Thank you for writing this! I am in a group of Nikki Haley voters. Most of us lean right, but a few left. We are the center now. Nobody is happy. And I wonder, is there room for a centrist coalition in America? Center right and center left people are natural allies. We can compromise on the policy we disagree on, it is so small. We agree more than we disagree. The best thing to come out of the Trump years is that Never Trump/Haley voter types and moderate Democrats/left leaners have been mixing it up on social media. And we have found that we genuinely like one another, and get along on political issues. Wouldn't it be great if Trump actually brought about a great political alliance of centrists? How to do this? Where to start? Because sincerely, neither party represents me. I will write in at the top of the ticket and vote for the most moderate of either party down ballot. I suspect most of my group members will do the same. I know that one of the problems is that not enough people are voting in primaries thus letting the most extreme of both parties choose the candidates. So, choose a party at primary time and vote. But the whole progressives chose Walz on Twitter is disheartening. I am weaning off twitter. It doesn't work well with my moderate takes. But if twitter is not real life, how do the progressives have such a wide reach there? Same as the big MAGA accounts? Maybe twitter is more real life than we think? Do we need a bunch of normies to sign up and get twitter accounts? Ideas, people! Thanks for writing though. My group was thrilled to see we are not forgotten.
I can get this kind of crap on Twitter. If you can't be a grown up and spell out Trump like a big boy, we have nothing to talk about. Thankful this medium has a block option because I will not be shamed for my comments, which, btw, were the topic of the piece I commented on. Bigger boys than you have tried that tact, David Scardino. And 9 years in to my Never Trump journey, I'm still defying Trump, and speaking my mind. Go back to Twitter.
I'm sorry, but this seems like selfishness of a kind that will only help tRump, a genuine threat to democracy. You seem to be putting your personal "hurt" ahead of your country. Apologies if I'm getting you wrong, but any vote other than for Harris is not only a waste of precious franchise, but benefits only the orange authoritarian. (Btw, I'm a centrist but, more importantly, I want to preserve and protect our precious democratic heritage.)
As a centrist, I’d love to hear your specific basis for your claim Trump is a threat to democracy and an authoritarian. Would you please explain? The reason I ask is because, as a centrist, I’d expect you’d have well reasoned evidence-based support. I’m sincerely interested in how logical people come to this conclusion. I’ve honestly never been provided a rational response…if one responds at all. Thoughts?
I find it ironic that you claim to be a defender for small d democratic values, yet you are supporting a candidate that has never won a single presidential primary as the champion of democracy. The argument made by Democrats is Joe Biden is not healthy enough to run a campaign, but they are making the argument he is healthy enough to remain the highest ranking political leader for 5 more months.
Also if you actually believe Trump is akin to Adolf Hitler, then there is no moral quandary you should have with the man who attempted to end his life. It required a war to stop Adolph Hitler, so the more you associate Trump with that imagery you are suggesting the only mechanism of stopping him is war. There has been substantive lawfare in the last four years.
Frustratingly, once again, no response when asked for specifics....even from a self-described 'centrist'. This happens literally every single time. I don't claim to be a centrist...I'm a conservative. It's disappointing to see our country being steered by empty narratives held by incurious voters and propagated by a captive media that essentially functions as state media (i.e. propagandists) at this point. Harris may very well win in November, but this is a very slippery slope toward authoritarianism.
Has anyone visited the Harris/Walz campaign site? It contains zero policy positions. Not even high-level Democratic bromides. It's simply a fundraising page. Be you for him or against him, at least Trump has the integrity to tell you who he is and what he'll do as President. Kamala, on the other hand, is counting on a strategy of 'vibes'...she's leveraging a complicit media/press to generate positive buzz while not being forced to answer a single question or even commit to a single policy position. Between Biden being forced out...the Kamala Coronation...Walz selection....and the DNC, Harris will be able to eat up 2 months of news cycles in what is effectively a 4 month election cycle without being challenged once. It's a winning strategy for her and, the scary thing is, it appears to be working.
On a related note, can we please make 'vibes' and 'weird' end. This isn't middle school. Moving on...
It was honestly shocking last night watching all those in the Harris/Walz audience cheering with glee as Harris let them in on the news that she'd been formally nominated in a late night vote. People were overflowing with joy at the fact that the party had assumed for itself its voters constitutionally afforded right to select their leader. WTF was that? It was very Orwellian...almost cultish.
Fair minded Americans should demand that our press actually do their jobs and press Harris as much as they press Trump. Being available to the press, friendly or hostile, should not become a disadvantage in presidential politics. We should demand a series of policy-based debates to occur before ballots go out in September. CBS, ABC, and Fox.
I think we're about to find out that, despite the common cliche, the American people truly are not smarter than we give them credit for.
Ultimately, even though Shapiro was a stronger candidate, I think he would have outshone her—I wish he was the presidential candidate and she the vice-president. I think she ultimately thought she could win with Walz and that she vibed well with him. I definitely get that point of view.
I tuned into the Matt Taibbi/Walter Kirn recap last night and it was pretty interesting. Two takeaways:
1) Walter did an interesting analysis where he contrasted Walz and Vance as representing two very different 'midwestern' constituencies. Coastal elites paint the flyover states with a broad brush and assume a homogeneity of the region's constituents that doesn't really exist. Walz, to Kirn, is a bit of a cartoonish character that pays homage to those 'midwestern sensibilities'. Vance's story, on the other hand, is more representative of the lower midwest, which is really better represented by southern ethics/values. Kirn's point is that Walz may not play as well outside of Minnesota as the Harris campaign is assuming. Check it out here: https://www.youtube.com/live/msuKO4-yb0Y?si=PxXj9M0otsp5g4Wk (first 10 minutes gives you the gist)
2) Taibbi and Kirn started off the evening thinking the Walz ticket was too inauthentic to work, but after watching the Philadelphia rally, walked away somewhat impressed with the optics of the ticket. Interesting takes.
Anyways, I always find these two's perspective to be enlightening. Check 'em out.
This is silliness. I’m a slightly to the right centrist democrat. I don’t feel any need to reflexively defend every choice Harris makes. I woukd have chosen Shapiro, But I would have made that choice because it ever so slightly raised the odds of winning Pennsylvania. Not for any ideological reason.
To paint Walz as a lefty is simply stupid. Virtually all of his positions on issues were ones that central democrats and Republicans (before they went crazy and all in for a fat orange felon/rapist/liar ) supported. His positions pretty much are where the center is.
OGMAB. You have to be looking for a reason to come up with this. The country is polarized and you and I are on different sides. There’s no point in a discussion here
I agree with you on the polarization, but I offered it up as a counter argument that all of Walz's policy prescriptions are universally accepted by all centrist perspectives.
It's not to invoke hatred towards the trans community.
There are countries that I would consider inclusive in the generally accepted definition of the term that are engaged in psychological debates over the efficacy of gender affirming care. Especially as it can relate to the later biological consequences.
If you think this conversation is too divisive to warrant a rational discussion, your last sentence is accurate.
I was intemperate and am sorry. My point was that the vast majority of his policies are thoroughly centrist. I happen to have big qualms about Minnesota’s approach tô gender but (1) while I’ve read the major critiques there are few subjects I know less about and (2) this is one of an entire set of policies and it hardly characterizes the total. Painting him,as,some,kind of radical lefty communist is wrong
I just want to know what the Harris/Walz administration would do to address our country’s biggest concerns…the economy, the border, and foreign policy. We have big issues currently in all three realms and the ticket has no policy proposals for any of it. The is exacerbated by the fact Kamala has had a role in creating the current environment. What are they planning to do about it? They won’t state their positions, let alone defend them. The media has created a climate where it’s advantageous for her not to be specific or available. Personally, I think we deserve multiple debates and regular press availability from both tickets. We deserve to know what we’re voting for…not just what we’re voting against.
Since social issues have played more into defining political identities in the last decade, they hold more weight in establishing labels.
Those who hold positions within the political right on social issues fancy themselves defenders of a bygone era. There were broad socioeconomic effects of the concept of the nuclear family and there are also broad effects of abandoning heternormative standards. Both positive and negative.
I do agree, single issues should not define the identity of politicians. However, I will say Walz has once mentioned what might be viewed as socialism to someone, might be merely viewed as neighborliness to someone else.
A statement not untrue, but it shows an affinity towards expansionary government policies.
I have posted a lot about gender in this thread because I am seeing the cultural divide amongst Gen Z men and women. Specifically because Gen Z men criticize Gen Z women for expecting men to adopt traditional roles, while also celebrating women who are liberated from traditional roles.
It is among this changing dynamic to heterosexual relationships that we are seeing a rapid decline in birth rates in most developed countries. Which will have major implications on socioeconomic policies.
For example, without immigration the workforce participation rate will drop, making a smaller tax base while also putting further strains on social support systems. However, if you become to reliant on immigration to stem the bleeding of declining birth rates then it can lead to sharp increases to the cost of living.
I've been saying for months that this will be a base election (not a good thing since it will only dangerously intensify partisan polarization), and both Walz's and Vance's selections confirm it. It will be interesting to see how the campaigns try to spin their way to attract self-identified moderates in both parties. The Harris campaign is trying to spin mean-girl style over substance, and if Trump doesn't segue into the top two or three policy differences, she might win.
John - I think you're got this at least half wrong. Trump clearly is only interested in his MAGA base. He's criticized several Republican candidates whose support could have helped him (the latest example bing Kemp in GA).
You imply that Harris' choice of Walz is some kind embrace of northern European democratic socialism. Are you looking at the same Walz that I see because I see a genuine moderate Midwestern Governor who has tried to do his best to improve the lives of all his state's citizens, especially its children. He went to a public college on the GI bill. He's been a HS coach; his wife is a teacher. Just what else do you want Democrats to do to contest swing states and appeal to centrist voters?
FFS, John: Look where Dems were a month ago and look where they are today. There is now at least a decent chance they can win this thing.
I would be interested in what part of the country you are from? I'm from the Midwest and there is no way Walz is any kind of moderate. Vastly expanding the welfare state, raising taxes, trans sanctuary for children, abortion up to birth, and providing free tuition/medical care to undocumented persons are not what I consider to be moderate positions.
There was a time, long long long ago, when both parties were mostly centrist. Legislation would be crafted, votes would be taken, policy enacted, with support from both parties, often overwhelming support.
There are those who argue the post-war consensus was never really valid both from critical race theorists and also ultra-religious populists. Then there was a version of a center-right consensus from the late 80s to the mid 00s, but it fell apart with the forever wars in the Middle East, and the market crash of 08.
Obama found a way to establish a coalition on the basis of racial identity. However, if Trump wins again, he will have established a coalition on the basis of gender identity, without realizing.
When there is great discrepancies in class, the only way to keep united is greater divides in identity.
As the middle income evaporates (depending on your political bend, thanks to corporate greed or too much government, likely a mix of both in reality) so too does the political middle.
My analysis is that in the modern era political parties are more like sports franchises than actual business organizations. They want to excite their fan base while depressing their opposition's fan base.
The demographic shifts in this election where many working class men are becoming fond of Trump (and not necessarily Republicans) is less about economics as it was in 2016. Younger men are going to Trump as a reaction to social issues. And Trump has done a good job to highlight himself as different than the typical Evangelical Republican.
There are a significant portion of men under 30 who are struggling romantically. Now, it's commonly pointed out by progressives that it's simply because they are conservative. As if men chose to adopt progressive values heterosexual women would immediately be more attracted to them. In reality political preference only matters to a sliver of single individuals. The reality is the reason most men under 30 are struggling is most women under 30 are attracted to very superficial things in relationship initiation but it's always been that way it's just cranked up to 11 in our modern culture.
These young women are moving to progressive causes because it's an insurance policy. If they can seal the deal with the rare specimen that they are chasing, they want a culture that sets their priorities like reproductive rights, identity based investment, and expansive social support systems first.
Young women would much rather remain single for decades then "settle" for an average man.
Substitute average for middle class and you have the reason why the middle is being thinned.
Thank you for writing this! I am in a group of Nikki Haley voters. Most of us lean right, but a few left. We are the center now. Nobody is happy. And I wonder, is there room for a centrist coalition in America? Center right and center left people are natural allies. We can compromise on the policy we disagree on, it is so small. We agree more than we disagree. The best thing to come out of the Trump years is that Never Trump/Haley voter types and moderate Democrats/left leaners have been mixing it up on social media. And we have found that we genuinely like one another, and get along on political issues. Wouldn't it be great if Trump actually brought about a great political alliance of centrists? How to do this? Where to start? Because sincerely, neither party represents me. I will write in at the top of the ticket and vote for the most moderate of either party down ballot. I suspect most of my group members will do the same. I know that one of the problems is that not enough people are voting in primaries thus letting the most extreme of both parties choose the candidates. So, choose a party at primary time and vote. But the whole progressives chose Walz on Twitter is disheartening. I am weaning off twitter. It doesn't work well with my moderate takes. But if twitter is not real life, how do the progressives have such a wide reach there? Same as the big MAGA accounts? Maybe twitter is more real life than we think? Do we need a bunch of normies to sign up and get twitter accounts? Ideas, people! Thanks for writing though. My group was thrilled to see we are not forgotten.
I can get this kind of crap on Twitter. If you can't be a grown up and spell out Trump like a big boy, we have nothing to talk about. Thankful this medium has a block option because I will not be shamed for my comments, which, btw, were the topic of the piece I commented on. Bigger boys than you have tried that tact, David Scardino. And 9 years in to my Never Trump journey, I'm still defying Trump, and speaking my mind. Go back to Twitter.
Modern politics is not movements but competing industries.
I'm sorry, but this seems like selfishness of a kind that will only help tRump, a genuine threat to democracy. You seem to be putting your personal "hurt" ahead of your country. Apologies if I'm getting you wrong, but any vote other than for Harris is not only a waste of precious franchise, but benefits only the orange authoritarian. (Btw, I'm a centrist but, more importantly, I want to preserve and protect our precious democratic heritage.)
As a centrist, I’d love to hear your specific basis for your claim Trump is a threat to democracy and an authoritarian. Would you please explain? The reason I ask is because, as a centrist, I’d expect you’d have well reasoned evidence-based support. I’m sincerely interested in how logical people come to this conclusion. I’ve honestly never been provided a rational response…if one responds at all. Thoughts?
I find it ironic that you claim to be a defender for small d democratic values, yet you are supporting a candidate that has never won a single presidential primary as the champion of democracy. The argument made by Democrats is Joe Biden is not healthy enough to run a campaign, but they are making the argument he is healthy enough to remain the highest ranking political leader for 5 more months.
Also if you actually believe Trump is akin to Adolf Hitler, then there is no moral quandary you should have with the man who attempted to end his life. It required a war to stop Adolph Hitler, so the more you associate Trump with that imagery you are suggesting the only mechanism of stopping him is war. There has been substantive lawfare in the last four years.
Anytime I read "tRUMP" I skip the comment b/c it shows the poster is just not a serious person.
Frustratingly, once again, no response when asked for specifics....even from a self-described 'centrist'. This happens literally every single time. I don't claim to be a centrist...I'm a conservative. It's disappointing to see our country being steered by empty narratives held by incurious voters and propagated by a captive media that essentially functions as state media (i.e. propagandists) at this point. Harris may very well win in November, but this is a very slippery slope toward authoritarianism.
Agreed. And very frustrating to watch.
Has anyone visited the Harris/Walz campaign site? It contains zero policy positions. Not even high-level Democratic bromides. It's simply a fundraising page. Be you for him or against him, at least Trump has the integrity to tell you who he is and what he'll do as President. Kamala, on the other hand, is counting on a strategy of 'vibes'...she's leveraging a complicit media/press to generate positive buzz while not being forced to answer a single question or even commit to a single policy position. Between Biden being forced out...the Kamala Coronation...Walz selection....and the DNC, Harris will be able to eat up 2 months of news cycles in what is effectively a 4 month election cycle without being challenged once. It's a winning strategy for her and, the scary thing is, it appears to be working.
On a related note, can we please make 'vibes' and 'weird' end. This isn't middle school. Moving on...
It was honestly shocking last night watching all those in the Harris/Walz audience cheering with glee as Harris let them in on the news that she'd been formally nominated in a late night vote. People were overflowing with joy at the fact that the party had assumed for itself its voters constitutionally afforded right to select their leader. WTF was that? It was very Orwellian...almost cultish.
Fair minded Americans should demand that our press actually do their jobs and press Harris as much as they press Trump. Being available to the press, friendly or hostile, should not become a disadvantage in presidential politics. We should demand a series of policy-based debates to occur before ballots go out in September. CBS, ABC, and Fox.
I think we're about to find out that, despite the common cliche, the American people truly are not smarter than we give them credit for.
For commenters, here is an interesting article on her selection process from the Times. Gives more insight into her selection process. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/06/us/politics/harris-tim-walz-vp-pick.html?unlocked_article_code=1.BE4.odp4.ePsX_Pok0GFu&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb
Ultimately, even though Shapiro was a stronger candidate, I think he would have outshone her—I wish he was the presidential candidate and she the vice-president. I think she ultimately thought she could win with Walz and that she vibed well with him. I definitely get that point of view.
Interesting article.
I tuned into the Matt Taibbi/Walter Kirn recap last night and it was pretty interesting. Two takeaways:
1) Walter did an interesting analysis where he contrasted Walz and Vance as representing two very different 'midwestern' constituencies. Coastal elites paint the flyover states with a broad brush and assume a homogeneity of the region's constituents that doesn't really exist. Walz, to Kirn, is a bit of a cartoonish character that pays homage to those 'midwestern sensibilities'. Vance's story, on the other hand, is more representative of the lower midwest, which is really better represented by southern ethics/values. Kirn's point is that Walz may not play as well outside of Minnesota as the Harris campaign is assuming. Check it out here: https://www.youtube.com/live/msuKO4-yb0Y?si=PxXj9M0otsp5g4Wk (first 10 minutes gives you the gist)
2) Taibbi and Kirn started off the evening thinking the Walz ticket was too inauthentic to work, but after watching the Philadelphia rally, walked away somewhat impressed with the optics of the ticket. Interesting takes.
Anyways, I always find these two's perspective to be enlightening. Check 'em out.
Awesome—will do! Thanks so much for sharing.
Two real journalists. Plus they're hysterical.
This is silliness. I’m a slightly to the right centrist democrat. I don’t feel any need to reflexively defend every choice Harris makes. I woukd have chosen Shapiro, But I would have made that choice because it ever so slightly raised the odds of winning Pennsylvania. Not for any ideological reason.
To paint Walz as a lefty is simply stupid. Virtually all of his positions on issues were ones that central democrats and Republicans (before they went crazy and all in for a fat orange felon/rapist/liar ) supported. His positions pretty much are where the center is.
I don't think Republicans ever supported giving hormone blockers to children.
OGMAB. You have to be looking for a reason to come up with this. The country is polarized and you and I are on different sides. There’s no point in a discussion here
I agree with you on the polarization, but I offered it up as a counter argument that all of Walz's policy prescriptions are universally accepted by all centrist perspectives.
It's not to invoke hatred towards the trans community.
There are countries that I would consider inclusive in the generally accepted definition of the term that are engaged in psychological debates over the efficacy of gender affirming care. Especially as it can relate to the later biological consequences.
If you think this conversation is too divisive to warrant a rational discussion, your last sentence is accurate.
I was intemperate and am sorry. My point was that the vast majority of his policies are thoroughly centrist. I happen to have big qualms about Minnesota’s approach tô gender but (1) while I’ve read the major critiques there are few subjects I know less about and (2) this is one of an entire set of policies and it hardly characterizes the total. Painting him,as,some,kind of radical lefty communist is wrong
I just want to know what the Harris/Walz administration would do to address our country’s biggest concerns…the economy, the border, and foreign policy. We have big issues currently in all three realms and the ticket has no policy proposals for any of it. The is exacerbated by the fact Kamala has had a role in creating the current environment. What are they planning to do about it? They won’t state their positions, let alone defend them. The media has created a climate where it’s advantageous for her not to be specific or available. Personally, I think we deserve multiple debates and regular press availability from both tickets. We deserve to know what we’re voting for…not just what we’re voting against.
Since social issues have played more into defining political identities in the last decade, they hold more weight in establishing labels.
Those who hold positions within the political right on social issues fancy themselves defenders of a bygone era. There were broad socioeconomic effects of the concept of the nuclear family and there are also broad effects of abandoning heternormative standards. Both positive and negative.
I do agree, single issues should not define the identity of politicians. However, I will say Walz has once mentioned what might be viewed as socialism to someone, might be merely viewed as neighborliness to someone else.
A statement not untrue, but it shows an affinity towards expansionary government policies.
I have posted a lot about gender in this thread because I am seeing the cultural divide amongst Gen Z men and women. Specifically because Gen Z men criticize Gen Z women for expecting men to adopt traditional roles, while also celebrating women who are liberated from traditional roles.
It is among this changing dynamic to heterosexual relationships that we are seeing a rapid decline in birth rates in most developed countries. Which will have major implications on socioeconomic policies.
For example, without immigration the workforce participation rate will drop, making a smaller tax base while also putting further strains on social support systems. However, if you become to reliant on immigration to stem the bleeding of declining birth rates then it can lead to sharp increases to the cost of living.
Is the bigger danger that America is losing its political middle, replaced by the rabid take-no-prisoners extremes of the radical far Left and Right?
Kennedy
I've been saying for months that this will be a base election (not a good thing since it will only dangerously intensify partisan polarization), and both Walz's and Vance's selections confirm it. It will be interesting to see how the campaigns try to spin their way to attract self-identified moderates in both parties. The Harris campaign is trying to spin mean-girl style over substance, and if Trump doesn't segue into the top two or three policy differences, she might win.
John - I think you're got this at least half wrong. Trump clearly is only interested in his MAGA base. He's criticized several Republican candidates whose support could have helped him (the latest example bing Kemp in GA).
You imply that Harris' choice of Walz is some kind embrace of northern European democratic socialism. Are you looking at the same Walz that I see because I see a genuine moderate Midwestern Governor who has tried to do his best to improve the lives of all his state's citizens, especially its children. He went to a public college on the GI bill. He's been a HS coach; his wife is a teacher. Just what else do you want Democrats to do to contest swing states and appeal to centrist voters?
FFS, John: Look where Dems were a month ago and look where they are today. There is now at least a decent chance they can win this thing.
I would be interested in what part of the country you are from? I'm from the Midwest and there is no way Walz is any kind of moderate. Vastly expanding the welfare state, raising taxes, trans sanctuary for children, abortion up to birth, and providing free tuition/medical care to undocumented persons are not what I consider to be moderate positions.
There was a time, long long long ago, when both parties were mostly centrist. Legislation would be crafted, votes would be taken, policy enacted, with support from both parties, often overwhelming support.
There are those who argue the post-war consensus was never really valid both from critical race theorists and also ultra-religious populists. Then there was a version of a center-right consensus from the late 80s to the mid 00s, but it fell apart with the forever wars in the Middle East, and the market crash of 08.
Obama found a way to establish a coalition on the basis of racial identity. However, if Trump wins again, he will have established a coalition on the basis of gender identity, without realizing.
When there is great discrepancies in class, the only way to keep united is greater divides in identity.
The primary system lit the afterburners for pandering to the most rapid core of the base (for both the Dems and Repubs).
As the middle income evaporates (depending on your political bend, thanks to corporate greed or too much government, likely a mix of both in reality) so too does the political middle.
My analysis is that in the modern era political parties are more like sports franchises than actual business organizations. They want to excite their fan base while depressing their opposition's fan base.
The demographic shifts in this election where many working class men are becoming fond of Trump (and not necessarily Republicans) is less about economics as it was in 2016. Younger men are going to Trump as a reaction to social issues. And Trump has done a good job to highlight himself as different than the typical Evangelical Republican.
There are a significant portion of men under 30 who are struggling romantically. Now, it's commonly pointed out by progressives that it's simply because they are conservative. As if men chose to adopt progressive values heterosexual women would immediately be more attracted to them. In reality political preference only matters to a sliver of single individuals. The reality is the reason most men under 30 are struggling is most women under 30 are attracted to very superficial things in relationship initiation but it's always been that way it's just cranked up to 11 in our modern culture.
These young women are moving to progressive causes because it's an insurance policy. If they can seal the deal with the rare specimen that they are chasing, they want a culture that sets their priorities like reproductive rights, identity based investment, and expansive social support systems first.
Young women would much rather remain single for decades then "settle" for an average man.
Substitute average for middle class and you have the reason why the middle is being thinned.
I have had it with "interest group" politics but will vote for Kamala as it is all about ABT
ABT?