Why is Mallory McMorrow so bad at this?!

 So a new poll came out today and McMorrow dropped to a distant third place finish, Womp Womp...

Yeah...she's getting eaten alive. Now, to be fair, michigan primary polling is extremely volatile. For a while el sayed was way down and haley stevens was the presumed nominee. Then Stevens dropped off and it appeared to be McMorrow vs El Sayed. Now it's more Stevens vs El Sayed. 

Well....I have a few answers. First of all, it's hard to represent a middle ground between the two democratic "lanes." You got centrists (Stevens), and progressives/leftists (El Sayed), and then you have McMorrow, which is this weird awkward middle ground. Now, given my own nuanced takes, sometimes I like middle grounds. I'm not a socialist and while progressives and leftists talk a big game, sometimes their proposals are more bark than bite. Sometimes they're just too expensive to reasonably implement to the point of not being worth it. So sometimes that more center left ground is better to be in. And McMorrow did...at first, come off as the best candidate policy wise. El Sayed had platitudes with little data (although he did write a book on M4A, but most voters probably havent read it), Stevens is just...no. And yeah, McMorrow could have had potential as being the more "pragmatic progressive." Im not sure it ever could have worked. Again im a minority and I know most voters are gonna probably go one lane or the other. That's how these things work. That's the problem Yang often had too. 

But McMorrow was ahead for a while, and she was in a strong position. So what happened? Well...she's a really REALLY bad politician. She made a HUGE mistake picking on El Sayed and going full negative against him with the Hasan smears. Not only did it streisand effect  El Sayed by putting more of a spotlight on his campaign, but it also made HER come off as some bad faith centrist. Rather than running on her own strengths, she went negative, and did the kinds of tactics from centrists who themselves have nothing to run on. She came off as like, Hillary Clinton, or even like Elizabeth Warren, who also had that kind of role in 2020, not being quite as far left as bernie, but then going full HRC mode, attacking him, and invoking the perpetual wrath of his supporters. Seriously, dont do that. Stick to policy, PLEASE. If youre gonna run against a progressive, beat them with facts and numbers not this bad faith bullcrap. 

But that's the other thing about McMorrow, she's just...genuinely bad at her job. Like the majority report discussed a debate they had and she ONCE AGAIN failed to properly defend a public option, coming off as tongue tied and all over the place. So...she implodes! No one wants her, the centrists are fleeing back to Stevens, and El Sayed is more emboldened than ever.

Honestly, at this point, Im pro El Sayed, but I really wanna keep harping on this because seriously, McMorrow could have been a better candidate, had she just played it cool, not gone negative, and played her hand better. Im kinda miffed because I just genuinely dont like stevens and I prefer mcmorrow SO MUCH MORE over her. And I honestly wonder if El Sayed can even pull off a win. He has persistently been the worst poller of the three primary candidates. Stevens is somehow the best, idk why. I dont think she's a compelling candidate at all. But at this point, it's like the president xi memes. Do nothing. Win. All she had to do was just....sit out the mcmorrow/el sayed cat fight, watch mcmorrow implode, and now she's getting her voter base back. 

*sigh*

Did Bernie Sanders just propose a UBI?

 So...Bernie Sanders today proposed a one time tax on the AI industry of 50%, to create a structure of public ownership of the industry, allowing widespread public accountability, and opening up the idea of an alaska like Sovereign Wealth Fund. The idea is basically this, given AI is basically reshaping our economy on a mass scale and has the ability to massive change the economy and job market, all citizens should have a say in how the industry is run, and everyone deserves a share of the profits. I largely support this in theory, and this is theoretically one of the most based ideas Bernie has come up with. 

However, digging into the proposal, the cracks do form. The article mentions some cracks like the fact that AI isn't profitable currently. THere's the potential for capital flight if we start just socializing the assets of the industry.

I asked chatgpt how much in profits this would generate a year. Currently it's close to around $50-100 billion....not enough to fund a UBI. With 250 million adults, that's $200-400 a year per adult. It could become MUCH larger over time, reaching over a trillion, but even with a trillion, that's only $4,000 a year, and by then with population growth it might only be closer to $3,000 if there are say 333 million adults by then (assuming around 400-450 million people in the country, this is decades from now).

The point is, this idea sounds a lot nicer in theory than it does in practice. I love the idea aesthetically, but the reality of it wouldnt be able to fund a UBI, let alone a hypothetical "universal high income." At least not any time soon. So....nice proposal, but eh....not super workable if the idea is to provide an income stream for the masses to live on without working.