Vee

I thought so.

Good luck with this discussion!

I personally feel we don't really have a choice at this point but to do some sort of filibuster reform if we want to get a lot done. S1 is not going to pass without nuking it (if it can pass) and at least some form reform is the only path to begin to safeguard elections. I don't think it's as apocalyptic a long game as some think atm - a lot of politics are cyclical - but I also don't think we can keep rolling over for the same old senatorial chestnuts and excuses shrugging shoulders saying 'what can ya do? Vote!' I vote every time. I engage in the off-season. But no amount of grassroots action is going to change McConnell's very old game or roll back voter suppression. And I don't believe there are ten Dem Senators who will stand in the way of filibuster reform. Plenty of people can talk a big game on background, especially via the lens of Politico which tries to launder opinion and push policy via a Republican-leaning POV. I don't for a second believe there are ten Dem Senators who will stand in the way of reform if Schumer and Pelosi get behind it, which I believe they will. I also don't think it's lose-lose. I think that is the nihilist splinter of the progressive movement's favorite go-to - all Dems suck, Bernie would've won, all Dems are bad at messaging, you'll all lose anyway next time and in 5-10-20 years we will pick up the pieces. If you live in that sphere on Twitter that looks like reality, but it's not reality. Every time a Democrat wins these guys kick the can down the road - oh you won the primary but Biden won't win; oh, you won the general but you won't win the Senate. Oh, you won the Senate but there's still Manchin. It's moving the goalposts over and over. I can share common cause on certain things while disliking these people, but how many more absolute failure narratives do I have to tolerate that keep being deflated and proven wrong before someone else admits they were?

Hounshell is getting ratioed to the depths, despite the usual attempts by the right to astroturf the issue on social media. It's going to be another tan suit for the public and go nowhere outside the right and Beltway hacks.

Kimberly Brown is a psycho dayplayer. No way they put her on contract. The character is disposable fodder and she does not fit the shallow type of daytime anymore.

To substack they'll all go! This cracks me up:

And I still don't believe them. I think Politico just uses folks like him to launder their own beliefs and opinions - a common practice with sources in the Beltway.

I think Willis is very often right, but I don't think when he gets on some of his doomier tears (which I can set my watch to, having read him for many years) that he always sees the whole picture. Willis is the farthest thing from a leftier-than-thou guy who hates Biden, but he also simply doesn't always wait for the political ploy to play itself out, he just rants and rants out of frustration and then when the situation actually pops into place he's onto celebrating. I do think he is absolutely right here that there are so many problems with Dem messaging nationwide, but it's not as simple as 'all Dems are bad at it' because they're not. The WH has done pretty well. That said, he's also absolutely right that 'just getting out the vote' is not a solution to the voter suppression - not in 2024, but also not in 2022. Too many Democratic strategists always shrug and fall back on 'just vote!' We're not in that world anymore, increasingly less so by the month. It worked last year, I'm not sure it will again. And if anyone in the White House believes this isn't going to be a major issue in the midterms they're a fool. I personally don't think Biden believes that, but I do think more urgent public address on it is required. The Jim Crow framing worked, so they need to keep using it. And I think you're going to see a major push going forward. I knew the commission would fail. I don't care about that. The House can boil them like a frog in select committees and go Benghazi on 1/6 for the next 2 years or longer and that will do the job. What I care about is how this will affect the filibuster reform and voting rights battle - and I think Manchin is kind of melting down and having a Caine Mutiny moment over the commission push failing. It's been evident all week. That's what we need right now from him. We need him slapped in the face. To me, their broken hearts over the loss of nostalgic Senate comity are good news.

Hot Take(?): With frickin' Punky Brewster and Head of the Class getting Peacock streaming revivals, ADW is more than worthy and necessary. Cast turnover was already baked into the show, particularly in the final season; it could've run another five or six years.

LOL, Joe Bob Briggs showed Troma's War on Shudder last season. He usually runs down the cast of a film and their other credits and background and where they are now. I don't recall if he mentioned Brock, I'll have to go back and check - he's hosted many soap alums on the show (Barbara Crampton, Kelli Maroney, etc.) and discussed their daytime experience. I remember seeing Brenda in the background during Luna's intro episode in fall '91, but I may be hallucinating.

I don't have a problem with E.J. being around, or them recasting E.J. or using him. I don't think he is irreplaceable or monolithic. If it becomes the E.J. Show again that's a mistake.

If that was your point, then yes, you made it - he was a character who had a strong effect on the canvas, like many others. If you want to deify E.J. (or oh, I don''t know, Babe) as transformational for the genre or to the fabric of DAYS as a whole, then no, I'm sorry, that's fantasyland. Firing Reilly, just like hiring him, is what changed DAYS, and that firing corresponded to E.J.'s ascent as a character.

Plenty of antihero characters are lynchpins or drive heavy plot. It's been that way since at least Roger Thorpe on GL in the '70s. If you want to talk about a similar antihero on this specific show then yes, I suppose you could make a case for that. But in a larger sense, E.J. is not different or special; he did not revolutionize DAYS or the genre. The '80s revolutionized DAYS, the supercouple and high adventure era; JER in the '90s revolutionized DAYS. All E.J.'s presence did was help them shift focus while also, not coincidentally, changing the same bad HW who had been there for years. If you want to know what really changed the show, it was finally firing Reilly for the final time. He should never have been allowed back.

E.J. isn't the first or last dark male antihero lead on a soap (let alone on DAYS). He isn't even the thirtieth. He did not fundamentally change the shape of the show. Was he a very popular lead, of course. But there's not one single character or actor on American soaps in the 21st century who has innovated or altered the larger form of any soap opera in any real or lasting way. Can a recast go well - sure. But while the actor seems to have a solid resume the writing isn't there, James Scott isn't there, and I don't expect much from the endeavor. Plus, in this day and age, a rapist lead just isn't cute. He may well continue to have a major presence on the show, but I don't think it's anything revolutionary.

Very quietly dismissed. I was amazed to see network shill Brian Stelter, who avoided the topic like the plague initially when CNN tried to bury the initial controversy, mention this online today.

Those side by side pix are striking. It's clearly what they should do with the two women, but they hate the idea of having Y&R be a show 'beholden' to its Black audience. They want it to be a 2000s ABC soap even though that paradigm is dead.

Yeah, I also don't think Biden is going to dismantle the bill to please Republicans. He hasn't done it before so far and he won't do it here. Will Stancil and co. have never understood how Biden or Pelosi work. And Politico operates under Republican talking points and Republican sympathies, always. It also finds the most conservative voices within any Dem apparatus - even if it's one guy - and amplifies them as though they are the guiding principle on the inside. It's not real.