972: Rebuild Specificity
Factional fight in Minnesota, Barro on Bluesky, and promise the Hogg part is short
Josh Barro has the fun must-read of the day, where he asks us to “Pray that Bluesky doesn't die entirely — we need it so the worst liberal posts are kept in a place where the broader public won't ever see them.”
The Elon silver lining captures a lot:
There is much to regret about the ways Elon Musk has changed Twitter. But there’s been one obvious change for the better: By rupturing the Twitter user base, he (accidentally?) created a firewall between the most maladjusted liberal posters on the internet and the reporters, Democratic politicians and operatives who used to pay an excessive amount of attention to their harangues.
In endorsement news …
A “new factional battle just dropped”1 in the open primary for US Senate in Minnesota. On Team WAR, Senator Ruben Gallego endorsed Angie Craig (saying "Washington needs more people who are focused on getting things done") while Elizabeth Warren endorsed Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan.
In non-factional news, David Hogg is out with his second PAC endorsement of the cycle. The PAC’s only requirement is candidates be younger than 35 years old, and all the headlines about the PAC are about primary challengers. But both endorsements are current state legislators running in open seats older than 36. Ah well, nevertheless. In good news, today’s endorsed candidate Irene Shin is a NewDEALer, and people seem to think very highly of her.
Why Naming the Problem Makes Us Hopeful
Fascinating new piece from Tahra Hoops, which kicks off with a WelcomeFest anecdote but is far more broad. She weaves together insights from Rachel Janfaza on Gen Z and Derek Thompson on Abundance to form an optimistic perspective: “specificity feels like progress. By clearly naming what’s wrong, we feel one step closer to fixing it.”
You can read the whole thing here. Back in the 1992 campaign, George Stephanopoulos said “specificity is a character trait.”
It is also a map for getting out of a jam:
… this isn't just abstract theory, we can see this pattern playing out across multiple domains. Consider how mental health discourse has evolved. A generation ago, saying "I'm depressed" was often dismissed as weakness or self-pity. Today, with specific diagnostic frameworks, treatment protocols, and neurochemical explanations, that same statement becomes the first step toward recovery. The suffering hasn't lessened, but the pathway to addressing it has become visible.
Gen Z 2.0’s malaise isn’t random – it has specific causes (institutional failures, social isolation, economic anxieties). By identifying these, we can begin to formulate solutions or at least regain a sense of agency. Abundance does exactly that for America’s policy failures: it “diagnoses” why we can’t build things or solve big problems, drilling into zoning laws, bureaucratic red tape, and political incentives. That act of facing the facts head-on – however painful – paradoxically gives readers a dose of optimism, because now we know what specific hurdle to overcome. Likewise for Gen Z: if we articulate why we’re so distrustful (e.g. “our capacity to see problems has sharpened while our ability to solve them has diminished” in recent decades), we are already moving toward change. Specificity, in this sense, is empowering. It turns amorphous dread into concrete challenges we might actually tackle.
We have many concrete challenges over the 972 days until the next presidential primary. Naming them - and numbering them - feels like progress.
