Dear SJWs, the world shouldn't revolve around you and your "comfort level"

 I've been doing a lot of these kinds of posts lately, but I had another debate with them about the cultural changes in video games related to recent events in the gaming industry. This one generally involves the sexualization of women in video games. Now, as we know, women generally are sexualized somewhat in games. They often have physically attractive proportions and skimpy outfits that men tend to like, since let's face it, the core gamer audience is young males between say, 13 and 30 or so. Not saying others can't enjoy games, but most people who are gamers fit largely into that, and I see no reason for that to change.

Except...a lot of what the culture wars with gaming are about, ie, the sweet baby inc controversy, etc., IS about that. Generally speaking, you got these SJWs coming into peoples' fandoms, and saying things need to change to fit THEIR comfort level. And i have to say "so...everything has to change around YOU? I can't enjoy what I've always enjoyed because YOU aren't comfortable with it and don't like it? Screw off!"

And that seems to be what this whole culture war over gaming is about. It's basically what gamergate turned into 10 years ago, and it's happening again now with sweetbaby inc, and other groups like it, and all the DEI stuff happening in games. 

Generally speaking, these guys cant just let things remain as they are, EVERYTHING to them is political, and EVERYTHING must change to fit their cultural values. And they're trying to manipulate the "free market" to do it, while triumphantly shoving it down the throats of traditional gaming demographics and even antagonizing them when they push back.

Now, I'm not super hard on the pushing back. I'm not what I'd consider a "gamer gater" and I largely sat that one out. And even now, I just want to enjoy games. but I'll be blunt, I REALLY don't like the idea of these people coming into our fandoms and forcing the world to change around THEM. Some people like the world just as it is, and no, we shouldn't change, not one iota, for YOU.

If you don't like gaming as it is, and has been, then don't engage in it. No one is making you. I just dislike it when you guys have to come into stuff that i enjoy and change it to conform with your values.

Anyway, the discussion I had involved "comfort levels", like women employees in gaming companies dont feel comfortable making sexualized characters. And...if you don't, that's a YOU problem. if you're hired to work for a studio that has historically made those kinds of games, i fail to see why that should change because you're not comfortable doing it. Work doesnt exist for the worker. Work exists for the product, and if you can't do the job you were hired to do, you should find another job. And before people remind me people have to work somewhere because of wage slavery, I know, and I support a UBI so no one is forced to work in fields they aren't comfortable with. But that's the thing. If they're not comfortable with something, rather than demanding the world change around THEM, they should go off and either start their own gaming companies with their own games. Maybe make some lame "depression quest" type game. Just dont sleep with reviewers for reviews if you dont want criticism for that behavior. We all know how that worked out last time. Or maybe, just don't work in that industry at all, or work at all. Heck, if SJWs are soooo uncomfortable with the world around them, I support their right to self isolate at home and live in a safe space where their only social contact is other weirdos like them on twitter. I fully support their right to do that. You do you. Live on your terms. I don't wish to take that away from everyone.

 But here's the thing. If we just let the whole world revolve around the lowest common denominator in terms of who takes offense to something, and let's face it, SJW mentality largely leads to precisely this, no one can ever enjoy ANYTHING, because it might offend SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE. And at the end of the day, people gotta suck it up if they wish to exist within normal society and NOT self isolate to extreme levels.  

Heck, I'm going to be honest, I think even what's acceptable to 50% of people isn't really good enough if we care about liberty. I think that we should generally support as free of a free marketplace of ideas as possible, and only interfere if the person is actively harming or harassing others.

Like, the guy I was arguing with decided to go with the extreme example of nazis in the workplace. Under the rules of liberal democracy, and the rights granted within, nazis have the right to exist normally as everyone else, if they aren't violating the rule of law. I think they should be left alone in their job unless they're causing trouble in it or making the workplace problematic with others. but as long as they treat others courteously and professionally, I think no action should be taken against them. If others have issues with the person's private views, that is THEIR issue, not the person in question's. 

But, that's the thing. Again, SJWs think there should be this informal system of holding others accountable for violating their standards, and they love the idea of exerting power over those who disagree with them. They have this deep seated idea that others who dont think like them should be PUNISHED, even if they don't call it that and they hide behind some form of "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences." Well....if using your speech has consequences, then that is a violation of freedom of speech, and it means you don't have it. I mean, on paper you do, but in reality you don't, because you're punished for expressing it. As we know from the problem of work in society in general, private coercion is just as real as public, state mandated coercion, and they're trying to engage in it to explicitly punish people for violating their views.

And while I don't always think such behavior should be respected since to some extent it is the market in play, I don't think we should just be okay with it either, or encourage it, and we certainly should mitigate the worst aspects of so called "cancel culture."

Even if it's against "nazis". Because let's face it, if you allow it against nazis, you clearly established that there's a line somewhere and then it really comes down to where the line should be. And then you're debating on THEIR terms. And I refuse to debate on someone else's terms here. So no. I'm going to defend free speech even in the most extreme examples, and simply say that if you don't like another person's views, then that's a you problem, granted they are not taking an action to make you comfortable. If they push their views in the workplace or call you a slur, or harass you in any way, that's one thing, but that's an action that in itself can create a toxic environment against others. But again, if they just have those views and keep them separate from work, then that's a you issue.Other peoples' rights shouldnt be violated because YOU feel uncomfortable. 

And to bring up another example this guy tried pushing on me. Okay, so sexualized women in video games. If making sexualized video game characters is part of the job, then you do it or you find other work. Ya know, same things I'd tell to an anti porn christian working in the porn industry, or a jewish person that works in a deli that serves pork, or a christian who specializes in making wedding cakes and doesnt wanna serve gay people. You're there to do a job, do it or get out.

But...if you're sexually harassed at work, and someone accosts you, or makes you uncomfortable, and won't leave you alone, yeah, that's making an uncomfortable work place for you and i can see action taken there.

See? Two different things. One is part of the job, and the other is not having to put up with unwanted advances made by others. i dont know why separating the two is so difficult for this person. They really are like taking uncomparable situations and blurring the lines to try to push the idea that yeah, the whole world should revolve around people and their precious little comfort levels, and I obviously don't agree. 

The fact is, if you dont like something, don't engage in it. No one should be forced to engage in something, or a work place, that they feel uncomfortable with. BUT...you dont get to go in and tell everyone else they have to change to accommodate you either. And that's where my head is at. I support freedom. Everyone shouldnt have to go out of their way to appeal to you.

And heck, I'll even take an example of this for myself.

I recently bought a couple games in the last big steam sale about a week or two ago now. I got cyberpunk 2077 and starfield. Now, the offending game here is cyberpunk. like, this game is REALLY overtly sexual. Sex scenes, sexual references everywhere, parts of the story take place in strip clubs, one of the main characters you interact with is a prostitute. Another one makes "brain dances" which is basically super realistic VR porn. Yeah it's really overtly sexual. Uncomfortably sexual, even. I didnt realize this when I bought the game. But, you know what? Am I whining and demanding the entire industry change around me and my standards? No. I can either enjoy the game, refund it (if eligible, a bit too late for me at this point), or not play it. That's on me to decide what I do. It's not up to the developers to make me comfortable. They wanted to make a game like this, and a lot of people love this game. Despite the early issues with bugs its pretty critically acclaimed. Who am I to say others shouldnt enjoy a game like this? Im not expecting the world to revolve around here and my personal comfort level here. I understand that not every game has to appeal to my tastes anyway. Also, there's always starfield which seems a bit more straight laced in that sense.

The fact is, not all games have to appeal to certain people and certain standards. We're allowed to like different things. And again, if people feel like something is "uncomfortable" to them, there's the door. Stop demanding society change around you in this sense, as you're massively inconveniencing literally everyone else in the process. And that's what really seals it for me here. It really IS a freedom issue here. And it really is that any changes or deviation from my rather extreme open point of view literally does inconvenience others. People shouldnt have to change or have their freedom to enjoy what they want to enjoy restricted because YOU don't enjoy it or it doesn't make YOU comfortable. Stop trying to demand to change the world around you. You have a right to enjoy what you enjoy and I do support some changes that would increase YOUR freedom to do that. Just dont make others change to accommodate you. 

Dear SJWs, you're not gonna die if you're not the center of attention

 So...my anti identity politics stances are....controversial on the left to say the least. A lot of leftists seem to have a seething hatred of my politics, and whenever I take pot shots at identity politics online, I always get some huffy SJW getting in my face and acting like identity politics is a matter of life and death. Like if the whole world doesn't revolve around the women and the minorities and the LGBTQ+ community, that they're LITERALLY gonna die, and that this is a matter of LITERAL life and death.

To which I'm gonna say: chill out, it's not 1945 any more. The number of people who wish actual violence and harm on those who are members of those groups are small, and those guys are relative extremists. Most normies in society wouldn't wish DEATH on anyone, and I feel like it's hyperbolic and in bad faith to act like if the whole world doesn't center around these groups, that they're literally gonna die. It's nonsense. No, it just means that the whole world doesn't revolve around them. Stop being so dramatic. 

I would say "no one" is like that, but then they cite some weird extremist religious group who wants to kill LGBTQ+ people or something and it's more like "okay, so ALMOST no one". Sure, if you look hard enough, you can find idiots who believe in literally anything, but those guys are fringe, and probably already on some government watch list because right wing terror groups are actually are biggest threat to national security, and have been so since literally before 9/11. 

Either way, just because whackjobs exist, doesn't mean that our entire political perspective should be dedicated to being against those guys 24/7. Also, there's more than one political perspective that can address those people. As for religious whackjobs, secular humanists have been doing a pretty good job for decades now reasoning people out of religious extremism. And I felt like we were winning on the issues until the SJWs appeared and basically enabled the Trumpers via trevor's axiom. And beyond that, ideals like liberalism, with a dedication to equality, the rule of law, a system of rights, I mean, no one who is for that stuff is actually for hurting anyone, but protecting them. We just do it in a sane way that doesn't involve obsessing over the issue or virtue signalling about it. 

If anything, my dear SJWs, you guys CREATE extremists. Because you're annoying, obnoxious, and self righteous, and you end up driving people AWAY from your causes. You are counter productive to your own goals, and if you stayed out of your own way, the world would be a much better place.

So knock it off. We can accomplish what you want, we just dont do it in the annoying superficial and socially performative way you guys do. No one actually wants people to be harmed. Well, okay, you can probably find some whacko if you look hard enough, but again, fringe people and fringe groups. Normies and the center of america just doesn't care. They just wanna focus on kitchen table issues, like the economy. And that's what I want to focus on too. 

It's wild, a lot of people on a left have created a culture where it's actually bad if people dare think about issues that affect them, and they're selfish jerks and "horrible people" (to go off of my previous article) if they dare be self interested and vote for their own best interests. And then the left wonders why they lose elections. Maybe because you stopped meeting people where they are and making their lives better and instead just care about superficial morality and socially performative bullcrap? Duh. Lay off this stupid bullcrap.

PS, to the zionist I argued with today, no, thinking Netanyahu needs to tone down his war crimes doesn't make us anti semitic either. I've been extremely pro israel all things considered through this whole conflict. I only backed away because gee, not even I can look at some of the brazen war crimes the IDF is committing and think that what's going on is okay. But don't think that means I somehow wish for the destruction of the Israeli state. Because I assure you, I do not. our countries have a mutually beneficial relationship and I just wish your country would stop putting my guy Joe Biden in a tough position where he might lose an election to a fascist because people are pissed about the stuff going on in your country and won't let it go. Mmkay? Mmkay.

Lay off the persecution complex, guys. Rejecting one extreme doesn't mean an endorsement of the other. And no, you're not gonna die if we triangulate to the center on issues. If anything, you'll gain support, and when you gain support, you gain security. I'd rather have 100 moderate normies facing down an extremist, than 5 SJWs and 95 people who are like "F this" because you pissed them off. Remember the Obama administration, we were winning back then on a cultural level. And we could again, if we go back to that era of politics socially. And that means getting rid of this weird social justice brainrot the left has had over the past decade.

Here's a hint: I don't care if people think I'm not a good person

 So, this has been something I've been wanting to write for a while, and I've finally gotten around to doing it. A lot of people think that shaming me or telling me I'm not a good person is going to in any way change my belief system, but I'm going to be honest, it's not. I think what I think, I'm comfortable enough with my own belief system, and I don't care about your morality enough to be influenced by your judgments of me. 

This applies to people of all ideologies. It applies to religious conservatives who think I'm a horrible person for being okay with abortion or not drawing my belief system from divine command theory. It applies to libertarians who think I'm a thief for wanting to tax and redistribute income that they believe they have a literal divine right to. It applies to SJWs who think they can shame me about not caring enough about the women, or the minorities, or the LGBTQ+ people, etc. It applies to liberals who think I'm a selfish jerk for putting my own concerns first. It applies to the leftists who shame me for not caring enough about gaza. It applies to the zionists think I'm anti semitic for thinking Netanyahu is going too far with his war crimes. I. Don't. Care. 

Really, I don't care what you think of me. If you think I'm a bad person, cool, but I probably aint a fan of your ideologies either. Heck, I'm quite critical of other ideas on my blog. I support what I support, and if you don't like it, there's the door. You don't have to listen to me, to be my friend, or whatever. I'm not gonna change just because people don't like me. I like me. I built my own ideology from scratch, I've decided to take right and wrong into my own hands, and to create my own value system. And that might make me relatively lonely, with a lot of people think I'm a bad person for not fitting into whatever box they want to fit me into, but ya know what? I don't care. I'm comfortable with my own morality, if anything, what I'm not comfortable with is compromising my own morality to please others. I'd rather be me and have people hate me, than to be something else and for people to like me. 

I just wanted to throw this as a warning out there for anyone who thinks telling me I'm a bad person is gonna get me to change my view. It's not. If anything, doing so is gonna make me double down on my own views, especially the parts that you hate, and being proud of them. 

Ya know, I still have a bit of that "own the libs" mentality in my mind from what I was a conservative. As such, performative shaming actions are just gonna end up pissing me off and making us less likely to find common ground than more likely. Because if something about my perspective irritates you, and you yourself are being irritating, then I'm just going to emphasize that part of my worldview out of spite for you. 

So yeah, don't try that crap on me. Fair warning.

Okay, seriously, how fricking idiotic and racist are conservatives?

 So, normally I don't wade too deeply into this stuff, but the amount of derangement I'm seeing coming out of conservative circles is so bad even I feel the need to address this. Basically, this is about the bridge thing I discussed earlier. Conservatives, rather than coming together in a moment of tragedy, are basically going full racist over the incident for some reason.

Now, you might wonder, okay, what does this issue have to do with race? And the answer is: IT DOESN'T. It has LITERALLY nothing to do with race. But conservatives, for some reason, are making it about race. 

So, first weird accusation. "OPEN BORDERS DID THIS!" Uh...okay. How. Was this a terrorist attack committed by an illegal immigrant? Were illegal immigrants even remotely involved in this? Of course not. I don't even know what they're even on with that one. 

I mean, this is what went down to my knowledge. The ship had power issues, the people piloting it lost control of it, it rammed into one of the supports, and the whole bridge went down. Tell me what this has to do with illegal immigrants. Was the captain of the ship an illegal immigrant? Was the engineers who made the ship illegal immigrants? The crew that built it? I mean, tell me. Because I just don't get it.

Now, the second big racist criticism: "DEI DID THIS!", as well we calling Baltimore's black mayor talking about the tragedy a "DEI mayor."

First, what is DEI? Basically, it's a buzz word that's been going around lately that means "diversity, equity and inclusion." Basically, it's a fancy woke term for hiring minorities, because they're minorities, so we can force some sense of diversity down peoples' throats. it's actually been discussed quite a bit in gamer circles with all of the sweet baby inc stuff. Basically, as we know, social justice warriors have a fixation on racial equality and tend to apply some heavy handed methods to accomplish their goals. One thing they like to do is preferential hiring treatment of minorities and other "underprivileged" groups. This isn't new. I mean, the term is, but "quotas" and "affirmative action" have been pretty debated and controversial for decades.

Personally, I've always been against the idea. Because I believe that hiring people should come down to merit, primarily, and this is basically just reverse racism. And even more so, as a liberal, I believe that this stuff basically provokes racial resentment that we should otherwise avoid. It makes people more racist, specifically because we get people claiming that people are only in certain positions because of their skin color, rather than them earning it. I mean, really, this is why I encourage the left not to lean into this stuff, but they do, and this kind of mindset is the result.

And I hate to have to play the conservative whisperer here, because I see a lot of liberals saying "what does this have to do with DEI", but to translate as an ex conservative: "well, if they hired people who actually knew what they were doing (based on merit) rather than hiring minorities for its own sake, this wouldnt have happened." 

And...again, they're kinda losing the plot here. I mean, we have this major disaster, and the first thing these conservatives have to say is if white people were in charge (let's face it, that's what they're saying), this wouldn't have happened? Okay, how exactly is this due to diversity hires? if the mayor was white, would this have happened? Yes. If the pilot of the ship was white, would this have happened? Probably yes. So...what are we saying here? 

I mean, really, that's where this really ends up just collapsing under its own weight like a bridge after being struck by a cargo ship. How fricking racist are you to see Baltimore's mayor, who happens to be black, talking, and your first impression is "DEI!" At that point, you're just deranged and obsessed with the idea. By the way, Baltimore is a black majority city, so statistically, the odds are, the mayor is gonna be black. And beyond that, how does DEI work with elected office in the first place? Sure we got the insufferable identity politics circlejerk dems like to play sometimes, but even then, I've yet to see anyone who was blatantly unqualified elected to office simply based on race. The point is, you gotta win an election to be mayor, so he definitely earned his position. 

I'm not saying that DEI isn't a problem in America. Again, I've seen this discussed in relation to the video game industry lately. You got people like sweetbaby inc trying to inject identity politics into video games, maybe they make some diversity hires in studios, and yeah in that case you can maybe say something about it.

Here though, screaming about DEI is just flat out racist. I mean, let's be honest. Being a mayor is not easy, especially for a big city like baltimore. This dude probably works very hard all of the time keeping the city running smoothly. He's probably much smarter than most of the people criticizing him. Heck, I know he is because the logical reasoning of the people making these criticisms is just nonexistent or very tenuous at best. Someone who has to plan an entire city of almost a million people is generally going to be much smarter than that. I mean just looking him up, dude is a college grad, and has experience on the city council, so he has some reasonable qualifications for the job. And on top of that, one thing he's known for is having a UBI trial during his tenure. So yeah, as you can tell I'm warming up to this guy a lot. Can he be my mayor?

But let's put this shoe on the other foot, imagine if this tragedy happened in say, Beaufort SC and I said it was because they hired some dumb hick with a high school education to run their city. The conservatives would be losing their crap if I said that. Well, that's what you guys sound like here. Stop embarrassing yourselves, seriously. 

Again, if conservatives want to criticize DEI when DEI is an actual issue, I'm up for it. As I said I'm not a fan of it. But the right has wokeness derangement syndrome. They define their entire worldview as being anti woke and are leaning very intentionally into some racist tropes. As some comments I've seen on some forums pointed out, these guys would, in a previous era of politics, calling the guy some pretty vocal racial slurs that I will not repeat here. 

Let's keep criticisms to legitimate issues, and let's not try to use national tragedies to push political gains like this. It just makes you look tacky, racist, and stupid.

The Francis Scott Key Bridge disaster is terrifying to me

 So, this isn't gonna be a heavy political post. But, the news story today involves the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore collapsing. I'm going to be honest, I've gone over this bridge a few times before. I don't live near Baltimore, but if my family is driving south on I-95 (and we all know how much I despise I-95, especially the whole Baltimore-DC area), there are four ways around Baltimore. There's 695 to the west of the city. These days, this is my go to route, but back in the day, it used to be all traffic. I remember between baltimore and DC we'd lose half a day just sitting in traffic, it was crazy. And again, better now, but back in the 90s and 2000s? Yeah, terrible. Then there's 95 and 895, which involve going through the city and taking tunnels under the inner harbor. Those suck and are traffic filled messes. And then there's the francis scott key bridge on the east side. And it was a toll route, but if you wanted to minimize your stress and maximize your sanity, this was THE route to go. Now, again, in more recent years, it hasn't been worth it to go that way. 695 has been pretty decent when I pass through so we just take that. 

 But yeah, now I'm just imagining myself going over this bridge, playing pokemon in the back seat, and then the bridge just collapsing because a big ship hit it. That sounds like a terrifying way to go. As reports indicate, the thing's like 185 feet off the water, you're basically falling a LONG way. 

 Now, at the same time, at least it happened in the middle of the night. Less traffic, but still, given how it's a big fricking bridge, there still probably were quite a few cars on it, and we don't even have a death count to my knowledge. It's just called a "mass casualty event." That's terrifying. I'm not sure if something went wrong with the ship, or it was negligence, or what, but yeah. That's terrible. I just wanted to mention it since, I have gone over that one before.

Just a reminder: negative income tax and basic income are fiscally the same thing, the difference is ideological

 So, I keep getting this, especially from people of a more centristy persuasion, that negative income tax is better than basic income because it's fiscally smaller.

Yes, on paper, it is. This is because an NIT has the government calculating benefits via a bureaucracy, while a basic income tends to give everyone the basic income whether they need it or not. They think that NIT is better because it costs less, and because "people who don't need it" don't get it.

But for me, that's actually why I dislike NIT. Look, basic income is supposed to be an unconditional grant given as a right of citizenship. The entire point is that no matter what your circumstances, rich or poor, working or not working, whatever, you get this check as a GUARANTEE of a decent life.

I don't want a bureaucracy determining who gets what. I don't want people filling out forms to prove their need. I don't want the government to potentially gatekeep getting aid in other ways like welfare often does by requiring a work requirement, or requiring people to fill out cumbersome paperwork, and needing to sit there waiting for some government bureaucrat to determine whether you "deserve" it or not. No. Again, this is supposed to be a right of citizenship. 

My views on this subject actually come out of my ex conservatism. As Ronald Reagan once said, the nine most terrifying words in the english language are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." Why do conservatives hate government? Because they don't do anything right. They screw up everything they touch. And to some extent, the GOP operates on the basis of making sure it stays that way. So they break government more. They add more requirements to aid. They make the paperwork more cumbersome. They add work requirements. They add drug tests. They set time limits. The entire point is to break these programs so badly that most Americans lose faith in the system, which breeds resentment. When a citizen requires help, they have to fill out complicated forms and get grilled about every aspect of their private life, but then they see someone else, possibly a minority (we all know this is driven by dog whistle politics) who gets this stuff and the resentment begins. "I work SO HARD, why do we have to spend my life working, but they get everything for free?" So, they end up making it even harder. They add more forms, and more requirements, and more hoops to jump through. The entire point of the right is to claim the system is dysfunctional, while making it more dysfunctional, to ensure that public confidence in it remains low and resentment remains high.

And democrats fall for it. The whole concern about fiscal responsibility is a trap. It's intended to get you thinking along the lines of a right winger, where big broad changes that help people are bad, so we need more limited aid that has more requirements so only those who deserve the aid get it. Who "deserves" it? Well, they're always sure to discriminate between those who are deemed to "need" it and fall victim to something "through no fault of their own", but if you say, don't WANT to work, or something like that, you're to sink and swim. 

Fiscal responsibility in this sense is an explicitly centrist or right wing framing with an explicit centrist or right wing underlying ideology. it's the worldview that some people deserve aid, and some don't. it's the idea that taxes and government spending should be low so that people can keep more of their own money, that, ya know, they earned, from work, because we all know that they're all jobists who think this way.

Even if they, on paper, think 'gee, but we don't HAVE to put work requirements on it, just fill out a form", they ignore that the right is SALIVATING to add work requirements, and SALIVATING to make the aid harder to claim. So that they can undermine the system, cut spending, push us further to the right, and then claim government doesn't work. 

All going NIT does is cede ideological ground to the right, and to those who think that what justifies property rights is labor. Meanwhile, in my view the reason we link property rights to labor is merely to incentivize work and to give people rewards for working. Because if there was no reward, who would work? And yes, to address that criticism of my ideas, yes, of course we need work linked to income to some degree, but that degree is only to the degree that it is necessary to motivate people to work. I don't get all riled up in the morality of work and "earning" something. People end up taking it well beyond its functional necessity into a right of its own. And even a full UBI gives people plenty of room to motivate people to work. Again, because UBI and NIT are functionally the same thing. 

Say you earn $50,000 a year. If you have a basic income of $15,000 and a tax rate of 20%, you will get $15,000 and see $10,000 in additional taxes. This will net you an extra $5,000.

With a negative income tax, the same structure can apply. You get $15,000 as a maximum benefit, and for every dollar earned, you lose 20 cents of your benefit. If you make $50,000 a year, you will lose $10,000 in benefits and get $5,000. Gee, what do you know, they're the same thing? Yes, they don't appear to be the same thing fiscally. UBI is "more expensive", because it will tax people and then give the money back while the NIT will rely on bureaucracy to calculate the net benefits, which filters out all of the redundant transfers. Both have the government functionally do the same thing. The reason fiscal conservatives and centrists like NIT more is because it appears to be "smaller government". They hate the idea of the government taxing people. So why have the government tax people and raise trillions in revenue when we can just have a clawback rate of 20%, and phase out the benefits up to $75,000, at which point THEN you'll start paying more taxes? That way, you'll "save money" as those rich people who "dont need it" won't get it, and it will be "cheaper." 

Well, again, for me, the point of UBI is, in part, to shift the narrative around government benefits on its head. You see, this NIT stuff sounds good to moderates and fiscal conservatives who like the econo speak of "saving money" and "fiscal conservatism" and also the weirdo left wing moralists who hand wring about the deserving poor, but whose support for the poor is more about superficial morality than about actually meeting their needs. But make no mistake, such people are a bit more conservative than me ideologically. And they seem to like smaller government budgets and pathological government control over peoples' lives.

I don't think bureaucrats SHOULD decide who is worthy or not. I don't think we should have to fill out forms. I don't think we should jump through hoops. I don't think we should have to prove we're looking for work, or not on drugs, or not spending the money on lobster and steak, or whatever weird arbitrary tests conservatives are screaming about this week. 

Because welfare is about taxpayers getting their hard earned tax dollars taken away to them and given to someone else, and it's all about need, and it's all about whether they deserve it, and it's all about control if the recipient. If the money isn't "theirs" but the government's, or the taxpayers, then those entities can exert control over individuals who receive aid. hence why we subject people to so much bullcrap. Compare this to a program like social security which has less restrictions because it's seen as "their money."

I want basic income to be "their money". I want the basic income to be an ENTITLEMENT. Something you are entitled to simply because you were born in this country. This basic income is supposed to be a right of citizenship, and NO ONE should have any right to take that away from you. It's like that commercial: "It's my money, and I need it now!" Does it seem a little redundant up the income stack? Sure. Is it more expensive? Sure. But at the end of the day, it's still the same policy. The difference is basic income's true cost is stated up front, while NIT tends to hide a lot of it by cancelling out the redundant transfers before they happen. A basic income might tax you for $10,000 to give you $15,000. A negative income tax will just give you $5,000. The redundancy might seem pointless and a pain in the neck to some people, but this is loaded with the ideological assumptions I stated above. And I, myself, have a lot of ideological assumptions. Because ultimately, I want to flip the script on the subject. I don't want basic income to just be "another welfare program" but something truly transformative.

Also, if we taxed people right, they wouldn't even notice. because we would take the tax right out of one's paycheck like a payroll tax, ideally. Sure, it's there on the pay stub, but you dont actually have to fill out forms or pay anything, it's done automatically. That's how I envision it anyway. Sure, people who declare their income outside of a job might need to keep track of their own finances, but you know what? They could choose to simply pay the government a certain percentage as the money come in to minimize their burden. And then they can square up whatever difference in accounting exists at tax time. The point is, I want people to have access to their basic income no matter what. Even if they're filthy stinking rich. Trust me, that rich person gets a UBI, but they also kinda don't. Because they pay far more in taxes than they're getting. Them getting it is symbolic. They are, too, citizens, and no matter what, they can count on that poverty line income every year. But again, their tax burden will be far in excess of it. 

I just wanted to go into this again since I had someone try the whole "but NIT is more efficient and rich people won't get it" thing again. To which I say, "imagine being so progressive you only want to help SOME people." I really wish I could break people out of this welfarism good mindset. I guess to some extent, it happens among more fiscally conservative liberal types, but it's still something I find offputting as fudge. It really as if a lot of liberals primarily support welfare because its the superficially moral thing to do and they don't think about the actual consequences of policy. Or they don't care because they're kinda conservative anyway. I'm just pointing this out.

Why "the left" has lost me this election cycle

 So, voting for democrats, or voting for a third party? What should I do? That's the eternal debate I've faced every election cycle I've been on the left, minus 2012 where I just voted Obama because I hadn't fully thought out my views yet. And since 2016, I've mostly voted third party, for the greens or something like that, over the mainstream democrats. Some of it was out of spite, and a lot of it was out of a genuine desire for the left to move further left. But honestly, for the most part, most leftist candidates have been kinda cringe for me. I really had the eternal debate even as early as 2016, where I asked, do I suck it up and vote for Hillary who I despite but who I know is actually kinda practical on policies, or do i just vote my conscience for Jill Stein, who I knew was kind of an idiot and had no idea what she was doing policy wise, but it served as a good virtue signal? in 2016, given my distaste for Hillary, virtue signal won. 

However, things have changed. I have made metrics to give me a good idea of who I should vote for for president, and I do tend to hold candidates accountable. In 2020, I found centrist candidates lacking and leftist candidates to be objectively better by those metrics. But as the battlegrounds changed from 2020 to 2024, and I fine tuned the metrics, I find that hey, leftists don't really scare that much higher than centrists these days, if they score higher at all. We see this with how I gave Biden a 66 on the primary metric I'm using this election cycle, whereas Jill Stein is down to a 45, and Cornel West is a bit higher at 50. Candidates like Marianne Williamson is a bit higher, at 77, but still not amazingly higher than Biden. In 2020, Biden was like a 40, and Bernie was around an 80, so what gives? 

Well, let's look at the metric and see what differences we can really find

The metric

The primary metric I use to judge candidates for president is intended to be a snapshot of every single aspect of what I value for the job, ranging from support for my top policies, to support for other policies, to ideology, to commitment to progressive goals (as I define them), to their competence, and even, this time around, whether they are running as a democrat (since stopping Trump is a major goal of mine that overrides a lot of what I'd normally care about). Basically, it's 100 points, and I rate every potential candidate out of 100. Now, no candidate actually gets 100, it's intended to represent an ideal, and most people fall short of the ideals in some way. I only score an 87 due to my lack of experience and the fact that I suspect I might make some political compromises I wouldn't in an ideal reality. Bernie is actually the archetype of the perfect candidate, and much of the metric was designed around him, although to be fair I do diverge from him on issues like UBI and the like. 

Generally, if you score above 80, that's very good. Scoring above 70 is normally a vote clincher, and, even above 60 can still be rather solid. Most centrist dems scored between 40-60 in 2020, although we can see, they are doing somewhat better this time.We'll see why going over the metrics itself.

Basic income support- 10 points

Basic income is an issue I believe in strongly enough to give a purity test to. Very few people score well on this, since very few people are for UBI. 10 points means you have some sort of sustainable UBI plan that guarantees an income near the poverty level. 5-9 means you might have some sort of flawed plan or a lukewarm commitment to the idea but still nominally support it. I also give partial credit (1-4 points) for things like expansions to the child tax credit, UBI trials, that sort of thing. 

For reference, both centrists and leftists kinda suck at this one. Leftists tend to not support UBI or are lukewarm with it at best. Most are more interested in a green new deal or job's program, and as such, I rate them accordingly. Centrists ironically sometimes get partial credit. I gave Biden a couple points for his child tax credit expansion, for example. I gave Gavin newsom credit for the various UBI trials he signed off on in his state. Dean Phillips also got the same treatment here.

So ironically, sometimes centrists actually outperform leftists here. 

Medicare for all support- 10 points

This is my other big purity test issue I deemed enough to make its own category. Look, we need medicare for all. And I hold people to that. Now, to be fair, given the difficulty of funding medicare for all on top of UBI, I can be flexible. hence why a public option gets a decent amount of partial credit, from 3 points all the way up to like 8, if it's like a really good one. This shift has allowed me to be a little more favorable to centrist candidates like kamala harris, whose healthcare plan is reminiscient of medicare extra for all.

What matters to me ultimately is support for some sort of universal healthcare guarantee. I can be flexible on implementation somewhat. Medicare for all was a hard purity test in the past, but now I can be swayed to support a more moderate plan if it still meets my goals. This has allowed some moderate candidates to gain a little support. 

Other economic issues- 10 points

Here, I just give an overall view on their economics other than UBI and M4A. Other purity tests like free college, climate change, housing, etc. are included here. As are stuff like $15 minimum wage, union support, etc. Centrists can actually rack this up decently if they're not for full on UBI or M4A if they're otherwise quite progressive on unions, a $15 minimum wage, and have moderate plans on college, housing, and climate change. It's why Biden does so well here. he might not meet all my standards, but he kinda sorta gets there enough where he can at least score decently here. Meanwhile a leftist will often blow this one out of the park, but only do a little better. The marginal value of outflanking centrist dems to the left here only amounts to maybe 1-3 points, especially as centrists move left to appeal to Bernie voters. 

Social issues- 10 points

Honestly, this is a metric where centrists and progressives both do good, and sometimes centrists do moderately better. Leftists tend to go hard into wokeism, which actually works against them a bit here. Meanwhile shifts right (center) on immigration, identity issues, and guns are actually kind of welcome. However, shifting right on the wrong issues (like abortion) can hurt somewhat. Still, leftists and centrists generally score fairly similarly to each other here.

Foreign policy issues- 10 points

In previous elections, this kinda felt unnecessary to really discuss. I didnt care much about foreign policy, I'd classify myself as somewhat noninterventionist, given the big issues of the day were Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Basically, my goal was "don't mess up", meaning, dont get us entangled into more wars, but also dont do something stupid that makes us look weak.

In 2024, however, we've shifted. Biden finally pulled out of Afghanistan. And while that withdrawal was messy, it was necessary, like ripping a band aid off. So I give him credit for that. However, now the big issues are Ukraine and Israel. On Ukraine, I'm full on supportive of funding arms for Ukraine, but not fighting ourselves, which is..exactly what Biden is doing. And on Israel, I'm nominally pro Israel, but at the same time, I dislike Netanyahu's treatment of Palestinians in his war in Gaza. I still believe we should support him, allies need to stick together, but I do have distaste for it, and I'm not super sympathetic to Palestinians for various reasons. 

As such, when I look at foreign policy, and I see Joe Biden and centrist dems, this is like...EXACTLY WHAT I WANT. Meanwhile, the left is losing the plot. They don't wanna send arms to Ukraine, they are going completely bugnuts CRAZY on the palestine issue, and they're making THIS their line in the sand.

I'm sorry, but this is where I diverge from the left significantly. I LIKE Biden's foreign policy, that's my jam. Being a sane, moderate dude who tries to keep the US safe and gives arms to allies, but stays out of conflicts himself. Who leads from behind, and let's others do the fighting for us. I dont want to get involved in everything, I aint really a full on interventionist. I dont want troops on the ground mostly. But...I do still believe in helping and enabling allies. And Biden does that.

Quite frankly, the left has a very foolish and short sighted view of the world. They can't make the hard decisions needed to act in America's best interests. They're blinded by morality and often a sense of "DAE America is actually bad?" Leftists can be good at a lot of things, but their blind morals and empathy are an issue at times. We need to be practical. And to some extent, we need to get our hands dirty with foreign policy to actually keep us and the parts of the world we are allied with safe. The world isnt always a nice place, and I'm not saying we shouldnt try to make it better, but again, logistics. And when you think stuff through, I just go back to realizing "oh crap, Biden's right" and let him do what he's doing. 

So centrists are going to score very well, and leftists are going to bomb here hard.

Ideology/Worldview - 20 points

This is a big thing I deem very important, and it's kind of a combination of the above metrics, but more philosophical and abstract in nature. I am looking for people who think like me, on economics, on social issues, on foreign policy. As I see it, people who are similar to me philosophically, are going to make similar decisions to me, because their minds will work similarly. This doesn't always work. Take Yang. He's a UBI supporting human centered capitalist but then he implodes because he keeps selling out his issues to work with others. Which brings us to the next metric in a minute, but first, to finish this up. I'd say, generally, economics is gonna have the biggest impact here, although diverging opinions on social policy or foreign policy will have impacts. Centrists end up doing kinda meh on it. I give them like a 8-12 depending on how progressive they are. Sometimes more toward 12 these days as they ARE moving left and we ARE seeing some bernie ideology in there. Leftists often score higher, up to 16 (keep in mind the differences on work, UBI, etc.), although lately with the foreign policy thing, and the wokeness, that is dragging them down closer to like 13-15. So....we can see...how the center is moving left, and the left moving too left is actually hurting is, to the point that they're scoring more similarly than they would otherwise. And then if the person in question professes hardcore communism that can hurt them more. So....centrist dems score okay, but then leftists are starting to score only...okay. See how it ends up breaking even somewhat?

Consistency/commitment to progressive goals- 10 points

What good is support for progressive goals if you dont stick by them? Originally, this was intended to differentiate between Bernie and what I called a "fauxgressive", someone who faked left, but would run to the center post election time. However, it also just tests for the ability to follow through in general. If you stick to progressive campaign promises, you do well, if you pull a yang and you wonder what happened to UBI, M4A, and human centered capitalism in his platform (you knew this was coming), then yeah. I'm not gonna think very highly of you here.

And of course, to some extent, it's commitment to MY goals. So if you say you're for UBI but you're lukewarm about it, I will note that here.

Leftists generally score a little higher here, although Biden hasn't done bad at all. Again, gap is closing.

Experience/competence- 10 points

I mean, look, we need people in office who know what they're doing. Moderate, establishment democrats tend to have experience in lower office. They were congresspeople, mayors, governors, etc. Leftists CAN have experience, like, say, Bernie or Warren, but many don't. And that lack of experience comes through in mediocre policy implementations (if they even know what they're doing, a lot of them have NO clue). I mean, I'm not saying it isnt possible for people to learn on the job. But ultimately, I do give an edge to candidates who know what they're doing, like Yang. A huge issue with virtually all lefties in the 2024 race is they do HORRIBLE here. Dean Phillips was a congressperson, but Cornel West, Jill Stein, Marianne Williamson, they aren't people with good experience at public policy. At best they're emulating Bernie (for the record outside of UBI most of my policies come directly from Bernie's 2020 campaign), and at worst, they have no idea what they're doing. And it's often difficult to if they even know what they're doing.

So the center does well here and the left...bombs.

Not acting as a spoiler- 10 points

Look, donald trump is a threat to democracy, and I'm going to favor candidates who run as democrats over candidates who don't. This is why Marianne Williamson and Dean phillips often get better ratings than people like Jill Stein and Cornel west. It's not the whole reason, but we can see why Biden would be favored here. It's gonna favor Biden. Because stopping trump is a priority.

As such, let's compare a generic 2024 establishment democrat vs a generic 2024 leftist:

Basic income support:

Establishment dem- 2 points

Leftist- 3 points

The establishment dem is gonna have nominal support for a child tax credit expansion. So might the leftist, but no guarantee. At best they might discuss about maybe investigating UBI but no real promises to implement it.

Medicare for all support:

Establishment dem- 3 points

Leftist- 10 points

This is the one area the leftist excels on. Medicare for all support is a common tenet of leftist economic platforms, while centrist dems tend to maybe virtue signal a public option but not do a ton on it.

Economic issues:

Establishment dem- 8 points

Leftist- 10 points

The leftist edges out the establishment dem, but the establishment dem will likely have strong union support, support for a $15 minimum wage, some student debt forgiveness, free community college, a decent climate plan, and maybe some action on housing. I mean, they're not bad. They are moving left and Bernie's mark on the party is being felt here. Just a few years ago, none of this stuff was the standard of any democratic politician. So the establishment has triangulated enough to narrow the gap here where being further left is no longer enough for the leftists to claim credit for in the big picture scheme of things.It helps, but only by a little.

Social issues:

Establishment dem- 9 points

Leftist- 8 points

The establishment dem and the leftist are very similar. But the establishment dem's moderation helps a little more as they're not gonna lean as much into identity politics and wokeness. Other than that, both are largely agreeable to me but may run afoul of my ideals on some policies like guns or maybe immigration if they go too far left. 

Foreign policy issues: 

Establishment dem- 9 points

Leftist- 2 points

I generally think most establishment dems know what they're doing. Leftists though? Nah man, leftists are insane. So insane that it completely counteracts their typical M4A advantage with me.

Ideology/worldview:

Establishment dem- 11 points

Leftist- 14 points

An establishment dem is gonna be kinda meh for me, but these days, factoring in their mild advantages on social issues and massive advantage on foreign policy, I'm going to kinda come around to liking them. They lose on economics, and in 2020, admittedly economics was a bigger issue for me where the difference widened. But again, liberals are moving a little to the left here. And leftists still aren't perfect. If anything their failures on foreign policy and wokeness have been dragging them down slightly, and keep in mind they're STILL not what I really want on economics. They have an advantage, but it's not a massive one. 

Commitment to progressive goals:

Establishment dem- 5 points

Leftist- 8 points

Establishment democrats do propose mildly progressive legislation and have done a decent job sticking to campaign promises. They're not perfect, nor will I get everything I want from them, but they're not full on selling out. Leftists do better here. But again, still not perfect, due to being fair weather on UBI and me not being sure their policies are actually pragmatic. 

Experience/competence:

Establishment dem- 8 points

Leftist- 3 points

Again, establishment dems come from experienced backgrounds and seem very professional with their approach toward politics. I expect them to generally know what they're doing, with even relatively inexperienced candidates being decent at the job. Leftists, however, seem to come from outside of "the system" and very few want to work their way up. To some extent this can work out well on other metrics. Sometimes the system and corrupt people, make people less able to be effective toward change, and the like, but a lot of them really don't seem to know what they're doing. It's all feels and vibes and many of them don't even have policy details to their policies. I kind of feel like the presidency has a learning curve and you should be ready for it. Not just running a campaign based on feels.Of course many of these guys run just to raise awareness to issues, which I can respect, but then it's up to the establishment candidates to actually try to make workable versions of these policies to discourage people from voting for lefties. 

Not playing a spoiler:

Establishment dem- 10 points

Leftist- 0 points

While some leftists can run within the democratic party, for the most part, a lot of them aren't. And that does run the risk of throwing the election to the republican. During a normal election cycle, such an action might be seen as justifiable. I mean, the goal is to get the democrats to notice us and make them address issues we care about and are passionate about. but it is a risky strategy, and with Trump being a literal existential threat to democracy, I gotta pass on this strategy somewhat this time. And yes, this does mean democrats, including leftist ones like Williamson, will get an advantage over those who don't run as democrats.

As such, let's really tally up the total here and see how this works in practice:

Establishment dem- 65/100

Leftist- 58/100

As such, the establishment dems just seem to...have it more together than the leftists. I mean, let's go over every individual point that I think is relevant here.

1) The establishment dems have shifted left

Ladies and gentlemen, we have been heard! Somewhat. The whole point of protest voting in 2016, was to push the dems left and get them to notice us on certain policies. And while they haven't conceded on everything, they are offering a good enough package of economic policies to blunt the natural advantage leftists have on economics.

2) The left doesn't embrace UBI

This makes a big deal...for ME. UBI is my #1 policy, and sadly, the left isnt really much closer to implementing it than the center is. That does kind of kill my appeal. With the dems shifting left on other policies, the only one on the economic front that really stands out as a grabber is medicare for all. Even then, if the dems pushed a really good public option, they could still win me there reasonably well too. But yeah, less jobism, more UBI. 

3) The left is leaning into a lot of cringey ideas

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Lay off the literal socialism. Lay off the wokeness, and lay off the extremist foreign policy stuff. 

ESPECIALLY the foreign policy stuff. The left going all "America bad" and being super pro palestine and making this a huge issue is actually really hurting them in my eyes. It doesn't make me more likely to vote for them, it makes me LESS likely. As the dems move somewhat left, the left is also moving left, where the dems are treading into territory I find somewhat comfortable, while the left is leaning into stuff I don't really like. I don't want LITERAL SOCIALISM OR COMMUNISM. Wokeness turns me off. The free palestine stuff turns me off. And having an obnoxious purity testy attitude on ALL that stuff majorly turns me off. It might not always show up in the metrics given how flawed the center still is, but even when the center isn't amazing, the left is struggling to really differentiate themselves in a positive way. For everything they do right, they do something else wrong, and it actually backfires and hurts them MORE. 

4) The experience/competence issue (or lack thereof)

Look, I know the centrists poisoned the well with the terms "pragmatism" and stuff like that in 2016, with them using them in bad faith vs Bernie to promote mediocre ideas while Bernie's ideas were perfectly doable, but as the left is forced to move on from Bernie, as Bernie is in his 80s and working WITH the establishment dems (and is THE reason, the democratic party IS as far left as it is now), the left is experiencing some brain drain. It doesnt have a crop of candidates who can fill Bernie's shoes. Most leftists these days are feels and populist vibes and anti capitalist rhetoric with no practical way to accomplish anything policy wise. Leftist candidates DO NOT have prior experience in lower office, they do NOT even have decent policy credentials. When they explain their policies I often am somewhat negative toward certain details of them, and many of them this cycle dont even give details in the first place. 

This hurts them, bad. 

5) The risk of running third party

Look, I'm gonna say it, I respect Marianne Williamson and Dean Phillips for trying to run within the party, and I still plan on voting for Marianne in the primary here in April, despite her shortcomings. But as far as a third party candidate goes? I'm not really feeling a protest vote. Trump is dangerous, he really is bad, he really is a threat to democracy, and stopping him is a top priority of mine. I'm not gonna protest vote unless the dems are pissing me off, and/or the left can do a better job. I dont think it's impossible for the left to overcome a 10 point advantage if the right candidate comes along, but for the reasons above, they haven't. For every advantage they still have, they have another liability, and at best it's kind of a dead heat between them and the establishment dems. And with me being reluctant to vote third party this time unless the candidate is REALLY REALLY crazy good, well, you can see how that plays out.

The fact is, this election cycle, going for Biden, the establishment candidate, IS the right move. He has triangulated left enough to earn my vote and has considerable advantages over outsider leftist candidates that really are playing a role in this election. The fact is, 2024 isnt 2016 or 2020. The establishment HAS moved somewhat left. The left HAS gotten too far left and still doesn't embrace my one signature policy that could get me on board. The left seems to run on feels and progressive wish lists, and is going ride or die on palestine, even though that's a whole ton of cringe, and yeah, they're just not differentiating themselves in a positive way from the Joe Biden administration. Sure, they support medicare for all and are to Biden's left on economics, but their lack of experience and policy expertise and cringey foreign policy takes, are just as large liabilities. Even without the 10 point advantage I give the establishment dems, we're still talking 55 vs 58. It's close. Sure, the left would have an edge in that scenario, but nothing that really makes me enthusiastic. And given the threat of Trump, yeah, that tips it for the center.

So...that said, to all the leftists who read this, sorry, you might think I'm a sell out or whatever, but you still gotta earn my vote and this time you haven't. The above gives a list of reasons why, and what you need to work on. Try again in 4 years, this time, I'm solidly in the pro Biden camp.

Responding to Bernie's exhortation to vote for Biden, as well as the Amazing Atheist's take on it

 So the Amazing atheist had a video in which he responded to a video bernie put out encouraging people to vote for Biden by saying Bernie is part of the establishment now. And...idk, I have a weird mixed take on this. 

First of all, bernie's video. As the Amazing atheist pointed out, it wasn't the most impassioned plea, kinda like he was reading off of a script, but he was serious, he's said it before, multiple times by this point, and I kind of have to agree with him. In a sense, yes, bernie is working with the establishment. But he's not working FOR FREE. Bernie is working with Biden, because Biden did try to implement parts of Bernie's agenda. Keep in mind this is one of the reasons I myself have been softer on Biden. And while I'm likely a lot more free to speak out against the Biden administration than bernie is, I have to admit that Bernie has a point. 

Look, this isn't the year for a protest vote. i know that democrats say that every year, but this year in particular, they're right. Donald trump is a threat to democracy, and the left, including establishment democrats, are in a tough spot where the key goal is simple: survive. We're like in that epilogue of halo reach where the goal is to hold out as long as you can against hordes of enemies coming to take you down. And that's where we're at electorally. We're not in a position to launch an offensive, politically speaking. We're not in the position to push for universal basic income, or medicare for all, or free college, or a green new deal. Even if Biden wanted to, it wouldnt happen, because he doesnt have the votes in congress. Hell, congress shot down much of what Biden WANTED to do.

I know some, like the amazing atheist, are feeling a bit nihilistic about that, but it's true. Why attack the few allies we have, who actually are trying to move things in our direction, because they arent accomplishing anything, when the fault lies with congress and the courts. Blame congress, blame the courts, blame the people who deserve blame. if Bernie were in the hot seat, you think he'd accomplish even a tiny bit more? no, and you know what? People would likely be more sympathetic about it, screaming about 'establishment democrats" and the GOP...and uh...yeah. Blame the GOP, blame Kyrsten Sinema, blame Joe Manchin. They are responsible for why we haven't gotten anything done. Yes, it's THEM, blame THEM. Remove the roadblocks there where we can. Let's stop crapping on lefties like bernie, or AOC, or Ro khanna, or even fricking John Fetterman who people crap on for semi legit reasons, but I understand what he's doing and I can give him a pass. Look, everyone is just trying to survive, to make it to the next election cycle, and sometimes that involves making some uncomfortable compromises. it ain't pretty, but it's necesary. Instead of attacking people for not solving all problems with a magic wand, we have to be realistic here. 

Which is where I kinda come down on the amazing atheist's take. I kinda like this guy's both sidesism, and cynicism at times, but not this time. The fact is, he's wrong here. And yes, I know income inequality isnt improving under Joe Biden, but what policies would we need to solve that? We all know what they are, UBI, universal healthcare, union support, $15-20 minimum wage, etc. Is Biden doing any of that? No. Does he want to do any of that? Eh, a couple things. CAN he do any of that? no. So...what now? DO we attack Joe Biden for not accomplishing any of that? That's the problem with this extreme cynicism. Yes, Biden isnt accomplishing things. But replace Biden with bernie or anyone else, and ask, do things change. if the answer is no, look elsewhere for the problem. Look in congress, look at the courts. Are your senators doing things you want them to do? What about your house member? Are they voting and introducing legislation to your satisfaction? If not, maybe primary them. Maybe run against them if they're republican. Come on, get someone, something, somewhere. Figure out where the roadblocks are, and blame them.

That's why I'm soft on Biden. I KNOW BIden wants to do more. Like TJ (Amazing atheist) mentioned how the GOP denies climate change exists and then Biden wants to do like 3% of what is needed...um...ok, but uh....the inflation reduction act actually gets us 40% there, or 80% of what we need by 2030. Build back better would've been compliant. Would that totally solve the problem? No, but it would mitigate the damage. The fact is, and I say this as someone who looked at the exact policies on this blog, yes, Biden's policies help. Heck, I actually prefer build back better OVER a GND given GND is expensive and would take resources away from other stuff. With solving climate change, I just wanna do it in the most efficient way possible. A lot of leftists have these weird fixations on job creation and their weird forms of urbanism that involve reinventing the entire wheel that is our infrastructure, and I'm going to be honest, I'm not really interested in any of that. I just wanna fix the problem in the easiest, least intrusive way possible. So...that said, build back better was looking awfully nice, fully compliant of IPCC guidelines, a scaled down version of bernie's program. I mean, it's a nice program. Let's not crap on him for that. I get why biden is like the half measure guy. He is. He's never gonna solve every issue ever. But right now, he's the best we got, sad to say. I've spent much of 2023 and even this year talking about possibly replacing him, but it aint gonna happen. Not just because the DNC rigs the process, but because there literally is no one else who can poll well enough to beat trump. Again, the best we can do is live to fight another day. Just get Biden across the finish line, and then in 2028, when the seat is open, hopefully we can get our crap together. But right now, again, this is a year for defense. Do we want the guy who by the time he leaves office will get us on track to solve climate change at least somewhat (and yes, it's more than 3%, again, like 40%), or the guy who wants to let the planet roast and who wants to take away democracy? Don't be dumb, America. 

I mean, Biden aint everything I want, and I know people are frustrated by the political status quo. I just wanna guide people to realize that gee, this problem is bigger than biden. The obstruction is greater than Biden. Biden WANTED to do nicer things than he's doing, and even if those things are, by my own admitted standards, half measures a lot of the time, they're still...something. And if we lose to the right in this political environment, we literally get nothing. And the clock will keep ticking on the climate, every republican presidency WILL make it harder to tame that given we got about 26 years to get out crap together according to IPCC guidelines, and yeah. 

And on the economy in general. Again, I'm not the dude who normally simps for Biden. Biden is milquetoast. But let's face it, the left aint amazing either given they ARE all full green new deal and jobs jobs jobs themselves. We need a UBI, and i aint really enthralled with anyone. Most lefties running this cycle dont know the first thing about policy, their policy preferences diverge from mine, and both Biden and the left kind of...leave me feeling disappointed. Yes, the left is better on some things, like healthcare and free college, but the center is better on climate, neither side is really pro UBI, so i'm just kinda meh. 

Point is, no one is actually gonna make ME happy there. Even Bernie has flaws. Jill Stein and Cornel West have flaws. hell, those two have no idea what they're doing. Williamson seemed decent on paper, but even she probably doesnt have a ton of policy expertise to actually implement these things. Bernie is unique in that he had detailed policies to get us there. And parts of those made it into the biden administration, so idk, I'm kinda feeling more willing to work on actual practical goals than wish lists right now. It's not a wish list year. It's time to preserve our legacy, and get work done when we can. We can always worry about this other stuff later. What the left needs to do right now is regroup, find someone who knows wtf theyre doing, and in a future election, run THEM. But for now, let's just keep Biden in, please? Pretty please? That's how I see it.

Again, I know it's cliche, this isnt a year for a protest vote. It REALLY isn't. We're not accomplishing jack crap in sabotaging Biden here. We really arent. We're kicking ourselves in the face. Seriously, lefties, stop hitting yourself. Seriously. THis is counterproductive. If the left had a better candidate this time, and we werent facing an election with such high stakes, I could see supporting them. But that just isn't how this is playing out. Bernie's right. Right now, our best move is to preserve Biden's progress. We gain nothing from going against the guy. We're only hurting ourselves. I get the nihilism. I kind of agree with the idea that Biden is all half measures and doesnt go far enough. But still, those half measures do get us part of the way there and the left isnt up to the task this time around. Let's just settle for what we can get. We can relitigate this later on in a future election cycle (hopefully 2028).

Reality checking progressives: no, ranked choice voting won't guarantee we win elections

 So, I just saw some leftists arguing AGAINST ranked choice voting on the basis that it won't necessarily win the left progressives, and might actually favor moderate candidates over them. Their argument comes from this study, which cites that:

-Extreme candidates were not considered more electable than moderate candidates

-Moderate candidates were considered pretty electable

-Conservatives were more likely to favor extreme candidates than liberals were

Honestly, I see these results, and say "no crap." I mean, Yang has long argued that while RCV is a way to break the duopoly, it's also a way to allegedly "save america" by encouraging moderates to be elected over relatively extremist candidates. Keep in mind, yang isn't just about UBI and human centered capitalism these days, his forward pitch was framed as moderate and he actually abandoned a lot of his original ideals for the sake of breaking the duopoly and "saving democracy" from extremist ideologues like Trump. Generally speaking, more moderate candidates in a ranked choice environment are going to have more appeal than more extreme candidates, and I recognize this. 

So why support ranked choice voting? It's more about the principle of the matter. As it stands, lefties are typically forced to work within the democratic party whether we want to or not. If we run as democrats, we basically rely on their infrastructure, and then they screw us every step of the way and then promote their preferred candidate, who wins by virtue of being the default option. The media is complicit in promoting candidates to raise public awareness of them, while suppressing candidates the party leadership doesn't want to get any attention.

And then when the general comes around, and people point out their dissatisfaction, they turn around and say we have to vote for them or else, basically forcing left wing voters into a moral dilemma of voting their principles or voting for the "lesser evil", with most choosing the lesser evil, at least on the left (we can come back and visit the differences between conservatives and liberals later, as there are some cultural differences I've discussed in the past). 

Basically, I support ranked choice voting because I'm the kind of person who, when I don't get my way, I like to take my ball and go home. I hate this gaslighting bullcrap the democrats do of making us vote for lesser evils, especially after they stop leftie candidates from getting any attention at all. I hate the cult of voting for the lesser evil, and the culture of voting blue no matter who. I was gonna discuss it later but I might as well discuss it now. When I was conservative, this culture didnt exist on the right, you were encouraged to vote your conscience and while there was some lesser evilism in the minds of hardline conservative voters in 2008 and 2012, if you voted third party, that was fine. We actually had a culture, with the rise of the tea party, to drive the moderates out of our presence, and to run them out of office. I remember this dude named Arlen Specter, who basically was our Kyrsten Sinema at the time. Basically, he was called a RINO, he tried switching parties to save himself from a primary challenge, and then he ended up losing and getting run out of office. We held our moderates to account and drove them out of office, and then I left the GOP because they got too extreme for me and I changed my ideals due to various shifts I made in 2012. But then in 2016 the culture I came across on the democratic side was a lot different and voters were a lot less willing to confront moderates and run them out of office, if anything they embraced moderates and were openly hostile toward progressives, which is why I got disillusioned from them. The reason I am so willing to vote third party is because as an ex conservative, I know not to take crap off of candidates who pull that crap on me, and I know the proper response to someone trying to hold democracy hostage is to basically run them out of office and punish them for even trying that crap. Only reason I concede now is because trump is a special case, and because in some ways I like Biden over the current crop of leftists, but I digress. 

Either way, even if I would support Biden this time, I support more choice. I want ranked choice voting. I want anyone who wants to to run for office on their ideals and for people to just vote for the best candidate for the job. I understand that the best way to dethrone democrats who rely on lesser evil voting is by not voting for them, but by voting for your principles. And that's what RCV offers, nothing more, nothing less. I would be able to vote my principles, vote for who I want to vote for, even rank the choices as per my preference, and THEN, whoever wins, wins.

It doesn't mean that my preferred candidate will win. It just means my candidate will be able to compete on more even ground. If voters are unhappy with one party, they can seamlessly shift to another and vote for their old party as their 2nd or 3rd choice or something. But it would allow us to vote our principles. None of this lesser evil crap. We all get our say, and whoever wins, wins, that's democracy.

To leftists unhappy with this, I have to ask, do you care about democracy or not? Or do you just wanna win at all costs? I have to ask because sometimes leftists scare me when they talk like this. I can see why communism ended up being so oppressive just looking at leftists online, because a lot of them dont care about democracy and our institutions doing their job, they just wanna win at all costs and if they have to force their ideas down the throats of a populace who doesn't actually like or agree with them, then so be it. And that scares me. 

I mean, again, RCV just stops frickers like the DNC from denying us our democratic vote. It stops us from being forced to compete in their rigged primary system and then being told we have to support their crappy neoliberal candidate or else. Nothing more, nothing less.

If leftists wanna win in a system of ranked choice voting, they have to actually win by their own merits. They have to sell their vision to the public. They have to convince the voters why they should vote for them, and not the other guy. All RCV does is even the playing field and stop parties from using their institutional power to bully voters. It doesn't mean we'll win.

Heck, given the cultural differences between the parties, that's why the right will be more likely to vote for extremists than the left. because a lot of people on the right actually believe in the more extreme candidates. On the left, most are moderate. Even when there was RCV in the democratic mayoral primary in NYC, Eric Adams, the establishment candidate, still won. The progressive candidate came in third, and Yang came in fourth. Heck, realizing Yang didn't have a lane in the democratic party is why I supported him leaving it. let him start his own party with his own platform, let him compete outside of the DNC's ecosystem. I doubt he would win, but ya know what? Because I'm normally a principled voter, I would vote for him. And if we had RCV, he would be a top option for me (well, before he moderated so hard he made Joe Biden comparatively attractive). 

The fact is, progressives arent a majority of voters. Most voters are conservatives and moderates. Progressives are maybe 16% of the population (1/6th). And that's enough to start a party, but it won't win you a majority any time soon. But you know what? If we took "electability" and lesser evilism off the table, it would allow people who would otherwise vote for a progressive, but votes for a moderate for strategic reasons to vote their principles. But that doesn't guarantee a win.

In terms of democracy, I want a system where I can vote for who I actually want. Even if I'm forced to vote between several lesser evil candidates (like I would this election, where I'm not super thrilled with Biden but also not with his opposition on the left either), I would still be able to rank candidates as I want, and let the best person win. I won't necessarily win. Progressives won't necessarily win. hell, this election, I think progressives have little to no sway in part due to a lack of charismatic candidates, and in part because they're getting too extreme and batcrap insane. I mean, literal socialism? The free palestine stuff? No thanks. 

And you know what? Even in candidates with more open voting systems, the left is having issues winning. Europe is shifting to the right, mostly over immigration and a backlash to neoliberalism. if anything the leftist governments I saw get elected in the mid-late 2010s mostly showed themselves to be ineffective so now they're trying something different and people are lurching to the right. Maybe in 5-10 years things will shift back the other way, but yeah. In germany, the most popular party is actually the CSU/CDU which is center right and the equivalent of our moderate republicans. And this is in a country whose spectrum ranges from the communist die linke to the borderline fascist AFD. Labor in the UK has been destroyed in large part by the conservatives under boris johnson, who manages to give trump and biden vibes at the same time. In france, their latest election ended up being between neoliberals like macron and the far right front nationale, with the communists being in third place. Leftists arent really doing well even in multi party systems. But that's okay, because you know what? We live in the society we vote for. I just want to ensure it's the PEOPLE giving their preferences, and not some party holding the system hostages and forcing us to vote for them, because that's REALLY offputting and alienating to me. I dont wanna be forced to vote for the dems in every election? Even if i genuinely believe Biden is the best general election candidate THIS YEAR doesn't mean I will think the democrat is the best every year. In 2016 and 2020 I voted green. In 2028, I believe my vote is up for grabs and if the democrats want it they have to earn it. I dont like giving a hostile party a vote just to stop someone I hate more. I wanna vote FOR something, not against.

But if people dont think the same way as I do, then that just means we have to try harder next time. Figure out why we lost and figure out how to gain more votes. Quite frankly, even in European multi party systems, my own ideas are largely unrepresented by the parties that be. Again, even in Germany with their 6 party system, there really isn't an option that I'm really like "yeah this really represents me". If I had to vote for anyone it would be SPD, given they seem to be the moderate, reasonable left wing party (as opposed to die linke, who seem to be communists, and the greens, who are hardcore SJWs), but I really would like a basic income or human centered capitalist type party. Still, none of us are gonna even be close to getting what we want as long as the democrats control the process here in the US. And that means breaking the duopoly, and that means supporting systems like RCV. RCV doesn't mean that we'll win. It just means we actually have a chance to win, while as of right now we're completely at the mercy of a hostile party that is run like an oligarchy and doesn't give a crap about any of us, but we have to vote for them or else. Ya know? 

So, TLDR: the point of ranked choice voting is to give is a chance to compete on an even playing ground. It doesn't mean we'll win. It just means we have a shot. What we do from there is up to us. if democrats manage to keep outvoting me in a system of fair competition, well, what more can I do other than try to convince people that my ideas are better than what the dems offer? The point is, I can't even realistically do that right now, because even if I convince people to WANT to support my ideas, they'll still vote for the democrat to avoid getting the republican and put "electability" above all else. 

If left wing candidates truly arent electable in a ranked choice voting system, it's because more people genuinely want the moderate over us. And that means we gotta do better next time. 

Election Update 3/22/24

 So, time for your late March election update. I've decided we've finally had enough changes that it's worth doing a new update. It was either this week, or the next, and I decided to do it now.

2 way: Trump +2.0%

5 way: Trump +2.3%

Not much changed in the macro. Trump's up by about 2 in both situations.

State	Margin	Z Score	% D Win	% R Win	EV if D Wins	EV if R wins
New York	Biden +12.0%	-3.00	99.9%	0.1%	169	397
Washington	Biden +10.0%	-2.50	99.4%	0.6%	181	369
New Hampshire	Biden +8.0%	-2.00	97.7%	2.3%	185	357
New Mexico	Biden +8.0%	-2.00	97.7%	2.3%	190	353
Colorado	Biden +6.5%	-1.63	94.8%	5.2%	200	348
Virginia	Biden +4.3%	-1.08	86.0%	14.0%	213	338
Minnesota	Biden +3.0%	-0.75	77.3%	22.7%	223	325
Maine	Biden +2.0%	-0.50	69.9%	30.1%	225	315
NE2 (estimated)	Tie 0.0%	0.00	50.0%	50.0%	226	313
Pennsylvania	Trump +0.5%	+0.13	44.8%	55.2%	245	312
Wisconsin	Trump +1.2%	+0.30	38.2%	61.8%	255	293
Michigan	Trump +3.9%	+0.98	16.4%	83.6%	270	283
Nevada	Trump +4.3%	+1.08	14.0%	86.0%	276	268
Georgia	Trump +5.0%	+1.25	10.6%	89.4%	292	262
North Carolina	Trump +5.0%	+1.25	10.6%	89.4%	308	246
Arizona	Trump +5.4%	+1.35	8.9%	91.1%	319	230
Texas	Trump +8.0%	+2.00	2.3%	97.7%	359	219
Florida	Trump +8.0%	+2.00	2.3%	97.7%	389	179
Ohio	Trump +10.0%	+2.50	0.6%	99.4%	406	149
Iowa	Trump +11.5%	+2.88	0.2%	99.8%	412	132
Alaska	Trump +12.0%	+3.00	0.1%	99.9%	415	126

So there's a lot that's the same, but also some differences. In net, still around the same story as before. Trump has a 83.6% to win the election, while Biden as a 16.4% chance, with Michigan, once again, being the deciding state. However, the most likely result is going to either be 313-225 Trump, or 312-226 Trump, depending what NE2 does. I did receive some flak from my last forecast from some I shared it with on the basis that "NE2 is getting bluer and bluer each election cycle, it's gonna go blue", but idk, it's been kinda swingy, in the past it went red, and we have NO IDEA what it's doing this time. Currently, I'm tying it to the national environment. It went 2 points bluer than the actual result, so I'm going to assume it goes 2 points bluer here. Since we're at 2 points for Trump in the general exactly, I have it at a coin flip. Could be more blue than I anticipate, but how do we really know? These are just assumptions, and you know what they say about the word ass/u/me. So, no idea what's going on there. 

Now, other changes. I added Alaska as it was Trump +12. I dont expect it to ever be really in play but since I'm doing stuff up to +12 on my chart this time I'm including it. Iowa is more red, but a lot of other states are shifting to be less red. A new +6 Trump poll in florida pulls my average from +10 to +8 in the state, and a lot of the swing states everyone is looking at that went Biden this time are shifting to be a bit bluer. States like Nevada, Georgia, North Carolina, and Arizona were like in the 6-8 range for Trump, now they're in the 4-6 range. In some ways that makes Biden's job easier. Assuming he gets NE2, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and fails to get Michigan, he could still turn it around with 1-2 of those other states. Even though Biden's chances aren't great, look at Trump's in 2016 and 2020. Biden has about the same chance Trump did in those election cycles. If Biden overperforms by say, 3-4 points, then NE2, PA, and WI all go blue, Michigan can shift blue, but even if it doesn't, we could still see GA, NC, or a combination of AZ/NV winning it for Biden instead. There is a significant statistical difference between being down 5 points and being down 7. If you're down 7, it's basically over. You're talking like a 3-6% chance. Here we're in the ballpark of a 10-15% chance. Not great, but...better. 

If we continue to see movement like this over the next 8 months, MAYBE Biden can win. Idk. We all know he ain't resonating. He's out of touch on the economy, people are hurting with inflation while his accomplishments haven't made most peoples' lives better. There's the gaza thing dragging him down among the far left. He's not in a good position. It can change, but we'd need a 4 point shift just to make it 50-50 at this point, and a 6 point shift to bring him back to 2020. 

As far as third party analyses...well, it's the same thing, just shift the results of the states about 2 points and you get that result. Of course with PA, MI, and WI we end up with about the same result, with about the same probability overall. I just don't feel like doing the chart this time.

But yeah, that's this month's update. Next one will probably be mid-late April.