"What a blast from the past! The New York Times hasn’t pulled out the infamous 'beer test' for a political candidate since May 22, 2015..."

"... when it ran ['Finding a Candidate You’d Like to Have a Beer With.'] The 'beer test' was once a massively overused campaign reporting cliché. It grew out of a Sam Adams ad campaign in the 2000 race, and from Bush-Gore through the 2016 cycle it was nearly impossible to escape 'beer test' coverage. Then Donald Trump won the 2016 beer test by default — it was hard to imagine Hillary Clinton having a beer at all — leading even Slate to pronounce 'there has never been and perhaps never will be a candidate you’d be more eager to have a beer with than Donald Trump.'

That's Matt Taibbi, in "Cliché Alert: Return of the 'Beer Test'/The New York Times reverts to old form, thanks to a blue-party schism" (Racket).

Here's the NYT article that set Taibbi off: "He’s Not a Democrat. Democrats Love Him Anyway."

"Platner’s Rise and Fall Revives Old Questions About ‘Bernie Bros’ and Women."

A NYT piece by Patricia Mazzei and Kellen Browning.

I have to stop and remember what "Bernie Bros" were... other than name-calling coming from — if I remember correctly — the Hillary Clinton camp.

I see I have a tag "Bernie Bro," and the main post, quite helpfully, is "Where did it come from — this myth of 'Bernie bros'? It's from February 9, 2016. I wrote:

I'm seeing articles like "Bill Clinton Accuses Bernie Bros of Sexism." But what are "Bernie Bros"?

So this is precisely what I want to read before ingesting that new NYT piece.

Dirtbagism.

I'm reading "Graham Platner and the Rise of the ‘Dirtbag’ Democrat/And what the Maine candidate reveals about politics today" in the NYT.

That's long, so let's jump to the place where the word "dirtbag" is thrown into the mix:

Michelle Cottle: And honestly, is it even fair to compare Platner to somebody like Paxton or Trump? 

Jamelle Bouie: You know, I don’t think it’s fair. And I say that because, so far, what we’ve learned about Platner is that, for lack of a better term, he’s kind of a dirtbag. Just a dirtbaggy kind of guy.... That’s versus Trump, who isn’t just a reprehensible person, but is actively engaged in harming other people in his private life, right? And I’d say the same for Paxton: not just a slimy guy, but a guy whose modus operandi, as a human being, is to try to dominate the people around him in really ugly ways. And so, I think Platner is more on the John Fetterman continuum than he is on the Trump continuum, which is just, eh, kind of dirtbaggy.

Cottle: OK, so I want to drill down just a little bit more....

The drilling down does not explore the concept of dirtbagism. Cottle was swooping in to take the conversation away from that, even though the headline writer saw the click-bait value of the word. In the conversation, "dirtbag" never reappears.

I asked Grok "how the word 'dirtbag' is being deployed what kind of people use that term and why" and got quickly tracked into the subject of the "dirtbag left." There's this New Yorker article from last October: "What Explains Graham Platner’s Popularity? The U.S. Senate candidate from Maine seems like the embodiment of the dirtbag left. But there’s another way to understand his appeal." Excerpt:

Why would it have been considered good comedy to use naked "full plump butts" to celebrate Hillary's victory?

Last night's "Late Show with Stephen Colbert," the first night of the last week of the show, featured various segments from over the years that were never aired. The first one is from election night, 2016, where they were prepared to gloat over Trump's defeat. Unlike the usual show, this thing was live and on Showtime, which meant they had the option to use nudity, and they did:

"We were so sure that the New York Times prediction needle was right, we hired a bunch of naked male models with the words, 'I'm with her,' painted on their full plump butts. Sadly, all of those models had to be put down. But first, we tried to save the bit. And as the outcome became clear, we repainted their butts to say 'We're fucked.'"

When I saw that clip on X this morning — at 3 a.m. — I hit the Grok button and got into a conversation that I'm only going to give you my side of. No Grok-writing below. This is all me:

"This was a fecund period of first-person writing by women that had a transgressive and self-revealing quality, which also had the consequence of creating a kind of adrenalized form of commentary."

"Blogging was personal, but also a job, often a grind. It created cycles of argument that were rapid, intense and often punishing for the people at the center — both the subjects and the writers. As post quotas were filled, a slippage occurred between the artist and her public, the blogger and her commenters, the internet-famous and the real stars. 'Girls' permeated this media ecosystem...."

Writes Amanda Hess, in "We Need Lena Dunham Now More Than Ever/The era of 'Girls' is long gone. So why are we still so fascinated by its creator?" (NYT).

"An inveterate poster, [Lena] Dunham lived online and seemed determined to step on the rake of commentary as her influence scaled.... [Dunham said she] wished she could have had the experience of aborting a pregnancy.... She explained that her comment was made under the guise of 'a "delusional girl" persona I sometimes inhabit'.... Her name, and her auto-fictional project, had wandered beyond their creative boundaries, and the internecine debates of blogs had ballooned into a national concern. When Clinton lost the election, some blamed Dunham."

"The success rate of getting to a candid place with politicians is very small... and this is somebody who’s divisive and controversial and has a history that’s somewhat sordid..."

"... not by any fault of her own, but I just didn’t see where I could go with that."

Said Marc Maron, quoted in "Liberal comic Marc Maron who helped popularize podcasting explains why he turned down Hillary Clinton interview" (NY Post).

Not by any fault of her own?! What suddenly happened to the asserted desire to speak from "a candid place"?

The article doesn't say the Clinton team pushed to have her on Maron's podcast, only that his producer "pitched Clinton, fresh off her loss... in the 2016 election." He said "You’re the guy to do this" and Maron "adamantly disagreed."

Was he afraid he wouldn't get to a candid place or that he, at least, ran the risk of being candid in a way that would hurt the Democrats.

Of course, Mamdani takes advantage of the existing law, living in rent-stabilized apartment, paying a mere $2,300 a month for a 1-bedroom in Queens.

But Andrew Cuomo is challenging him. "[M]ove out immediately," he wrote on X. "[G]ive your affordable housing back to an unhoused family who need it. Leaders must show moral clarity. Time to move out."

Where is Cuomo, in his "moral clarity," living these days? And would he be forefronting this issue if he had scored the nomination, as he'd expected? I think it's only because Mamdani got the nomination that Cuomo talking about rent-stabilization, which is a problem, but not one that could be solved by trying to guilt-trip the beneficiaries of it to move out of their apartments.

This reminds me of the time Hillary Clinton tried to shame Donald Trump out of using the tax advantages that are written into the law:

"The whole thing is hard for me to write. I couldn't sleep for two years after the election. I was so angry, I wasn't fit to be around."

"I apologize to all those who endured my outbursts of rage, which lasted for years and bothered or bored people who thought it pointless to rehash things that couldn't be changed...."

Writes Bill Clinton in his new book, quoted in "Bill Clinton makes stunning confession about his bizarre behavior after Hillary's defeat in America's 'darkest election'" (Daily Mail).

Presumably, he means he didn't sleep well. The assertion that he couldn't sleep for 2 years is patently untrue. He's still alive.

Clinton also writes in a mode that would be called "election denialism" if it were pro-Trump: "Almost two years after the election, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a highly regarded social scientist said Russia's cyber attacks piled on top of Comey's interventions were effective enough to persuade voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to vote for third parties or stay at home. If so, Putin's enablers were Comey and the political press."

What about the Russia hoax that Hillary participated in?! Shouldn't that balance the effect of "Russia's cyber attacks"?

What were the "cyber attacks"? Here's Kathleen Hall Jamieson's book, "Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President: What We Don't, Can't, and Do Know" (Amazon Associates link). From a 2018 New Yorker article about that book:

Trump's word: "fight."

I have a simple point to make, but before I do, I want to acknowledge that "fight" was also Hillary Clinton's word, and here we see the music video shown at the 2016 Democratic National Conviction and it's full of celebrities brimming with determination to fight (for what we know they went on to lose):

Trump won in 2016, and he went on to lose — or are you one of the millions who think he won? — in 2020, and now he's fighting to win again. Out there fighting, we know what happened in Butler, Pennsylvania, and we know that "fight" was Trump's word in the most immediate dire moment:

"Some scholars have been surprised by their findings about gender and how candidates translate to viewers."

"One experiment enlisted actors to re-create a Clinton-Trump debate — repeating lines, gestures and facial expressions but with the genders swapped. Audience members were asked about their views afterward.... 'That project was really shocking for me,' said Joe Salvatore, a New York University professor who co-led the experimental performance. He had thought that viewers would react more negatively to a female Trump and more positively to a male Clinton because of gender bias — for instance, an aversion to a confrontational woman. But plenty liked that the female Trump was 'strong' and 'concise' — and conversely took issue with how much the male Clinton was smiling."

From "Analysts say Trump faces risks heightened by gender when he debates Harris/Political analysts say there are particular risks for Donald Trump — heightened by gender — in coming across as a bully when he debates Kamala Harris" (WaPo).

I blogged about Salvatore's project back in 2017 — with video of the gender-reversed debate. What a revelation! Watch:

I think it's great that the audience appreciated a woman talking like Trump and didn't like the Hillary mannerisms in a man. And Kamala Harris has a lot of feminine style that I'm afraid comes across as subordinate: the laughing, the smiling, the whole-body shaking, the nodding of the head as if desperate for approval, the ever-changing voice. It doesn't show leadership ability, and we can see why Trump is getting mileage out of saying that world leaders will "walk all over her" and "She'll be like a play toy."

"It’s the stuff of #Resistance dreams: Kamala Harris, the prosecutor, gets onstage in Philadelphia next Tuesday across from Donald Trump, the felon, and proceeds to brutally expose him..."

"... as a racist and sexist con man who’s been lying to the American people ever since his famous escalator ride nine years ago. Only that’s not how she or her debate-prep team sees her main objective for the debate — at all. In mock-debate sessions in Pittsburgh, planning meetings in Washington, and briefing-book cram sessions between public events on the campaign trail, the vice-president and her aides have kept much of their focus on fine-tuning ways to keep presenting her as representative of a new political era for the benefit of curious voters who are still interested in learning more about her — and who may swing the race come November... 'She’s not known in the way Donald Trump is,' says one senior Democrat who used to work for Joe Biden and is now close to the Harris campaign’s leaders. 'It’s an opportunity to define herself....'"

Writes Gabriel Debenedetti, in "Why Kamala Isn’t Preparing to Knock Out Trump at the Debate/To her campaign, something else is more important" (NY Magazine).

Hillary Clinton can't talk straight about whether Kamala Harris has sought out her advice on how to debate Donald Trump.

I'm reading "Hillary Clinton Has Advice on Debating Trump: ‘He Can Be Rattled’/The 2016 Democratic nominee fell short to Donald Trump, but she had strong debate moments against him. In an interview, she offered some thoughts for Kamala Harris" (NYT).

"The consensus was that I won all three debates and that I was well prepared," Mrs. Clinton said.

That rather suggests that she doesn't have the secret to besting Trump in a debate. Everyone around her told her she was winning, so she knows what it means to win. Obviously not.

And this was funny:

Have you talked with Harris about this debate?

He doesn’t answer the questions. He doesn’t come with any specifics. It appears from the reporting that he is going with a scorched-earth approach and will just try to tear her down, which is his usual go-to strategy.

She didn't answer the question when she answered a question by saying "He doesn’t answer the questions." The question was "Have you talked with Harris about this debate?" I'm going to infer that the answer is no. I can also infer that one piece of advice she would give KH if she were asked is: Any question you don't want to have to answer can be reimagined as a question you do feel comfortable answering.

A NYT article I'd be more interested in reading if my search of the page had turned up one name — Donna Brazile.

The article: "Trump Questions Fairness of Next Week’s Debate at a Town Hall/Former President Donald J. Trump, at a Fox News event, insisted without evidence that Vice President Kamala Harris was 'going to get the questions in advance.'" 

Why Donna Brazile needed to be there for me to take this "insisted without evidence" business seriously: "Interim Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Donna Brazile is coming under fire Monday after a newly released WikiLeaks email indicated she gave Hillary Clinton’s team an explicit heads-up about debate questions last spring." (October 31, 2016, CBS News).

From the new NYT article: "Pointing to Vice President Kamala Harris’s longtime friendship with a senior executive whose portfolio includes ABC News, Mr. Trump insisted without evidence that Ms. Harris was 'going to get the questions in advance.' The network released agreed-upon rules that no topics or questions would be provided to either candidate or campaign."

How much "evidence" in advance does Trump need before he's entitled to waft his suspicion about something that, if it happens, will be done surreptitiously and where it is something has happened before and, when it happened we only found out after the fact thanks to... of all things... WikiLeaks?

Yes, you can criticize Trump's rhetoric. It's not precisely correct to assert that Harris is "going to get the questions in advance." But we understand what he means. We don't (or shouldn't) trust ABC not to do something like what happened in 2016. And Trump wants to heighten our mistrust and perhaps intimidate ABC in case it's tempted to violate its agreement to keep the questions and topics secret.

Of course, we all expect ABC to frame questions that will not trap or unduly challenge Kamala Harris. The only check on that behavior is that at some point, the coddling is obvious and invites mockery.

"Yeah, well, Trump has that unvarnished element, and that's also something that's very appealing to working-class people...."

"He doesn't talk down to people.... He's very good at that.... Yeah, well and he's got that gift of spontaneity. You know, he doesn't craft his speeches, and of course that makes him a bit of a loose cannon, but people like that.... You might be deceiving us, but not in a practiced and calculating way. Right, you know, some of your personality flaws are leaking through, but but at least that's kind of like honest deception. I thought when when Trump won, I thought, well, they they preferred the spontaneous lies of Trump to the calculated lies of Hillary. You know, and that's very cynical but but there's still there's something about it that's accurate...."

Said Jordan Peterson, and it rings true to me. They're all going to lie, but which form of lying do you feel more inclined to trust?

What does "Heavy on Buzz" even mean?

I'm trying to read Reid J. Epstein, in "Harris’s Early Campaign: Heavy on Buzz, Light on Policy/On policy, the vice president is drafting off President Biden, essentially cherry-picking the most popular parts of his agenda and betting that a younger messenger can sell them to Americans" (NYT).

When Hillary Clinton ran for president in 2016, she had more than 200 distinct policy proposals. Four years ago, Joseph R. Biden Jr. had a task force write a 110-page policy document for his White House bid.

Now, Vice President Kamala Harris does not have a policy page on her campaign website.

A last-minute campaign born of Mr. Biden’s depreciated political standing has so far been running mainly on Democratic good feelings and warmth toward Ms. Harris, drafting off legislation and proposed policies from the man she is hoping to succeed....

I made the link a free-access "gift" link so you can help me read this thing. I am irritated by the claims of "buzz" and "good feelings and warmth." We're being instructed on how to feel, but it seems to be about how other people feel, or so we are told. 

ADDED: Is there a shift going on? A week or so ago, it was all about how Kamala Harris feels. I made a tag "how does Kamala feel" because I thought that was the wrong focus. We were told she was "joyous." Obvious bullshit, of course, but that was the nature of the campaign — the purportedly heavy-on-buzz campaign. But now the NYT seems to be nudging us into thinking about how we the people feel, and we're supposed to feel good... good and warm... about Kamala.

AND: "Buzz" is a cool looking word.

"Hillary Clinton’s laugh was criticized, and also called weird. There was a suggestion that it made her seem inauthentic..."

"... which was a bizarre point, since genuine laughter is, if not involuntary, then very hard to fake. Lenny Bruce once dared a crowd to try it four times in an hour. Calling women overly emotional or hysterical is a sexist trope, and there’s a long history of positioning laughter in opposition to reason. Plato warned against a love of laughter, suggesting it indicates a loss of control. Ever alert to the theater of power, Trump rarely laughs... ...."

Writes Jason Zinoman, in "Kamala Harris’s Laugh Is a Campaign Issue. Our Comedy Critic Weighs in. The Trump campaign sees Harris’s laugh as a vulnerability to exploit. But far from a liability, it is one of her most effective weapons" (NYT).

"What does a laugh say about a person? That he or she is human. In a divided country, it’s something we all do and enjoy. And as anyone who has hung out with friends late into the night knows, it’s contagious. That’s a powerful political tool. As the poet Ella Wilcox wrote, 'Laugh and the world laughs with you.'"

Ella Wilcox? She started that? Oh!

I am laughing at the surprise encounter with what looks like the childless cat lady J.D. Vance was talking about.

Here's the poem, "Solitude":

"I know the excruciating pressure of walking onto that stage and that it is nearly impossible to focus on substance when Mr. Trump is involved...."

"It is a waste of time to try to refute Mr. Trump’s arguments like in a normal debate. It’s nearly impossible... to identify what his arguments even are. He starts with nonsense and then digresses into blather. This has gotten only worse in the years since we debated.... Mr. Trump may rant and rave in part because he wants to avoid giving straight answers about his unpopular positions.... He interrupts and bullies... because he wants to appear dominant and throw his opponent off balance.... In 90-minute mock debates on an identical stage, I practiced keeping my cool in the face of hard questions and outright lies about my record and character.... Unfortunately, Mr. Biden starts from a disadvantage because there’s no way he can spend as much time preparing as I did eight years ago.... Mr. Biden is one of the most empathetic leaders we’ve ever had. Listen to how sincerely he talks.... Mr. Trump can’t do that because he cares only about himself.... ... Mr. Biden is a wise and decent man...."

Writes Hillary Clinton, in "Opinion | Hillary Clinton: I’ve Debated Trump and Biden. Here’s What I’m Watching For" (NYT).

It's actually not hard to understand Trump. He does switch in different topics, and that could throw his opponent off balance, but it's not hard for the home audience to follow. His rally crowds get him, easily. If you hate him, it may indeed be "nearly impossible to focus on substance," and then you won't understand him. That's a plus for him as a debater. He gets to communicate fluently with the voters, at least the ones who aren't dead-set against him, and flummox his opponent, who, apparently, is supposed to dump endless time into practicing not losing his cool. Meanwhile, is Trump even practicing at all? I don't think he is. He may be brushing up on the facts and the policies, but his debate style is instinctive, and his opponents don't even know if he's going to do the acting-presidential routine or unleash some chaotic force-of-nature attack.

Philippe Reines did not call Joe Biden a "malfunctioning appliance."

I'm trying to read "Debate advice from the man who played Trump for Clinton’s prep" (WaPo)(free access link).

Phillippe Reines, the "longtime aid [sic] to Hillary Clinton" asked whether, in the debate, Joe Biden should "appeal to persuadable voters or engage his base." He says:

You can’t think in those terms. You’re just onstage with a malfunctioning appliance. I mean, you can’t. You can’t assume that you’re going to get done what you want to get done unless you do it in the context of using the malfunctioning appliance to make your point.

I know Joe Biden has had trouble walking and talking lately, but that's nasty. I mean, it's too true and put too humorously. I mean, I know the "malfunctioning appliance" must be the debate. Right? I hope! If Joe Biden is a malfunctioning appliance that must mean he's been a tool all along. That's not something Phillippe Reines would say.

"I didn’t say 'lock her up,' but the people said lock her up, lock her up. Then, we won. And I say — and I said pretty openly, I said, all right, come on, just relax, let’s go, we’ve got to make our country great."

Said Donald Trump, quoted in "Trump falsely claims he never called for Hillary Clinton to be locked up/'Lock her up' is perhaps one of the most popular chants among Trump supporters, and he agreed with it or explicitly called for her jailing on several occasions" (WaPo)(free access link).

But after his election, on Nov. 9, 2016, Trump did not lash out at Clinton when, during a post-election rally, a crowd began a loud chant of “Lock her up!”

“Hillary has worked very long and very hard over a long period of time and we owe her a major debt of gratitude for her service to our country,” Trump said then. “I mean that very seriously. Now it is time for America to bind the wounds of division. … I say it is time for us to come together as one united people.”

But election denial is reprehensible, no?

Saying Trump is on trial for paying hush money to a porn star is like saying John Wilkes Booth was tried for sneaking up behind Lincoln in Ford’s Theater. Silencing Stormy was just the means Trump used to commit the crime of fraudulently killing Hillary’s 2016 presidential bid.

— Laurence Tribe 🇺🇦 ⚖️ (@tribelaw) April 12, 2024