The future of the republican party

 So, we already know about the democrats. I've discussed them at length, but this time I wanna talk about what I see the future of the GOP as. There are multiple ways it can go post Trump. 

The moderate path

The best path for the country is if the GOP goes the moderate path, here, they kind of implode after Trump. The Trump administration is so bad it leaves a sour taste in the mouths of voters for decades, emboldening democrats and progressives to move left. This awakens a coalition that has long been coming for the democratic party, in which people are actually enthusiastic to vote democrat. We see the democratic party not just win in 2026 and 2028, but also 2030, 2032, and onward. The republican coalition just...implodes. Post Trump, the appeal is gone, and the demographic time bomb goes off as boomers start dying off and millennials/gen Z are the dominant voting blocs. It's over, done, and the GOP becomes a semi permanent minority party.

It will begin clawing back some support through the 2030s as an opposition inherently develops to the new democratic led paradigm, similar to how the GOP eventually came back after FDR and Truman, but they might not hit their groove until 2040 or later. Between now and then, they just find themselves unable to win elections, as the majority of the country overwhelmingly becomes comfortable with the democrats. It's only when people finally tire of democrats that we see a new republican administration take form.

The extreme path

I mean, the moderate path is the one I'd like them to take. It's the one that kills the coalition and leads to unconditional ideological surrender. But I dont think the coalition is just gonna die. The thing is, going moderate WILL kill it. Neocons are dead. That wing of the party has lost the ideological battle since 2010 and has been rejected over and over again. They aint coming back. If they did, the party would refuse to vote for them because they're not like the democrats and their "vote blue no matter who" crap. 

So...as I see it, the future of MAGA isnt gonna go quietly into the night, and quite frankly, I dont trust the democrats to land the fatal blow. Whats likely gonna happen is they're gonna reject the institutional conservatives with the Trump administration, the ones who are pro Israel, who wanted war. And they're gonna become more openly anti establishment, but also more anti semitic. Think Nick Fuentes. Think those republican group chat people talking about gas chambers, yeah.

And you know what? if democrats fail to deliver change in 2028, well, we're gonna see republican turnover in 2030 and 2032. That core MAGA base, that 30-40% of the country that's ride or die on them, will vote for them. And a lot of the same independents who have been swinging elections since 2008 or even earlier will swing back to the republicans. And the dems will lose, the GOP will win again, and once again we'll have to learn that you dont touch a hot stove. It seems cyclical at this point. Like that was the realignment. The GOP implodes, the dems implode, the GOP radicalizes and implodes, the dems moderate and implode. And nothing ever gets better, it keep getting worse. This cycle continues until roughly 2052 when we enter an 8th party system as some crisis blows up FORCING broader changes. If democracy even exists by then. I'm not sure it actually will at this point. And yeah.

Which is more likely?

We are on the path for the second one. Sadly, the democrats seem to be blowing it and are unable to land an actual fatal electoral blow to the GOP and its coalition. I suspect they'll win in 2026 and 2028...but 2030 and 2032 are not guaranteed, and its very well possible we'll see a GOP resurgeance after that as whatever MAGA remnants claw their way back to relevance as the dems run out of steam. I'd love to be proven wrong, but the dems just seem hopeless and we seem locked in this pattern. As I said, Im not sure if 2016 was a realignment or just the start of a dealignment. The current parties are closer to their 6th party system versions than something new. MAGA is just the stage 4 cancer version of the Nixon/Reagan coalition and the current dems are still fundamentally the Clinton coalition. Thats the problem actually. The parties are still stuck in their 6th party system versions when theres been a push toward wanting change that the system isnt delivering since 2016 and arguably since 2008. But if the democrats dont emerge as that change agent in a positive way, we're just gonna be stuck in an extended version 6th party system as the same voting patterns emerge as the parties resist change, so we just spend the 7th party system bouncing back and forth between the parties.

The closest historical analogue to this is the 2nd party system between the jacksonian democrats (MAGA and this case) and the whigs (dems in this case). And that party system was worthless and it just led to the civil war. We literally have whole eras where nothing good happens because the politicians just are serving whatever corporate or special interests exist at the time, and the people want a change that doesnt come. But then eventually a bigger crisis down the road forces the change to happen, leading to a period of rapid change followed by stabilization around a new status quo. We might be in one of THOSE realignments. Which sucks. It means we're a lost generation similar to the people who lived in the final decades of slavery, or in the gilded age where the politicians ignored the issues, but then eventually were forced to act.

If we are on this path, I'd expect this crisis to occur in around 26 years in 2052, or 36 years after 2016. 

However, if we assue a 48 year realignment schedule (similar to the 5th-6th party system), its possible that 2016 was a 1968 like dealignment, 2028 is the real realignment as the backlash to trump is so severe it leads to a transformational democratic presidency, and that will officially kick off the 7th party system, leading to its eventual collapse around 2064, and the next realignment to occur in 2076. It really depends on what timeline we're on and what assumptions we make. I guess we'll see what we get in 2028. Everything for now is speculation. 

Roleplaying as a republican strategist from 2008-2024

 Today's thought experiment of roleplaying a republican strategist for 2026 got me thinking: how would I handle the GOP if I remained a republican? I mean, I was a republican, but I left. But that begs the question, say I remained one, how would I have evolved with the party and where would I be with it today? I'm going to somewhat leave ideology out of it and focus on winning, but I will have a few frank moments where am blunt about where I feel like the party went wrong and crapped the best. With that said, let's begin. Btw, presidential elections will have maps but midterms won't, simply because i aint creating new spreadsheets based on old election data. 

2008

*sigh*, so this was painful. I was a republican back then. I didn't like McCain. He was too close to Bush. What the republican party needed at the time was a reset, a clean break from the Bush administration and its problems. It needed to get back to the basics of conservatism, which involved distancing itself from Iraq, and wanting to balance the national debt. That's what I thought at the time. I supported Ron Paul in the primary. I was willing to cross the aisle for Clinton, but not Obama. 

Anyway, with us basically locked into an unpopular Bush third term, with McCain promising to be in Iraq for 100 years if needed, and the country facing a massive recession not seen since 1929, and Obama being the hope and change guy, there wasn't much the GOP could do. Run a different candidate. Something more akin to the tea party. Again, Ron Paul caught my eye but the party was fundamentally uninterested in him. 

Looking at the map, we couldn't do anything with this. The fundamentals were just too bad for the GOP. You would need Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada just to barely win. It wasnt gonna happen, GOP enthusiasm was at rock bottom and the democratic enthusiasm was too high. 

2010

So...in 2010, the GOP ran against Obama. Claimed he was expanding the national debt, that he was implementing socialism, and the enthusiasm gap flipped. Those college students who voted for Obama in 2008 stayed home, and republicans acted like the sky was falling under Obama. To be fair, it worked, 2010 was a massive victory for republicans, and I wouldnt change a thing. That "reset" or "back to basics" I wanted in 2008 came to be with the tea party, and yeah. It worked. 

2012

Here's the thing. It's easy to campaign, it's hard to govern. The GOP was good at campaigning, but after it had to govern, enthusiasm dropped again. 

I would argue the GOP brand was fundamentally unpopular. If I had to sum up why they lost, it would be rachel maddow's election night take. The GOP was out of touch with constituents and reality. I made a horrible mistake, thinking that the answer was to go back to basics and to run the tea party. Because when the tea party got in, they proved they couldnt govern worth a crap. Their policies were poorly designed to the point of being dangerous. They were pushing some narrative that the problem with unemployment was the people being too lazy and we needed to cut unemployment to give tax cuts to billionaires to create jobs. The republican party was pushing religious based governance not based in reality. And yeah, 2012 is the year that broke me as a conservative. It was the year I realized, not only is this a poor implementation of conservatism, but conservatism itself is bad.

What could have saved the GOP here? Honestly, I'm not sure. Elections are won by enthusiasm. The republican base is too far right for its own good. It LIKED the tea party stuff, if you abandoned it, you would lose those voters. You cant do the moderation thing dems like to do on the republican side, because the republican base WONT TURN OUT FOR YOU. It's what I always tell liberals and why i base my own electoral strategy on running far left. But at the same time, the reality of winning elections for republicans is that while they have a very energetic base, their brand is gonna alienate independents. And it seemed, at the time, that over time, that base would grow smaller and smaller as more older people died out, and would be replaced by more liberal younger people. The GOP was facing down a generational shift that threatened to dislodge them from power. And much like in 2008, I'm not really sure what they could have done. 2012 was more winnable than 2008 was, but it was still a hard nut to crack. Priorities that played well with the republican base alienated swing voters hardcore, who were still pissed off over the economy. And that brand of conservative economics that the base loved, swing voters HATED, because reality didnt match the brand the GOP was selling. 

2014

While democrats were dominating nationwide, the GOP was able to carve out a political map that guaranteed them house control in 2011, so they did pretty well nationally. Even though democrats won the popular vote in 2014 in the house, that didnt translate to winning districts due to aggressive gerrymandering. They could take the senate because land voted, not people, but yeah, the GOP is mostly held together by this point by institutional advantages favoring rural voters that give them an outsized advantage in the electoral college. Their brand of politics does okay, but as we discussed, it's only popular among the core base. Swing voters HATE it. The core reason republicans could win was a combination of low enthusiasm from the democratic side, and aggressively abusing institutional advantages that made them the winner even in the face of steady coalitional decline. The reagan coalition was aging out. The likely path from here was actually the democrats having a realignment and the GOP needing to rebuild themselves back up as a moderate party. 

2016

2016 started as 2008 part 3 for republicans. Jeb Bush, "please clap", more trickle down guys. Yay... More religious evangelism, yay.... I mean, as you can see, my own biases and character shine through, but you understand why I left and decided 2016 was time to end the reagan coalition once and for all? To be a republican by 2016 who was self aware and not a delusional radical was an exercise in self hatred. But....fortunately, we were in a self hatred competition and our opponents were the democrats. They nominated Hillary Clinton, one of the easiest candidates to attack ever. Who has about as much energy as McCain and Romney did herself. And while yeah, for all intents and purposes, she should have won, she managed to basically throw the election, especially as voters made up their minds in october/november. 

And eventually, by election day, the map was this:

Remember this? I predicted this as a democrat. But yeah. The democrats kind of screwed up. They got cocky, arrogant, and ended up costing themselves the election. Yeah, kill all enthusiasm among your voter base (the opposite of what Obama did) and tell them they better vote for you or else. Brilliant! Yeah, they blew it.

And as a republican, I'd kind of feel like we just somehow got a gift here. A path back to electoral relevance when we should have been toast. I mean, I'd be lamenting the blue wall like most in the GOP would. But by election day, we got that mapp, and that at least gave us a path to success. 

The fact is, 2016, everything went right for the republicans, and everything went wrong for the democrats. The swing vote wanted change, and the democrats repeated our 2008 mistakes by basically running a third term no one wanted. The obvious path was to push for a democratic tea party here, and they did the opposite of that. They ran to the center, trying to pick up McCain and Romney voters that they didn't even need.

Meanwhile, Trump was able to unite and strengthen the party. Trump brought new energy to the GOP. While the democrats embraced woke (seriously wtf were they thinking?!), the republicans could now be the more rational social issues party, arguing against tone policing and in favor of free speech. We could activate the christian nationalists. The white nationalists, who we certainly dont support but they vote for us anyway. And we somehow got the swing vote. By blaming immigrants and outsourcing for the lost jobs (again, roleplaying here), we could get the swing vote to give fiscal conservatism another chance! Oh yeah, it's all coming together...

Which brings us to the map. My own pathway would've been those 4.5 swing states I focused on: Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and ME2. If we could get all 5 of those we could get exactly 270. I'd also probably focus on Pennsylvania and Colorado based on this map, but probably not expect Wisconsin and Michigan. 

In the real world, the map was all over the place. Clinton got Nevada, we got Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. The vote that really did it was the white working class vote the democrats alienated. Seriously, they went after voters they didnt need and abandoned the ones that they did. They miscalculated and it cost them hard. 

And yeah, that's how I'd see 2016 if I were a republican. Much like I did in the real world, but just laughing at the democrats misfortune and wondering wtf they were thinking with such a terrible strategy. This was a totally winnable election for them. And it should've been the election the republicans imploded for good, leading to the rise of the 7th party system. Instead, their own strategy just breathed new life into the republican coalition, as they were able to appeal to their traditional voters but also appeal to disaffected swing voters who the democrats functionally abandoned. 

2018

However, much like with the Obama years, once getting into office, the GOP has to govern. And if the GOP brand of politics isnt popular, no amount of campaigning will fix it. The democrats siezed on the opportunity to attack Donald over everything. Just like we did Benghazi in 2012 and 2016, they started screaming conspiracy theories about Russian involvement (note, that was real, but again, roleplaying a republican here). And to be fair, Trump was kind of stupid and boorish. We had our best guys trying to help him govern, and we kept him in line with GOP priorities, but RINOs like John McCain and Mitt Romney (ya know, the losers who cost us 2008 and 2012) obstructed the GOP where it matters and we failed to pass much. Still, we got tax cuts and the economy was good. Arguably we were distant enough from 2008 where we could prove republicans could do a good economy. And we could even do a lot of press events with donald saving factory jobs. 

Still, people really dont like how boorish that guy is and how incompetent he is. It goes with the territory. Trump is gonna appeal to his base, but yeah, swing voters are gonna go the other way. Not sure what can be done here. It's the problem the GOP has had since the tea party took over. Bad at governing, unpopular politics that is unappealing once anyone has to deal with it in practice. Honestly the only thing keeping the GOP in the shape it was was the 2016 F up the dems did. 

2020

OH NO! WHY?! So...the bottom fell out. The economy crashed, and Donald's in office. ANd he's doing stupid crap claiming that COVID would just go away. Honestly, the best we could do as republicans is what the real world republicans did. Paint lockdowns as a liberal thing and run on reopening the economy, virus or no virus. THis wasn't popular. It was also dangerous. By this point, the GOP was just basically letting people die to COVID in the name of the economy and hope it wins them an election. The GOP played their hand well, but yeah, with this map, there was only so much the GOP could do:

2008 part 4....here we go...

And again, keep in mind until we saw 2020, I thought 2016 was a fluke. I'd probably have the same idea as a conservative. With that said, I'd be satisfied with the fact that the GOP did as good as it did. It looked like a reversion to the 2012 style map honestly. The republican base loved Trump, some independents loved Trump. But yeah, we just cant win when a global pandemic happens during election year and your candidate is out there talking about injecting people with bleach. 

The GOP may have staved off its imminent defeat by lucking into Trump, but the same problems remain. I mean, I would have to have no soul and no conscience in the real world to remain a GOP operative by this point. I'd be lying to the american people, with the lies becoming increasingly more dangerous. And by 2020, they were basically encouraging people to sit together and avoid pandemic protocols during an election rally? And then herman cain dies? I mean, again, this is just...dangerous. Real me has a conscience. I cant do that. Like really, this is getting to be some dark the end justifies the means kind of stuff. 

Anyway, what could I do with this map? Repeat the 2016 strategy basically. Which almost worked, but it didn't quite work, because again, you actually have to govern and the GOP is terrible at it. They lie to the american people, misrepresent the science, and while it's very popular among their psychotic voter base, normies are terrified by the GOP. They can gain power out of power, but they cant maintain it. At this point, the only thing keeping the GOP going is the dems not realizing the gold mine they're sitting on, and not actually being competent at politics themselves.

A note about January 6th, demographic change, etc...

So I wanna be real with people. I dont support january 6th. I dont support great replacement theory. I dont support the GOP's right turn. I believe the democrats rightfully won the 2020 election and earned it. 

However, in roleplaying as a republican here, I can understand why this party is getting desperate. it seems quite clear from 2008 on that this is a party that is in deep crap. They got an ever radicalizing voter base, they terrify the normies. Drive the moderates out of the party. It seems obvious that the only thing holding the GOP together is the dems not knowing how to do politics.

I can understand why the GOP would turn to authoritarianism as they have. I mean, the demographic time bomb has been apparent for them for a while. And they live in existential fear of losing their cultural hegemony. Between America becoming more demographically diverse, and the older generations aging out, it looks like all trump really did was delay the inevitable. I mean, for now, at this point, you could argue the GOP could win elections again because the dems arent doing much better. Im a democrat IRL, my opinions on them are pretty known. If I were to look from the outside looking in, as a conservative, I'd kind of realize they hold the keys to the future. They're checkmating us. THey are just blundering so hard themselves they dont realize they won.

And that's why the GOP took an authoritarian turn. They know their time is up and its only a matter of time before the dems get their own realigning election. So, the GOP strategy is to break democracy as much as possible to maintain their power. And the core voter base behind trump was willing to commit an insurrection to achieve that. 

So at this point, the GOP is leaving the realm of fair electoral politics and going into authoritarianism. 

2022

Mid terms. Clear pattern by now. Party that is out of power gains electoral strength, party in power loses it. Democrats got caught with a time bomb at just the wrong time. Republicans lost in 2020 due to the pandemic, but the democrats got the recovery. And that makes the job easy for us. We just complain about the economy and insist if WE were in charge, we wouldnt have these problems. It's lazy people who dont wanna work. It's all those checks. We got a crime crisis, we got a border crisis. Everything is a crisis. Everything is bad. It's all BS, but the people won't know that. And of course, it seems to be working. Republicans are up, democrats are down. But then....oh no. OH NO, NOT NOW. SERIOUSLY SCOTUS, DID YOU HAVE TO DO THAT NOW?! DO YOU HAVE TO REMIND PEOPLE HOW MUCH WE SUCK!? Yeah, they shot down roe v wade. It's been a campaign issue republicans have rallied around since the 1970s. But....it's the 2020s. It's NOT the 1970s. It's only the religious nuts who want this! Normies HATE this! And that's the problem with being a republican. The base is extreme, and the normies HATE the GOP when they actually do stuff because only like 30-40% of the country likes what the GOP stands for. The rest just vote for them because they dont like what the democrats are doing. However, the GOP cant abandon the base because then the base will abandon them and throw them out of power. But then because they have to cater to the base, they cant appeal to the moderates and swing voters who fundamentally agree with the democrats on social issues. And while this should be a very red year as people dont like the democrats either, it ends up being a lot more blue because the GOP reminded everyone how much they suck as well. The fact is, no one fundamentally likes either party in charge. Each party has its base, but swing voters just vote for the side they hate less at the moment. It's enough to keep the GOP relevant, as the democrats arent doing any better, but it's not doing the GOP any favors.

Can the GOP save itself?

I mean...this is the thing we really gotta ask. The GOP has that fundamental issue. THe base is too extreme, alienates swing voters. Normal politics that appeal to normies alienates GOP voters. The GOP is trapped. It cant appeal to normies without losing its base, it cant appeal to its base without losing swing voters, so much like the democrats it only wins when the other party is fundamentally unpopular. 

Trump does bring new opportunities to the table, being able to unite the base around social conservatism while moving ever so slightly left on economics. He has a populist branding that the tea party conservatives dont have. He's the only guy who seems capable of bringing the party together, but even then, when he governs, he has the same issues as all of the others. Because he's fronting an extremist republican agenda, he's fundamentally unpopular in office, he has that 40% of the public that is ride or die on him, but that isnt enough to win elections.

Even worse, Trump is becoming more authoritarian. Although, the GOP seems willing to enable that. So it's going in a direction of trying to dismantle democracy. It's got the dark enlightenment billionaires behind it, it's got these neo fascist types, and project 2025 aimed at accomplishing generational change. At this point, the GOP sees its future in rigging the electoral system. It needs to win, get into power, and then break democracy enough where they win every time. They want to systematically disenfranchise people who they dont want to vote. This is why they're focusing on extreme gerrymandering, voter suppression, etc. THey know they cant win reliably through fair electoralism so they're thinking "well maybe not everyone should vote." So yeah, they're to a point, after around 15 years of a demographic time bomb on their mind, and no clear answer for them to save their party, they're starting to eschew democracy instead. If only they vote, they can win. So now we're in a scary phase where they're trying to literally rig the system through authoritarianism where only they can win. Which is why they're so aggressive with ICE, they are using it to accomplish demographic change (keeping the white majority). It's why theyre focusing on voter ID and ending mail in ballots. It's why there may be another january 6th type coup this year. This is where the GOP is at. They're looking at the same problems Im looking at in this article and they're going "yeah, if we cant win democratically, then maybe its time to end democracy." 

2024

This brings us to 2024, where donald Trump runs a much more fascist campaign saying things like "vote for me and you'll never have to vote again." And thankfully for them, Joe Biden's approval is in the toilet. People arent happy with him. He's old, he falls asleep, we had all that inflation. Remember inflation guys? Arent you angry about that? What about the crime crisis, which only exists because in 2020 crime was down because of lockdowns. Same with immigration. Arent things SOOOO BAAAADD?! And with that, Trump was able to have his mojo again. He was able to be the outsider, who if he were in charge things were better, seriously, remember how great his first term was? Just ignore 2020. Remember when prices were low? Dont you want that again? 

Meanwhile the democrats were like "and when we finally defeat medicare"....oh no, Biden's brain broke in the middle of a debate. Or should I say...OH YEAH!

See, democrats have an issue of foisting fundamentally unpopular candidates on the public. They have the opposite problem. Democrats were the losing party last realignment, so they are experts at self loathing. The only thing keeping the GOP relevant is really the fact that they're in a self loathing competition with the democrats and the democrats have had decades of experience. No, a better world isnt possible, you better vote for us or else, and then when we lose, its your fault for not voting for us. Democrats are professional losers, conditioned by their losses when the republican coalition actually had real power. The dems, if they played it smart, probably could destroy the GOP for good. Run a progressive who fundamentally changes the values of the electorate through their sheer popularity like FDR did, and boom, you got a once in a generation transformational change that ends the 6th party system for good. But they dont do that so they keep giving the GOP a gift in the form of being able to pick up elections despite the obvious demographic issues they got going for them. 

And thankfully for us democrats, they cant govern worth a crap either.

But this is 2024.

Anyway, here's Biden's map, but then they got rid of Biden since they knew this was looking apocalyptic for them, and then we got Harris.

But yeah. Oh my god, if I were a republican I'd have to wonder wtf they were thinking running the senile old guy who no one liked again. I mean, really, its like the only thing holding the GOP together at this point is democratic incompetence. 

And yeah, as long as the GOP downplays all that scary project 2025 stuff and they let trump be trump in campaign mode, they can get in power again. But then we got harris.

Harris would have scared me a lot more than Trump, mainly because she had more popularity and enthusiasm with young people and initially, she was able to call out republican BS. Like calling us weird, wtf was that? We (republicans) ARE weird. Like, as a republican i wouldnt be able to deny that. We are the weirdos who wanna control people socially. And our economic ideas are just there to screw the working class and benefit the rich. The only thing catapulting us to relevance is the american people being fundamentally stupid (with us wanting to keep them that way) and democratic incompetence. ANd if the democrats become competent, well, they can win!

Fortunately, the democrats arent that competent, and Harris ended up listening to their own consultant class nonsense. Those guys are professional losers. They fundamentally dont understand politics. Anyway, being a republican from this article I guess I cant complain. 

Anyway was executed as well as it could have been. And Trump got into office. However, despite his attempts to concentrate power, he's been unable to break the electoral system, he screwed up the economy and now in 2026 we got a blue wave upon us. Speaking of which...

2026

Oh god this isn't good. We really dont know how to govern. Trump might be the one guy to keep the coalition viable, but hes an idiot who literally cant govern. His tariffs are destroying the economy, he invaded iran, and hes being far too blunt with his authoritarian impulses. At this point, yeah, the best we can do is hit platner with everything we've got hoping we can keep maine, but it's kinda hard when trump is THIS BAD at this. It's like american politics are in a race to the bottom of who can govern worse and despite democrats dropping the ball, now its our turn to have a fundamentally unpopular dementia addled 80 year old running things and alienating people. And now because he exerts so much control over the party he's driving out the only sane people who can theoretically save it. AND NOW WERE PROBABLY GONNA LOSE THE SENATE!

If I were still a republican by 2026 I'd feel like that guy from license to kill who yells at franz sanchez (the bad guy) that hes ruining everything and then gets shot him. GOP leadership is literally that bad. The only thing that can save the party at this point is the dems just....sucking almost as bad, and then people forget how much we suck.

Conclusion

Honestly, you can see why I left the GOP. I have a brain, I recognized their principles werent for me, and honestly, they're insane. They are driven by an ever radicalizing base of extremists while alienating normies. If I were still conservative at this point, i'd be like, yeah, maybe if you just go to the middle...but instead they run to the extremes. It does give them some success, in years where democrats drop the ball. But then democrats win in elections republicans drop the ball. 

We can also see where these authoritarian impulses are coming from. They are sitting on a demographic time bomb and they cant win without changing the voting demographics of this country, either through mass deportations of minorities, voter disenfranchisement, brainwashing the next generation, or taking away reproductive freedom ensuring more babies are born of the demographics they want. Which is...why they're so extreme. They cant win in the long term otherwise. The only thing keeping them relevant is the dems being just as unliked as they are, so the swing vote keeps bouncing between the two hoping one of them gives a solution to the economic angst they feel. The right never will. The left can, but won't. I would argue by rights, the future belongs to the democrats. But if they refuse to step up, we might be stuck in a pattern where we just flip back and forth. The 7th party system feels like an alignment no one wants. But we might be stuck with it, where no party wants to be dominant, or can't. The GOP wants to, but cant without force. The democrats can but dont want to. Or it might be that because the dems drop the ball, the republicans end up just eroding democracy and establishing a dictatorship around their ideas. Ideally, Id like to see the dems go full FDR but they are incredibly resistant to that.

But yeah, thats where we're at. Anyway, this was just a thought experiment. Trying to see things from the other side, since i used to be on the other side. And uh....yeah. 

Election Update: 6/5/26

 So I'm gonna start doing more regular election updates. Not sure on the schedule yet, I normally like to do "whenever I feel like it", but I am thinking maybe a scheduled one every month? Maybe every few weeks? It'll get more frequent closer to election time. But yeah. I figured, first Friday in June, they dont do polls over the weekend as much, let's go. 

Senate

 

 

The senate forecast is leaning toward democrats now. I would say they have roughly a 60% chance of taking it. Republicans have a 35% chance, with 5% being a tie. Of course, a tie is functionally a republican win, so that would be a 40% chance in practice. So yeah, basically a tossup, but one that's dem favored. 

The map is pretty bad for republicans. I was even thinking, if I were a republican strategist, what do I even do with this? As we'll get to with the house, the public has shifted 9 points in favor of dems since 2024. It was up to 11 but those bullish averages kinda dropped back down. I'd be like, we're tied in Ohio, we're losing Alaska, Iowa, and Texas, wtf are we even doing here? Like, these were R+13 firewalls in 2024's presidential. But...that's what happens when your president doesnt deliver and then he implodes the economy and gets us into a war he promised not to get us in. And then he gets up there and goes on about how he doesnt care and he wants a ballroom. Real "let them eat cake energy" there. As I said back in 2025, this should be a layup. Sure, maybe they'll lose a seat or two, but that should be the extent of the bleeding. Republicans are really crapping the bed.

Honestly, the best strategy I could think of is just to do damage control on Trump and focus on specific races. I mean, while Maine is likely D, with Platner, there is a vulnerability there. If the republicans can hammer away at his average by unloading on him with scandals, or even better, if they can dislodge him on the eve of the primary so they run Mills again (keep in mind Mills was barely winning against Collins if she could win at all), then maybe they can keep Maine. North Carolina is lost. Georgia and New Hampshire, fat chance. Nebraska....well....it's generally an R favored state, but they're up against Dan Osborn. I'd just hold the line and say if we did it in 2024, we can do it again. Texas, probably lost for republicans, Paxton is the GOP's platner with no charm. Wtf trump was choosing nominating him is just...no. Iowa, Alaska, just keep holding the line and hope that we can do damage control. Ohio, hold the line. Michigan, hope the democrats pick El Sayed and hammer him as an extremist. It's all the GOP can do. It's a very bad year for them. All in all, If they can get michigan, keep maine, and then get at least 2 of the 4 red firewall states, they'll at least hold it 50/50, but yeah, that's not an amazing chance. I'd be crapping my pants if I were a republican tasked with holding the party together. It's hard to do damage control and campaign intelligently when you got a dementia addled 80 year old who acts like a toddler and goes on about how he doesnt care about the plight of the american people in the worst inflationary crisis in 50 years, which he started btw. I'd just be witnessing the blue wave with dread.

Now, as a democrat (or dem leaner), I, on the other hand, am very happy with the current situation.  As a democrat, I'm looking at this like....yeah, Maine is almost locked down. THey're really hammering platner, but after roleplaying as a republican, you can see why they're going all in with the platner scandal, their best bet is to dislodge him before primary day so the GOP ends up with a weaker opponent. Dont fall for it, especially since the NYT article isnt landing well and is coming off like a hit piece on graham. North carolina is ours. I'd be cautiously optimistic about polling in the red firewall states, but i wouldnt count my chickens before they hatch. The polling is close and keep in mind, the polls can be wrong. Dems can still lose this. I wanna believe, but yeah, I'm not really fully confident either. MIchigan...idk what's up with that. it's way to the right of the other states. And while yes, that's El Sayed data, Stevens and McMorrow data arent much better, only bringing it from lean R to tossup. I think the dems can win here, after all, it's basically reverse texas polling wise right now. So yeah, cautious optimism for the GOP, cause of alarm for the dems. Ultimately, this can go anywhere between 54-46 Dem, to 48-52 GOP. Most likely result is 52-48 Dem right now. 

House

 

As always, take my house model with a grain of salt, this is experimental and a "fundamentals" based forecast. Even worse, it's a highly simplified one. We discussed it before, but yeah. As of now, we can expect a 9 point shift from 2024. We were up to almost 11 like a few days to a week ago, but yeah. It doesn't change much. Raw model gives me 234-201, although when I adjust for gerrymandered districts I get 232-203 Dem. Other models I've seen online seem to hover around the same results. I mean, this is where we're at probabilistically. When the dems having almost a 98% chance of taking the house, and with the republicans being functionally locked out of it. In statistics, when dealing with polling, 95% two tailed (97.5% one tailed) is the gold standard. That's about an 8 point advantage in my model. We're at 9, making the result even better, and only with slight corrections do we see it drop back to just over that 97.5% mark. I'm A LOT more confident we take the house than the senate.

And again, what does the GOP even do here? You cant do damage control for the loudmouth in chief because he keeps undermining you because he doesnt know when to shut up. All they can do is gerrymander like there's no tomorrow and try to implement the "Save America" act to destroy mail in voting and implement voter ID. The republicans are in a position of being fundamentally screwed. 

Governors

 

Yeah, here's the map. I have no idea what's going on in Georgia without polling. And yeah not a whole lot to say on this one. It looks mostly...normal to me. And yeah, PA isnt even in the prediction because they're like 20 points ahead or something crazy like that. 

Conclusion

All in all, the democrats are in good shape and republicans are in bad shape. The fundamentals look like they'll carry the dems to victory, even in the senate where they're somehow ahead in relatively safe R states. The republicans have limited ability to do damage control. Trying to empathize with their position is painful because imagine trying to do damage control and then Donald gets up in front of the nation and opens his big mouth again. His choice of paxton over cornyn was self destructive, and yeah, the GOP is basically imploding bad right now. 

Barring outright stealing it, I dont see the GOP winning here. They got the house locked down, and the senate is a tossup, but still slightly favorable to dems. It shouldnt even be anywhere near a tossup. GOP should hold firm control of it, but that red firewall is breaking this year, BADLY. 

At the very least, I can understand why they're throwing everything they can and the kitchen sink at Graham Platner. That's like the one thing they CAN attempt to control for. Even then it doesnt seem to be working. It's like frieza throwing an energy ball into a spirit bomb heading right for him. Ya know? 

So yeah. I'm feeling pretty confident right now, as a democrat.  

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.