@akkartik You can say a lot about Biden, but Biden 2020 was not cautious or scripted. Biden's whole career has been a fountain of gaffes. Biden would say bizarre shit (not-un-Trump-like) in 2020, from his record player spiel during the primary to telling people who annoyed him at diners not to vote for him, and almost starting physical altercations. You may think Biden's "Scranton Joe" persona authentic or a put-on, but it was always hanging out. 1/

@akkartik (Biden was accused of "hiding in his basement" in 2020, doing podcasts — PODCASTS — but not getting out during the pandemic. But when he interacted, he was scrappy, not scripted.) 2/

@akkartik I think it's true that Hillary was always going to have a hard time of it. As Kevin Drum put it, she was in fact an unusually honest politician, but the way she retained her honesty was by giving guarded rather than unqualified-and-therefore-imperfectly-accurate statements. 3/

@akkartik There's a tension between perceived straightforwardness (which requires keeping it simple, which may mean misportraying some edge cases) and legalistic accuracy, which requires either careful qualification or restraint. 4/

@akkartik Both Clinton (Hillary) and Harris put avoiding getting called on technical inaccuracies before "telling it straight" at cost of getting "gotcha-ed" on the ways straight missed some cases and so could be portrayed as lies. 5/

@akkartik There may well be a gendered component to this choice. I think it pretty likely that women have the experience of getting well-actually-ed and mansplained when giving simple, broadly right answer, but missing some edge cases. It may well be true that this kind of "technical inaccuracy" is perceived as more forgivable by men talking straight and tough, while professional women are expected to be perfect lawyers. 6/

@akkartik If we had it to do over again, of course Harris should go on Rogan, smoke some joints with him, just let it all hang out. We know how it works out when she's all restrained and disciplined. But there's no guarantee an open-book, telling-it-like-she-sees it Harris would have been any more beloved by voters. 7/

@akkartik If she were an open book, it could prove a book voters just don't like. (Though given that they thought openness redeemed open Trump's awfulness, you'd hope the mere awfulness might count for a lot.)

It could also be the case what works for an alpha male type just doesn't for a woman candidate, because sexism, and even the best version of a candid Harris couldn't win. I don't think so, but I don't want to think so. In any case, we can't know. /fin

@artcollisions I’ll give it a try!

@artcollisions (now their system just doesn’t pick up, rings and them jumps to busy.)

@marick i think it’s more a normative claim than an empirical one. emperors often fail to secure power through a lineage.

but they insist that it is right to do so, and vigorously propound a politics under which privilege based on “nepotism” and inheritance is legitimate, and, conversely, where deprivation based on circumstances of birth is also legitimate.

@marick (it probably is worth a separate post sometime. it just emerges in this one from my observation that people who support plutocratic politics often seem to make justice claims in terms of families or ones “people” — something more than direct lineage but less than race — rather than individuals.)