"Electability" bros need to chill

 Ok, so....centrists are so insufferable with the "electability" argument. They act like they have a monopoly on being able to be electable. And it's not even true most of the time. And apparently, some socialist won Florida's democratic primary for senate in an upset and now they're acting like they're DOOMED, DOOMED I say. Looking at the polling data...the republican is up 9.5% here. That makes it basically safe, with the democrat having a mere 1% chance of flipping it. That is doomed. 

Except....what did the more moderate candidate have? R+8.4%? A 2% chance of winning? My god, we totally blew our chances. We cut our chances in half from 2% to 1%, the horror.... 

Alternatively, the republicans went from a 98% chance to a 99% chance. Let's face it, the dems were never gonna win florida anyway. But the centrists are like WATCH WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU NOMINATE A SOCIALIST IN FLORIDA! As if they'd do SOOOO much better. Guess what? You're losing either way. It doesnt matter if you chose Nixon or Vindman, Florida is a soft safe seat. it barely makes it on my chart. I used to only keep seats under 8 points in play on my charts. Basically, with a 4% MOE, anything within 8 points is roughly within my 95% confidence interval. That means, in a one tailed environment, it's actually a roughly 97.5% confidence interval. Actually comes out to 97.7% because a Z score of 1.96 or so is the 95% mark, but meh, I just round to 2 like a normal person, so that amounts to a 95.5% confidence interval instead, or 97.7% in a one tailed environment. Anything beyond that is a long shot that's barely worth looking at. I havent even considered Florida a serious swing state, so idk why the "electability" people are making such a big deal. I honestly think they just hate DSA types. 

Anyway, let's have a realistic discussion about electability this election cycle. It's been all over the place, but generally favors the moderate slightly. In Maine, Janet Mills was at R+0.5, while Graham Platner was around D+7.4% in the same cycle. Platner was the socialist, while Mills was the establishment backed candidate. Mills was LOSING to Susan Collins, while Platner was BTFOing her until his scandals came out. Even Troy Jackson is at a modest D+2.3, beating Collins, but far more narrowly than Platner was at his peak. So that's a race the leftist is MORE electable in. 

In Michigan, Abdul El Sayed tends to trail Mike Rogers. At winning the nomination, El Sayed trailed Rogers by 0.3%. Stevens was up 1.7%, and that was a relatively large gap. For a while, El Sayed and Stevens were both at D+0.5% for a while. But let's say its 2 points, okay, Stevens is a little more electable, but that's why I said that if El Sayed loses by more than 2, it doesnt matter, because electability doesnt matter a ton unless the race is really close. 

The same can be said here. R+8.4 vs R+9.5% doesnt matter. Youre gonna lose anyway.

heck, the only race where I really felt electability mattered was the Wisconsin governorship where Mandela Barnes was up by 3-4, while Hong was down by 3. At a 6-7 point gap (5 with crowley, who is at D+2), yeah, that's significant enough IMO to say that Hong actually disadvantaged the democrats. You can argue a mild effect with el sayed and how that could matter, but yeah, again, for most races, it's only gonna matter if it comes down to a 1-2 point gap or something. For the most part, the fundamentals of the race and mood of the country matter A LOT LOT more than the actual candidate, given the candidate is competent. So...generally speaking, Im gonna encourage you to vote your conscience unless youre dealing with a Francesca Hong like situation. Dont freak out too much about electability. It honestly doesnt matter a ton. And sometimes a leftist actually is more electable than a centrist, in which case the centrist will likely intentionally ignore the data. Because I've seen them pull THAT before.  

But yeah, in Florida, its not gonna matter. It's safe R either way.

No, appealing to the other side through their language is a terrible idea

 So, there's a common statement I've seen recently among some moderate types that basically goes something like this: progressives lose because they dont appeal to Americans using their language. Americans are religious and patriotic, and if left wingers cant coopt these aspects of language into platforms, then theyll turn off American voters and lose elections. 

I just....strongly dislike the statement. Probably because I dont buy into those values at all, and because if anything, when politicians try to appeal to them, it turns ME off. But then I get statements like "well if you don't, you get Kamala Harris", which is weird because she performed about the same as Hillary, who DID appeal to that kind of language and I found it offputting and alienating.

Here's the thing. There are two camps in politics, with two worldviews. The right is religious, patriotic, and the left is just...all over the place. My own stance is the right SHOULD be more secular and analytical, but I keep being told by moderates this is bad, and we gotta appeal to them instead. So what we get is this weird mixed bag of sentiments that make no sense and seem to have no coherent ideological backing. THe right doesnt trust them because it isnt as authentic as their version, and I DONT wanna try to out conservative a conservative. And liberals end up losing enthusiasm, because...what's the point of voting for someone who cares more about appealing to the other side? This is a problem with both Clinton, who went hard into the conservative framing of things in 2016, and Harris who was a bit more secular, but performed the same. It's the uncanny valley of suck. 

Even if you have a masterful religious progressive using that rhetoric, look at James Talarico. Sure, you can argue he can win texas....in an apocalyptically bad year for republicans. In a normal year he'd get wrecked. Texas was R+13 in 2024, it was R+6 in 2020. For it to even start to turn blue speaks to larger systemic effects going on. But anyway, we discussed him before in terms of his policy and framing, and oh god, I cant stand the guy in a way. I have zero interest in trying to appeal to someone on the basis of the protestant work ethic. Like, I just wanna full on reject the ethic. When we accept our opponents' moral framing of issues, yeah, you can argue the nuances of that and maybe win. But, you'll never make true, lasting moral progress. Because the progress you made is tied to this dysfunctional conservative ethic that we shouldnt even continue to accept in the first place.

I swear, centrists are so braindead sometimes. Well, not really. The thing is, they dont WANT a lot of moral progress. They're conservatives who are fine with tweaks around the edges, and think anyone who dares actually challenge the underlying moral justification of the existing way of things as too radical. 

But....for me, keep in mind, I'm both radical and moderate. Im not a marxist, but I am willing to challenge the conservative ethic head on and support an alternative to it. I have zero interest in watering down and compromising my message in that regard. And maybe that loses people, but so be it, that's what I'm here to do, and I refuse to let the other side define the terms of debate for me. 

When I think about the left failing to connect to people, it isnt because they dont explicitly appeal to conservative values. It's because they get so lost in their own sauce they can't appeal to people at all. Like....say the goal is economic populism. You want policies that make peoples' lives better. I try to appeal to people in the universal language of self interest: this will help you, you should be for this. But....the left often doesnt. They expect people to be selfless, arguing that "selfishness" itself is a conservative virtue, they expect people to be altruistic and care about everyone else's issues, and they get so wrapped up in bull#### divisive issues like Palestine on foreign policy and identity politics on domestic policy, that somewhere, the core appeal to the left is just lost. 

At the end of the day, people want what helps them. Maybe people get wrapped up in religion, but let's be honest, religion was a tool of domestication of humans to be obedient little wage slaves who DONT care about their self interests instead. It was literally a mechanism designed to control people. If people use religion to cause you to ignore your self interest, thats a BAD sign because it means someone is taking advantage of you in order to get you to sign away your self interest to their benefit. And this is another reason I wont appeal to religion. Again, why should I debate on the terms of my ideological opponents? If religion was created and/or is used to control people, by appealing to religious sentiments, I'm compromising my own moral stances and appealing to language that was intended to control us in the first place. My goal isn't simply to appeal to religious sentiments. It's to counter religion and liberate people from its way of thinking. Only then can we look at these issues CLEARLY and decide WITH REASON what we should do and where we should go.

Again, you can make incremental compromises within that system, but youre still drinking from a poisoned well. Id rather NOT do that and just advocate for what I want. Im not gonna out christian a christian, and Im not even gonna try. I'm too honest and autistic for that crap. if you want a politician who is honest and doesnt sound like a politician, then you should support people who speak honestly, not punish them for it and expect people to sound like a polished turd instead. 

And yeah. I feel like centrists like this stuff BECAUSE they're centrists, but honestly, anyone who isnt is just like...no, wtf is this? 

And again,, to the person who argued that Harris lost because she didnt appeal more to religion, I'd counter with Clinton who made religion very much a central part of her identity and language.....and....it alienated the fudge out of me. And she lost anyway. 

Again, it's not religion, it's not patriotism. You gotta connect to people on a level of making their lives better, and you gotta make a convincing case you can actually do so. 

2020 Coverage, analyzing 2020 election night coverage

 So, just like 2016, I decided to analyze 2020's election night coverage. I know the race wasn't called that night, but I do remember it and I kind of remember my reactions at the time and the overall trajectory of the night. It uh....wasn't a good night for me. As those who read my 2020 coverage may recall, I vastly overestimated democrats' chances due to being led to believe that right wing pollsters were poll bombing averages and as such, went into 2020 very overconfident that the democrats were gonna win. Here was my prediction at the time. 

Yeah, I literally was looking at it like, remember 2016? Trump overperformed by 2-3 and Biden's ahead by 5, look at how much Trump would have to overperform to win! I feel very stupid in retrospect. In reality, this should have been my REAL prediction:

I know in the final results, I was wrong on the same amount of states, but this one felt more...right. I wouldnt vastly overestimate democrats' odds, and my expectations would be a bit more tempered. This is important to understand my own state of mind as the night went on. With that said, let's begin.

Hour 1

The vibe of 2020 was a lot different than 2016. In 2016, everything was ho hum, normal election night. In 2020, it was like, the country is on fire. If you had to watch it in 2020, you probably were wondering wtf is going on. Like, what's COVID? Why is everyone wearing masks? Why are you giving disclaimers that the election isn't rigged? Yeah. You could already see early signs of election denialism and what turned into the January 6th big lie here. I know in retrospect there were a lot of memes being shared with trump supporters being rather aggressive toward Biden campaign buses and the like. I mean, it was getting scary then. 2020 Trump feels closer to the Trump I know than the Trump of 2016. 

The signs of a Biden underperformance where there. Despite the numbers I was looking at (see the "O" prediction above, O means original, C means corrected), Trump approval was still relatively high, around 46%. Trump still had robust support well into 2020. 

The COVID pandemic feels like a different world. I mean, it really slaps you in the face. Everyone's wearing masks, there's talk of COVID and how it affected the election and voting. Everything feels wild. ANd of course, the high mail in voting boosted turnout, and the boosted turnout fed Trump's big lie election denialism. Bleh. I dont like this channel any more, can I watch something else? No, you cant watch something else, this is for science I guess. 

Hour 2

One major shift I notice from 2016 is in 2020, everything is very idpol-ey. Ya know, "woke 1..." Well that and democratic consultant brains. Everything is what about latinos, what about suburban women, what about the black vote, and it makes me roll my eyes. I hate how identity based voting is, and the need to appeal to every single constituency and their super special idpol needs. I like to run based on IDEAS. Sure we can discuss what appeals to who, but idk, it kinda slapped me in the face this time around. 

One demographic that did stand out to me is the "mom" demographic. Normally moms are relatively apolitical, and as discussed recently, a lot of them trend conservative due to fear of danger to their kids driving them to authoritarianism. But ironically, this cycle, COVID seemed to drive them to Biden. Just something worth discussing. Could be a reason he won. Trump was so dangerous and reckless it actually pushed some normally conservative demographics to Biden. We know now that his coalition was much broader than that, it was young people, it was disaffect voters, it was everyone, but yeah, just an interesting thing to point out. 

ANother interesting thing was the heavy use of nate silver's model with the cringey graphics. I almost forgot about that, but not gonna lie, I did find it cringey. His model was different than mine. More fundamentals and "expert opinion" based, rather than just based on polls (mine is the equivalent of his "lite" model), but he similarly overestimated Biden due to the same "trafalgar effect" I was trying to control for, causing it to be a lot more off. Given silver was pretty off in 2016, it feels 2 for 2 here. No wonder some say polling doesnt mean anything given these models. It's not that it doesn't, but yeah, it goes to show that more complexity doesnt mean better. While I cant say I was more accurate than him given my own original prediction at the time, I wasnt worse either. We quite frankly made the same errors, to the point that I felt the need to retroactively issue a second "prediction" using my normal methodology showing what it SHOULD have been at the time. 

Anyway, in the first 2 hours, there wasnt a ton to report. A bunch of red states went red, a bunch of blue states went blue. For the first 2 hours, it was hard to know where the energy was going. Although the florida call was the first red flag of my prediction being wrong. While this wouldnt have been AS huge of a deal in my corrected prediction, the OG prediction had Biden up by 3 there, so seeing it quickly get counted and it going Trump +3 was a bad sign. That means I was off by as much as 6 or so. Which...could mean we're seeing 2016 unfold again. No, not again. Not fricking again...

Hour 3

In 2020, this is where I started to panic. It was easy to understand why. Florida went Trump quickly. There was a HUGE red mirage in Georgia. North Carolina subsequently got called for Trump too. It wasnt looking good in Arizona. Those early states set the vibe for the night, and it's clear, relative to my prediction, where the energy was going, and that was Trump. Trump was overperforming again. And if he overperforms that much, he could do 2016 again, so by this point, in the real world, I was kinda panicking. I know I didnt vote for Biden. I once again had a grudge against the democrats over the primary and the centrist crap. But eh....I felt pretty confident in Biden winning going in, and by this point, that confidence was evaporating. 

Hour 4

Yeah, it seems like I'm off by about 4 points on average. My model only gave room for up to 5. So yikes. Basically, Georgia has a red mirage going on where i really doubt that it could actually even up. We lost florida and were off by 6 (4 in my revised prediction). We're losing North Carolina and Ohio. It all comes down to the rust belt it seems, and Trump is overperforming there too. At this point, its very possible Trump could repeat 2016. Biden CAN still win, but I was getting 2016 flashback vibes by this time of night. We were losing. The guy overperformed again, and my model was even more off. Again, this was in large part because of my attempts to weight the polling averages myself and yeah, it excluded a lot of pro trump polls. My revised prediction was closer on margins, but I would not be any more confident if I sat here with that on election night. I only had a 62% chance of a Biden victory in my revised prediction, and that gives even less room for a Biden victory if Trump overperforms. Even if I was off by, say, 2, that still puts us in a similar situation. So yeah, very nervous night at this point. Not the layup I expected. 

Toward the end of the hour, we start seeing more talk of the mail in vote, and how that's expected to lean democratic and that's what the election is gonna come down to. So at this point, it's clear we're not gonna know that night, and we gotta lock in for the next few days. So...yeah. Even if things look bad now, they could get better, it's really a question of whether it's gonna be enough. I wasn't feeling super confident. 

Hour 5

If anything, it feels like a Biden second wind. While Trump is ahead, we are reassured that all is not lost, because the mail in vote has yet to be counted and is heavily democratic. So while Trump did start out ahead, his averages were shrinking and it was unclear who the winner was going to be. We wouldn't know that night, and it might take several days to know who wins.

We also get a clearer vision of what the swing states actually are. In 2020, the map had a lot of swing states, but it seemed clear a lot of states like Ohio and Florida, which in the 2000s were major bellweathers, were now read leaning. The states left by this point were Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, and Nevada. ya know, the 7 swing states as we know them today. 

 Considering I just did the 2016 coverage previously, and given how that map represented the Obama era of maps....it does seem pretty clear that 2016 was a realignment. States like Virginia and Colorado became more reliable blue states. Florida and Ohio went red. Georgia and Arizona were reliable red states and are becoming more purple. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan were more reliable blue states and are also now purple. The Trump era represents a realignment for better or worse. It's not necessarily the realignment I hoped for, which was Bernie Sanders heralding the end to Reaganism and a second New Deal era,but yeah. Rust belt and florida are becoming more red, sun belt is becoming more blue, and states are meeting in the middle. 

These changes are still ongoing. While 2024 represented a shift back to the right, in 2026, we're seeing what happens when republicans drop the ball bad enough where a lot of normally lean R to soft safe R states are now tossups. We clearly seem to be in a post 2016 era, and 2020 seemed to represent a big of a map shift leading to the map we now follow today, while the pre 2016 map is mostly DOA. 

Now, again, I know I've been ambivalent on the realignment stuff, sometimes wondering if 2016 was THE realignment, or whether the REAL realignment is still yet to happen, with 2016 marking the beginning of an awkward transition. I think that's still yet to be seen. Given the increased popularity of DSA and the loss of conservative momentum in the second trump administration, the state of the realignment is unclear. We could be seeing MAGA implode, and the rise of the blue tea party in these mid terms. We could be seeing a 2010 style tea party taking off here, which could impact 2028. While right now, 2028 looks like a boring Harris rematch, a lot can change between now and then. It depends who runs and what the mood of the country is.  

Anyway, another thing that stood out to me about hour 5 was the discussion of Trump's "stand back and stand by" comments. I mean....YIKES. We all know what THAT meant now. And uh...yeah. This is what makes me so nervous about 2026 and 2028, I think this dude will try to delegitimize the results, especially since they probably won't go his way. Like really, I try NOT to godwins law here, but I keep comparing the dude to hitler for a reason. I think there's a legit historical parallel here. And I think he's gonna try to try something. 

Hour 6

The final hour got really cringey. We got a discussion about how Americans are oh so divided, and how this election has been so contentious and how people are tearing up each others' yard signs....and....I'll be blunt. I'm so sick of this rhetoric. We keep doing this "both sides" bullcrap about how "oh we're so divided, why can't we just come together?" First of all, because we disagree, and second of all, because we have (and had) a lunatic as a president. All night, we had the dark undercurrents of Trump's comments and the media's repeated need to point out that the election wasn't being stolen and the president was full of crap. Let's stop acting like both sides are at fault here. There's a reason I attack Trump even harder than Romney. I just ripped romney to shreds in a post I made just before this, and I finished it up by saying "hey, at least the guy isnt a fascist and hes a patriotic american." It's a low bar, but it's something he has over Trump. Trump was literally stoking the flames all election cycle, setting up the pretext for his "big lie", and we're gonna act like it's a both sides thing? Bull, freaking, crap.

And then Trump came on, and started going on about how he won and he was up so much and they're stealing it from him and blah blah blah. Like...bro, you know how badly this crap has aged even now? Were not even out of the trump era here since Biden won, and then Trump won reelection in 2024 (and unlike him, I'll admit that he won fairly in 2024). And looking back, this is why i turned so hard on this guy, going from treating him as an imbecile to an actual threat against liberal democracy. Because he lied, he stoked up his supporters, he MADE them violent, and then we wanna go on about division? Screw that. This guy was screaming fire in a crowded movie theater more or less and his words had consequences. And he was investigated thoroughly, and yes, he did commit crimes against the constitution. It's baffling we let this guy run again, that we let him win again, and that he's president again, after that happened. And that's why I fear for the 2026 and 2028 elections. Because he's gonna get DESTROYED and he won't accept the results, and he's gonna try this crap again, and possibly succeed, because now he has his administration staffed with loyalists and yes people who wont serve to check his power. It's scary. The future of democracy here is literally scary. 

Conclusion

So what can we conclude? First of all, the big takeaways I came away with on election night were 1) Trump winning in 2016 was NOT a fluke, and that Trumpism is here to stay and 2) trying to control for the trafalgar effect in polling clearly backfired. 

There was also another conclusion I reached at the time. That if Biden barely won in this environment, that the democrats would likely lose in 2024. This sadly proved accurate. 

Even worse, looking at this night now, I get a dark sense of forboding of what was coming. In 2016 the energy was different, Trump was an unknown element, he was elected seemingly because people were pissed off at the economy and democrats for failing to bring about the kinds of changes that they wanted. But in 2020, a big story of the night was him being a sore loser and spreading election conspiracies. And we didnt even realize where that was going. Especially me. But then January 6th happened, Trump turned more fascist, and now he's basically hitler lite. And again, I hate making a comparison to that guy since hyperbole is so overdone, but I'm serious on this. This guy is basically our hitler. He's eroding our democracy. He eroded peoples' faith in it through 2020, he incited an insurrection in 2021, and now he's staffed his second term with loyalists and is probably laying the groundwork as we speak for a coup this year. THIS. IS. SCARY. Like, i'm not joking. This isn't the same ho hum "Bush is a fascist" crap that people tried to pull in the 2000s, or "Obama is a communist", no, this is real. Again, look at how i treated romney, and how i treat trump. I'd at least be charitable enough to romney to admit that the guy is a patriot. I might not like him, but I dont have to like anyone in a free country. And thats the point. The reason I elevate trump to an even higher level of rhetoric here is because he doesnt want us to be a free country. And that should scare the bejesus out of everyone. 

Anyway, the final takeaway that I want to discuss again here is the fact that Trump was a realignment. And that the map has fundamentally changed. We can see a trend from 2016 to 2020 and 2020 to 2024 and beyond. Some states have urbanized, and went from being red to purple to blue. Others have turned from purple to red, or blue to purple. Trump, and Trumpism is realigning this country. And it isnt a good realignment. Even if I do bash the democrats for failing to motivate people to vote for them and being low energy, this realignment is not a positive realignment for democrats so far. Republicans have largely outflanked us, making the electoral map more competitive again. However, the real question is....how do the parties adjust to a post Trump world? The big realigner has that magic, that charisma, but what about after him? Is Trump even the big realigner? Or is he a small realigner who ultimately implodes his own coalition? What awaits us in 2028 and beyond, provided our democracy perseveres that long? Is Trumpism over? His numbers arent looking that good as his second term behavior is increasingly unstable, erratic, and ill advised. He's tanking the economy, he got us into a war no one asked for, his approval rating is like -19 last I checked (like 39% approve, 58% disapprove). And that's the thing. One thing I noticed on here is that Trump still had a robust approval rating, and that the gap was more 46-52 or something. He lost at 46-52. What happens to him and his coalition at 39-58? That's a net 13 point shift. No wonder texas might go blue this year. 

We also gotta wonder if the DSA wave happening this year is just some localized fluff that will burn out quickly, or if the democrats are having a tea party moment. That's the thing. Was Trump 2016 THE realignment? Or was it just an awkward 12 year transition period before we get to the real one in 2028? Again, if you dont think it cant happen, look at 1968. New deal coalition imploded, we saw coalitional shifts in 1972 and 1976, and by 1980 we got the real deal. 

It's hard to say. But yeah. At the very least, the main leg of the 6th party system died in 2016. Trump did realign us for better or for worse, the real question is if it will stick, or if trumpism will go down in infamy. Quite frankly, it DESERVES to go down in infamy. This guy is so bad that he makes the likes of Buchanan, Hoover, and Carter look good. His january 6th stuff and fascist tendencies are themselves disqualifying, and his second term reminds me of portal 2 when wheatley is in charge and everything is falling apart. We'll see I guess. Anyway, that's 2020. Idk if I should do 2024 next or maybe go back to 2012. I kinda did give my live reaction to 2024 and it does feel kinda...fresh to me. Im not sure it's worth doing 2024 or if I should go back and do past elections. 

Why Mitt Romney was a crap candidate, and why I wish moderates would STFU about him

 Okay, so...Mitt Romney...I always see centrist types, even moderate democrats glaze the guy. A lot of people think he was a better candidate than Obama and dont understand why he lost. A lot of these people are young, and were kids when Romney ran in 2012. So let me break it down for you.

To put it simply, Mitt Romney was a rich #### who basically ran on trickle down economics in the middle of the great recession. Some will say "but but, the great recession wasnt still happening in 2012." Yes it was, at least by the indicators that mattered, like unemployment. Sure, the wealthy recovered, but WE weren't doing well. Unemployment was still 7.7% on election day.  This is important, because we wanna understand what Mitt Romney was running on.

He basically ran on trickle down economics. He wanted to cut people off of their unemployment benefits that were keeping them afloat, in order to give the money to rich people in tax cuts. The logic was that the rich people were the glorious "job creators" and that they would create jobs with all of the money they got. Meanwhile in 2011-2012, corporations were reporting record profits. Heck, my dad was laid off in 2011 from his job after being called into the office, thanked for helping make the company record profits, and then being told that to preserve those profits, they had to lay him off. The layoff was supposed to be temporary, but it ended up NOT being so, and three months later they told him he was gone for good. Gee, thanks. You know, when you're on UC, you normally have 6 months to get a new job. If we had normal UC during this time period, my dad would've only had 3. So Obama's extensions were the only thing keeping us afloat. And then it took A LITERAL YEAR for him to find a new one. Because the job creators werent job creating and no one wanted to hire him. 

That's the sick thing about capitalism, we expect everyone to work and look for jobs, but then employers dont wanna hire you. Even when the rich have more money than ever, they DON'T wanna create jobs. They wanna keep their money and throw you away like a disposible cog. And I couldnt find a job either during this time frame. I graduated grad school around this time and the economy was HORRIBLE. Seriously, if you wonder what radicalized me into my current views on work and jobs, it was the 2012 election cycle, the recession, and Mitt Fricking Romney. 

And that dude had the gall to go on about the "46%" of Americans who didn't pay federal income taxes. And how he "liked to fire people." like, screw you mitt. This dude was a stereotypical rich guy who was the villain that ruined many peoples' lives around this time. And the only thing keeping us afloat were the expanded government services, and this guy wanted to take that away and give more to rich ghouls like him. Really? You're surprised THAT GUY didn't win the 2012 election? Like, bruh, I know the mid 2010s seems a distant memory at this point, but I really wanna emphasize that yeah, there's a logical reason we went from him in 2012 to Trump and Sanders in 2016. And then the democrats decided to go all in with clinton, who tried to APPEAL TO HIS VOTERS, and basically alienated the same working class voters who supported Obama. Like, you realize I was previously a lifelong republican and became democrat during the 2012 election cycle, right? You realize that my dad was a republican since the 1980s and this crap broke him and made him lean democrat too, right? We were on the verge of greatness on the left. We were one election away from a monumental realignment that would've reshaped politics in a far more positive away had we run sanders in 2016, and the democrats...threw it away. 

Anyway, another thing about Romney. For as much as he's called a "moderate" he sure didnt run as one in 2012. He ran as a tea party conservative and fronted their BS. The same religious radicals we deal with in the 2020s were part of the coalition. And if he won in 2012, he would've replaced Scalia, and Roe v Wade probably would've been overturned anyway. And he would've enabled the religious crazies just like Trump did. 

Let's face it, the guy only SEEMS moderate and principled now because Trump is a psychotic fascist and has a habit of doing that. Most pre Trump republicans either became Trump republicans, or they got out of politics. Romney exists as a thorn in his side, but let's face it, just because the dude occasionally checks Trump doesnt make him a good person, or a model for what politics should be. He wasn't moderate. I hate that brand of "moderate" that seems to exist between the neoliberals in the democratic party and the old school establishment reagan conservatives in the republican party. It's just attempting to make the democrats right wing, while the republicans are even more right wing. It's insane. There's a reason I sometimes sound like a radical leftist despite obviously condemning literal socialists. It's because relative to these guys, I might as well be a socialist because that's how right wing the spectrum is becoming. We're getting to the point of welcoming bush republicans into the democratic coalition. Sure, we can make a temporary alliance with them to get trump out, but long term, either they go, or I go. I refuse to be in a coalition with the romney types. The only thing they deserve credit for is being patriotic americans who arent fascists, but that doesnt mean their political views are great or a model to be aspired to. My own politics were literally designed as a counter to this guy's 2012 campaign.  

2016 throwback: analyzing 2016 election night coverage

 Eh, so I was bored in terms of not having anything i wanted to watch while i gamed, so i decided to throw on 2016 election night coverage just to see what the vibe was. And man, it just feels like a whole different world. It's 10 years ago, we were so naive back then, and yeah, the establish was blindsided by it. 

As we know, with my own posting in 2016, the media grossly overestimated Clinton's odds. This is basically what I went into 2016 election night with:

Yeah, it was pretty close. I mean, the people who acted like this was a stomp for Clinton were just wrong. I could tell that something was off here, and while I still believed Clinton would win, as I didnt believe the blue wall would fall, I understood that it actually was pretty easy for Trump to actually win. Even without the blue wall, if he just won all of the tossups, he would win 270-268. I really did think that it came down more to New Hampshire, than PA/WI/MI.

Anyway, this is the video I watched. 

Hours 1-2

The video takes place over 7 hours, from 7 PM to 2 AM, but for me, its 5 hours due to no commercials. The first 2 hours of the video, so roughly...7 PM-9:45ish, were pretty normal. The discussion was rather academic. They talked about all the factors that went into the race, all the narratives, and it came off as rather objective. I know I tended to castigate the media for being biased, but here it really did feel like they did a good job. Like, someone watching this in a history in the future would get a good run down of what was going on here. One thing I'd like to point out is people didn't seem to like either candidate. They were mostly voting against what they didn't want, not what they wanted. It was a lesser evils election. 

And yeah, it seemed like pretty early, Clinton was doing well. There was a bit of a blue mirage here. Ya know, the kind of thing that now causes the Trumpers to think elections are rigging, one candidate is winning and then they're not. And as we know, thats BS, sometimes early votes dont tell you the full story. 

Hour 3

Hour 3 (say, between 9:45ish to 11:15ish) in the video is where the narrative started shifting. Trump started overperforming, and the race became more competitive. There were discussions of why Trump was overperforming, and I think that, again, it was pretty objective. We had the whole narrative of people left behind, believing the economy wasnt working for them, and Clinton not connecting. We had the idea that people thought that Trump offered them hope when CLinton didnt. There were discussions earlier in the night that I feel were relevant here. There was this idea of the coalition of the ascendant, and how the republican coalition was aging and becoming less white, and honestly, I dont think they really understood the racial and cultural anxiety in republicans' minds. I guess one commentator said something like after progress (first black president), you always get a reaction, but yeah, I dont think that we really understood the magnitude of the issue here. 

Now, I dont think the reactionary elements REALLY put him over the top. It motivated the republican base, but again, I think what it really came down to were economically disenfranchised voters. People were pissed off, didnt think we really recovered from the great recession, and voted for trump. 

Hour 4

Hour 4 is where the energy really shifted for Trump. For most of the race, it was clinton's to win. Trump had to run the table to win and systemically overperform. But as he did start systemically overperform, Clinton's path closed, and Trump's opened. And it really started getting to the point where Trump was favored. And again, these people were blindsided. I dont think they expected this. And they clearly didnt understand the pandora's box that opened. They discussed the implications and no one knew what they were getting with trump. I mean, they didnt know if he could accomplish his goals, what it means, there were comparisons to Brexit. And yeah. 

Hour 5

The final hour didn't have the race called, but it seemed clear by this point Trump was probably gonna win. Clinton's headquarters were quiet. There were discussions about how she rented a venue under a glass ceiling (because OF COURSE she would! Remember, she was the one who mainstreamed "woke 1"). There was a lot of discussion how they could get it so wrong, what it meant, and yeah. Kinda like hour 4, but more blunt. 

FInal analysis

Revisiting this was surreal. i know at the time, I had my opinions, theyre well documented here, and the surprising result is why my post election breakdowns are called "wtf just happened?!" Because....that's the reaction we have. 

That night, I wasn't really sad Clinton lost. I mean, I had schadenfreude. I was angry too. And btw, they did discuss young men voting for Trump. I didnt, I voted Stein, but I get it. There WAS anger at the democratic establishment, and this WAS a brick through the window. And I was kinda more happy clinton lost than upset trump won. I was kinda disaffected either way. I felt not represented, and screwed, and it seemed like clinton's campaign was more about forcing herself down our throats than her being a good candidate. 

There were lessons for democrats to learn here. I dont think they ever really did learn them. They seem like they're paid not to and to keep trying the same thing again, and as we know, the "definition of insanity is trying the same thing again and expecting different results, that. is. crazy." And sadly, they've had to learn this over and over again.

But at the same time, looking back now, I feel more somber. Im not sure what the timeline would be if clinton won, but at the time I didnt think it would be good. I guessed clinton would go on to govern like joe biden eventually did, lose, and then the republicans would have a mandate and we'd be screwed until 2028. And here we are....anyway. Still dealing with trump, him being worse than the worst case scenario i could think of at the time, and me being genuinely scared for the future of the country. Right before coming here, I responded to a thread about how young people are becoming "Austrian painter enthusiasts" (read; neo-nazis) and it scares me. I said it from the get go. We need an FDR and a new New Deal. We didn't get one. Instead we got Hitler. THe thing I find most dismaying is that there actually are people who LIKE this guy. Who look at how he governs and are like "yeah this is what he wants." I didnt think that wouldve happened in 2016. I knew this country had its share of conservatives who would dogmatically and reflexively back him up no matter what he did, but the way he's governed, if you had me guess what his approval rating would be, I would imagine it would be around 20%. I didnt think we'd still have around 40% of people LIKE the guy a decade later. I didnt think he'd be able to win again in 2024, or almost win in 2020. I thought that he would get in, serve 4 years, the country would turn on him, and boom, he'd be out and by then the democrats would learn from 2016 and we'd get bernie sanders or something. 

When I look at my biggest miscalculation about any of this, it's the idea that people would learn. I overestimated how intelligent the american populace is, and here we are with the centrist dems still being insufferable and the republicans actually LIKING this guy as he causes us to descend into fascism. 

At least demsocs are winning primaries now. That is heartening. But 2028 looks like its gonna be harris or newsom, and honestly, both are about as blah as clinton was in 2016. And I fear if they win, we're just setting ourselves up for MORE failures. 2016 WAS a realignment. Trump was a realigning figure. 2016 election night feels like the end of an era. And what we've gotten in its place hasnt been good. It feels like a combination of the second party system between the Jacksonian democrats and the whigs and 1933 era germany. Just...dreadful.

Anyway, that's my analysis. I might do other elections too if I feel like it. 

Discussing the 9050 and the low end GPU market again

 So, Hardware Unboxed got their hands on a 9050 and reviewed it, skewering it and labeling it as "ewaste." And idk, I feel like in light of my own discussions on the market, people are missing the point. 

In a normal market, this wouldnt be an acceptable product. It's basically an RX 6600 tier performer (so basically, 7x GT 1030) for $280. For reference, the 9060 XT launched at $300 and was often found for $270. And yeah, this thing kinda had RX 6500 XT vibes, as that was basically a $200 product released during COVID. With that said my biggest fear is that just like the RX 6500 XT marked the end of the sub $200 market in a way, I hope that this doesnt mark the end of the $300 market.

Either way, we discussed what options sub $300 buyers (and even up to $500 or so) buyers have, things aren't great. Quite frankly, given the RX 7600 being $260, this is DOA. It's slightly weaker, and it costs more. However, it's mostly being pushed in third world markets, and I know many of those markets struggle with AMD card availability. Would I recommend it as a product if you live in these regions? Maybe. I dont know enough about pricing in those regions on forums, but I know any time I recommend AMD cards they always say they're more expensive than Nvidia. But all in all, I'm glad SOME budget options still exist. 

I would agree that by rights, this should be a <$200 card. I mean, the 6600 was $200ish FOUR YEARS AGO. And we clearly havent moved since then. We briefly moved price/performance wise in 2025 with the introduction of the 5060 and 9060 XT 8 GB available at $300 or less, but that was....very short lived, and now 2022 is looking good compared to what exists now. 

But yeah, in recent analyses, a huge thing I've lamented is how few options exist for the sub $300 market and well, this is one of them now, at least in some regions of the world. It's not awful. Not great, but again, we're talking 7 GT 1030s for the price of 2.8 GT 1030s. Given the average gamer games on a card that is around 8 GT 1030s these days, give or take, and has 8 GB RAM, give or take, eh......it'll hit that level of performance.

If the RX 7600 were ever to disappear from the market, and we end up dealing with the entire sub $300 market being ewaste, we'd miss this tier of card at that money. Kinda like how I kinda wish RX 6500 XTs and GTX 1650s still existed for people who wanna buy a card for around $150. Again, I know the standards are super low here, but if the goal is to get affordable GPUs into the hands of more gamers in a fundamentally broken market, well, it is what it is. It'll play anything PS5 tier fine, probably at comparable to slightly worse quality settings. It passes my sniff test of the "minimum acceptable GPU" in 2026, at least if you use the 8 GB version. The 4 GB version? Avoid like the plague. If 4 GB cripples a 6500 XT, its gonna cripple this. Not even sure why that even exists. But yeah, the review here was the 8 GB, so I dont understand the hate. 

I mean, I do, but the assumptions behind said hate assume a market that clearly doesnt exist right now and not all of that is just greed by the GPU manufacturers. RAMpocalypse is destroying any positive movement in price/performance. At this point I'm shifting to maintaining the current market, and while a $280 7x GT 1030 GPU isn't great, it aint terrible given options on the market include stuff like a 4x GT 1030 card for $200, and a 5x one for $260 (referring to the RTX 3050 here...). Again, if you dont have access to the RX 7600 or 5050, it's a not awful deal. Maybe a bit overpriced. I'd probably try to keep this under $250 tbqh, but eh....market's gonna market. I guess that would be my biggest complaint. Should be a little cheaper given I'd still recommend a 7600 or 5050 over this, but it's not AWFUL. If the price were lowered to say, $220 or so, I'd say it's a decent value in the current economy. 

Discussing the rift among "democratic socialists"

 So....the reaction to Francesca Hong losing has made me realize that yeah, there's a serious rift among democratic socialists. And it actually makes a lot of sense, given my feelings about the term over the years, and how I've increasingly become a lot more critical of them. 

We see this difference manifest between Bernie and AOC refusing to endorse Fran Hong and leftists blaming them for their loss. I mean, from my viewpoint, the calculus was clear. Hong was a bit crazy, out of touch, and politically toxic. She couldnt win, and Bernie and AOC distanced themselves from her. I did the same thing. I didnt wanna write an article outright blasting her when she was still technically my preferred candidate on policy, so I punted the issue too. I mean, I understood the argument that Crowley was more electable because the data literally said that.

But...a lot of the more left leaning faction of "leftists" clearly dont feel the same way. They look at Hong's statements about thanksgiving and they're like "I dont see the problem." A lot of it is because a lot of them are leftists who themselves are into the "woke 1" stuff. They dont understand that this stuff is cringe and alienating to most normies. 

Speaking of which, let's separate this into "DSA 1" and "DSA 2" in honor of the "woke" distinction.

DSA 1 is Bernie 2016. It's not really socialism, it's social democracy. It was popular, appealed to political normies, probably would've won 2016 in a landslide. It wasn't woke, it wasnt even leftist. it was often criticized for being too white, full of racist sexist white males (not really not). Early supporters of the movement are in this camp. Bernie being the architect of the modern movement, and early people who made it into congress in the late 2010s like AOC being part of that movement too. This is when I felt personally invested in Bernie's movement.

But then you have DSA2, the literal socialists. These guys are more radical. They're not socdems or liberals at all, they're straight up leftists. They're the ones who adopt any far left cringe I complain about, from wokeness and idpol, to support for literal socialism, the "campism" on foreign policy where america is bad, the free palestine psychos are these guys (as in, the real psycho types I criticize on here), sympathy for authoritarian communist regimes, etc. They're the ones who show up at AOC rallies to scream she's a sell out for crossing some weird red line in their own politics like voting for iron dome that one time. Ya know, the nuts. 

DSA1 was pretty based. They were the first guys to actually say "yeah this system is messed up" and proposed changes to it. They're the ones pushing for REAL social democracy in america and while i dont always agree with their exact prescriptions, ya know, I would happily support them.

DSA 2 is one of the reasons I no longer associate with that movement, trying to make my ideological support for human centered capitalism or social libertarianism clear. Because Im not a LITERAL socialist. I think that stuff is crazy, and these people are unhinged. 

And I feel like when we talk about "democratic socialists" and "DSA" we need to separate these two waves of the movement from one another. When I talk about supporting demsocs for office sometimes, it's normally group 1. Because they're actually out there trying to fight for social democracy. And to some degree they succeed, they win elections. They write legislation, they rarely pass it because there arent enough for them, but they're trying to grow the movement and work within the system. They're not a threat to the system. They just wanna tax the rich to fund safety nets and the like. 

But DSA2, the ones associated with the national DSA movement, they're the ones who are being red scared about. Because they're NUTS. Ive dealt with them, they're the reason i got so many screeds about socialism and free palestine kiddies and blah blah blah. They dont compromise, they want radical change that can sometimes be dangerous, and yeah, at some point, the rest of the political spectrum, including DSA1 has to put their foot down with them and put them in their place. I aint saying we need to red scare the whole left because of them, but we do gotta tell them no, and keep things centered around democracy and some form of market economy. 

And yeah. I feel like, when we look at "democratic socialists", we gotta separate #1 from #2. #1 is part of "the tent" of the broader political left, while #2 should be ostracized by the rest of the left IMO for being too extreme, for their ideas being dangerous, and for them being unpopular and cringe outside of their social circles.

As I always say, America wants change I think. We realize our economy isnt working, and we need a second new deal. I dont always agree with DSA1 on what the solutions should be, they want a job guarantee, I want a UBI, but we can agree that that framework of a new new deal or economic bill of rights is a good one. But we dont want RADICAL change. We dont want an end to capitalism and the start of literal socialism or communism. We dont like wokeism. We dont think the free palestine psychos are always reasonable people. We have limits. We want a better liberalism or progressivism at the end of the day, not literal socialism. We clearly can agree that the third way types arent doing enough. Including the pakman types who CALL themselves socdems but then dont deliver on socdem priorities. DSA1 are the REAL socdems in this country. You look at the goals and how to get there, DSA1 are the ones writing legislation to make it happen. And thats the thing. The reason democratic socialism took off was because they were the only people actually DOING ANYTHING. The third way types are literally just weaponized incompetence. They took off because people wanted change. But since then it feels like the movement is being coopted by a more radical element that wants literal socialism and communism, and who are increasingly turning on DSA1 types for failing to meet their purity tests. Which is...again, what we're seeing here.

Hong was DSA2. She was cringe. She wasnt electable. Bernie and AOC understood that. So they didnt endorse. But now DSA2 is mad about that and see nothing wrong with her. They think AOC is a sell out and while they cant hate bernie too hard, they probably would say something if he werent the goldwater of the whole movement. 

El Sayed, he's DSA1, and calls himself a capitalist. But because he's often associated with DSA he's accused of being a communist.

But then you got people like DAC who won in NYC, that's DSA2. Which is why people got so many issues with her. 

And yeah, I just wanted to point that out. My own stance is clear, DSA1 is part of the larger progressive tent. DSA2 are a bunch of crazies I want little to nothing to do with. Literal socialism, are you insane? No. Hell no. Wokeness is cringe. Campism and free palestine is cringe. Praising communist dictators is cringe. It's all cringe, it's all bad. No one wants this but these whackos. 

And yeah. I just wanted to explain my ever evolving stance on this.