Spencer Davis

No one told me that one of the new realities of old age was gonna be that "hungry," "thirsty," "tired," and "nauseous" would basically become indistinguishable from one another.

You’d have thought the lesson from horror movies would’ve been more obvious from the start: chainsaw-wielding maniacs aren’t too picky about who they like to chainsaw.

Really stupid way to frame the question—which plays right into his preferred narrative. It’s not a question of “bad guys’” rights. The question should be, “without due process, how do we know you’re not doing this to the good guys too?”

I’m sure polls like this are out there, but this is where our energy needs to be directed. What I’m pushing back on is the reflex to think we’re already right about everything, because polls say so, so we just need better messaging—as if better ads or better media or Tik Tok will magically cure all.

Seeking out specific issues on which we need to improve. Or probing alternative policies from among the liberal set of options. What do we need to talk about more? What do we need to talk about less? What issues do you think *both* parties are ignoring?

Actually, you make a great point here. But *how* we poll matters. Rather than seeking validation that we’re already right about individual issues, or polls that are framed with D/R as binary alternatives, let’s ask voters this: what does the Dem Party need to change to earn your vote? /1

And it’s made even worse when we further qualify it by only counting the *right* kind of polls—the ones that aren’t distorting, or are conducted individually, or that tell the voter what Republicans are “actually doing.” Great! But those aren’t the conditions under which actual elections happen!

I agree with you on a great many points. But this constant reflex of vindicating ourselves with polls that tell us what we want to hear, even as we keep losing, is a great part of the reason *why* we’re losing.

So the proof that polls rather than electoral outcomes are the best measure of the popularity of Democratic policies comes from … more polls? Do you not see the circularity of the argument?

To put it another way, if it really were the case that our messaging happens to align with the most popular policies on *everything* but we are still managing to lose multiple elections, that would be some epic political malpractice. OR we could instead suspect that this strains credulity.

(I’m sure you’ll say that’s also because of poor messaging, combined with gerrymandering and the Rep bias of the Senate. And you’d be correct in large part. But explanations that always happen to exclude *any* need to reexamine policy priorities start to ring as self-rationalization after a while).

There’s certainly some truth in that too. Of course that wouldn’t explain why Republicans also took the House and Senate, though, would it?

The truth is in between. A politician who never tries to use persuasion to change public opinion merely preserves a stale status quo. One who thinks they can defy public opinion on *everything* loses their seat. The key is picking the right fights—the one or two issues that are ripe for persuasion.

So I’m not trying to minimize AOC; I’m criticizing everyone else! She’s giving them all the playbook—one that’s easily replicable. We need a new generation to take over, one that’s capable of using these tools as effortlessly as AOC does!

My comment was taken as a slight on AOC, and that’s not what intended. So let me restate: in a party that didn’t have a leadership problem, we would have a lot of other people who are able to do what AOC does so effectively. She should not stand out so easily; she should be the norm. /1

It’s not even AOC herself, necessarily. The point they should be taking is that if they had a healthy bench of young, energetic candidates who are skilled at communicating and ready to fight, any one of those options might now be the face of the party. AOC stands out precisely because she is alone.

I only wish the Dem establishment was smart enough to understand why AOC is seen as the leader…and to embrace it…and to realize those pushing back on her and her message are the problem.

It’s not even AOC herself, necessarily. The point they should be taking is that if they had a healthy bench of young, energetic candidates who are skilled at communicating and ready to fight, any one of those options might now be the face of the party. AOC stands out precisely because she is alone.

Well put. A list of issues is not a narrative.

The irony is, one of the worst things you can do as a negotiator is make it this well-known that you really, really want to announce a deal—and any deal will do. You give away all your leverage! “Art of the deal,” indeed.

Why does Scott Bessent make the same face in every interview that Will Ferrell made when he was playing Harry Caray and asking someone, “if you were a hot dog, would you eat yourself?”

Who knew that “move fast and break things” wasn’t a mantra—it was a warning!

The best part of this is, even as he calls out the mistake, he, Axios and the media are repeating it in real time. Because the mistake, both then and now, was credulously reporting whatever the WH says, even when we have good cause to know it’s not true, in the name of preserving media neutrality.

Imagine thinking demons are real and dangerous and responsible for every evil in the world, but that they can also be defeated simply by telling them firmly to stop.

Empty victory, not worth the paper it’s written on. DOGE does not have to reinstate anyone already fired or any contracts already axed. And Acting Admin Rubio can “cure” DOGE’s illegal actions by ratifying them in writing. Judge practically gave a road map for how to circumvent his own decision.

I’m confused. I thought all wildfires were caused by liberal government run amok?

I’m confused. I thought wildfires were caused by liberal government run amok?

Why not run as a Dem yourself? Bring your own expertise to the side where you can still have a positive influence. Lead by example. We need people like you to be willing to put past labels aside for the greater good.

Because it wasn’t exactly a secret before this that some members of Congress might cherry pick numbers in bad faith? But even setting that aside, what news/informational value was there in even publishing a readers poll that you already know is both unauthoritative and misleading?