1. So, so jealous. 2. I see there's also a production of Endgame in NYC this fall, and also a Krapp's Last Tape with Stephen Rae, who is fine, and I'd totally go if I was in NY but now all I want is a Krapp's Last Tape with Stephen Root.
Good Politics/Bad Politics - Subscribe! https://goodpoliticsbadpolitics.substack.com/ Also I root for the Giants. The Making of the Presidential Candidates 2024.
18,059 followers 253 following 9,413 posts
view profile on Bluesky
1. So, so jealous. 2. I see there's also a production of Endgame in NYC this fall, and also a Krapp's Last Tape with Stephen Rae, who is fine, and I'd totally go if I was in NY but now all I want is a Krapp's Last Tape with Stephen Root.
I've been watching the MAGA consensus that accusing someone of being "fascist" is a de facto call for them to be harmed by force. That's thick with interesting assumptions.
No, it shouldn't be just another Saturday. We demand our leaders to treat this like the abuse of power it is.
Ever since I had it on pre-recorded cassette. But in fact it's never the one I listen to now. (I mean it's not as if I'm constantly listening to them anyway.) I suspect maybe it has to do with which of the singles I wind up hearing plenty of without the albums? Maybe?
Yes. But there could be a vote.
Hey IR folks am I correct that we could get a UN Security Council resolution condemning these murders (and if so, who if anyone would vote with the US?)
Fascinating work
Something about having an out-party President starts to awaken congressional Democrats to the idea of talking about their own party and about Republicans. Most of the time (over the last 15 years) Republicans have written to constituents more about Republicans AND Democrats. Here's Republican:
Mr. Morton beaned 200 hitters. Mr. Morton beaned.
Alt-interpretation: Accept any allies you can get in the fight against autocrats, whatever they've done before and for as much as they're willing to do now.
Gosh I wonder how that works out when applied to governing.
That may change; the authoritarians and opportunists and fools may win. And there is already plenty of damage, and there will be more. But right now many fights are very winnable, which we know because Trump keeps losing.
*NEVER* say that no one is standing up to Trump. He's acting like a dictator. Some comply because they hate democracy and others because he's enabling them to do what they always wanted to do and fools comply because they're fools, but meanwhile plenty of people stand up to him and win every day.
Guess it's time to accept that by the "what do I actually listen to?" test I like exactly one Stones album and it's Some Girls.
Kevin and I wrote a whole book about why you need to STOP with your soccer moms and security moms and hockey moms and you need to LISTEN TO US. www.cambridge.org/core/books/c...
Useful thread on differences in authoritarian attacks on the media in the U.S. versus abroad
Oh, he certainly could. (And it's much less of a constitutional stretch than plenty of other things he's done or tried to do).
Definitely one possibility. Of course if he thinks the shutdown plays badly for Dems, he'll presumably do the opposite.
Yes but he's moved from +2 to +4 on RMG so who really knows? (Really wondering if some new Ras outfit put out a "poll" showing Trump +infinity whether some aggregators would toss it into their averages)
I think Trump is sincere in in this; he really doesn't believe that law is a thing, and instead believes that (1) some people - you know who - are just criminals, whatever they actually do, and (2) for everyone else prosecution is just a question of who those in power want to screw over.
Really good @gregsargent.bsky.social on Trump/Letitia James. Key points: Trump is easily defeated, and he treats law as a power game absolutely not connected to, well, law. newrepublic.com/article/2006... As I've said before...
New pod is up ($): @dbernstein.bsky.social @juliaazari.bsky.social and myself on, well, what you would expect us to talk about. Including me pushing a short "protest shutdown" again as perhaps the least-bad option for the Dems. goodpoliticsbadpolitics.substack.com/p/dialog-abo...
Remember: Trump is really bad at this, and he and his allies lose *all the time.* And as always: Doesn't mean he's not dangerous. He is. But he can be defeated on lots of things when people stand up to him.
A handful of Republican Congress members can stop this any time they want to.
this stuff is not popular and Trump cannot magick it into being popular
I'm no expert, but seems fairly plausible.
It really feels as if Herb Stein's rule should apply...but hard to see exactly how it happens.
1. He can fire all the prosecutors he wants but still a long way from getting a conviction without evidence. We'll see. 2. He's getting crazier by the hour now, isn't he? This is on top of talking about re-invading Afghanistan and no one is allowed to criticize him on TV...and that's just today.
They were all idiots!
It's a great show, but now my wife and I are are arguing about whether F Troop (debuted 4 days before Get Smart!) is a show about an idiot, and either way Gilligan started the previous year.
How most presidents avoid upsetting the racial status quo—and why those who do pave the way for lawless, norm-violating successors. @juliaazari.bsky.social's Backlash Presidents publishes September 23 (18 November UK pub). Preorder yours: press.princeton.edu/books/hardco...
What a monsterously cynical way to drive vaccination rates down.
It doesn't need to apply to those nominations; they (or any other nominee) can already be brought to the floor whenever the majority party wants. The problem has been that there just wasn't enough floor time for the lowest-priority nominees.
No, that zebra is only sleeping.
It's on my list! Really not sure why I missed it in the first place, or over the years.
Exactly.
This, but Anthony Daniels.
This also goes to a point @donmoyn.bsky.social made last week: College campuses are *uniquely* open, among all American institutions, to debate and disagreement. You can't go to an evangelical church (or any church) or corporation and expect them to give a hearing to an alternative viewpoint.
Yeah. I haven't seen any of the other contenders for the 10th spot but I don't think Proposal stands out as more iconic than a few and while I haven't seen them I'm pretty confident Proposal is worse. I'd go with Winter Soldier. Or Ordinary People if that counts. Otherwise...Horseman? Gatsby?
Winter Soldier is a more iconic movie than the other options, but of course much less an iconic *Redford* movie, although he's fine in it.
The easy ones are Barefoot in the Park, Butch Cassidy, The Candidate, The Way We Were, The Sting, Three Days..., All the President's Men. That's seven. I'll add Sneakers (which I haven't seen for some reason) and The Natural (which is meh at best). Winter Soldier, I guess.
Look, it's people like you wot cause unrest. (Also something about the Ministry of Housinge. It was spelt like that on the van. Trump is very observant. He's never seen so many bleedin' aerials). [I think I may have used that one already, but it's still good]
There are good reasons not to finish the job and fully nuke the leg filibuster, but it's very clear that when it eventually happens, the nuking party will suffer zero public opinion costs for doing it.
The procedures this replaced were unstable, unworkable, and just plain stupid. This ain't great, but empowers the Senate compared to the most likely alternatives. The other (repeated) lesson from this...
I'm not sure anyone has ever been so thin skinned.
Trump thinks that Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, W, and Obama totally had the authority to shut Dave up but were too stupid to do it. (By the way they all won with larger margins than Trump and were more popular in office overall).
To be fair Gore actually wanted government to work. Not Musk's goal. Also Gore was almost as annoying as Musk.
DOGE accidentally gave out 5 months of paid vacation to many federal workers. So efficiency.
I can think of one person who incited a riot...
Thrilled that my paper "Partisan disparities in the funding of science in the United States" with Nic Fishman, @leahrosenstiel.bsky.social, and @dashunwang.bsky.social was published in @science.org today! www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...
Mazel Tov!
Includes my chapter on metafiction and intertextuality in SHE-HULK: ATTORNEY AT LAW!
We agree! goodpoliticsbadpolitics.substack.com/p/drawing-li...
Good morning to everyone but mostly to the person who designed this pop-up that greets you on the House Appropriations Committee Democrats' web site.
I'm definitely not saying Jeffries has been perfect. Just hard to know about some of the reporting of things like that, since a lot of things - such as the shadow hearings - are still happening.
Don't know about that, but I have watched a lot of congressional leaders and I can't remember one who was as good publicly as dozens of rank-and-files. Mitch McConnell was terrible at it, but I don't think the GOP would have traded him for someone glib.
It's a skills issue because it's not the skill that leaders are selected for, and rightly so. That Jeffries is sub-optimal on Sunday shows that no one watches is far less important than keeping the caucus solid on floor votes, avoiding infighting, and other stuff the leadership needs to do.
Even the leaders have put out solid statements on lots of things. And plenty of lame ones, to be sure, but too many people are invested in amplifying the lame ones and ignoring the good. (And more generally, congressional leaders are rarely good at the public stuff.)
I see so many people say that Congressional Dems aren't doing anything, or only talk about one or two poll-tested issues, and it's just not true.
🚨🎉 New Publication 🎉🚨 w/ @meredithconroy.bsky.social Where Do Women Win Primaries? Asymmetric Opportunity Theory in Congressional Nominations We offer a party-asymmetric theory of incentives for female candidates in nominations across different districts www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....
The "surge in young conservatives running for office" is a half dozen people... @runforsomething.net has had nearly 50 people sign up *today* and it's just past 10am on the east coast. rollcall.com/2025/09/17/g...
The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is back! Volume 2 explores the political messages, cultural debates and real-world implications of Marvel’s Phase 4 films and series. Co-edited by @carnes.bsky.social and @gorenlj.bsky.social sanford.duke.edu/story/new-bo... #BookSky #NewBook
This particular moment is too much for Karl Rove. It’s important that he wrote this.
Yes - important to recognize those who are standing up to Trump. He loses all the time, and as awful as his attacks on democracy and his victories are - as dangerous as he and his allies are - he's unpopular and inept, and very vulnerable to further defeats.
Being a doomer is bad. We need alarmists. Pointing these things out is alarmism; it's only doomerism if you say that there's nothing to be done.
This is what really stands out to me about the widespread cowardice on display in this moment from corporate and college leaders: the people they're capitulating to while visibly quaking in fear are absolutely hated by an enormous majority of the national population.
The courts other than the Supreme Court still doing well. Things are bad indeed, but some institutions and people are doing a lot better than, well, others.
I think ABC should have dared Trump to follow through on his threats to revoke the network’s nonexistent broadcasting license, of which no such thing exists
I've been involved w/ a number of think tank startups, but this is the first I've seen started with the mission of *not* doing things. There are no ideas here My only other thoughts were in response to Jentleson's 9/16 op-ed markschmitt.substack.com/p/the-groups... www.nytimes.com/2025/09/17/u...
👀👀👀
Among many other things…I assume China couldn’t be happier.
And as I've said: A shutdown-by-filibuster puts the emphasis on the Republican elected majority, rather than the public opinion majority that favors Dems. I think a protest shutdown mostly avoids that.
Whereas a shutdown over specific demands not only won't win those demands, but forces Dems to coordinate their message, which is hard enough internally and impossible externally.
On the one hand, it would help further hype the Oct 18 rallies. On the other hand, not having specific demands would play to Congress's communications *advantage* - there are lots of them! Interested in different stuff! And there are lots of outrages to protest!
No one likes my idea of a fixed-length protest shutdown but I sort of like it...and it occurs that it could be pegged to the next big protest day in mid-October. So shut the gov't down for 2-plus weeks to protest autocracy, corruption and policy, and then re-open and cut the best deal available.
The thing is there is tangible stuff that they are winning, probably even with the illegal and untrustworthy administration. But they just don't have leverage for more, and shutdowns don't win concessions.
Looking forward to reading your next item. I floated a symbolic shutdown - a fixed-time, protest shutdown - last week but no one seemed interested. Only reactions I got said Dems need to fight and that wouldn't be fighting.
Yeah the problem here is that the Dems do have a bit of leverage...but nowhere close to enough for the big things that Dem party actors and voters (legitimately!) want. I don't think the people demanding more are dealing with the downside risks of the GOP going nuclear.
The base has an ambitious wish list of impossible policies. Democratic leaders want to avoid an embarrassing (and inevitable) defeat. So they've proposed ACA tax credits to satiate the hunger for rabid political opposition. This is the "let them eat cake" version of legislative politics.
Merry Constitution Day!
We had made so much progress moving toward a solution for homelessness: Housing first, with supportive services, recognizing that Medicaid has a substantial role to play. And now Trump is rolling that all back. It won't solve homelessness, and it won't save money. It will just hurt people.
We knew very soon after the election that the shift toward Trump in 2020 to 2024 numbers was relatively widespread and consistent (compared to other historical election shifts), with lots of circumstantial evidence showing it was driven primarily by real wages being driven down by inflation.
great @dbernstein.bsky.social piece on Kirk's place in the queasy mix of politics, showmanship, and grift that is the hard-right marketplace: goodpoliticsbadpolitics.substack.com/p/charlie-in...
I miss Dave so much. Our TV friend.
Battle doomscrolling by posting 5 small pleasures in life: 1. Episode of Blonde 2. Garage Sale Mysteries 3. Shabbat dinner 4. Tyler Rogers 5. Every goddamn second of Casablanca
BTW my piece for tomorrow is a bit lengthy, giving my take as a long-time reporter covering the right-wing marketplace, talking about how Charlie Kirk fit into it. I perhaps suggest he was a grifter. THEY CAN’T HAVE ME FIRED WHEN I AIN’T GOT NO JOB
Yes? It’s usually a woman and she’s mentioned right after the phrase “his first victim”
Past presidents have played cute with prosecutorial discretion, or with regs, or said a law was so unconstitutional they couldn't execute it. But is there an instance of a president flatly refusing via EO (4 times!) to enforce a constitutional statute? A clear violation of his oath of office.
I mostly think he believes the US has always been this way; that everyone else was just pretending otherwise; and that (therefore) anyone who ever refuses him anything is inherently illegitimate. That is, he basically doesn't believe that the Constitution is a thing or ever has been.
One of the privileges of my life was to work w/ both @ezrakleinbot.bsky.social and @jamellebouie.net at @prospect.org in 2008-2011, though they didn't quite overlap. They are not "opposing viewpoints," but are both motivated by curiosity, not just glib "takes," and a commitment to human dignity. 1/2
I suppose one can argue that Ocean's Eleven (2001) is a fair counterargument on that for The Sting.
The Candidate, All the President's Men, and The Sting are all movies that could have been made whenever but because of when they were actually made they were so much better than they could have/should have been.
No one has the capacity to handle all three buckets: The autocracy bucket, the corruption bucket, and the policy bucket. Each of which have subdivisions, and each of which are overflowing. All we can do is keep hitting on the stuff that strikes us at the moment as needing amplification.
Two things to add to this: 1) I am much more concerned with party elites and leaders encouraging and stoking violence than shifts in the public from vaguely worded questions. 2) These public shifts in support for violence are almost always downstream of elite rhetoric and narratives.
These estimates of public support for violence (from www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/o...) are inflated - *much* higher than what we and others have found using question wording that reduces acquiescence bias: brightlinewatch.org/accelerated-... The vast majority of Americans reject political violence.
I guess nothing matters anymore but what the vice president is saying here is demonstrably untrue. See Kalmoe & Mason (2022) and just about any other academic study on US political violence.
Yes yes yes. Conservatives - including Charlie Kirk - made Kyle Rittenhouse a hero PRECISELY BECAUSE he killed two people. That's what they were celebrating.
"In the current environment I think it’s fair to say there’s really no reason to believe anything we’re hearing from federal law enforcement, either formally or on background to reporters."
One of the all-time greats.