Discussing the NEW Graham Platner scandal

 So....apparently a NEW scandal dropped, courtesy of the new york times, and old girlfriends of platner are alleging abuse. I admit, this article was hyped up before it dropped and it was framed like he sexually assaulted someone. However, reading it, I'm not really seeing it. Like the worst thing he said was that he would rape someone in certain circumstances in order to assert dominance or something. Given the guy lived according to some weird "warrior code" from his military days...eh...I can give him some grace here.

here's the thing. Idk how many people know military people, especially ones with like PTSD....but uh...some of these guys are genuinely F-ed up. It happens. Especially when you're in an elite unit that sees a lot of combat. You gotta be a special kind of person to do that, and it kind of...corrupts you as a person. It messes you up. Majorly. A lot of those vets deal with PTSD, and sometimes they dont come off as the most...well adjusted people sometimes. And it takes them years, if not decades to become more normal again. In some ways, it never goes away for them, but I will say they improve. Platner seems to be one of those people. he seems to have come back from war totally messed up in the head, and then over the next 15 years slowly improved his life to the point he's ready to face the world again in a more proper way. And people wanna tear him down for it. So idk...I look at the allegations in this article, and I'm mostly seeing that. 

Anyway, even more so, the worst allegations are from an ex who happens to work for the republican party. So....yeah....I dont trust ANYTHING she says. Because she obviously wants collins to win, and she's not a reliable source. Other girlfriends noted some strange behavior, but most of them seem to think he's mostly peaceful, but just a bit...off. 

Either way, this doesn't move the needle for me. Again, the centrists are trying to play hard into respectability politics, acting like every scandal should break this guy's career, and uh...I'm just nto swayed. I mean, if the dude was running for president, I would say, maybe, yeah. Maybe someone with this F-ed up of a mindset shouldnt be trusted with nuclear codes. Sure, he would be better than the current mentally unstable dementia addled 80 year old in office now, but yeah. I mean, I can say in that circumstance I wouldnt trust him. As a senator? Eh, I'd give him a chance. He's better than mills or collins. 

Discussing cancelling social media people for being chuds

 So...it happened. A hardware youtuber I follow (I won't name them) reviewed a product made by some guy with ties to the defense industry, and went on some weird diatribe about how he likes war because he's American and how the defense industry creates jobs and how maybe he'll get a job at the drone factory or something. It was mega cringe, but eh...here's how I see it. 40% of the country is MAGA. Even if we only account for the voting population, around 20-25% voted for this guy. So one in four, or up to two in five people, are MAGA. They're your neighbors, your coworkers, your friends. You might not even know it. I know I've alienated most MAGA people out of my own life given I basically have two modes IRL: Video games and politics, and my views are very abrasive and offputting to people (and even then I tone them down compared to what I do on here, trying to come off a bit more normie lib but still progressive). But yeah. I try to generally respect the fact that others in my life may have differing views, and I have a bit more grace IRL than I would in discussing politics directly. At the end of America's current chapter, we're all gonna have to find ways to get along, and this weird fixation on cancelling people isnt productive to some degree.

I aint saying dont do it if you are inclined to. But eh....it kinda comes off as cringey to me. I mean, if I expect political content out of someone, I'll be picky who I listen to. If a dude is doing some sort of service like reviewing a product, is TYPICALLY unpolitical, and makes a poor political joke or statement like here, eh...I'm kinda inclined to let it go. Again, 20-40% of Americans are just straight up chuds. You cant avoid them all your life. Maybe if you talk to them sometimes they'll actually learn something. I dont think just cancelling someone over something like this is a wise or productive move. Not saying I defend the guy's statement, it was a mountain of cringe, and I understand where the other side is coming from given our defense industry is building bombs used to....bomb civilians in gaza and iran. But keep in mind, we also do need some national defense, and just a few years ago, we were using that stuff to help ukraine defend themselves from russians. At the end of the day, weapons are tools. It's up to the commander in chief to use them properly. The previous guy did...the current guy...did not.  And yeah, we give way too much money to these guys. Arguably it should be cut like 40-50% at this point given we just ballooned the budget by 50-60% for no real reason. 

And uh...yeah. That's how I see it.  Unless someone is really annoying and does it all of the time, eh, I'm gonna ignore some back handed political comments. It just goes with the territory. Sometimes you gotta deal with people who dont share your views in life. Cloistering ourselves off and cancelling people over minor offenses isnt really helpful IMO. 

"What does Pennsylvania mean to me?"

 So...this was a question from the debate, where they asked "what does Michigan mean to you?" And of course, everyone gave politically correct answers that amounted to "oh gee, I sure like Michigan!" It's a stupid hugboxy thing that we sometimes expect from debates. But honestly? That's the problem with that debate, it's just a weird hugbox in which we had establishmenty candidates giving politically correct establishment answers, and honestly...it just made me sick. Even El Sayed kinda catered his answers to their framing. 

Anyway, one of the last questions was about Michigan. And I kinda wanted to answer it hypothetically. Except I'm not from Michigan, so I'm gonna do PA instead. And yeah, I'm gonna go the whole "newsroom" route on this one. So yeah, enjoy. 

What does pennsylvania mean to me? Not much, really. I mean, I was born here. I live here. I live in a city named (blank). It's kind of a craphole. It has high crime. A lot of poverty. Despite the metrics not being as bad as they were 10-20 years ago, it still pretty much sucks. I know it's politically correct to glaze the place you live and take pride in it, but I'm going to be honest, I'm not particularly proud to live there, and most people I know want out, if they haven't already found their way out. 

I feel like this is a problem with pennsylvania, and the rust belt in general. It sucks to live here. Economic opportunity is limited, things never seem to get any better, and things tend to get worse. In 2030, we're expected to lose at least one, if not two congressional representatives due to population loss here. The fact is, we're in a bit of a dead zone. As I said, nothing seems to get better, and the best thing many of us can do is leave. 

It's not that there's anything wrong with Pennsylvania inherently. It has a temperate climate, it's relatively free of natural disasters compared to other parts of the country. It's kind of the most middle of the road state you can get. It always seems to be about 25th at everything, except the roads which are terrible despite the high gas tax. But at the same time, it's also the state that's probably most like America as a whole. It has cities and rural populations. It has a mix of people and cultures. It's very diverse. It's northeastern, but also kind of midwestern and midatlantic at the same time. 

The biggest problem with it is the economy. As we know from Billy Joel's Allentown, we used to be big on our steelstacks, and our factories, and we lament the jobs that we once had, and how things once were. I think this is why Donald Trump won in 2016, and again in 2024 by the way. We are a state whose best days seem to be behind us, and we want someone who "makes America great again" by making Pennsylvania great again. 

With that said, let me explain the problem with the democratic party. In the modern era, it doesnt stand for anything. We always talk about job creation, but nothing ever seems to get better. We've had a lot of discussions on this stage tonight, about compromise, budgets, the economy, jobs, but at the end of the day, most candidates on this stage just gave the same ho hum answers. The same crap we've been hearing about for decades, and yet, at the end of the day, nothing ever seems to get better. The economy keeps growing but we don't share in that bounty. We keep talking about job creation until we're blue in the face but that doesn't stop my home town from having a median income at about roughly half of the national average, and one of the highest poverty rates in the country. Quite frankly, I'm tired of hearing about this crap, and I bet a lot of the audience is too. 

We need change. And that change can only come from the top down. Not from local action, but the federal government. That change involves doing something different than we've been doing. It involves embracing more state intervention in the economy on a level not seen since the New Deal era. It involves fighting the republicans and taking them on ideologically, not trying to play paddycakes with them as they obstruct us in every way that they can while stabbing us in the back. It involves not talk of job creation, but redistribution. 

Pennsylvania can be a great place to live if we rethink what our economy is supposed to look like. But that means a once in a generation paradigm shift not seen since the FDR days. It means embracing policies like universal basic income, medicare for all, free college, student debt forgiveness, public housing, a build back better-esque green new deal, and reducing the work week. 

We can keep trying to expect pennsylvanians to live up to a certain idea of what the economy should be, but that economic model is failing pennsylvanians and has been for decades. The fact is, jobs are not the answer and never will be. Jobs are tasks created by rich people to give poor people to do in exchange for money. But at the end of the day, businesses don't want to pay decent wages, and yet expect Americans to work and work and work their lives away. We keep talking about giving tax cuts to jeff bezos to sam walton or jeff bezos, expecting them to make jobs for us, and then we act surprised when these billionaires grow their fortunes while typical Americans work for something like $10-15 an hour. We expect people to work multiple jobs, and instead of seeing those people as victims and saying "this is horrible", we have presidents that just go on about how that's "uniquely American." I saw a guy who worked 99 hours a week for a grand total of $1150 or so, and was acting like it was a flex. No, "hustling" is not a good thing, you're being exploited and abused, you are a victim. But that's how many Pennsylvanians are expected to live in the modern era. Working our lives away for a pittance while those at the top get richer and richer. This needs to change.

So, sorry, I can't be prideful in living in a random place when quite frankly, my entire life has lived in an economic hellscape where all of this is considered "normal." It's sickening. And I'm running for office (I'm not, but I'm roleplaying being on the debate stage) so we can actually make Pennsylvania great again. So we can make it a good place to live. There's nothing inherently wrong with the state; the problems come from our economic model, and that's what I'm here to fix. If you want a status quo candidate who offers the same BS answers, feel free to vote for the other people on this stage. But if you want change, vote for me. Thank you for your time. 

Discussing the new Michigan senate debate

 So...as discussed the other day, the Majority report covered a debate and trashed Mallory McMorrow on healthcare. Well, I went back and watched this debate...and uh...it's a dumpster fire. Like, I'm going to be honest, I'm TIRED of "normal" politics. I'm TIRED of normal political answers. And this debate....is mostly that. Most questions are right wing coded. They focus on the same old crap. How are you going to compromise? I don't want a candidate that compromises. Can we stop fetishizing compromise? We compromise when we have to, but we push for solutions when we're able to. Why do we need to fetishize moving to the center? What about the budget deficit? Stop electing republicans who wanna cut taxes while getting us involved in unnecessary wars. What about growing the economy? Growth growth growth, but how does this impact normal people? What about job creation? Ffs, can we stop talking about jobs jobs jobs and start talking about ensuring people have their needs met regardless of income? All of these questions assume a certain worldview that tends to favor moderates running on moderate platforms, giving politically correct non answers that are what voters apparently wanna hear, but dont really contain substance. I've heard this crap all my life. The world never changes, it never gets any better, and all of these answers are, quite frankly, BULLCRAP. 

With that said, El Sayed nailed it. He clearly stood out, offering progressive answers to questions that broke the mold the most. He framed things well, all things considered, but still maintained that progressive flair. He was very dynamic. He was very on top of things, and while I cant say I always agreed with him on substance, he definitely won on style.

With that said, the other two candidates were....middling. Sometimes Stevens came off better, sometimes McMorrow came off better, but honestly, I didnt like either. Stevens came off as extremely experienced, acted like she knew what she was doing, and generally seemed to be a seasoned establishment democrat. I cant say I always liked her answers, as a lot of what she was selling was the same milquetoast bullcrap I just railed against, but she was relatively convincing for what it was and she did seem to play the whole "jobs" and "union" angle well, for all of her warts and flaws in my view. 

Mallory McMorrow was more all over the place. One minute shes saying that we need change and blah blah blah, then on healthcare she pulled this weird Hillary 2016esque answer about how we cant wait for some revolution thats never gonna happen on healthcare and we need solutions now. Well, Im gonna be blunt. The best solution is...medicare for all. Even as a public option supporter myself, I will concede that. It's the best, most elegant solution on that issue. My only reason for not still being a full M4A guy is wanting a different revolution on UBI, and offsetting my fiscal ambitions on that proposal by cutting back elsewhere to make it happen.  But yeah...again, McMorrow is just...bad on healthcare. I cant say her other positions were always bad. But to be fair, I can barely remember much of what she said because so much of it was rather uninspiring. It was in one ear and out the other.

With that said....while I would say El Sayed bad by far the best performance and answers in line with my whole "OH GOD CAN WE NOT HAVE THE SAME OLD HO HUM BULLCRAP?!" perspective, if you actually like that bullcrap, Stevens was very polished. She was a good bullcrapper in my view. She's a very politician-y politician. I didn't like much of what she actually said, but she was very polished and relatively charismatic for what she was. Love her or hate her, she shows a command of the centrist lane of the democratic party.

So where does that leave McMorrow? Being a middling candidate with a middling performance, not really standing out in any way, kinda being all over the place, offering politician-y answers too but them not really landing, and just...not standing out as a candidate. She was out centristed by Stevens, she was out progressived by El Sayed, and yeah, I'd say she just...imploded. I mean, that might not be fair to her. She didn't do that bad. It's not like she went all biden 2024 or something and had a brain malfunction on stage. BUT....she didn't stand out either way, and given that's something you gotta do in debates between multiple people, it's actually worse in some ways to be the person who no one remembers than the person who did bad. This isn't to say that she isn't still my second choice given I certainly aint interested in what Stevens is selling, but yeah. Her debate performance was kinda weak here.

So...yeah. That's where I stand on that. El Sayed > Stevens > McMorrow as far as this debate goes. 

Discussing "political adultery"

 So...this is a train of thought I've been having since the Platner story broke. As I said, I don't see why I should care about whether a political candidate engages in adultery. I don't care that Bill Clinton got a blow job. I don't even care about some of Donald Trump's lighter indiscretions like cheating on his wives and remarrying the people he cheated on his wives with, what have you. I don't care about Graham Platner's discretions either. And yet, some are making these out to be huge issues. Like OH MY GOD I COULD NEVER VOTE FOR SOMEONE LIKE THAT, IT SPEAKS BADLY TO THEIR CHARACTER! And I just dont get that mindset. How does someone's sexual indiscretions in that regard impact their ability to do the job. And how does it speak to their character. Is the idea "if they cheat on their wives, they'll cheat on the American people"? Is that what you're worried about.

But then I thought, wait, in a way, these guys DO often cheat on the American people. They cheat on the American people when they take corporate pac money. They cheat on the American people when they promise one thing, and flip flop on it and deliver another unnecessarily. In a way, this is political adultery. And it's extremely common, regardless of whether candidates cheat on their spouses.

In a way, my own metrics for screening political candidates attempt to detect for this. if you guys notice, I have the following metrics in my core metric for judging candidates. I have one called dedication to progressive causes, in which I measure their consistency over time on issues, and whether I trust them to actually try to deliver. Like, take Bernie. He has the most unimpeachable political character I've ever seen. 45 years in office and the dude almost never wavers from his convictions. There's a reason many of us are so ride or die on that guy. He's politically LOYAL AF. Compare this to say, a Hillary Clinton. A "pragmatic progressive", the type to promise one thing but deliver another. Take Kamala Harris, aka, Kamala Chameleon as I sometimes call her (she comes and goes....she comes and gooooeeesssss!) Promises one thing in 2020, delivers something else when she runs in 2024. A shapeshifter. Literally a political chameleon who will abandon all convictions and political positions to appease the party and her donors. She's literally the reason I invented the term "Fauxgressive", because it was obvious she was doing this in 2020, positioning herself as Bernie lite, only to end up sheepdogging us back into the democratic party establishment where good ideas go to die.

The second attempt for me to detect honesty and consistency is by judging their underlying worldview. People might wonder why i care so much about ideological worldview. It's because worldviews are literally the ideas behind the ideas. They're the underlying philosophical justifications that get us to the ideas. I would suspect someone who has the same overall worldview as me to actually share my convictions and be as genuine in those convictions as me. But someone who DOESNT share my worldview? Well, they can't be trusted to stick to the same convictions as me. Even if they're genuine, they might come to the same conclusions as me from a different set of philosophical principles, which could lead to an abandonment of support in practice as they find different compromises acceptable, or support different versions of the policy than me. 

No one matches me completely. Even high ranking candidates like Bernie Sanders and Andrew Yang. Yang is especially weak on convictions at times, and Bernie, as firm as he is in his, sometimes we just differ. But you know what? I'll go for the candidate that I deem to be closest to my views. And ultimately, I DO care about a candidate's political convictions and loyalty. 

And here's where we run into a no win situation with the centrists. I'm simultaneously told that if I care about all that ideological stuff and stuff like consistency and political convictions, that I'm a purity tester and I need to lower my standards. As if....expecting a candidate to actually represent me is a bad thing. At the same time, if I don't care about whether the same guys cheated on their life, I'm told that I'm like "MAGA" in that I'll vote for a candidate even if they lack good moral character. 

In reality, it's just...bad faith argumentation. I don't care about the character issues that dont affect how they govern in practice. Literal real world adultery is like that. But political adultery? Ie, taking money from some corporate pac or lobbying group opposed to my policy interests? Yeah, I DO care about that. Not having the best track record or consistency on representing issues I care about? I DO care about that. Because that's ultimately what politics is about. Exercising power to achieve some vision. The problem with centrists...they fundamentally dont care about the same things I do, and then they try to shift my attention to these other things i dont care about. And then they shame me for not caring about the stupid crap they care about, whether its identity politics, or some sex scandal, what have you. 

And, idk, I get it, some leftists can be overtly obnoxious about it. Sometimes they're TOO rigid where no candidate ever matches them, or they go all in with ERMAHGERD ISRAEL for some reason when that's just...one issue out of hundreds and i dont care about it more than I have to. I get that, there are times where people should be critical of some voters weird ### priorities. But if an issue is important to you and directly affects your life, no one should ever give you crap about you prioritizing those issues. Ultimately, candidates do have to earn your votes. And if they don't, that's mostly on them, 90% of the time. 

So...be purity testy...within reason. Take those 5-10 issues you care about most and hold the candidates accountable to them. Dont sweat the small stuff, but yeah. Focus on issues, focus on policies. Those are the meat and potatoes of politics. A sex scandal is that weird piece of parsley off to the side that people care about for some reason but no one actually eats. Hold candidates to account. Expect them to have answers for how their views changed over time. And stop caring about the stupid spectacles bad faith actors WANT you to focus on. 

Seriously, the reason this is an issue is because centrists dont want YOU to vote for graham platner. They want you to be offended by this scandal and to go off and vote for someone else like Janet Mills and Susan Collins. Ya know, someone who represents CORPORATE interests, and not YOUR interests. So dont buy this crap. it's literally political theater. Or to make a reference to the name of the blog, it's the shadow puppet theater, they WANT you to focus on, not the fact that there are puppet masters behind those puppets attempting to persuade you to stay in the cave. 

And yeah, that's my view on this matter.  

The more I think about it, the dumber progressive derangement syndrome gets

 So, I discussed the idea that I'm "like MAGA" if I overlook the Platner sexting scandal recently. And I completely dismantled it, showing that basically, you would need to run a literal Stalinist to get anything remotely close to Donald Trump right now. Like, the two aren't even close. And apparently someone tried the same argument on Kyle Kulinski today, and Kulinski smacked it down in his own way. I swear man, these guys get their talking points from some centralized source, because they all come out with this stuff at the same time, and they all sound the same. Anyway Kulinski had good points too. Like...okay, but what about policy? We're getting all hyped up over superficial issues like OMG A SEXTING SCANDAL when, as Kyle pointed out, his wife broke the scandal to a staffer confidentially, and then the staffer ran with it, leaked it, and betrayed the campaign. Like that's the thing. It happened years ago, the wife knew about it, and was just asking "hey this wont hurt my husband will it?" And then it leaked. And we're supposed to care about this over policy?

Here's the reality. These guys dont wanna talk about policy. Because they get completely bodied on the topic. AT BEST, the people displaying so much faux outrage are centrists who viscerally hate platner for his positions, but they cant debate those positions because they know they'll lose. And at worst...well...they can't debate their way out of a paper bag. Seriously.

I had a guy freaking out over Abdul El Sayed today. First, they compared him to a maoist. I pointed out he wasn't a Maoist, and asked them to defend that point. Then suddenly they're talking about how he didn't say anything bad about the Ayatollah. I mean...what does that have to do with the topic at hand? Iran is an islamic theocracy, and while I certainly dont endorse that, i dont see why he should have to virtue signal about it. Not do I even understand how it's relevant. So pointing out that this had nothing to do what we're talking about, some other guy jumped in and pointed out that communists supported the Islamic revolution in the 1970s. Okay...but why did that happen? Could it have been because we supported a coup in that country in the 1950s? I mean, no wonder they hate us. Doesnt mean I support Iran's government. I think they're crapbags too, but uh...I understand why they dont like us very much. I mean, would you like it if they overthrew OUR democratically elected government? 

Anyway, then the guy started calling me an R slur, going on about some weird grand alliance between islamists and communists, and asking me for scholarly sources on the iran coup thing, despite it being rather common knowledge. I provided a source anyway, but this whole line of discussion is just so off topic that it's just...no. 

I mean...these people are so dumb. This is why I dont debate conservatives much. They basically schizo post. First youre talking about one thing then they start going off topic and going on deranged rants about topics loosely related at worst, and not related at best. And honestly...let's go back to the original point. IS Abdul El Sayed a communist? No. He's at most a democratic socialist. He is a muslim, but that doesnt mean much. He's been critical of Israel. He largely doesn't seem to wanna separate church and state, but remember when I've been talking about lately. A lot of Americans seem deeply racist toward muslims and automatically view them as radicals for not having the "right" judeo christian belief system, even if they dont want to, in any way, impose their beliefs on the rest of us. I mean, it ultimately is a policy and worldview discussion. It's the judeo christians vs the world. And they think if you're not on their side, you're evil. But they say that because they know they cant control you. That belief system a tool of the wealthy to control the masses so they screech THEYRE NOT LIKE US! and attempt to appeal to a common set of values.

But that's the thing. I might be white, male, and of a judeo christian background, but being an ex christian, I dont have that worldview either, and I believe that worldview is fundamentally evil. I mean, I dont like islamic fundamentalism either, i wanna make that clear, but my view is this, i'm a secular humanist, I want a world based on freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom FROM religion, and right now I'm far more scared of the christian nationalists than I am of islamic extremism, which largely doesnt exist in the US. Just as you can be a christian and still be a rather chill guy who doesnt wanna shove that crap down everyone's throat (see james talarico or the pope), you can also be a muslim. And I'll work with just about anyone who has common goals. 

And thats the thing. You leave that christian worldview, and suddenly progressivism makes sense. Suddenly you see the world for what it is, understand that the people screeching loudest about western values are actually some of the most deranged people on the planet right now, and basically ARE the american version of the taliban, and that if anyone are the bad guys, it's them. Which is why they're trying to declare anyone who doesnt embrace THEIR worldview a terrorist. They literally view half the country as terrorists, and they're scared of actual progressives getting into power.

But that's the thing. Being a secular humanist, and a veteran of online debates, i mean, my political views were literally shaped by intense debate in the early-mid 2010s, I see through this crap. And at the end of the day, again, keep in mind what I said, what these guys care about at the end of the day are white, judeochristians who embrace right wing economic views like the work ethic and a strong ideologically positive view of capitalism. 

So when you got some brown guy who isn't christian talking about giving everyone free healthcare, these guys lose their crap. But you know what I say? your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer. And these guys literally can't debate properly. AT BEST all they're doing is offering a masked appeal to their value set, thinking that the people they're debating actually SHARE their values. And at worst, they just sound like unhinged morons. 

Really. It is as kyle said. At the end of the day they'd choose susan collins over graham platner. Because a literal republican has values closer to them than platner does. Platner is a threat to them, despite being a white guy running for congress. And the same with el sayed. These guys love to play the blue no matter who card to get us to support centrists who dont represent us, but when the shoe is on the other foot, i swear these guys would probably support mike rogers over el sayed if he got the nomination. 

And then in texas, well...the attacks against James Talarico are even worse. They tried painting him as a vegan, only for him to take a nice big bite of meat at a barbecue. They tried painting him as gay, only for him to have this hot latina girlfriend. I mean, it's pathetic. These guys attacking progressives are really pathetic people. 

And I'm not gonna say any of these people are perfect. Quite frankly, I'm put off by james talarico's explicit christianity and believe that that mindset is going to cause artifacts in his worldview that cause him to oppose several goals of mine. I dont like graham platner's reddit communist past and think that's a red flag. I question of El Sayed can even win in Maine given polling, and I think he's a lot more abstract on policy specifics than say, mcmorrow was, and I actually do support a public option due to my own ideological and policy based nuances. So let's not act like I agree with any of these guys completely. But here's the difference. I offer minor POLICY and IDEOLOGY BASED criticisms. I look at what they wanna do, what they actually believe,  and I evaluate them based on that. And again, I certainly dont agree with them 100% of the time. I'm NOT some "MAGA like" guy. Im NOT uncritical of people I support. I just understand my own views are so niche that no one really matches me 100% of the time. But you know what? I'll support the people who get me closest to where I wanna go. 

Centrists dont cut it half the time because they dont actually wanna go there. And I've seen through their act for years, and now it's blunt now that progressives are actually winning primaries. These centrists HATE progressives on a pure value level just like we progressives hate them. I've said it for years, these centrists are about as far away from us as they are from republicans, and some of them seem to actually prefer the republican over the progressive. So much for party loyalty and voting blue no matter who. And all this stuff has always been in bad faith. Called it since 2016. Not sure why so many people bought into the blue no matter who crap. Maybe we need it now given trump IS literally as bad as he is, but again, trump is a special case. He's the exception to the rule, not the rule. The rule is you vote for whomever you want and candidates earn your vote. You suspend the rule when a fascist tries to destroy democracy itself. 

And youd think, for all the western values screeching, these guys would care more about that. But no, it seems like they'd rather openly embrace a fascist actively destroying this country from within than vote for someone who wants to give people free healthcare, which is fricking disgusting. Again, all the western values virtue signalling these guys do is a scam. They dont actually care. At the end of the day, they care more about the conservatives' values than actually promoting an alternative.

Which is...quite frankly, what caused me to not wanna vote for them anyway. I wanted an oppositional force to the republicans, not just a diet version of them. These people are a diet version of them. And they're the ones screeching about this stuff. Screw these people. Seriously.

It'll be glorious if we see El Sayed, Platner, and Talarico all win their elections this fall. I love watching these guys crash out. And I hope in 2028 we get someone actually good. Because guess what, I DO wanna beat trumpism, but we need to do it with a progressive, not a diet republican who is gonna be so weak he's gonna breathe new life back into MAGA.  

Why is Mallory McMorrow so bad at this?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

*sigh*