Why I think the steam deck is overrated

 So, I apparently cant express this opinion without getting downvoted on reddit, and I know this is a little outside of my normal subject matter on here, but I did want to discuss the steam deck a bit. 

So...the steam deck is basically a handheld gaming PC. And that's cool. I like the idea of the steam deck, if that makes any sense at all, but I don't like the reality of the steam deck. As such, I'm going to explain why. 

Background

So, I've been around the block for a while, I've seen other things like the steam deck for a while now. My original handheld that started my gaming obsession as a kid was a fricking game gear. And that thing was awesome in some ways, but there are reasons it eventually lost its console war to the game boy. And a lot of those flaws are in the steam deck as well, and I'll discuss them when I get to the steam deck's flaws.

A bit more recently, but still ages ago at this point, I acquired the first generation of AMD APU laptops. I remember when the "Llano" laptops came out and I bought one for around $380, which is about what a baseline steam deck costs. And it was kind of cool at the time. I could run new games, including skyrim, battlefield 3, and minecraft on the thing. Keep in mind this was in 2011, so this was impressive as heck. I played tons of COD on it, tons of team fortress 2, counter strike, fallout and skyrim, you name it on the thing.

But...then over time it collected dust. The fact was, despite being able to be JUST enough to run modern releases at the time, games had since gotten significantly more demanding, with it not able to run newer titles at all just a year or two later. I mean, yeah, it's cool, oh wow, a cheap gaming PC that can barely run modern games at 30 FPS 720p with compromises. But as time went on, it just collected dust, and considering the other issues with a laptop form factor (some of which is transferrable to the steam deck), I just lost interest in it over time. And I never did replace the laptop. Why? Because it wasnt worth the money to do so. Originally I was considering it, but once i got android tablets and went in that direction, I hadnt been back since. With all of that said, when I look at the steam deck, I kind of see a combination of the game gear and the steam deck, and also a bunch of additional flaws as well. That said, let's discuss why I don't like the steam deck. 

1) Size/portability

Okay so....this thing is HUGE. Like, it's bigger than the game gear, and that wasn't that portable. it's more portable than my old laptop, but when I imagine going out with me and having something portable to take with me, I just can't see me lugging this around. A tablet in a bag, sure. The razer handheld I just bought instead of the steam deck? Yeah. The fact is, if I were to buy a portable device, I'd want something that I can actually game on the go on. The steam deck just isn't that device. It's too big, it's painful to carry around, and to get into point two which is related to this:

2) Battery life

The battery life is trash. Like....if you go full throttle on the thing and use it to its full capabilities, playing a game at like 30 FPS 720p like cyberpunk 2077, it's gonna only last like an hour 20 minutes. So...the thing's portability is also limited by the fact that it uses so much power it just dies quickly if you push it. These kinds of issues are the kinds that also plagued the game gear when I was a kid. I took it on vacation and it was good in the car and in the hotel room, but out in public? Nah. It's big, it's bulky, and then the thing only lasts for like 2-4 hours. This is even BIGGER, MORE BULKY, and lasts more like....1.3 hours.

And people can go, but you know you can play less demanding games on it, right? Okay, but let's consider the specs. The CPU is a quad core AMD APU that is basically like a ryzen 3100 with worse clock speeds....and a GPU is on par with like, say, the PS4 GPU so like a HD 7870 or a GTX 760/960. So that said, this thing will be pushed with any game from 2013 onward. Sure, I've heard people say it's great for low end games like cuphead or the binding of isaac, but what if I don't want to play those? I'll get to that more later, but you see the issues with the thing? it has battery life that is...on par with my old laptop when it was new. Like 2 hours full throttle and maybe like 4 or something when doing lighter stuff (apparently up to 3-12 with the OLED version, 2-8 with LCD), and yeah, it's just like...okay. It's not that portable. 

So...that said, between these two points, and probably a few more points on this list, I'm not gonna wanna take this thing out of my house. Meaning it's not that portable. So let's consider IN my house next...

3) I wouldn't really wanna use it in my house either...

I hear some people saying "ah but you dont get it, sometimes you just wanna sit down on the couch and do some gaming"....okay...well....first of all, I have a gaming desktop that does everything I want and then some in my house, and it's multiple times stronger than a steam deck. As I said, the thing is equivalent to like a mid range gaming PC from the mid 2010s. Which is impressive for the form factor, but again, remember that laptop? There's a reason it collects dust.

The fact is, IN my house, if I wanted to do something in another room, I could just use a steam link. I bought one of those when steam liquidated its stock of them, and I literally can run an ethernet cable across my house to where it's at and play that. 

And in theory, I can even use steam link over wifi. It sucked when i tried it on my tablet, but i did it on that 2011 laptop back in the day. Wasnt a great experience but it worked at least. And given I just bought an android handheld instead of a steam deck that's marketed at doing just that, yeah....I can do that better. 

But beyond that, it's not just that, there are other reasons I wouldnt wanna use it in my house either.

4) Game compatibility is spotty

So this is a big elephant in the room with the thing, but this thing does NOT run windows. It runs steam OS, which is a linux distro basically. And a lot of games dont work out of the box. And sadly, a lot of the games most impacted are....precisely the kinds of games I'd wanna play. You see, I do a lot of online shooters, and they DONT WORK WITH THIS THING WELL AT ALL. A lot of them lack compatibility because they gotta run stuff through proton and wine and that doesnt play well with an anti cheat very well. Not to mention, the idea of playing a competitive FPS with a controller is just...no. 

Offline stuff, sure, but not that. So the games I'd wanna play most just arent that playable on the thing. 

Not to mention, a lot of new games have other issues. Do you think you can run starfield smoothly on the thing? No, not really. People have tried, it seems to get like 20 FPS. It runs worse than OG skyrim did on my 2011 laptop. Battlefield 2042, even if it didnt have the anti cheat issues, is also unplayable.Like people tried to get it working on windows on it and it just runs...bad. It's not powerful enough. And again, i did run BF3 which was new back in the day on my laptop. So...yeah. This thing is already limited there.

But but, you say, you can run older and less demanding games. Okay, but what's the point? Fallout 3, NV, Skyrim, FO4 would all run great on the thing. Sure. But the amount of titles I'd want to regularly play isn't worth it. 

And let's not ignore a very glaring flaw that I maybe should've put up above with the portability stuff.

5) Limited storage

The promise of the steam deck is being able to bring your PC library on the go. But let's do some math. The base model is $400 and has 256 GB in it. It originally had a 64 GB model which was recently liquidated on sale for $300, and a 512 LCD version it phased out for $340. I did kind of consider stuff like that steam deck, and also the baseline rog ally for $350 back over black friday, but i couldn't justify it, for all of the reasons I'm mentioning (if anything, the rog ally has even MORE problems with it, like being weaker, having worse battery life, getting you banned from COD because it doesnt play well with anti cheat, frying its own SD card slot due to a design flaw, etc.) and more. But one thing that really bugs me is the storage space.

When I bought that 2011 laptop, I had 500 GB of storage in it. Actually like 400something because windows, but you get the idea. But here's the thing. Games were SMALL back then. Skyrim was like 8 GB. Battlefield 3 I think was like 30 with DLC and that was HUGE. I remember when Rage 1 came out in 2011 and everyone freaked since it was 20 GB. So you can ACTUALLY stick a library of games on 0.5-1TB back then.

Not these days. Let me go over the size of some games I'd want to play:

Halo infinite: 73 GB

Halo MCC: 126 GB

Just cause 3: 51 GB

Just cause 4: 61 GB

Far cry 5: 66 GB

Far Cry 6: 51 GB

Fallout 4: 97 GB

Deathloop: 31 GB

Call of Duty (incompatible): 221 GB

Battlefield 2042: 93 GB

Ark survival evolved: 139 GB

Tiny tina's wonderlands: 49 GB

You get the idea. Admittedly older games are smaller, but yeah. The base model is 256 GB. That's only enough for like 2-5 games. So much for bringing an entire library whereever i go. And yes, you can put an SD card on it. But then you are paying $90 more for a 1 TB SD card. 

And yes, there are more expensive OLED models with 512 GB to 1 TB but still, you go through that like crazy. I have like 5 TB of storage in my gaming PC. And it's mostly full of just games. 

And keep in mind for a while the cheap steam deck was 64 GB. I'm strugglign with 64 GB on my android tablet. Because games like COD mobile want like 12 the last i checked. One of the reasons i bought the razer handheld instead. Like, in an android environment, 128 GB + a SD card can go a long way, but on PC....it's nothing. Heck, COD itself could use up almost half of a rog ally's 512 GB. 

So yeah. I just can't justify that. 

6) Do I really wanna play PC games with a controller?

I mean, most PC games are made for keyboard and mouse. Dont get me wrong a lot of games technically work with a controller, but the real question of if I'd wanna use one with them is debatable. Maybe single player games but definitely not multiplayer. This goes back to point 3 and the whole "i wouldnt wanna use this in my house either" thing. And if i was gonna do it, i could just stream to an android device with a controller. Which is...again, a reason I opted for the razer edge handheld instead. Even then, I plan to mostly game either on PC or through steam link to my dedicated streaming device and use KBM there. And even there, competitive PC games arent great because latency.

7) Intermittent internet on the go

So say you take your steam deck with you outside of the house despite all I said above. Okay, Better stick to online games because a lot of places dont have wifi. And even if you did get wifi, imagine the game you wanna play gets hit with a 50 GB patch when you go online. Are you really gonna wanna download a patch over public wifi? Me neither. Again, not the end of the world with android since updates are small and a lot of games dont need updating and you can fit more on an android device for more mileage, but yeah it's just...why this?

8) "but but you can play old games!"

Okay well if you wanted to play old games it kinda defeats the point of the device. A lot of the games people on steam deck often talk about playing also have mobile ports. Like stardew valley or hades or celeste or whatever, not that I'd even wanna play those. I feel like the only thing im missing with the steam deck are gen 7 console ports because gen 8 games have the size problem. So stuff like, again, fallout, skyrim, stuff like that. 

 Conclusion

The fact is, when you actually whittle down the logistics of the idea, it actually just comes off as problematic. And that's how I approach politics. I dont advocate for ideas...unless I can figure out a plan to implement those ideas into reality. The steam deck is a great idea, a great concept. A portable gaming PC you can take everywhere. But then when I think about the logistics of actually using such a device, I just can't justify it. Not only is it expensive (which i didn't count against it, but maybe I should have, its $400 for a base model and up to $700 for thew 1 TB oled...might as well buy an entry level gaming laptop at that price), but it's also extremely bulky, limited to being tethered to a power source for more than an hour or three of game play, the storage doesnt get you many games, many games id wanna run aren't compatble with it, many of them i wouldnt wanna play on the go anyway, so when you really come down to it, what's the point?

I've had devices like this before. I said at the beginning of this the game boy beat the game gear for a reason. The reasons primarily came down to portability. Game boy was actually portable. Game gear was bulky and had the same power issues. And this thing is like my old laptop. Same portability issues, same barely running games at 30 FPS, and then you gotta consider the storage thing in the modern era of 50-100 GB games, you gotta consider how well games work without internet. And yeah.

if I want a portable gaming device, I want something portable. I could buy a switch for nintendo games for instance. I could use my 3DS a friend gave me. I can use an android tablet, which has been my go to for the past decade. Heck, instead of a steam deck, I bought a razer edge handheld for half the price of a steam deck, and I know it's capable of doing most of what I'd wanna do. 

So maybe I dont got fallout or skyrim on the go. But do I need them on the go? Would I wanna play games that in depth on the go? Like, most PC games arent even made for portability in mind. They're meant to be played with you sitting in the same spot for hours.

Mobile games are made for "on the go". Games made for portable systems through the ages are made for "on the go." And gaming systems that are successful normally at least can handle 3 hours of battery life on full load, with up to 6-10 for lighter stuff. Heck older stuff like the DS regularly lasted 6-10. 

So it's like...I like the IDEA of this device. I don't like the REALITY of this debate. i don't like the logistics of this device. And yeah, I just wanted to write about it and this is the place where I post stuff I wanna write about. 

Discussing "that incident"

 So, when I first heard about...that incident, you know, the one in the news that everyone is talking about, I decided to avoid the topic. It seemed a little too touchy, and i figured if I couldn't say anything nice, i shouldn't say anything at all. 

However, it's become THE current thing, with everyone talking about it constantly, so I at least want to mention it in some ways. 

Obviously, vigilante violence is bad. That goes without saying for me. The government's first responsibility is to establish a system of law and order that the public trusts to prevent it from happening, in the name of collective security. As such, I generally am opposed to vigilante violence, and I am opposed to it here too.

However, at the same time, let's not gloss over the facts of how we got here. Vigilante violence typically happens because of a failure with the government somehow. if the government were doing its job properly, the desire for such violence would be minimal. However, the government has abdicated its responsibility at ensuring a functional healthcare system in this country for far too long. Conservatives will rail about the death count of communism, and how Obama wanted to institute "death panels" if we went for medicare for all. But at the same time, we already have death panels. They are called "insurance" companies. The goal of these companies is first and foremost to provide a profit to their shareholders. Providing a service is secondary for them. They'll gouge you for as much money as they can, and then skip out on paying the bill when it's time to do so. That's just how the system works, and it's why I always say that the problem with healthcare is the profit motive and tinkering around the edges isn't enough to fix the system. The government needs to implement universal healthcare to fix the problem, either through single payer, an NHS type system, or at the very least, a public option. 

This would be expensive, but it would be far cheaper for most people than the hot mess that is the private healthcare system. The victim of this murder was the CEO of a health insurance company. Even more so, he was the CEO of one of the worst companies, with the highest claim rejection rates. And the killer seemed extremely motivated in making a political statement on this matter, even writing messages on shell casings that referred to some book about health insurance companies screwing people.

Again, I'm not justifying the murder, or celebrating it, but I will say this. This murder happened because of the dysfunction of our healthcare system, and the government's inability, or even worse, unwillingness, to fix it. People have pushed for change via legal avenues for years. Universal healthcare has been a goal for progressives since Harry Truman, and every time the issue comes up, the special interests fight and win. Obama pushed Obamacare through, but it was an insurance mandate that...mandated people buy insurance that they couldn't afford. And it never really worked, even though the tweaks along the edges did make some peoples' lives better. More recently, Bernie Sanders ran on medicare for all, and candidates like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden sought to defeat him, only to merely preserve Obamacare. Biden promised a public option, but he never even acted on it. And Kamala Harris quietly dropped it from her platform in 2024. And people wonder why she lost...

You know, when the government isn't working for you, some people decide to do stuff like this. Again, not celebrating it, not justifying it, but I am explaining the rationale. And the fact that so few people have sympathy for this guy should tell you that something is seriously wrong with our society. 

I said it in 2016, Donald Trump being elected was a brick through the window of the establishment. The democrats ignored it. The same thing happened last month in 2024. Harris was resoundingly rejected in favor of a convicted felon and fascist. Again, not justifying it, not celebrating it, I'm explaining it. 

And now this guy gets murdered in broad daylight and it's like no one even cares. We live in a sick society. But let's not forget the root causes, and those root causes are our politicians allowing this corrupt and broken system to fleece people for far too long. People will only put up with this for so long before someone snaps. And that person snapping, is another brick through the window. Again, not celebrating, not justifying, not inciting, just explaining. 

I call on the government, and especially the democratic party, which is supposed to be the party of the people, the party of FDR, to fix this. Medicare for all. Either through a single payer, NHS, or public option style system. Not tweaks around the edges, but actual solutions. I've been supportive of healthcare reform on this level since becoming a progressive. I still am for it. And as a supporter of liberal democracy, and an opponent of illiberalism, including vigilantism, I call on those in charge of the system to actually be responsive to the people. Stuff like this happens when the government isn't doing its job here. And quite frankly, they aren't, and haven't for quite some time. The politicians care more about their donors than the people. And that's the problem. Again, not defending this guy. Not celebrating him. I don't advocate for his form of action. But I am explaining why this happens and how we can fix it. We fix it by having the government do it's fricking job for once. Yes a man was murdered in broad daylight, and that was wrong, but tens of thousands are murdered every year for lack of health insurance, and tens of thousands more get their claims denied by insurance companies just like that. It's time that that stopped. 

And yeah, that's all I'm saying on this matter.

Looking at my original 2024 forecast and making a new one for 2028

 So....back before I had polling, i tried to predict the election using the data I had from the 2020 election and applying an offset to the data. Basically, public opinion shifted 6 points from 2020 even as early as 2023, so I took 2020's results, and shifted them 6 points. And...actually? I kind of nailed it. 

I actually got the right result, 226-312, although that's not too out of the ordinary. I mean 226-312 was a very wide target to hit, given the gulf between the swing states and the next several states was a gap that was around 3 points wide. It was actually one of the most likely possible outcomes in the entire spectrum of possible outcomes. All you needed was a red wave to swing the seven swing states, but not one so large it started digging into the next row of states like virginia, minnesota, or new hampshire, and yeah, that's where the results ended up. Look, I even predicted some movement in NJ toward being a swing state based on that data, although I couldnt predict how extreme the shift would be. 

And that's the caveat. I was off in this initial prediction. Most swing states were within 3-4 points, and here I predicted that they would be between 3 and 7 points. So...all in all...I was off by maybe 3 from the actual results. But again, that's how wide that 226-312 target was. But yeah, the results did follow the overall trend here. I was off by a little overall, but still, if you shifted that map back to the left about 3 points, you get something similar to what actually happened, give or take a bit. 

So with that said, what can we predict for 2028? Well, I'm going to be honest. We don't know. Public opinion is going to shift, we don't know in which direction and how much, but common sense and conventional wisdom would suggest, that given Trump just won and has all three branches of government, that unless he's successful and popular, the backlash will shift 2028 to the left. By how much? We don't know. 2016 to 2020 was actually about 2 points to the left. 2020 to 2024 was about 3-4 back to the right. So we're probably looking at anywhere from 2-4 points back to the left if I had to guess 2028. it depends on a lot of variables. What happens in trump's term, how badly does he bungle things? Do we still have democracy? Are the voters rational enough to understand trump F-ed up when he F-s up, etc. We don't know. 

So....for now, let's assume a 3 point shift to the left, given I'd anticipate a shift somewhere between 2 and 4 points left. Btw, we could see as little as no shift left or even a gain, but we could also see voters reject trump en masse with the shift being much more pronounced to the left. 

So let's assume 3 as a baseline, and let my model do the talking, what does the future 2028 map look like?

I would say, it should look something like this:

So, assuming a 3 point shift, this is what happens to the map. Maine, New Mexico, New Jersey, Virginia, and NE2 all go back to functionally being safe states, similar to 2020 for the most part. New Jersey shifted more than the average so it might be a bit closer than it was in 2020. Minnesota is a D+7 state, similar to 2020. New hampshire also goes back in the likely D column.

The rust belt states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania all become slightly lean D. Pennsylvania remains the tipping point, because this is a model based on 2024's results after all, and we have a 63% chance of winning, which is almost exactly what I would have given Biden in 2020 had I not weighted polls. 

Georgia is more tilt D. I suspect that one could become lean D in practice, Georgia is the one state that seemed to shift left in the 2024 election cycle, with Atlanta being the one metropolis that actually seemed to shift left in a sea of the rest of the country shifting right. 

Nevada and North Carolina are tilt R. I kind of expect NC to remain stubbornly republican, although Nevada could shift back to the blue column. 

Arizona, I think that's gonna remain lean R. It was the reddest swing state almost consistently and democrats underperformed there.

ME2 is a likely R at R+7, I don't expect it to shift left. Ohio is a borderline likely/safe R. 

Given the margins of Florida, Alaska, Iowa, and Texas, I'd take them out of the swing state column. Unless they swing back with the above average ferocity by which they swung right this election cycle, it's gonna take a miracle to dislodge them from the GOP. At this point, they're as hard for democrats to win as states like Illinois, Colorado, and New York are for republicans. I'm not sure whether that should terrify democrats about the future prospects of those normally safe blue states, or really hammer home just how unwinnable Florida, Texas, an Iowa are for the foreseeable future. We're screwed with them. We can't win them. Like for all the demographics is destiny talk, no, that aspect of our coalition imploded this election cycle. 

And yeah. That's...where I would place 2028 right now, knowing NOTHING about how the next 4 years will play out. 2028 is shaping up to possibly be a 2020 repeat, with narrower margins. I suspect that Vance probably won't be able to defeat the democratic challenger, and the democrats could probably squeak by, even with a neoliberal. Like, this is just a model assuming politics as usual and natural backlash against the GOP in power deenergizing the republican base and energizing the democratic base. It doesnt account for anything regarding the individual candidates, how popular they are, what events shape the next election. And things could shift in either direction. We could have the country really like trump and vance remains a popular successor, where the dems put up some crappy candidate who can't win, in which case we might get a R/D+0 outcome or thereabouts where the dems are in for another butt whooping (see 2004, 1996, 1984 for examples of this kind of phenomenon in practice), or we might see the country turn hard on the republicans, as Vance or whoever replaces Trump lacks charisma and we get a once in a generation realigning candidate come out of nowhere (in which case we could see a D+10 outcome or something relative to now for all i know....think 2008 or 1992 for a relatively recent example of THAT). We don't know. That's the thing. There's uncertainty. Thankfully my model is probabilistic, and with a 4 point MOE meaning an 8 point shift in either direction with a 95% confidence interval, we're talking a 95% chance of the result being between R+5 and D+11, with D+3 being the median outcome. That actually seems reasonable. I actually think more realistically, we are gonna have something like D+2-4. So D+3 is a nice baseline.

And that gives the democrats a 5 in 8 chance of winning the next election. I think that's...actually pretty reasonable. Of all possible outcomes, 37% have the republicans winning, and 63% have the democrats winning. If we assume a 3 point shift left, that's actually perfectly reasonable. Democrats win by about 1.3, which isn't a huge win, but it isn't a loss either. And yeah. Given 2016, 2020, and 2024, I think that's actually a pretty reasonable outcome because things are so polarized you only see things shift like 2-4 points election cycle to election cycle. So yeah. That's where, if I had to guess, 2028 is going to go.

Am I shifting to the left again?

 So, after years of debate over whether I'm becoming more moderate, there is a clear tonal shift since the election. It seems as if I'm going back to the left again to being more populist like I was in the Bernie 2016-2020 era. And to answer the question, yes, I am becoming more populist again, but my convictions are the same.

Look, my views are my views. I don't fit into neat little boxes. I'm left of the democrats, I'm to the right of leftists. My message and framing of issues changes with the context. In the 2010s, this meant fiery populism intended to drive the democratic party left. During the early 2020s, I became a bit more moderate sounding as the far left got out of control and started overcorrecting, and now in the post Biden/Harris 2024-? environment, that requires being more populist again. 

My views aren't any different, I just adapt to the times. My views are actually the same as they've always been since 2014. It just really depends what kind of voice is needed at the time. Am I railing against a corrupt two party system and political establishment, believing we need to shift the overton window left, or am I operating within the existing overton window to accomplish as much change as I can?

I always said that in the 2024 election cycle, I was kind of compromising. I understood that we werent shifting the country further left. Biden and Harris were the best we had, and trying to go against them was kind of counterproductive. But now they lost, and they're gone, and why did they lose? Why, it's similar to why they lost 2016, because their brand of politics sucked, we all actually know it sucks, and we need serious change. This time, I felt the need to stop trump. I felt that was more important than fighting the democrats. but it seems clear that the public didn't see things that way, and now with Biden/Harris gone, I'm free.

It's the same thing with sanders. Sanders didnt stop being as progressive as he always was, he just tried to work with the Biden administration to get concessions, recognizing that poking the bear was counterproductive. But Biden is on his way out, and Harris isn't his successor, so that ship is sinking and it's time to abandon it. 

And where do we go next? Once again, to push the overton window as far left as we can to accomplish as much economic change as we can. I still believe that what we need is a new new deal. I still believe that UBI, medicare for all (or a public option), free college, student debt forgiveness, a housing program, and a reduce work week is the way forward. And I am to the left of the democrats on that. I believe part of the reason they lost was because they misread the environment and don't seem to understand that we are in populist times. I don't think they understand that Biden was unpopular. I don't think they understand that what the people want is ACTION. So now that our ties to the Biden/Harris administration are cut, it's time to return to form, it's time to get back on message, and to start to plan for 2028, assuming our democracy lasts that long. 

And already, the old divisions are reforming. I'm at odds with the neoliberals and centrist faction of the democrats again, and I hate them almost as much as Trumpers. Some people in those factions question populists like me, Cenk Uygur, or Bernie Sanders in saying or suggesting thigns like that, but honestly, let's face it, neoliberals and centrists are just as much opponents of progress as the right, if not more. Why more? because they gatekeep the democratic party from being a vehicle for ideas that challenge the powerful. We know what we're getting with the republicans. We're getting a party that puts corporate interests and batcrap insane christofascism front and center. We KNOW they're the enemy. But at least they stab us in the front. The centrist democrats will snarkily condescend and talk down to us, pretending to be our allies, but they're not. And honestly? Post election, we're being more honest about that. We are NOT friends with the democratic party and the establishment. Because they're not friends to us, nor do they actually advocate for their agenda. Biden compromised us down half way and then failed to accomplish 90% of what he ran on. Harris compromised down half of that and lost. Everything with these people is chewing us down and compromise, and we're sick of it. So no, you're not our allies, you're not our friends.

But I also do wanna throw some caution at the left too. All that stuff I said condemning you this election cycle? I meant that too. You're too insular on the social justice issues and identity politics. Normies hate that stuff. You seem to literally hate america on foreign policy, and your anti war stuff is cringe and unrealistic. Again, normies hate you. And on economics, yes, you agree with me that we need large scale change, but that change isn't MARXISM, it's human centered capitalism, and I'm cut from a different ideological cloth from you.

I'll work with anyone who I can find common ground with in achieving my goals. But at the same time, I will put my differences up front when they apply. I'm not necessarily the great consensus builder. I am a visionary myself, and my vision is just unique. I'll work with whomever works with me to accomplish mutually beneficial goals, whether it be the democrats (see: Biden, and why i kind of held back against him this time), or the left (see: Bernie, Andrew yang, Marianne Williamson). 

I have my purity tests, I apply them, I measure the results. I am populist because I do ultimately believe the democrats are against me and my ideas. And you know what? Dont think I didnt notice. I did notice that yeah, the democrats didnt have a fair primary in 2024. I did notice that the centrist dems ousted Biden in part to do a centrist coup of the party and that Harris basically went along with their advice (and that's one of the reasons she lost). And now that she did lose, yeah, I'm gonna tell it like it is. You guys suck, and that's why you lost. This is 2016 all over again. It's the same populist, righteous anger, we're just on the other side of the phillips curve. And the democrats clearly need to appeal more to bread and butter issues, acknowledge that the economy isn't working, and that we need change. 

As such, I'm returning to form and advocating for that change. That is all. I'm just fighting the same battles I always have. My ideology is no different, other than it being more refined. I'm literally the same as I've been since 2014. We're just returning to the more populist version of me since that's what the times now call for.

If you want to make America great again, you have to embrace the left

 So, this is going to be my big elevator pitch to Trumpers. There's a lot of talk about Trump wanting to "make America great again", but what does that really mean? If you ask an SJW, they'll say it's about going back to an era of white supremacy where Jim crow was in effect, women were in the kitchen, and gay people were persecuted. While there are many conservatives who do want some variation of those things, and Trump has not exactly disavowed them, that doesn't explain his winning coalition in 2016 and 2024. That explains the conservative die hards whose minds cannot be changed, and are outright conservative culture warriors who want to go back to the past. 

No, what draws people to Trump, especially newer voters and more independent voters is, basically anomie. It's basically a disconnect between our society, its norms, and its values. It's the loss in living standards that we've engaged with over the previous forty years of globalization. It's the loss of economic security. Fifty years ago someone could graduate high school, go down to the local factory, get a job there, work at it for forty years, retire with a nice watch, and they were basically set for life. Nowadays, you gotta apply to like 100 jobs on indeed, not hear back from 90 of them, get strung along on 9 of them, and then basically get one offer, which offers wages you can't live on, no economic security, no healthcare benefits (and Obamacare does little for you...), no stable schedule, etc. But you better kiss your bosses butt or they'll fire you in a heartbeat for one of the many willing and desperate workers wanting to replace you.

Trump promises you a way forward. He's going to take on the corporations who ship jobs overseas by putting tariffs on them and encouraging "America first" manufacturing, an he's going to deport all of those darned illegal immigrants who are stealing your jobs. 

But the fact is....these issues are only a small part of the problem. The core problem is capitalism itself. I know that this isn't something people always want to hear, but while capitalism is a great wealth creator, it's a horrible wealth distributor. It is an inhuman and inhumane process of production that while terrifyingly efficient, is also terrifyingly cruel and merciless to the workers who make it happen. This is because in capitalism, the working classes do the work that was generally regarded as what the slaves and serfs did in prior systems. You're all little people, the wealthy control everything, and they want to keep you enslaved forever while they increase their profits year after year. They dont care about you. They don't hire you out of the goodness of their hearts. Jobs don't exist for the workers, they exist for production. 

The left understands this. I'm not going to go full Marxist or communist on you. We all know that crap doesn't work, and should never be repeated. Replacing the market with an all powerful all knowing government doesn't solve everything, but makes the problem worse. I am, ultimately, a capitalist, but I am a liberal capitalist. A social democratic capitalist. A human centered capitalist. I understand the struggles you face in your lives, the economic precarity, the oppressive bosses, the feeling that the system isn't working for you, and I want to fix it. But to fix it, you gotta come at these problems from the left.

The earliest forms of capitalist resistance came from the unions. If one worker quits, the wealthy don't bat an eye, they'll just replace you with another willing and desperate worker, if not here, then somewhere overseas, but if everyone quits at once, they all lose their minds. Unions are organized resistance to capitalism and oppressive employment conditions, and they base their resistance on their power to quit and strike, forcing employers to improve conditions. I'm not saying unions are perfect. They can be corrupt, in bed with special interests, not representative of the people. But they generally do the job. It is because of the unions you have the gains that you have. 40 hour work weeks, relatively safe working conditions, weekends, decent pay. Without unions, capitalism would suck a lot more than it did.

If anything, the reason your jobs and lives suck so much now is because of the destruction of the unions 40 years ago, between Reagan being anti union, and free trade agreements shipping all of those anti union jobs overseas. Trump pandered to unions in 2024 just now, but is he actually going to do anything for them? I don't think so. He's still a conservative. he has the same ideology as Reagan, just with nationalist characteristics. He offers you nothing. If anything, Biden did much of what you said you wanted through things like the CHIPS act. Create jobs in America. Bring industry here. But it isn't about the jobs, is it? If they arent in the right place, and aimed at those with the right skill level (and many people left behind in the past four decades don't have the right qualifications), then it doesn't matter. It also doesn't matter if inflation is running amok either, right?

Well, under capitalism, you must choose. Unemployment, or inflation, choose one. If you have truly full employment, you start to have inflation. Remember the "nobody wants to work any more" stuff back in 2021 ans 2022? yeah, we had too many jobs post COVID, and not enough people to fill them. Instead of blaming people for not filling the jobs, blame the economy for producing them. We can produce as many jobs as we want. We can incentivize the government to create more than enough jobs for everyone. But then if we did that, inflation would be the result. Wages would go up, the cost of living would go up, and that would lead to workers making wages go up. So you can't win either way. 

So what do we do? Well, for conservatives, they just think if you give the rich people more money, they'll create more jobs. But the rich already have more money than ever, why aren't they creating jobs? Because jobs aren't in their interest. And we do control how many jobs are created through the fed rate in the federal reserve. Higher interest rates means businesses create fewer jobs, lower rates mean more. We can create tons of jobs. But the jobs we create often suck. They're not gonna create factory jobs in an era in which they can either automate that stuff, or ship it overseas. The fact is, they dont want to give you that standard of living again. And even if we did do it, that just means higher costs here, meaning more inflation. You understand that for all the complaining you guys did about Biden causing inflation, that trump's policies are highly inflationary right? Normally it's not too much of a problem, because we're normally on the unemployment side of the phillips curve. But we already have full employment now post COVID, we just got over that initial wave of inflation, and basically, Trump is gonna put tariffs on everything, making everything more expensive....and causing more inflation. Oops. Regretting your Trump vote yet?

This is why if you want to solve problems, you gotta move left. If you wanted the perfect laissez faire economy with full employment and...at least after 2022, relatively low inflation, we already got it. Biden's economy accomplished that. But we don't actually want that, do we? So what do we do? We gotta move left. The New Deal is what made America great in the first place. It's what gave us that booming post WWII economy, where incomes of those at the bottom and middle grew and we boasted the highest standard of living in the world. Abandoning that is what caused the decline. Which means bringing back the unions. It means regulations to improve working conditions. It means raising wages. It means social programs. Keep in mind, Medicare and Social Security made America great for seniors. The Great Society, while controversial, established a basic safety net that, that while not perfect, is better than literally nothing at all. High taxes on the rich forced businesses to invest in their companies, creating more jobs and paying people more. Trickle down economics does work, it just works like a pinata. You gotta hit it a few times before the good stuff "trickles down."

And you know what? Even if we did all that, and made America Great Again, you guys would still complain. Because the New Deal Era, while it has its own nostalgia to it, wasn't that great. The government programs were inefficient, bureaucratic, and created resentment. People felt like government couldnt do anything right, or make anything simple. The jobs you worked at really werent that great in the first place. They were boring, slow, monotonous, and unfulfilling. People were miserable even during the era where America was great, because as it turns out...it never actually was that great. Sure, it was better than it is now, but it wasn't that great.

As such, we gotta go further. And this is why I advocate for a universal basic income. People worry about people not working with a UBI. Well, the social science shows that's not a huge problem, but I'll argue something controversial. Some work refusal is a GOOD thing. because it keeps employers honest. Every person sitting on the couch is a person who makes it easier for you to get a job. Keep in mind, what drove the new deal era was unions, and when unions quit, or "striked", they could get more concessions from businesses. UBI would make every person a union. Everyone could have the right to say no. And the work reductions wouldnt be enough to threaten the stability of society. We could even use the phillips curve and the federal reserve to ensure that unemployment remains high enough to keep things stable, while also ensuring people can actually quit jobs effectively and demand for better conditions when they have to. We would have a higher equilibrium in favor of workers, if that makes sense.

A basic income would also pass on the income and wealth created over the past 40 years that went to the top. It would functionally redistribute it from the top to the bottom and middle. If you're actually middle class or lower, you would actually benefit from UBI. And because it is universal, you'd have no reason to resent another. Normally you think you're paying taxes so someone else gets free stuff. No. You're getting free stuff, unless you're in the top 25% or so of income earners. And free stuff isn't a bad thing. If you wanna know why our economy is so unequal, and everything is so screwed up, it's because relying on jobs to distribute income to the population is a terrible idea. Because rich people dont care about you. They are literally incentivized to keep as much money as possible for themselves, NOT have it trickle down, and work you as hard as possible, throwing you away when you're done. So let's get over this illusion that jobs are there for your prosperity. They're not. You're basically just a glorified slave under the current system, and I'm offering you your liberation.

Healthcare isn't working for you. Despite obamacare, you still gotta spend hundreds of dollars on healthcare a month, only to get slammed with thousands of dollars in out of pocket expenses when you do get care. And that's if you can afford insurance, Around 1/6 of the population has NO insurance. A universal healthcare system would ensure everyone is covered and keep healthcare bills affordable. With single payer, yeah, you'll pay more taxes, but once again, unless youre wealthy, you'll be paying a lot less in net than you would if you had health insurance. And even with a public option, which wouldnt likely eliminate out of pocket costs or premiums entirely, costs would be controlled, you'd be paying a lot less, and everyone would be covered.

I could go on and on down the list of various programs I propose. The point, is, my ideas might sound crazy and utopian to you, and unworkable, or maybe "communism", but I've researched them for over a decade and I believe that they can work. So that gives us a choice. Do you trust donald trump to actually "make America great again?" Because Trump is a good salesman, sure. But is he a good politician? Not really. He actually bungled his way badly through his first term. The only reason the economy was good was he inherited Obama's post 2008 economic expansion. And even then, as I already established, it wasn't actually that great. He did little to alleviate the problems with the system. We just happened to have a historically long period of time between recessions. And when COVID did crash the economy, Trump managed the crisis badly, and hundreds of thousands died needlessly. And when the economy reopened under Biden, the variables that normally keep it in check were out of whack, which was why inflation happened. By the way, you know that most inflation was corporate price gouging right? True story, look it up. And at this point, I believe the answer is to focus on raising living standards, through my policies than on actually turning back the clock on inflation. Because the clock never goes backwards. Deflation, if it happens, is a bad thing. You always get some inflation, it's just keeping it in check, which is important. And the best way to do that is...through austerity. But austerity is what's killing you. Austerity means fewer jobs that pay worse. It means going back to recession. Again, you can't escape the phillips curve. You can only work around it through government action. I would even go so far to say presidents do little to control the economy. What matters is what they do to react to how the economy is operating. The right believes in doing nothing. The left believes in doing things to improve things for the people.

With all of that said, if you wanna make america "great again", or, dare I say, make it greater than ever, you gotta embrace the left. At the bare minimum, it means re-embracing the new deal like Bernie Sanders wanted. But if you wanna go even further, you gotta embrace policies like UBI, universal healthcare, free college, public housing, and reducing the work week. That's how you not only make America great again, you make it greater than it ever was. 

Or you can keep choosing between corporate democrats who tinker around the edges and blow hards who promise change but can't deliver. Your choice.

As one of the OG 2016 Bernie bros, let me explain the problem with identity politics

 Okay, so, some people seem to be learning the wrong lesson from 2016 and 2024, especially in regards to identity politics and wokeism. I dont deny there is a contingent of idpol that is just incendiary and inflammatory to people at face value, but I don't think that's true of all people. A lot of people, for example, seem to be moving in some weird direction where like, say, AOC 2028 bad because she's "woke." No, AOC 2028 good because she's economically progressive. Is she also socially progressive? Yeah. Will that alienate SOME voters? Maybe. Will it alienate all voters? probably not. 

I mean, I talk about identity politics and wokeism a lot on this blog. I'm basically a full on "anti woke leftie." But let me explain why that is. 

In 2016, I went into the election cycle wanting large scale economic change. A "new new deal" if you will, made up of some combination of UBI, universal healthcare, and free college/student loan forgiveness. I wasnt opposed to other policies too. Unlike what some people say, I ain't opposed to some level of compromise in practice, BUT....the problem is, the democrats didnt even try.

Hillary Clinton went in a different direction. She downplayed economic concerns. She was antagonistic to my priorities and my goals. She leaned into identity politics. She started calling us "bernie bros" for being white men more interested in economic change, than their BS, and I stand guilty as charged and don't give AF. She accused me of being sexist because i wouldnt support her. No, I have nothing against a woman president, if the woman is running on the right platform. And you know what? If AOC ran for president, I would support her. I don't think she's perfect. Ive criticized her in the past (ive criticized all my "idols" in politics tbqh, no one agrees with me on everything), but I still think she's one of the best people for the job. because at the end of the day, is she gonna look out for me and my interests? To some reasonable degree, yes. I dont see her as on the UBI train, but other than that? yeah, she's based.

The problem with identity politics is the fact that it was used as a cudgel to bully me out of supporting my interests. Like, we can't have economic progress until we have social progress. White males are just gonna have to learn to check their privilege and put everyone else's priorities first. You better vote for us, because think of how your vote affects other people blah blah blah. basically, F U, F your interests, you better vote for us or else. You must submit to our ideology and sacrifice your priorities on the altar of white male liberal guilt. 

 As long as the issue of identity politics and economic progressivism is an either or proposition, then yeah, people are gonna reject identity politics and social progressivism. Because you can't force people to care, and you have to meet voters where they're at. Not condescend and lecture to them. Sure, you might lose some voters who somehow put identity causes like ermahgerd trans healthcare in prisons or something above their own economic interests. but to my knowledge, those people are a minority, and they're idiots. I saw a graphic today about the top issues of the election. 1 was inflation, 2 was illegal immigration, and 3 was jobs. That's where Americans' heads were at. It was mostly kitchen table issues, with a side of racism and xenophobia, but even then, there are real reasons why voters would be against illegal immigrants. They fear illegal immigrants compete with them economically for jobs. They fear that they get public benefits they do not. They fear that they commit crimes. A lot of these narratives are BS, but still, there is some real economic anxiety there, and I ain't opposed to running to the middle there, which Harris did. 

So...to me, we need an economically populist democrat who is moderate on immigration. Maybe AOC would fail to some extent there, but still, if you want someone who will deliver the goods, she's the right person for the job. After all, the problem with the immigration issue is that it's theater. You gotta look tough on that issue, but at the end of the day, it's not a big deal. Just...do what you gotta go to look tough and triangulate and deliver on issues.

Maybe AOC wouldnt appear that way, idk. But you know what? bernie's too old and I really struggle to find a better alternative. maybe Nina Turner? But even then the dems destroyed her career for speaking out against a sitting democratic president who was allegedly super popular...even though he had to abandon his campaign 3/4 of the way through election season after he secured the nomination....because he wasn't popular...

The fact is, can we NOT give in to latent racism and think someone who happens to not be white male is suddenly a flagrant far leftist on all social issues? Some of the most economically progressive people in the democratic party are racial minorities and women, often both. I might be willing to admit there would be a problem with say, Rashida Tlaib after the whole palestine thing (seriously that was cringe and she stuck her neck out in a way i can't advise a candidate with national ambitions would do). But unless you go that far, i dont think its a problem.

Like really, if you hate candidates who arent white males who offer the same positions as white males, maybe the problem is actually you? Just saying. Either way. I dont think harris's problem was that, and I don't think AOC would have that much of an issue either. People just want solutions, and keep in mind, the people trump most gained support with were....POC voters, and women, and young people, the demographics that normally go toward democrats. That's where we failed. And it was because of a lack of appealing to economic interests.

Which was the exact problem with the bros, at least where we were a decade ago. Maybe the new gen Z bros are cut from a different cloth because they're young, dumb, and full of you know what, and dating is a nightmare for them because feminism clearly is overreaching. So maybe they got a point there. Still, I think if you run a campaign on improving one's material interests, it doesnt matter what race or gender you are, i think people will respond positively toward that. 

Democrats need to actually push for policies that markedly improve peoples' lives. Not limited tinkering around the edges while simultaneously promising rich suburbanites their taxes aren't going up. That's where the real problem with democratic strategy is.

I don't care about Joe Biden pardoning his son

 Hot take, but honestly, after we just elected Hitler 2.0 again, and how this guy is gonna use the constitution as toilet paper when in office, I just don't care about this. Let Biden had the W. He's an old man, he's on his way out of power, let him spend the rest of his life with his son. 

Sure, Hunter was guilty, and I generally support the idea of people like him doing their time, but at the same time, it's quite clear the opposition doesn't care about the rule of law so why should we take the high ground here? Now, some are saying this is gonna justify Trump to do whatever he does, but here's a hint, Trump was gonna do what he was gonna go anyway. He doesn't need anything to justify it. He's just gonna do it. 

You know, I heard the perfect response to this entire issue today:

"I have work tomorrow."

And this really sums it up, doesnt it? No one gives a crap about this other than decorum happy liberals or the same deranged crowd who targetted hunter in a political witch hunt in the first place. Because at the end of the day, it doesn't change our lives, we all gotta go to work tomorrow, do our 8 hours, put up with a crappy boss, and you know, this is where americans are at and why the democrats lost. They were so obsessed with decorum and the preserving democracy thing, when most people don't care because they got bills to pay. They got work to do. And they're just so beaten down. Like, it's been said the average voter doesnt care about democracy any more, because what is democracy doing for them?

And that's where the dems went wrong in the first place. You wanna know what would motivate these people to care? A UBI. A reduced work week, where maybe tomorrow they'd have a day off (to be fair i'd be more inclined to put it on a friday or monday for three day weekends, but still). Medicare for all. A higher minimum wage. Not having to go into debt for tens of thousands of dollars just to get a degree. More affordable housing. This is actually where Americans are at. With MY agenda. And maybe if we focused on this crap, people would be motivated to care about democracy.

Remember, what made people elect hitler in the 1930s was this same kind of restlessness. People not caring about the whole democracy and decorum stuff, focused on the fact that gee, we're in the great depression, unemployment is high. Hyperinflation is wrecking our currency. The Versailles treaty is screwing us, and this guy is promising to "make germany great again." So they elected the strong man and look what happened.

We just did the same. And most Americans are in a similar mindset right now. We avoided this last time, by having FDR. This time, the democrats won't be FDR. They're instead herbert hoover, or the whigs from the 1800s going on about how andrew jackson is an uncouth low class loudmouth.

The democrats have become the party of elites. Obsessed with decorum and catering to upper class interests, while the lower classes "still have to go to work tomorrow" and they don't feel any better off for it. 

Anyway, we threw decorum out the window on november 5th, so I say let biden have this small W. I don't care any more either.