We stress-test alternative ends to the government shutdown, compare good and bad approaches to election analysis, debate whether sports betting should be re-prohibited, and eulogize Teen Vogue.
I'm really appreciating this show. Thank you!! So much #DiscomfortOfThought!
Prompted by the discussion of gaming, I offer up a conceptual model that could be useful for future discussion of vice markets, pulling from the work of Alex Liber and his "Regulatory Stances."
I apply it to nicotine markets in the post below (I consult to Juul Labs and based this on my opening remarks to a panel at the Food & Drug Law Institute's annual tobacco and nicotine product conference) but hopefully you will grok the parallels.
I feel like Nate revealed a blind spot around minute 39 when he called the "They/Them" ad "stupid." When asked why, he expressed exasperation with having to comment on or pay attention to trans issues. That's the whole message of the ad, Nate- that one party is making us talk about and care about these things, and voters don't generally want to. You can disagree, but you certainly can't call the ad stupid.
I think he means that trans issues take up an amount of headspace (particularly on the right) that is completely out of proportion with the number of trans people that actually exist. People really, really obsess over this issue.
I basically agree with that, and I say that as someone who is pro trans rights, and think that much of the administration's actions towards them have been pointless at best, exceedingly cruel at worst. They've become an effective political punching bag, though I wish that were not the case.
I'm not sure what the pod's broader views about the issue are. I've only really heard them talk about it in the "Democrats shouldn't focus too much on trans people because it's not politically popular" sense. Which is... problematic to me, but it's not really the same as being anti-trans.
I think if every Dem candidate moved a steps or two to the right, that would be "moderating," but I'm not sure how big of an electoral impact it would have. Maybe a few seats on the margin?
What the Dems really need is to moderate by developing a conservative wing of the party that has people who can run competitively in red states and districts.
The correct term for a Bluesky utterance is a squeet.
Otherwise, no notes. Great episode.
I'm really appreciating this show. Thank you!! So much #DiscomfortOfThought!
Prompted by the discussion of gaming, I offer up a conceptual model that could be useful for future discussion of vice markets, pulling from the work of Alex Liber and his "Regulatory Stances."
I apply it to nicotine markets in the post below (I consult to Juul Labs and based this on my opening remarks to a panel at the Food & Drug Law Institute's annual tobacco and nicotine product conference) but hopefully you will grok the parallels.
https://joegitchell.substack.com/p/setting-goals-for-nicotine-regulation?r=tbkzj
I feel like Nate revealed a blind spot around minute 39 when he called the "They/Them" ad "stupid." When asked why, he expressed exasperation with having to comment on or pay attention to trans issues. That's the whole message of the ad, Nate- that one party is making us talk about and care about these things, and voters don't generally want to. You can disagree, but you certainly can't call the ad stupid.
I think Nate meant stupid in a different sense than the way you took it.
As in, stupid that an ad like that would be so effective.
I think he means that trans issues take up an amount of headspace (particularly on the right) that is completely out of proportion with the number of trans people that actually exist. People really, really obsess over this issue.
I basically agree with that, and I say that as someone who is pro trans rights, and think that much of the administration's actions towards them have been pointless at best, exceedingly cruel at worst. They've become an effective political punching bag, though I wish that were not the case.
I'm not sure what the pod's broader views about the issue are. I've only really heard them talk about it in the "Democrats shouldn't focus too much on trans people because it's not politically popular" sense. Which is... problematic to me, but it's not really the same as being anti-trans.
What is meant by "moderation" exactly?
I think if every Dem candidate moved a steps or two to the right, that would be "moderating," but I'm not sure how big of an electoral impact it would have. Maybe a few seats on the margin?
What the Dems really need is to moderate by developing a conservative wing of the party that has people who can run competitively in red states and districts.