Wednesday's Most Active Threads

Because the two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed, I will start with the third most active thread, which was titled, "Democratic pipeline of talent is sad". Posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the original poster repeats what has basically become a broken record among centrist Democrats in the forum, claiming that the election was lost because of progressives in the Democratic Party. Never mind that Vice President Kamala Harris ran as exactly the candidate the original poster and those who share her beliefs wanted. Given the choice of recognizing that their strategy failed and blaming powerless progressives, they reflexively blame the left. The original poster then went on to denigrate several potential future Democratic presidential candidates, often using Republican talking points. This is where we are at the moment. So-called "Democrats" are devoting their efforts to mimicking Republicans while attacking the best political organizers in the party. Meanwhile, the original poster and those like her seem completely oblivious to the threat being presented by President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. Instead of organizing to resist Trump, these posters are spending their time attacking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Not unexpectedly, these days, almost before the first page was complete, this thread had gone off-topic. Instead of discussing the pipeline of Democratic political talent, posters simply discussed how terrible leftist Democrats are and how they have ruined the party. That discussion has been had plenty of times already, so I am going to stick to the original topic. The main point that the original poster seems to be making is that there are no centrist Democrats poised to be strong presidential contenders. If the original poster is correct, the fact that centrist Democrats have proven to be unelectable can hardly be blamed on progressives. But, in fact, the original poster is wrong. She mentioned Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear herself, but brushed him off as "a nobody". However, another moderate Democrat is North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper. I think the bigger issue here is that politics no longer exists on a simple left-right spectrum. The old labels don't work, but those like the original poster haven't yet figured that out. The real division shown in the last election was not between the left and the right, but rather between populists and establishment politicians. When Harris first announced her candidacy, she took a populist slant and was boosted by a wave of popularity. Soon, however, establishment Democrats — the so-called "adults in the room" — took over the campaign and tamed things down. Instead of engaging in populist rhetoric, Harris took to campaigning with Liz Cheney, one of the most establishment figures in existence. A populist message that speaks to the working class will be necessary for the Democrats' future. But engaging populism while not alienating the Democrats' current base of affluent urban and suburban voters will take some talent. In that regard, I humbly suggest consideration of Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff. Ossoff is a liberal who has managed to win in a red state. He is a Jew who last night voted to embargo weapons to Israel. He is a young man in a party that has suffered from the age of its leaders. Most importantly for this discussion, he is a populist who can also appeal to urban elites. If someday the original poster realizes who our real opponent is and stops firing on fellow Democrats, I suggest that she take a look at Ossoff or one of the many other Democrats that make up a pipeline full of talent.

The next most active thread yesterday was another one posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Musk, Ramaswamy lay out plans for ‘mass’ federal layoffs", the original poster linked to an article in "The Hill" that reported on plans by First Lady Elon Musk and failed businessman Vivek Ramaswamy to implement "mass head-count reductions across the federal bureaucracy". The original poster predicts "economic armageddon and a massive crime wave" for Washington, DC if this happens. I am not sure if the original poster is expecting a wave of GS-14s robbing banks and conducting stick-ups, but I agree that things could get pretty bad in the DC Metro region if Musk and Ramaswamy have their way. This discussion, like all discussions involving campaign promises made by President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump, generally divides into two sides. These sides are not Republican vs Democrat or Conservative against Liberal. Rather, there are members of both parties on each side. One side consists of those who are convinced that Trump's policies — or in this case, policies promoted by Musk and Ramaswamy — will never be implemented or, if implemented, will not have harmful impacts. In this thread, such posters argue that Musk and Ramaswamy won't fire huge numbers of federal workers, but will instead engage in limited actions such as a hiring freeze and orders for employees to return to the office. Even if large-scale reductions in force take place, they argue, DC's economy can withstand it. These posters suggest that there are plenty of jobs that will be available to the newly unemployed workers. As usual, the "don't worry, be happy" crowd considers the original poster to be fear-mongering. As one such poster writes about the original poster, "It's like chicken little is in a constant rage around here." The other side of this discussion consists of posters who firmly believe that Musk and Ramaswamy will do exactly what they say they are going to do. In some cases, posters are looking forward to it. These are mostly MAGAs who can't wait to see DC feds suffer. But there are also Trump opponents who not only agree that these job cuts will take place, but will do so in the most disastrous way possible. Personally, I side with the second group. As the saying goes, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Musk especially has a history of cutting jobs. He reportedly reduced Twitter's (now X) workforce by 80%. He has recently made significant cuts at Tesla. In both cases, his strategy was more meat cleaver than scalpel. Both Musk and Ramaswamy have egos that will demand the spotlight gained from dramatic actions. Neither will be willing to listen to advice from others. As such, I fully expect that significant job cuts will be in our future. A good example of what we can expect from Musk is what occurred at Tesla. Earlier this year, Musk ordered an across-the-board job cut of at least 10% at Tesla. This demand later grew to be closer to 20%. When Musk met with the head of Tesla's Supercharger division, Rebecca Tinucci, she had already cut between 15% and 20% of her staff and expected Musk to be pleased. Instead, he demanded further cuts, and when Tinucci objected, he fired her and her entire 500-person department. The problem for Musk is that the supercharger network is one of Tesla's most valuable assets. While Tesla cars are aging and face considerable competition from other manufacturers, the supercharger network is unmatched and provides tremendous incentive to purchase a Tesla for those planning EV road trips. Musk was soon forced to begin hiring back many of the employees he had just fired. Based on this example, I predict that we will see across-the-board cuts that do not consider the importance of those being let go. There will also likely be attempts to clear out entire departments or divisions. Many of the cuts will be disruptive and impact the delivery of government services. In other cases, employees who probably should be let go will be untouched. I am not sure of the impact to the Washington, DC area, but I suspect that it will not be good.

Next was a thread titled, "Why are attitudes suddenly changing about Vance?", which was yet another topic in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster claims that she has been seeing an increased number of posts both on DCUM and other social media that are complimentary toward Vice President-elect J. D. Vance. I have to be honest, but I felt stupider after each post I read in this thread. My best advice is to not waste time reading it. That's not to say that every post was stupid, far from it. Several posts had interesting points or offered valuable perspectives. But, by and large, this thread was not very substantive. Case in point was a reply that consisted of nothing but the word "Bots". There are one or more posters who are convinced that any pro-Trump posts are the works of bots. That poster or posters should really get a life. Clearly they believe that they are currently devoting considerable time and effort to a website that is dominated by machines rather than people. In that case, why are they wasting their time here? Not much better is the MAGA poster who wrote that the Democratic "stranglehold on discourse is weakening". This poster has never heard of Fox News or X, both of which operate as little more than the propaganda apparatus of the Republican Party. It is true, as some posters point out, that people generally like winners and J. D. Vance, perhaps more in spite of himself than because of his efforts, is now a winner. My view is that Vance is liked more now because he has been out of the spotlight. There are multiple threads in the forum asking what has happened to Vance because he virtually disappeared. I noticed early on during the campaign that Vance was sent to speak to large audiences and basically put them to sleep. The campaign quickly changed to having him meet with small groups in which reporters routinely outnumbered the audience. That allowed Vance to still make news while not reducing demand for Ambien. In the final stages of the campaign and afterwards, Trump has relied much more frequently on First Lady Elon Musk and Department of Health and Human Services nominee Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. The only notable thing I can recall Vance doing recently is getting in a spat with one of Steve Bannon's associates over Vance's failure to attend Senate votes. Vance sent, and then later deleted, a tweet calling her a "mouth breathing imbecile". As that last example demonstrates, I don't think that Vance benefits from exposure. The longer he is out of sight with attention focused on Trump's band of incompetent cabinet picks, Vance's stock can only go up. But once he comes back into view, he will quickly remind everyone why the Associated Press was compelled to fact-check Vances's relationship with a couch.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Real Estate" forum. Titled, "Selling a house that is dated and ‘worn.’", the original poster wants to know what it is like to attempt to sell a house that is about 20 years old and starting to look shabby. She would rather not do a "quickie" renovation because the holiday season is already very busy and the changes might not be to a buyer's taste. Instead, the original poster is prepared to offer "allowances" to make up for needed repairs or renovations. Almost all the advice is to skip both renovations and allowances. Instead, simply deep clean, maybe paint, and price accordingly. Some posters suggest stressing that the house is sold "as is" and others have more creative ways of saying the same thing, but others would just leave that out completely. Some posters advise ensuring that nothing major is broken such as a heater or a roof leak, but otherwise leaving things as they are. A number of posters report having bought homes in need of renovation and were glad that they were able to choose their own modifications rather than having to accept a cheap renovation by the previous owner. There are a few oddball responses from posters who are not going along with the others. One claims that buyers expect homes to be renovated every 10-12 years and don't want to buy a home that needs repairs. That, of course, is belied by the number of posters who say that they did just that. There is a dispute among some posters about the value of renovations before selling. Some posters contend that Real Estate agents are prone to encouraging renovations because they make the house easier to sell and to sell for a higher price. A few posters argue that selling faster and for a higher price also benefits the seller. However, the consensus seems to be that the increased selling prices don't always cover the cost of the renovations and, if they do, may not be worth the hassle. The agent, on the other hand, gets a larger commission regardless of the benefit to the seller. From reading this thread, I can discern three types of potential buyers: 1) those with limited buying power who either want the cheapest house possible or the cheapest house in that neighborhood; 2) those who don't care about the house being worn because they plan to do their own renovations; and 3) those who want a fully renovated house. Without anyone necessarily articulating it exactly, the general consensus seems to be that the original poster should aim for the first two groups and ignore the third. There is repeated advice to spruce up the entryway and front door in order to give a good first impression. In addition, the house should be at least minimally available to move in as is, so everything major should at least work. But any money spent after that is probably wasted. Still, members of the "renovate" group are vocal dissidents in the thread. They don't want to pay for someone else's lack of upkeep, but don't seem to understand that they will be paying anyway as a result of a higher price for a renovated house. The only difference is whether they pay upfront in exchange for renovations made by the seller or later for renovations that they choose themselves.