My opinion on DSA and working with the left

 So I've seen a lot of leftist infighting over the DSA, whether to work with them, whether not to. And I'm mixed myself. I've discussed my thoughts on this to some degree already, but I also kind of had a breakthrough tonight and want to write about it.

So...I'm gonna be brutally honest. I REALLY am politically homeless. I REALLY am part of the left out left. I've actually been feeling down in the dumps over it today after seeing a poll where most people HATE UBI these days and then I had an argument with a socialist who started spouting all of the same bullcrap at me. And it made me realize again, that yeah, I AM politically homeless. I dont vibe with the DSA or socialists at all. Quite frankly, the only reason I'm attached to them is because the republicans are sociopaths, the liberals are useless, and it seems like the left are the only ones advancing goals I agree with.

But even then, that left isn't MY left. Democratic socialism isn't MY ideology. These goals aren't necessarily MY goals. I don't want a jobs program. I dont want socialism. I have nuanced opinions on labor unions and the labor movement, believing that while they've done a lot of good, they're too jobist, ludditeish, and reactionary. I dont believe there is dignity in work. I want a society where people are free from work. I want a UBI, not means tested social programs. I'm okay with a public option, and dont necessarily want medicare for all. I agree with the left where I intersect with them, but I'll show disagreement when I don't. 

I feel like this is the healthy approach to take toward ALL of these factions. I purity test like a champ. I establish my goals, and then I weigh candidates and movements with how well they conform to what I want, I don't change my opinion to fit THEM. If the DSA wants to be run by tankie crazies, well, they're gonna fail my purity tests. If centrist libs wanna be worthless, well, they're not gonna get a good score from me either. 

The breakthrough I have is that I am free. I'm free from everyone else's BS, and I know what I want, and I set my own path. I don't give AF what others wanna sell to me. I care about how well you align with MY goals. And if you don't, well, you don't get my support, period.

This isn't to say i dont make compromises. Sadly, I gotta align with factions that I don't generally like very much. I align with democrats over republicans. I align with progressives and sometimes even socialists over centrist democrats, and the second you get someone who actually represents human centered capitalism, I'm all over that. But sadly, it's so rare we've only seen one candidate like that, and he was horrible at representing the ideology.

If anything, his entrance into politics alienated me more from the left. While Yang deserved some criticism for his inconsistency and abandonment of shared goals at times, he also faced a lot of weird purity tests from the left, and it kinda made me realize how much i dont vibe with these guys in reality. I just align with them because they're less crappy than the alternatives. The same couldn't have been made more stark today as I watched these guys once again tear UBI a new one, and I realize that wait, I don't actually agree with these guys much on anything. 

Again, I dont agree with ANYONE on much all things considered, all of these factions are not just imperfect but horribly flawed, even if I do have a clear hierarchy of preferences. The best ones might be better than the others, but not great.

Like, for me, the right is the epitome of evil, and their morals are just screwed. Centrist democrats' big flaw is basically compromising with these guys and offering a softer version of the same thing. Progressives and socialists want change, but we disagree on specifically what change we need and why. Our ideological bases are fundamentally different. I'm a social libertarian influenced by the basic income and anti work movements. I ultimately want freedom from coercive institutions like wage slavery. Socialists believe that work can be saved and merely want a better version of it with more fair rules, this is better than the psychotic attitudes of the right who basically believe in social darwinism, and the centrist democrats who want a version of that that is a little softer around the edges, but it isn't freedom. 

Again, if I'm not gonna just withdraw from politics altogether, sitting on my mountain of self righteousness and refusing to participate unless someone meets me 100% of the way, I'm gonna have to align with someone, but honestly? it's all lesser evils all the way down. Between republicans and centrist democrats, the democrats are the lesser evil. between centrist democrats and DSA, DSA often comes off as the lesser evil. if DSA goes full tankie, suddenly I'm back to backing the liberals again. And all goes on and on. 

I just want to declare my independence and express that I lack loyalty to ANYONE at this point. I am loyal ONLY to my own ideas. Everything else is a means to an end in achieving them. It should have been obvious all along, but I just want to express that. I am not loyal to say, AOC 2028. I'm not loyal to the democratic party. I just use these various factions as puppets to get as close to my own goals as possible. And the second these factions don't support my goals, well, I'll jump ship. 

Idk why this is so hard for people. It's like people have to be part of a faction or tribe. Even I fall into that, but try as I might, I realize that I just dont fit into any major faction, because my own ideas are so unique and niche that theyre fundamentally different than everyone else's. I really am a super special snowflake with super special needs, and while some people view that as denigrating, in my typical fashion of turning such denigration on its head, I'll embrace it, just like I always embraced being "entitled." Darned right I want a better world and act like im owed something when people say I'm not. I don't care about your stupid little social conventions and your morality. I care about my own morality.

And the same is true with how I approach the left these days. I just got an earful about how workers believe in the dignity of life and how they feel like heroes for sacrificing for their kids. Good for them, but I still see them as victims of oppressive systems and resent the fact that people have to sacrifice to begin with. I dont care if you think I suck because I denigrate your work ethic. I think you suck for embracing it. As I said of AOC, I think anyone who actively embraces the work ethic is a brainwashed fool. And as I pointed out recently, I see most people as ignorant and uneducated. I dont care what they think. I care what I think. They're in the cave, I'm not. And if you think I'm an arrogant little crap for being elitist and thinking you're dumb, well, I'm sorry you're dumb. I'm not sorry I think that way. 

Ya know? That's the kind of attitude I'm embracing here. I'm not conforming to other people's bullcrap. I'm not gonna sugarcoat things to preserve their feelings, if I think your ideas suck, I think they suck, and I'll say it. Maybe if more people thought like me, we could actually get somewhere in society, and maybe people would realize, "gee, that idea I believe really IS stupid, i know you're an ###hole, but thanks for pointing it out to me." Ya know, kinda like how r/atheism did that for me as a questioning Christian. That tough love attitude straight up freed me from the cave in the first place. You dont change minds by coddling peoples' feelings and reinforcing their existing views. You challenge their views by pointing out the absurdity of their existing perspective. And I'm sorry, if you embrace jobism, you're ####ing stupid and you should rethink your life choices. Sorry, not sorry. 

But I digress. Point is, this is how I'm gonna approach politics from this point on this political cycle. A ruthless approach of looking at where candidates agree with me, where they don't, and I'll grade them accordingly. "Metric 1" as I call it, which I've used through 2020 and 2024, does a good job here. Provides a basic understanding of what their worldview is, what their policy priorities are, and how they line up. I might fine tune it for 2028, as I said, I'm considering replacing the "are you a democrat?" Purity test with an "electability" one, but otherwise it mostly holds up. 

Rankings are accordingly:

S tier- 80+

Not many candidates reach S tier. I think Bernie is the only one who got this high. But yeah, I'm grading on a curve given this is scored out of 100. Normally an 80 is a B, but again, so few people are on my level that I feel like 80 is kind of the ceiling for your standard politicians with standard ideologies.

A tier- 70-79

A strong candidate, but has the standard amount of differences. Most progressive left candidate who aren't Bernie end up here. Andrew Yang also ended up here, being aligned with me ideologically but then just being an awful politician in his own ways. I expect the best 2028 candidates to end up here.

B tier- 60-69 

Eh, most moderate democrats top out here at best. I gave Biden and Harris scores in this range in 2024. Previously candidates like Elizabeth Warren ended up here, although it's possible A tier is better for her. 

C tier- 50-59

Mid candidates that I feel "meh" on. In 2020, I called these guys "fauxgressives" because they were fake progressives who sounded like Bernie but without the history to back it up. While my independence from the socialist left did somewhat renovate some of those candidates into B tier given my liberal social and foreign policy views, many candidates still end up here. Ironically a lot of leftists like Jill Stein end up in this tier, because even if I kinda sorta agree with them on economics, they aren't electable and are VERY rough around the edges.

 D tier- 40-49

Crappy centrist democrats who come off as overtly hostile to my goals. Hillary Clinton ended up here in 2016 in retrospect, although I may rehabilitate her into C tier. Explicit centrist democrats who have a hate boner for progressives end up here normally. They're not quite F tier, but they're just one step above that.

F tier- 0-39

While I could separate the F tiers into various rings of hell like Dantes Inferno, at this point, most people who score under 40 arent even democrats or they're some centrist third party ###holes like Howard Schultz who dont really belong in the party. The highest rung of this hell would be those types who score in the 30s, with establishment republicans scoring around the 20s, Tea party republicans scoring in the 10s, and Donald Trump types scoring in the 0s. Again, F tier is dante's inferno of politics, it's really just a matter of what rung of hell you end up on. I guess we could say 30-39 is F-1, 20-29 is F-2, 10-19 is F-3, and -0-9 is F-4.

I guess the same thing could be said if you score above 90, maybe there is like super S tier, like a hypothetical SS tier that no one has met yet above 90. but no one has scored that high. However, some have scored as low as F-4 before. Trump is in the single digits IIRC. 

 But yeah, that's where I'm at with this. I don't conform to you, you conform to me. I judge you by MY standards, I dont care about YOURS. I aint interested in conforming to anyone else's ideology, whether it be milquetoast liberalism or socialism. Again, there's a clear hierarchy here of what I like vs what I don't, but again, the whole thing is a matter of "what conforms to what I want?"  If you dont conform I dont care what you think. Your opinions suck and you'll be rated according to my standards. I'm not negotiating with you. Period. I'm giving you a number and moving on, if I even do that. 

AOC 2028? Let's have a grounded discussion about this and the progressive lane's chances here

 So, Kyle Kulinski had a recent debate about AOC for president, and I have some things to say about this myself.

Honestly? I don't think she'll win. It's not that I don't necessarily want her to win (my opinions on her are kind of complex), it's that based on current polls, she's a distant fourth place.

Quite frankly, the progressive lane of the democratic party has not been strong in recent election cycles. bernie could've probably won in 2016 had that cycle not been so dirty internally. 2020 was a lot more iffy, rather than 45% of the vote, Bernie had closer to 30-35%, and only enjoyed early primary victories because the centrist democrats were split between like 3-5 candidates. In 2024, the progressives didn't even put up a serious candidate. Marianne Williamson was "it", and more people voted for "uncommitted" or "free palestine" than her. And now, AOC is behind 3 centrist candidates, Harris, Newsom, and Buttigieg, and possibly could soon fall behind Ossoff who is the new "dreamy" JFK/Obama like figure that some people are attracted to. The fact is, among polled voters, progressives are a minority of the democratic party. They've been struggling to gain attention, and while ANYTHING can happen in the next 1.5-2 years in that regard, a progressive candidate is gonna struggle to break through. Here's the thing. We progressive types, we're highly educated, and highly engaged. your typical voter...is less educated, and less engaged. Centrist dems love to hang that over us like "you see you stupid progressive normie voters dont have time to ready theory and wait for perfect solutions to problems blah blah blah", and it's kind of true, but it's not the flex they think it is. Your typical voter is relatively uneducated and unengaged, and yet if you tell them this, they get offended, because they have dunning kruger syndrome. They think their ignorance is as good as your knowledge. And for them, they want the names they RECOGNIZE, that's Harris, Newsom, Buttigieg, ya know, the second stringers that were elevated in 2020 and became parts of the Biden administration. And Newsom, who wasnt in the biden administration, but was a governor of a large blue state. They're not thinking of AOC much, and when AOC comes up, people think "Omg isn't she a socialist? (without knowing what that means), isn't she 'too far left'?" Because the media goes full red scare on people who dont know any better. 

It's frustrating, us progressives often have the curse of knowledge. We're mostly downwardly mobile educated people who understand how screwed the system is, but because said system LITERALLY IS "plato's cave", and most of them are still chained up, they dont fricking understand that they're watching a puppet show. 

With that said, let's be realistic about AOC's chances, the progressive wing is gonna struggle. We're gonna be outnumbered by a lot of low information normies who work all day, barely follow politics, and then vote for the person whose name they recognize. When not working, these guys' minds are so fried FROM work that they spend their time on other crap. They know more about football quarterbacks and reality shows and crap than they know about politics, and yeah, most never leave the cave I mentioned. Hate to be cynical, but that's the conclusion I get from this data. 

Now, of the progressive wing...is AOC the right candidate? And this is what's debated. And I kind of agree with Kyle, we cycle through the options, and despite her shortcomings, she's still the one on the radar. They mentioned Ro Khanna who isnt enough of a fighter in their view, I disagree, I think Khanna is fine, but AOC has the numbers. A lot of progressives HATE Yang. I have a soft spot for him given my unique ideological roots, but let's face it, dude doesnt really stay consistent and tends to burn bridges even in the UBI online community. I've been participating more in basic income oriented discussions again and yeah, I see a lot of negativity toward the guy. Kinda happens when you dont stick to the idea or represent it very well. Still, he's another "this is what we got" kind of candidate and we're scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

As far as AOC goes, I understand some concerns. I know this is petty left wing infighting, but I don't care for her stances on work (she went all in with the work = dignity crap in 2024, literally a slave mentality IMO, the reason rich stock brokers were laughing at her is because they KNOW work sucks and its laughable when people romanticize it). She's not for a UBI, she wants a traditional demsoc/socdem agenda, and....well....I don't. Just because I'm in the progressive lane doesn't mean I think that approach is perfect. I have significant differences in policy goals with the progressive left at times and some of these goals are mutually exclusive due to the fiscal realities involved. Although I am somewhat willing to concede the issue somewhat because the alternative is the centrist faction literally bought out by billionaires who want literally nothing, or mere crumbs compared to what society NEEDS.

Like that's the thing, the reason I side with progressives over centrists despite our obvious differences is because at least we agree that change is needed, we just dont agree on what that change should look like. But that don't mean I like her.

Anyway, other than purity tests, why else dont I necessarily like AOC? I think she's still a bit green behind the ears. Like, on foreign policy, she froze and glitched out badly on the taiwan question not long ago. And if youre president, you need to be a commander in chief, you need to make the right decisions, unflinchingly. Yes, we will defend Taiwan. But again, anti war left can't do that. They suck on foreign policy. To be fair, the far left hates her for not being pro Israel enough. For someone with an "imperfect record" in their eyes myself, I'm fine with the more moderate position that Kyle seems to fear from democratic candidates. I'm not a radical leftist on palestine, I just think netanyahu went way too far and should be held accountable for it. 

On economics, I know her original green new deal was $10 trillion, which was laughable, but to be fair, that was posted like 8 years ago now and she's likely learned a lot since then. 

She also had the good sense to not endorse Hong and condemned "woke 1." Which...again, the radical left hates, but I'm fine with. So she has some good political sense. But yeah, she's not polished. it came up in Kyle's video with her not really being good under pressure and enjoying the rough and tumble of politics. And with me, I kinda see issues with that myself. But yeah.

Ideologically, let's face it, my own ideology is so unique and not very popular, that LITERALLY the only one who ever ran on it it seems was andrew yang. And even then, he did a poor job where he left a bad taste in a lot of peoples' mouths with it. I would still potentially support yang for a 2028 run if he commits to a proper platform that passes my purity tests, but yeah, it's unclear if he will, and even if he does, he might not pick up anything but the scraps of some "left out left" types (to make a pew typology reference) while losing both establishment dems and the progressive left at the same time. 

 Beyond that, I'm ideologically compromising, but if we think progressive lane, AOC is it. Ro Khanna could take over if AOC doesn't run, but I think he's less popular. And honestly, there isnt anything else. As I said in 2024, it's like with Biden's win in 2020 and Bernie being too old, the progressive movement ceased to have a bench and died. It's possible Abdul El Sayed could be good, but I doubt he'll run in 2028 either. Although I kinda wish he would. Like, that's why I'm pushing him. I'm looking at the "bench" problem and I'm like, okay, desperate times call for desperate measures, send in the n00b. El Sayed is a n00b. He's gonna be a freshman senator who will have to start campaigning IMMEDIATELY after winning his senate term. But, he has that Obama charisma everyone wants, and for all the balking about him, Obama faced the same criticisms in 2008 and he turned out fine. 

The fact is, if we want this democratic civil war to reach the presidential race, we need our strongest warriors for this. We dont have many, but as I like to say, you gotta fight with the army you have, not what you want. AOC is the best of the likely names running, but I do think El Sayed could be a strong candidate himself if he decides to run. Ideally I'd let him serve a term or two, but thats the thing. Whoever wins 2028 likely locks the party down until 2040...just like how HRC locked the party into the centrist lane until 2028. I thought the timeline would be HRC and then 8 years of a republican, but instead, we got Trump-Biden-Trump. 2028 is gonna be another 2008 style Obama win for democrats in all likelihood. 2032 could go either way. It could turn into Joe Biden again with them marching to certain defeat, or they could run again and win, meaning we wont see the dems open up until 2036. And in 2036, democrats will likely run whomever the VP is, or similar kind of "third term" candidate, and probably lose. This means that we won't have another shot until 2040 or 2044 in all likelihood. So....yeah. We gotta support the best person we can here. if it's AOC, it's AOC, I think I would push El Sayed to run if he can. Yang is an option although I dont think he'll go anywhere. Ro Khanna, etc.

To be fair though, all of this discussion is likely pointless though. We'll probably end up with Harris whether we like it or not. Or Buttigieg, or Newsom, or some flavor of the month centrist dem like Ossoff who all the centrists are fantasizing about lately for whatever reason. And yeah, we'll probably be shut out again. Because it's pain being a progressive. We're an overeducated minority of the country that knows too much but seems powerless to do anything because of the forces of organized money controlling everything, and most people being too stupid to be on our level. It's just the reality of things. So we gotta watch these idiots elect the same fricking losers who got us into the current situation AGAIN, and then we suffer the consequences of sub par policy decisions that dont fix the problem, followed by electing republicans who make everything worse because they're literal psychopaths who are only relevant...again, because big money. *sigh*, but that's American politics. I hate it, these days, can you tell?  

Election Update 8/28/26

 Okay, so it's time to do my biweekly election update. Not a ton has changed, so let's go through it.

Senate

So not a ton has changed since my last update. Michigan now has El Sayed leading which is something. It's not a huge lead but he wasnt down by much in the previous update. El Sayed is painted as some extremist weirdo, but my take is that perception only holds until Mike Rogers opens his mouth on ANYTHING. 

But yeah, same wild map that would be unthinkable in a normal election cycle. New Hampshire seemed to go down further into swinginess, which is weird. it's always been a weird state with weird politics, but given the national environment id normally expect states like NH and MI to be like SOLID blue, like if they made my chart at all, they'd be like D+8-12 or something. Seeing them along side places like Alaska and Texas is wild. The map really does seem to be changing as we shift toward a more post trump environment (I mean electorally, he's done, he's a lame duck, the country is against him, 2028 is looking to be a 2008esque powder keg at this rate). 

But yeah, 63% chance the dems win, 37% the GOP wins including ties. Most likely outcome looking 53-47D. 

House

Not a ton has changed, a slight regression for democrats but polls are gonna fluctuate. Democrats have a 95.1% chance of controlling the chamber, with the most likely result being 229-206D. keep in mind, this is a fundamentals driven model, and while I havent seen extensive polling data yet where I feel comfortable building a polls based one, I have seen some data that contradicts this and much of it seems to favor the democrats. We'll see how things continue to develop. 

Governors

Not a lot of change here. New Hampshire is again, strangely conservative, but Ayotte is apparently popular there and they have strange politics unique to their own state. Beyond that, the map is pretty good for democrats. Crowley in wisconsin is pulling further ahead. Georgia is becoming more swingy, which aint good, but I suspect Lance Bottoms will pull it off. 

Again, some data is strange given how we normally think of the maps. It could be that something is off, but based on that analysis of the 21st century's presidential election maps, I'm guessing the map is realigning to reflect a dislike for Trump and the status quo, and that the map is opening up in preparation for the 2028 battlegrounds. So states like Michigan and New Hampshire might remain swingy, but then states like Texas, Ohio, Iowa, and Alaska come into play more, at least for some races. It's strange, politics are shifting and our perceptions gotta change if we wish to remain relevant and not pull a Romney 2012. 

Conclusion

A pretty ho hum election update. Some minute shifts along the edges, maybe a flipped race or two, but it's generally very similar to the previous one, just with some things shifting around by 1-2 points. But that happens, and if that momentum continues, think of where the race will be a month from now or by election day.

Anyway, september is likely going to be a busy month for me. I'm not sure how much time I'll be spending on here. But I do plan to make another biweekly update around the 11th. Might be a little later in the weekend maybe, but yeah. I'm gonna try to stick to the current schedule for the most part. Maybe after thinks settle down going into october I can shift to a more weekly model leading up to the election itself.  We'll see. 

Anyway, that's where things are, see you for the next one.  

Yikes, maybe don't buy nvidia

 Ok, i totally dont wanna turn this into a hardware blog, but GPU prices have shifted so much like a couple weeks after making a basic GPU buying guide, that now I feel like it's horribly out of date and I have to update it.

So...GPU prices are going haywire. Especially on the nvidia side. like, wtf market? No. Stahp! Anyway. I do wanna provide an update.

I'm not gonna mention the typical ewaste tier stuff at the lower rungs. That's still there, and you can still get it, I wouldnt recommend it unless youre okay NOT playing new games, but yeah, market's gonna market.

The lowest end card for NEW games is the RTX 3050 8 GB. You need an RX 6000 or RTX 2000 series or better for modern games with 8 GB VRAM, and the 3050 is the worst and cheapest one.  So that will be the unit of measurement, not a GT 1030 this time. All prices pulled from here. 

RTX 3050 8 GB- $260

It's the bare minimum card, but generally not worth the money IMO. Still, it'll get you decent performance in modern games, despite being as dated as it is.

Arc A580- $200 (1.4x 3050)

Technically more powerful and cheaper for $200, but intel cards are iffy on drivers and may not work well with every game. 

 RX 7600- $300 (1.8x 3050)

Yeah the $260 deal dried up. Still, worth $40 over a 3050. Probably wouldn't recommend over the 5050 though.

RX 5050- $300-310 (1.8x 3050)

They have a low profile one for $300, but for a normal sized one, it's $310. I'd probably recommend it over the 7600 since Nvidia is more mature driver and features wise. Still, this is the only video card I'll recommend from them.

Arc B580- $310 (1.9x 3050)

Including because it has more VRAM than the 7600/5050 but keep in mind drivers. 

RX 9060 XT 8 GB- $370 (2.4x 3050)

This is still priced similarly, but the RTX 5060 is now $450 for some reason, NO, JUST NO. Buy this instead. Heck, I'd probably just go down to the 7600 or 5050 since 8 GB is gonna age like milk anyway where all 8 GB cards go obsolete at the same time.  

RX 9060 XT 16 GB- $460 (2.5x 3050)

Even MORE VRAM at a higher price. I removed the 7700 XT recommendation since it's $430 and at that point, just spend a little more for this instead. Would also recommend over the 5060 for the same money, because that's a fricking joke. 5060 ti is also a joke, $480 for 8 GB, and an eye watering $729 for 16 GB. Yeah, DO NOT BUY NVIDIA. You can get this way cheaper.

 RX 9070 GRE- $535 (3.4x 3050)

 Not really the "low end" market any more, but yeah. The RTX 5070 is $800. This is $535. Crazy. 

RX 9070- $630 (3.8x 3050)

Stronger than the $800 Nvidia card.

RX 9070 XT- $720 (4.3x 3050)

Close to a 5070 Ti for less than the price of a 5070. The 5070 Ti is $1050 btw.

Anyway this is the highest end card I can recommend even if you're mr moneybags, otherwise you're throwing away your money. 

Wrapping it up

And yeah, unless you're considering a 5050, don't buy Nvidia. Like, wtf, their crap is so overpriced. It's not that good. This is reminding me of 2022-2023 again before the 4060 launched. I hope AMD isnt about to do the same thing, but yeah, this is horrible. 

For anyone wondering why I "defend" the 9050 (which aint available in the US but is 1.4x 3050 for $280), it's because at least its a serviceable option under $300. Like, I tend to spend around $200-300 and Im happy just to feel included at this point. Even if my 6650 XT is better (1.8x 3050). 

Lessons from reviewing election coverage

 So...I did want to summarize what I learned from this experience of reviewing the past 7 presidential elections.

The ever evolving electoral map

We like to think of realignments as like one and done and then basically the map is static for the next 36 years. No. Each president seems to be their own mini realignment.  While we might get a definitive one once in a generation, kinda a shaking an etch a sketch moment like 1932 or 1980, for the most part, much like with evolution, there's micro and macro. Clinton (which i didnt cover) realigned things a bit from the Reagan/Bush years. Bush 2 (where I started chronologically) realigned the clinton map, causing the south to become firmly republican. Obama was able to lock down the rust belt and also start bringing some states over through suburbanization. Clinton attempted to capitalize on suburbanization and alienated Obama's rust belt coalition. Biden had mild success in making the suburbanization work, but Harris didn't.

Trump is likely not a realignment in itself

 While I will argue I think 2016 is the 36 year mark of the reagan alignment and the beginning of a transition to the next era, I dont think he's a great realigner, no more than Obama or Bush were. The Trump era of 2016-2028 will likely be its own self contained alignment. if anything, I expect that given the trends we're seeing in 2026 with the senate, that 2028 is gonna blow the map open, allowing for the next president, probably a democrat, to be able to build their own coalition with a mandate to govern. 

The abandonment of the rust belt was not necessary, but going back to 2012 might be impossible

 This stings for me, but going back to Obama's exact 2012 map, which my own politics is heavily based around, might not be possible. Given the electoral map changes of the 2030 census, we can't win with the rust belt alone, since that would require ohio, which we lost to the republicans. It is possible that georgia is going to drift our way regardless to make up for this, but a sun belt strategy might be necessary to some degree at this point, which i see as ideologically compromising.

At the same time...2028 is gonna blow the map wide open

 At the same time, that could end up proving false, because of the self contained nature of Trump's electoral map. The fact is, 2026 and 2028 are looking like 2006 and 2008. The trust in the republican party is eroding, trump's coalition is falling apart, and just like ohio used to lean republican in 2000 and 2004, only to swing left in 2008 and 2012, maybe when the electorate comes down from the highs of trumpism, maybe they'll be open to a progressive left candidate again. It's possible. We'll have to play it by ear.

Always follow the data

 Whatever we do, we need to follow the math on this one. So many lost campaigns happen because the candidate has some delusional vision that is out of touch with the electorate. Clinton tried to make the suburban strategy work in 2016, even though the demographics clearly werent there for it. Romney wanted to bring back Bush era electoral maps. Again, we can't just be like "let's make 2008-2012 happen again!" If the math doesnt work, it doesnt work. And as much as I'd like to be an ideologue, in the near future, I feel the need to be a team player for the dems due to the trump threat. 

Still, expect 2028 to be SOMETHING like 2008

If I were to look at current political trends and what 2026 and 2028 are going to look like, the closest analogue that I studied is 2008. The republican party's approval is collapsing, we're seeing the rumblings of a massive electoral shift. In 2028, the democrat will almost certainly win, although the electoral strategy the next presidential candidate pursues will determine the trajectory of america for the next 8+ years, and possibly far into the future. 2028 could even become like a full blown realignment if things get TOO bad for trump, although I dont think we're there yet, this is more a 2008 shift than a 1932 one so far, although we still got 2 years to go.

Who should be the next president?

 If we want to repeat the 2008 phenomenon, I'm for Abdul El Sayed, actually. He has many parallels to Obama. Some say he cant be elected because he has a funny name. So did Barack Hussein Obama. Some say he's an islamo communist. They said that of Barack Obama. Some say his ties to hasan piker will disqualify them, but what about reverend wright and louis farrakan to Obama? El Sayed has Obama like charisma. He's midwestern mamdani basically. The parallels to Obama are pretty similar. I really think El Sayed can pull it off. I think he would be better than AOC or Ro Khanna due to his charisma. 

How elections go

 Most videos compressed 7 hours of coverage into 5 hours or so. The first 2 hours are normally BSing with little known at first. By hour 3, we start seeing a winner emerge. By hour 4, it's often clear who wins, and by hour 5, it's normally over.

However, there are elections where this isn't the case. Normally, when the election is close, and the losing side overperforms, it ends up becoming PAINFULLY close, and we might get super messy elections like 2000 and 2020. While most are straightforward, elections like this are nightmarish, because here's the thing. The polls favor one candidate, but the energy goes in favor of the other, and the race becomes tight. We end up having a long drawn out process in 1 or more states that become essential to victory where they end up having to count, and recount, and blah blah blah.

We also saw this in recent primaries like Michigan's senate primary and Wisconsin's gubernatorial one. Basically, El Sayed and Hong were supposed to win, but their opponents overperformed and it ended up being painfully close and taking hours to resolve. Sometimes elections are like that but take DAYS or WEEKS to resolve. Anyway, it's all well and good until the loser decides to incite a mob to storm the capitol over it... 

Speaking of which...

 So...Trump really is a unique threat to American politics. Things got DARK under him. 2016 we didnt know what we were gonna get but the people have spoken I suppose. by 2020 he was screaming the results were rigged and the chilling stand back and stand by comments to the proud boys will go down in infamy given january 6th. by 2024, it felt like democracy itself was on the ballot and we dont know if we're even gonna make it out of this. So far so good, but I still suspect him to try something. 

That said, the trump era is NOT gonna be remembered fondly, we'll be wondering wtf were we thinking, and this will be studied for decades, if not centuries. It's like we're in a mass psychosis right now. Once the fever breaks, and again, to go back to the above, I think it's breaking, we might see a HUGE generational realignment. Like, the 1932 and 1980 types. It's been time for a while, but 2028 might end up being THAT. Again, I'm gonna conservatively say 2008 redux for now, but I really do suspect based on the timing of larger realignments and macro trends that 2028 should be "time." It's been 48 years since 1980. We havent had a full on realignment yet. We're sitting on a ticking time bomb on that one, and if the timing works out as I would suspect, 2028 SHOULD be the year. But we'll see. 

Conclusion

But yeah, those are the main takeaways I have. Just a few things I wanted to write down going forward. i dont know how these 2028 predictions and advise will age, they're just some thoughts that I have, but I think at least some of this stuff is valid. idk about abdul el sayed 2028 or 2028 being THE BIG ONE, that remains to be seen and el sayed is a super long shot right now, but yeah. That's how I feel about this. 2028 is at minimum an Obama 2008 style moment for dems, and who knows where it goes from there. But yeah, let's see where this goes. 

Reviewing 2000 election coverage

 So...I don't have a map for this one so this analysis is gonna be a bit less sophisticated, but I still wanted to live through the chaos again as I was rather apolitical back then, being a kid and all more focused on cartoons, video games, and pokemon cards than on politics. 

Hour 1

Man, they called Florida for Gore QUICK. No wonder in 2004 they refused to call Ohio. Like really, I was gobsmacked by that one. What a monumental F up. Imagine it being 2000 and you call Florida for Gore ALMOST IMMEDIATELY. Wtf. 

Anyway, from what I can tell, they seemed to be basing their views on say, a 1990s Clinton map, where not only was like, the Rust belt in play, but also parts of the south, especially along the mississippi delta. We saw some artifacts of this in the 2004 map with Arkansas being a swing state. They also seemed to think nearby states like Missouri, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, etc. are all swing states. Again, kinda bizarre, until you understand Clinton's electoral map. But yeah. 

It seemed like this was a close election though. They basically said this is the first since 1960 when Kennedy ran against Nixon that they didnt know who won on election night. THat makes sense. Most of those were cut and dried and leaned overwhelmingly one way. We didnt really start seeing maps with set swing states until more recently. In the past, most of the country went one way or another and while each side might have like 100 electoral votes set in stone, we had maps with massive uncertainty all swinging one way or another. So despite the uncertainty of the partisan leans of a lot of states, the country generally leaned one way or another, and the outcome was kinda decisive. So basically the map was less polarized and open to broader electoral swings between candidates. From the 1990s onward, we've seen increasingly polarized electoral maps. 

And yeah, when polling leans one way, yeah, we can see why it would be a blowout for a candidate, but polling was rather close. Generally speaking, if you took the last 5-10 polls of the election cycle, you'd get a Bush +4-5 outcome. Without a map and state wide data its hard to project what that would look like in practice. Again, from what I can tell, there's A LOT of swing states on the table. Like a lot more than a modern election cycle. 

Anyway, I will say this, gore overperformed nationally. As you can tell, if Bush was up 4 or 5, and he actually lost the popular vote, Gore did A LOT better than expected. he made up a lot of ground. And that made it a lot closer. I know RCP projected Bush would win by 400+ EVs. That sounds ridiculous, but if I took the 2004 map from the last analysis I did, center it on florida being a tie, and calculate a D+4 scenario, we get 186-352 Bush. So I'm not really sure if a strong projection for Bush winning actually was that unreasonable. If youre dealing with a R+6 median with it in reality being R+2 to R+10, I'm not sure if that's unreasonable. I mean, it seemed like their low end was Bush winning 308 and their high end was Bush 446. Again, if I took the 2004 map i produced based on their data centered it on florida, and shifted it 4-5 points to the right, something in the mid 300s for Bush isn't unreasonable. There was a lot of possible error in this one. And without detailed polling data on the state level, I literally cant offer a more sophisticated analysis. RCP only has data back to 2004, and I cant really predict more in detail than this. 

Attempting to build a map based off of this, I end up with this:

So yeah theres a lot on the table here. There's around 14 swing states, with a lot of states being "leans" not solids. So I guess a 400+ EV result for Bush is possible if he has a good night. But yeah, that seems a bit outlandish and that article doesnt discuss margins, just categories. But yeah I do see here how assuming gore loses florida, he has to run the table here. 

Hour 2

They called a lot of stuff very fast, and with Gore winning Florida in this scenario, it seemed like a nail biter. Despite Bush having a clear polling advantage, Gore overperformed and it was super close. Gore looked like he could actually win, and had he won Florida, he WOULD have won. 

But Bush started challenging the results for Florida, and the network ended up rescinding the call, as there were a lot of outstanding votes in florida and Bush had a chance. 

Conclusion

Anyway there was more discussion on the race, but clearly it ended without it being called because of, well...the obvious. Gore didnt win florida, and it turned out the whole thing came down to florida. And then we spent weeks trying to figure out who won going through several recounts, until the supreme court just ended up and made Bush the winner. And that was seen as partisan AF, leading to liberals being pissed off and butthurt over it for decades. Still, unlike some psychos, we didnt storm the capitol. We accepted it and moved onto the next one.

The 2000 election has been a controversial one though. The left loves to frame it as "those darned Ralph Nader voters", but this was itself a mini realignment. Look, Clinton won parts of the south, West Virginia used to be a blue state for example, but the Clinton coalition alienated a lot of white working class voters. Clinton was a minor realigning figure himself, he formed an ideological consensus with the Reaganites of the republican party, which caused the remnants of the new deal coalition to turn on the democrats for good. And that's the story of the night. 

We saw this in 2004 too. There were questions of whether the democrats lost the south for a generation. And they did more or less. They became flat out uncompetitive there. They were conservative, the core of Bush's coalition, and a loyal part of the democratic party since, with this only being challenged by the suburbanization of the larger cities down there. 

Bush...also had a huge electoral advantage going into it. As I said, based on what little polling I saw, I'd expect a win from him. Gore actually overperformed, and this was like 2020, but with Bush being Biden and Gore being Trump. What shouldve been a romp ended up being super close, and this was more contested than even 2020. The difference was that we accepted the results and didnt throw a tantrum over it. 

And yeah, that's my analysis of 2000, and that's as far back as I'm gonna go. Been interesting, learned a lot, but there's little point in me going further back without detailed polling or maps. THe elections were before my time, and I just dont have the data to follow them along as well. Most of them were stomps anyway. 

Reviewing 2004 election coverage

 So this is getting to be some really vintage stuff at this point. Doing 2004 election coverage. This might be the last one as this is getting kinda boring, and the further back I go the more detached I feel from it, and the more boring it gets, but I do have a map for this one, and I remember the 2004 election as it was the first I paid decent attention to (although I couldnt vote in as I was too young). I still MIGHT do 2000 if I feel like it, just because it was such a clusterfudge, but yeah. 

Hours 1&2

They didnt seem to cover the map that well, they're just like "oh we'll call it as we go", without being like "these are the swing states." I mean, I guess Florida and Ohio seemed to be the big swing states, but again, they didn't do as good of a job discussing it. ABC seemed a lot lower budget back then and it felt like an 80s news studio by this point. Like REALLY outdated and low end, even for the era. 2008 kinda felt dated too come to think of it, not sure if it's an ABC problem or if it's just a 2000s problem.

ANYWAY, I have MY map based on polling data, so let's discuss the paths. 

 

So, this was a close one like 2016 and 2024, and the news seemed extremely cautious here. Probably because 2000 was such a nightmare with having to retract calls over florida and the like. But yeah, it's a tossup, but a bush favored tossup. 236-300 Bush is the projection, with a 56% chance Bush wins. 

For swing states, Oregon came up a lot, it's D+4.8, but it kept being mentioned because they do their entire election by vote by mail. More common these days, but back then it was a novelty. Michigan and Minnesota were in play. PA and New Hampshire were tossups in the Kerry column, and kerry needed to secure Iowa and Florida to win as the path of least resistance. other tossups included Hawaii, Wisconsin, and Arkansas. Yeah, radically different map than 2008 onward. Obama realigned the electorate himself, and then Trump/Biden did too in their own ways. And 2028 is likely gonna be another free for all as Trump takes a hacksaw to the republican coalition. But yeah, this map is virtually unrecognizeable in some ways, while it's also recognizeable at the same time. Like, just looking at it, Ohio and Florida were THE big swing states to get. The rust belt still leaned liberal, even if I have wisconsin projected for Bush here (it went to kerry). Virginia, New mexico, and Colorado were all red here. Those states used to be more conservative. It was urbanization and Obama that shifted them left. This is the map that Mitt Romney was trying to run on, thinking he could reverse Obama's 2008 changes and be able to pull off a win. But no, the electorate stayed with Obama, and this map is dead, and feels like it's from a different era in a way. Just think of how 2028 might change the map if republicans get unpopular enough. We're already seeing it in the senate this year. 

Anyway, speaking of Obama, he was a bit of a star of the show too. Kept being mentioned because he won his senate race pretty handily and was a pretty major rising star. Say it with me guys: Abdul El Sayed for president, he could be 2028's Obama. 

Anyway, I do wanna discuss this map a bit more. I see why it comes down to Florida and Ohio, if Kerry couldnt snag one of the two, it doesnt seem to matter what else he could do here. Iowa, 245, Hawaii, not sure why that's even a swing state here but let's give it the benefit of the doubt, 249, Wisconsin, 259, Arkansas, again not sure that should even be a swing state but following the polling data, that's 266, New mexico, 271. yeah. He really does need Florida or Ohio here. Probably florida, I wouldnt count on Ohio. I mean, keep in mind, "wave theory of elections." The results arent entirely random, you got red/blue waves and if one state swings, the rest of the country or part of the country is likely to swing similarly. If Kerry doesnt take Florida, or Iowa, or Wisconsin, he sure AF aint getting Ohio in all likelihood. And if he gets Ohio, he will likely carry most states up to Ohio on the map. So...yeah. 

Hours 3&4

And in hour 3, Florida is called for Bush. The rest of the map is largely non controversial for the time. The results mostly went in line with my map, outside of Wisconsin flipping blue (so kerry DID overperform), and HI too. Again, not sure if the polling data was faulty on HI as its normally safe blue, but again, taking it at face value. So yeah, at this point, it all came down to Ohio, and ABC didnt wanna call it even though other networks did because they wanted to be cautious. Possibly due to PTSD from Florida in 2000. *sigh*

Yeah, like, I kinda would say that Kerry was cooked by this point. We've seen this happen again and again. First 2 hours its just back and forth, by hour 3, we get an idea where the energy goes, and we often see the race called by 4 or 5, depending how fast and decisive it is. While 2004 was a closeish election, basically a repeat of 2000, eh...Bush seemed to have the advantage, and if he could get Florida, eh....Ohio is probably locked down.

The only election we looked at where the candidate the energy was against won was Biden in 2020, and he won because he was projected to romp Trump in an Obamaesque way, and then barely won. He had the runway to underperform whereas Clinton and Harris didn't. And 2004 is a lot like a 2016 or 2024 style election, just less stressful because it was boring and low stakes as fudge. I think I recalled someone called it the most important election in their lifetime, and really? Imagine thinking 2004 is the most important election in my life time. If anything, it's probably the most boring, inconsequential one in my lifetime all things considered. A far cry from 2024's "democracy itself is on the ballot" (because the republican is a psychopath who wants to overturn democracy and be a dictator). And again, this is the thing. I know I'm rough on Trump, but I have to be. Bush sucked, but he was just a standard politician. Like, democracy will live on after him. Not sure about Trump in that regard at this point. But I digress. 

Hours 4&5

There was a lot of discussion here about why the race played out as it did. Some asked if the democrats lost the south "forever", and the real question is "well, how long is forever?" Ya know, because party realignments are a thing. In the 2020s now Virginia and New Mexico are blue states. North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona are swing states. Florida is a red state. But yes, they lost it for a generation after 1968, and I cant believe they're still debating that. It was obvious by this point. 

 There was discussion of culture and values. How big city liberals "don't get" the needs of more southern and rural voters with their guns and religion and blah blah blah. And yeah, most republican voters were driven by values concerns. I mean, I get it, if I could vote at the time, I would've been too. I was a Christian nut back then and I was like, god doesnt approve of abortion and gay marriage and blah blah blah. Again, different era, but these crazies still exist today. But back then, they were FAR more popular believe it or not. Not as dialed up with the crazy, but they didnt have to be because since 1980 they just....dominated culture. Again, we're talking core 6th party system here. The last real election where republicans held a real cultural hegemony over the country. As we know, Obama kinda broke that, and then we got trump as these guys turned reactionary and....here we are...

There was also talk of Iraq. And how some voted for Kerry because they didnt think that we should be fighting such a pointless war, but others were like gung ho die hard in favor of it, so they wanted Bush. 

Kerry voters seemed driven by the economy. I mean there was a 2001 recession and the economy wasnt AMAZING in the 2000s, but clearly 2008 changed things a lot.

Really, if anything, 2008 and 2016 seem like their own respective mini realignments. 2008 broke the republican fever of the Reagan era somewhat. But then Trump led the GOP turning reactionary. And then post Obama the dems crapped the bed with their centrist direction. And here we are. It's hard to tell if we're in like a full on different era or a transition period, but yeah, its clear CORE 6th party system is dead. Like the Reagan conservative dominated era is gone. It's unclear if anything can be said to have replaced it. Obama led to the idea that the GOP was toast, but then Clinton's hubris and Trump managing to realign the country in his own way gave new life to the GOP. Although now 2028 is looking like ANOTHER possible 2008 moment for the GOP, and if we get the right candidate, maybe we CAN end this era for good and turn the page. But yeah. It's been a rough 20 years politically. 2004 seems very quaint and distant now. I see why people are sometimes nostalgic of this era these days, but let's face it, back then we thought the world was on fire too, especially after 9/11. 

 Anyway it doesnt look like they ever called Ohio in these videos. Again, they're cautious because of 2000. Although it seemed like everyone else DID call Ohio, and the Kerry people seemed somber like is often the case for the losing side. Again, Ohio by this point was never seriously gonna go to Kerry. Look at my map, if Kerry wasn't carrying Florida, Ohio was most likely out of reach. I get the whole "let's be cautious" mentality, but by the end of the video, everyone else DID call it. so it was this one network that didn't. There was talk of Kerry possibly contesting the results, but I dont think much came out of that. Nor did anyone die because sore losers stormed the capitol. Ya know, because that was psychotic ####, Don. 

Conclusion  

Anyway, that's 2004. Lessons....not many. Literally the most boring election I covered. Very ho hum. Very quaint. And despite how competitive it was on paper, it was still a bit of a romp for Bush. I recall it at the time and I always felt like Bush would win. Liberals just werent popular back then, and yeah, values voters, Iraq, ya know, people were happy enough with Bush to go along with him. I dont even think the democrats really tried at the time. Like...they were siding with Bush's agenda after 9/11 until it was time to campaign. Then suddenly they started attacking him and it felt very...fake.  I dont think the democrats did a very good job here. Kerry was uninspiring, they largely agreed with Bush until it was time to campaign against him, and people didnt buy it. Bush just was the default option...and he won because not enough people wanted change. It's just...the curse of centrism to some degree. You cant motivate your own side, you cant convince swing voters. You come close, but then you implode last minute. Gore did it too, and Clinton, and Harris. Same crap. 

Anyway, will I do 2000? Again, not feeling very motivated, I run out of polling data going further back so I cant make good electoral maps for predictions to compare my results to, and it looks like back then they didn't have the sophisticated "here's the map, here's the swing states" either. Whole thing felt super low budget. Like, I swear, I've seen podcasters have better presentations than this. Felt like a local station, not a national syndicate. And at that point, i dont really wanna bother. But again, 2000 was a mess so it might be fun just to do one more for posterity's sake. Tbd on that.

If I dont do that, this series is complete. Hope you enjoyed it, was kinda fun going back over elections over the course of my political life, looking at how things changed over time. The world has changed a lot in 20 years. Sometimes for the better but also for the worse. The 2000s kinda feels like the 80s these days, which makes sense since the 80s are as far from the 2000s as the 2000s are from the 2020s. But really, wtf is with these super low budget news presentations. Holy crap. Talk about dated. But I digress.