Saturday, November 30, 2024

Are Gen Z men okay?

 So, I decided to surf the internet to get to the bottom of the gen Z liking trump nonsense. And uh...what I found kind of concerns me. I can't say the left didn't bring this on itself to some extent, and it's possible these views are just heavily vocal people, but uh...yeah. It seems like we're turning a generation into monsters.

Generally speaking, what seems to drive gen Z men right is a rejection of social justice culture. They hate how so much of dating is done on the terms of women, and they seem to judge women for being "sluts" and not being loyal, and they just feel completely emasculated and like they don't fit into society properly. All of the old traditions still apply to men, but they don't apply to women, and it seems like a lot of gen Z men are becoming outright resentful and sexist toward women. Millennials had problems with MGTOW, incels, etc too, especially among the "social rejects" (and to be fair, I am one of the "social rejects", despite never identifying with these subcultures), but gen Z just seems to be going in a direction where they're that by default. They hate how the left is so obsessed with identity politics, and how it leaves them out, and again, they literally seem resentful to the left for it. So now they're going on about how they're alt right "gigachads" and adopting basically their own brand of toxic masculinity, while the women end up just becoming obnoxious SJWs. This culture isn't really healthy for either gender, but it seems to be the direction the world has gone.

I blame 2016 for this. Even more so, I blame Hillary Clinton for this. I remember when young white men like me were joining the democrats in droves. Many of us grew up conservative, but we shifted liberal over time, recognizing that those conservative values werent good for us. But then clinton leaned hard into identity politics, and alienated us. I mean, I'm going to be honest. I too was alienated. I rant about SJWs for a reason, but this new generation who is raised with this crap, and let's be honest, they are. In 2024, a first time voter is someone born in 2005-2006, and they were literally still pre teens when 2016 happened. So their entire adolescence has been this alt right vs social justice crap. And it literally does define their entire worldview. And many of them are full on rejecting the left, calling us "cucks" and "beta males" and blah blah blah while running hard right. 

And on economics, it isn't a ton better. I admit, I didn't do as much research on this. Most stuff I saw when it came to gen Z and politics seemed related to gender relations and dating. But I did find a topic about say, NEETs and all, and uh, yeah. Most of them have no sympathy. I understand a lot of them are still at that young and tender age where maybe they haven't hit the "real world" yet, but a lot of them just seem to blame the people and call them lazy. To be fair, if they're voting for trump that tracks. But yeah. They clearly havent had their faith in the system challenged, and maybe they never will. My generation, the millennials, was traumatized by the great recession. it radicalized us and made us left leaning. But people coming of age now in the 2020s were literally born when I was coming of age in the 2000s, and the circumstances of their short adulthoods and even teen years is defined more by COVID and the aftermath. Like, again, someone who is a first time voter in 2024, was like 14-15 when covid happened. They were a pre teen when trump was in his first term. Like, Obama to them is what clinton was for me. Trump and Biden are like george bush's two terms. And now they just elected Trump. 

Like, the economy is different, the issues are different. I no longer can say I really connect with the younger generation at all, because I am now old enough that I was an adult their entire lives. And all they know with politics is toxic identity crap that has made dating a complete dumpster fire on social issues, and economically, they've inherited this post covid economy with its low unemployment and high inflation. And that's what's defining their politics. Keep in mind, ages 14-24 are considered the prime window that defines someone's political worldview.

For me, that is around 2001-2012. Ie, 9/11 to my deconversion from christianity and shift toward the left. For someone who is an elder millennial say 10 years younger than me, that's 2011-2022. So basically they still remember the crapshow that was the recession and the era before modern politics, but covid still played a significant role.

But again, if you're born in say, 2005ish, like some younger gen Zers who can now vote, that window is basically 2019 to 2030. So COVID, the aftermath, and whatever comes next. There is time for them to change, but given all they really have to go off of is COVID and the biden presidency, as well as a toxic dating environment due to social justice crap, can anyone blame them for being hard right? I mean, I kinda get it when you frame it like that. The stuff that defined my views is not even on their radar, they werent even alive for much of it, and they dont remember the other half of it. It's like asking me to related to events that happened during Bush Sr.'s presidency. And to them, Bush Sr. is like what Gerald Ford is to me. Like your parents remember them, and you might read about them in history books, but you never experienced that for yourself. 

I have to admit, I'm finally at the age where I just dont get younger people any more. Like, elder zoomers, I do get along with I think. I still relate to them somewhat, but the younger ones? Man they kind of came to age in a crapshow, and it's not a huge surprise they're going the other way, because the democrats are hot garbage and all they do is morally police men over insular social issues. And they're rejecting that message outright. VIOLENTLY. 

Okay, not literally violently, but you get the idea. Like, I've always been critical of the SJW stuff, I remember it becoming a thing like 8-15 years ago. And when the democrats went all in with that, it seemed obvious that a lot of us men were quite frankly alienated from it. Even I was alienated from it, and I admit, if I was younger and less educated, I never would've stayed on the left. But I also recognized that in 2016, the left changed, and not for the better. I came over when the left was not only still good, but actually winning. And we lost that. We literally threw it away with Clinton's campaign in 2016. And I've, since then, been this independent leftie from a previous era that no longer exists who just feels trapped on the left. I recognize the right sucks, and i have no desire to go back, but I ain't happy here either. These younger zoomers, they're just outright say "F the left" and becoming not just right wing, but antagonistically so. It's the younger zoomers who are like "your body my choice". They are the ones who actively slut shame women and as some of us older people have pointed out, are starting to act like catholic puritans on dating. And it's scary. I never thought the next generation would become this conservative. But again, different frame of reference. 2001-2012 vs the post 2016 generation. Go figure. Like we are starting to see the fruits of this realignment. We are starting to see what toxic identity politics and economic centrism gets us. And it's causing the youngest generation to reject our politics RESOUNDINGLY. Like not only are they "I'm not feeling it", they're like "F you and everything you stand for."

Well, can't say I haven't been calling this crap since 2016. The real problem is, is it too late to do anything about it? I mean, for me, my politics was like this, except against the right. I rejected Bush. I rejected the tea party. I rejected Romney. I rejected the religious right. I rejected Reaganism. Conservatism did F all for me and if anything just made my life worse, so I rejected it. But now the new generation is coming of age, and they're feeling that way...about us. About the left. About Joe Biden. About Kamala Harris. About Hillary Clinton. They feel like we're out of touch. That our ideas aren't helping THEM. And you know what? They kinda have a point. Because what has the democratic party done for the country in the past decade? Biden was okay, but only okay, and okay isnt enough to really save anything. To these younger zoomers, biden sucks, social justice politics is trash, and these guys are kinda leaning hard right. It scares me. Things can change, but this trend among the youngest voters scares me. For the past two decades, it looked like the left was winning and the right was done. But now the right has come roaring back in the trump era, and now the shoe is on the other foot. Thanks Hillary, thanks a lot. My God, I will never get over my hate of that woman. She literally doomed us all. And we're gonna be suffering for the rest of our lives because of it.

Thursday, November 28, 2024

Democrats are so fricking clueless...

 So, I went out to eat for thanksgiving with family, and on the way, I listened to that pod save america podcast with the kamala harris campaignj workers on it. And ugh, they are just so clueless. Like, at one point, they addressed the question of "why wasnt harris more different than biden?" And the answer is that they didn't want a set a bad precedent in having a vice president throw the previous president under the bus and they were locked into the same brand of politics.

....and that's why you lost. No, really. People didn't want Joe Biden, they wanted something DIFFERENT. And everything else was just "well we didn't have time to plan a more effective campaign" and "well the fundamentals were just so strong against us." Like there was that quote about how the swings states have so many conservatives, so many liberals, and so many moderates/independents and they had to "dominate" the moderates.

*sigh*

So, having studied political trends throughout modern political history (ie the last century), let me say this. By the time a vice president runs on the previous president's ticket, unless they're EXTREMELY POPULAR, they almost never win. This is because these presidents are unpopular by the time they leave office. It's like outside of realignments, 8 years is the maximum people are willing to accept the same thing, and after 8 years, they want change.

Even in cases where you have a strong charismatic realigning figure, the VP is almost never as popular as the previous president. Truman was never as overwhelmingly popular as FDR, and Bush rode Reagan's coattails. You could argue a case for Johnson, but he took over Kennedy's first term 3 years in after he was assassinated, and served out the rest of his 8 years. And then the democratic coalition collapsed after that. 

So...let's be honest. It seems like this conventional knowledge of running on the previous president is a load of crap. Unless you got some super popular realigning figure, you probably don't wanna be the previous president's VP running for president. Because people are tired of that brand of politics.

And that's what killed Harris IMO. People didn't want 4 more years of Joe Biden. That's why he had to step aside. It wasnt JUST the cognitive decline, it was the fact that that brand of politics always sucked. It's the same thing as Clinton. People didn't want 4 years of Clinton after 8 years of Obama. They didn't even want Clinton in 2008. We got 2008's leftovers in 2016. But it was "her turn" and we all just had to put up with it. 

Democrats are clueless. It's not about being in touch, everything with them is legacy. You wanna know why the democrats couldnt go with sanders? Because Sanders would erase Obama's legacy, the ACA, and make Obama look like crap. It's the same thing with McGovern. They couldn't let him push for a UBI since it would undermine the war on poverty and all of those crappy programs. Democrats have this obsession with legacy. They can't just have the next person who comes around upstage the previous one and tarnish their legacy, all these people care about is their legacy and looking good in the history books. And that's why they had to push Harris as a centrist. because if she ran as a progressive, she would make Biden look like crap, and again, these peoples' egos are more important than doing what's right for the country. Biden literally was gonna have us all go down with the ship with him. His internal polling had him losing in a landslide, and he literally decided his feelings and his legacy were more important. And then he dropped a mess on Harris's lap when he did back down, and Harris ended up being Hubert Humphrey again. 

Is it possible Harris was screwed no matter what she did? Yeah. But honestly, running as a centrist was a big mistake. And these people in the DNC consultant class are just so fricking clueless. They don't get it. They dont understand politics. 

I know Kyle made a video claiming that Harris's campaign was sabotaged because the same person who ran it wanted harris out to get a new candidate in. But, I'm going to apply hanlon's razor on this one. Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to pure stupidity. The person who ran her campaign was one of those die hard centrist types who wanted biden and harris out to push their centrist ideology on the party. They hated that biden gave even small concessions to progressives, and they wanted the party to be hardline centrist. 

And then Harris ran as a hardline centrist. Was she sabotaged? No. At least not in a malicious way. Basically, she ended up doing exactly what those consultant class morons wanted, she ran to the center to appease moderate voters, and she ended up having no appeal and losing because of it. Again, don't attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity. The malice was against progressivism. The stupidity was toward harris, because they pushed the exact vision they wanted to push on the country through harris, and they lost.

Seriously. Everything with these people is centrism centrism centrism. They're so clueless. They actively hamstrung themselves by refusing to allow harris to be a change candidate, and it's not because they hated harris and wanted her to lose. It was because they kept trying to force this crappy ideology on the country that no one actually wanted. And the voters voted for trump as a result.

I figured the democrats would try to find a way of weaseling out of responsibility for their failure, and now they're doing it. They're just saying "oh we couldnt have won, we couldnt have done anything differently, we were just screwed", and I'm not gonna lie, to some extent there is some truth to that. But to be fair, a lot of that was also because the democratic brand of politics is FUNDAMENTALLY UNPOPULAR. And they keep trying to ram it down our throats, and they just dont understand voters.

Imagine if after 2008 and 2012's republican failures, they kept ignoring the tea party and kept pushing neocons no one wanted. Say they forced Jeb on us in 2016. Would the GOP have won? Probably not. But then after doing that, they would just do the same thing "oh well what could we do? run donald trump?" As someone who lives in the timeline where trump won, YES. DUH. And it's the same thing here. Bernie 2016 would've changed EVERYTHING. And if anything, the reason the progressive left is in such an anemic state is because the democrats sabotaged us and purged everyone from the party they could. They got rid of Nina Turner for calling Biden half a bowl of crap. Even though she was right, and I'm pretty sure like 2/3 of the country would agree with that. They're clueless. They stifle dissent, they force this exact brand of politics on us, and then they go "well what can we do? literally anything else?" Ugh. 

All I know is as far as any further cooperation with democrats go, all bets are off. Just as Bernie is seemingly distancing himself from the democrats, I'm following his lead. If we can accomplish change within the democratic party, so be it. But if we gotta go outside of the party, so be it. I voted democratic this time to save the country from a second term of donald trump, who is literally too dangerous to hold the role. But in future elections, if we still have them, who knows? All I know is dont expect to bully me in line. You'll have to earn my vote for better or for worse, and if you fail to do that, I'm gonna vote elsewhere. Normally when you get your butt beat you should look at why and do some introspection. But if that doesnt happen with the modern democrats, well, what can I say? Keep getting the same results. You guys are hopeless, and I ain't really loyal to you. I'm one of the voters who just hates both parties right now. I hate the democrats less, but make no mistake, i DO hate the democrats.

Wednesday, November 27, 2024

Harris internal polling proves that she couldn't have won, but that she was the best option

 So, now we're getting the full story on Harris's numbers. While public polling was showing her up in September, the polling error did show me that Harris likely couldn't have won. My model basically spat this out at me, and yeah, this is likely what the reality was based on what my model approximates:

Apparently on pod save america, the same podcast that leaked Biden's apocalyptic poll numbers, they said that yeah, Harris was behind by several points the whole time. I don't know what the internal poll numbers were like, but it seems clear that the narrative the dems are trying to spin with this is that it didn't matter what the dems did, they were going to lose. They're doing this to absolve themselves of any failures, so they can ram the same thing down our throats in 2028 (my own assessment of the situation).

I'm going to admit, I'm mixed on this narrative. Polling wise, yeah, I do think the democrats were screwed and it likely wouldn't have mattered what the democrats did, the fundamentals were just too anti incumbency this year. However, at the same time, I do think that the dems had a stinker of a strategy. They played this overly safe campaign with an artificial robotic economic message that didn't resonate. They were out of touch with what I think people wanted, and yeah, I'm gonna say it, they ran too hard to the center. 

 And I'm not going to argue that just within the context of 2024, but the big picture since 2016. 

 During the Obama years, it seemed like, despite poor economic performance, the rise of an unstoppable democratic coalition was inevitable. 2008 broke the GOP, and the dems had all of the energy, and they were starting to win people over, especially young people. I was an ex conservative who came over during the Obama era, and economic populism in 2012 was a big part of that. I realized trickle down doesnt work and we need a new way forward. I think the energy for change was electric between 2012 and 2016, and I was riding that wave. But then...the dems fumbled the ball, went hard center, and ended up trying to trade white working class voters like me for these stuffy suburbanite republicans while compensating by running up demographic margins with minority voters. And it failed. 

In 2020, Biden kind of ran a triangulation campaign that was mildly successful, but keep in mind, he barely won, he underperformed too. It's just that 2020 was reverse 2024, the fundamentals were so anti incumbent that it didnt matter what the democrats did, they would've won. And they did so barely.

But because no one really liked that democratic brand, biden's poll numbers soured, and we found that once again, 2024 was a very anti incumbent year, this time going against democrats, and with the democrats' demographic strategy failing badly.

Basically, my assessment is in the grand scheme of things, the democrats do need to change. I mean, from the same people who are gonna tell you that this is election is a lost cause, "the numbers just don't work." I mean, it's not just year, this is their trajectory since 2016. And while that article mentions the moderate vote, keep in mind my own theory, there are TWO moderate demographics. The fiscally conservative and socially liberal type the dems wanna win, but also socially conservative, fiscially progressive types. Trump is courting the latter, and he's KILLING us. Keep in mind, this is what the demographics look like. Trump wins because he can go right on social issues and then at least play populist on economics. Clinton/Harris lose because the suburbanite demographic the dems are pursuing is clearly not big enough to score a victory.

The democratic coalition has been built since the 1990s on triangulation. Energizing the base, winning over moderates. I keep saying it, the tent is too big, it's not ideologically consistent, and it cant keep everyone happy. And IMO, what's holding us back? This obsession with winning over these bush/mccain/romney republicans who have, since 2016, voted for democrats. Even the republicans didnt want these guys. Why? because their politics are a loser for the general public. And we were winning in part because the GOP was stuck with them, their brand of politics was dying out, suddenly clinton said "LETS TRY TO WIN THESE PEOPLE OVER", so clinton fractured the obama coalition and now we're screwed. I'm not saying we have to become conservative, but socially moderate? Sure. Stop leaning into woke culture war BS and run on economic populism instead.

If we do that, we'll win elections a lot easier.

As long as we work within the current political reality the GOP defines for us, we're gonna lose. But that's the problem with the democrats. They're too fixated on moral purity on insular social causes and they tend to be fixated on winning over this mythical moderate voter. Maybe that's what the billionaire class wants, but that isn't what VOTERS want. And voters win elections. Campaign cash just helps people reach them. But if voters dont like what they're selling it doesn't matter. Which is how we get a situation where democrats are asking "how the everloving fudge did we spend a billion dollars and still lose?" Uh duh, because you can spend all the money in the world, but if people dont like your message, you're not gonna win. So yeah, I'm gonna say, the democrats need to change their entire strategy and do their own voter realignment if they want to win. And that means rebuilding the obama coalition from the ground up. It means expanding it into what a yang/sanders coalition would have looked like, and it means being fiscally progressive, but socially moderate. That's how you win. 

Now, in all fairness, let's go back to the harris question this time. Was harris the best candidate for the job? Well...it seems like it. Polling is showing that Harris was down 2 points vs trump. That's about how we did. Harris lost the popular vote by 1.6, and the total results were off roughly 1.7 from expectations nationally. But it says in the above article that if Biden ran, he would've lost by 9, so 7 whole points worse than Harris. And given the actual margins, that would've meant losing Virginia, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Maine, New Mexico, and even New Jersey. 

Basically, this minus colorado:

Yikes. I guess those apocalyptic red biden maps weren't so inaccurate after all. 

At least we would theoretically keep NY and IL in this one...

As far as alternatives, they looked at Gretchen Whitmer and Josh Shapiro, and they would've been down 10 and 7 respectively. To be fair, I'm not sure how reliable that is, keep in mind, some of these numbers have to do with name recognition, and I was against replacing Biden because I thought HE was the best one for the job and harris would do worse, so keep that in mind. It's possible an alternative would've improved their poll numbers if name recognition went up.

But still, do I think any of these guys could've really done better than harris? probably not. Maybe on par at best. Why? Because 2024 was that fundamentally of an anti democratic party year for one, and for two, because i have a theory that you can replace the candidate but if it's the same crappy brand, it doesn't matter who you run. Say we did run someone else. They would maybe, if they were as charismatic as harris, reach harris's level of performance, but fail to seal the deal. Because the democrats are selling an unpopular political brand. Their brand sucks. I keep saying it, but it doesnt matter what color the can your diet coke comes in, if you hate diet coke. And the democrats are basically diet coke. Bland, watered down, aspertamey, old people like it, but younger people don't. Sure, it beats literally flint michigan water with it being all toxic and orange, but to be honest, people are just tired of being offered a choice between flint water and diet coke every 4 years. They want something different, something better. And the democrats dont understand that. Pelosi thinks if we had an open primary it would've helped, and maybe if we started from the get go, but lets face it, the dems functionally rig their primaries to ensure diet coke wins. I'm not saying that stuff ballot boxes, but they do use the party and media infrastructure to put their fingers on the scale in favor of the default option. So if you get something like regular coke or dr pepper, or fanta orange in there, it can't win. Because the dems wanna make sure diet coke wins. Again, it doesnt matter what your diet coke looks like, if it's diet coke, it's gonna have the same problems.

Because the democrats have a problem that runs deeper than candidates. it's a coalitional problem, a demographic problem, an ideology and policy position problem. It's that the brand of politics that they're selling is deeply unpopular, and that we need bigger change than these guys are willing to accept. 

Until the dems change their entire brand, they're gonna keep losing like this, while only barely winning when the public gets tired of conservatives screwing everything up. That's what happens when you go with the loser strategy of triangulation and being the "moon party" for another generation of politics. So no, let's not throw up our hands and say it was the best you can do. I mean, yes, it kinda was, but also, it's not. It's the best we can do within the current political reality, but the democrats have had a coalitional issue since 2016, and it came around to bite us again. And it's gonna keep biting us until we fix it. And that means running more socially moderate and economically progressive candidates.

Tuesday, November 26, 2024

Joe Manchin can screw off

 So Kyle Kulinski covered Joe Manchin's take on the 2024 election and why he retired. And yeah, after listening to him, Joe Manchin can screw off. Why? Because he's basically leaning into resentment politics and "entitlement society" rhetoric again. Remember him opposing the Child Tax Credit because he was afraid of it leading to an "entitlement society"? Yeah. Now he's back and saying the democrats care more about non working people more than working people. Bro...WHAT?!

First of all, as someone who actually is genuinely anti work, let me just say, THAT IS A LIE. Harris, if anything, leaned into this cringey rhetoric of the "opportunity economy." Opportunity is just a fancy word for "work" in modern capitalism. She literally bought into the jobist religion and was pontificating its values the whole time. So did AOC. And I was deeply critical of that.

Second of all, the child tax credit was a UNIVERSAL credit for children for people making under a certain amount of money, I think it was $75000 or $100000 or something. Working class people got it, it's just that some non working people also got it too. What's so bad about that? Oh wait, because you're a closet republican leaning into cringey resentment politics. 

Third of all, if you cared about work ethic, it should assuage you to know that the amount given wouldnt have greatly improved the lives of someone to the point they would no longer want to work. As Kyle said, we did UBI studies, and while I won't say work reductions don't exist like he did, the effects are overstated and the effects of this would be minimal. 

And fourth, I'm going to make a really progressive anti work argument here. I'll say it: you make the working class better off by making the bottom better off. Those who don't work in our society are generally at the bottom, because their incomes are generally $0. A UBI that gives everyone $15,000 a year like I'm for, which is far more progressive than the $3600 CTC, would help the entire bottom 80% of the population, including a lot of workers. Anyone who is working class would benefit under my plan. You would need to earn $75000 as an individual and $150000 as a married couple to actually lose out under my plan. Working class people benefit from UBI. Non working people do too, but let me also make a second argument for that.

What keeps people miserable in capitalism is being chained to bad jobs. Our system is set up to make those who don't work so miserable, that most of them would rather work. We claim that this system is voluntary, but it's not. A lot of people end up taking bad jobs out of poverty and desperation as a result, and bosses use the cudgel of firing them to keep them in line and to basically turn them into de facto slaves.

Marx wrote about this in his books, talking about the reserve army of labor, and again, it works, because the system is set up to make the only thing more miserable than having a crappy job...being NOT having one. And that's how businesses can get away with exploiting and abusing workers. And workers are kept on a treadmill of precarity and desperation and accepting bad jobs, because it's considered better than no job at all. 

If you want to fix capitalism, this needs to change. We've tried tons of reforms over the years to make work pay, to tone down its worst abuses, but at the end of the day, the system is still the system, and these reforms amount to a system of not beating your slaves, it doesn't actually free them.

How do we improve the market system in a way that speaks to the market's values? By allowing people to say no. By letting them refuse to work. Unions are built on this. They literally are built on organized resistance to businesses' demands through a collective refusal to work. That's what a strike is. Workers gain more power through systematically refusing to work. Businesses just expect to fire one worker and replace one from the desperate ranks of the unemployed. But if everyone quits, and strikers manage to stop scabs from crossing the picket line, then they can demand a lot from employers to make their lives better. And that's how we actually made capitalism work for people. 

UBI and my indepentarianism is just the idea of making each individual their own union. You want a system where all individual workers can say no to work. We want everyone to be able to fall back on a UBI and say "you know what? screw you, I ain't doing this", and quit if they want. I dont expect work reductions from UBI to be so massive that no one works. I don't think a UBI of that amount is feasible at all. But UBI can be scaled to levels where people are just comfortable enough to quit bad jobs and arent coerced to take more of them. And if they do that, guess what? Businesses have to raise wages, they have to offer better working conditions, and the working class is better taken care of.

It's bullcrap that we keep attacking those who dont work and making the debate about them, and turning the resentment of the working class toward them, rather than at their actual oppressors. The real enemy is the business class. It's the bourgeoisie. And I admit, I aint a revolutionary marxist, or even a reformist socialist. All things considered, I actually think capitalism as a system is the least of all possible evils. But capitalism is predicated on voluntary exchange, and the labor market is systemically rigged to basically turn people into de facto slaves. Supply for workers is high, demand for workers is low. To some extent it has to be this way or things get inflationary, but obviously there is a middle ground to be had. The problem is, as long as capitalism remains as it is, it doesnt matter if we hit that middle ground because people will still be poor, and there will still be coercion. You can't have an ideal economy where everyone has a job, and blah blah blah. The system literally requires unemployment to exist for the system to work.

That said, Joe Manchin, you can kindly F off. You're not a democrat. You're a DINO. You're basically a republican masquerading as a democrat. You're playing into conservative resentment politics, and while i understand a lot of working class voters feel this way and lean conservative for this reason, I'm going to be blunt, I think they're ignorant and fighting against their own interests. To truly make capitalism work for people, we need to dismantle this idea that the enemy is those who don't work. If anything, you should thank people for sitting in the couch every person sitting on the couch is removing themselves from the labor market and giving you a better shot at getting a job, and being able to negotiate on your own terms. Stop blaming us. We're on the same side, you fricking motherfricker. 

Either way, I'm so glad this dude is retiring. Sure, it sucks we lost his seat, but we would've lost the senate anyway, and he was basically holding us up throughout the biden administration anyway. He's actually a huge reason biden lost. Because he sabotaged Biden's entire agenda over this stupid bullcrap, and basically kneecapped his entire presidency. So yeah. Screw Joe Manchin. Please retire and never participate in national politics ever again.

Kamala Harris 2028? Oh GOD no....

 So, Kamala Harris is expected to continue politics in the future. I'm not reflexively opposed to this in all regards, and it is vague, but some are already expecting her to run again in 2028. In which case, I'm just gonna say, oh GOD no. 

This election cycle has soured me on Kamala Harris. Originally, I considered her one of the better establishment democrats who was slightly more progressive and slightly more aligned with my politics, but as 2024 has shown, she really didn't stick with it. If anything, my 2019-2020 criticisms of her being a "fauxgressive" who will abandon policies she was for ended up being accurate. And honestly, in retrospect, I really voted more against Trump than for her. I didn't actually like her as a candidate, and apparently neither did the public, because she didn't win. 

So, I say, take the L, and be like Hillary. Retire from running for office (at least on a presidential level) and never grace us with your presence again. The people have spoken, we don't want you. I don't want you, please go away. 

Really, if anything, I'm going more in the bernie sanders direction here. Bernie has been rather vocal since Harris's defeat about the democrats not really being for the working class, and I have to agree. I mean, the centrist dems tried to force progressives like, Bernie, AOC, and even me to work within their little "political realities" this election cycle and to show a united front to stop Trump, especially as the democrats did offer small gestures in our direction that we didn't want them to stop doing if we went against them. I understood the game, and so did Bernie, and so did AOC. We were doing the best we could within the crappy situation we found ourselves in. And I feared if the dems lost, they'd blame us for being too far left and go even more centrist. This time around, it seems like most people, at least the most vocal people, are going the other way. We're recognizing that we lost in part because we were TOO MODERATE, with most "extreme" positions being on so called 'wokeism." And I would largely agree with that assessment. I've long been criticism of wokeism, and I'm critical of the centrist dem direction of the party. Basically, I'm a critic of Clintonism. And both of those faults go back to Clinton 2016. I keep saying, she threw us in the cursed timeline, and honestly, yeah. We need a clean break from that. And I think people are finally willing to listen. Not everyone, but a lot of people. It seems like with the loss, a lot of us are finally saying what we really think, and we're basically not holding back.

And in that regard, I'm gonna say, hard no to Harris 2028. Some suspected she wants to run for governor of California instead. Let her. She could be decent there. She could also rerun for senate if she wanted to. But honestly, for president? I'm hard no on her. I don't know who will be good for 2028. Bernie is too old, Yang isnt even a democrat any more. I know some are saing Jon Stewart and the bar is so low I'm actually gonna outright say I'd prefer that over Harris. 

But yeah. I don't want an establishment democrat in 2028. All the names being floated currently from the democratic side fill me with disgust, and give me the same "no" vibes harris does. And Harris gives me the same vibes as Biden 2020 and Clinton 2016 at this point. It's all the same brand of politics, and it SUCKS. We need a total rebrand, with a new generation of candidates, and by that, no, I don't mean that the 80 year old passes the baton to the 60 year old with the same views. I mean, we need someone who actually sees the world as younger generations do. Ironically, the 87 year old Bernie Sanders is the one who has his finger most on the pulse there. Yang, he had that mojo in 2020, but he's since kinda lost it with his centrist forward party direction. 

But yeah, we need a populist candidate who actually understands the political landscape we are in, and who can actually accomplish generational change in the democrats and the country as a whole. I really hope 2024 was our 2012 Mitt Romney moment, and in 2028 we get someone coming out of nowhere who actually gets it and who would actually be good. I'm tired of the same old crap, and I don't think it matters if you change out the candidate. As I said online in a recently analogy I've made, it doesn't matter what your can of diet coke looks like, as long as it's still diet coke. If voters don't want diet coke, it's not gonna be popular. I don't want diet coke. Get that aspertamey crap out of here. Give me an authentic sugared soda that actually tastes good. Yeah. I love making drink analogies for some reason with this stuff.

Saturday, November 23, 2024

Did Harris ever have a chance?

 Okay, so...I've been positing a theory lately that if the election were held, say, in August or September, maybe Harris would have won. I base this on the fact that Harris seemed to have better energy at the time, and might have generated more enthusiasm. However, I have a fancy election model, and an ability to simulate alternative outcomes, so let's actually think about it. 

First of all, this is the electoral map at Harris's peak, on 9/20/24. I reconstructed the map from my election update around that time, as I kept track of that stuff. The graphic I used wasn't as fancy at the time as it was from back before I integrated my electoral college map into it, so I used a modified spreadsheet to reconstruct it.

This map actually seems somewhat favorable to Harris. She had a de facto 60% shot, and while it was still considered a tossup, this was the strongest tossup one can get before you go into the lean category

If I run 100 simulations using this map, I get:

63 Harris outcomes

36 Trump outcome

1 Tie

The simulator was also throwing out A LOT of blue texas/florida maps, as well as a lot of maps that functionally amounted to a sweep for Harris, it was a totally different ball game with the simulator than the last days of the campaign were, where I was generally getting something like 42 Harris outcomes, 57 Trump outcomes, and a tie, give or take. 

But....we know the result of the election. Trump won, and he overperformed. So the real question is, would she have won, at her peak, given the same polling error? I mean, simulations are nice, but those simulations assume we don't know the actual general error of the result, which before hand, we don't. But now we do. And based on the popular vote, Trump overperformed by about 1.7. So....would...Harris...have won....if Trump overperformed by the same degree he did in the actual election?

WELLLL......

Long story short, no. Harris only had a 1 point advantage at her best, a 1.7 point shift would've put her underwater by 0.7 points. She would have lost lost Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin anyway, and Michigan would've been a tossup, likely going to Trump. The only overperformance we would've gotten relative to the actual result is Maine CD2, and that was polling error. So no, we wouldn't have won.

Honestly, based on the data, this election was always a lost cause. Unless the polling error would've shifted a different way too, we can't say that harris would have won. Even at her polling high water mark, Trump was still potent enough to probably pull it off. And even more so, he probably would've gotten roughly the same electoral map that he actually did. Michigan is disputable, although let's look at that another way. Michigan was expected to go 0.5% for harris on election day. It went 1.4% for Trump. So Trump actually overperformed by 1.9% there. Which means he would have won there too. So yeah....we never had a chance. 226-312 was inevitable.

As such, I must conclude that Harris never could have won the election. She still put up a hell of a better fight than Biden ever did. And once again, to throw shade at Allen Lichtman, no, Biden wouldn't have won. Biden was not only losing all 7 swing states, but also virginia when he pulled out. He was also at risk of possibly losing Minnesota, New Hampshire, and even Maine. Some internal polling had him losing New Mexico, with the unleaked stuff that we now know about having him even losing New Jersey, New York, and Illinois, all of which were way closer than expected. 

The fact was, we just faced too hostile of an environment to ever win.

This isn't to say that Harris did as good as she could have done. I think her moderation on economic issues and gallavanting around with the cheneys was cringey and caused her to slump an addition 1.5% even on top of the above map. BUT....yeah. Let's face it, Biden left the democrats in such a hole we just couldn't overcome the fundamental forces behind the election. The dems were historically unpopular due to inflation, and even at her peak, she probably couldn't have defeated Biden. 2024 was always a lost cause, assuming Trump would have overperformed to the extent that he did anyway.

Thursday, November 21, 2024

An objective look at my 2024 election model and how accurate it was

 So, while there are still a few very close house races up for grabs, especially in a certain west coast state that doesn't seem to know how to count ballots in a timely manner, the 2024 election is now mostly a settled issue, and I feel like it's time to evaluate how my model did. 

Presidential

On the presidential prediction, my model got the right outcome. It predicted Trump would win, although it was only 54% sure. It got 48 states correct, with 2 being incorrect. The ones that were incorrect were both off by less than a point, and were themselves tossups. I underestimated Republicans by 25 electoral votes, which wasn't that crazy all things considered.

To break down how things worked:

There were 4 tilt states, and I got 2 of them wrong (50% success rate). I would expect a success rate of 50-60% here, so this is on par.

There were 4 lean states. I got all 4 correct (100% success rate). I would estimate a success rate of 60-84%, which would translate into one being wrong, so I overperformed here.

I guessed 9 likely states. I got all 9 correct (100% success rate). I would estimate probability between 84-98%, so once again, I overperformed here. I would estimate normally only getting 1 wrong here. 

I also included 8 solid states, which each have a 98%+ probability of being right. They were all right. So once again, 100% success rate. 

All in all, my election model performed on par. Despite the probabilities, in presidential forecasts, I seem to overperform. Still, my model isn't 100% right, but yeah, it performed on par with expectations, showing that polls, once again, are a better indicator than "keys" (yes, taking another swipe at Lichtman, no, Biden wouldnt have won). 

Senate 

On the senate projection, I was also fairly accurate. I only got one state wrong, Pennsylvania, and the final result is a dead heat. Some outlets are calling it for McCormick, but there has been a bitter legal battle with recounts underway for it. I don't expect democrats to prevail here. It looks like McCormick won, so I'm going to stick with that for this evalulation.

Here, there were no true tossups, so 0/0 there. 

I guessed 5 leans, and got 4 correct. That's 80%, I would expect a 60-84% success rate so that's on par.

I guessed 5 likelies, and got all 5 correct. That's 100%. I would expect a 84-98% success rate so I would expect 0-1 wrong, so that's on par. 

I guessed 4 solids, and all 4 were correct, why am I not surprised? That's 100%. 

All in all, I was off with the outcome by 1. I estimated 48-52, and got 47-53, because of the PA dem loss. That's about as good as I would expect with a probabilistic model. 

House

 

So, before I begin, I want to emphasize the fact that this house forecast was experimental. I did not have a lot of data on things, I did not know what races to actually keep track of to some extent, and I had so little data that I ended up having to use cook PVI combined with the generic congressional vote to actually give an estimate here. 

Despite this, the model seemed to do a good job. Currently, the house is at 213-219 Republican. Three races are still uncalled: IA1, CA13, and CA45. All three are coming down to the wire and are literally like 49.9% vs 50.1% or something. As of now, IA1 and CA13 are trending republican, although some think CA13 is likely to flip democratic. CA45 flipped democratic and I'd expect them to win there. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that IA1 and CA13 go R and CA45 goes blue. 

This would mean that we get a 214-221 republican led house. I estimated a 218-217 democratic led one. 

EDIT: CA13 flipped to the democrats, giving us a final outcome of 215-220.

As such, I'm only going to be off by 3 seats in net. This is pretty good. I guessed a narrow outcome, and we got a narrow outcome. This is far better than my 2022 estimate, where I guessed we would get 190-245 or so. So...the model worked...mostly.

However, I do want to evaluate things on an individual basis so I do want to account for things there.

First, I made some clerical errors. I somehow made NY11, a safe red district, go blue. But then in my map, I made another NY district go red when it should have gone blue. The two errors evened each other out there and I calculated my safe seats based on the outcome I got. 

In my actual prediction, of the 50 races I covered, I got 12 wrong. That means that my success rate was about 76%, much lower than my overall model would suggest, and much lower than my model got for the house and the senate. Looking at the ones I got wrong, most of them were based on polling data, with me getting the GCV+Cook PVI ones correct more of the time. 8 of my errors were from states with polling, and 4 were with GCV+Cook PVI. 28 races were estimated with polling, so that give me a 71% success rate with states with polling, and a 81% success rate with those with GCV+Cook PVI. The "fundamentals" model actually did better here.

Why is this? Well, to be fair, polling for house districts was a lot more scarce. I had less of a polling average to fall back on, and often only one single poll. A single poll can be off by high margins, probably more in line with my normal probability scale system. If anything, the reason my predictions overperform expected probabilities is because several polls lead to an average converging on something closer to the truth, while an individual poll can be significantly off, as far off as 6-10 points depending on the MOE. And that's just for a 95% confidence interval. As such, let's see how this breaks down overall.

Of the 50 races I covered, 8 were tossups. I got 2 wrong. So thats a 75% success rate. I would expect a 50-60% success rate so that'sa significant overperformance.

22 races were leans. I got 6 wrong, meaning I got a success rate of 73%. I would expect a rate of 60-84% so this is about on par with my model. 

8 were likelies. I got 3 wrong, so that's a 63% success rate. I would expect 84-98%, so I definitely underperformed here. 

12 races were solids. I got 1 wrong. That's a 92% success rate. I would expect a <2% error rate. So I underperformed. I guess if you count the fact that theres like 385 more races and I got at least 384 of them right (ignoring NY11), my success rate is more in line with expectations, but of the ones predicted, yeah I did get 1 wrong.

All in all, was my model good enough? Yeah. Good enough. I got a close enough net outcome that I'm happy with it. I would say on the whole my model underperformed expectations, but given how little data I had to work with, it seemed to do a "good enough" job. I was only off 3 seats in net, and individually, I would say my model slightly underperformed statistical expectations, so definitely not as strong of a showing as my presidential and senatorial models that have far more polling data to work with, but it held up surprisingly well given the circumstances and I can't say I'm displeased with its performance. My simulator definitely would have been able to predict the net outcome reasonably enough, it was well within probability, although getting the actual seats to line up with be a much more difficult task. Still, if you ran it a million times in theory I'd guess you'd eventually get the right outcome.

Governor races

With the governors races, I only did a map. The fact was, I wasn't very interested in governors races and there were only like 1-3 worth keeping an eye on anyway.

Those being New Hampshire, North Carolina, and maybe Indiana. And yeah, I got all the outcomes right.

I'm only gonna count the one lean here, which was New Hampshire. So 1 for 1, 100%. Yeah. 

Total success rate (2024)

So, of the 17 tossups I guessed, I got 10 right. That's a success rate of 59%. I expected a success rate of 50-60%, so that's about on par.

Of the 32 lean races I guessed, I got 25 right, that's a success rate of 78%. I would expect 60-84% so that's about on par. 

Of the 22 likely races I guessed, I got 19 right, so that's a success rate of 86%. I would expect anywhere between 84 and 98%, so that's within the expected range. 

Of the 24 solid races I guessed, i got 23 right, so that's a success rate of 96%. I would expect an error rate of 2% or less, so I slightly underperformed here. However, I mostly only covered races up to about a 12 point threshold, with the exception of some congressional races which RCP deemed important enough to consider tossups. If we included all 8+ margin states, my model would be performing better.

Overall though, my model performed as expected, and if not for my experimental house forecast, I would have overperformed all metrics. Because of the house forecast, I performed about on par. 

Total success rate (historic)

Adding these to my historic predictions, we get a larger sample size:

We're now at 43 tossups, with 28 correct guesses, that's 65%, and a slight overperformance from the 50-60% I would estimate. 

We're up to 85 leans, with me getting 64 right, a 75% success rate, and on par with the 60-84% range I'd guess.

We're up to 72 likely races, with me getting 67 right, that's a 93% success rate, which is on par with the 84-98% range that I'd guess. 

I won't bother counting solids, since I dont even count all solids in my forecasts, or have counted them consistently in the past, but I can't recall getting any wrong, and the one I got wrong this year is a first. It's bound to happen. 

We're at 23/24 there from this year alone, indicating a 96% success right, or a slight underperformance, but if we did count previous races more, that number would even out to the projected range.

As such, my model is performing as expected. This year it performed quite well in presidential and senate forecasts, but the result was a bit more underwhelming for the house forecast. Still, it all seems to even out to being within or just outside of my expected success rates. All in all, the state of my model is strong, and I will continue to use it as is in future elections. I may try to improve the simulator between now and future elections maybe to better account for the wave aspect of politics and how we get over/underperformances in a systematic fashion, but as for the core model itself, I will continue to use it well into the future until it is demonstrated to no longer be accurate.

EDIT: Statistics updated to reflect CA13 going democratic after all.

Discussing work from the three sociological paradigms

 So, I decided to talk about work from the three sociological paradigms, to get some thoughts out on paper on this matter.

The three sociological paradigms are:

Symbolic interactionism- this looks at the shared cultural meaning some social structures provide. While I will look at work a little from this perspective, I'm going to be honest, my rational "question everything" mentality does not particularly play well with this worldview, and I generally view the world more from a combination of the other two paradigms.

Structural functionalism- this looks at social structures from the actual function they provide. Laws against murder prevent murder. Police enforce laws, etc. I think understanding the core functions of work in society are essential here, as at the end of the day, one of the big questions we gotta ask is "why do we work in the first place?"

Conflict theory- this looks at how social structures benefit the rich and privileged groups of society. I will likely be focusing a lot on this one, given my perspective is super relevant here.

Without further ado, lets get into it.

Symbolic interactionism

So, I'm going to be honest, in our modern society, work does seem to provide a lot of social functions, and people seem attached to those functions. It tends to give some people a sense of purpose, due to its association with the protestant work ethic. It tends to give people social validation, as work is an important rite of passage and we tend to see people as lesser without it. Jobs are associated with access to goods and services, which may affect relationships with others, etc. Those without jobs are often seen as social outcasts and viewed negatively by society. Work ethic is associated with one's character, and it considered a virtue, with laziness being considered a vice. And the social contract seems to make work an important part of the social contract, where everyone is expected to work and pay one's own way.

Due to us breaking away from Europe, which was under feudalism, in America, we view the ability to work and provide for oneself as an important aspect of freedom. Rather than being under the thumb of an oppressive noble or king, in America, people could rise and fall by their own talents and accomplish their American dream. Work also is associated with property, and people see moral value in work, as justifying someone owning things. We tend to look down on people being given "handouts" or the idle rich of Europe.

As such, we tend to place significant cultural value on work. I will come back to many of these points later on, as I do believe questioning and debunking them is important, but I do want to at least address the other two paradigms before I come back to this.

Structural functionalism

From a structural functionalist perspective, I think society needs to answer two questions about economics: "who does what?" and "who gets what?" The fact is, we need stuff. By stuff, I mean, goods and services that people want and need. But stuff doesnt always grow on trees. Sure, before we had property and our current system, we were hunters and gatherers and I will come back to that in the next section, but for society to grow beyond that, we need organization. We need a division of labor. We need people to grow food. We need people to take that food to grocery stores. We need people to put it on shelves. We need more to check people out and make sure they pay for said food. We need factories to make stuff. We need call centers for customer service. We need people to build roads. people to repair stuff. The fact is, to enjoy modern society, we need stuff done, and there is a certain amount of labor that has to be done to maintain our way of life.

Now, at the same time, do we need everyone working all the time? Arguably in the past, pre capitalism, we did, but since the creation of capitalism and the introduction of economic growth, I'd argue that technological inventions that bring society forward and save people from labor give us two choices, we can either work the same amount for more stuff, or work less for the same stuff. While working hours gradually reduced through the 19th and early 20th century, eventually we ended up going with a paradigm to just go full on growth growth growth, more more more stuff. I'll come back to this a bit in the conflict section. 

But yeah. Arguably, as society becomes more advanced, our labor needs theoretically go down. We can afford to work less. We can afford to have not everyone working. Sure, we need some people working, but how much work we need to maintain society is debatable. Some would question stuff I support like say a UBI, because it would stop some people from working.Well, if they choose to, and society can sustain that, that's up to them. Most arguments against working less or people not working don't come from a material need for everyone to work, but some of the soft fancy cultural nonsense about work I discussed in the previous section (yeah im not very objective here). It's people evading their societal obligations, without questioning how much we need them. 

Anyway, we do have evidence on how much basic income reduces work ethic. It depends. The amount likely plays a role, with small amounts like say, the CTC having no significant effect. But if you gave people say $50k a year, not many people would work, at least not unpleasant jobs. i think many would still work in some form, but they'd be doing something like blogging like I'm doing now, or something that isnt necessarily societally useful, but fulfills them. But at the end of the day, someone needs to do the unpleasant work, unless we can automate it. I do support heavily automating work, btw, and reducing how much of it we actually need, taking the necessity part off the table, and then taking on the soft cultural aspects directly. 

Another thing that impacts labor rates would likely be tax rates. The lower the taxes, the greater incentive there is to work. The higher, the less incentive. We can probably maintain incentives up to about a 70% tax rate, after which, people start losing any incentive to work because there's no rewards attached to it.

Which is why we link work with money. Like property isnt just a feel good thing. Property being tied to work is a motivator. I would argue that the extent of the motivator is too strong, and that it functionally enslaves people given their basic needs go unmet unless they work due to "those who dont work do not eat sentiments" (I mean, such sentiments make sense pre capitalism when actual material scarcity was a real thing, they don't make sense in a modern context). However, we do need it to some extent. As the conservative capitalists will point out, if we just took all the money and distributed it back to people as a UBI, we would have ZERO incentive. And that's what a lot of people say was wrong with communism. Sure, communism didnt work like that, but we do know they replaced market incentives and weaponizing self interest as a motivator with sheer despotic force, and I can't say that that's actually a positive change. THe market system is the lesser evil. I just think we should change the motivators, given we no longer need everyone working all the time, and we should, ultimately, do away with work over time. I mean, unlike the cultural crap, which again, I'll eventually come back to, I don't romanticize work. I think work sucks. I think the less of it we have to do the better, and I think that working less over time is a good thing. 

Now, before I move on, I do wanna address a few more things. How much work disincentive can we get away with? Well, with COVID, we suddenly had a crisis where we had to eliminate as much work as we humanly could to avoid in person interactions, and while GDP dropped, everyone could still meet their needs. We had unemployment at around 14.7%, higher than the great recession, and GDP dropped by a third. Lefties like myself noted that, gee, its as if we can just change our whole system and stop doing things as we can on a dime if we want to, but people don't want to. At least certain people dont want to. We'll discuss that in conflict theory. But yes, we could probably get rid of 1/3 of the jobs, or work 1/3 less overall, and still have a relatively advanced lifestyle. Not saying that that would be ideal. There were sacrifices during covid. No going out to restaurants. No recreational events like movie theaters, or amusement parks, or vacation. We worked from home. We had school over zoom, not everything was perfect. But did we get by? yes, we got by. Did we have to rush back to normal? No, the right waged a culture war to make sure we got back to normal, and wealthy interests wanted to go back to normal. Again, cover that in the conflict theory section.

One more thing. Is growth functional? To some extent, yes. Growth can mean higher living standards, which means more well being an happiness. Can all of the human experience boil down to growth? No. I think it needs to be offset by the cost of work. I dont think work is positive, and just as stuff improves the human experience, I'd argue a lifetime of hard work degrades it. I do think that there is a balance there, and I don't think we always get it right, even if more stuff is helpful. 

I also think growth could, long term, be harmful to the environment. Capitalism and the growth mindset is what's driving climate change. I don't think what we're doing is sustainable, and in the long term, if we don't moderate our impulses willingly, nature could moderate them for us through backlash from overconsumption and overproduction. Not everything about capitalism and growth is all sunshine and rainbows.

At the same time it's possible we need to grow in order to maintain military readiness. Since the industrial era, having a large economy with a large industrial base meant you had a large capacity to produce the weapons of war. Our massive production capabilities, as well as being out of range of bombing is what propelled the US to be the major superpower after WWII. We simply had massive infustrial might backed by massive economic might while maintaining our own continent away from enemies. It's possible we grow like we do to maintain military superiority, especially over rivals like russia and china. However, seeing russia, it seems obvious we far outclass them. And china, while a threat, we still maintain significant superiority there. Do we need to grow as much as we do? Unknown, it's possible, but at the same time, idk, maybe we're going a bit overkill and maybe we can take it a little easier. 

As such, do we still need work? Yes. Do we need work as much as we did in the past? No. Will we need work as much as we do now and in the past in the future? Hopefully not. Technology should free us from work over time, but due to cultural BS and due to conflict theory style oppression, I'd argue we never really move away from it. With that said, let's FINALLY look at conflict theory.

Conflict theory

Hoo boy. Okay, so now we're gonna see how deep this rabbit hole goes. I would argue the entire reason our economy looks as it does, is because of the wealthy controlling society, and basically enslaving us all for profit. Yeah, I said it.

Capitalism was always that system. It was introduced in the late 1700s/early 1800s in Europe, and it was often done so by force. We have a system in which we basically took all the land, privatized it all, so none of that hunter gatherer crap of just getting your food off of trees. Someone now owns all those trees and that is STEALING. What you need to do now is get a job, working for some employer, so you can earn money, and buy an apple from the person who owns those trees. 

We inculcated work ethic into people. When capitalism was spread ti Ireland in the 1840s, it led to the great potato famine, where the british basically considered potatoes a "lazy" crop, and forced people do to labor intensive crops in order to develop a work ethic.

Overseas, we engaged in colonialism, spreading this system to the far reaches of the planet. originally, we would give people fertilizer to grow more crops, but instead, people worked less, and we had to basically beat the work ethic into them too. If it's any surprise most people live paycheck to paycheck and on the edge of precarity and desperation, it's to keep them in line. If workers were too comfortable, they might not want to keep working as much.

We developed a system of policing that functionally hunted the homeless and imprisoned them if they were poor and propertylessness, so people were forced to work. We designed a system to make people so miserable if they did not work, that they had to work. 

And yet, unemployment existed. While there are functional reasons why unemployment exists as per the phillips curve, marx noted the "reserve army of labor" and how we had unemployed people basically existing to scare people into line where they would be obedient to bosses.

Yet despite how oppressive this system clearly is, we still left it open enough that through philosophical weaseling, we act like this is freedom. Work is technically voluntary. You dont technically have to work (we just basically make you so miserable if you dont that you functionally have to). All that nonsense about how work provides purpose and fulfillment? it's all BS. And even in america, as we industrialized, the american dream narrative became propaganda. originally the american dream was about self sufficiency, owning land, and living an agrarian or frontier life, but due to economies of scale, capitalism came here too. And I dont think it's much of a coincidence that our industrial revolution seemed to really take off shortly after we abolished slavery. After all, wage labor under capitalism used to be known as wage slavery, where the key difference is renting a person vs owning them. is it any surprise that we treat bosses as "superiors" while employees are "subordinates?" Is it any surprise the entire process of looking for a job is more about what value you provide to an employer, not what they provide to you? Because you're just supposed to work for them.

Let's be honest about what jobs are. Rich people paying poor people to do things. Rich people wanna make as much money as possible. They want to spend the least on labor, while getting the most work done. As such, they'll inherently overwork and underpay employees. Eventually, worker protections limited abuses in this regard, but quite frankly the only thing keeping us from living in a 19th century gilded age hellhole is stuff that survived from the new deal from now, unions, and stuff like that.

Hence why I'm so pro UBI. I believe the only way to truly liberate and empower workers is to give them a UBI. Obviously there are pragmatic limits to how much work refusal that can be allowed, but my ideal is that of a true free market, where workers are free not to participate and employers have to get workers to show up. They can't just demand them. 

After all, a system where everyone has to work only favors the rich. it keeps workers in a state of desperation. It keeps them looking for jobs in a rigged economy of musical chairs where there are never enough jobs, and many jobs are unpleasant and pay poorly. Everything wrong with the american economy is just how capitalism always was. The new deal and worker protections and unions and such are the only things that ever made this paradigm tolerable for the modern worker.

And honestly, most of the feel good symbolic interactionist stuff I mentioned above is just propaganda to make people the perfect worker. Intense shame and social rejection associated with joblessness exists to coerce people to work. The resentment ethics that a lot of working class people have are weaponized to keep us all fighting amongst ourselves and to keep us all working. The idea that people work to earn their money just leads to the idea that rich people earned and deserve their money. it also implies you dont necessarily deserve a living wage if your labor isnt deemed value enough. And keep in mind, value is dictated by a rigged market system that is determined by supply and demand, where the supply of workers is higher than the demand inherently, to keep the entire system working as intended. So the entire system is rigged against you.

And yeah, we can work less, we always could, but you know what? Despite how much I often priase FDR, he made a deal with the devil with the business community to keep us on this treadmill of 40 hours a week forever. It's why the system just leads to us growing endlessly where we never work less. We could've decided to work less. Hugo Black wanted to reduce the working hours to 30 hours a week, but FDR bypassed that because hey guess what, the rich kind of decided that if we ended up giving workers more freedom, they might not want to work and consume as much, so instead we created a culture of consumption and work, and created the never ending cycle of growth.

And again, because despite this obvious social engineering, we still like to pretend work is voluntary, we like to claim that people just CHOSE higher living standards over working less, despite us not having a choice.

If anything, capitalism is like the perfect open air prison. it's a system that obviously enslave us, while convincing most people that it's all voluntary, and convincing us that it's all freedom. We can leave at any time but there's nowhere for us to go. We claim it's voluntary but it's not. As rick and morty points out, it's slavery with extra steps, all in the name of infinite growth and profits.

During COVID, people were realizing that gee, maybe society doesnt have to be that way. Well, we cant have that. You don't think that the desire to resist covid restrictions and frame it as government tyranny was intentional? This resistance was likely funded by big corporations and wealthy conservative interests. You don't think the push to go back to normal ASAP was intentional? people didnt want people getting too comfortable working less or not working. The same is true with the whole push to end work from home. What's up with that? it's about control. They fear that workers might realize there's more to their lives than work, so nope, gotta go back to normal because cultural changes away from work might lead to a social revolution that shifts us away from being so work centric. These guys want work to be everyone's #1 in their life, so that they never develop any independence from the system. it's how they maintain control. They dont need to do the heavy handed stuff, as long as they can control the populace in their mind. Same with the "no one wants to work any more" thing. 

And you know what? They wanna make COVID and its consequences so unbearable they literally tried (and possibly succeeded) in "Jimmy Cartering" Joe Biden. Do you think it's a mistake that the wealthy portray bidenomics as hell on earth? They do it to make COVID seem like hell, and to ensure that we never go back to that again. Because they want to ensure that we all go back to work and like it. They weaponize the majority, their minds dulled by work and empty consumerism, to want more of that work and empty consumerism, and to demonize the very people who want more freedom, and to demonize the people who even temporarily suggested suspending the normal rules in the face of a global pandemic. The reason society responded so badly to the recovery from COVID, was to ensure their own ideological supremacy, and to ensure that the majority continue to work, and consume, and LIKE IT. Again, open air prison, with the special interests weaponizing people against each other, consumers against workers.

And btw, this is why the democratic party is obsessed with centrism to the point of being weaponized incompetence personified. The democratic party was once the party of the workers. But even then it only conceded power when it had to, and through the new deal era, it even moved away from being truly progressive, eventually turning on labor leaders, and by the 1970s, being practically at war with their own base as their coalition imploded. Then reagan took over, moved to the right, and the dems became complicit in the 1990s. And even now, they insist on compromising. They could've won with bernie, but decided not to. They decided that you would get nothinf and be happy and went with hillary. And if they lost to trump, oh well, at least we didnt get the guy who would truly be for workers. They stopped andrew yang from even taking off at all. and had propagandists on CNBC and the like going on about the dignity of work after his town halls. Or they'd cut his mics on debates. They'd make sure progressive candidates couldnt take off, and actively organized against them to make sure they couldnt work. 

In 2024, they suppressed a real primary, and then when they did finally force biden out, they pushed an ideological coup to go back to the center. I thought harris would resist this, but she didn't, she went hard center and lost because of it IMO. Gotta abandon healthcare for all and lean into that cringey opportunity economy crap after all. And now we got trump again. *sigh* I hope to see the people force the dems to move left after this loss, but idk if we will. I think we might keep the party hard center simply because the establishment is paid to lose. Who knows?

Either way. I think the real reasons our economy is as it is, isn't because work is somehow great, or because we actually need to live like this. I think that we live like this because powerful interest in society have created the perfect open air prison to make us think we're free, while we're all simultaneously slaves. If we were truly free and exercised our freedoms i suspect the powerful would put a stop to it, by force, if necessary. After all, it's what we've systemically done over the past several centuries. our society was engineered to be like it is. It doesn't have to be. As I discussed in the functionalist section, while yes, we do need to work to some extent, capitalism has given us a lot of flexibility in that regard. We can choose, on a sliding scale, how much we work vs how much we produce. We could make work more voluntary. We could work less. Sure, we'd have lower living standards, but "lower" as in, "European". As I've outlined in previous articles, we could work a whole lot less and still have GDP levels akin to France, or Great Britain, or Germany, or Finland/Sweden. The real problems with work isnt working less. It's the mushy cultural BS about how work is so great, and more importantly, it's about powerful interests keeping us all on a treadmill, and controlling the levers of power, to stop change from happening. All that mushy cultural stuff is propaganda, or a pretext, to keep us running around like hamsters on a wheel thinking yay, this is the dream, isnt this great? While demonizing people who speak truth to power and see the system for what it is.

And yeah. that's how it all fits together. We can choose to work less if we wanted, with some tradeoffs of course. Wealthy interests wanna keep us all working while most wealth goes to the top. And that mushy propaganda stuff about how much meaning work provides people is just nonsense to justify it. 

Hence why I dont go for symbolic interactionism much as an actual theory. I mean, it can look at the cultural meanings that stuff provides, but behind it, it's always functionalism, and conflict theory. Those are the two that really matter. Mushy cultural nonsense is mushy cultural nonsense and culture can change, and when under fire from the forces of reason, should change to conform to reason. What really matters is "what does this actually provide to society?" and "how does this benefit the wealthy and powerful?" And as we can see, looking at all three in tandem, the real interesting analysis is the conflict analysis. It's the most important one if we wanna understand why we work like we do. And we do so because the wealthy and powerful want us all to be de facto slaves who dont realize they're enslaved. That's why society is as it is. It doesnt have to be this way. if anything covid proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt for me. But the powers that be made sure to wage a culture war to crush any opposition to their system that would form, once people started freeing themselves from that matrix. Like, COVID actually did kind of allow the curtain to slip just a little and people were starting to wake up, and then they decided NOPE we cant let that happen, we need to be back to work immediately and get things going again.

And yeah. That's my sociological analysis on work. Not the most uplifting discussion, if anything, it's depressing, but that's why I am so passionate about this subject. because what i desire more than anything is my freedom. I dont want to be a slave for the rest of my life to this crappy system. And Im not saying, like the socialists do, that overturning capitalism is the answer. I DONT think that. If anything, going back to functionalism, I think capitalism is the superior system, I dont think socialists have convincing answer to all questions of functionalism and the meat and potatoes of who does what and how the economy would work in a different system. i think they lost the cold war for a reason, and I think even china has become functionally "state capitalist" for a reason. Capitalism works, socialism doesn't. Let's not go THAT route, and if anything, my anti work goals kind of require some form of capitalism to function. BUT, i still acknowledge that capitalism as practiced is basically slavery with extra steps and we gotta do better.

This is why I always define my views as radical and moderate. I have a bit of an anti capitalist ethos, but at the same time, it's tempered with pragmatism and i seek reformist change in the current system via a second new deal, not a literal revolution. And it's why I like candidates who offer major systemic changes like Andrew Yang and Bernie Sanders, rather than either literal socialists, or corporate moderates. They offer the scale of change I think is needed.

And yeah. That's my analysis of the situation. I'm gonna end this here.

Wednesday, November 20, 2024

Discussing last night's discussion on polling and voter preferences with a clearer head

 So, I did that cringey late night rant about how voters are stupid when going over polling suggesting they wanted work requirements on the CTC. I won't say that this is flat out wrong, but the polls and focus groups were made by literal right wingers, and polled demographics that generally lean to the right. 

How do I interpret this now, almost 24 hours later? Well I'll say this. The voters are wrong, but they're wrong because they have seemingly nonsensical and contradictory worldviews that lead to their suffering. You can't be for means testing and work requirements, while simultaneously complaining about how hard everything is and clearly wanting improvement. 

The fact is, if you advocate for work requirements and means testing and limitations, you're contributing to a system that doesnt work for you. If you wanna know why it's so hard to get help and middle class people dont get any, it's because of this. Welfare is designed only for the poor. And only for the so called deserving poor. It limits people who want help but are either too well off (most lower middle class/working class households are in this group), or it excludes people for not fitting certain requirements. 

As for the topic of work and jobs. The reason why capitalism sucks is because of that fixation on work and jobs. You cant have it both ways. What is a job? What is a job creator? How does trickle down economics work? I'll tell you how. it's rich people paying poor people to do work for them. And most businesses don't want to pay for work. They want workers to do the most work, while paying them the least amount of money. And that's the core problem with capitalism and America in a nutshell. Jobs dont pay. Work doesnt pay. Because businesses dont wanna pay people. They want cheap labor, they want slaves. They want to work you as hard as possible, for the least amount of money, and throw you away when they're done. And that's the reality of the system as it exists. Period. 

And until you're willing to break away from that mindset, you're gonna suffer. If you want to make america great again, you gotta go back to the new deal. And the new deal, in the trickle down sense, was more pinata economics. You hit the pinata until the candy comes out. You tax the rich and put regulations on them, and unionize, in order to make the money trickle down. it doesnt happen on its own. It happens because we make it happen.

Even then, as people point out, sometimes this leads to businesses hiring fewer people, or moving jobs overseas, or raising prices, and yeah, you can't really win. The fact is, the work paradigm is never gonna give us shared prosperity for all. And it never did. Even in the late 1960s, the Nixon administration was putting out reports pointing this out, and saying we needed a UBI to fill in the gap.

The CTC was like a small taste of UBI for kids. And if you guys wanna oppose that because you're fixated on making sure people earn it, well, you can learn to suffer with the economic hellscape that we got. I am of the opinion people shouldnt be forced to work. Not only do I think the idea that we force people to work is unnecessary and cruel, but it actually undermines the market in favor of employers. You realize the reason the economy sucks as bad as it does is because the amount of jobs will always outnumber the amount of workers available? If you dont have that, you get inflation, which is one of the reasons the right claims inflation happened (that isn't really why, but the right claims it was). So basically....you are always gonna have poor people, you're always gonna have underemployment. Youre always gonna have precarity, and the crappy system is never gonna get better as long as we stick to the way things are.

You may not realize it, but in conventional job creation terms, the Biden economy is precisely what every conservative leaner claims they want. Unemployment is down, inflation is relatively down. The economy is stable, and yet, tons of people live in poverty and precarity, and we're complaining about the price of everything. I could've told you this 10 years ago, but no one wants to listen. There is no mythical perfect economy that lasts more than a few years at a time. And this is the best it will ever get.

And pre covid, 2019, another "this is the best it will ever get". Btw, trump didnt do that, obama did, it just took a literal decade of uninterrupted growth for things to get that good. But that is as good as it will ever get. Ya know? Minus covid, this is as good as it gets. And yall aint happy. Gee, I wonder why? maybe our entire paradigm is broken? Maybe you should listen to me? Just saying. There is no perfect economy. This is the closest we get without a paradigm shift. And to actually accomplish better, we need government action. We need strong universal social programs. We need new deal 2.0. Been saying it for a decade again. You guys ready to listen yet? No? Then you can suffer with what we got. Btw, trump is gonna F everything up with his tariffs so i hope you guys are ready for that. I also hope you guys realize that yield curve inversion is looking pretty spicey and if it's any indication, we may be heading toward a large 2008 style recession some time in 2025 or 2026. Not 100% sure of that one, but that looks...problematic.

And yall just elected herbert hoover policy wise. Have fun. 

Ya know. If you keep voting for crap, you're gonna get crap. You want change, you need a change candidate with an actual plan. You need a bernie sanders 2016, or an andrew yang 2020. You're not gonna get it from trump, you're not gonna get it from biden, you're not gonna get it from kamala harris. You need a LEFTIE willing to break the paradigm. Until you get that, have fun suffering. Because the system is the problem. Stop getting in the way of those who wanna make your lives better.

Battle of the cringe, part ?: The belligerent blabbermouth vs the pretentious professor

 So, apparently Allen Lichtman and Cenk Uygur went on Piers Morgan and got into a nasty argument. Basically, Cenk dared insult Lichtman's keys and Lichtman started this stupid "DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM" type thing where he acts like he's the smartest person in the world and can never be wrong.

I'm going to be blunt, unlike my normal battles of the cringe, this one has a clear winner for me, it's Cenk. The only reason I called it a battle of cringe is because both people tend to have cringey dispositions sometimes, and fit certain archetypes that I find kind of offputting, but of the two....yeah I prefer Cenk here.

Like, I actually like Cenk, I just understand he goes off the rails sometimes and starts screaming people down and going on rants, and he does that here. often times when he does this on TYT you can see Ana Kasperian try to reason with him only to give up, roll her eyes, and let him go off, and it can be cringey, but here it was a treat to see.

Because let's face it. Allen Lichtman...is a hack. He's a cope peddler who's been wrong all election cycle, and he's been selling copium to resistance liberals who wanted to ignore polls. he leaned into ignoring the polls and the data, and as we know now, but not only were the polls MOSTLY correct (about as correct as they typically are, but if anything, despite liberals complaining of herding and pro trump bias, they actually UNDERESTIMATED republicans. As such, as Cenk put it, Mr. Lichtman needs a nice tall glass of "shut up juice" over here. He was wrong, he's a pretentious hack, and he needs to shut up and sit down and let the adults in the room talk. 

And I'll say this. Cenk, despite whatever disagreements I have with him at times, was right all along. He was warning the democrats that Biden was gonna lose and even ran a quite cringey and fruitless primary campaign against him that even I struggled to take seriously (mostly due to his lack of eligibility to be president due to the natural born citizen requirement). And you know what? He was right. He tapped into the vibes, and even I knew it. I dont like Biden myself and subjectively, my gut was on board with him.

I just understood the political reality of the situation and that replacing Biden was somewhat problematic, and we didnt even have polling data suggesting an alternative would do better, if anything Harris's initial odds were roughly half of Biden's at any given time, and Gavin Newsom was so far down in swing states that he probably WOULD have lost to Trump with Trump getting 400 electoral votes. 

Now, as far as Kyle Kulinski goes, since he talked about owning our failures, yeah. Okay, let's talk about that. 

Here's my final prediction as per my model:

I had Trump winning. I had him at a 54% chance, with Harris at a 46% chance, so my model got the right outcome, but was wrong on two states, both of which were tossups. That's....pretty good. About on par. I got the right outcome, but I got Michigan and Wisconsin wrong.

Now, I kind of knew my actual prediction would be about as...correct as it was. 48 states with me getting two tossups or a tossup and a lean wrong is pretty average. I've tested my model going back to 2004, and yeah, all of my predictions, minus 2016, were roughly this accurate vs the final results.

As such, I made a second personal prediction about polling error. I knew that we were gonna see one side overperform and another underperform. I figured Harris would overperform and we would get Pennsylvania and Nevada, and something akin to this:

I was wrong, and because the polling error went the OTHER way, we ended up with something like this instead:

Oops. And now that we have the full vote totals, that's actually pretty accurate as far as how the swing states went and how the "likely blue" wall went. Of course, the "likely red" states were catastrophically off, with up to 14 point margins out of states I expected like 6-9 out of, but yeah...I estimated a polling error about one point in Harris's favor since I had reason to believe that the polls were lowballing Harris...and it turns out they actually lowballed Trump.

Am I update by this? Does it hurt my pride? No. If anything it just tells me to trust my model and injecting my personal ideas of what would happen doubled my error rate. This is why I made two separate projections, one based on the model and one based on what I thought would happen. The model gave the median outcome, but that median outcome never actually comes up, we normally see it go in one direction or another, often by 1-4 points. It went Trump's direction. Oops. My bad. Oh well, I had a 50-50 shot and I called it wrong. Not a big deal. I take the L on that one. 

Not like the outcome was that out of the range of expectations. Remember me cherrypicking the simulations I thought would be most likely? Yeah, we got the exact Trump blowout scenario I expected. 226-312. It was actually a pretty likely outcome to pop up in the case of a Trump overperformance, as anything from R+1 to R+4 would get similar electoral college results.

So yeah. Was my model relatively accurate? It was on par with its historical performance. Was my personal prediction accurate? No, I bet the wrong way. It happens. I bet heads and got tails. Oh well. 

And that's the thing. Lichtman doesnt deal in probabilities. Lichtman deals in this set in stone model of "this is who is going to win and I'm almost never wrong". Even though his model has been called into question several times before. And thats why he was a snake oil salesman. Because his model was out in line with the mood of the country and expectations. It ignored various factors like dems suppressing a genuine primary challenge. His economic indicators dont account for inflation. His indicators dont account for voter sentiments at all. He just has a bunch of things generally correlated with economic success and he misread the situation. 

I'm going to be honest. I didnt know who would actually win. It was a coin flip. Nate Silver said it was a coin flip. Allen Lichtman ripped on nate silver for saying it was a coin flip because polling isnt accurate. Well, polling is basically simulating the election by gathering voter opinions. They're imperfect simulations, but when you gather enough data, it gives you an idea. And polling is rarely ever so far off that it's flat out wrong. We had a range of possible outcomes that could have happened, the actual outcome was not just well within the range of possible outcomes, but actually one of the most likely outcomes we could've gotten by sheer probability (seriously anything from the 16th percentile to 45th percentile would have amounted to 226-312, it had a 29% chance of happening overall give or take). And yeah, the polls werent really wrong. They were off by like 1-2 points and sometimes more in some states, but nothing that was shockingly unexpected.

So yeah, Allen, go take Cenk's glass of "shut up juice" go in the corner, and let the adults in the room talk. You werent just wrong, you were disastrously wrong. You were calling it for Biden even when my own model was like "yeah he has a 13% chance". Seriously, we had this map for Biden, and he still was like "Biden's gonna win". 

That isn't just wrong, that's literal malpractice. You screwed up SO BAD that you were ignoring the data giving us stuff like this because your keys said blah blah blah. Your model was wrong. It was laughably wrong, and I can be "oh okay" with someone who wrong and had since admitted it and moved on, but you're literally one of the most insufferable people of the 2024 election cycle, and you're STILL insufferable in defeat, so yeah, SHUT UP.