Trying to decipher El Sayed's "medicare for all" plan

 So...unlike Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in 2020, El Sayed does NOT have a set in stone healthcare plan. However, after watching a Secular Talk video today, El Sayed said that he doesn't plan on banning all private insurance. This brings him closer to my own stance on paper. At this point I support a public option due to costs, specifically the medicare extra for all framework, although my moderation is driven by my support for UBI and its costs not being affordable along side full blown single payer. So I decided to delve into what his plan actually seems to be. 

So it seems like he doesn't support full on single payer, he emphasizes he doesnt wanna ban all private insurance. Mainly because unions get pissy about it. "I EARNED my private insurance benefits blah blah blah." Not gonna lie, love unions, but unions do stupid stuff like this all the time. Their ideology is ruined by jobism and fixation on work and jobs, when we should be trying to break that obsession. M4A is a step in that direction. 

Still...given my own compromises, I can get behind it. THere are downsides to not having ANY private options. Not just high costs but what if republicans wanna ban access to say, abortion? They could do it through the healthcare system. Having a multi payer system could mean we dont put all of our eggs in one basket. It also makes things cheaper, which is my angle.

Which brings me to other aspects of this. What exactly IS his plan? Well, it seems like he wants to eliminate all out of pocket costs. This goes further than I would. medicare extra for all does maintain a system of premiums, copays, and deductibles. However, it reduces them to managable levels. I'm willing to accept this because those things will scale with income, meaning those on the poor end of things still get free healthcare, while those who are higher income pay increasingly more as their incomes go up. Of course, given this exists along side UBI, most people would benefit in net under this plan vs just M4A. The extra income your typical family would get would offset higher out of pocket healthcare costs and then some. 

Honestly, people will pay for healthcare under either system. Premiums and taxes start looking kind of similar when discussing the ins and outs of universal healthcare plans. Just different ways of paying. The right screams about higher taxes, the left screams about out of pocket costs. The real key is, who pays what? The right wants a market based system tied to employment that doesnt guaranteed access. The left wants a socialized system that guarantees access and offloads some costs onto the wealthy while guaranteeing free/cheap access to others. All in all, universal healthcare systems are generally better in my view, but this is very much ideological. Which is why I took a jab at the union guys too. They want to preserve market based employment linked healthcare because of their jobist tendencies. I want a more universalist system in theory, but I'm willing to accept some compromises so I can fund other projects. 

Speaking of which, how much will El Sayed's plan cost? Without any solid plans, it's hard to tell. The general gist is probably "more than medicare extra for all, less than single payer." Single payer would cost an additional $3 trillion a year at this point, with a total healthcare bill to the government being $5 trillion. Its why I backed off of it. Im already supporting a $4.6 trillion UBI plan, so I went with a cheaper medicare extra for all idea, which would cost $300-600 billion give or take. Maybe a bit more with inflation. Honestly, and this is the rub. The more you cover, the more expensive it gets for the government. The reason medicare extra for all has so many variables is different structures of coverage for different income groups. Medicare extra for all covers 80-100% costs depending on the plan and the income bracket. THe more that's covered, the pricier it gets. The more people you cover, the pricier it gets. And the better the public plan is vs private plans, the more people go on the public plan, and the pricier it gets. Due to these variables, it's hard to get an idea on costs. I'm imagining it would expand healthcare costs by over a trillion, assuming it covers all healthcare for roughly 2/3 of the country though. 

Maybe this guy doesnt wanna put anything in stone because of political backlash, or the uncertainty of whatever plan would end up making it through congress. THere are a lot of possible plans out there, and the details of which would have to be hashed out in congress.

Either way, if theres anyone who knows more about this issue than me, its this guy, he literally wrote the book on the subject, and having read it, yeah, he's well familiar with all of the stuff im talking about and the options we have. Still, being a bit of a policy wonk myself, I would like to have some concrete ideas here. 

I just wanted to discuss this since he seems a bit more moderate than full blown medicare for all, but still more radical than I am on the subject, given my preferred plan accepts some level of out of pocket costs. 

Has the RX 6000 reached "GOAT" status for me?

 So...I did a tier left of GPU generations a while back, and perhaps the most controversial pick for me was the RX 6000 series. It was borderline S (GOAT) tier, but I knocked it down to A because it wasn't all roses. However, after looking at the current GPU market, the loss of cheap RX series cards is being felt, and I feel like we've regressed. The market was literally better 3-4 years ago when I bought my last GPU, and people today are getting a rawer deal than they were back then. I shouldnt have to recommend Arc cards for entire price ranges because nothing else was available, and that RX 6600 series sweet spot is just...gone. The closest thing is the 7600, which is still sitting above its MSRP, and for a while there was hovering around $300. I just can't help but feel like people really had a much better deal just a few years ago, and that maybe it's time to consider the RX 6000 series as "GOAT" status.

History

So, one of the reasons I didn't make RX 6000 GOAT status was because of its history. It didn't start out as a series of cheap cards that revolutionized the market, but a series of overly expensive ones that tried to compete directly with Nvidia but totally failed. The series launched in 2020-2021 to compete with the RTX 3000 series. Unlike the 5000 series that came before, it had modern features like ray tracing, newer API support, etc., which makes a big deal with compatibility. It didn't quite reach feature parity with nvidia as they had better ray tracing/upscaling, but it was still new enough to "just work" and not have the issues of the previous series. But yeah, price was, it literally wasnt any better than the RX 5000 series, which were an okay value for their time, but lacked the modern features the 6000 series had. It also started out where the 6600/6600 XT were the lowest end cards priced at $330 and $380 respectively, trying to compete directly with the RTX 3060/3060 Ti, despite being inferior. Not that prices mattered because YAY! COVID AND CRYPTO SCAMS! So for much of its early life, it was always sold out, always at an insanely high price, and not available. 

The real magic, and why I love the series so much, is because in late 2022, as the market finally returned to "normal" the price of this particular series of cards crashed faster and harder than the others, leading to a renaissance in PC gaming. The market had been stagnant and even regressed since the 1000/1600/400/500/5000 series of cards in the late 2010s, and us old 2016-2017 era buyers had ZERO upgrade options for the same price since then. While that is part of what makes the Nvidia 1000 series GOAT status for me, having a huge price/performance bump and not being challenged in price/performance significantly after that, it also has been terrible for the market as the value structure did not move either, trapping people on those older cards as they aged. But with these cards reaching as low as 55-60% of their original MSRPs, they ended up defining the market in the post COVID era, with the subsequent RX 7000 series and RTX 4000 series following the general price structure that the 6000 series set. 

The series was sold well into 2025 until the release of the RX 9000 series finally obsoleted it. Those $200-220 RX 6600s stopped looking as good when the RX 9060 XT 8 GB was $270 and offered significantly more performance, not to mention nvidia options like the RTX 5050 and 5060 being available at $250-300. Since then, the supply of 6000 series cards has dried up, and then RAMpocalypse has made things unaffordable again, with the current value of cards being similar or worse than what the RX 6000 series offered in its hey day. If anything, doing my "what card should people buy now", the loss of the 6000 series is acutely felt, with many of the deals being equivalent at best and often worse than the RX 6000 series offered. 

Given that, if I bought now to replace my nearly 4 year old card, I'd be replacing the RX 6650 XT which I paid $230 for, with a 7600 for $260 or a 5050 for $300, it's time to consider elevating the  RX 6000 series to GOAT status, since this is getting ridiculous. 4 years with barely any price/performance boosts in the market and the card still going strong? I expected to replace this thing by the end of 2027, but it looks like there's no point until the RAMpocalypse ends. With that said, this card is on track to last longer than my venerated GTX 1060, or other GOATed beasts like the 8800 GT in its day. 

Discussing the RX 6000 product stack and why it offered better value than today's offerings

Looking at the offerings today, it's pretty obvious why I feel nostalgic for this series now. It really has "you dont know you're in the good times until you've left them" energy. While not all cards were winners and some were flat out stinkers, given the  state of the current market, even the bad ones are getting rehabilitated to some degree.

RX 6400- $130

So...the RX 6400 sucked. Everyone knew it sucked. It was a cut down 6500 XT and that sucked too. It was severely cut down vs the RX 6600 series, only being around 1/3 as powerful, offering 4 GB VRAM, and having 4 PCIE lanes, which severely crippled performance in older systems. BUT....would I have recommended it over an Arc A380? Of course I would have. Honestly, while it was kind of a crap card and a crap value, well....in a sea of GTX 1030 tier ewaste, it still stood out. And it was a serviceable bare minimum graphics card at the time. 

RX 6500 XT- $160

Once again, this was always a bad product. It launched at the height of COVID price gouging for $200 and was the 5th coming of the RX 480...a card from 2016 that had 8 GB VRAM for $250. This one came with 4, said to be good because "crypto people wouldnt want it, only gamers", but yeah, basically, this was an RDNA2 version of a 480/580/590/RX 5500 XT. And it was worse actually because again, only 4 GB, and 4 PCI lanes, which crippled it. At the time, I probably would've said go for a 1650 or 1650 super, but....in the modern era, NONE of these cards are sold at the appropriate price point, so again, you cant even get a card new like this at a decent price any more. I've seen these being sold at $200+, which is ridiculous. Speaking of ridiculous...

RX 6600- $190-210

So...for years after the Pascal/Polaris era of 2016-2017, I've long castigated the market for lacking a $200 "every man's card". Everyone wants to pursue the high end market, but we need a card for mainstream gamers, stuff that costs $200-300. I always respected the 480/580 cards, and even though I went 1060 instead, I always felt like cards like this were good for gamers. We need cheap, available cards. Well, post COVID, this became "it". The RX 6600 was a blistering 75% or so faster than the RX 6500 XT, and came with 8 GB VRAM. It became THE affordable budget card for years to come, with its value not really being beaten by anything. While gamers still flocked to nvidia and paid out the butt for it, I considered the 6600 to be the new 480 of our time at the time. Only reason I didn't buy one was because I bought the next one on the list.

Currently if you wanna pay this much, you get an Arc A580, which is roughly as powerful while having way more drawbacks, or the RTX 3050 6 GB which is...well....kinda pathetic for the money. 

RX 6600/6650 XT- $230-250

This is MY card. A bit faster than the RX 6600, but still mostly the same thing. About 20% better, costs about 20% more. Similar performance to the newer RX 7600, which is currently going for $260. But yeah, same level of power, lower price. Imagine telling myself that 4 years later you'd get worse price/performance. I cant say I wouldnt believe it, given I just lived through the COVID pandemic and crypto boom, but it would be an OH GOD I BETTER BUY NOW moment. I might've even upgraded up to a 6700 XT to make sure I got something more futureproof. 

RX 6700- $310

The RX 6700 was an awkward card and not widely loved by the community. The big thing is that it was barely faster than a 6650 XT.....but cost like $60-80 more. You get 10 GB VRAM with this one, but oh wow big deal. Really, it wasn't a huge huge deal. And it was always awkwardly priced and an awkward value.

RX 6700/6750 XT- $350

This was the one to get if you wanted a more premium but still budget friendly card. At $350, it competed favorably against the RTX 3060 at the time, and had 12 GB VRAM. It was kind of the big step up from the 6600 or 6650 XT style cards. But it was also a bit of an awkward value too IMO. It was only 25-33% better give or take than the 6650 XT, while costing upward of 50% more, and the big draw was the VRAM. As it has aged, it feels like it falls in a weird place. RDNA2 is showing its age a bit and outside of VRAM constrained situations it really doesnt come off as significantly better than the 8 GB cards below it, but when VRAM does become an issue, it can shoot up to 50% better. I feel like the architecture is aging faster than the actual VRAM or lack thereof, especially with 8 GB still being mainstream and probably remaining mainstream until we're finally done with RAMpocalypse. 

Vs the 5060 today....well the 5060 is a little more powerful in terms of raw power but the 8 GB VRAM is oof. So not really a significantly better card than this. 

RX 6800- $480

So....at this point we're out of the "low end" like full stop IMO, but the RX 6800 was a pretty decent value too for the money. It had 16 GB RAM and offers similar price/performance to a 16 GB RX 9060 XT today. Which is actually kinda sad, and another reason why I'm writing this. We really havent moved from late 2022 pricing here. 

For a while this was available down around the $400 mark, competing directly with the 7700 XT, with the 7700 XT having a newer architecture, but the 6800 having more VRAM. Again, I actually wonder if the way things are going if RDNA2 will actually fully need to utilize its VRAM in its effective life time. It seems like with RAMpocalypse that's gonna become a major constraint where other issues like driver support and an aging architecture AMD is not enthusiastic about supporting (they tried to cut support for it, only for the community to lose their crap because hey, it's still perfectly modern and these things were being sold well into 2025...) are going to become issues first. Still, the price/performance is there.

RX 6800 XT- $600

So this is where the RX 6000 series falls off vs modern cards. Modern $600 cards like the RTX 5070 and RX 9070 are a bit more powerful than this, but it did provide a decent value in the day. Most 6000 series cards kicked nvidia in the rear enough to force them to compete better.

RX 6900/6950 XT- $700

Same here. By the time 6000 series became affordable, Nvidia was already rolling out the 7000 series, with the 7900 XT/XTX variants being the top tier premium option, but the 6900/6950 XT were made cheaper in response. While the 9070 XT offers a full 35% more performance for the same money today, for 4 years ago...not fricking bad at all. And again, we're out of the more budgety price range.

RX 6000 vs GTX 1000 series

All thing considered, the pricing structure is very reminiscient of the venerated GTX 1000 series of GPUs. You had the "50" series (RX 6400/6500 XT) for like $150ish, and while not a good value and very anemic for their time, hey, beats a 1030, and probably a better product than an Arc A380. The RX 6600 and 6650 XT were the GTX 1060 equivalents at the $200-250 price range and they are the GOATs of the modern era for affordable GPUs. The RX 6600 is sorely missed from the market, although if it still existed it would probably be closer to what the 6650 XT used to be price wise. 

The RX 6700 was an awkward product, but the 6700 XT was priced a bit lower than a 1070, and offered a similar value arguably, being a bit more futureproof but probably going to hit architectural limits the way pascal did before it's fully required for modern gaming. Might last a bit longer than the "60" cards but it arguably shouldnt matter much. 

The 6800 cards are similar to a 1070 ti/1080 price wise and offer similar value arguably. Once again, probably will hit architectural or driver related limits rather than be flat out obsoleted. 

The 6900 XT/6950 XT were like the modern 1080 ti price wise and are aging similarly well.

However, there is one thing that holds me back from just flat out GOATing the 6000 series in the same way, and that is AMD's software support. Assuming AMD supports these cards, they can be considered GOAT status, equalling or even surpassing the likes of the GTX 8000 series or 1000 series respectively. Those cards were viable for a solid 6-8 years in part due to them aging well and in part due to drivers. The 6000 series is aging similarly well, BUT, the driver support remains a possible issue. AMD is not nvidia. While for a while, through the GCN (HD 7000 series - RX 500 series) era, AMD did have a level of "fine wine" driven by long driver support, AMD seems a lot less willing to offer similar longevity to RDNA2, despite them selling along side RDNA3 cards for most of their lifespans. Theyve already attempted to move RDNA2 (6000 series) to the legacy driver branch and are slow to release new features for the series like FSR 4, because they dont have the same fancy AI architecture that is driving up the price of modern cards. As a result, performance is starting to lag in some newer titles, although it will at least RUN them. Still, if AMD drops support for RDNA2 sooner than later, we could get a situation where these cards die not because the specs are actually obsolete, but because the software is just not supported. 

It's hard to say. Assuming AMD offers at least basic driver support, they should work. To my knowledge the only real benefit of the newer architectures is newer versions of upscaling that look better than older ones, but as long as games support FSR 2/3, things should be fine. 

In all fairness, Nvidia 1000 had a similar issue. While AMD's FSR greatly expanded these cards' lifespans by giving it some basic form of upscaling, Nvidia largely abandoned new features like ray tracing and DLSS on them. And ultimately, while the GTX 1000 series still had driver support until 2025, AMD support is already winding down with AMD focusing their primary improvements toward the 7000 and 9000 series, while putting the 6000 series in a legacy branch. While new games will still run on the 6000 series, as I see it, it's only a matter of time before AMD pulls the plug entirely. 

It's kind of sad because literally the only thing newer architectures offer to my knowledge is on board AI capabilities that allow better upscaling, but if I'm fine playing with older upscaling (I mean, I hate upscaling but as a card ages I'd rather have it than not have it), then I'd rather get at least basic support there. So the future of the 6000 series and how it continues to age is in question. In raw specs, the power is there, and the architecture is powerful enough to run newer games, again, the real question is whether AMD will offer extended software support to maintain compatibility over the long term. Right now it promised to do so, but it's AMD and they dont have the best track record at doing this. I've seen AMD users get burned over time as well. Heck, my last AMD card, the HD 5850, suffered a similar issue as AMD just dropped support for the 5000/6000 series in 2015 despite the higher end models still being capable. The GTX 400 series, on the other hand, was supported until 2018. 

So....GOAT or not?

Honestly? I think it's the only thing in the modern era that qualifies. Here's the options. 

RTX 2000 series- prohibitively expensive, cheaper models aged poorly, but expensive ones are still viable today.

RTX 3000 series- Also expensive. Became cheaper like the 6000 series did, but not to the same extent and didn't offer similar value IMO. 

RTX 4000 series- At least it had the 4060. That one was decent. But honestly, at this point, I might as well consider the RX 7000 series, which has aged similarly well.

RTX 5000 series- Between 8 GB VRAM on the low end, and RAMpocalypse, not counting on it, if we eventually get a $200 16 GB card if RAM prices crash, I'll consider it, otherwise I consider it mid at best. 

RX 5000 series- It had value, but lacked long term support due to poor drivers and a poor feature set, also topped out at the 5700 XT.

RX 6000 series- started out poorly as indicated but is borderline GOAT at this point due to affordable cards that, in theory, have the power to have long life spans. Being the prime AMD series between the crypto boom and RAMpocalypse and the fact that 8 GB cards are going to have their lifespans expanded makes me hopeful it will become GOAT status, but it could easily be sabotaged by AMD's competence.

RX 7000 series- Also theoretically in the running, similar price/performance as 6000 series and longer driver support, but it being newer automatically means less overall lifespan. I expect this to be a strong series, but an average one. 

RX 9000 series- Started out strong but RAMpocalypse has reduced its price/performance to not a whole lot better than the 6000 series, despite being several years newer. 

All in all, the 6000 series is probably the best series of the modern generation. Not only are the cards seemingly aging relatively well so far, still offering awesome value years later, but honestly, they also power a lot of interesting devices that also contribute to their longevity. They're the technology behind the PS5 and Xbox Series X. They power the steam deck with a IGP 2/3 as powerful as the entry level RX 6400. It's in everything. Idk, again, if anything is "GOAT" in the modern era, it's this. But yeah, it's still like borderline A/S tier for me. Ultimately it depends on software support and how long 8 GB VRAM is supported, if the 6600 can still run new titles in 2028, on low, with a decent level of performance, I think it's time to say, yeah, it's officially GOAT. But it's kinda early to tell, and it's kind of tenuous. 

The cheap GPU list version 2

 So....I went over the cheapest GPUs that are worth buying last week, but I do want to offer a newer, more consolidated list. Some of the deals offered were temporary deals. Sometimes I want to consolidate to offer a cleaner list of choices, and yeah. So, condensed version!

$100- GT 1030 (DDR5)

The bare minimum. Basically an integrated graphics tier card. It'll run games up to 2015ish reasonably well but be iffy beyond that. I mean, if you really REALLY wanna play newer stuff it can probably work due to 2 GB VRAM, but keep in mind it's not intended for anything MODERN and it is weak.

$140- Arc A380

Yeah the 1650 super was a temporary deal. So, the Arc a380 is 3x the power of the GT 1030, giving it A LOT more power. It also has 6 GB VRAM. But it's intel, and intel cards have had issues with drivers and other issues due to the immaturity of the architecture. It might ironically have compatibility issues with some games, or poor performance with some games, so something to keep in mind. But let's face it, it's about the best youre gonna get. There's a lot of ewaste and junk the lower you go, and if $140 is all you can afford, well, this is what's available. Basically it should run games up to around 2022ish based on power alone, but keep in mind compatibility issues

 EDIT: After reviewing this more, yeah, I really want to emphasize that the experience on Arc GPUs are VERY rough. Literally the only reason this is still being recommended is because nvidia and amd have just decided not to even compete at this price point any more, with older GPUs like 1050 tis, 1650s, and RX 6400s/6500 XTs no longer being available at this price range. While the experience will likely still be several times better than what can be had out of the 1030, this is going to be a very rough gaming experience and I'd highly recommend paying more for something better. 

$200- RTX 3050 6 GB

So, after reviewing the intel GPUs a bit more, I decided to remove the A580 recommendation and just recommend this. yes, the Arc A580 is more powerful, but just like with the A380, the experience is VERY rough, and I'd just recommend the 3050 instead. 

As for the 3050 6 GB, it's not great, but again, the market is what it is. It's not a ton faster than the A380, but it is going to be a whole lot more stable. It'll play most games on SOME level, although some VRAM intensive ones may not run well due to the 6 GB. But yeah, it's what the market offers right now, and it's probably the best card you're gonna get at this price. 

$260- RX 7600

The REAL bare minimum gaming card for modern games. You want something that "just works" and gets you in the door, you want this thing. It's on par with my 6650 XT, having used THAT extensively, I can say that this will run everything you throw at it. It might not be a GREAT experience but hey, low settings, possibly with FSR? 60+ FPS? It'll do it. Probably not very futureproof, but in this market, what can you do?

$360- RTX 5060

About 30% better than the 7600, still 8 GB VRAM. Probably not futureproof but it'll run games a bit better at least. I don't even consider $300+ "low end", but at this point, it seems to be extending up to $450-500, so....yeah.

$410- RX 7700 XT

Honestly, wouldnt even bother with the 9060 XT 16 GB at this point. Yeah you get 12 GB instead, but its just as powerful and $60 cheaper. And let's face it, vs the 5060, you're paying for VRAM. $50 more for 12 GB, $110 more for 16 GB. Maybe 16 GB will be more futureproof, but yeah, you're paying a bit more for it.

What would I get?

Of these options I'd probably opt for the RX 7600, putting me at the same level of performance as the 6650 XT I already own. But here's how I look at it. Anything less has compromises. if you feel adventurous, the A580 might be worth it for $200, but I would just want something that works without compromise. The 3050 6 GB is also too weak and lacks VRAM for modern games (you really want 8). And beyond that, if youre gonna an 8 GB card, uh....yeah. Just get the cheapest one that does the job. The 7600 is the best one in terms of value. The 3050 8 GB looks like its being phased out and its ALSO $260...and it's A LOT weaker than the 7600. The 5050 is on par but for $300, why pay $40 more just for nvidia? 5060 is $350, but uh....it's still 8 GB. Like if youre thinking long term, I'd imagine all current 8 GB cards will go obsolete at the same time, since the VRAM is expected to eventually be the bottleneck. And to avoid the 8 GB trap, youre paying prohibitively more. Theres a 12 GB B580 for $310, but its on par with the 7600 otherwise and keep in mind, intel cards.... So youre paying $410 for a 12 GB 7700 XT, and then $470 for a 9060 XT. As you can see, you're getting stuck in an escalation trap at this point. Sure, you can get 30-50% more power with such a GPU, but yeah youre also paying a lot more, especially to get that power WITH more VRAM. 

So yeah. Like always, do your own research, but yeah. I just wanted a more clearly written and definitive article on this. 

EDIT: I changed some recommendations based on the intel GPU experience being even rougher than I anticipated. Seriously, just save up and buy intel or AMD instead if you can. There's no reason to buy one unless you LITERALLY can't save up for something better.  

Ya know, the more I think about this, the more I think, we're gonna do fine

 So....the GOP...they have nothing. They literally have nothing to campaign on but racism, islamophobia, and red scare tactics. Trump's calling El Sayed a communist. Mike Rogers is talking about helping hunt down Bin Laden and how El Sayed said we deserved 9/11. Like...what the actual fudge? Let's face it, we've known for a while that the GOP is intellectually bankrupt, but it's like they can't go 12 hours without showing their butts here. Seriously, we're not even 24 hours after the race was called and they're already going THIS unhinged. This is gonna be a fun election season if this is the best the GOP has. I thought they mightve actually been a threat. After all, Mike Rogers was relatively silent through the primary. He was sitting there with a poker face hiding his hand and now he's coming at us with a 7 high. It's like...wtf even is this?

Really, I'm tired of acting like the two sides are somehow equal to each other in terms of validity. The GOP has NOTHING. Like, they're barely stringing sentences together over there. And I aint saying you have to like El Sayed's politics, but holy fudge, if this is the best they got, we got this in the bag. The only thing we gotta worry about is the American people themselves being stupid here. Which...is...admittedly....a concern.  But....again, I'm just here like....really? That's all you got? I thought the republicans were actually gonna be scary. I swear, high school me could've come up with a better offense against El Sayed. Or maybe not. Idk. College me maybe? This is embarrassing. I'm embarrassed FOR you guys on the right. Holy crap. It's like your whole strategy is to scream about crap and lie and hope it works. To be fair, that's all they really got...

This is why I spend so much more of my time discussing the party infighting amongst democrats. I might not like the third way, but at least they have an intellectual framework for their ideas and it's worth engaging with. These guys, it's like that "why cant you just be normal" meme I saw recently. 

Mom: "I just want you to have food and healthcare!"

Kid: "Screams racial slurs"

That's where American discourse is honestly at right now...seriously... 

Republican infiltrators in the democratic primary?

 So....I have a friend from Michigan who explained to me that Michigan apparently has an open primary system, and given Mike Rogers was uncontested, there was apparently an effort by republicans to vote for Haley Stevens, and then abandon her for Mike Rogers in the general. Im not sure how reliable this is. It might not be reliable at all. But it would explain some things. Things like why the polls were off by like...9. Seriously, we're OUTSIDE of the margin of error now. El Sayed was expected to win by 10, won by 1. Like something is off there. But what if the pollsters measured actual democrats' responses and republicans showed up and skewed the results? That would explain some things. Like why the polls were off so much. As for the general, does this mean we're screwed? THe reason I was freaking out is if El Sayed was supposed to win by 10 and MASSIVELY underperformed, if he does the same in the general, that could be devastating to his numbers. Like he needs to OVERperform as it stands just to win. He has no comfortable buffer to underperform, and 8-9 points isnt an insignificant underperformance. That could be a sign of general election weakness. At the same time, if this is what happens after the GOP AND democrats AND AIPAC throw everything they have at him, well, there's hope. 

Anyway we're already seeing how the republican general election campaign is shaping up and it's just screaming about him being an Islamist and a communist so far. This party has no valid arguments so all they can do is the same fear mongering they've already been doing. If this was their best shot....we'll be fine. See you guys in November on this one. 

Abdul El Sayed wins; thoughts

 So....at around 2 AM they FINALLY called the race for Abdul El Sayed. What was supposed to be a roughly 10 point margin of victory was turned into a 2 point one, with lots of people saying polls were wrong. Well...yes and no. 

Again, polls have ERROR. In my own forecaosts, I assume a 4 point margin of error. Given that this applies to BOTH candidate, this gives a massive 8 point range the polls can be off in either direction. So we can expect the margin of victory for El Sayed to be between 2 and 18 with a 95% degree of confidence. When I said that I gave him around a 99% shot at winning, that's because the probability of the polls being off by 10 is about 1%. And as it turned out...that didn't happen. We just ended up at the extreme end of the 95% range roughly speaking. This was like a 2nd-3rd percentile margin of victory for Abdul El Sayed, a small margin of victory, but a victory nevertheless.  

Now, my big concern is where this leaves us with the general. As things stand, Haley Stevens was leading Mike Rogers by around 1.7%, giving her around a 66-67% chance of victory. El Sayed trails Rogers by 0.3%, this gives him a 47% chance of victory. This is not fatal to El Sayed in and of itself. Stevens is not super strong here, but El Sayed is not super weak either. Still, Stevens WAS the better candidate for the general, despite my own preference for El Sayed, and if El Sayed is gonna underperform by 8 in the primary, does that mean he stands a chance in the general? Hard to say. Quite frankly, the general looks very competitive, and once again, error will determine who wins in all likelihood. If democrats overperform, El Sayed wins. If they underperform, Rogers wins. It's that simple. But El Sayed's underperformance was significant here. We had a very comfortable margin and El Sayed only won BECAUSE he had that much of a buffer. If it were within the margin of error, El Sayed would have lost here. Because again, we got just about the worst possible outcome in that 2-18 point possibility range. We ended up only winning by 2. 

Now, to be fair, polling was funky here. After McMorrow dropped out, polling was all over the place, but then consensus polling in the weekend leading up to the election seemed to coalesce around El Sayed in a way that gave him a double digit lead. It was sudden. But with multiple polls showing similar outcomes, plausible. Well....again, while he won...it was close. It is possible that the error happened because lots of people had to make up their mind last minute and they went in favor of stevens. Maybe the sampling was off. Who knows. But yeah. Again, this just shows how funky polling can be and how imprecise these forecasts really are. Still, the model TECHNICALLY held up. El Sayed won, so...yeah. 

Anyway, I just hope this doesnt mean anything for the general. Michigan is strangely in play for how blue of a year 2026 is shaping up to be, and El Sayed is admittedly the weaker general election candidate. If we get a similar underperformance in the general, we're screwed. of course, given Haley stevens was only 2 points better here, she'd be screwed too. D+1.7 actually means R+6.3 to D+9.7. R+0.3 means D+7.7 to R+8.3. Ya know? Again, this is why i didnt sweat El Sayed's electability in the primary, but if he underperforms like this, I got a bad feeling about the general. I guess we'll have to see though. El Sayed was my favored candidate so I'm glad he won, but yeah. This was nerve wracking and the general is too. Not only could this race decide the control of the senate, but also is a test balloon for the viability of progressive left candidates in a swing state. if El Sayed screws this up, centrists will just hold this over us to push electability arguments and we might end up with more moderate candidates in the future. So yeah, let's see where this goes. Challenge 1 over, but challenge 2 is about to begin. 

Still, I feel better about El Sayed than I do Hong in Wisconsin. If you notice I didn't endorse her. Yeah, it's her electability or lack thereof. Nothing against her, but uh...YIKES, her numbers are bad. Even I dont wanna touch THAT. El Sayed though? As you can tell, it will only matter if the race is super close. If El Sayed loses by less than 2 points in November, Stevens probably would've won. otherwise it wouldnt have mattered. 

Navigating the divide between centrists and leftists...again....

 *sigh*, it's a big topic these days, idk what to say, but Kyle Kulinski is kinda having it with Bill Maher and I wanted to give my thoughts. 

On the one hand, Kyle has a point. If you're willing to vote for the republican party in this day and age, you're on the right, period. Even more so, for all the talk of how illiberal the left is, the right is basically fascist. I don't care if you think the left is too far left, holy crap, the right is a bigger problem NOW. 

The problem with the left is if socialists and communists take over the democratic party 10-20 years ago, THAT'S a threat. And LONG TERM, maybe it is. I certainly am leery of DSA for that reason these days. A little bit of them is good, and will give us social democratic goals. Most DSA candidates are running on social democratic priorities, and even if further left, yeah, we're gonna see good results short term, even if a few of them are far left.

The problem comes as they gain more power. What if they become a majority of the democratic party? or a majority of the government? Well, then we literally got blue MAGA. yeah, Again, if this is our tea party moment, we do gotta worry that maybe in 10-20 years from now, we'll have a MAGA moment if these guys gain TOO much power, and start throwing out ALL moderates. We need SOME. I mean, keep in mind my overall philosophy. Conservatives (as in, conserve the status quo, not the whackjob "regressives" we call "conservatives), progressives. The two need to operate in harmony against each other. Progressives try to change things, but conservatives stop it from being too much too fast. Right now, we got conservative democrats and regressive republicans. That's a HUGE problem. We want the democrats to be progressive again. We just can't afford for them to be TOO progressive where they start changing too much, too fast, and too irresponsibly. It's a balance. And ideally, we get it right. But right now, we need more progressive politicians. If some of them are DSA, well, a little DSA won't kill us. It's when they start becoming more than 50% of the government that we begin having problems. 

And, keep in mind, unlike what Bill Maher says, many progressives, even DSA ones, aren't full on seize the means of production.  Most of them want goals aligned with social democracy, at least in the short term. Higher wages, medicare for all, free college, public housing, a green new deal. hell, Darializa Avila Chevalier, for for all of her faults, is pro UBI of all things. Bill Maher is freaking out about Zohran Mamdani and his socialist grocery stores. it's just wild. There's red scaring over literal communism, but then there's crapping on good things.

I ain't saying we all have to agree with every left wing proposal. Im not big on a green new deal. I thought Biden's BBB framework was better on that. I ain't even die hard on medicare for all these days. I'm actually for an aggressive public option instead. On the flip side, a lot of other people don't like my UBI ideas. We're not gonna all agree. But we should agree that things are fundamentally fudged and we need the biggest recalibration of the economy since the original new deal, and we should pass a suite of progressive legislation to get that done. If you wanna be on the team, we at least need to agree that broadly. I dont want centrist liberalism. Nor do I want communism. I want social democracy. But, at this point, it seems like to get that, we need a broad tent, with some to my right, and some to my left. That I can accept. 

In this moment, if you freak out over the mere thought of social democracy, like people like Bill maher are doing, feel free to leave the democrats and never come back. Really. I'm done with centrists who oppose even social democracy. If youre concerned about literal communism that's one thing, but if you just hate the idea of all progress, you're not on the team, get out. Likewise, if you're so far to the left nothing but literal communism will satisfy you, well....go have fun voting for a third party that gets <1% of the vote, you're not on the team either. 

If we can agree on social democratic goals now, you're on the team. We need to move left of where we are. That doesnt mean we need to go FAR FAR left, and again, we need to restrain the coalition from doing that long term. But that doesnt mean we moral panic over people who want socdem priorities. Seriously, this is MY beef. If you look at mere SOCDEM priorities, and you cant agree on THAT? Feel free and vote republican, you're not on the team. Like seriously, if trump's fascism is more acceptable than you than say, zohran mamdani's leadership in new york, or abdul el sayed in michigan, or troy jackson in maine, well....idk what to tell you, you're tastes suck and youre pretty much a republican to me. So go have fun with that. 

And for people who wonder what the hell I'm thinking calling people republicans and telling them to vote that way, thinking that that's a suicidal strategy, no, it's not. It's actually genius. Here's the thing. Centrist democrats demotivate the base. For all the talk of how we need swing voters, we bring them in by giving them something to vote for. The answer isnt to always moderate to the point we get this bland flavorless politics made in a lab (which is what mainstream democratic politics is). It's to enthuse people to get them to vote for you. And to basically reverse uno chuck schumer, for every moderate republican we alienate, maybe we'll bring in 2 working class voters who would otherwise sit it out or vote republican. Seriously, elections are won by enthusiasm. over the course of my life, the side that panders to annoying centrist types almost always loses. The only election in the past 30 or so years I've seen a plainly uncharismatic candidate win was 2020, and that's because trump governed so badly anyone could win. Even then, he only barely won. In 2008, I was part of that centrist demographic, and you know what? The democrats didnt need me, they needed millions of enthused young people who wanted change. And they lost subsequent elections because they couldnt maintain their momentum, because centrism is a massive momentum killer in politics. No one LIKES centrists. They tolerate centrists. And centrists create low energy coalitions that lose elections.

Hell, if we throw those centrists out and they vote republican and republicans pander to them, it kills two birds with one stone. First of all, it moderates them and their priorities, which neutralizes the fascism threat. Second of all, it shrinks their coalition because more conservative values voters will stay home if they dont elect crazies. And that's what we want. A more moderate republican party and a more progressive democratic party is exactly what we need. If we neutralize MAGA by demotivating them and flooding them with centrists who moderate everything they do, then that's a win. If we move the overton window to the left with a progressive populist coaliton, that's a win. So no, it's not stupid to tell these guys to leave the democrats. I'm fully convinced whatever side gets stuck with these losers won't win elections, and that voters will vote for progressive candidates, at least in the short term.

I do think voters will eventually tire of populism and change, but only after the first big wave of change, which fixes many of the issues. The coalition that was fired up for change in the 1930s and 1940s was significantly more divided by the 1960s when Kennedy and Johnson were in office. The reagan coalition that was fired up in the 80s and 90s became divided by the 2000s and was becoming anemic in the 2010s until trump came around. And even then, I'm convinced trump is the final hurrah of that coalition unless they can radically change our democracy to run by permanent minority. Which is why it's so openly fascist. This is the last gasp of the reagan coalition fighting for its life. If we can form a new coalition around social democracy, that will hold for a while, and then eventually fall apart as well, while politics returns to "normal" for a time. But we gotta get through this change wave first. 

And yeah, that's my strategy. Have a huge wave of change. Maybe a second smaller wave 20 years from now. And have some normalcy in between. Keep the leftists from fully taking over the democrats, but keep it progressive at the same time. Really. The threat of DSA and their illiberal tendencies are a problem in the long term. But right now, the big threat is trump. I aint concerned about DSA taking over government and doing anything radical any time soon. And if we get to that point, well, it means we succeeded with social democracy, and the rest of the overton window will hopefully be hard against them. Even I'll become conservative by that point, pulling us back to sanity. 

But yeah. It's like worrying that the heat will cook us alive one day when we're currently freezing to death. That's what all of this feels like. It's stupid. Let's raise the thermostat to a comfortable level before we worry about whether it will eventually get TOO hot.