Just like Christopher Rufo has done with CRT: “The goal,” he tweeted, “is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think ‘critical race theory.’ We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.”
So has the right done with "Woke." They've rendered it meaningless. They've made it anything that doesn't automatically pander to cis-het whites.
But Smedley raises a point. If something can be "too woke" then it stands to reason that another thing can be "not woke enough" and I'd LOVE to heard Smedley's opinions on what he thinks "isn't woke enough." I mean is there a centered level of "acceptable woke" for Smedley? A "woke plumb line?" I mean if Smedley thinks he's our "Goldilocks of Wokeness" perhaps he can let us bears know what she would be leaving behind in our house in the woods?
Note this recent subthread started with the premise that the Democrats need to make some changes to avoid a blowout in November. This premise is supported by myriad polls which for some time now have looked bad for Democrats.
As I said previously, it seems to be a pretty straightforward, non-controversial premise.
But no acknowledgement on here that anything is amiss or needs changing. Just criticism of the criticism. And hopes that Jan. 6 takes back the narrative.
As Mark Twain (allegedly) said, denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
Just like Christopher Rufo has done with CRT: “The goal,” he tweeted, “is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think ‘critical race theory.’ We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.”
So has the right done with "Woke." They've rendered it meaningless. They've made it anything that doesn't automatically pander to cis-het whites.
But Smedley raises a point. If something can be "too woke" then it stands to reason that another thing can be "not woke enough" and I'd LOVE to heard Smedley's opinions on what he thinks "isn't woke enough." I mean is there a centered level of "acceptable woke" for Smedley? A "woke plumb line?" I mean if Smedley thinks he's our "Goldilocks of Wokeness" perhaps he can let us bears know what she would be leaving behind in our house in the woods?
I'm hardly the arbiter of wokeness but I know "too woke" when I see it. Kinda like what Larry Flynt said about pornography. And the SF BoE moving to rename 40+ schools while schools were closed for an unduly long period was too woke.
Do you think the SF BoE moving to rename 40+ schools while schools were closed for an unduly long period was too woke, not woke enough, or just right woke?
I'm hardly the arbiter of wokeness but I know "too woke" when I see it. Kinda like what Larry Flynt said about pornography. And the SF BoE moving to rename 40+ schools while schools were closed for an unduly long period was too woke.
Do you think the SF BoE moving to rename 40+ schools while schools were closed for an unduly long period was too woke, not woke enough, or just right woke?
I think that not having a better response to the "they're too woke" narrative was the problem.
Note this recent subthread started with the premise that the Democrats need to make some changes to avoid a blowout in November. This premise is supported by myriad polls which for some time now have looked bad for Democrats.
As I said previously, it seems to be a pretty straightforward, non-controversial premise.
But no acknowledgement on here that anything is amiss or needs changing. Just criticism of the criticism. And hopes that Jan. 6 takes back the narrative.
As Mark Twain (allegedly) said, denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
Mark Twain also allegedly said (but probably didn't), “A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World Before the Truth Puts On its Shoes”. So, is the problem being "too woke", or is the problem that the "they're too 'woke'" lie has a head start?
Note this recent subthread started with the premise that the Democrats need to make some changes to avoid a blowout in November. This premise is supported by myriad polls which for some time now have looked bad for Democrats.
As I said previously, it seems to be a pretty straightforward, non-controversial premise.
But no acknowledgement on here that anything is amiss or needs changing. Just criticism of the criticism. And hopes that Jan. 6 takes back the narrative.
As Mark Twain (allegedly) said, denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
Actually a lot of us have a lot it say about what the Democrats have done wrong. And things they should do differently.
It's just that we don't spend time worrying about whether or not the SF school board is going to influence a House race in PA or a Senate race in OH.
Smedley said: Do you think the SF BoE moving to rename 40+ schools while schools were closed for an unduly long period was too woke, not woke enough, or just right woke?
I couldn't give a flying fork. Oh noes! They renamed the school! How will we ever cope?
Well I imagine plenty of SF parents did have trouble coping while schools were closed for a year and a half, and they did give a flying fork that rather than push to reopen schools, the Board spent its time and energy renaming schools.
But hey as long as nobody is offended, that's what's important...
Well I imagine plenty of SF parents did have trouble coping while schools were closed for a year and a half, and they did give a flying fork that rather than push to reopen schools, the Board spent its time and energy renaming schools.
But hey as long as nobody is offended, that's what's important...
do you really and truly believe that school board chose to rename schools RATHER than come up with a reopening plan? they could have easily chosen to do both. which gets back to the issue of the relative importance of the schools remaining closed vs. the renaming of schools in driving the recall election.
I guess this is a problem for Democrats, but what's the solution? If people are dumb enough to believe that the schools didn't open in SF because the school board was renaming schools, how do you combat that? It's like people want to believe these absurd narratives.
Well I imagine plenty of SF parents did have trouble coping while schools were closed for a year and a half, and they did give a flying fork that rather than push to reopen schools, the Board spent its time and energy renaming schools.
But hey as long as nobody is offended, that's what's important...
Well, I'm sure they did. And they're recalling the people who did that, which is what they should do. I don't see why the actions or non-actions of a school board in a city of 874,961 people means we can't have universal preschool for the other 299+ Million people, and hearing aid coverage for Medicare patients, and a $35 cap on insulin costs. But then I'm not the Goldilocks of Woke, you are. So you tell me.
you say the Dems must change to avoid a '22 election massacre.
but other than an un-defined plea to be less woke, you offer nothing that should be changed. Other than not trying to rename 40 schools, which I'm pretty sure is not part of the Democratic national platform.
to some of us, that means the criticism of the Dems is ill-defined, to say the least, and it's why the criticism is attacked. Because there's no there there.
I guess this is a problem for Democrats, but what's the solution? If people are dumb enough to believe that the schools didn't open in SF because the school board was renaming schools, how do you combat that? It's like people want to believe these absurd narratives.
I think there were other issues in San Francisco. The “renaming vs. reopening schools” narrative is bull caca being spread by conservatives in the rest of the country.
I guess this is a problem for Democrats, but what's the solution? If people are dumb enough to believe that the schools didn't open in SF because the school board was renaming schools, how do you combat that? It's like people want to believe these absurd narratives.
I think there were other issues in San Francisco. The “renaming vs. reopening schools” narrative is bull caca being spread by conservatives in the rest of the country.
and useful idiots like "Democrat" Mike Bloomberg.
Democrats need to spend more time talking about the tremendous economic growth and low unemployment. A big reason for inflation is that people are being paid more. If inflation is described as being a side effect of keeping the economy from cratering, it's a message that will reach persuadable people. If they aren't persuaded, then they were probably in the bag for the GOP anyway.
Nearly 6 in 10 Americans (59 percent) say the nation's economy is getting worse, while 15 percent say it's getting better, and 25 percent say it's staying about the same. That's a slightly more negative assessment than about a month ago when 54 percent said the economy was getting worse, while 15 percent said it was getting better, and 30 percent said it was staying about the same.
More than two-thirds of Americans (68 percent) describe their own financial situation positively, saying it is excellent (13 percent) or good (55 percent), while 30 percent describe it negatively, saying it is not so good (22 percent) or poor (8 percent).
you say the Dems must change to avoid a '22 election massacre.
but other than an un-defined plea to be less woke, you offer nothing that should be changed. Other than not trying to rename 40 schools, which I'm pretty sure is not part of the Democratic national platform.
to some of us, that means the criticism of the Dems is ill-defined, to say the least, and it's why the criticism is attacked. Because there's no there there.
well previously you have said Biden’s approval rating doesn’t matter, and you have criticized me for citing polls too frequently. If you still believe Biden’s -10 approval rating (which is 6 months old) doesn’t matter, and other polls that look grim for Dems <9 mos before the midterms are a tempest in a teapot, then you’re absolutely right, there’s no there there. Carry on, and look forward to a glorious Democratic rout in November.
However if you’ve come back to planet earth, and can acknowledge that the current Biden approval rating and polls do in fact indicate negativity about how the Dems have governed and what their midterm chances are , then let me know and we’ll talk.
you say the Dems must change to avoid a '22 election massacre.
but other than an un-defined plea to be less woke, you offer nothing that should be changed. Other than not trying to rename 40 schools, which I'm pretty sure is not part of the Democratic national platform.
to some of us, that means the criticism of the Dems is ill-defined, to say the least, and it's why the criticism is attacked. Because there's no there there.
well previously you have said Biden’s approval rating doesn’t matter, and you have criticized me for citing polls too frequently. If you still believe Biden’s -10 approval rating (which is 6 months old) doesn’t matter, and other polls that look grim for Dems <9 mos before the midterms are a tempest in a teapot, then you’re absolutely right, there’s no there there. Carry on, and look forward to a glorious Democratic rout in November.
However if you’ve come back to planet earth, and can acknowledge that the current Biden approval rating and polls do in fact indicate negativity about how the Dems have governed and what their midterm chances are , then let me know and we’ll talk.
you seem confused.
I'm not asking about polls. I'm asking about what you think Dems need to do. You say Dems must change their approach. OK.
I just read that the R's have not won a single redistricting court case.
Surprising if true.
just my two cents, but there seem to be a couple of things going on. First, in some states the Republicans were too overt in drawing maps that discriminated against people of color. And second, their gerrymandering was so extreme 10 years ago, this round is producing diminishing returns. At the same time, their past gerrymanders gave the Democrats a handbook on how they could do it this year.
you say the Dems must change to avoid a '22 election massacre.
but other than an un-defined plea to be less woke, you offer nothing that should be changed. Other than not trying to rename 40 schools, which I'm pretty sure is not part of the Democratic national platform.
to some of us, that means the criticism of the Dems is ill-defined, to say the least, and it's why the criticism is attacked. Because there's no there there.
well previously you have said Biden’s approval rating doesn’t matter, and you have criticized me for citing polls too frequently. If you still believe Biden’s -10 approval rating (which is 6 months old) doesn’t matter, and other polls that look grim for Dems <9 mos before the midterms are a tempest in a teapot, then you’re absolutely right, there’s no there there. Carry on, and look forward to a glorious Democratic rout in November.
However if you’ve come back to planet earth, and can acknowledge that the current Biden approval rating and polls do in fact indicate negativity about how the Dems have governed and what their midterm chances are , then let me know and we’ll talk.
you seem confused.
I'm not asking about polls. I'm asking about what you think Dems need to do. You say Dems must change their approach. OK.
HOW?
Be more like Eric Adams and less like Bill DeBlasio.
you say the Dems must change to avoid a '22 election massacre.
but other than an un-defined plea to be less woke, you offer nothing that should be changed. Other than not trying to rename 40 schools, which I'm pretty sure is not part of the Democratic national platform.
to some of us, that means the criticism of the Dems is ill-defined, to say the least, and it's why the criticism is attacked. Because there's no there there.
well previously you have said Biden’s approval rating doesn’t matter, and you have criticized me for citing polls too frequently. If you still believe Biden’s -10 approval rating (which is 6 months old) doesn’t matter, and other polls that look grim for Dems <9 mos before the midterms are a tempest in a teapot, then you’re absolutely right, there’s no there there. Carry on, and look forward to a glorious Democratic rout in November.
However if you’ve come back to planet earth, and can acknowledge that the current Biden approval rating and polls do in fact indicate negativity about how the Dems have governed and what their midterm chances are , then let me know and we’ll talk.
you seem confused.
I'm not asking about polls. I'm asking about what you think Dems need to do. You say Dems must change their approach. OK.
HOW?
Be more like Eric Adams and less like Bill DeBlasio.
Well there are no easy answers or magic solutions obviously. Biden is lame so I don't see how he can help with the midterms - Dem candidates will have to decide for themselves whether to run with Biden or avoid him. There's a lot of sh*t hitting the fan right now with Ukraine, inflation, possible stagflation coming, etc. Of course not all the fault of the Democrats but at the same time I think people want stronger leadership on kitchen table issues, and when they don't get that leadership there's not going to be a lot of tolerance for culture wars crap. I loathed that stuff from Trump and I loathe it from the far left / left. And I think it's clear that other voters of my ilk do as well.
"Last week’s recall of three San Francisco Board of Education members, who had kept schools closed for months and spent hours trying to remove the names of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln from schools, was a singular event: a landslide vote that was at least in part against “hyper-wokeness” in the most liberal city in America, with the full support of London Breed, the liberal Black woman mayor.
Across the continent in the other most liberal city in America, new Mayor Eric Adams, a Black veteran of the city’s police force, has been striking a strong anti-crime posture, ranging from a relatively generous police budget to resisting the new Manhattan District Attorney’s plan to shun the prosecution of low-level felonies.
If you think having two liberal, Black, big-city, crime-fighting mayors does not suggest a political asset for Democrats, you might want to grab an Uber back to Planet Earth. The prospect of them campaigning with Democratic candidates in purple states, with a record of specific policies, has at least the potential to push back against the “preachy,” “judgmental” image that is pushing swing voters away from the party. (Biden did just that last month in New York, standing side by side with Adams.)"
I guess the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson will be a good test of all this. Republicans in the Senate will surely try to "cancel" her, and they will almost certainly try to paint her as soft on crime and someone in favor of bail reform and "defund the police." Her past career as a defense attorney, and her race and gender will provide plenty of fodder for the GOP to show their true colors. So let's see what the public reaction is among the persuadable portion of the electorate.
I guess the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson will be a good test of all this. Republicans in the Senate will surely try to "cancel" her, and they will almost certainly try to paint her as soft on crime and someone in favor of bail reform and "defund the police." Her past career as a defense attorney, and her race and gender will provide plenty of fodder for the GOP to show their true colors. So let's see what the public reaction is among the persuadable portion of the electorate.
White concern trolls will be lecturing Biden about how he shouldn't have.
I guess the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson will be a good test of all this. Republicans in the Senate will surely try to "cancel" her, and they will almost certainly try to paint her as soft on crime and someone in favor of bail reform and "defund the police." Her past career as a defense attorney, and her race and gender will provide plenty of fodder for the GOP to show their true colors. So let's see what the public reaction is among the persuadable portion of the electorate.
White concern trolls will be lecturing Biden about how he shouldn't have.
absolutely.
And if we want to use dueling op-eds to make our points, I guess I'll see Jeff Greenfield, and raise with Jamelle Bouie.
If there was one goal in mind among the moderates and conservatives who froze the Democratic Party’s agenda in place, it was to pass their priorities in law while distancing themselves from their progressive colleagues. What happened, instead, is that they weakened Democrats across the board, as candidates struggled to overcome a sense of failure that had settled over the party. Terry McAuliffe, a moderate former governor of Virginia, couldn’t clear that hurdle. In November, he lost his bid for a (nonconsecutive) second term to Glenn Youngkin, a conservative Republican.
<...>
Now, having immobilized the president’s agenda and plunged their party into disarray, the same Democrats are casting around for someone to blame. Not surprisingly, they’ve settled on their progressive colleagues. Axios’s Mike Allen, summarizing the view from “top Democrats,” writes that “the push to defund the police, rename schools and tear down statues has created a significant obstacle to Democrats keeping control of the House, the Senate and the party’s overall image.”
Groups aligned with moderate and conservative Democrats, like the centrist advocacy organization Third Way, insist that “Squad politics” are the central problem for the Democratic Party. And despite inconclusive evidence that it actually had much of an impact on the 2020 election, some Democrats continue to slam the activist slogan “defund the police” for the party’s current woes.
Perhaps this isn’t a bad-faith attempt to pass the buck for failure. You could be forgiven, however, for thinking that it looks like one.
Specifically, it looks as if moderate and conservative Democrats are doing everything they can to obscure the fact that, under their leadership and following their agenda, the Democratic Party has run aground and can’t get back on course. They sense a blowout in November and would rather play the blame game than do anything concrete to regain the ground they’ve helped lose. Their refusal to either pass popular economic legislation or fight the cultural battles of the moment have left them with only one option: find a scapegoat.
I'll admit that this is just Bouie's opinion, and his speculation isn't any more likely to reflect what's really happening among the electorate. But the same can be also be said about the musings of Mike Allen and Jeff Greenfield.
Just like Christopher Rufo has done with CRT: “The goal,” he tweeted, “is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think ‘critical race theory.’ We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.”
So has the right done with "Woke." They've rendered it meaningless. They've made it anything that doesn't automatically pander to cis-het whites.
But Smedley raises a point. If something can be "too woke" then it stands to reason that another thing can be "not woke enough" and I'd LOVE to heard Smedley's opinions on what he thinks "isn't woke enough." I mean is there a centered level of "acceptable woke" for Smedley? A "woke plumb line?" I mean if Smedley thinks he's our "Goldilocks of Wokeness" perhaps he can let us bears know what she would be leaving behind in our house in the woods?