Given turnout, don't Republican primary voters in California have a lot more in common politically with those in Iowa than with the average California voter?
Plus, you know, primary schedules, media, money, all that. California is still June.
I grant this analysis might be more relevant for Trump, but only because he has the money to stick it out through more of the primaries.
Also the whole premise is wrong. Presidential candidates from both parties spend tons of time in NY and CA because that's where the $$ is. They don't physically campaign there on the ground much but campaigning on the ground is for suckers and for the two tiny states where residents demand that every candidate show up in every local diner because that's how we do Presidential nominations because reasons. The biggest Republican donations always come from NY or Southern California and the Republican candidates (except, I guess, Trump) all spend lots of time in both places and are nothing if not full of the ideas of their donors.
There's a difference between spending time courting the Koch brothers in NY and crafting a message that appeals to Republican voters in blue states. None of the major candidates are doing the latter.
I'm guessing the primary schedule is going to have a big effect on that. And also, as per 1, Republican voters in generally blue states are not necessarily that moderate - Illinois/Iowa Republicans don't seem that way and in a lot of the blue states you're seeing a country-folk/city-folk divide which means you aren't necessarily going to see blue states look more moderate as far as Republicans go. In some, sure, you'll see that. But there are probably some where you're likely to see the opposite.
And as far as California and New York go it's worth noting how late they are in the process too: by the time New Yorkers get to vote in the primaries something like 1719 delegates will have been assigned* (and California is over a month later). I don't think anyone will have crossed the half way mark at that point (a lot of states are assigning delegates proportionally), but there's likely to be a clear frontrunner and a lot of Republicans are going to be falling in line with whoever it is. The press certainly will be.
*(Over a third of which will be assigned on March 1 alone. That's going to be hilarious.)
Also, because March is insane this year, 'has enough money to hold on' isn't going to mean as much. By the end of March you'll see something over 1000 delegates assigned, so if you haven't made an impact there it doesn't matter how much money you have, you're out of the race.
Yeah, California Republicans are not particularly moderate and are getting less so. Arnold was, but the Republicans hate him.
I'm not sure that the higher percentage of delegates decided in March won't make the later states more important. The earliest primaries have more candidates. If that holds true even when there are more early primaries, it seems likely that a greater proportion of the delegates will have to be assigned before anybody gets to 50%.
Yeah but the point was by the time that many votes are in there will be an established base of delegates for whoever is the frontrunner on March 1. People in general flock to the winner, and Republicans more than people generally (hence this is such a hilariously stupid ad). I mean, if Donald Trump has 400+ delegates by the end of March and the rest are split up among the others then he'll only be in a position to gain more of them.
That effect was the point of the GOP's new primary schedule - to avoid the endless sequence of candidates bobbing around and making them look bad. It's designed to give you a strong frontrunner as quickly as possible and make all the other candidates look like losers so the race is settled.
That's sort of my point. In designing a system to give a strong frontrunner an early edge, you've also designed a system to make for a longer conflict if there is not early frontrunner. Because math. If Donald has 400 delegates by the end of March and Jeb has 400 and Walker has 400, you'll have a fight the whole way through.
Yeah but if it looks anything like what it looks like now, and the polling has been unnervingly stable the last month or two, you aren't going to see anything that looks like that. You're more likely to see Trump with 500some votes, Bush with about 150, Walker with under 100, and either Carson or whichever crazy replaces him when the base remembers that he's black with 300some. So, yeah there still might not be a frontrunner at that point. But it really is a schedule designed to get one in with a substantial lead quickly rather than slowly.
I think the RNC just didn't realize that it might not be the candidate they wanted, which is hilarious given the base they're working with.
While he prefers not to waste $100 million if he can avoid it, as a man whose fortune comes from the gambling industry, [Adelson] understands that to win big time you have to place large bets and you lose some of them.
Wouldn't it be more appropriate if this read "understands that to win big time you have to own the casino and rig it against the poor saps playing against you"?
You're more likely to see Trump with 500some votes, Bush with about 150, Walker with under 100
Is anyone else really worried about the damage Trump can inflict if he gets the nomination? Just putting the idea of mass deportation on the table is troubling. NPR ran a story recently how mass deportation of Mexicans happened before.
It's hard to see which Republican candidate wouldn't inflict massive amounts of damage. Jeb? just came out saying he wanted to cut the top marginal tax bracket by over ten percent. Whoever the Republican candidate is winning would almost certainly (barring very strange coattails) mean Republican majorities in the legislature and Supreme court as well, and that could end up in a really bad place very very quickly.
If anything Trump's massive heterodoxy on the things that most of the other Republican politicians actually care about (like that massive tax cut above) means there'd be a smaller chance of total disaster. I mean, disaster yes, and horrific disaster to boot. From what I can see the choice is "evil or slightly less effective evil" as far as the candidates go.
Career Republican politicians are basically the worst people in the world, because they have spent their whole lives convincing themselves that all true grown-ups support the Republican Party's policies, all of which are immoral and/or crazy. Any career Republican politician is equally terrible.
An outsider is likely to be better, following the Harriet Miers principle. Assuming that he diverges from the policies normally required for Republican politicians, he will have some which seem even worse than theirs (e.g. Nazi-style immigration policies) and some that are better (see here about "Trump's prior support for single-payer health care and a large tax on the wealthy"). The former are truly crazy policies that would be impossible to actually accomplish (though I admit I am saying this from a white non-immigrant point of view), and the latter are things that Democrats would be eager to help out with.
And then there's the absolute worst thing about Republican politicians, which is that they try to sabotage important government functions whenever possible so people will think the government can't do its job. This is something that almost everyone who isn't a Republican politician would see as appallingly immoral if they really knew what was going on. Even Trump, though an asshole, would say "If you hate Agency X so much, just get rid of it, don't make everyone's lives miserable by pretending you support its goals and then giving it 25% of the money it needs."
I think the problem with that line of thinking is that someone like Trump, even if elected, would probably be unable to get past the rest of the party to do anything helpful about those of his positions that aren't insane.
Mostly, I think there's no way to tell, of the Republicans, who would be worse in practice -- it's all a crapshoot.
It's also worth remembering that the last, very very establishment "moderate" candidate from the Republican party openly advocated making life in America almost impossible for people without complicated documentation so that immigrants would just give up and go back to wherever it was they came from (including places where they were in direct danger for their lives/etc.). Trump is deeply disturbing on immigration (because he's essentially advocating ethnic cleansing), but it's not like the Republican party was caught off guard by the idea or anything.
My guess is that Trump would end up roughly like Arnold or Jesse the Body, a weak President without much legislative support, with terrible ideas but generally less terrible than the establishment party, except on macho-seeming stuff that impresses rubes but goes nowhere as policy. But who knows and Arnold and Jesse the Body might have been different if they'd had the power to get into shooting wars abroad.
But it's all hypothetical because there is no chance that Trump will actually win the nomination.
Trump, even if elected, would probably be unable to get past the rest of the party to do anything helpful about those of his positions that aren't insane.
Perhaps, but a world in which Trump is elected is a world in which the underlying framework supporting the currently-existing Republican Party has been absolutely shattered. Piecing together a political alliance from shards of that mess may actually prove to be easier, rather than more difficult - especially for an authoritarian figure, like Trump.
I don't know what he would do, but I'm sure it would be HUGE, and very classy.
Arnold did sign AB 32 and SB 375, and then really campaigned hard against the referendum and supported robust implementation. To be honest, I'm not sure Grey Davis would have been as effective an advocate for tackling climate change.
Oh, 21 is certainly correct, believe me.
I mean, there was a lot to like about Arnold. But it turns out that chief executives who try to govern outside of, or in opposition to, the party system end up very weak, despite the strong-outsider-who-can-fix-everything pitch. The same would probably be true for Trump, though as I say maybe a successful war where we beat up in some small country for no reason would change things.
Jeet Heer is drawing comparisons between Trump and Rob Ford, which sounds about right to me.
We shouldn't put too much stock in his long-ago statements about single-payer and wealth taxation. He cares no more for consistency than for basic decency or restraint. Tomasky summarizing his 2011 book:
On domestic issues, his book is rather dull. Every chapter--on taxes, entitlements, health care, the social safety net--starts out with a few broadsides flung at Obama for being either incompetent, weak, or too left-wing and then moves on to policy prescriptions that have been standard conservative points for years. There would be four marginal tax rates under President Trump, the highest at just 15 percent, and that only on dollars earned above $1 million. On top of this he would reduce the corporate tax rate to zero. The national treasury would be depleted. But not to worry--working people would get to keep more of their hard-earned money, and they'd get to spend more years earning it, since Trump proposes raising the retirement age.
Rob Ford was pretty great if you didn't live anywhere near where he had power or influence.
What I'm saying is, sure Trump is a huge asshole, but he's not a huge asshole who gets videotaped smoking crack. And there's just no way you can replace that with any amount of sexism and racism.
Who knows what any of us may or may not have done in a drunken stupor.
Agree with 23, it strangely happened that AS plumped for tackling climate change, fell in with long term efforts led by the other party (rather than start from scratch with *new* plan) and the whole package had broad support within the relevant administrative agencies. Anyone who thinks something remotely similar would occur with Trump us seriously delusional.
19.2 - Ok sure but why? I mean, every news article about him tends to tack this on at the end, but they either don't give any strong reason to think it other than that he's an authoritarian, blustering clown who says stuff that doesn't make sense*, or they point to statistics that promptly change in his favor the next week. I've been hearing "Yeah he's popular but Trump's ceiling is somewhere around (x) percent of the base" for months now and each time I see it the person has to update the (x) to make it higher, or "Yeah but his favorable/unfavorable ratio is super low" which it certainly isn't anymore.
I'm not saying he'll be the candidate, but at this point I think it's worth taking seriously that he might be the next Goldwater (or Berlusconi; or whatever far right xenophobic vaguely genocidal president you want to pick). It's nice to think that voters won't vote for someone who the press refuses to pretend is advancing serious, not-insane policy proposals like they've done with Republican candidates for decades now, but it doesn't look like the base is caring much about that and, frankly, the more he keeps winning the more they're going to shift to talking about how he initially seemed like a clown and people underestimated him but his organization is surprisingly strong and he has advanced an interesting and excitingly new set of policies that we certainly should be debating and so on.
*Which is, basically, what the entire Republican base has been carefully taught leadership looks like, in a sustained, decades long effort.
The thing that makes predicting what a Trump presidency would be like basically impossible is that we have no idea who his general political staff/advisories/etc. would be. With Clinton/Bush/Sanders/Walker/etc. we have a pretty good idea of the groups they'd be drawing their chief of staff/secretaries of whatever/etc. from. Knowing that someone would be surrounding themselves with neocons, or DLC hacks, or whatever is a lot more valuable and predictive than what they're saying on the campaign trail. And as far as I can tell we really just have no idea with Trump.
I'm not saying he'll be the candidate, but at this point I think it's worth taking seriously that he might be the next Goldwater (or Berlusconi; or whatever far right xenophobic vaguely genocidal president you want to pick).
Trump would definitely win the presidency if he also controlled the media's coverage of all the other candidates, like Berlusconi. Although that's true of a lot of people.
Berlusconi was the leader of Italy for what, 20 years?
Because it's very early and a lot of, if not most of, his polling success is a combo of name recognition and telling pollsters to f off, and because the primary system is well set up to prevent an insurgent candidate as soon as the establishment coalesces around someone.
Incidentally, I had no notion that Ford had been elected back into his old post as city councilor.
16: Kotsko suggested elsewhere that someone was going to write "The liberal case for Trump," using the argument that his nationalism is balanced out by his socialism, and the combination of these two things has never gone wrong before.
I haven't seen it in Slate yet, but I know it is coming.
32: If that was true why do we see his favorable/unfavorable numbers shifting around (a lot)? Were the people who didn't recognize his name before saying they hated him and now that they do they love him?
And who is the establishment going to coalesce about? Bush is going over like a lead balloon, partly because of Trump's attacks. Pretty much everyone else is either deeply, deeply unready for prime time, already clearly a non-starter, or a total wacko. Coalescing used to mostly be about (1) money to stay in the race, and (2) political alliances. But Trump, like Carson, doesn't seem to have any of the second, or depend on them for his general career going forwards. And he absolutely has plenty of the first, which Citizens United has already seriously disrupted.
I get that it's early, but he's really, really popular right now and he's also the second choice of a big portion of the only other candidate with support in the double digits. He's hung on in roughly this position for three months now, and he only needs another five or six to get the party into a situation where they're faced with a Trump-or-Brokered-Convention choice.
34: I know. It's like Marion Barry but with much less self-respect.
The notion that Nazism was a conceptual fusion of nationalism and socialism is one of those horrifically malinformed ideas that just keeps cropping up, isn't it?
I could totally see Trump getting the nomination. Republicans are always happy to vote for giant assholes who hate the same people they hate.
I mean sure, maybe there will be a shift to JEB! as the anti-Trump, or people will notice Rubio for some reason, or Mitt will come riding in on his dancing horse, but the "Trump is not possible" line is not one that I'm buying.
Fortunately, even if he does get the nomination, Bernie Sanders will kick his ass in the general....
The other reason to worry about Trump is that for all the comparisons to the 2012 pop-up candidates he (1) has already been around a lot longer than any of them managed without starting to drop back down and (more importantly)(2) he doesn't represent any of the traditional constituencies.
Trump's support isn't very uneven across, say, women/tea party/moderate/hard-right/evangelical/etc. groups. In fact he seems generally appealing to each one in about the same proportion, while the other candidates seem to be mostly picking up specific groups (and for the most part unsuccessfully at this point). Which means he doesn't look as much like any of the pop-up candidates in 2012 as a lot of people would like. (Again, I'm not convinced he would be the nominee, but I do think it's past the point where we can safely assume he won't be.)
36, 39, 40 -- care to make it interesting? $100 on Trump not winning the nomination.
What odds are you offering? Because at even money, that's absurd.
As far as coalescing goes if you add up the numbers of the not-Carson and not-Trump voters in the latest poll you get 42%. I suspect that Carson really is a pop-up candidate, but I doubt that his supporters are all going to jump ship directly to Bush, and even if they did Trump would still beat Bush at this point.
Unfortunately, I've sworn off gambling.
Dude I don't even have a job right now so I'm not betting anything. But I do encourage people to put their money where my mouth is. Also that site is offering 3:1 so you'd need to beat that if you wanted Moby's money.
Sure, an even-money bet is absurd, but that seems to be where these guys are going. Hell, I'll even give 2-1 odds.
I wouldn't take it at 3:1 or 2:1. In fact, I'd very eagerly take the other side at even 3:1. I looked it up, because fixing Access DBs sucks, and at this point in 2011, Rick Perry was leading.
3-1 sounds about right to me. I do think he has the best odds of any candidate, but even 2-1 is overstating it.
The last time I looked it was 4:1, so better get on it fast!
I think three- or four-to-one is about right, but who can say? Trump is sui generis.
There's a strong case to be made that he could be like Goldwater or McGovern - someone that the party establishment hates but who cannot be denied the nomination. It happens.
Huh - Sanders ahead of Clinton in a new Iowa poll.
51 Good. Keep pulling her to the left.
Newt's really on the Sanders bandwagon -- he keeps on giving me poll numbers at breakfast. And I keep on telling him that it'd be great, and I'm voting for him if he's still in by the time they get to NY, but don't get your hopes up.
I'm also done saying Trump definitely won't be the nominee: he's been better at taking what the establishment throws at him than anyone in memory, and just might pull it off. If he's actually building up the local infrastructure needed to harness the popular energy reflected by the polls into votes cast on the proper day in the proper place.
Cruz is scheming to hijack Trump's following, I'm sure. There's a guy who could screw up a 3 car funeral.
I expect (and hope) Trump is simply destroying JEB over his tax plan today, tomorrow, over the weekend.
I trained a zeroth-order Markov model on a Ted Cruz speech last night and it generates sentences that sound pretty much like actual Ted Cruz. Personal favorite:
"President signing legislation repealing every single child."
I'm really curious about Cruz, to be honest. It's pretty clear he's setting himself up quietly behind the scenes to snatch up Trump's support if Trump flames out. And he's trying to get in cozy with the religious right as well (hence that hilarious photo of him at the Kim Davis rally). But whenever he's visible he's so obviously sycophantic/slimy about it that I don't know how it would work. If he's running for Trump's VP the religious right thing might make sense - my impression is that Carson's support is centered in the religious right pretty firmly so he might have an argument to make there.
Also, like Trump, he's well positioned (and clearly setting up) to get a bunch of publicity reacting to the upcoming Iran deal failure, the Planned Parenthood funding failure, and the debt ceiling failure that the Republicans have coming in the next two or three months.
That's going to be a doozy for them, and I think it's going to be disastrous for their establishment candidates. They could recover from it - there's still a few months between that and the first set of states. But Bush is probably going to end up getting kicked when he's already down.
Isn't Cruz one of those explicitly trying to shut the government down? Would another such mess really help him?
I think another failure won't help him with anyone not already in his camp, and another attempt won't hurt him with anyone in his camp.
Trump certainly seems smart enough not to pick Cruz for anything. If he decides he wants someone with inside knowledge of the system to help him strategize stuff, he'll get someone with a reputation for competence.
I think the shutdown is exactly what would help him - the fact that everyone else would cave and give Obama exactly what he wanted is the bit that he's going to exploit. That plus the other ones lends itself perfectly to a 'support me not those useless jerks they're selling you out'. Cruz is actually a politician and not an outsider but he's also the one most likely to loudly play against the rest of them like he did the last time.
I think Trump laughs in Cruz' face when the thing fails. What kind of leader is he if he can't get the Senate to do something simple? Trump would've made a much better deal.
I dunno - I mean, Cruz was the face of "WHY WON'T YOU FIGHT LIKE ME!" in the senate the last time, so I can easily see it happening again. "Those other guys stabbed me in the back! Vote for me so I can fuck them over!" isn't exactly a new strategy in politics, after all.
That said, yeah, absolutely Trump just laughs in Cruz's face. For as hackish as he is he clearly knows exactly where to hit and who the actual power players are. And Cruz isn't one of them, or at least not yet.
I think 61 is right on the money about Trump being ready to laugh in Ted Cruz's face and insinuating it's somehow his fault that the Republicans didn't line up behind him.
Also, the classic Republican insult is to call someone a "career politician" -- which is exactly what everyone except for Trump, Carson, and Fiorina are. Of those, Carson pretty clearly doesn't understand how the government actually works and Fiorina is a) agreed to have been a failure in her biggest leadership position and b) exactly one penis shy of the prerequisite for being taken seriously in the Republican party.
What Donald Trump has made pretty clear is that there's a sizable part of the Republican party that really doesn't give a shit and a half about conservative principles. You can say nice things about single-payer healthcare and you can suggest that we tax the rich and you can not even have a favorite Bible verse as long as you act in accordance with the cosmic decree that women are sex objects and minorities are subhuman sludge.
Actually, I'm looking forward to when journalists start asking Trump, when he says he'll make some better deal -- eg to get Russia and other places not to meet with the general in charge of the Quds regiment -- so, what's your leverage? That's a question he totally understands, and may not be able to bluster out of (if he gets asked a followup, which won't happen the first 10 times but will eventually). So either he reveals himself to be a paper tiger or an insanely bellicose loose cannon.
So what really are you going to do with Putin? Insult his horse? Impose trade sanctions? Send troops to Ukraine?
He's willing to get insanely specific, though. In his book he talked about 25% punitive sanctions on all Chinese goods.
They've already tried that with a bunch of stuff, though. He just blusters some more and says something about how America is so great - so great! We just need to negotiate better! As for what I would do - I'll tell you - I would do WHATEVER IT TAKES to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! And so on.
He really has exposed the extent to which not taking the press seriously has been a Republican strategy for a long time - he's just doing it to a much larger degree. If they want to damage him they'll have to go a different way. I'm guessing they try to undercut him on religion at the next debate - that actually does seem like his weakness. I mean, no one cares in the slightest about hypocrisy. But he might actually forget how to pander about that one, and he has in the past (like when he talked about how, of course, we should continue to support Planned Parenthood's work providing reproductive healthcare to underprivileged women).
And we're going to stop selling them bonds too? That'll show them.
Anybody comparing Trump to Goldwater needs to re-read Before the Storm. Goldwater had some really expert delegate wranglers working on his behalf. A big part of the reason the press doesn't take Trump seriously, as I understand it, is that Trump doesn't have a serious ground organization and doesn't look like he's building one. He's just showing up where the cameras are and spouting off.
I find puzzling right-wingers who go on about the liberal press, as they've heard about in various explicitly reactionary media sources.
But I keep on reading articles about what the media gets wrong about Trump. Is it sort of the same thing?
69: The comparison has more to do with the media generally not taking him seriously because he's clearly not like any of the previous very-serious-men contenders, and clearly missing the fact that he's doing a very good job being very appealing to a large chunk of the electorate. Goldwater used that kind of delegate sneakiness to get through despite representing a pretty specific and not massive chunk of the Republican electorate at the time, true, and Trump doesn't look like he's doing that. But Trump isn't doing the "representing a pretty specific part" but either - that's the thing about him that I do genuinely think makes him worth taking seriously.
Hey look at that. It turns out that when people show up with loads of weapons to protect someone who is breaking the law and tell the federal government to fuck off and the government does they get the idea that that kind of thing works.
72 Am I not allowed to read that unless I provide an email address? Because fuck that. I'm getting a massive popup over that page that will not go or move away.
69: Yup. Anyone remember the 2008 Democratic campaign? Obama basically managed to stay close to Clinton through Super Tuesday, and then destroyed her over the next month in a bunch of caucus states where he had built a real organization and she hadn't (assuming the race would basically be over by Super Tuesday). That's where Obama built the lead that he held the rest of the way to the convention. It turns out that being popular isn't enough if you don't have the organization to make sure your supporters come to the caucus. And so far, at least, I don't think Trump has been picking up endorsements from many local politicians who could help him build that kind of organization.
I'm getting nothing popping up. Perhaps you need crueler browser settings?
The url pretty much tells you anything you need to know, though.
I thought I read somewhere that Trump was actually paying for local campaign organizers but can't find it now.
I read somewhere the Huckabee thinks Dredd Scott is still a legally binding opinion.
That saves me from having to link to Slate. Thanks.
76: I think there was an article about how he actually did have a structure built up in Iowa/etc. unlike what most people were saying, but I'm guessing it never got mentioned again because journalists writing about politics find actual politics incredibly boring and do their best to avoid it. But yeah he does have stuff going on there, though it's not clear what exactly he's doing with it. It never sounded like a basic 'TV ads and local politician endorsements' style thing, though.
My brother volunteered for somebody in Iowa. I can't remember who. It was a Democrat.
80 Right. If we had good journalism we'd have had a detailed hard-reported story about Trump's ground game. Instead he'll say something outrageous and the media will all go running off in that direction, like, "look, squirrel." Hey media, the squirrel is right there on Trump's head. It's on his head!
I'm so old that I remember when Trump was caught hiring actors to act as supporters for his campaign announcement.
80: Oh, I'm pretty sure that Trump has some kind of organization built up in Iowa, because of the splash that winning there will get you. The real question is what kind of organization does he have in other caucus states that vote later in the process? Because they don't matter unless you can survive until you get to them, but it's really hard to build up an organization there quickly.
This Ralph Nader piece from June (yes, Ralph Nader) on Trump's appeal and likely trajectory was remarkably prescient.
I'm old enough to remember when he responded to a journalist with a crude reference to menstruation.
I've paid no campaign organizers, because until a few weeks ago, I had little chance of being elected!
The notion that Trump can't win the Republican nomination ignores the trajectory of the Republican base over the past decade or so. The rank-and-file GOP is no longer an issues-oriented party, unless you count knee-jerk reactions to whatever the snooty, effeminate (but most of all blackityblackblack) Democrats are advocating. For that matter, despite treating the word like a magical incantation, it isn't even a conservative party for any definition of the term you could find in a political science textbook. It is almost completely driven by identifying enemies and then calling them names. It is essentially a national Jerry Springer audience.
Trump may not end up the nominee, but ruling it out at this point seems awfully premature. Here's the most worrisome part of that: the general election will almost certainly come down to Florida, far and away the most unpredictably eccentric state of the 50.
||
New Yorkers doing a pretty good job of being New Yorkers in this video snippet.
(James Blake being "arrested".)
|>
This article is kind of interesting: http://www.thenation.com/article/the-kissinger-effect/
Remind me never to piss off whoever does the caricatures for The Nation.
The little bit under the title of the essay:Leftists often describe Henry Kissinger as a unique moral monster, but his intellectual framework pervades the entire national security state, from the neocons to Obama.
"But."
Ha ha ha, The Nation. Ha ha ha.
Rick Perry dropped out. Does that change anybody's odds for the other players? I sort of doubt it.
||
Jacobin has a post on Olof Palme and the rise and decline of the Swedish model
"During the 1970s the new feminist movement grew strong and pushed out the older forms."
The 70s Swedish feminists could work with the labor unions to grow the welfare state.
Just finishing Raymond William's Country and City, 1973. Still a useful book. Somehow the ideas and conflicts were clearer in the 70s, because the contrasts of the Communist block, the developing and emerging third world nations and emerging social movements at their inception, and the energy of the baby booms. Probably a peak of some global civilization, before neoliberalism rotted the brains.
|>
93: The odds that a total asshole will get the Republican nomination have not changed.
His supporter will switch to someone else's camp? Or maybe they'll just find something else to do.
||
What the hell? Is there any way making The City and The City into a movie would even slightly make sense?
|>
97: No, that's ridiculous! And I will totally watch when the time comes! How on earth could you film the process of unseeing???