1. Ok, I'm liking @RepSeanMaloney

"I sure as hell didn't win 5 Xs as a gay guy in a Trump district"

Much more imp he just correctly pointed out that even liberal MSNBC gives the GOP a major assist by constantly talking about Defund the Police, socialism, & intraparty fighting

2. and @JoeNBC is right, in my "modernized moderates" plan, you have to have these candidates go on offense. Its CRAZY that @SpanbergerVA07 is defending her record as a moderate when she's running against an ideologue in Nick Freitas.

If you ask the wrong questions & ask them
3. the wrong way, the evidence & data will screw you. Such as it did in 2020 because there is no reality in which Dem congressional/senate candidates were well-served by pulling out all their registration and in-person voter contact while the GOP was doing it. It was a bold
4. decision that someone, looking at the weak or inconsistent findings of research on effects of GOTV and esp the diff between in-person and "remote" forms and decided "you know, there is likely no diff from in-person and remote & in fact, remote you can contact WAY more people."
5. And the fact is, maybe this is right. Maybe the Ds total bomb on the congressional map has nothing to do with the decision to suspend the field programs of the House & Senate campaigns. Maybe. I'll be interested in the analysis when the voter file is updated I'll be looking at
6. turnout differentials between Rs & Ds and between campaigns that ran in-person field and didn't (and campaigns that put that field up last minute after myself & other upon finding out about it, totally freaked out). Again, the Biden campaign is in this bucket- only reinstating
7. in-person field once stories of troubles in FL began to leak out. BUT again, something I've highlighted elsewhere, they had grassroots groups doing in-person field on their behalf, something that wasn't happening, generally, for these congressional candidates bc the grassroots
8. tend to focus on the prez in this cycle (although some do the full ticket). Again, could be that the lack of in-person GOTV appears to have no effect in my controlled analysis. But, something weird happened. Its possible that every single forecasting model & qualitative race
9. handicapper was wrong for 2020 & that our estimation that Ds, under these fundamentals and the assumption that Ds would unseat a one term incumbent pres (which is HARD) would also likely improve on their margins in the House was simply wrong. That for some reason, the things
10. that my far better established (& frankly, better at the race handicapping thing) at @Center4Politics @kkondik suddenly misread House races even though the dude gets it right every other time. IDK. Seems weird though. It seems weird that the House elections did an unexpected
11. thing, that this MAJOR electioneering change was made to the side which experienced this major unexpected loss. Keeping in mind, in the normal course of things, suspending in-person field would NEVER happen bc it would be deemed politically suicidal not to run any in-person
12. field, even IF the experimental results on it are often inconclusive. So, point is, the Ds have these data shops & lord knows I like data but you want to be careful about data bc as Cohn's analysis that argues that Black voters "let Ds down" (his argument, not mine) data is
13. always vulnerable to the person loading it for the analysis and the frame set for analyzing it.

Maloney imploring to MOJO to think about the effects coverage on MSNBC has on assisting the GOP's efforts on setting the narrative & terms of the debate was GREAT & if I ever got
14. to have dinner or coffee w those guys, it was on the list of things I wanted to talk about bc the GOP feeds that shit over to MSNBC intentionally- they understand exactly how our media works (as does Trump) and use it strategically against us.

More from Rachel "The Doc" Bitecofer 📈🔭🍌

1. I think so. I don't think the issue are plans. The issue is that the ability of our govn't to function-to create & enact policy- has been seriously abridged the past decade to the point where it can't function. We've seen virtually no legislation this past decade & pretty


2. much none relying on just "regular order." Although the Ds spent almost a year trying w the ACA before giving up & using a procedural trick in the end. Keep in mind, McConnell changed the operation of senate so that all bills, ALL, had to reach 60 vote threshold in the senate

3. That was a MASSIVE change to the legislative filibuster (a massive abuse of it). It creates a super majority requirement for laws that the Framers didn't design. And given the issue of misrepresentation the senate, which is causing a Tyranny of the Minority, its really shut

4. down the federal lawmaking apparatus. If Ds flip these 2 GA senate seats, the legislative filibuster will be right back in the spotlight bc McConnell will use it to lockdown Biden's legislative agenda. And we'll have to see how Biden responds. I agree that Biden needs to give

5. McConnell an opp to change his behavior, but if he doesn't Biden will have to go w EOs or ending the legislative filibuster. Either that, or getting nothing done. The GOP will seek to do to him what they did to Obama- use control of the senate OR the filibuster to prevent

More from Trump

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x