I think Matt (and Nate and others) have really benefitted from Shapiro not being picked and their hypothesis about him being the best VP selection going untested.
Of course, they miss an opportunity to be proven right, but they also avoid the downside of being proven wrong. As it stands today, "Josh Shapiro" can float away from the actual human with that name and stand as a sort of idealized running mate with no baggage and the precise political instincts of the pundit.
But I think we would be better served to not compare Tim Walz, the actual selection, with a hypothetical superior alternative and instead take him as he is. He seemed to be happy to play for a draw in the debate and I have no idea why the Harris campaign is so conservative with him on television. But he's also the most liked of the four candidates, he's beloved by volunteers and party rank and file, and he's clearly a competent campaigner (schooled by one of America's most effective state parties).
I'd like to see a little more punditry that reflects what has actually happened without filtering it through the lens of an imagined, superior alternative.
This is episode 1000 where Brian suggests bringing up COVID as a political strategy and I continue to find it baffling. COVID is a fucking loser man. If you bring it up in any capacity you are losing that exchange. Nobody wants to hear about it. There's a reason the campaign isn't taking your advice.
Yeah this is a microcosm of my problems with this podcast—I find that Brian’s theory of politics often just seems incorrect. And even in places where it could be correct, he doesn’t do a great job of articulating his points.
Matt has the opposite issue, where I genuinely believe that his popularist approach is mostly correct, but he really leans on that rhetoric far too much even in places where it has less merit.
Brian seems to have an idealized version of the electorate in his head that would or should respond in what he perceives to be rational ways. That seems very clearly not to comport with the facts on the ground. That said, while I do find him more convincing relative to Brian's undue optimism and/or naivete, I'm not terribly convinced that the Matt has a particularly firm grasp on the electorate's motivations either. Politics is hard!
Agree completely. I also think that although I appreciate a lot of Matt’s policies he never really has any plan to get any of it done if those said plans were somehow popular.
On the one hand, I agree that the msm holds dems to a different standard than republicans (similar to brian). I disagree that “working the refs” is very effective. It feels good to bitch at them but independents don’t care.
I tend to like a lot of what matt pushes for but I find (1) his need to punch left to be an ineffective political strategy (feels good. It does nothing) and (2) that his reflex to be contrarian on almost everything annoying. I also find that matt tends to push ideas he agrees with and then says “of course these issues that I want to solve are popular!!!”
5. Nothing, because I don’t consume political content. I tried to give the debate a chance but I changed the channel after 5 minutes because it was really boring. Everything in my daily life rapidly became less affordable under Biden. Trump had lower gas prices.
With the huge caveat up front that I didn’t actually watch the debate, from what I’ve heard: It seems at least conceivable that a low-info on the fence voter might have come into the debate concerned that Kamala is an overly-polished out-of-touch coastal progressive, and Walz’ nervous bumbling and folksiness (as well as his midwestern white maleness, to be frank) helped to assuage that.
More of a sigh than a real comment but I’ve become disenchanted with these kinds of conversations. What am I supposed to do with this information? I miss the weeds. More policy talk less recaps that honestly don’t seem to serve much purpose.
Thank you for this thoughtful conversation on the debate. For me, the most important thing that happened was the moment near the end when Vance refused to answer the point about Trump's venality after losing the election in 2020. It demonstrates what I think is the most important point in this election. Even to the extent that you think Trump actually accomplished positive things while in office, trying to overturn a fair election is absolutely disqualifying.
I honestly tho gut Vance won the debate but (1) I’m awful about determining what swing voters feel/think and (2) that makes me feel awful because I know Vance lied constantly and yet somehow I thought being smoother was a better.
I don’t understand Matt’s pov that choosing waltz was the “low risk” choice though. Everyone I saw said it was a risk and the low risk choice was Josh s.
I think Matt (and Nate and others) have really benefitted from Shapiro not being picked and their hypothesis about him being the best VP selection going untested.
Of course, they miss an opportunity to be proven right, but they also avoid the downside of being proven wrong. As it stands today, "Josh Shapiro" can float away from the actual human with that name and stand as a sort of idealized running mate with no baggage and the precise political instincts of the pundit.
But I think we would be better served to not compare Tim Walz, the actual selection, with a hypothetical superior alternative and instead take him as he is. He seemed to be happy to play for a draw in the debate and I have no idea why the Harris campaign is so conservative with him on television. But he's also the most liked of the four candidates, he's beloved by volunteers and party rank and file, and he's clearly a competent campaigner (schooled by one of America's most effective state parties).
I'd like to see a little more punditry that reflects what has actually happened without filtering it through the lens of an imagined, superior alternative.
This is episode 1000 where Brian suggests bringing up COVID as a political strategy and I continue to find it baffling. COVID is a fucking loser man. If you bring it up in any capacity you are losing that exchange. Nobody wants to hear about it. There's a reason the campaign isn't taking your advice.
Yeah this is a microcosm of my problems with this podcast—I find that Brian’s theory of politics often just seems incorrect. And even in places where it could be correct, he doesn’t do a great job of articulating his points.
Matt has the opposite issue, where I genuinely believe that his popularist approach is mostly correct, but he really leans on that rhetoric far too much even in places where it has less merit.
Brian seems to have an idealized version of the electorate in his head that would or should respond in what he perceives to be rational ways. That seems very clearly not to comport with the facts on the ground. That said, while I do find him more convincing relative to Brian's undue optimism and/or naivete, I'm not terribly convinced that the Matt has a particularly firm grasp on the electorate's motivations either. Politics is hard!
i think it is very hard for people who are obsessed with politics to develop an understanding of people who only care about it in passing.
Agree completely. I also think that although I appreciate a lot of Matt’s policies he never really has any plan to get any of it done if those said plans were somehow popular.
All of this.
On the one hand, I agree that the msm holds dems to a different standard than republicans (similar to brian). I disagree that “working the refs” is very effective. It feels good to bitch at them but independents don’t care.
I tend to like a lot of what matt pushes for but I find (1) his need to punch left to be an ineffective political strategy (feels good. It does nothing) and (2) that his reflex to be contrarian on almost everything annoying. I also find that matt tends to push ideas he agrees with and then says “of course these issues that I want to solve are popular!!!”
They don’t know!
I think if you're a voter who matters at this stage of the race (on the fence, probably low-info and mostly checked out) you will probably take away:
1. Walz seems nervous and pretty incomprehensible but earnest and decent.
2. Vance is smart, poised and articulate.
3. Walz said things about Trump I've heard before. Vance made Harris, who I don't really know, sound not great.
4. They both seem reasonable.
So Vance wins, because he reduces the drag he was otherwise putting on the ticket. He did what he needed to do. Walz didn't accomplish much.
5. Nothing, because I don’t consume political content. I tried to give the debate a chance but I changed the channel after 5 minutes because it was really boring. Everything in my daily life rapidly became less affordable under Biden. Trump had lower gas prices.
With the huge caveat up front that I didn’t actually watch the debate, from what I’ve heard: It seems at least conceivable that a low-info on the fence voter might have come into the debate concerned that Kamala is an overly-polished out-of-touch coastal progressive, and Walz’ nervous bumbling and folksiness (as well as his midwestern white maleness, to be frank) helped to assuage that.
More of a sigh than a real comment but I’ve become disenchanted with these kinds of conversations. What am I supposed to do with this information? I miss the weeds. More policy talk less recaps that honestly don’t seem to serve much purpose.
Thank you for this thoughtful conversation on the debate. For me, the most important thing that happened was the moment near the end when Vance refused to answer the point about Trump's venality after losing the election in 2020. It demonstrates what I think is the most important point in this election. Even to the extent that you think Trump actually accomplished positive things while in office, trying to overturn a fair election is absolutely disqualifying.
How many persuadable voters at this point are still on the fence about January 6th anyway
It was a boring debate.
All I hear on this entire pod caste is Cope, Cope Cope… and more Cope.
I honestly tho gut Vance won the debate but (1) I’m awful about determining what swing voters feel/think and (2) that makes me feel awful because I know Vance lied constantly and yet somehow I thought being smoother was a better.
I don’t understand Matt’s pov that choosing waltz was the “low risk” choice though. Everyone I saw said it was a risk and the low risk choice was Josh s.
I think maybe low risk in terms of it doesn't make any enemies on the left.
Yeah I guess that could be true. I thought everyone wanted Josh Shapiro but who knows. Seems risky to go against the crowd.