I am a very nearly 50 year old white woman in the suburbs. I have no children. I am an atheist. I am pro-choice. I have a law degree from a top 20 law school and am licensed to practice law in California, Texas and the District of Columbia.
Apparently, all of this on my part meant that I was required to vote for an "astonishingly stupid" (my favorite Moynihan turn of phrase) woman, who seems to have never given any effort to anything. And now, because I didn't, I'm the stupid one? FUCK. THE. HELL. OFF.
I’m a 44 year old white dude who lives in the suburbs and runs public libraries. I have 3 kids and am apathetic on abortion and believe in Santa clause, but otherwise am an atheist.
I just don’t get how you are not completely to blame for these election results!
I'm a 54 year old white guy with long term mental health issues. Married, no kids. So politically apathetic I think anarchism is too formal for my tastes. I am one of those people responsible for our current state because I was so apathetic I didn't even bother to vote. I am telling you this because...
I hate activism. I instinctively, viscerally recoil when I hear clips of crowds chanting thought-terminating slogans at rallies. It offends something within me deeply. So when I make fun of "tHe rEsIsTaNcE", I'm not entirely trolling. But Moynihan's not even talking about real activists here. What I can't stop laughing at is the image in my mind of keyboard warriors taking to the information superhighway to meme their way into defeating Trump. It's so ridiculous that I'm not even sure I can capture exactly how stupid I think it is in words that can convey my utter contempt for that entire temper-tantrum approach to politics.
Changing minds and winning more elections over time is how you create lasting policy change. You start that process by deploying better ideas, and a good first cut is to drop the ones invented in a post-modernism laboratory ("TWAW!" "Defund the police!" "America is a white-supremacist country!") that offend even mainstream Democrats. Stop allowing the activist class to run the messaging for your campaigns. Clowns like Ibram X. Kendi, Nikole Hannah-Jones, and Robin DiAngelo deserve to be toiling in obscurity as hourly-pay junior lecturers. Their ideas are dumb and wrong and—most importantly to this discussion—electorally radioactive.
I strongly agree with that. It drives me mad as well.
Slogans are so easy to chant but, they are always poorly thought out and most of the people chanting do so on vibes. The effect in the end is to shut down debate.
e.g. 'Trans rights are human rights' What do you mean by that? What is the purpose of this slogan? Which human rights act/convention are we discussing? Which rights do you think are being denied to trans people? etc.
But, it sounds good and positive so, people continue to chant without engaging in any thoughtful discussions about the balances of rights we are talking about.
When challenged as above the answer is often to simply repeat the slogan.
I think Jesse Singal has also talked about 'sane-washing' where people when challenged start to downplay the slogan but, in a way which is actually antithetical to the movement they've joined. e.g. 'We just mean 'reform' the police'.
When a person describes him- or herself as an advocate, it tells me they think they have reasons why people should do or accept or change something either for the benefit of most or for the benefit of a few at reasonable cost for most. When they describe themselves as activists, it tells me they think they're fighting on the side of good vs. evil, a fight for which there is no move too dirty nor dishonest nor deranged when landing a blow for their side. Another difference is advocates know the facts that constitute the other side's case and can express them without utter contempt whereas for activists NOT understanding the other side is key to promoting their position.
The moment where Moynihan's hangover was cured by the brief moment of hope that Kelly would be on the dating market might be one of the better on-camera moments for the fifdom in a while.
Foster Brooks was my great grandfather, which sounds a lot cooler than it is since I didn't get to meet him before he died. It's cool how often you guys shout him out though
While I voted for Oliver and was a sort of counterbalance to Welch's declared "didn't vote for her, but rooted for her" (that's how I heard it on Megyn's show; I mildly rooted against her), and am definitely not a political gloater, I had an easier time than I thought being sort of happy for people like Megyn and Taibbi and Walter Kirn (who was bouncing off the freakin' walls in their Wednesday livestream), the latter two of whom are pretty leftist. I don't for a second think that Kirn is, in the long term, HAPPY with the outcome, but there's a lot of pent-up (well-earned) resentment coming out of a lot of corners of the alternative media. It was apparent even in the guys' appearance on the show.
I'm drawn to each of them and the three guys here for slightly different but very related reasons, and they all center around them all having very strong personal opinions, but also having the ability and grace to entertain points of view other than their own without it turning into a shitshow. I think that's why the boys keep going on her show. Lord knows they aren't fully on-board with Megyn's opinions on everything, first and foremost who they were voting for. But the common ground (exposing the excesses of the Very Online Dems, standing against censorious tendencies, among others) allows them to discuss pretty heavy stuff with an air of humor and frankness one can't really find much anymore. It's why, despite the several points of disagreement I have with Megyn myself, I listen to her pretty regularly. I have the maturity to be able to mentally deal with it when she says something I consider nutty and still view her as a sane human with different views and priorities.
I dunno. I'm sorry if none of the above makes sense.
I like her, I think she's entertaining and funny and sharp as a proverbial tack. But one thing I hate is watching her coverage of "true crime" stories, particularly during major trials. She doesn't watch the trial, gets surface level talking points, and spouts the breathless winemom headlines. She seems to be a competent lawyer, but cannot provide insight without facts.
Just a gripe that's been bubbling in my mind since the Alex Murdaugh trial.
Oh, when she does the true crime, I tune out entirely. I have absolutely no interest in most of it. I don't have enough experience listening to her episodes on the subject to even put forth an opinion on her analysis of it.
She is definitely a partisan media personality who enjoys owning the libs, maybe a little too much. But she is smart and insightful at times. Take the good with the bad and laugh a little.
Hey Matt and lads, please don’t livestream via exTwitter anymore. Much better on YouTube, which allows us to multitask with our phones while we watch/listen. Really, even a Substack stream is preferable to exTwitter.
That said, between you and the Freep and whatnot, it was a great night of content all around. Love you all.
For anyone interested in the reaction here in Europe - it seems our media and political class have decided to lose their minds and are encouraging the populaces of their respective countries to join them in the hysteria. I'm hopeful most will resist the urge and calm the hell down.
Oh I was just watching the Belgian news and they think that Trump won because Miriam Adelson gave him a lot of money. And Elon. No mention of the streek of celebrities endorsing her tirelessly.
I saw a cringe inducing video of women in government of different european countries standing in solidarity with the american women.... and someone QTed with the abortion week limit in those countries and they were worse than most states in the US. Lmao
Keir Starmer is in a panic after the party asked for volunteers to canvass for Harris in North Carolina. Unfortunately he’s lumbered with David Lammy as Foreign Secretary, who tweeted in 2017 that Trump was a “neo-Nazi/KKR sympathiser and is the same clown who gave sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius for no reason except separations possibly. It won’t be long before the Chinese navy surrounds the US base at Diego Garcia with listening posts (at least). Otherwise the grandstanding buffoon of a London mayor has been tearfully virtue signalling to America’s huddled masses. Oh, and Ed Davey of the Liberal Democrats has lamented a dark day for the planet, but quelle surprise.
Best tweet I've seen so far that I think is accurate is 'Turns out, more women buy milk and eggs than get abortions." I think that sums it up quite well.
I feel like I'm the stereotypical woman voter that Democrats banked on with the abortion argument and I could never get over how reductive it felt to have that constantly presented as THE women's issue, and how many of my friends immediately fell into line. The Democrats seem to not understand that women have other concerns as well.
I remember when "Barstool Republican" was in vogue ~2019, and the war between them and the odd Vermuele-style catholic integralist types over frat bro reasons to want abortion legal. Despite disappearing as a term, the barstools seem to have won if trump's promise to veto a nationwide ban attempt is true.
Here in Missouri an abortion amendment passed pretty handily all while going nearly +19 points for Trump (I think Hawley did the worst of the statewide MAGA buffet we were offered, and he was +16 or so). It has lots of politicians and (what bare, little) local media confused, but I don't think it has been fully appreciated yet how giving people in many states a direct vote on the issue has decoupled it from parties outside of single-issue types who want to punish the wrongthinkers that haunt them.
Yes, I have no problem with abortion being kicked down to the states to figure out and I believe there's not a non-zero number of women I know who truly don't understand what overturning Roe v. Wade actually meant.
I'd consider myself in the squishy middle on the issue—abortion should be widely available to a certain point, and then limited to instances where the mother's health is in jeopardy. My gut instinct tells me that this is where most reasonable people land, but when I tell this to my progressive friends—or tell them that this reflects the law in many of the European countries they so idolize—they act like I'm a far-right lunatic. Being the mother of a baby who was born on that tipping point of viability, where things could go either way (and luckily they went in our favor and we have a beautiful, amazing 5-year-old now) makes it hard for me to cheer for the whole abortion anytime, on-demand deal.
I feel the same way. I got tired of the expectation that I should automatically vote for democrats because of abortion. There are a lot of things I care about actually that don’t have anything to do with being a woman.
It was pretty hilarious when it came out that her step kids call her Mamala. In Spanish, mamar is the verb, to suck, ergo Mamala literally means Suckula.
Thank you, this will accompany me today during my cooking. Like EAK, I am a woman, I live in the middle of nowhere and I have one annoying teenager, I am a Jewish atheist and pro choice and I can’t vote in the US elections.
But if the last year proved anything, is that I don’t belong to any political group. And I suspect most of the listeners will understand why.
I don't foresee Democrats quickly and easily pivoting to a more appealing and successful platform.
It's early, but so far all the think pieces I've seen blame inflation and Biden staying in the race too long. I saw one media criticism piece that was somewhat introspective, but the theme was still more "We need people to trust that we're right" than "Maybe we're not right..."
I think the core problem is that Democrats have written off large segments of the population as beyond redemption, so rather than try to build a new coalition, they're going after the small percentage of moderate swing voters that had been deciding elections. And I think it's plausible that those swing voters were largely responding to inflation, and that a competitive primary may have yielded a candidate that they would have voted for.
So the Democratic strategy of staying true to their progressive core and doing just enough to persuade swing voters *could* be a reasonable one, *if* Republicans were *also* writing off large segments of the population as unpersuadable.
The problem for Democrats is that Republicans aren't doing that anymore. Buoyed by Trump's inroads with blue collar workers and minorities, they’re trying to realign the political landscape and build entirely new coalitions (and so far they’re succeeding). If that trend continues then Democrats won't be able to rely on traditional swing voters to get them over the finish line.
But I don't think Democrats can build a new winning coalition without moving away from the more extreme parts of their progressive agenda, and right now that's so integral to the party's identity that it's going to take an internal revolution analogous to what the Republicans have gone through. I'm not sure who can lead that revolution or what the ultimate outcome will be, but if Republican's recent gains prove to be durable, the Democrats will have to change to stay relevant.
Well put, Ryan. The Dems really seem to have been tricked into painting themselves into a corner by taking on positions too nutty to garner even complete support within their own party. I say. "their own party" as someone who has left it but still never pulled the lever for a Republican candidate. They should try to win ME back with my sole demand being that we push things back toward reason instead of more towards the demands of the sort of nut bag extremists who've generated all the Left's worst ideas.
I think Dem messaging backfired badly with their stubborn and condescending insistence on calling medical care for miscarriages and critical emergencies like ectopic pregnancies "abortion." I think this offended Catholic women, in particular, mightily (such treatment is sanctioned by the Church, but I guess activists never asked), as well as other pro-lifers and even many women who think of themselves as moderate on the issue. I do not think they appreciate conflating the involuntarily loss of a fetus with something that is often an elective procedure.
I've seen so many people I know—smart, educated women—talking about the scores of women dying DAILY because they can't get medical care during a miscarriage. I guess it's along the same lines as the unarmed black men who are shot by police everyday and the trans genocide—so often repeated, it becomes unimpeachable fact.
Matt, you need more Volokh Conspiracy back up if you are going to start talking about laws. Two Clinton era statutes (not just one) hit hard on immigration: the Antiterrorism and Efective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) to some extent, but the more comprehensive was the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA, can’t imagine why that didn’t just trip off the tongue). The combination of the two statues made more acts subject one to removal (deportation) and narrowed and eliminated the avenues for exceptions (applications for relief) and that definitely hit many individuals who might have committed their violations long ago. One of the issues with violating one’s immigration status (if you have lawful status) is that there is generally no expiration on the liability for your conviction or violation of law. Congress could adjust or change that, but never has. Something on immigration, both to support lawful immigration as well as to “get tough” is certainly coming, but hard to know what will happen concretely at this point.
I am a very nearly 50 year old white woman in the suburbs. I have no children. I am an atheist. I am pro-choice. I have a law degree from a top 20 law school and am licensed to practice law in California, Texas and the District of Columbia.
Apparently, all of this on my part meant that I was required to vote for an "astonishingly stupid" (my favorite Moynihan turn of phrase) woman, who seems to have never given any effort to anything. And now, because I didn't, I'm the stupid one? FUCK. THE. HELL. OFF.
Love the Fifth! Thank you for what you do!
I’m a 44 year old white dude who lives in the suburbs and runs public libraries. I have 3 kids and am apathetic on abortion and believe in Santa clause, but otherwise am an atheist.
I just don’t get how you are not completely to blame for these election results!
I kid, I kid.
I'm a 54 year old white guy with long term mental health issues. Married, no kids. So politically apathetic I think anarchism is too formal for my tastes. I am one of those people responsible for our current state because I was so apathetic I didn't even bother to vote. I am telling you this because...
I'm happy I did it.
I wanted it to happen!
I PLAN ON DOING IT AGAIN!
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
You're not stupid, you're just sexist and racist. Possibly fascist too.
I hate activism. I instinctively, viscerally recoil when I hear clips of crowds chanting thought-terminating slogans at rallies. It offends something within me deeply. So when I make fun of "tHe rEsIsTaNcE", I'm not entirely trolling. But Moynihan's not even talking about real activists here. What I can't stop laughing at is the image in my mind of keyboard warriors taking to the information superhighway to meme their way into defeating Trump. It's so ridiculous that I'm not even sure I can capture exactly how stupid I think it is in words that can convey my utter contempt for that entire temper-tantrum approach to politics.
Changing minds and winning more elections over time is how you create lasting policy change. You start that process by deploying better ideas, and a good first cut is to drop the ones invented in a post-modernism laboratory ("TWAW!" "Defund the police!" "America is a white-supremacist country!") that offend even mainstream Democrats. Stop allowing the activist class to run the messaging for your campaigns. Clowns like Ibram X. Kendi, Nikole Hannah-Jones, and Robin DiAngelo deserve to be toiling in obscurity as hourly-pay junior lecturers. Their ideas are dumb and wrong and—most importantly to this discussion—electorally radioactive.
I strongly agree with that. It drives me mad as well.
Slogans are so easy to chant but, they are always poorly thought out and most of the people chanting do so on vibes. The effect in the end is to shut down debate.
e.g. 'Trans rights are human rights' What do you mean by that? What is the purpose of this slogan? Which human rights act/convention are we discussing? Which rights do you think are being denied to trans people? etc.
But, it sounds good and positive so, people continue to chant without engaging in any thoughtful discussions about the balances of rights we are talking about.
When challenged as above the answer is often to simply repeat the slogan.
I think Jesse Singal has also talked about 'sane-washing' where people when challenged start to downplay the slogan but, in a way which is actually antithetical to the movement they've joined. e.g. 'We just mean 'reform' the police'.
AKA motte and bailey argument
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
Thanks for this. I've never actually looked that expression up before and I think I had misunderstood what it meant from the way other people used it!
When a person describes him- or herself as an advocate, it tells me they think they have reasons why people should do or accept or change something either for the benefit of most or for the benefit of a few at reasonable cost for most. When they describe themselves as activists, it tells me they think they're fighting on the side of good vs. evil, a fight for which there is no move too dirty nor dishonest nor deranged when landing a blow for their side. Another difference is advocates know the facts that constitute the other side's case and can express them without utter contempt whereas for activists NOT understanding the other side is key to promoting their position.
The moment where Moynihan's hangover was cured by the brief moment of hope that Kelly would be on the dating market might be one of the better on-camera moments for the fifdom in a while.
Even though I was audio-only for that, I am certain my brain filled in the pictures pretty close to what it actually looked like.
I usually listen audio only, but this might convince me to at least check out this clip
Foster Brooks was my great grandfather, which sounds a lot cooler than it is since I didn't get to meet him before he died. It's cool how often you guys shout him out though
MK is unhinged- i don’t get it
While I voted for Oliver and was a sort of counterbalance to Welch's declared "didn't vote for her, but rooted for her" (that's how I heard it on Megyn's show; I mildly rooted against her), and am definitely not a political gloater, I had an easier time than I thought being sort of happy for people like Megyn and Taibbi and Walter Kirn (who was bouncing off the freakin' walls in their Wednesday livestream), the latter two of whom are pretty leftist. I don't for a second think that Kirn is, in the long term, HAPPY with the outcome, but there's a lot of pent-up (well-earned) resentment coming out of a lot of corners of the alternative media. It was apparent even in the guys' appearance on the show.
I'm drawn to each of them and the three guys here for slightly different but very related reasons, and they all center around them all having very strong personal opinions, but also having the ability and grace to entertain points of view other than their own without it turning into a shitshow. I think that's why the boys keep going on her show. Lord knows they aren't fully on-board with Megyn's opinions on everything, first and foremost who they were voting for. But the common ground (exposing the excesses of the Very Online Dems, standing against censorious tendencies, among others) allows them to discuss pretty heavy stuff with an air of humor and frankness one can't really find much anymore. It's why, despite the several points of disagreement I have with Megyn myself, I listen to her pretty regularly. I have the maturity to be able to mentally deal with it when she says something I consider nutty and still view her as a sane human with different views and priorities.
I dunno. I'm sorry if none of the above makes sense.
I like her, I think she's entertaining and funny and sharp as a proverbial tack. But one thing I hate is watching her coverage of "true crime" stories, particularly during major trials. She doesn't watch the trial, gets surface level talking points, and spouts the breathless winemom headlines. She seems to be a competent lawyer, but cannot provide insight without facts.
Just a gripe that's been bubbling in my mind since the Alex Murdaugh trial.
Oh, when she does the true crime, I tune out entirely. I have absolutely no interest in most of it. I don't have enough experience listening to her episodes on the subject to even put forth an opinion on her analysis of it.
She is definitely a partisan media personality who enjoys owning the libs, maybe a little too much. But she is smart and insightful at times. Take the good with the bad and laugh a little.
I like her- she's smart, and I agree with her takes on trans stuff especially.
But over the past 4 months, she has gotten increasingly hot under the collar.
She can't help her Irish temper
Mortal Kombat *is* pretty unhinged…
…oh wait, not that MK?! Oops!
Unhinged is extreme. Although I know we like to use extreme terms these days, like fascist. In what way is she unhinged?
Dems need new messaging/language to win. How about…AsianX?
Axian, surely?
Hey Matt and lads, please don’t livestream via exTwitter anymore. Much better on YouTube, which allows us to multitask with our phones while we watch/listen. Really, even a Substack stream is preferable to exTwitter.
That said, between you and the Freep and whatnot, it was a great night of content all around. Love you all.
That’s it. Carry on!
For anyone interested in the reaction here in Europe - it seems our media and political class have decided to lose their minds and are encouraging the populaces of their respective countries to join them in the hysteria. I'm hopeful most will resist the urge and calm the hell down.
Oh I was just watching the Belgian news and they think that Trump won because Miriam Adelson gave him a lot of money. And Elon. No mention of the streek of celebrities endorsing her tirelessly.
Interesting that, out of the many big-money Trump backers, they chose a prominently Jewish one.
That’s not a coincidence, and not the first time in Belgian tv news.
No mention of the BILLION dollars Harris raised after she became the nominee?
Nope. It bothers the narrative
I saw a cringe inducing video of women in government of different european countries standing in solidarity with the american women.... and someone QTed with the abortion week limit in those countries and they were worse than most states in the US. Lmao
Keir Starmer is in a panic after the party asked for volunteers to canvass for Harris in North Carolina. Unfortunately he’s lumbered with David Lammy as Foreign Secretary, who tweeted in 2017 that Trump was a “neo-Nazi/KKR sympathiser and is the same clown who gave sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius for no reason except separations possibly. It won’t be long before the Chinese navy surrounds the US base at Diego Garcia with listening posts (at least). Otherwise the grandstanding buffoon of a London mayor has been tearfully virtue signalling to America’s huddled masses. Oh, and Ed Davey of the Liberal Democrats has lamented a dark day for the planet, but quelle surprise.
I can't imagine anything more off-putting than a Limey coming to my door, telling me who to vote for.
Best tweet I've seen so far that I think is accurate is 'Turns out, more women buy milk and eggs than get abortions." I think that sums it up quite well.
I feel like I'm the stereotypical woman voter that Democrats banked on with the abortion argument and I could never get over how reductive it felt to have that constantly presented as THE women's issue, and how many of my friends immediately fell into line. The Democrats seem to not understand that women have other concerns as well.
Nor do they seem to understand that men have their own reasons to want abortion legal.
I remember when "Barstool Republican" was in vogue ~2019, and the war between them and the odd Vermuele-style catholic integralist types over frat bro reasons to want abortion legal. Despite disappearing as a term, the barstools seem to have won if trump's promise to veto a nationwide ban attempt is true.
Here in Missouri an abortion amendment passed pretty handily all while going nearly +19 points for Trump (I think Hawley did the worst of the statewide MAGA buffet we were offered, and he was +16 or so). It has lots of politicians and (what bare, little) local media confused, but I don't think it has been fully appreciated yet how giving people in many states a direct vote on the issue has decoupled it from parties outside of single-issue types who want to punish the wrongthinkers that haunt them.
Yes, I have no problem with abortion being kicked down to the states to figure out and I believe there's not a non-zero number of women I know who truly don't understand what overturning Roe v. Wade actually meant.
I'd consider myself in the squishy middle on the issue—abortion should be widely available to a certain point, and then limited to instances where the mother's health is in jeopardy. My gut instinct tells me that this is where most reasonable people land, but when I tell this to my progressive friends—or tell them that this reflects the law in many of the European countries they so idolize—they act like I'm a far-right lunatic. Being the mother of a baby who was born on that tipping point of viability, where things could go either way (and luckily they went in our favor and we have a beautiful, amazing 5-year-old now) makes it hard for me to cheer for the whole abortion anytime, on-demand deal.
I feel the same way. I got tired of the expectation that I should automatically vote for democrats because of abortion. There are a lot of things I care about actually that don’t have anything to do with being a woman.
A heroic effort
It was pretty hilarious when it came out that her step kids call her Mamala. In Spanish, mamar is the verb, to suck, ergo Mamala literally means Suckula.
Thank you, this will accompany me today during my cooking. Like EAK, I am a woman, I live in the middle of nowhere and I have one annoying teenager, I am a Jewish atheist and pro choice and I can’t vote in the US elections.
But if the last year proved anything, is that I don’t belong to any political group. And I suspect most of the listeners will understand why.
I don't foresee Democrats quickly and easily pivoting to a more appealing and successful platform.
It's early, but so far all the think pieces I've seen blame inflation and Biden staying in the race too long. I saw one media criticism piece that was somewhat introspective, but the theme was still more "We need people to trust that we're right" than "Maybe we're not right..."
I think the core problem is that Democrats have written off large segments of the population as beyond redemption, so rather than try to build a new coalition, they're going after the small percentage of moderate swing voters that had been deciding elections. And I think it's plausible that those swing voters were largely responding to inflation, and that a competitive primary may have yielded a candidate that they would have voted for.
So the Democratic strategy of staying true to their progressive core and doing just enough to persuade swing voters *could* be a reasonable one, *if* Republicans were *also* writing off large segments of the population as unpersuadable.
The problem for Democrats is that Republicans aren't doing that anymore. Buoyed by Trump's inroads with blue collar workers and minorities, they’re trying to realign the political landscape and build entirely new coalitions (and so far they’re succeeding). If that trend continues then Democrats won't be able to rely on traditional swing voters to get them over the finish line.
But I don't think Democrats can build a new winning coalition without moving away from the more extreme parts of their progressive agenda, and right now that's so integral to the party's identity that it's going to take an internal revolution analogous to what the Republicans have gone through. I'm not sure who can lead that revolution or what the ultimate outcome will be, but if Republican's recent gains prove to be durable, the Democrats will have to change to stay relevant.
Well put, Ryan. The Dems really seem to have been tricked into painting themselves into a corner by taking on positions too nutty to garner even complete support within their own party. I say. "their own party" as someone who has left it but still never pulled the lever for a Republican candidate. They should try to win ME back with my sole demand being that we push things back toward reason instead of more towards the demands of the sort of nut bag extremists who've generated all the Left's worst ideas.
i'm pretty sure the 'moynihan gets arrested' episode was my first, too.
i think i saw christina hoff sommers say something nice about you on twitter, so i decided to give it a listen, & we went from there.
I think Dem messaging backfired badly with their stubborn and condescending insistence on calling medical care for miscarriages and critical emergencies like ectopic pregnancies "abortion." I think this offended Catholic women, in particular, mightily (such treatment is sanctioned by the Church, but I guess activists never asked), as well as other pro-lifers and even many women who think of themselves as moderate on the issue. I do not think they appreciate conflating the involuntarily loss of a fetus with something that is often an elective procedure.
I've seen so many people I know—smart, educated women—talking about the scores of women dying DAILY because they can't get medical care during a miscarriage. I guess it's along the same lines as the unarmed black men who are shot by police everyday and the trans genocide—so often repeated, it becomes unimpeachable fact.
Yes. This is very unfortunate- and potentially dangerous - misinformation.
Matt, you need more Volokh Conspiracy back up if you are going to start talking about laws. Two Clinton era statutes (not just one) hit hard on immigration: the Antiterrorism and Efective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) to some extent, but the more comprehensive was the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA, can’t imagine why that didn’t just trip off the tongue). The combination of the two statues made more acts subject one to removal (deportation) and narrowed and eliminated the avenues for exceptions (applications for relief) and that definitely hit many individuals who might have committed their violations long ago. One of the issues with violating one’s immigration status (if you have lawful status) is that there is generally no expiration on the liability for your conviction or violation of law. Congress could adjust or change that, but never has. Something on immigration, both to support lawful immigration as well as to “get tough” is certainly coming, but hard to know what will happen concretely at this point.