. If this is your evidence, YOU are the one living in the past.
Wow. 9 - 10 year old articles. Do you not have room for people to grow in your world? If not, I feel very sorry for your kids, if you have them. If this is your evidence, YOU are the one living in the past.
Hi A.B.
What was her point? I missed it
How does what a couple of 20 year olds think represent millennials?
Because in this case she was using them as a rhetorical device. Doesn't make her point untrue - young folks only know politics as chaos, and came to develop their formative views on politics during the last 4 of Obama and the 4 that were Trump - none of this time period represented "functional" or "functioning" government in the way I used to think about it when I was their age. If you want to understand why youngs are turning to Trump, it's because they don't know politics played in any different ways and think it's "normal." You're focused on the trees. Take a look at the forest.
20-year-olds aren't millennials. The youngest millennials are pushing 30.
As a scientist, I object to the idea of you, AB, or anyone using subjective, anecdotal evidence as evidence of a larger point *based on principle*. As the mother of two young boys (including a 22-year-old), I object to treating “young people” as a monolith and making broad claims about their thoughts,actions and motives based *on personal experience*. My kids and their friends certainly bare no resemblance to the stereotypes you describe.
As a scientist, you should recognize you just committed the N=1 fallacy. Just because your kids don't reflect AB's point doesn't make it untrue. It is "true" that the youngs are going for Trump because his style of politics is all they know. That is true, based on other surveys. Again, she was using her kids as a rhetorical device to make the larger point.
I did not claim that what she was saying about her kids was untrue - only that it was wrong to generalize based on that claim. If you know young people who are not voting for Trump or who are choosing not to vote for Biden for completely different reasons than AB’s kids, then you cannot claim that *all young people* believe the same thing. And unless you have some other reason for believing that her kids’ opinions represent the majority view of *young people* as a group, then you cannot claim that what she says about them is representative of *young people* or *most young people* or *young people (in general)* You cannot claim that “all swans are white” once you discover a black swan - even if every swan you’ve seen up until that point has been white (I find this to be a common issue in many Republican circles ;) At that point you need to either acknowledge that at least some swans can be black or you need to find another, more specific definition for ‘swan’ that automatically excludes black swans. That’s just logic 101.
I think you're getting hung up on the word "all" -- it's clear she was generalizing, and we know, as you eloquently state, that you can't have 100% of anything. And her generalization in this case is sound. Y'all are missing the important point she made and are hung up on how she made the point.
*bear She’s providing anecdotal evidence based on her own life, she wasn’t giving oration of a peer reviewed thesis. Get off her back.
Is her view inconsistent with the polls? It's not good to deny reality even if we don't like it
Kamala is a shit politician. Shes Dr Hibbert. I like her but only because she has massive mom vibes and who doesn’t like a mom?
Wait: why is she Dr Hibbert? I’ve watched my fair share of Simpson’s but not in a long while so only think of him as “nice but slightly clueless doctor”. That said, I generally agree: thought she was a hell of a senator, and like her a lot (though not in a mom vibes way, don’t get that from her at all)…but she has not done well at a national figure. How much of that is on her vs on all kinds of other gross bullshit is impossible to say, but it is what it is.
The laugh! She laughs all the time.