mtutiger

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the election decided mostly on people's views of the economy... And that neither the uncommitted movement nor campaigning with Liz Cheney made much of any difference on the outcome.

https://www.usccb.org/news/2026/following-trumps-critical-post-pope-leo-continues-his-plea-peace "I’m not a politician, and I have no intention of getting into a debate with him," he told an Italian television reporter April 13. "Rather, the message has always been the same: to promote peace -- and I say this for all world leaders, not just him." "To put my message on the same plane as what the president has attempted to do here, I think, is not understanding what the message of the Gospel is," Pope Leo said. "I'm sorry to hear that, but I will continue on with what I believe is the mission of the Church in the world today." These quotes from the Pope himself illustrate the issue for me. It frames the Pope's words in the context of the traditional American political food fight, and it pretty clearly isn't... He's representing the views of the church. And he'd be saying the exact same thing regardless of whichever President started this war. I interpret much of the framing to making it much more about the President personally and downplaying the actual moral stand that Leo is taking. And I don't agree with that at all.

Maybe it's that, but I think political media at large (not just the Times) has a very difficult time covering politics right now in a way that doesn't center literally everything on Trump. What's remarkable to me is that nothing that Leo has said is all that different than what any previous Pope would have said had this same conflict began, at least of the ones in my lifetime.... but because Trump is involved (and started the conflict, frankly), anodyne but important statements from the Pope about this war are now seen as a some sort of personal fight between the two when it's simply the Catholic Church taking the position the Catholic Church would have always taken in this situation.

The screenshot clearly refers to this as a conflict (it's not a conflict if it's one sided IMO), and it refers to "these two people" as if the Pope has even really done more than just simply state the Catholic Church's view on just war policy multiple times. Pretty much is a textbook example of my point.

JV drew quite a crowd in Athens last night apparently

It's not unique to the Times, but the tendency of American outlets to frame Trump attacking the Pope as a "feud" is a way to "both sides" a conflict that really has only one side to it. Which comes across as bringing Leo down to Trump's level (he's not) and making the conflict seem like it's mutual (it isn't)

Certainly think they will need to have a more focused message in a Presidential election, but I'm not sure any of us have a clue what 2028 will be like at this point. Even to the point that because of his age and infirmities, there's a nonzero chance Trump will be around as it's happening. They need to worry about the election before them and do what they need to do to try to win as many races as they can in this cycle. I'm not thinking about 2028 right now

At least when blue dresses and terrorist attacks were involved anyway. It's not the historical norm. The stakes are higher because of Trump, but I stand by what I said. The base case for incumbent parties in our ****ed up system of government is to eat it during the Midterms. Just holding the Senate alone under those circumstances made it a win IMO

Not even sure I agree with your premise given that a lot of the messaging I am seeing centers around economics and cost of living along with anti-Trump messaging. But even taking it at face value, they are a party competing in a midterm against a wildly unpopular President who is in the red on just about every issue and who, within the two months, dragged the country into a war that Americans don't want to be in and one that is raising gas prices for everyone. Are you suggesting they *shouldn't* have messaging that exploits that? If it's April 2028 and it's all about Trump, maybe that's a different story... But it's a Midterm cycle. Not engaging in anti-incumbent messaging against a wildly unpopular President would be malpractice

In 2022, the Democrats did better than any party in modern history in a Presidential midterm outside of Bush (post 9/11) and Clinton (post impeachment). The stakes are higher because of Trump so I understand your point... But Bombers isn't wrong here in a historical context either. The base case for incumbent parties in our ****ed up system of government is to eat it during the Midterms. Just holding the Senate alone under those circumstances made it a win IMO

Tell that to voters in Wisconsin who went ahead and ensured that the GOP will not control their state Supreme Court until 2030 at the earliest. I understand the desire to be skeptical of anything changing under the hood, but when an epochal shift happens in a statewide race in arguably the most important swing state in the country seven months prior to a midterm, it shouldn't just be dismissed out of hand.

That's incredible. Everything is staged with this crew

I don't trust the American public all that much either. But that doesn't mean they aren't pissed at the administration right now and that there aren't any options for Dem candidates to persuade some of them to vote for a Dem candidate, or to show up and vote at all. Or even simply to drive wedges into the GOP coalition such that it depresses their own turnout (which is a real risk for Trump right now, especially given how their turnout sucks when he's not actually on the ballot). But what happened in Hungary should give some hope and perhaps a roadmap for pushing back on these guys.

Really, the two groups that have split with him the most (at least in polling, caveats apply) are Hispanics and Younger voters, both of whom are the most likely groups to make up the universe of "first time Trump voters" in 2024. This is why I tend to push back pretty hard when people just write off all Trump voters as all being the same.... whether one agrees with their reasons or their logic for landing at the position they did, these particular groups didn't swing his way because they love his schtick or are balls-deep into the cult of Trump, these groups who swung his direction did so in a much more transactional way centering around delivering results on issues related to the economy and cost of living. And he's not doing that in so many different ways right now. I get why people are gun shy about him and what he can do, but the tendency to build him up as this force of nature that cannot be stopped belies how damaged his standing is right now with the broader public.

Clearest evidence yet of self-inflicted damage

In 2024, he got a lot of first time support from younger and Hispanic voters. Both of these groups are big reasons why he ended up winning (with a difference of 250k votes over three states). And a lot of that came down to the economy and feelings about cost of living. One of these groups in particular (Hispanics) is also predominantly Catholic and one of the more likely groups to be annoyed or offended by the President trashing Pope Leo. The deadenders will never quit him, but what I wish more people would understand is that not every single person who voted for Trump in any of the last three Presidential elections (particularly the last one) is a Trump deadender. And yes, things that the President says that push those softer voters away and things that his opposition does matter in bringing people along.

There's undoubtedly plenty of people that will rationalize it away, but it isn't 100% either.

This will probably come across pedantic, but to the extent it's a "war" or a "feud" or whatever euphemisms are thrown at it, it's a completely one-sided one. The Pope is simply projecting the logical position that comes from the Gospels on the war and conflict before us. Trump, the narcissist that he is, also likely cannot handle the fact that Pope Leo (Dolton, IL native) has now supplanted him as being the most influential American on the planet as well.

Again, a lot of the same fears and anxieties in the lead up to what Orban would do to stay in power were filtered in the media and among a lot of American observers. The voters spoke and they did not happen. Just think we need to consider that when thinking about our own situation. I understand that January 6th happened and that Trump (unlike Orban) is not a rational person. But I see the thought that democracy is over or that politics do not matter at all often (including to an extent on this board when engaging), and regardless of what stupidity he or his party have up his sleeve, I don't believe either thing is true. Democracy is not over, people are engaged (10 million people showed up to the last No Kings protests, no matter how much it was downplayed by the media), and things are always changing. People are pissed at the cost of gasoline, the cost of housing, being stuck in a stupid and pointless war. People were pissed when the administration was instigating a terror campaign on the people Minneapolis (one, btw, that the people of Minneapolis beat back and defeated). And yes, I truly do think there are a lot of people pissed off at his attacks on democracy. Maybe that wasn't the case in 2024, but things change in politics. This administration is terrible, they will do countless bad things between now and November and now and 2028. But I wish more liberals or anti-Trump folks understood that being joyless or hopeless (or projecting joylessness and hopelessness) all of the time may be a good coping mechanism... but ultimately it does not make anything that may happen in the future any more or less likely. I speak to that as well having watched the Hungarian opposition build over the past couple of years as well.... they started from a much worse situation than we find ourselves in, but there was a lot less wallowing or "woe is me" going on. They did the work... we need to as well.

This is a great point... the church will long outlive our senile, narcissistic President

Definitely not suggesting that I trust the American people... Nor am I excited quite frankly about any of this. There's a reason you see less of me on this board and consuming political media at this point in time But also stepping back from all of that, the Hungarian election shows that politics does matter and that change can happen. And the population that made it happen didn't do it by acting like a bunch of cold hearted cynics who were constantly paralyzed by fear, they did it by putting in the work We really could learn from that collectively

Offensive on so many levels... so many levels

Certainly think we need to be vigilant, but whatever the risks are, I think the fear and anxiety that I see from a lot of corners is frankly counterproductive to actually going out and winning the election before us. Would just add as well that given how elections are run and administered in this country (ie. basically thousands of individual elections spread across 50 states), it's not clear to me how exactly they can be "nationalized". Obviously understand the changes they are proposing with the SAVE Act and oppose them, but the federal government isn't going to administer elections in every municipality in America