How much can I compromise on healthcare and still be happy?

 So, with recent discussion on Kamala Harris, let's ask the obvious question: how much can I compromise on healthcare and still be happy? Obviously, I don't NEED full single payer any more. i did moderate on that, but what's the bare minimum I'd be happy with?

Well, I'll say it's a public option. This public option should have some sort of automatic enrollment mechanism for the uninsired. It should be unconditional, although costs might scale with income. But like, free for the poor, reasonable costs for the middle class in accordance with income, lion's share of costs paid for by taxes on the rich. It should cover most healthcare that most people need. 

I mean, I reread Kamala's plan last night. She DID go further than I thought. She set up this public option and it seemed to be a 10 year phase in to single payer. I would say if it's politically necessary, or economically expedient (without compromising on quality as laid out above), that it's fine to just do the medicare extra approach of having it coexist with private insurance. I do think single payer is better, it's the ideal in my head, but dealing with compromises, I think that if people really wanna keep their crappy private plans, they should have the right to do so, if not doing so is essentially politically unfeasable. 

I'm perfectly okay with some variation of Harris care (circa 2020), or medicare extra, or maybe even a Bidenesque plan like he claimed to support in 2020, but never acted on. I just want results. i dont want changes around the edges. I dont want to just keep sticking with this horrible ACA framework that doesn't fix the problem. 

You know during COVID, if you were uninsired you could just go to a vaccination site and get a shot? Yeah, I just want that, but for all healthcare. I'm not gonna be picky about the form here, I'm trying to work with the dems here and not purity test into literal single payer. But yeah, just dont piss on my leg and tell me it's raining either. I do want quality and not garbage out of the dems here. 

So let's talk Kamala Harris and healthcare

 So, what is Kamala Harris's actual position on healthcare? I ask, because this is a big deal for me. This is one of my TOP policy priorities. It makes it in my main purity test as its own metric, up there with UBI. This is because healthcare is my #2 priority...behind UBI. Now, do I expect Harris to give me a UBI? Well, it would be nice if she experiments with cash grants, expanding the child tax credit again or implementing her LIFT act, but I ain't expecting anything resembling a full UBI proposal out of the Harris administration. But healthcare? Mmmm, that's the thing. Ideally, I like single payer, but given the cost, in recent years, I have become more flexible and amenable to a public option.

All I really know is that healthcare as it stands is broken, the ACA, for all of the good it did, was always a flawed compromise, it's always been a pretty crappy approach to healthcare, and for all of its successes, it's always been a bit of a failure to me. it failed to bring down costs, it failed to expand coverage universally, it failed to make healthcare affordable, despite its name. Sure, it solved a few of the problems involving things like preexisting conditions, but it's always been like this crappy centrist liberal approach to universal healthcare that never actually solved the core issues with it. 

Liberals, especially democrats, tend to have horrible instincts at times. They push crappy watered down bills that barely do anything, and then wonder why people dont like them, and then decide the problem was they tried in the first place and that the answer is to move further right. Even worse, many of them are too focused on the legacies of past presidents, and not on the needs of the many. When Johnson passed the war on poverty, many became anti UBI, not because UBI wasnt better, but because they didn't want to admit they pushed this mediocre compromise that was flawed in its implementation, and they didn't wanna be upstaged by something better. Like a program that worked. So to preserve the legacies of past presidents we're just supposed to suffer the flaws of their mediocre plans forever I guess. And now democrats are stuck in this mindset with obamacare. Is Obamacare the end all be all of healthcare? if it was, we wouldnt be debating it. But will democrats insist that rather than push a public option or single payer, that the answer is to push modifications to the affordable care act and double down on a flawed approach because they'd rather not make Obama feel bad? Of course! That's what Biden did, and that's what strategists are pushing with Harris too.

Harris is currently a rorschach test. Centrists see a centrist, progressives see a progressive, and we really don't know what we're gonna get. Some people are like, is she gonna turn from her radical past on healthcare? (Of supporting a public option she called single payer because she was trying to bait bernie people who didn't know better), and I'm like, what radical past? her idea is the compromise. It was a public option that could be later expanded to be single payer. it was basically a variation of medicare extra for all. I mean, it was basically just Biden's plan on steroids. But now the centrists are like, OH NO, THIS IS RADICAL, WE CAN'T HAVE THIS! Why not? IT WONT BE ELECTABLE? Why not? BECAUSE CENTRISTS! F centrists, I say! I'm so fricking sick of being taken for granted by democrats as a voter, because im on the left flank of the party. And normally, when centrists pull this crap, I'll go green. I don't care. F them. If they're more sensitive to centrists because centrists will condition their vote over healthcare, then I'LL condition MY vote over healthcare. of course I cant do that this election because Donald Trump is a fricking mental case and the fate of democracy itself is in the balance, but normally? yeah, that's the game I'd play. I don't care. F centrists. As I said, I dont wanna be in the same coalition as these romney conservative types. 

All that said, Kamala Harris is a candidate who currently appeals to both sides. And in a sense, we're gonna have to play a game of tug of war policy wise. You remember the talk of holding Biden's feet to the fire? We progressives are gonna have to do that to her in office. Because the centrists are very obviously trying to pull her right. We need to pull her back left. Because she has decent ideas. But if she abandons decent ideas to appeal to centrists, she's gonna be a disappointment. And it really seems the donor class and the centrists are pushing her hard right on healthcare, for "electability" reasons. I say no, let freak flag fly. You might actually win over some less loyal MAGA voters if you do that. it's the centrists who tend to suck all enthusiasm out of the room, and elections are won by enthusiasm. We have the ball, run with it.

Honestly, I hope Harris does the right thing, stands for her past 2020 ideas, and runs with them. because if anything Biden was a total failure on, it's been healthcare reform. he's made fixes around the edges, but we need comprehensive change to actually fix the system. A universal public option is actually the least we can do to solve the problems with healthcare. That IS the compromise for me. I WAS pro single payer. You can talk me down to a universal public option, but no, any less than that is just lame and not fixing the problem. We wont need to have this conversation every fricking election if we solve the problem in the first place. We solve the problem by going big, not just building on Obamacare. Because Obamacare was a flawed liberal plan that didn't go far enough and tried to solve the problem in some weird complex way that didn't fix the core issues with healthcare. We NEED some sort of government plan for healthcare anyone can enroll into and then pay in accordance with their income if we want to solve the healthcare crisis. Otherwise you're putting more band aids on a flawed system. That's all I'm gonna say.

Drunking on Vance for his weirdo childfree comments again

 So, JD Vance...is weird. The republican party is weird. And now the left is weaponizing that weirdness, by calling it weird. But Vance, he takes the weird to another level. He's weird even by their standards of weird. And he seems to have this pathological hatred of the childfree. He's made comments before about childless cat ladies. That's just the tip of the iceberg. I mean, this guy is batcrap insane.

I mean, it's one thing to have this stereotype of the childfree person with a stick up their butt who is obsessed with career and money making, not that that's great, and I took offense to that last time, but as I said, maybe the reason we come off like that is we don't like the so called "breeders" (to use the CF term) trying to shove THEIR crap down our throats. Ya know? You guys have this attitude problem where you make US have an attitude problem, TOWARD YOU. 

But then he has weird ideas like that childless people don't have an investment in the future and should get extra votes for all of their kids. Which is just WTF. We have an investment in society, and our investment is equal to anyone else's, sorry, not sorry. If anything conservatives have this weird idea they invest in the future and thats why they're into hard work and growth and blah blah blah, and if anything, nah, you're just tilting at windmills with that stuff. Meanwhile you guys dont even think climate change is real and a lot of you guys have this "oh well, I'll be dead by the time it affects us" mentality. 

Oh, and then Vance thinks that childfree people don't have empathy, as if empathy only starts when you have kids. Now, I AM a bit less empathetic and more self interested in most, but as a leftie, that's NORMALLY the right wing stuff. The right has this entire philosophy based on greed is good and that the public good is served by people being sociopathically self interested. They also have this idea that suffering builds character and instead of wanting to reduce suffering, they don't seem concerned with it. If anything they see suffering as due to a moral failing due to not conforming to their nonsense religiously based ethical system.

So don't get me started. i do understand that I do tend to be a bit of a selfish butt compared to many people, but I still tend to care more about alleviating suffering and making life better than most. I admit, i do so from the understanding that it makes my own life better, but that's actually...IMO the proper way to have empathy. To look at what benefits us, to use the sociological imagination to understand how our interests intersect with systems, and then advocate for systemic change to achieve the proper result. It's enlightened self interest. it works. And it bridges the gap between the right's selfishness and individualism and the collective interest. And at least I'm HONEST about myself. I don't have this sociopathic right wing ideology that greed is good and then hide behind christian charity and morality to justify having empathy. And I don't believe we need kids to have empathy.

If anything, as a childfree person who tend to be kind of as stubborn as Vance but in the opposite way, and who has my own opinions on this, let me explain to people what happens when one has kids. Yes, their brain changes. but they become more irrational. I've seen intelligent people's sanity go out the window when they have kids. They become "mombies" or whatever the male equivalent is. Their entire life revolves around kids. Their brain rewires itself to be fiercely protective of their kids, and politically it's like their brain takes a massive crap on them. And this weird mama bear mentality is how we get weirdo "think of the children" type stuff where people become authoritarians who wanna control other people, because they want to control society in certain ways in the protection of their kids. Which often involves censoring everything from pokemon cards to harry potter to porn (a huge reason the right is anti porn and pro porn regulation comes under the guise of "protecting the kids"). I mean, think of every boomer panic we've had from the 90s to the 2000s. The satanic panic, harry potter, violence in video games, pokemon, it was all from these boomer parents who wanted to protect their kids growing up. They wanted the world to stop and revolve around them, at the expense of everyone else. I tend to mock such attitudes, I admit it. I understand it, but yeah, i tend to consider myself an intellectual who is pro freedom and not interested in regulating the lives of others. you wanna protect your kids from stuff you dont like, have at it, as far as porn goes, PARENTAL CONTROLS WORK! But don't limit that stuff with me or everyone else. 

So yeah. Just because vance is some weird parent with weird protective instincts that turn him into a weird authoritarian, doesnt mean the rest of us should have to kow tow to his weird preferences. because that crap is IRRATIONAL. And Im sick and tired of having to listen to weirdo authoritarians who wanna take away freedoms from everyone else because the world has to stop on its axis because THEY HAVE KIDS. 

Just my views as a childfree person. I understand if I run for vice president some day these comments will come back to bite me, but in my defense, as long as you arent forcing anything on me, i dont care. People wanna have kids, cool. I dont have anything against anyone just because they're a parent. I have something against people who want to put others down or force crap on everyone else because they're a parent. my big issue with JD Vance and his ilk is they are weirdo authoritarians who cant just keep crap to themselves, no, everyone has to be made to live the way they want them to. And they can screw off for all I care.

Dear conservatives, we're not friends, and I don't want to be in the same coalition as you

 So, I saw a conservative who I used to debate asking a group of liberals to sell him on Harris. Having debated this guy a long time ago, like pre Trump, I knew him to be exactly the kind of person I really don't wanna be friends or allies with. He seemed to be open to voting for Harris this time, given he is a constitutionalist who sees Trump as a threat to democracy, but he was conditioning his vote on wanting a moderate. he pointed out how Harris had these "radical views" on healthcare and how her going for medicare for all was a deal breaker, and he wanted reassurance that she wouldn't. 

Now, I'm not welcome in this particular community because I tend to be the kind to shoot my mouth off, and I really hate establishment liberals trying to pressure me to settle for crap, but here's my own honest opinion on this. If Harris is a deal breaker for you, THEN DON'T VOTE FOR HER! Seriously. As someone who DOES want medicare for all, I don't want to be in the same coalition as some right winger who is against nice things. We might both recognize trump as a threat to democracy, but that doesn't make us friends. Look at Mike Pence. That's a guy I disagree with almost all of the time. I'm like the anti him. but you know what? He refused to overturn the results of the election on January 6th, and to say something nice about him for once, I believe he is a true patriot. but that does that make me wanna play paddycakes with him? No! Hell no! And if anything alienates ME from democrats, it's trying so hard to win over these McCain-Romney style conservatives at the cost of their own ideas and principles. Because I left that party for a reason, and I actually did develop a more progressive ideology in leaving, recognizing it wasn't just the brand of conservatism that was wrong, it's all conservatism. At least all american conservatism (remember, centrist libs are the REAL conservatives). As such, I don't want to play paddycakes with these guys. Sure, we might be temporary allies of convenience to defeat the orange one, but we're not friends.

Now, for people wondering is my abrasive attitude is gonna drive this guy back to Trump, no, he said he'd go third party over Trump. And you know what? I'd rather he would. I respect any principled conservative who ditches the Trump train to vote third party. Go on! Go vote for Chase Oliver, or whoever the constitution party is running. I don't care! Just don't vote for Trump. Not voting for Trump is victory enough to me. If you can't swallow your pride to vote for a democrat due to ideological differences, I can respect that, I don't necessarily want your vote if we don't agree on some basic idea of principles or worldview. But you know what? This is why third parties exist. Just as I voted green in 2016 and 2020, third parties are a safety valve for democracy. It shows where the two parties are deficient, and it tells them they need to shape up and get votes.

If you're a conservative who hates Trump, and you vote third party, the message is clear, you are a true conservative and a patriot, and you put country over party by refusing to vote for the orange wanna be dictator. Bravo. And you know what? If every conservative who thought like that did that, Trump would lose, his coalition would shatter, and the GOP would then have to run back to the center toward some sort of normalcy that doesn't involve project 2025 or wanna be tyrants. And then we can both compete for what we want, fairly. You're still contributing to Trump's defeat by not voting for him, so that's enough for me. You don't HAVE to vote for democrats. And quite frankly, I'd rather we win without you voting for us, because I dont want OUR coalition to become dependent on you guys. Because then progressives will never have nice things. 

What I want, is for you to defect from Trump, cost him the election, and then force the GOP to earn your votes back by putting up more sane candidates in the future. That's what i REALLY want here. We shouldnt have to compromise OUR principles to accommodate you guys. You know? We're principled and want things too. We have radically different visions for the country. The only thing we agree on is Trump must go. So you can either vote for us on our terms, without expecting us to change for you, or you can vote for whatever third party gives you joy. Either way, as long as you're not voting for the orange crapstain that's enough in my book.

Harris is gaining fast....(emergency election update 7/30/24)

 So, as you guys know, i normally wait to do my election updates on fridays, but this polling shift is just...wow. It doesn't change my overall prediction that much yet as Pennsylvania remains stubborn for Trump, but the map is shifting RAPIDLY, and a new round of polling in tonight has shifted the averages dramatically, so I did want to provide a brief state of the race.

So yeah, let's go over this. Another Minnesota +10 poll brought MN up to +8 Harris, making it just barely in play at all. Michigan, is now in our column, we're +2 there, thanks to today's round of polling having Harris up by 11 there. Wisconsin is down to 50-50 territory. Pennsylvania is still stubborn and hanging around the 3 mark, coming down slightly to 2.7. Georgia is now down to 3.6 so just a little behind PA. Nevada is down to 4, that wasn't even IN PLAY last friday. Arizona is 4.2, North Carolina is 5.5, and yeah, it looks like we're back in business. The overall prediction doesn't change much since the tipping point is still PA at 25% Harris and 75% Trump, but that could very quickly erode for Trump too. 

Running my simulator, it's now giving me 10-15 Harris outcomes for every 100, although this is based on sheer probability with each state as a separate trial. When I run them with a modifier added I get around 30 Harris outcomes out of 100. That's improving. 

All in all, the electoral map is now 241-297 Trump, still favoring Trump, but that lead of his is eroding fast.

 

This is starting to look like one of Biden's better maps. Even he struggled to get beyond 226-312 mostly. But yeah. The rust belt is turning blue. The sun belt is turning pink again. Nature is healing. And it's glorious to see.

But wait, there's more...

Okay, so, that's the two way data. What about the five way data? Well, that's the thing. That's even MORE crazy to me. The race is pretty much 50-50 in the data with third parties.

Wait, you mean it's actually 50-50? YES, IT'S ACTUALLY 50-50! And North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona are looking pretty good, all within 2 points. 

 

Yep, we're at 260-262, with Wisconsin being the deciding state at literally 50-50. We can't even predict a winner here. 

To be fair, my simulator still slightly favors Trump by a margin of about 55-45. Maybe it's because based on pure randomness Trump still has a slightly easier path, but I'm still gonna call it roughly 50-50. We are competitive!

Now why is this? Well, i thought it was just randomness and statistical noise until today. Then I started realizing, no wait im getting the same polls both 2 way and 5 way and the 5 way is going more pro Harris, what gives? And then I was listening to I think breaking points today talking about RFK Jr...and they posited that RFK is still taking votes away from republicans, while disaffected democrats are excited by Harris and actually going back to the democrats.

That's the thing. Harris's energy is...terrifying if you're a conservative. She's filling stadiums, she has people cheering for her, excited for her, Biden NEVER had this. it was always "ugh, Biden I guess". People are cheering for Harris like they were for Bernie. Or like they were for Obama in 2008. THE OBAMA COALITION IS BACK, BABY! We have the energy. And we're WINNING. 

Well, maybe not winning yet, but give it a few more weeks. The point is, Trump's massive advantage is being whittled down one poll at a time. It's only a matter of time before Harris IS the frontrunner. 

This is GLORIOUS. MORE OF THIS! MORE. I NEED MORE. I WON'T STOP UNTIL THE MAP LOOKS LIKE THIS, MUAHAHAHA!

 

ALL YOUR SWING STATES R BELONG TO US!

Reacting to Christian outrage from the Olympics opening ceremonies

 So, I dont watch the olympics. i find sports boring, and the olympics doubly so. But, the olympics did kind of have a moment this year that caught my attention, and it (along with other things) also caught the attention of some fundie Christians. 

First, Gojira, heavy metal band, performed some old revolutionary era French national anthem at the place where Marie Antoinette was sentenced to death. And it caught my attention because I'm a metal head who loves metal performances, especially if they involve a lot of pyro. And let's face it, this might have been the most glorious thing I've seen that isn't done by Rammstein themselves. I won't post it since it seems to be getting copyright claimed to death, but it was amazing. They opened up with a beheaded Marie Antoinette singing the words of the song only for the camera to pan out to having a beheaded marie antoinette in almost every window of the building. And then the pyro set loose, Gojira were performing on platforms hanging off of this castle like building, a big ship with a woman singer on it passed through the area with fire going every which direction. As I said, i thought it was amazing.

Christians thought it was demonic though. I kinda get why, beheaded corpses, fire, heavy metal, they're still stuck in 1990s satanic panic. Not to mention the original song had artwork involving escorting the beheaded monarchs of France to hell. Still, the song, despite the weird context for us Americans, is a big part of french culture, kind of like our national anthem, which is actually about some battle down in maryland during the war of 1812. Yeah we tend to make our anthems about wars and violence and upheavals. But yeah, not satanic, just french culture. if anything about it made me uncomfortable, it was the fact that it glorifies political violence. But hey, what's done is done with that, and post french revolution, france went in a different direction and eventually became a democracy. 

Anyway, the second thing christians are freaking out on involved "drag queens at the last supper." Except, it wasnt the last supper, but supposed to be some pantheon of ancient greek/roman gods, and you know how...flamboyant those guys were. And yeah. Christians kinda missing how their culture actually stole from Greek and Roman culture yet again. Also, the dude with his balls hanging out, yeah, I watched a Kyle video on that and apparently the dude was having a wardrobe malfunction or something. it wasn't intentional. Of course, christians have to find outrage in everything (well at the fundies) so obviously it was part of the LGBTQ+ agenda to force gayness onto kids or something. /s

No, you're just once again acting like you're the center of the universe and reading your culture into everything else. Apparently it was pagan. It just looked vaguely christian because fundie christians are ignorant of their own history. And yeah. Much like the Gojira thing, there were legit cultural aspects of this stuff.

Why did Trump get no bump from being shot/the RNC?

 So a lot of people are starting to say that Trump is doomed because he didn't get any polling bump from the RNC or being shot and that normally happens, and now JD Vance is really unpopular because he has all of these crazy conservative views. And now a lot of people are now trumpeting that Trump is "doomed" and that this is a bad sign and blah blah blah.

I admit, since Harris dropped out, the energy has been going away from Trump with Harris getting massive enthusiasm across the board, but honestly, I think we should hold our horses, and I have another explanation. Let me bring up...the chart.

So, this is a familiar chart. It's from last week's election update. And one thing I wanna point out is despite whatever enthusiasm Harris has, and Trump no longer has, TRUMP IS STILL WINNING, he's just not doing so by the overwhelming "gg no re" margins he was against Biden.

The fact is, Biden's horrid debate performance made Trump peak too early, where he had nowhere to go but down. And now with Harris replacing Biden and bringing enthusiasm into the party, things are going the other way. The fact is, Trump basically just reached his maximum level of support before the convention by BTFOing Biden at the debate. As such, the shooting gives him nothing. The RNC gives him nothing, and now things are returning to the rough 25-75 baseline they were at before Biden fudged the debate performance. 

Of course, harris's aggressive campaigning style hitting Trump hard over project 2025 and just being plain "weird" is shaking things up, as Harris seems to have her finger on the pulse of America while Biden probably can't even find his own pulse. And again, Vance being extreme is bringing Trump a lot of trouble and liability.

I'm just trying to tell liberals here don't be complacent. Trump is STILL WINNING. He has a 77% chance to win the presidency as of now. Harris is still the underdog. Yes, things will continue to flip, and maybe by election day, Harris will have a real shot against Trump, but right now, people are being a bit premature. I think it's reasonable for Trump to panick as he stands to lose (and is losing) a massive lead, but liberals shouldn't act like they got this wrapped up and it's over, because it's not. Trump is still dangerous, he can win, and this surge could be temporary for us too. By labor day, Trump might be winning again. Who knows. Don't get overconfident, dont get complacent, don't act like we got this in the bag, because we don't.

Biden's SCOTUS reform is BASED!

 So, Biden just proposed SCOTUS reform. It involves a three part plan to push a constitutional amendment to end presidential immunity, 18 year term limits for SCOTUS judges scattered apart by 2 years, a code of conduct forcing SCOTUS justices to not engage in political activity and disclose gifts given from "donors."

The second part I especially like since I recall proposing such an idea years ago online and it's nice to see it get some traction. But yeah, all 3 of these proposals are amazing and sorely needed. Will they pass? Probably not. Do i give biden credit for trying? Hell yeah. Thats the thing. I like dems to try to do things and talk about things they wanna do even if they can't do them. Beats the Obama approach of "democracy is hard work" while sitting on your laurels doing nothing only to be like "uhh maybe UBI is a good idea" AFTER YOU'VE LEFT OFFICE! Like, seriously. I'd rather people try and fail, than never to try at all. And Biden is trying. I know some lefties give Biden crap for that, but again, those types can never be satisfied and are so far into cynicism that no amount of progress will dig them out of it. We could live in a star trek universe and these guys will still complain it ain't real communism or something. But yeah. Good on Biden to propose this. Support this 100%.

I just spent my weekend building electoral simulators...(ways Harris can win)

 So, now that I've gone full "excel" with my election charts, I keep trying to build on them to improve them. I even toyed with adding a simulator that would allow me to simulate election outcomes. First, I built a simple simulator which allowed me to do a random trial one at a time, and it was kind of effective. However, despite Harris having a 23% chance of winning the presidency, I tried to add a modifer to simulate the "wave" function of elections and how over/underperformance is systemic. While this did produce a number of Harris outcomes that I would expect to be more in line with the actual probabilities, it didn't actually give me USEFUL data. Once I started analyzing the trends I started realizing it was simulating extreme outcomes happening far too often. Like, it would make Florida or Maine, which have a 1% chance of flipping, flip on a magnitude of 10-15%. So that didn't work. 

I also tried to make a simulation spit out hundreds or even thousands of models like 538 did, but the data was unwieldy, hard to read, and it gave my spreadsheet a heart attack where it just freaked out and kept freezing from too much data. So...that's out. 

As such, I'm going to go back to implementing at best a simple simulator for now.

Essentially, it runs random numbers, which are then compared to the probabilities in my original chart, and if the probability threshold is exceeded, then the states flip. Basically, it lets me run electoral college trials. I also added a senate version. 

Now, again, in terms of sheer probability, i do not trust the outcomes. Each state is treated as a separate trial and the odds of a state flipping is separate for the others, so it systemically underrepresents the underdog. Like, for the record, I'd say I'm getting 95% Trump wins, 4% Harris wins. And 1% Ties. 

So, with all that said, what does this data tell me?

Well, it tells me that Harris's electoral path is relatively narrow, but not TOO narrow. There are multiple viable paths to the presidency, and that said, I'd like to discuss them here.

First, we have the vanilla "by the chart" path:

Ya know. NE2, WI, MI, PA. Boom. Straight path to 270.

Now, this path is kind of precarious. We have NO room for error. If we lose even one electoral vote, it'll throw the system into a tie and a possible constitutional crisis. 

And that CAN happen. It does appear maybe 1% of the time in my attempted simulations. 

Yeah. This is that weird nightmare scenario where we grasp defeat out of the jaws of victory by losing Omaha, Nebraska. It can happen. Something to worry about.

Now, that said, there are alternate paths to the white house. Georgia does come up relatively often in them, either by gaining Georgia and getting a straight 286 electoral votes, or maybe losing Michigan and NE2 and getting a straight 270 that way. It does happen. A few examples of that:

So yeah if the rust belt falls or even Omaha falls, we need Georgia. 

It's also slightly possible to pick up Arizona, although I haven't seen many funky electoral maps including that one. Here's a hypothetical I came up with in case we lose Wisconsin and NE2 and win with Arizona though. It can happen. Probability is weird like that.

Yeah, these are the scenarios randomness can come up with.

Now, I doubt many of these are probable. I mean, my impression is that the rust belt is probably gonna come as a trio, with the tipping point for PA not far beyond Wisconsin and Michigan. However, the rust belt is weird these days. Polling is inconsistent and while WI is normally the most secure for democrats, it really doesn't show up as such in reality, and weird scenarios like above are possible. it is very well possible we lose one state and need to pick up another in the south.

Still, I really do think we should be investing in the rust belt first and foremost. We can invest in the sun belt too, but I do see it as the harder path probabilistically, and my normal election thinking is on the wavelength that the sun belt is just an entirely different animal, and while the rust belt states are likely to go the same way, the sun belt states aren't particularly likely to follow the rust belt. Still, we should keep the 2020 electoral map in mind and know that it is possible to flip Georgia and Arizona. We've done it before. Maybe we can again. Still, I do think that's the secondary priority. 

Right now, Nevada, North Carolina, and Florida are off the table. Switching to Harris made them beyond that 8 point threshold where stuff just doesnt flip very often naturally. That's one of the consequences of switching to Harris so far.

Speaking of which, I did run the same kind of simulator on Biden, and it's weird. Biden had more points of attack in the few scenarios where he did good. he could flip NC/AZ/NV/FL more often. However, he also put MN/VA/ME/NH in risk. Harris locked down the states on our side of the map, but she's also locked out of some sun belt states. This leads to a more rigid map with fewer paths to victory, but it does greatly improve her probability of winning that one most likely path. As such, I tend to favor Harris over Biden. I mean, at least now we're not losing Virginia and a lot of states that were in play that could work against Biden are now locked down for Harris. As I said, it's a more rigid map where there's fewer paths to victory. This is worse if you believe election outcomes are truly random with each state being separate than another. I mean, in the simulator, Biden could pull off some zany wins, but he also lost due to a lot of states that wouldnt be in play for Harris flipping to Trump way too much. 

So yeah. That's where we're at.

Also, another weird map I did want to bring up that I saw happen. 

This one is a long shot, I don't see this actually happening, but the fact that it popped up once was another artifact of randomness. Here we lost NM, WI, and NE2, only to randomly pick up GA and get 270 THAT way. It CAN happen.

But yeah. I'm gonna keep fooling around with these simulators. I doubt I'll integrate them into my forecasts in any SIGNIFICANT way at this point, but I did want to discuss them since I did the random trial thing before and now I built a machine that does it automatically at a push of a button.

Bernie would've won 2016 (2.0)

 So, yesterday I did my 2020 estimation of whether Bernie could've won. And I do think he could have, and that he actually has a similar map to what Harris has now. It would've been a narrow victory, but a victory nonetheless. my original 2016 estimation of whether Bernie could've won just did a different methodology, but I figure this time I want to go back and look at the swing state data on realclearpolitics to account for how Clinton and Sanders respectively. I did want to get Clinton's data on the last day Sanders' data was counted, but on the state level most states go by July, so I'll just use the final averages. As such I suspect this might be a little wonky, but still, should give me a decent enough idea since if I recall, Clinton polled worse when Sanders dropped out of the race anyway.

 Virginia: Sanders +22.0% / Clinton +5.0%

New Hampshire: Sanders +20.6% / Clinton +0.6%

Michigan: Sanders +20.0% / Clinton + 3.4%

Wisconsin: Sanders +19.0% / Clinton + 6.5%

Minnesota: Sanders +16.0% / Clinton +6.0%

Connecticut: Sanders +14.0% / Clinton +12.2%

Pennsylvania: Sanders +12.7% / Clinton +1.9%

Iowa: Sanders +9.0% / +3.0% Trump

Arizona: Sanders +8.3% / +4.0% Trump

North Carolina: Sanders +7.5% / +1.0% Trump

Ohio: Sanders +5.0% / +3.5% Trump

Florida: Sanders +3.2% / +0.2% Trump

Nevada: No data / +0.8% Trump

New Mexico: no data / + 5.0% Clinton

Indiana: Trump +1% / +10.7% Trump

Colorado: Trump +2.0% / +2.9% Clinton

Missouri: Trump +2.3% / + 11.0% Trump

Georgia: Trump +3.8% / +4.8% Trump

So yeah, this isn't a perfect comparison. I couldn't get data from when Sanders dropped out to compare Clinton to, but given the popular vote margin Sanders had exceeded Clinton at the time compared to what she had on election day, I'll go with it. Let's really make a map compare Clinton and Sanders here. It tells quite a picture:

Yeah. Sanders was so much better it was ridiculous. He commanded a massive lead over Clinton almost universally in the map, with the lead often exceeding 8 points and extending well into the double digits. I understand the data is taken months apart here, but again, given Clinton's comparable data at the time arguably wasn't much better than her election day data, it does tell a picture.

Once again, here's Clinton's map on election day:

A nice, narrow, embarrassing loss that makes me wish for better times. 

Now let's apply the handicap to the situation, with the purple unknown states just getting the same outcome.

Say it with me, guys, BERNIE WOULD HAVE WON!

I mean, look at the that glorious map. We should've BTFOed that little orange crapstain. I mean, keep in mind, literally ANY map where Sanders did better than Clinton would've clinched it for Sanders, even if Sanders only did better by a single point.

You'd literally need to make up a scenario where Sanders did WORSE than Clinton for him to lose. heck, let's do that real quick, here's the Sanders vs Biden data from last night:

Applied to the 2016 map we would get:

But yeah, again, this is unrealistically pessimistic for sanders just as the original map i posted was unrealistically optimistic for him. 

But yeah. Long story short, bernie could have and would have won 2016. It wasn't like 2020 at all. Would've been a blowout.

Would Bernie have won in 2020? A look back...

 So, we all know by now that if Bernie had went up against Trump in 2016, he would've won in a way that Clinton did not. But what of 2020? 2020 was a bit of a different animal, and whatever polling average Bernie had over Trump vs Clinton in 2016 had all but evaporated by 2020 vs Biden.

In general election polls, Bernie was up by 4.2% vs Trump in 2020 when he dropped out. The data stopped being counted on April 7th, and that's what his average was at the time. Biden was up by 6.1% at the same time. So, Biden did have stronger polling, and was about 1.9% ahead of Bernie. Even going by different dates, Biden generally led Bernie by 1-2 points. Given the election came down to 1.2% in the electoral college with Biden, that might not have been particularly good. But how did he do on the state level vs Biden, and did he have a viable path to 270?

Wisconsin- Sanders +2.0%/Biden +0% (3/29)

Pennsylvania- Sanders +2.8%/Biden +3.0% (3/8)

Michigan- Sanders +4.5%/Biden+ 4.5% (3/8)

Florida- Sanders -4.3%/Biden -0.5% (3/12)

Georgia- Sanders -10.5%/Biden -0.7% (3/2)

Arizona- Sanders -1.4%/Biden +3.4% (3/15)

North Carolina- Sanders +0.7%/Biden +3.4% (2/28)

Minnesota- Sanders +9.0%/Biden+12.0% (10/16/23)

Texas- Sanders -2.4%/Biden -3.0% (2/27)

Ohio- Sanders +2.3%/Biden +6.0% (3/15)

Nevada- Sanders +2.7%/Biden +4.0% (1/8)

Iowa- Sanders -7.5%/Biden -4.8% (3/5)

New Hampshire- Sanders +3.7%/Biden +4.5% (2/25)

So, let's visualize this based on the kind of map I used for Harris vs Biden today:

So....yikes. It does appear that Bernie was a far worse and less electable choice than Biden was in 2020. This isn't like 2016 at all. Bernie was a possible electoral liability. BUT...let's look at the data closely. Sanders still performs roughly equally to Bernie in the all important rust belt states, and lets face it, other states that are mentioned here honestly didn't really go for Biden in the first place anyway. A few did, but others did not. So let's really compare what the final electoral maps here would have been. 

Here's the actual 2020 map for Biden:

As we can see, many states were narrow for him. How would Bernie have fared, given these offsets in the voter margins?

Well will you look at that? Bernie still would have won. It would've been narrow. The sun belt would've been closed off, but all and all he would've pulled it off, barely. The pennsylvania margin would be just under a point. Keep in mind, Bernie was most robust in the rust belt, even if he was weaker in other parts of the country. A lot of the other states didn't like him, but most wouldn't have gone for him anyway, the only two flips that would've happened were Arizona and Georgia, and they flipped HARD.

 Southerners don't like "socialism" very much.  Of course, being a rust belt dude myself who is open to Bernie's policies, I don't like the south's politics myself. Too conservative for me. And I resent the dems for trying to pursue the sun belt with the intensity they are. it's not like we really win it anyway. We lock down the rust belt, and we win the election. It would've worked in 2016. It would've worked in 2020. And it's still the most viable path to winning 2024.

But yeah. This answers the question, assuming the margins were the same as when data stopped being gathered, bernie would've won. Now, given reality is messier than that and there's a higher degree of variability, would Bernie have DEFINITELY won? Was it POSSIBLE for him to lose? Oh yes, very possible. Biden won by the skin of his teeth and Bernie's win would've been even narrower in this mode. He still would've pulled it off, but let's face it, given how close it was, ANY error in the favor of Trump would've shifted the election the other way (although it is possible Bernie would've fared better than presented here, so he still probably would've pulled off similar margins regardless).

Now, at the time, did I care? Not really. I bernie or busted in 2020. If Trump won, I just saw it as politics as usual. He didn't start getting actually SCARY and talking like he does now until after he lost. Now he acts like he wants to be a dictator and literally tried to overturn the results in 2020. He's a scumbag. And yeah, he should absolutely be avoided if we want to preserve our democracy. So that's why 2024 is so much different for me. 

In 2016 and 2020, I just wanted Bernie to win. I didn't care if the dems lost otherwise. I wouldve rather lost fighting for what I believe in, than winning with something that I didn't. And while Biden has proved himself to be better than i thought he would be, I honestly just thought differently in 2020. I didn't recognize the limits to the overton window at the time. I genuinely did believe bernie could win, and to be fair, by my methodology, he WOULD have still won. It was just more of a gamble. I wasn't actually wrong. But if I looked at Bernie today like I looked at him in 2020, I would NOT want him to be replacing Joe Biden. I mean, when you're ahead, you can have the luxury of running a slightly weaker candidate. And in 2020 all the polls had us up by insane amounts. The polls proved to be wrong, and Trump overperformed again. But when you're coming from behind like we are now, you want the absolute strongest candidate you got, and you gotta be willing to make some ideological compromises to win. So this time, I'm willing to shift a bit to the right just to maintain a democrat in the white house and preserve democracy.

Again, 2024 is a special year. It's not a normal election year. 2020 was a "normal" year for me. And it was a year where the dems seemed to be ahead and we had the luxury of purity testing the dems and driving them left. This year the stakes are higher and we can't afford that. So it IS a pragmatic year. And I'm glad Harris is working out polling wise, even though it narrows our electoral path like Bernie 2020 would've anyway. But at least here we get a rust belt BOOST. Bernie didn't, he just kinda broke even, which is why we still would've won, but yeah. 

Anyway, so there you have it, bernie would've (probably) won. I won't yell and scream it like I did in 2016. In 2016, not only could he have won, he probably would've man handled trump. Here, he would've just barely held on. Still, a win is a win and I have to give it to him. 

Trump goes full mask off...

 So, Trump said at a rally today: 

“And again, Christians, get out and vote!” he said to a cheering audience. “Just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore. Four more years. You know what? It’ll be fixed! It’ll be fine! You won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians. I love you, Christians! I’m a Christian. I love you. Get out. You gotta get out and vote. In four years, you don’t have to vote again.”

...Jesus Christ. Yeah. That's bad. Like at best he's saying "he won't care" because he won't be on the ticket, but he also might literally be saying "because we won't have elections." 

Vote like your life depends on it, you guys. Because it very well might. Trump is that psycho. 

Election Update 7/26/24

So, the madman did it. He decided to turn down seeking another term. I've been mixed on this decision electorally. I'm risk adverse, and we didn't see a lot of data Harris would be a better choice. However, five days out, the energy in the democratic party is changing radically. It's actually a shift for the better. We have ENTHUSIASM, and elections are generally won with enthusiasm. But, ultimately, we need to understand the polling to understand where we're at, so where do we stand?

National polling

So, this is an experiment chart I made just to measure Harris against Biden and other possible candidates. Now, at this point, it's gonna Harris. Everyone endorsed her, it's been an easy process, and she's clearly the right decision. Her FIVE WAY polling is better than Biden's 2 way. And her 2 way polling puts her ahead.

Here, I did try to estimate the possible electoral margin based on the national polling alone. I'm gonna have to play with this, but for now I'm assuming a 2 point deficit for democrats, where they'll need to win the popular vote by 2 to break even in the electoral college. Even if Harris is coming ahead of Biden, it's gonna take a lot of work to dig us out of the hole Biden and the democrats dug us in. Remember how I said we were down by like 6 compared to 2020 nationally? Yeah. We're now up by one compared to where we were. Better than nothing, but we still need too overcome a significant electoral advantage to actually win.

Electoral college data

So, there is a lot to take in and digest, so I made an electoral map that should really summarize and help us visualize what has happened in the past week.

So, I'm gonna go over things top to bottom on the first chart. As you can tell, I'm just axing New York, New Jersey, Washington, and Illinois for now. I have no data on them, and it was weird they were considered swing states in the first place. I also have no new data on Colorado, New Mexico, and NE2, so I'm just using Biden data as a placeholder for now. Again, new candidate, need new data, we need polling in all of these states, these charts are a work in progress and under construction.

Now that said, we do have significant amounts of data and polling already. Blue leaning swing states like Virginia, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Maine are now much further left again. A lot closer to where they are expected to be. Remember, with Biden, he was LOSING VIRGINIA, and Maine, Minnesota, and New Hampshire were only 2-3 in Biden's favor. New York and New Jersey were down to the 7-8 range. That's TERRIBLE. And that's why everyone was crapping their pants over this. You get that bad, youre in "screwed" territory. 

Now, the rust belt. The rust belt is also shifting a bit back to the left. It's not enough to flip them, but most of the damage from Biden's bad debate has been nullified. It's positive movement.

At the same time, the sun belt is getting worse. As is Ohio, which I'm not even counting any more. It's Trump +13, I'm just dropping Ohio. But the sun belt is worse. Georgia is still in play but slightly worse. Arizona the same. Nevada, North Carolina, and Florida aren't even technically in play any more, although I admit, data is relatively scarce. It's possible more polling data moderates this effect, but yeah, the overall effect Harris has on the race is that it polarizes the electoral map. Blue states Biden was at risk of losing are secured. Red states Biden had little chance of winning are even more out of reach. Those crucial rust belt swing states that will decide the election are moving back left but are still in the Trump column.

Harris's odds are up to 22.7%, whereas Trump still has an 77.3% chance. Again, it's an uphill battle. The electoral map is still the same old 226-312 for Trump, but at least we got Virginia back and we're working on Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. We get those, we get 270. As I said the other day, no, Harris's path to 270 ISN'T different than Biden's. It's basically the Biden map but with the trends more amplified and the map more polarized. The one best path to 270 is through WI, MI, PA, and NE2. MAYBE GA. But anything else in the sun belt...don't bother. As I said, Harris should go with Josh Shapiro and try to lock down the rust belt. Don't go with like Roy Cooper or Mark Kelly or Andy Beshear or whatever. Shapiro is what you want, he's what you need. Or Gretchen Whitmer. Or maybe even Tim Walz if I wanted to be ballsy. JB Pritzker is an okay choice too. But yes, rust belt oriented pick, possibly a progressive. That's your path to victory, Harris, right there.

Now, all things considered, are we better with Harris than we were with Biden? Yes, a little bit. And I do believe that ultimately, we will have more potential to make up more ground over time. It's an uphill battle either way, but we're already seeing an overall improvement.

I'll leave Biden on this chart and just have Harris take over from here. We are moving back in the right direction and have more or less recovered from the damage Biden's debate caused.

Now, before I move on, I'm just gonna say I'm not gonna do 5 way data yet. The data there is even sparcer and more erratic, and while Harris has a better chance currently according to the 5 way data, this is also because there's a much smaller pool of polls to choose from and the least flattering polls for Harris are simply not present in that data. I will say that the 5 way data does have the PA tipping point at +0.3% Trump and that gives Harris a 47% chance, and Trump a 53% chance, but again, I don't trust this. This isn't a genuine trend toward Harris, just a quirk based on the small sample size of data. 

Senate forecast

Yawn, this is the same as last week, a few margin changes but nothing particularly out of the ordinary. 

Same old 49-51R with the republicans having a 64.6% chance, the democrats a 7.7% chance, and a 27.7% chance of a tie. 

Conclusion

I know that this isn't the most optimistic forecast. I know everyone is enthusiastic for Harris right now. And that's GOOD. Enthusiasm wins elections. Keep it up. I'm not saying we can't win this. Polls are a snapshot in time. But, Biden was down so much it's gonna take a lot digging out of the hole we've been in and possibly a little luck to win. I do think these numbers are trending in the right direct overall, and if we keep going, we might actually have a shot here. Trump is SCARED. He's literally scared of Harris I think. Because now the energy is different, harris is the young candidate people are passionate about, and Trump is the weird old man who basically is putting people to sleep. So keep going, and maybe we'll win this. 

EDIT: New data came out; had to replace some data

A shower thought on condescending liberals

 So, I just had a shower thought about condescending liberals that I want to get out there.

As we know, democrats arent exactly known for their finesse. They seem out of touch. They seem like weirdo corporate boardroom people trying to figure out how to sell a product that nobody wants. And push comes to shove, they lord their perceived superiority over people and lecture them about how "this is how it's going to be" and how we need to fall in line and blah blah blah. And it...falls flat. 

Who in the right mind thinks this works? but after listening to some of these same voices supporting Harris, I'm finally starting to get it. It's because they REALLY ARE these weirdo corporate boardroom types who don't know how to talk to people. They treat voters like their employees. They're used to getting their way by talking down to them in a stern and condescending tone that "this is how it's gonna be and you better fall in line or you're not gonna have a job tomorrow." And people have to listen to them...because they they won't have a job tomorrow if they don't. And that's problematic...."because of the implication." 

So they're used to just getting their way by making veiled threats and pushing people around and don't know how to deal with people who they can't push around. And normally the people they can't push around end up sorting themselves out by leaving so they just feel like they remain in control of whatever environment they're in charge of and whatever. They never learn.

But elections are different. You need to actually appeal to people or you don't win. And the reason that I'm so stubborn is i recognize that for all of their threats and blathering me, they generally have little to no power over me. I do what I want. And if they wanna force me to do something, they can screw off. 

But...here we are 2024, and we're in a unique situation. We need to get harris across the finish line to defeat Trump. Trump is a unique threat to democracy, and his movement is genuinely scary and insane. So we gotta join forces this time. But man, watching these people is just weird.

Like, the trumpers are trying to sow discontent among progressives by pointing out how undemocratic the process is of choosing Harris. And it IS undemocratic. Now, my approach to this is to point out the obvious. The logistics of running an all out primary at this stage are impossible to implement. And of the candidates on the table, Harris is actually one of the best ones. If anything, Biden endorsing Harris and the party coalescing around her is actually good for us because the centrists wanted to use the idea of an open convention to push a more corporate friendly centrist candidate. 

I try to convey this to my progressives. Then i visit the K hive parts of the internet with all of their scum and villainy, and these guys are like "tell them that these rules and that that's how it's gonna be". No, are an idiot? And then when I try to nicely nudge them and tell them this isnt effective, they literally get in an argument with me about it. Which goes nowhere because not only are their talking poitns terrible, they move me the other way. I ended the debate explaining that their approach is ineffective and if they want people susceptible to the "anti democratic" argument to actually listen to them, that they need to get out of my way.

Because these people are that idiotic.

I'm also seeing tons of corporate eggheads popping up on CNBC and CNN going on about how great Harris is gonna be for the stock market and how she'll be more pro corporate than Biden was and how Biden was terrible on that front. Uh...excuse me? That was the best thing about Biden and one thing that makes this harris pill easier to swallow is that she actually has a progressive history. As i said, idk how she'll actually govern. I feel like progressives are gonna wanna pull her one way, the corporate, centrist establishment is gonna wanna pull her the other, and yeah, where we end up, who knows. I'm guessing she'll be biden but a tad more progressive, but who knows. At this point, the goal is to just beat trump.

But yeah. It's like these idiots dont know how to talk to people. Because they really are just corporate ###holes who sit around board meetings trying to figure out how to sell something no one wants to buy, and squandering any actual organic energy that they have. And ugh. I hate this crap so much. I'd seriously consider a stein vote if the situation wasn't so dire, but even then, Harris is just a stronger candidate. So...whatever. I just hate these people though and I hate that now we're on the same side. Ugh.

Will Kamala be progressive or centrist?

 So, there seems to be a very wide coalition coming together around Kamala ranging from die hard centrists and corporate dems to former Bernie supporters like me. And it seems like we're all kind of injecting our own politics into what we think the Harris administration will look like. Some dude on CNBC was going on about how she might be "great for wall street", but then I think she has the potential to be progressive, and based on her past experience as senator, she WAS progressive. She did embrace policies like a green new deal, and medicare for all lite, and free college with some student debt forgiveness, and I honestly respect that. But at the same time, a lot of centrists who soured on Biden's relatively progressive streak think she could be a return to form for them.

What direction will she go in? We don't really know. Right now she kinda seems to be hitting some progressive notes, but I do have to consider that the centrists are trying to circle the wagons and salivate over her administration. And if they had their way, they'd pressure her into being a pro corporate dem.

This is, btw, why in 2020, I didn't like her. Because as long as we had someone like Bernie who we KNEW couldn't be bought, why would we ever settle for Harris? She might be good, but she might merely fake left and run right after the election. That's why I created the "dedication to progressive goals" metric in my main purity test.

Well, here's the thing, in 2024, the stakes are higher if we lose IMO, with trump being an outright threat to democracy, and the standards are lower. Harris is looking good right now, and I'd rather it be her than some full blown centrist who we KNOW is gonna be centrist and won't even be a HINT of progressive. So Harris is the pragmatic option to try to leverage the country left. My own personal mental model is gonna be "basically Joe Biden, but slightly more progressive on some key issues" based on past stances taken in congress. Again, I'm trying to go by her actual congressional record here. And there, she hasn't been half bad. So, she has A RECORD of being relatively progressive. But yeah, i do know the centrists are gonna try to work their way into her administration and push her right, just as I hope the voters push her left. 

And yeah, we don't know where this will end up. This could be Obama all over again, where campaign it's hope and change, and in office, it's Bill Clinton 2.0. We don't know. But what other choice do we have right now? We're kinda between a rock and a hard place. I just hope Kamala herself is strong enough willed to do the right thing and AT LEAST be as progressive as Joe was, if not better.

More VP discussion

 So, as I really survey the field, and look at considerations, I've really come up with two major endorsements of who I would want for VP.

The first VP I choose based purely on policy preferences. Here, I choose Tim Walz. Kyle covered VP discussions yesterday and he really came out swinging for Walz. And Walz is the most progressive option. He's done tons of stuff for Minnesota and I'd love him to succeed Harris. 

However, my second choice is the "strategic" choice. And this strategy intersects with me two ways. First, it's about maximizing our chances to win in the fall. Second, it's about finding the candidate with the flaws I can tolerate MOST. In this sense, I've really honed in on Josh Shapiro. 

Look. All roads to the white house, that are viable, at least, go through PA. If you don't get PA, you'll need to get at least 2 other states, if not 3 in an Arizona/Nevada situation as those two only secure 17 electoral votes. With NE2, Michigan, and Wisconsin, we get 251 electoral votes. PA will give us 270 flat (currently 18% chance). Arizona will give us 262 (5% chance), or 268 with Nevada (1% chance). Georgia (13% chance) or North Carolina (1% chance) will net us 16 each. 

It's just math. Lock down PA. And honestly, locking down PA might have a spillover effect into Wisconsin and Michigan. To be fair, Walz could also have that effect, especially on Wisconsin, but we really do need all 3 of those states to win, and PA would likely best secure our odds there. 

The second reason I'd prefer Shapiro of the "strategic" options is because of the flaws of the candidates being most seriously considered, Shapiro's flaws are minimal to my own policy preferences. His big beef with the left is him being an "ultra zionist". Given I literally couldnt care less about Israel at this point and if anything have disdain for the far left purity testing in this regard, I can live with that.

Meanwhile if we went with say, Mark Kelly, Kelly would be a more moderate VP economically, he's not for medicare for all, he's not for the PRO act. He's kind of more corporate friendly. I know a lot of the K hive is fawning over him because "he's an astronaut" or whatever, but meh, he's boring, and honestly? AZ is only 11 electoral votes. He may have a spillover effect into Nevada, but that gives us 17. PA gives us 19 and the spillover effect could bring us up to 44. And that's what we NEED to win. 

Meanwhile what does Andy Beshear bring to the ticket? He's an enlightened centrist and governor of a safe red state. He's basically the more "Joe Manchin" type democrat if you ask me. not that he's THAT bad. But ya know, blue candidate from a rural appalachian state that's normally reddest in the nation? He brings no real appeal to the ticket.

Neither does Roy Cooper. He's an old white guy. It's like getting a younger Joe Biden on there. Except even more centristy and I like him either way. 

Honestly, as such, I'm putting forward two recommendations: Tim Walz and Josh Shapiro. 

If you want more that I could live with, JB Pritzker is fairly progressive and has rust belt appeal. Kind of the runner up for the "policy" approach. 

Whitmer is more progressive than Shapiro and would lock down Michigan, but I doubt they'd choose a woman VP because they want some white guy to balance the ticket (ugh, I hate it when identity politics goes the other way too). 

But yeah. That's what I'm thinking.

Dear conservatives, no take backsies!

 So, now Trump is starting to realize his pick of JD Vance is kind of less than stellar. I mean, the guy's boring. he doesnt have the populist energy it looked like he would bring to a ticket. He's kind of extremist with the christian nationalism, and he's proving to be a liability to Trump, especially with harris shaking up the democratic ticket.

But...it's too late GOP. You should've thought about that before you nominated him. It's too late to pull out now. You know what they say, life begins at convention. So now you have to carry this vice presidency to term. Too late to abort now. 

God, the fricking memes we can make now. This is what having energy and enthusiasm looks like. I can get used to this.

Reacting briefly to Biden's speech

 So Biden gave his speech today explaining him declining the candidacy and explaining his reasoning. He kept it simple. It wasn't really the most amazing speech in the world. If anything it kind of confirmed it was the right decision to me, as it felt boring, he slurred his words, and it didn't land. 

Basically, he framed it as a defense of democracy. That IS the best way to put it. Stepping aside because he can't win, and passing it off to the next generation (even though Harris is only 20 years younger). And yeah, Trump is a literal threat, so him doing it for the sake of defending the country is the best approach. 

Do I agree with such a decision? Well, polling wise, I think it was and is unclear. Harris historically polls worse than Biden, although she's been stepping up her game and I would now say we've reached an inflection point where maybe we can win this...if we stick to the rust belt and the 270-268 strategy. She has slightly better odds than Biden. Will this get better? Maybe, hopefully. As I've said, I've felt energy in the democratic party we havent had in over a decade now. Harris is younger, more progressive, and she might be able to pull it off. Her pulling out is radically changing the dynamics of the race for better and while the polling implications are yet to be seen, it looks like this gamble is paying off. 

As such, I would say, much like everyone else, thank you for your service and your sacrifice, Mr. President. Even if Biden polled better for the most part, the lack of energy was gonna ensure that the dynamics of the race would never change. Last week I was panicking watching the RNC, especially at first. They started off with energy but it dwindled down to the point that by thursday night, any sense of luster wore off as Trump went on a weird 90 minute rambling speech that literally put people to sleep. 

Harris IS shaking things up, and while I don't know how it will turn out for her, or us, there is a sense of optimism, energy and passion that we didn't have, while suddenly, the GOP is freaking out. So...this could be the best thing for us. We'll see. 

Anyway, I dont have else to say other than that. As I said, it was a boring speech. And if anything just the energetic shift listening to Biden and then to harris, it's a world of difference. So let's see where this goes.

Explaining why, as a Bernie Stan, I am now support Kamala Harris

 So, Politico put out an article talking about how some die hard Bernie or Busters are now supporting Kamala harris. As one of these guys, let me explain how I got here. 

Why I defected from the democrats

In 2016, i defected from the democrats over Hillary's coronation to the democratic candidacy. The fact is, it wasn't what I wanted to see out of the democrats. I hadnt been a democrat for all that long when it happened. I was an ex conservative who left the GOP during the 2012 election cycle, and by 2016, I did a lot of ideological spring cleaning that made me a full on progressive.

Being new to the democratic party's intraparty politics (keep in mind I was just sitting here with the pop corn in 2008 begrudgingly supporting McCain while the clinton supporters were calling the obama supporters sexist and the obama supporters were calling the clinton supporters racist), they felt foreign to me. And having an independent streak, there was NO WAY I was gonna vote for a party that so obviously coronated their nominee and told us we had to vote for them or else.

And being a "bernie bro" whose politics reflect that of the rust belt and disaffected white working class people who lean progressive, ie, i was big into economic change and social justice crap did nothing for me at all, I felt very justified in "teaching the democratic party a lesson" and refusing to vote for them. 

It's all fun and games until the Trumpers try to overthrow democracy...

On Donald Trump, I never really bought the line that he was a massive threat to democracy. I've heard this crap before. Wanna know where? Again, as a republican in 2008. We were told Obama was this socialist who was gonna take over the US, destroy us economically, and end up redistributing the wealth and making grandma die due to death panels on healthcare. But obama ended up being quite moderate, and not a threat to democracy. If anything, by the end of his 8 years in office, he was TOO moderate, and I wanted actual change by then. Democratic politics a la the third way is in the uncanny valley of suck. It's too far left to appeal to anyone on the right as they're perpetually in fear that whoever is nominated is a secret communist gonna overthrow the system, and it's not far left enough to energize the democratic base. So the dems lose elections to the right again and again. 

Me personally, i treated 2016 as just another year. Trump was a loudmouth, i didn't like him. But he seemed kind of moderate and populist on economics, and while yes, he was racist, I quite frankly didn't care all that much because as a "privileged white male" who isn't gonna apologize for who I am, I didn't care.

So, the Clintonites called me a Bernie bro and said all kinds of deranged crap while not appealing to me on the issues I DID care about, so I just ended up voting green. 

And Trump sucked. We all know he did. I kinda figured Trump was a flash in the pan. people would vote for him since they didnt know what they would get but when they got him, they'd turn on him. And it seemed like, going through 2020, that was how things were. And once again, finding intraparty democratic politics to be alienating to my very being, and once again not getting my way and being told to accept a crappy candidate i didn't want, I just went third party again.

But then, despite being massively up in the polls, Trump almost won, which kinda scared me because it made me realize that through it all, much of the country STILL LIKES THIS GUY. And then he threw salt over losing the election. I knew he would, and didn't think much of it, there would be people to remove him on January 20th, 2021 kicking and screaming if he didn't leave on his own accord. 

But then I saw January 6th. i didn't think that much of it at the time, but it did baffle me. Like...where was the national guard? I saw quick responses to BLM protests all year, and beings heads being cracked for daring to protest for the police to be a little less militant, but these guys just get a pass? Then I realized that this was essentially orchestrated by Trump himself, he incited the crowd and withheld backup specifically to let the coup happen, and overturn the results. And at that point, i realized, this guy can never be president again. He literally just did that. No. If he were just a normal republican candidate, with the democrats' hyperbolic foaming at the mouth over him as a campaign strategy, I would be fine just walking away and letting the dems fail. But we can't do that if this guy has a serious chance of getting back in the white house.

And it's gotten worse. SCOTUS is compromised and now our ultimate referees are blatantly biaed toward this guy. And now they got some 900 page plan to force christian nationalism on us and break our government. And as things stand, if the GOP wins, they'll control all 3 branches for at least 2 years and do god knows what to break our democracy and turn us from a two party state into a one party state. I've reflected and stewed on this during the Biden years, and I've kinda literally gotten scared of Trump. The dems arent just making it up as an electoral strategy. This guy is legitimately dangerous. And for all the talk of turning the temperature down, I'd love the temperature to go down, but I can't back down as long as the GOP is this dangerous. I just can't. They're literally a threat to democracy as they stand and in a position to do some major damage if they win in 2024.

The left has gone insane

Meanwhile, while I was on board with the Bernie or Bust movement in 2016, the left has gotten insane since then. They've gone down rabbit holes of extremes of being so anti democratic party they start spouting conspiracies and sounding like conservatives. COVID broke their brains where many of them went anti vax.

A lot of them radicalized into full blown socialists and gotten so extreme that I don't even recognize them after all. Between the extreme "anti war" views on foreign policy, the calls for literal socialism and communism on economics, and the "woke mind virus" going around on the left on social issues, I've kinda just backed the frick away from these people and realize that they just don't represent me after all. I love Bernie himself, I love the squad and AOC and the like. But those guys are pariahs among the left and their fricking calls for literal socialism. Like really, they're insane, and I don't fit in with them any more. 

Yang moderated TOO much

 Meanwhile the other anti establishment figure I liked in 2020, Andrew Yang, he had a lot of promise with his forward party. A party based around UBI and human centered capitalism, as well as breaking the two party duopoly? Sign me the frick up! But then they merged with these like, Lincoln Project types and abandoned the UBI and human centered capitalist stuff and are all about unity and blah blah blah centrism, let's not stand for anything at all. So those guys alienated me a lot.

Biden didn't govern half bad

I was critical of Biden at first, but after watching the left go completely insane, and the Yang gang go full on enlightened centrist, I started looking at what Biden was actually doing, and it wasn't half bad. is it everything I want? No, but he's trying to hit priorities of mine. And it's kind of coming back around to me begrudgingly backing up the democrats again. if only because there's no good alternative to them. I mean, biden's platform was heavily inspired by Bernie and while lacked many of the big ticket items in my purity tests, he actually has done a lot of stuff and tried to do a lot of stuff. Mostly small things, but it adds up and counts. And it's not like anyone else has anything going on...

There really isn't an alternative...

Still I was open to a possible 2024 challenge. But really, no challenge on the left really appeared. Marianne Williamson was running on Bernie's platform, and I did vote for her, but she never got off the ground. No one really took her seriously, even on the left. And I've kind of realized, post Bernie, the left's bench is empty. We don't have a good successor to Bernie. And most holdouts who are still bernie or Bust are extremist nutcases. After October 7th, they went full on free palestine as their big 2024 issue, wouldnt even back williamson and voted for "uncommitted" or "free palestine". And they werent a very significant part of the population. Like really, post Bernie, we don't even have the numbers to mount an effective challenge or even the pretense of one in the democratic party. We are scattered to the wind with us just being increasingly resigned to another term of Biden, or radicalizing to the point that nothing the democrats could ever do is enough for these people. I've always tried to be reasonable. Condition my vote to my policy preferences. but democrats started doing just as good as or better of a job than any alternative would, especially given how extreme and offputting the alternatives are. 

And then there's the trump problem...

And then you gotta consider this, Trump is running again. His base is as energized as ever. And we're NOT. And we're LOSING. BADLY. According to the polls. We're talking being down 2-4 in the electoral college vs being up by 4-9. And keep in mind, even though Biden won, we underestimated MAGA last time. We ALMOST LOST. And now we're down what, 4? 6 points vs our 2020 high water mark? yeah, that's not good. So the mission suddenly became "okay, time to rally behind Biden". We might not like everything he's done, we might want someone more extreme, but at least he's doing SOME stuff. And given Trump is LITERALLY a threat to democracy, yeah...we need to come together behind the democrats. For real. 

Kamala Harris is actually looking pretty good...

Even before Biden dropped out, I did kinda toy with the idea of someone else being the democratic nominee. And I looked at alternatives like Harris and even though i overlooked her in 2020, she ain't bad. I mean, another thing too, I kinda moderated a little bit between 2020 and 2024 by becoming a little more pragmatic. This was as I did some more ideological spring cleaning where I kinda researched alternative ways to reach my goals, especially given my primary UBI idea costs $4 trillion dollars, and that makes a green new deal and maybe even full on single payer unfeasible. So what did I come up with as an alternative. Well on environmental policy I came up with something like build back better, NOT a full green new deal. And on healthcare, well, I came up with something that looks suspiciously like Kamala Harris's 2020 healthcare plan. 

Keep in mind, i've always been a UBI nerd. Not really in the "socialist" direction, but the human centered capitalist yang direction. So looking at how to feasibly hit my goals, I kind of moderated a little on my secondary goals. And Harris's politics got a bump for me where going over my purity tests again, Harris is looking pretty good right about now. She's not a UBI stan, but given how low the standards are getting between the left going into the "nothing will ever please me because i want revolution" direction and the centrists getting so pathetic that they want nothing at all, this middle lane actually starts looking good. 

And I did note Harris was high on my list for possible replacements. 

And then Biden was forced out...

And here's the thing. I did resign myself to Biden in 2024. I figured, given the environment, it was the best we can do. The standards just lowered that much. And then debate gate happened. The party imploded over it. And given my primary goal is just to defeat trump and push for Biden again, I honestly got to a point where I was like, ok, let's try to win. So I stayed loyal to Biden, being reluctant to replace him. Keep in mind, I evaluated Kamala's chances last year vs Biden's and didn't like what I saw. And inevitably, I ended up being a bit of a biden loyalist purely from a numbers perspective. he had the best chance to beat Trump, so be it.

But Biden was forced out anyway. And now we got Harris. And now everyone is enthusiastic. And I'm not gonna lie, I am too. Because Harris actually is a good candidate relative to Biden. I can actually defend her and her policies, and I actually have something to work with. Something to vote FOR. Not just AGAINST. I like her climate ideas. her free college ideas. Her housing ideas. Her healthcare ideas. I LIKE HER POLICIES. now, that said, she STILL ain't as extreme as I want, but no one is perfect. I supported Bernie and Yang despite having clear philosophical and policy disagreements with them at times. This is no different. I mean, no candidate is ever gonna be perfect. And despite my purity tests and refusing to vote for dems in the past, I've never been as unreasonable as the far left is now. I've had clear policy goals. I just wanted someone who I'm voting FOR, not AGAINST. 

And now we got one...

And then the democratic party went super saiyan...  

And now the energy is different.  I can actually make memes for this lady. here's the thing. Memes are organic. You get inspired, and you make them. You can't force it. You cant make memes for candidates youre not enthusiastic about. You need to LIKE the person. And very quickly, suddenly, Trump is the old guy in the race. And he's the rambler. And he's the crazy one. And his VP is weird and unlikeable. 

And Harris has the energy. 

I'm still not convinced we have the polling to win. Quite frankly, I'm very nervous from a polling perspective. However, based on how I'm seeing things shifting, my projections are going from "as much of a chance as Biden had" to "maybe we can actually win this." Really. The energy is changing. Energy is what wins elections. And we just had a massive infusion of energy.

And now Trump suddenly looks old and tired. And he himself is panicking like a DBZ villain who realizes he lost. 

So what now?

So what now? Well, now we have to win. And this means, play it safely, keep the energy going, and don't screw up. What does screwing up mean? Alienating people like me again. Trump is such a threat because his movement has energy. Biden barely beat him last time. he couldnt beat him this time. Even Harris is gonna struggle. So, play it cool, and don't mess this up. That's what I'm gonna say. Focus on the rust belt, get to 270, win. Don't get prideful like Hillary Clinton or Vegeta. That's how we got here in the first place. And drop the centrist corporate thing. Nothing sucks the energy out of the room like corporate democrats who promise to never make your life better because it's not pragmatic. 

So yeah, that's why I support Harris, and that's what my advice is. keep going. You got Big Bernie energy right now. This is like 2016 all over again, we can either win with a progressive, or lose if we decide to go all corporate and centrist. Up to you.