Matt Taibbi

nobody should learn to code, it's a stupid job and if you can't get employed to do it for a government agency or university or basic research or something it's a complete waste of everyone's time

as I've said elsewhere #onethread, full employment would best be achieved by creating a massive nationwide helpdesk network, dial or text 311 wherever you are and start asking for help

train CSRs to use your backend systems and you both avoid having to build self-service portals and give lots of people jobs where they get to be genuinely helpful

aren’t all the “coders”/“programmers” in India these days anyway?

it was funny hearing this centrist dipstick on tv being all “we can just teach coding to all these food service workers that lost their jobs, it’s cool”

oh wait rahm’a doing it too! Nice!

Rahm Emanuel has definitely lost my vote!

there's a contradiction somewhere in the ideas that Joe Biden was only elected because Trump was a vile human being and the media constantly telling us that Trump is a vile human being was not effective.

Yeah I don’t buy into his recent whining about the dangers of liberal media bias. I hope he ditches that crap.

But I think there is something to the idea that reactionary people react poorly to being called out. Sorry I’m not being super coherent.

Where does Taibbi say Biden was elected because Trump was a vile human being?

This is what I see:

Trump lost the election because of his handling of the pandemic, the top issue for 41% of voters, who chose Biden by a nearly 3-1 margin.

Part of Taibbi's point would seem to be that four years of Trump being called a vile human being every day, followed by economic devastation and a pandemic killing 230k people, the only thing that stuck was the last, because the Democratic brand is not so good (cf. Senate races).

My Republican friends on FB love his guy and post his articles and say "see, I'm open-minded, here's an example of a liberal with some sense"

not buying that Trump only lost because of Covid though, since his numbers have been pretty static going back to before it hit.

the pendulum swings these guys make between "dems are too spineless and accommodationist" and "dems are too hard on trump and his voters" are hard to keep track of

not buying that Trump only lost because of Covid though, since his numbers have been pretty static going back to before it hit.

I think a non-negligible number of people who hadn't voted previously came out to vote against him because he is the human embodiment of a dumpster fire

It definitely didn't help him.

But it's kinda dumb because your response to ongoing emergencies is part of the job. Every President is know for at least one major incident that occurred that they either handled well or bungled, and that factors into votes.

There's no "he lost on a technicality, due to COVID", cos like...your job is literally reacting to threats to America, having a crisis to manage at some point is expected, and you'll be judged on it.

not so much "on a technicality" as "it is extremely easy to imagine him winning in the universe where this happened 6-12 months later instead but everything else was exactly the same" which I personally find worrisome

In September, a dating app for queer men called Hornet ran a survey that showed 45% support for Trump among gay men.

solid data point

COVID is illustrative, not a technicality - in the midst of a pandemic he has fucked up, with 230k dead, Trump appears to have gained ground with everyone but white men. Unless you think white men are a safe bet going forward, that should be worrisome if you'd like Democrats to get elected to any office.

Trump lost the election because of his handling of the pandemic, the top issue for 41% of voters, who chose Biden by a nearly 3-1 margin. But among people whose top concern was the economy — 28% of the electorate — Trump won an incredible 80% of the vote.

All of this points to a dramatic change. Trump may not have done much, politically, to deserve the support of Black, Latino, LGBTQ, and female voters. But the Democrats’ conspicuous refusal to address economic inequality and other class issues in a meaningful way created an opening.

not to take away from the 2nd point here, because Trump's improved support from Black, Latino, LGBTQ, and female voters does need to be understood! it's worrying! but to play mind-reader here for a second, this data point - among people whose top concern was the economy — 28% of the electorate — Trump won an incredible 80% of the vote -- i reeaaally wonder if in 2020 saying "the economy" is the top concern is, for a lot of folks, a way of saying, "the economy matters way more than the so-called pandemic"

to be on topic: idk what to make of Taibbi's anti-Dem heel turn. it's not my flavor of doomerism is how i'd put it! mostly i want to see and think about him & greewald, fang, mtracey and the like much less than i do.

Taibbi has always loathed the Party establishment. There's nothing new here, in fact his need to grind the same old axes is a crutch that gets in the way of his analysis at times.

I don't really see Taibbi as any more anti-Dem now than when he was dunking on Kerry back in '04.

I just don't think we equated hating Kerry with loving Bush back then.

dude's a real scumbag no?

we've been over this iirc, honestly my best guess is that if there was real substance to those allegations he'd have gotten the boot from Rolling Stone long ago

(this is where someone will point out to me the longtime sex pest RS staffers I was blissfully unaware of)

Taibbi still making the 2016 blunder of assuming that voters who rate "the economy" have anything to do with "income inequality". Trump's base remains people who make over $100k, we know this, the idea that there are reachable working class voters out there defecting from D to R over income inequality issues is a fantasy

if there was real substance to those allegations he'd have gotten the boot

jesus christ

Taibbi still making the 2016 blunder of assuming that voters who rate "the economy" have anything to do with "income inequality".

^^^ this. It doesn't change the fact that Dems have to reckon with income inequality, most of which accelerated under Dem presidents, but it's not on Trump voters minds. "Income inequality" means 'Socialists wanna take my money.'

He’s not doing that, though. He’s not talking about the upper-middle class MAGA hordes. He’s talking about the gains that were made, for one, with young Latino and Black men, for one - people that are more likely to be working class and non-college educated.

In Florida, more people voted for a $15 minimum wage than for Trump or Biden.

I was about to say!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-two-expat-bros-who-terrorized-women-correspondents-in-moscow/2017/12/15/91ff338c-ca3c-11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html

sounds very chill and nbd!

He’s not doing that, though. He’s not talking about the upper-middle class MAGA hordes. He’s talking about the gains that were made, for one, with young Latino and Black men, for one - people that are more likely to be working class and non-college educated.

No, he's not. He's attempting to handwave and obfuscate so you think the two are connected, when they're not, at all. The young Latin and Black male voters who went for Trump were responding to his bluster and machismo — there are numerous articles on the subject, including plenty of quotes — while the "economic anxiety" MAGA types were, as said above, voting to say "I don't want the government to give my money to poor people." Taibbi, by switching rapidly back and forth between the two, is being deliberately deceptive. Because he's a fucking asshole.

xp mention this on twitter w his name & you get swarmed by weird accounts dedicated to defending him

also those kinds of issue-ranking polls are kind of obsolete in the time of modern political tribalism, i dont really trust them for very much useful data anyway. asked what their #1 issue is, voters cant say "voting for trump, because that is the tribal identity i identify with above all else", so they say "the economy" because they are reverse-engineering a reason that makes their choice sound like it was a decision they thought about. A lot of these same respondents probably identified "character" as their top issue once upon a time, or whatever else was the issue that the GOP candidate of that cycle seemed to be strong on.

The young Latin and Black male voters who went for Trump were responding to his bluster and machismo — there are numerous articles on the subject, including plenty of quotes —

Lazy stereotypes are still stereotypes coming from liberals.

while the "economic anxiety" MAGA types were, as said above, voting to say "I don't want the government to give my money to poor people." Taibbi, by switching rapidly back and forth between the two, is being deliberately deceptive.

He’s switching between them by... not mentioning Trump’s base or economic anxiety at all?

we've been over this iirc, honestly my best guess is that if there was real substance to those allegations he'd have gotten the boot from Rolling Stone long ago

― it bangs for thee (Simon H.), Monday, November 9, 2020 2:35 PM (thirty-nine minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

You are being a huge dumbass.

https://nypost.com/2017/11/02/executive-exits-billboard-after-sexual-harassment-accusation/

https://pmc.com/about-us/person/stephen-blackwell/

Lazy stereotypes are still stereotypes coming from liberals.

What are you basing your statement on? Because you've seen hard data contradicting what Alfred said, or are you just being lazy and assuming you know more about the young Latin and Black male voters who went for Trump?

Milo, you talking about lazy thinking is the funniest shit I've read all day. Thanks for that!

ah, it was unperson you quoted, tho Alfred has said similar things

Thanks for that!

I always say, if I can bring just one ray of sunshine into someone's otherwise, drab, boring stultified life, I'm content I've done a good thing.

You are being a huge dumbass.

can you read more than one post in a row

What are you basing your statement on?

That saying that heavily Latino Texas border counties turned less blue because of “machismo” is a lazy stereotype?

If it was machismo, why would those voters turn toward Trump against Biden (man) than Clinton (woman)?

Even if you think the cliches are God’s truth, it doesn’t invalidate Taibbi’s point. If the Democrats can’t make an economic case to hold together the multiracial working class that allows them to win elections, then their supposed social conservatism, or love of machismo or whatever, will continue to bleed them into the GOP.

why would those voters turn toward Trump against Biden (man) than Clinton (woman)?

So, what numbers did you look at that substantiates the implicit assertion in your question? I haven't seen any breakdown comparing Clinton's total votes among that demographic to Biden's. In an election where at least 12 million more people voted than four years ago, and a demographic full of first time voters, I don't think it is safe to assume many Clinton voters in 2016 flipped to Trump in 2020.

there was a pretty huge swing in those mainly-Latino southern Texas counties.

Is it churlish and uncouth to point out that the overwhelming number of racist white people voting for Trump is a much bigger problem than any of this?

Or are we still on a "let's make all the brown people save us from ourselves" kick?

Racist white people are going to be Republicans no matter what (for now). Holding together an opposing coalition is possible.