What 2028 will look like if the electorate shifts 15 points

 So....we've been noticing some trends, whether it be the Wisconsin SCOTUS seat, or that one seat here in PA in Lancaster county that shifted 15 points since the 2024 election, but Trump is going down massively in popularity. What he's doing isn't popular, and it's actually pretty disastrous. Even if the dems learn nothing from 2024, 2028 could be a lay up if we see the country shift as massively as these early elections indicate. I mean, just to give you an idea of what 2028 would look like if the country shifted this much, this is what we can expect the map to be:

Yikes, a 15 point shift is so extreme my model isn't even programmed to account for it. ALL the states I listed will shift blue, including Florida, Texas, Iowa, and Alaska. However, nothing past that shifts. The next state to my knowledge is Kansas, which went red by 16.2%, so a 15 point shift still has it going to Trump by 1.2%. Still, that's a very close pink state if it showed directly. Beyond that, we got states like South Carolina, Missouri, Indiana, and Montana which all went in the 18-20 point zone. They will be down to 3-5 points, so also visibly less than solid red here. 

Keep in mind, my model is intended to predict elections and I typically dont go beyond 12 points because that's 3 standard deviations and the probability of something going out of those bounds is around 1 in 1000. So this model isn't set up to account for shifts that big. if I see shifts that big, I would likely just rebuild another map. Still, I did want to show what this would look like if it happened.

I doubt we'll see a shift THIS big. I mean, we're gonna shift, but even in 2020, the map only shifted around 4-6 points in the polling, although Biden could have possibly done far worse, leading to a map that would have been closer to 10-15. Keep in mind Harris did damage control and Biden is predicted to possibly do around 7 points worse than this map, so maybe this:

Yikes, that's also pretty apocalyptic. So could a 15 point shift happen in one election cycle? yeah, if you F up enough, and if the country was sane, I would say that yeah, Trump should give us a shift like that, but sadly this country isn't sane and I still think 40%+ of the country will defend the guy no matter how bad he gets. Of course a 15 point shift does only mean the 2028 nominee wins the popular vote by 13 points, which is about the margins we're seeing in special elections...

Still, it's possible those special elections just represent low turnout situations and the actual results would be closer. Still, even an 8 point shift to the left would give us a strong win. We'd get the 7 swing states, but that next crop of states would still go red...

 

This is a decisive win for democrats, but not so much of a death blow that the GOP can never recover. I would say given where this election was this time, the GOP losing Florida/Texas/Iowa/Ohio would be akin to the dems losing like, New Jersey, New York, or Illinois. Pack it up, you're DONE if that happens.

If I had to guess what happens in 2028, I do think some variation of a 319-219 map is one of the most likely scenarios. Any shift between 5.5-10 points would give us that map. It's basically the democrats' equivalent of the 226-312 map Trump got this time.

Today was a very bad day

 So, yesterday, we had a ray of sunshine, which was weird given it was april fools day. I didnt have a good joke this year and wasnt particularly motivated so I didn't bother. But yeah good day. Well, today, we get the bad day.

So it's liberation day. The day where Americans will be liberated from their money as Trump decided to tariff the everloving fudge out of the entire world. It's gonna make prices go up, especially on electronics. Seriously, hope you got what you need for the next 4 years, because this is gonna be bad.

Speaking of which, the switch 2 was announced today. And the prices are eyewatering. I didnt buy the first switch because they wanted like $200-300 with $60 games that rarely go on sale and I found that kind of insane. Not to mention I have little interest in the system outside of like the 5-10 first party games I'd play and given the cost, eh, I'd rather play on PC. Quite frankly I'm a guy of relatively limited means, i cant always afford the best and the greatest, and yeah, if switch was my MAIN console, that would be one thing, but PC gaming is my main platform, so yeah. Buying switch stuff would take away from my ability to afford what i want on PC so PC is my main platform as its basically the same as Xbox/PS these days. 

 The switch 2 though, they want fricking $450 for that with $80 games, $90 if you go physical, which there's no point in doing since physical games dont even use traditional cartridges but a weird system of cards that are linked to digital downloads which you can only play if you insert the card in your system. Why does this system exist? WHO KNOWS!? They could've just sold CD keys to their online store instead. This is stupid. heck the whole thing is stupid. Like, the more I look at the announcement and the specifics, the less I like about it.  

Even worse, to make this entire crapshow come together like cold and hot air during a tornado warning, the tariffs might make the switch 2 even MORE expensive, where the console costs $600. This is speculation, and it's also been speculated maybe those prices INCLUDE the tariffs, but yeah, this is a dumpster fire. If you feel like god is punishing you for voting for donald trump and this is the equivalent of the frogs and the hail in the 10 plagues, you're probably right. Or maybe you just F'ed around and now you're finding out. 

Either way, those of us who didnt vote for trump have to suffer this crapstorm too. I really hate this guy. Like, I never liked him, but i especially DESPISE second term him. First term, well, he sucked, we all knew he sucked, but at least he was under control. Now he's just going wild. And his policies are a disaster. And everything this guy touches is a disaster. Hopefully this is the shock therapy we need to encourage an entire generation of americans to never vote for him again. Maybe this is the second coming of herbert hoover we need to get the second coming of FDR. Who knows? Either way, the Biden economy looked great compared to this crap, yet the same people complaining about that are now cheering this guy on like a group of dumb seals.

Today was a good day

 So, two pieces of news I want to report on today. First, the liberal won the special election for the Wisconsin supreme court seat. Elon musk dumped tons of money into this and this was framed as a pivotal race that would decide the fate of western civilization, given how pivotal wisconsin is for national politics right now. Musk's candidate was defeated.

Actually three things. Musk is planning to step down from DOGE in may, citing mission accomplished after trying to cut a trillion dollars from government. Bye, don't let the door hit you on the way out! Seriously, F that guy...

In other news, the democrats actually grew a spine. Cory Booker, a democrat I'm normally somewhat critical of for his opposition to medicare for all, did a 25 hour filibuster the old fashioned way to protest Trump's medicaid cuts.  Gotta respect the big fricking balls on this guy. it used to be that you had to be on the senate floor talking for hours and hours and hours, you know, taking a principled stand, not just go "we're filibustering for 2 years" meaning you need 60 votes to pass literally ANYTHING. Well, Cory did it the old fashioned way like Strom Thurmond. And he broke Thurmond's record. So history was made today. A democrat actually stood up for something in a substantive way, and he broke the old record, which is actually a big fricking deal. 

You always hear these democrats being like "well we cant do anything, what do you expect from us?" LITERALLY THIS. So let's give this guy a round of applause for actually doing something to oppose trump. More of this, please. I dont mind if you do it the "new way" either. If Mitch McConnell did it, then we should do. But yeah, I do respect symbolic acts of protest and defiance too. 

At the bare minimum just dont be complicit with the opposition. To the likes of Chrissy Houlihan and John Fetterman, who actually do represent me personally, shame on you, do better. Be like Cory here. Or at least dont cave to the republicans. Im not gonna ask every single democrat to do a strom thurmond (or shall we say, cory booker) length filibuster. But, ya know, just....dont be complicit. If your actions can compared to vichy france, don't do what you're thinking of doing.

Discussing Francesca Fiorentini on the Leftist Mafia

 So, FF, after her uncerimonious booting from TYT, went on the Leftist Mafia with like 5 other creators, some of whom I follow. And...I know I'm beating a dead horse, but once again, I feel like I need to defend TYT here and explain why these guys are wrong.

It's the "leftist" thing. "Leftists" are some of the most obnoxious, insufferable people in the world, and no one outside of their little clique likes them. They are gatekeepy buttholes to put it bluntly. They loudly virtue signal their moral superiority and crap on everyone else, claiming TYT are "centrists" now, as if they're mainstream democrats. Quite frankly, they think they own the term "left" and are just like "well you're not REALLY a leftist!" if you're not as left wing as them. 

 I mean, it's kinda hard to be a sane leftie these days. TYT are a lot like me these days, walking this line between being more left wing and more populist than democrats, so DEFINITELY not a centrist, but also not THESE guys, who crap on people like us for not being as left as them. Maybe being more willing to pick our battles and compromise, especially on their precious little social issues.

When TYT compromises on issues like transgenderism and crime, here's what Cenk is thinking. "Okay, we need to meet normies where they're at." Like with Cenk's 2024 run, he looked at polling and he said, okay, I'm going to run on a platform explicitly supported by over 50% of the country. He ran, for example, on a public option, which had like 65% support, but not single payer, which has like 45% support. He didn't embrace UBI, my big purity test, which also has like 45% support. So there are flaws to this, but still, I get it, I respect it. The democrats, for all they speak of electability, are REAL centrists. And they will be like, ignoring issues with like overwhelming majority support and saying "no, we cant do that, that's not electable" when in reality, THEYRE out of sync with the country, being so far right they're not in touch with voters. And I do think the big takeaway from the 2024 election is to be more progressive and populist on economics. This doesn't mean we have unlimited latitude, and again, my biggest key issues are actually slightly under 50% approval, somewhere in the 40s, which I see as still good. Honestly, I think we can still win elections even with approval in the 40s on certain issues, and we can gain and increase support if we want to, but okay, yeah, I do understand where TYT is coming from.

But...here's where the left IS out of sync on the issues, it IS on things like crime, and trans issues, which is where TYT are triangulating. They're looking at the normies, and they're like okay, this is where these guys are at, I'm going to triangulate on these specific social issues to meet them where they are. Again, you can dislike this, there are arguments to be had both ways, but I believe that this is a respectable opinion. Ana was assaulted by a homeless person, I can see her, and normies, not wanting homeless people harassing them and contributing to crime. Sure, from the left, we can point out that this is an issue with capitalism and blah blah blah, again, I'm the UBI guy, I'm willing to have that discussion, BUT, leftists and their obsession with virtue are like HOW DARE YOU SPEAK THAT WAY ABOUT THE "UNHOUSED", as if, merely admitting that a problem exists and that peoples' feelings are invalid for thinking the way they do and they need to be CORRECTED, and yes, they do use the word "unhoused" because they think calling them "homeless" is too mean and politically incorrect. Ya know, because these are the language policers.

Which is how Ana got going on her shift to the center on trans issues. Again, "birthing persons". Normies think "what the hell?" but the left is like HOW DARE YOU NOT LIKE THAT WORD and act like it's a mortal sin to not be morally pure on trans issues. Even though, as TYT pointed out, only like 20% of people actually support trans people in sports of their preferred gender.

 I mean, again, I'm willing to fight with 45%, but 20?! Let it go, man. We ain't gonna win that one. And that's what TYT thinking. They're picking their battles. Now, I get the left wing perspective that we should try to shift that. And I do think there's an argument for that. Like, people are also opposed to minors transitioning. I think it's just basic medical science that we should let them. If anything wading into the trans people in sports thing made me more firm on that, because the sooner people can transition, the closer to their preferred gender their final outcome will be. If you make someone transition post puberty, you're dealing with an adult body that went through massive changes and not all of those changes can be fully undone. So...it makes sense to allow that, but yeah. I can see both sides here. 

 And here's the thing. TYT and Cenk and Ana arent crapping on what they call the "max left" or what I call SJWs because of a simple disagreement. Some wanna push for more rights regardless of unpopularity, believing in shifting the overton window, and some wanna play it more safe. I get it. These are real debates our side should have. BUT....for all the toxicity that the left acts like Cenk and Ana are throwing at them, the reality of the situation is that the left probably fired first. Because they almost always do. TYT is a huge channel, and being fairly active in forums surrounding these kinds  of content creators, I can tell you that the toxicity I dealt with is off the charts. The second Ana failed to pass the purity test of accepting the term "birthing persons", they probably got hundreds, if not thousands of comments dogpiling onto them. I would know, I've read these kinds of comments on forums. And if I were them I'd be pissed too. hell just interacting with this segment of weirdos online really sours my view of them. If one reads my blog and sees the tone I had toward SJWs in 2016, it was relatively cordial and charitable compared to where I am today. It used to be "we're all on the same side" and now I'm more "F these guys." I'm like that for a reason. Because I realize I'm arguing with a bunch of ideological radicals who won't compromise and who have nothing but seething hatred toward those who don't agree with them.

Even the way FF was talking on the leftist mafia tonight kind of let on to that fact. She was like "I only called him a ##### and said he was brain damaged, it's not like I called him a racial slur or something." I mean, REALLY?! And again, shows the insularity of these people. Apparently insulting your boss to his face multiple times and being kindly asked to stop multiple times before he fires you is a huge offense and he's totally being the meany here....but at least i didn't use a racial slur? That's your defense? GTFO of here...

Here's the simple reality here. NO ONE LIKES YOU. It isn't JUST that you have extreme positions. It's that you guys are a bunch of toxic ###hats who have burnt bridges with anyone who isn't you, and most of the country HATES you for it. Like, seriously, if there's one thing that me, TYT, and even MAGA can all agree on, it's that you guys are jerks and that we all hate you for varying but similar reasons. For me and TYT, it's more a tone thing, it's more a toxicity thing, more a purity thing. MAGA, it runs deeper, they're an ideological foe, and they hate you for THAT. But either way, most people REALLY DONT LIKE YOUR BRAND OF POLITICS. 

 So when people like me, or TYT are trying to excommunicate you from our movements, it's because we understand that you're a toxic element that needs to be buried as quickly as possible before it contaminates the rest of us. I admit, there is a lot of room for America to move "left." There is a huge wide ideological swath between say, centrist democrats, and the far left, TYT is a little to my right, but still left of the dems. I'm maybe a little to the left of them, more in line with, say, Kyle Kulinski overall. I'd say he's the closest analogue to me in the left wing YT space right now. Even then, Kyle is maybe a little to my left at times. Again, it's hard to say and it varies by issue.

But then you have the "leftists", who talk weird with their politically correct speak, and get absolutely toxic toward even social democratic types for not being as far "left" as them, and go on and on about their little virtues and values and theories, and honestly, no one likes you. NO ONE LIKES YOU! And that's why your approval rating is in the 20s. 

 Again, when people say we need to move the country left, they DONT mean YOU. They actually mean TYT. Or alternatively me, although even then, again, my biggest hills to die on are just under 50% approval to my knowledge. So maybe not AS far left as me, but going in that direction. TYT errs on the positive side of 50%, I'm willing to fight for policies I strongly believe in that are in the 40s, but these guys? The "max left?", you're at 20% or worse. Seriously. And while many of us would likely be willing to have honest and civil conversations about things, and I think even TYT would probably tolerate a difference in opinion if it's respectful, as there is some truth to those unpopular stances at times, it's the toxicity, the purity testing, and the complete and utter dogpiling onto those who aren't as extreme, that really makes that brand of politics unpalatable to Americans. 

Again, America needs to move left, but that doesn't mean they like "leftists." Learn the difference. There IS a huge difference there, after all. And that difference is the difference between what TYT is doing, and what the far left is doing. I'm sorry, Cenk is right, FF and the far left are wrong here.

Explaining how Musk/Trump are sabotaging government agencies

 So....social security is a third rail of American politics. It's kinda like basic income for seniors. Not quite, it is contribution based social insurance, but it tends to serve that function past a certain age for many people. You dont wanna touch this program. The public will go after you. But...let's face it, people like Musk have long sought to dismantle it and they're giving it their best shot.

So, how do they do this...without doing this? Well, first they claim that there's all of this fraud. There's no evidence of fraud, but they start going on about 150 year olds on social security. Then, they start cutting payments to random people, which they are doing. Ya know, claiming they're committing fraud. As Lutnick once said, "well the ones who complain are the ones committing fraud", which is nonsense, but they gotta play these games with people to push their agenda. In reality anyone who needs that money, which is virtually everyone over 66, is gonna raise hell if their benefits are cut.  

But...then DOGE is cutting the phone lines. Because old people dont know how to use computers well. So they're gonna complain on the phone. But because they're getting rid of the phone line, you're gonna have to go to an office or do it online to fix it.

But wait, then the website isn't working and keeps crashing from being overloaded. 

And then they fire tons of people working for it due to budget cuts. So they cant handle the load of seniors calling to complain.

End result, benefits cut, and then seniors cant get them restored. And then the right will say "government doesnt work, look at how bad this is" while pushing to privatize stuff further. It's all part of their plan. Kyle Kulinski covered this today, and I just wanted to give my analysis on it.  

But it's not just this, it's everything. They're trying to do it with stuff like voting too. They claim there's fraud, they kick people off of the rolls for being suspicious, they struggle to get back on and oh, would you look at that, now republicans win elections in a landslide.

Again, they're breaking democracy, and breaking our institutions. If we had checks and balances in congress, perhaps we could impeach this MFer, but without the house AND the senate, it will never pass. 

So...we're screwed for now, but I did want to give people an idea of what the game plan is, and how to see through it. Dont trust ANYTHING this administration says. They lie in order to justify pushing an extremist agenda most americans wouldnt agree to otherwise. Just giving people a heads up.

Can't keep up with the sheer amount of BS that Trump has done? We got you

 So...Trump is basically gish galloping his way to doing whatever he wants, as I discussed briefly last night. The thing is, if Trump does so many bad things in a short period of time, it overwhelms the human mind and they cant react to it all. I sure as heck ain't even keeping up with everything he does, although i do cover some of it. Well, if you want a more complete picture, have I got the site for you. It's TrumpFile.org, and it basically covers the entire life of the president and every messed up thing he's EVER done. It seems well documented, and yeah. Someone has to do it and I tip my hat to this guy. Just spreading the word...

Discussing Francesca Fiorentini getting booted from TYT

 So, Cenk Uygur kicked an unruly contributor off of his network in a recent bout of left wing infighting. This contributor has been a thorn in his side for a while, and I know many left wing circles I participate in are defending FF here, but honestly, I largely take Cenk's side.

This is a fight between Cenk being a moderate on social justice issues, and FF, who is basically a MAJOR SJW. Cenk has decided to moderate on trans issues in particular post election, and try to do outreach to the right on different topics, which has caught him flak, with some saying he will sit down with right wingers, but not with the social justice left. 

 First of all, I dont agree with Cenk much on the actual issue of going on right wing programs. I've discussed this previously, but do not believe that Cenk is actually doing anything productive there, and playing paddycakes with right wingers is actually not doing the left any favors, it just makes us look weak. Unless we discuss issues on our terms, we're just letting ourselves be used by the right, and while I agree that the establishment is the problem, it's a problem because it's right wing. Even the left side of it. 

On the other hand, on trans issue...I see where Cenk is coming from. Cenk is following public polling. He understands that things like trans women in sports is a losing issue, while FF argued in the above segment in favor of some heavyweight boxer becoming trans and fighting women. 

I mean, on the whole trans people in sports thing, I admit I dont have a strong opinion because of the complexities of the issue and it requiring far more research than I'm willing to do on it, BUT...I'll say this. The science should be followed, and the science is mixed. I do not take the FF position of we should be "inclusive" regardless of how people identify. If there are actual physical differences between trans women and cis women in womens' sports, that should be addressed. I am not of the opinion we should just force "inclusivity" no matter what. Which is why i dislike SJWs on the matter and believe FF is one. SJWs have their little ideas and doctrines of forcing acceptance for the sake of inclusivity at all costs, and if you disagree with them, you're a transphobe and a bigot. My own outlook is dependent on a mix of science, and a mix of libertarian principles. 

I'm going to be frank, I think that while trans women should be legally treated as cis women as much as makes sense, as i have those libertarian principles that support allowing people to just do what they wanna do, I DO recognize that there are some significant differences between trans women and cis women in terms of biology, and that despite whatever treatment they go through, they are not necessarily going to be the same as a cis woman. And in sports, yeah, sometimes they have different bone structures, hormone levels, strength levels, speed and stamina levels, etc. They're not completely and 100% the same as cis women. People dont wanna hear that, but it's true. And I'm normally willing to tell the little white lies we tell around trans people to make them feel accepted, BUT....let's be frank here, it's just white lies we tell in the name of acceptance. But...sometimes, when that stuff doesnt make sense, we gotta push back. Like I've had people say im a transphobe if i wouldnt sleep with a trans woman. Again, we're talking someone who was born a man, and decided to become a woman later on and got hormone treatments and surgeries and blah blah blah. No, I don't wanna do that. And neither do most cis straight men. Sorry, we don't like that stuff sexually. There's nothing wrong with that, other than the fact that it goes against some extremists' stance on inclusivity. Same with sports. Sometimes, biologically, we gotta admit that trans women arent the same as cis women. We can admit, maybe in 90% of situations, yeah, we should treat them as such, because, again, we wanna be inclusive, and we wanna let people live as they want, BUT....again, push comes to shove this debate comes down to whether you get so blinded by ideology you accept the lie to the bitter end, or, do you push back in the handful of situations where pushing back makes sense? And I will push back, push comes to shove. Cenk will too. And that's why Cenk wasn't accepted by the SJW left. 

But Cenk is right in a lot of ways. And Cenk tried to be cordial about it, but FF kept going after him and calling him out and trashing him, and then FF asked to be removed, so she was kicked off the network. Idk why so many people are siding with her over Cenk. Again, Cenk is RIGHT. This is an issue that is kinda killing democrats. I mean, he showed poll numbers and we're talking an issue were on the losing side of in a 20-80 kind of way (see timestamp 3:40 or so on that). And that's the thing. That's why "wokeness" is bad. We got this weirdo minority of people who are extremists and have views well outside of the American majority opinion on the matter...and she's going all in with that 20%, while Cenk is like, no, we need to win elections, let's go with the MAJORITY. 

Also, the reason Cenk won't sit down with SJWs and continually bashes them is because, well, you CANT sit down civilly with these people. It's their way or the highway. They're extremists who will scream at anyone for not toeing their line, and push comes to shove, we gotta actually push back. This drama has been going on for MONTHS now, I remember this issue was addressed previously. I even kind of remember discussing it before. If FF wants to continue to trash her boss openly despite him constantly asking her to tone it down, well, she brought it on herself. As I see it, most SJWs aren't reasonable people. It's their way, and if you dont agree with them 100% of the time, you're bad. You can agree with them like 80-90% on these issues, but if you disagree on that last 10-20%, you're just as bad in their eyes as someone who disagrees with them 100% of the time. There isnt much you can do about these people other than to say no, and to fight them and take the narrative back from them, because let's face it, if you let them, they'll just hijack your entire movement and drive it into the dirt in the name of their moral purity. It's what I realized back in 2016 when I wanted to push for economic progressivism and they decided to turn everything into identity politics and started attacking "Bernie bros" as class reductionists and the like. It's not that there isn't room in the movement for them. It's that they wanna be the star of the show, have the entire discussion center around them, and then they destroy whatever issues the movement was originally about. They did it to occupy wall street. They did it to bernie twice, they do it. They use their issues as a cudgel and purity test, and they bash anyone who isnt on board with them...even though 80% of the country isn't. And if anything, I'm finally happy to see sane lefties push back. Enough is enough. We're past peak wokeness. The era of wokeness is over. If there's any silver lining of 2024, it's that this crap is done, it's over, and while there are holdouts who remain, the spell has been broken and maybe the left can heal, recover, and focus on the issues that ACTUALLY win elections. 

So, to FF, bye Felicia. Wouldnt even know who you were if not for you constantly picking fights with Cenk. Have fun being as irrelevant as my own blog is now. Let the adults in the room talk. And for reference, I'm not a Cenk stan either. I've criticized him a lot too over the past year in particular. There's room for it. Just not when you are demonizing him as literally as bad as an alt righter for not agreeing with you 100% of the time.

Discussing the deportation of pro Palestine protesters

 So....Trump is going through with his campaign promise of trying to deport people who protested in favor of Palestine and against Israel, specifically at Columbia university. First if was Mahmoud Khalil who led protests there and was a bit more die hard, but now they're trying to deport a South Korean student who just casually attended protests and didnt even break the law. And then there's another case of a Muslim PHD student being deported at another university. None of these guys were American citizens, although they were legal green card holders and in the case of the South Korean student, she's been here since she was 5.

This ridiculous, and a violation of free speech. Trump aint' deporting American citizens so far, at least not native born ones, but he is targetting immigrants, and as the saying goes first they came from X group, and i said nothing because i wasnt X group, then they came for Y ground, and Z group, and then they came for me and there was no one to speak for me. So...this is messed up. This is fascism 101. This is the kind of crap Hitler did, and he's starting with relatively safe groups, but if we dont stop him here, he might eventually come for us here. So it's important this gets called out and stopped now. The courts keep ruling against Trump, but he doesnt seem to care and just does what he wants anyway. Again, because the dude is a dictator. Told ya guys he was gonna be worse this time. Last time, he had checks and balances, this time, he's figuring out how to break stuff where he can get away with literally whatever. He needs to be held accountable. Of course, he's trying to break the institutions that normally would do that. So...this is bad. This is really bad.

Also, let's face it, this El Salvadorian prison Trump is deporting people to sounds like a fricking concentration camp.  Seriously, none of this should be legal. And it isn't legal. It's a blatant violation of so much of the constitution its ridiculous. F this guy. He's a dictator.

Discussing signalgate

 So....Im obviously not going to cover everything that the republicans do on here. They're "flooding the zone" as Steve Bannon would say, which is to say, they're gish galloping. Theyre overwhelming us with too many issues to respond to all at once so they get away with most stuff. So I encourage people to pay attention themselves. But I will address a few things tonight. 

First being this leak. As Pete Buttigieg says, this is a massive F up. First of all, you shouldnt be running your national security chats on the equivalent of a discord server. That's basically what this seems to be to me. They just got everyone on an app, invited everyone, oops, invited the wrong person, and said person leaked it. Thankfully it seems inconsequential this time, it wasnt like they fricking leaked the D day plans in WWII or anything, it was just some bombing of some houthi terrorists, something that most americans would probably either be supportive of, or at least apathetic to. And most americans if accidentally invited probably wouldnt leak that.

But still, a security breach is a security breach. And the trump administration needs to stop deflecting over it. Yall F-ed up. Next time, keep this on security internal servers/apps/computers. Ya know? This isn't your Thursday night WoW raid. This is national security and should be top level highly classified. Don't F around. 

A sneak peek at what we're up against in 2026 (senate)

 So...I started getting my model together for the 2026 senate elections. Yeah, it's early, but some political nerds are already doing 2026 predictions, and I wanted to join them. So I dusted off the old model from 2024 and recalibrated it for 2026. The data in it is all placeholder, and is intended to be a relatively neutral map. This is not a formal prediction with data. It's more....a forecast.

 

 

 Okay, so let's go over it. This is more of a baseline map. It generally assumes the status quo. Whatever seats the parties have, they win, and then I assigned the points based on how left/right leaning I feel like they are according to this baseline. Polling can shift either way making the map more or less competitive. If anything, I would expect the map to lean more toward the democratic side than it shows here. While 2020 was a rather blue year itself, I expect this 2026 to be 2018 or 2022, ie, blue wave, democratic overperformance.

With that said, let's ask the obvious question: can democrats retake the senate?

And let me respond with the obvious answer: probably not, it's gonna be an extremely difficult and hostile map to them. They would need to flip four seats, and the path of least resistance still involves winning some states that in recent elections have been quite hostile to democrats. HOWEVER, given this is likely to be a blue wave year, let's not count it out. Let's have an honest discussion about all of the states involved.

 

Solid Blue States (>12 points)

 

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

Delaware

 

Oregon

 

I mean...is any of this controversial? I don't think it is.

 

Solid Red States (>12 points)

 

Idaho

 

Wyoming

 

South Dakota

 

Oklahoma

 

Arkansas

 

Louisiana

 

Mississippi

 

Alabama

 

Tennessee

 

Kentucky

 

West Virginia

 

Again, I don't think any of these are controversial. I know Mississippi was like marginally in the "safe" (8-12) category in 2020 due to a special election there, but generally speaking, come on, man. It's Mississippi, you're on crack if you think that has any reasonable chance of going blue at this point. 

 

Safe Blue States (8-12 points)

 

These states are almost definitely going blue but there is an ever so slight chance of an upset in a very red year. 

 

I included:

New Jersey

 

Colorado

 

Illinois

 

NJ and IL are two states that were uncomfortably close in the 2024 election, and senate elections seem to have closer margins sometimes.  I still think these states are relatively safe, but who knows? Upsets can happen. As the map indicates, we're talking like a 0.1% chance though. Still, that's, 1 in 1000 and statistics does crazy things sometimes. As for Colorado, that's a former swing state that seems to be getting safer and safer for dems in every election cycle. 

 

Safe Red States (8-12 points)

 

South Carolina

 

Nebraska

 

Kansas

 

Alaska

 

If any normally solid red states are flirting with turning, it's those four. Still, again, we're talking like 1 in 1000, but statistically, I feel like I should include them as sometimes they can be more competitive than they look. 

 

Likely Blue States (5-8 points)

 

New Mexico

 

New Hampshire

 

I expect both of these to essentially go blue, but say in a really red year, maybe they can be threatened. Who knows? Still, I'd say the democrats have a high chance here, like 90%+ generally. So...only 1 in 10 chance of an upset, and given this is a blue year...eh....

 

Lean Blue States (2.5-5 points)

 

Minnesota

 

Virginia

 

These are states that are kinda swingy but still reliably blue. I wouldn't expect them to be under threat in what I expect to be a blue year, but we still gotta keep an eye on them....

 

Tossups (2.5 Blue-2.5 Red)

 

 Michigan

 

Georgia

 

North Carolina

 

Maine

 

So....these are the ones that I think are really interesting, and where I think the real tossups lie. Now, you might notice I'm doing margins a little different here. It's because we have ZERO polling data at this point for 2026 and I'm just making wild guesses here. But....I'd say MI and GA have been swing states in recent election cycles, both have democratic senators from the 2020 election, and while I would expect these seats to be threatened in a red year, in a blue year? Well, democrats should maintain them. Still, I'm considering them swing for now. Michigan is what i consider a slightly blue leaning swing state. Georgia used to be more red but the growth of Atlanta has actually made it swing more blue. Keep in mind it is the one swing state in the sun belt that surprised me a bit relative to the others. it looks like it's starting to turn into WI/MI/PA honestly, and it's the one place the whole fiscally moderate but socially progressive thing the dems are doing seems to be bearing fruit. Georgia is slowly turning from being a lean red state to being a purple one. So...yeah. I do think dems have >50% odds at maintaining their seat there given this is gonna be a red year. 

 

So...with that said, let's talk about the others. North Carolina and Maine are the two states that democrats have a good shot at flipping I think. NC regularly is a swing state, but then it persistently stays red. Still, given this is going to be a blue year probably...don't count it out. It's one of the dems' best chances at flipping ANYTHING. 

 

So is Maine. Maine is a state that regularly ends up being blue leaning, but varies in how much. Sometimes it becomes swingy, but other times it's pretty safe blue. Maine in general is a pretty weird state for the northeast. It has urban areas in the south but then the north is just all yeehaw country (see: Maine CD2). Currently, their senators are in a weird place. We got Angus King, who is an independent, and Susan Collins, one of the most moderate republicans. Susan Collins is up in 2026 and she's a republican. Given this is a blue year, in a blue state, I view her as vulnerable. However, she's also not THAT vulnerable. She was able to hold her seat in 2020 when Biden was elected, and ultimately it really comes down to how Maine perceives her going into 2026. Is she the rational voice of the republicans and moderate enough to save her seat? Or will she end up losing because Trumpism sours in the American people so hard that the democrats can run anyone with a pulse and win? Who knows. I mean, I think her seat is possibly vulnerable, but it is an uphill battle. Hence why I put her in the more "lean red" column traditionally. 

 

If the democrats can win these seats, they won't take the senate, but they can narrow the republicans' lead from 4 seats to 2. In order to WIN the senate outright, they need to take some other seats. 

 

Lean Red States (2.5-5 points) 

 

Ohio

 

The next most vulnerable seat for republicans to focus on is basically Ohio. If Sherrod Brown runs again (he lost his seat in 2024), I DO think the democrats have a shot here. JD Vance's old seat is up for reelection here. Brown won in 2018 and is the one democrat who I think has a shot here. Given this is going to likely be a blue year, I think Brown has some play here. Otherwise I'd expect the republicans to win. Ohio hasn't been friendly to democrats in recent years.

 

If democrats win here, it would bring the senate down to 50-50, making JD Vance the tiebreaker. 

 

Likely Red States (5-8 points)

 

Montana

 

Florida

Texas

 

Iowa

 

And finally, the next crop of states for democrats to focus on would be the above group. Not gonna lie. This is a hard and hostile map for democrats. They won in 2020 big and now they need to maintain or expand on their wins, and now they need to expand deep into republican territory to retake the senate.

 

Of these four states, Montana I think is the easiest one to crack. Just run the Ohio strategy with Tester instead of Brown. Jon Tester won in 2018 there, showing it is possible for the democrats to win here if it is a very blue year. If Trump messes up and really destroys his approval, we could see this becoming a possible weak spot for democrats to exploit. 

 

The other states I would largely consider to be borderline unwinnable. Blorida and Blexas are memes. I mean, statistically they can theoretically happen, but we're talking a 2% chance or so. Iowa is also a hard sell for democrats. 

 

With all of that said, can the democrats retake the senate?

 

On a purely academic level, they have a slim chance if EVERYTHING, and I mean EVERYTHING goes right for them. If they maintain ALL of their seats, and are then able to flip North Carolina, Maine, Ohio, AND Montana, yes, they can win. If someone wants to see a map of this happening, this is basically it.

 

 Of course, this is basically "here's how Bernie can still win in May 2016" level delusion. It probably ain't gonna happen. I wanna believe. I believe it's possible on an academic level, but as the OG map would suggest, I generously give that like a 7% chance of happening.

 

Still, it is early, and we don't really know. We don't have polling yet. If the atmosphere goes hard enough toward democrats (and it might given Trump is going full steam ahead with project 2025), MAYBE we can eek out a win here?

 

In all likelihood though, we'll flip a couple seats and the republicans will still retain a majority though.

 

Honestly, I'm far more optimistic about the house. That only went 215-220 republican and even a slight change in the political winds could blow that back to the democrats. So we can at least reestablish some checks and balances over Trump in 2026 if democracy isn't destroyed by then. 

 

Simulation talk

 

 I did run a simulation based on the odds in the first graphic above. I got 99 republican wins and 1 tie, which, given the GOP controlling the white house, is still a republican win. If you wanna see the map, here it is:

Honestly though? That's one out of 100 simulations. And that's the best one for democrats. Democrats maintain all of their seats, and then manage to win 3 long shots, only missing North Carolina. 

I had other simulations going 45-55 GOP or even 43-57 GOP. That's the range. Of course, again, I would put the republicans on the defensive and the democrats on the offensive here. I actually do see the democrats gaining seats to be more likely than them losing them. Again. Blue year. People are gonna be pissed and outraged at republicans. This is gonna be 2018 or 2022. Which is why I at least have SOME hope for democrats to do something here, as improbable as it may seem. 

Also I just realized Illinois isn't on the above map. That was because I originally included it in the super safe section before deciding to put it in the 8-12 section based on prior performance and it being in a precarious situation in 2025. So just ignore that. I'll fix that bug in my model. 

Conclusion

But yeah, real talk? I think an 84% chance of a republican win, a 9% chance of a tie, which is also a republican win, and a 7% chance of a democratic win is about accurate. I think that realistically reflects our chances here. They're not very good. Republicans will likely retain the senate, although I could see us possibly sniping a seat or two and bringing it down to 48-52 or 49-51. That's what I think would be the most likely outcome in practice, if not just sticking with the status quo at 47-53. It's a tough map. Democrats have to do everything right to maintain their gains from 2020 and THEN make even further gains. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I wouldn't count on it.

Still, I would expect 2026 to be a blue year. I think it will mirror 2018 or 2022, where democrats turn out in large numbers, outraged at the trump administration, and we manage to make SOME gains. And keep in mind, in 2018 we won both Ohio and Montana, and those incumbents who lost their seats in 2024 could just run for the above seats in 2026. So, don't count it out. Just don't count on it either. 

I will come back to this when we actually get polling data next year. This is just a sneak peek. 

So let's talk the national debt

 So...with all of this talk of the national debt and cutting the federal deficit, let's discuss the national debt somewhat. A republican congressperson actually had the balls to hold a town hall and his constituents booed and jeered him for it. He was like "i cant believe you guys are booing a balanced budget" and stuff like that. With that said, let's have an honest, candid discussion about the debt.

First of all. Let's discuss what the national debt is. It's money that the US government spends that is in excess of the funding it brings in. The 2024 federal budget had a $1.8 trillion deficit, which is huge. Quite frankly it's been high every year since COVID.  Isn't this a problem? Well, yes, but also, not as much as you think.

First of all, the national debt is the cumulative negative number over time. How much the government has ever spent relative to how much it had taken in. It's not gonna come to be owed all at once. it's actually owed to tons of different countries and entities, and many of these countries and entities also owe debt to others and so on. Modern capitalism is built like this for some reason. Probably because they think it maximizes growth. 

Which brings us to the next point. if one follows MMT, they'll argue for using stimulus and going into debt to produce higher economic growth...because then the economy grows so much that the country outgrows the debt. IMagine borrowing $5 and making $50. Okay, so you gotta pay back $6 with interest or something, you still made $44, you know? This is why "WE GOTTA PAY BACK ALL OF THIS MONEY" makes no sense.

 What really matters is debt to GDP ratios. Generally speaking it's bad if the debt is larger than the entire economy.  And ours does, it's 122% of GDP. Still, despite this, we have a good credit rating and it's holding for the future.

Still, shouldn't we do something about this? Yes. We should pay it down somewhat. I'm not saying we should have high levels of national debt. But, there are two ways to pay it down, spending cuts and tax increases. And this is where things get freaky.

Every time the GOP gets into office, they claim we have this "huge problem" that "must be solved now" and can only be done by cutting spending, most typically welfare type services, like DOGE is trying to undermine and cut. 

However, let's be real. Do these guys REALLY care about the debt? No. They always pair spending cuts with tax cuts for the wealthy, not really doing much to solve the national debt. Heck, I've seen images where while the GOP wants to basically cut all of medicare, they simultaneously want to give as much of that money back to billionaires in the form of tax cuts. This means that republicans do a switcheroo claiming that we need to cut this national debt, but in reality, they don't care about the debt. They're using it as a cudgel to meet their own ideological goals. Of course they'll claim that tax cuts for the rich "create jobs" which allows the wealth to "trickle down", but it genuinely doesnt happen. Money going to the bottom has a higher multiplier effect than money going to the top, so republicans are basically scamming us with their claims about the national debt. 

Even worse, the debt barring massive crises like 2008 or 2020, democrats are better stewards on the national debt than republicans are. Republicans increase the national debt, often without valid reason. Reagan tripled it. Bush Sr then raised taxes to offset that, but then Clinton actually balanced the budget. Bush unbalanced it with tax cuts and unnecessary wars, then 2008 happened, and both Bush and Obama had to inject tons of stimulus into the economy to keep it functioning. However, then Obama pared that back over time, just in time for Trump to come in, and, you guessed it, more tax cuts! And then Biden inherited the recovery from COVID, republicans magically became aware of the national debt problem again, and now the republicans are trying to cut spending again while NOT paying down the debt, but passing on the savings to their billionaire buddies, claiming it "creates jobs." 

Again, let's really get at what republicans are saying about the national debt. Basically, they wanna take away your safety nets, and give tax cuts to billionaires. Which is perfectly justified in their anti government views. They're only concerned with getting rid of government spending. Their long term goal is to get the government so small that they can "drown it in the bathtub." If the billionaires get all the money in such an economy, oh well. They "earned" it. And your only option to get a slice of the pie is to work for it, by doing work for them. And they shouldnt be forced to share it with other people via forced redistribution, because that's how their abolutist view of property works.

It's all ideology. So every time democrats are in power, they scream about the debt, which they actually dont care about, and then blow the savings on tax cuts for billionaires. They weaponize it against the left. They use it as a cudgel. They dont care. They're just small government extremists.

 There's a reason I developed the views I did, understanding how this works. I believe in more government spending. Not in an absolutist sense, but i dont believe in just expecting everyone to work for the wealthy as the model for society. To me, that's a model based on slavery without calling it such. Rather, I advocate for redistribution and non reciprocity as a model for providing for people, and THEN using capitalism and the jobs market from there to incentivize people to do the necessary and productive work we have to. It's a different model, but I see it as an equal and opposing model to the republican model. As I see it, republicans want slavery, democrats want slavery with regulations, and i want liberation. 

Either way, while we should probably be more fiscally responsible with our federal budget, i actually do advocate for either balancing it or running smaller deficits than we currently do. This mostly means not advocating for crazy tax cuts and raising taxes, especially on the wealthy, to pay for it. 

I mean, and that's where the Nebraska town hall people are right. People are pissed and despite trump winning, i dont think most people are behind trump. Most people are actually more fiscally progressive these days, which is why they're yelling at their congress people (when they dare hold meetings) to tax the rich. Yeah. You tax the rich, you save social security. You tax the rich, you pay down the deficit. Even if I wasnt for UBI and my massive expansion of the federal government, i say we tax the rich. And given I AM for that, well, let's just say I believe in funding all of my proposals in a budget neutral way. I dont advocate for funding them via deficit spending. 

Discussing Chuck Schumer being worse than useless

 So...democrats are pissed off today because Chuck Schumer decided to vote with the republicans on the spending bill. He did it because he thinks a government shutdown would be worse, because it would allow Trump to take more power. Still, democrats are pissed at this, seeing it as a betrayal, with many democrats seeing it so bad they're starting to call on AOC to primary Schumer for his seat. You know it's bad when ESTABLISHMENT DEMOCRATS are telling AOC, ONE OF THE MOST LEFT CONGRESSWOMEN, to take Schumer's seat.

Should Schumer fight or cave? I mean, under normal circumstances, I'd say, fight, unequivocally. If they wanna pass a bill, the republicans should do it themselves. The democrats should obstruct and get the most concessions out of republicans possible. HOWEVER, the fear Schumer seems to have is that given the insanity that is the current executive branch, congress failing to act could be followed by the executive consolidating further power, with Trump, Musk, and DOGE being able to exercise more control over cutting spending and firing people, if the bill fails to pass. 

That IS a concern. HOWEVER, at the same time, the republicans are playing dirty, they're claiming the spending bill is "clean" when it is not. It is full of cuts to the government that democrats shouldn't support under any circumstance. Honestly, given the sensitive nature of this, if Schumer doesn't wanna risk a shutdown, perhaps they should not filibuster, HOWEVER, that doesn't mean SUPPORTING it. The republicans have the votes. Let them pass it. Democrats should have the good sense to, if they fail to take action against it for fear of it playing into trump's hands, just let the pieces fall where they may and wipe their hands of it.

I mean, again, we gotta treat this like a nazi occupation. Say the nazi occupation of France. The democrats seem to have this mentality that they have to govern like General Petain of Vichy France. You know, collaborate with the Nazis and to try to work with them to maintain some semblance of their own autonomy, but in reality, it's really an illusion. By becoming complicit with the Nazi's crap, they become as bad as the Nazis and are remembered as the cowards who refused to stand up to them and actually helped them do their dirty work. 

Again, if you dont wanna oppose the bill outright with an organized filibuster...okay. Again, under normal circumstances, I would say, just do it, but again, we ARE dealing with an administration where doing that COULD play right into their hands and make the situation go from bad to worse. Okay. Fair. Dont sign on to their crap though. Let THEM pass it. Hell, given the nature of budget reconciliations, they can probably pass stuff even over a filibuster.  

Again, so why sign on to their crap?

Honestly, it makes the democrats look complicit and weak and given a lot of rank and file democrats are turning on leadership over this, well, yeah. It's a bad move. 

Honestly, wtf are democrats doing? They come off as so weak. I mean, I'm USED to this by now, democrats are always weak and roll over to republicans, but at this point, I really do feel like the democrats are like vichy france just becoming complicit with the nazis than fighting them. We deserve better. Again, is it too much to ask the dems dont' sign on to their crap? 

Kyle Kulinski discussed this today and mentioned we might be witnessing the start of a left wing tea party over this. Because this is just such a low bar the dems are failing to clear. As I like to say to the establishment dems realizing what I realized a decade ago, "welcome to the party, pal...".  

We'll see where this goes, but given I believe we should've been fighting the GOP as hard as we can all along, I'm up for that. I just hope it isn't too late. 2028 seems like it's gonna be do or die for the democrats for the next alignment. Either we sink into fascism, or the dems mount a once in a generation comeback and the good guys actually win. Again, I just hope it isn't too late.

So let's discuss the tariffs/economic nationalism thing in more detail

 So, with the state of the world, and Trump's batcrap insane trade war, let's talk tariffs, economic nationalism, and whether "MAGA" is a worthy goal or not. 

For this, I'm going to start from 2016 and move forward, so we can build somewhat of an understanding here about it, where I'm somewhat sympathetic, and where I'm not.

2012-2016 and my evolving views on the subject

 Even when I was conservative, I remember being a bit economically protectionist. This is because I never actually trusted corporations to do right by America. In retrospect, my economic conservatism was always relatively moderate, I always had a pro labor streak to my politics, I was just confused and brainwashed.

As I became liberal, I did develop a bit of a nationalist streak in my politics. I was protectionist. This is because I believe the nation state of the unit of governance and corporations try to outsource to avoid taxes, labor, and environmental regulations, leading to a race to the bottom. I live in Pennsylvania after all. I've seen industries that used to be this state's lifeblood just disappear and go overseas, leaving economic destruction in its wake. I do believe in that "giant sucking sound" as ross perot put it that comes from labor going overseas. And while I do believe jobs replace the old jobs, I do believe that 1) the new jobs aren't as good, as they're not subject to the same unionization and labor standards of the old ones, 2) in the american economy the new jobs are service jobs which are often looked down upon by people as "jobs for teenagers and losers with no skills", and 3) people don't always have the skills for the new higher skill jobs. Like, we used to have an actual MIDDLE class, now we're going in the direction of being 80/20 lower/upper class, where some are becoming more upper class, and others are being left behind. The economy is changing, and honestly, we should be skeptical that this is a good thing. While globalization means we get cheaper goods, that doesn't mean that people are necessarily able to afford to live in the modern economy, given how unequal it's getting.

I do believe that tariffs against third world countries with lax regulations and taxes could be beneficial. However, to be blunt, I would've NEVER put tariffs in canada and Europe like fricking Trump is doing now. That's INSANE. They're allies. They're relative equals. If you wanna tariff mexico, or china, or bangladesh, I'm somewhat sympathetic to it, but again, with me, I'd be targetted, and primarily to slow the bleeding of wealth leaving the country and going overseas.

After all, if we want wealth to go to people here, we do need to regulate things like wages, we need unions. We need taxes for social services like healthcare and UBI. I mean, at the end of the day, we have this system where we have the wealth all in the hands of the top, and then it trickles down. But then we ensure that businesses have no real obligation to let it trickle down, and then we basically let them leave the country to avoid making it trickle down. I mean what are we supposed to do? Just let the rich have all the money? We need to ensure that the wealth trickles down to people. It doesnt happen on its own. I dont believe in trickle down economics via laissez faire, i believe in pinata economics. You need to hit the rich with a stick (metaphorically) a few times to make the candy come out. My support for tariffs is selective. It's basically focused on ensuring that businesses can't avoid taxes and regulations. if anything, I support free trade agreements if, in them, we can ensure basic labor standards, taxation levels, etc. And I believe in trying to wrestle the world into trade terms that are at least not UNfavorable to American workers. I mean, they don't have to be crazy. I just wanna ensure that people cant just go overseas to avoid paying taxes and exploit people in sweatshop conditions for pennies an hour. You know? 

With all of that said, was I sympathetic to MAGA in 2016? Eh...kind of. I mean, Trumpism was ALWAYS just, reaganism with a protectionist bend, but there was a split in american politics where in a sense, trump and sanders were on the same page, while the center was this weird neoliberal uniparty on the issue. Either way, it wasn't a huge part of my politics.

As I saw it, in 2016, people were still hurting from the recession. The recovery had been slow, many of us hadn't been feeling it, and something had to be done. I wouldnt have went full on into protectionism. Like, I'm not a full on protectionist. But I do understand that people were hurting and we had to do SOMETHING. And given clinton really didn't connect to people economically, I kinda see why people went trump.

Of course, let's be clear, even in 2016, I was a yang styled human centered capitalist. I believed that stuff before Yang adopted those views. I already deduced that the war on normal people was happening to some extent. I mean, I saw it in my own community. I live in a city in PA that used to be prosperous in the great new deal golden era but that suffered through the reagan years onward and by the 2010s was a burnt out husk with no real jobs. Poverty rate was like 40%, and income levels corresponded roughly with the minimum wage. I also understood there was no way job creation would work in areas like this. I was supporting UBI back then, understanding it was necessary.

As such, my efforts would have been on a combination of improving the jobs we have via updated labor regulations, and above all, going full on into UBI and universal healthcare in order to supplement income from jobs, and to improve labor standards by giving people more freedom.  

I mean, let's face it, Trump's OBSESSION with economic nationalism is cut from a different ideological cloth than mine. For him, he can't be the dude who is for safety nets or regulations because he's a republican. And republicans are fundamentally AGAINST such things. So he HAS to lean into bringing back jobs, because the right is fundamentally obsessed with work, and of course, they blame immigrants for everything. So this is basically what happens when the right tries to be populist.

 As such, trump ALWAYS overemphasized these things as the issues. Don't get me wrong, employers sending jobs overseas to avoid regulations and taxes IS an issue, but it's not the only issue, or the big issue, and trump was never going to bring in this golden utopia that solves all problems. 

2024

Trump's fixation on these issues is far more psychotic in his second term. I mean, you gotta keep in mind that a lot has happened since 2016. We had a global pandemic, a so called "labor shortage", and Trump functionally inherited a good economy with "full employment" where inflation is the big issue.

As such, the issues of the modern economy are different. We no longer need more jobs. Even if you're sympathetic to such ends (I'm not), Trump's ideas are, at most, just gonna add to inflation. Tariffs make goods more expensive, they contribute to inflation. Having more jobs here is of no real benefit to us. We need to focus on improving the jobs we already have. Again, the fundamental issues are different now. We're on the other side of the phillips curve. Ironically all trump has to do to win is govern like a sane conservative. There's a reason i was cautious in advancing UBI and my normal set of solutions. Because trump, if smart, could just beat us over the head with inflation accusations. But...trump is very stupid, so he's going ahead tariffing canada, Europe, china, mexico, EVERYONE. He thinks this is "winning". I dont see what we're winning here. He's provoking trade wars with allies. And it's ironically also leading to a recession. Trump admittedly inherited a time bomb, but he's intent on setting it off.  Like, again, in 2025's environment, his policies make NO sense. They're not productive at all. Just as UBI is a risky policy to push right now, so is tariffs. Because we dont need more jobs. If anything, we just had too many back in 2021 and had to pull it back a bit. But trump is just pathologically obsessed with this idea. And he doesnt care if it "brings on the pain". His people are sympathetic to it and they're pushing the narrative that we gotta "bring on the pain" to accomplish whatever ideological goals that he has in mind. But do these ideas actually make americans better off? No. Not on paper, not in reality. It's making things more expensive while driving us into a recession. We're literally getting stagflation from his policies in the current environment. 

Even more so, we gotta really reconsider trump's nationalism here. Again, he's off the rails. He keeps going on about how we're "losing" and stuff. How? He seems to have this weird idea that the trade deficit is bad. It's not, really. We have this massive service economy and while some trade deficit lowers our GDP a little, it's not like we're not a power house that can sustain it. If anything, a trade deficit is seen in some terms as a good thing. Why? because it means we're getting more than we're producing. If looked at through an imperialist lens, we're taking all of these resources out of the third world practically for free and getting all of these products. We're actually getting the good end of the equation here. 

Trump has this weird idea of autarky where we are 100% self sufficient, we dont even do trade, and that's good. he wants everything produced here. That's insane and ignores comparative advantage. He is completely economically illiterate. And okay, i see from a jobs perspective why that might seem like a good idea. I mean, we get all the jobs, they pay better (in theory, in reality we know trump is for the rich and he just has the same old trickle down economics the tight has always been for), but in reality...do we NEED this in 2025? NO! We had a full employment economy, all the jobs we needed. They just didnt pay well or had good labor conditions because right wing policies suck, and we needed left wing policies to improve them. And if anything inflation was the concern. DAE remember inflation and how bad the "biden economy" was because eggs were like $3-4 a dozen or something? Now they're like $10+ because of bird flu (not his fault, btw, but he was pathologically obsessed with this campaigning so I'm ripping on him for not producing the magical solution he said he would), and he's making everything else more expensive by tariffing everything. 

How does this help us? The reason the biden economy sucked was because our idea of a conventional economy sucks. Biden had the best conventional economy we could hope for. Low unemployment, getting inflation under control. it's the best things had been since 1968. And yeah inflation sucks, dont get me wrong, I'm not saying it's perfect, but remember how I'm the human centered capitalist guy who obviously thinks we need to rethink the economy in larger terms to shift away from productivity and GDP and toward UBI and better labor conditions and more leisure?

Biden's core problem, from my end, was he wasn't left enough. He governed like a moderate republican and people dont want that in these populist times. We do need more economic interventionism.

HOWEVER, trump's interventions arent the right ones. They kinda sorta made sense in 2016, but even then they werent great, and now they're just...the exact opposite of what we need.

Again, it's ironic. All the republicans had to do here was beat democrats over the head with INFLATION INFLATION INFLATION and then govern sanely and basically inherit biden's economy and DO NOTHING, and for the more conservative americans, that would've been enough. But trump is just so ideologically married to this idea of MAGA via tariffs that he's actually imploding the economy and his presidency. These ideas help no one, they're making the world worse for everyone. And then on top of everything doge is floating social security cuts now. 

Like, trump is just such a terrible president that he's literally speedrunning imploding everything. If we werent at risk at falling into a dictatorship right now, I'd just be laughing at this guy. He's SO DUMB. And he's screwing up SO BAD. Seriously, by the time he's done, by 2028, we should be getting FDR numbers. If the realignment isn't fascism + a weak democratic party unwilling to do anything, the next realignment should be in 2028 as the left comes back and just sweeps EVERYTHING. Because by the time trump is done with the country everyone is gonna be pissed and he's gonna be that once in a generation herbert hoover or jimmy carter style fall guy who ends the previous alignment and allows the next guy to come in and fix everything. 

Speaking of which, you wanna know who was really big on tariffs? Herbert Hoover. Why was he hated so much? Because his smoot hawley act did the same thing trump is doing RIGHT NOW and it made the great depression worse. Trump is driving us into a recession. Just like herbert hoover took the great depression and then imploded things worse. 

Really. We're at a moment of American history where either Trump is gonna cause us to descend into a fascist dark age, or the american people are gonna push back against the hard times that he's creating and we're gonna get a generational shift causing people to abandon the GOP. If we can make it through the next 4 years, happy times will be here again, but we gotta make it through this cursed administration first.

So let's talk 2028...

 So, I know it's early and for all we know, we might not have elections, or might not have fair elections, who knows at this point, everything is on the table and it's scary. But say we do have fair elections. What am I looking for in a candidate?

 I mean, at this point, the bare minimum is they FIGHT TRUMP!

 Seriously, there is no point in voting democrat if they're gonna roll over and just enable him anyway. We are in a very dangerous moment in american history, and I want people to FIGHT. I dont want people to roll over. If this next election is between the LITERAL NAZIS, and General petain of vichy france, I'm just gonna vote third party. If this is between a Reagan republican a lot Slotkin, or Trump...you might as well not vote. The republicans have ideological supremacy. We are in a new era, and that new era literally has two right wing parties. The direction the democrats wanna go in is just...being what the GOP used to be in the 6th party system.  

Again, my bare minimum isn't something crazy like UBI or universal healthcare at this point, it's just FIGHTING. PUSHING BACK. I am taking notes and paying attention to what possible candidates are doing. I'm already developing a tier list. Right now, these are the top candidates:

Bernie Sanders- S tier

Bernie sanders is still the best ideological foil to trump we got. He's launching a "stop the oligarchy" tour and he's still filling stadiums. The dude is in his fricking 80s, and he's still the best fighter we got. He not only stands up to Trump, he offers an ideological alternative to him. And he pushes it with genuine conviction. If not for his age, he would be the de facto spiritual leader of the democratic party at this point.

 AOC- S tier

 Want Bernie but younger? Check out AOC. Ideally, I'd like to see AOC become speaker of the house. I want her to be the new nancy pelosi. let her be "mama bear", but I would still vote for her for president. She's very intelligent, she gets in the weeds of policy discussions. Sure, she has a bit of the work ethic, but still, she's a solid candidate. 

Tim Walz- A tier

 Tim Walz was kinda milquetoast last year as part of Harris's ticket, BUT...he admits they played it too safe, and said that the american people arent gonna want tinkering around the edges with the ACA, they want universal healthcare. You say those kinds of things, I like you. I know that harris and walz kinda stifled themselves to fit in this weird third way box. And he seems to have learned his lesson from that. He's also going around the country hosting town halls for red districts where the republican congresspeople there refuse to because they dont want their constiuents yelling at them over trump and musk's BS. So yeah, he's fighting too and he has been willing to shift the overton window left too. 

JB Pritzker- B tier

 JB Pritzker might be a billionaire, but he seems to recognize the moment we are in and he seems willing to fight. Again, at this rate, in 2028, it's less about policy wish lists, it's more being willing to fight for mere survival. Push back against trump, push the overton window back to the right, I'll settle for "not third way" at this point. 

Andrew Yang- B tier

So...idk how to feel about Yang right now. on the one hand, he has a great ideology that I may have had an indirect hand in influencing, but at the same time, will he FIGHT? Is he even willing to run? We'll see, he can still impress me, but I feel kinda meh on yang right now. We need a fighter. And he's a bit of a compromiser. 

Kamala Harris- C tier

 Harris has been pretty mum since her 2024 defeat. There has been speculation of her running again, or running for governor after greasy gavin leaves, but yeah, I'd rather see her as governor. I dont want her to run for president again. And the fact that she's been so silent since November 5th really says it all. her campaign was kind of a disaster. I mean, it wasnt as bad as some think it was, but walz said it all, they played it too safe, they needed to fight harder. And I just think that 2024 kinda blacklisted her for me. That brand of the party is done (or should be done), it needs to go away already. Ideally we need progressivism, but at the least, we need someone willing to fight trump and be confrontational. I dont think she's it. 

Gavin Newsom- D tier

 Kyle covered Gavin today and he's kinda doing the civility politics crap of running to the right. Nope. If anything after seeing his 2024 polling numbers, HELL TO THE NO. 

Any third wayer, any compromiser, any appeaser- F tier

Look, I may be willing to put my actual ideology and beliefs aside in this era to some extent, BUT....if you're a third wayer, or you're selling me out as badly as my PA democratic representatives like John Fetterman or Chrissy Houlahan are, I want nothing to do with you. I really hope those guys get primaried, and I'm highly considering leaving their boxes blank the next time they come up to vote. Houlahan voting to censure Al Green was disgusting to me, and Fetterman has been selling out left and right where I literally want nothing to do with him. Those guys are a disgrace.

But yeah. I know, WAY too early, and we'll have a way better idea where things stand in 2 years after the mid terms, but yeah. I really want the centrist faction to go away. They're literally acting like General Petain in Vichy France. Just rolling over for Trump and becoming complicit in his BS. And it sickens me. When the choice is between a nazi and one who literally appeases the nazis, yeah, even VAUSH of all people are rethinking their stance on pragmatic voting by this point. When you make VAUSH rethink his stance, since he's one of the biggest vote shamers on the internet, ya done F'ed up. 

F work culture

 So...I'm still reading the 99% Perspiration book and it's quite good, but one thing I wish that we could do away with is this weird reverence we have toward work culture in this country. I mean, while the one chapter in this book did go into a lot of stuff that I would, idk, I feel like something really lacking in a lot of these books is a really scathing rebuke of work culture. To be fair, Chandler, in one of the later chapters in the book, does kind of tear this stuff down, but honestly, I know whenever I look into stuff like the future of work, we really just give these ideas the moral high ground. We shouldn't. This stuff is repackaged Christianity. The reason we value work culture so much is because we treat internalizing the work ethic as a virtue, and treat rejecting it as a moral flaw. We see being a "hard worker" as a way of saying they have good character, while the opposite of that implies bad character. We treat the link between work and property as absolute because we believe that property is a natural freaking right that comes from God. We think redistribution is inherently immoral, and that wealth earned from work is inherently moral. We believe that billionaires "earned" their wealth, and that some dude on welfare, or who did work, and only makes minimum wage deserves their fate because they didn't work hard enough.

 And when we talk about doing away with work, the idea should be a no brainer. I'm like "work sucks, let's do away with it." But then these people who internalize the work ethic are like "but what would I do all day?" and push weird misguided sentiments like "work has dignity." Even left wingers like Biden and AOC seem to believe such things. And it baffles me. I mean, AOC kinda mentioned how rich people seem to laugh at her when she has work ethic sentiments, and while I normally dont agree with the wealthy, they're right. They know deep down that work sucks, and let's be honest, they think you're a sucker if you buy into work ethic. Because quite frankly, you are.

And that's really where I wanna go with ALL of this. ALL of this stuff is just propaganda made up by wealthy people to make you want to work. What is more effective than the end of a gun, or the whip? Creating a belief system where people internalize the values of work. Where people link work to their character and their identity. Where the loss of a job is a loss of identity. Where people  WANT to spend their time working hard. But the wealthy know the truth, they know that those who believe such ideas are suckers. And they mock you behind closed doors, and sometimes, in the era of trump, even openly. Like, these guys see themselves as untouchable these days. And they're letting the mask slip. And I could've told you guys this 10 years ago. I mean, when I left Christianity, the scales fell from my eyes so to speak. Not only did I reject christianity, but I rewrote my entire belief system and value system from scratch. And honestly? It made me see work and work culture, and work ethic, for what it really is. Don't get me wrong, there is balance. People might say if everyone was like me, society would fall apart. The thing is, i dont expect everyone to be like me, or as extreme as me. I might represent an extreme of an argument, but at the same time, in practice I know work is needed to SOME extent. Nowhere near the extent that we value it and engage in it, but if current culture is 100 and I'm 0....we probably need something in the ballpark of 50. You know what I mean?

But that's the thing. The only real value work has, is the value that it produces. Work, as a concept, is nasty, unpleasant, and should be eradicated like a disease. It's the product of the work that matters. An as robots and AI and automation are, over time, able to do more and more, we should have more and more of a discussion about doing away with work.

The problem is, that these ideas just wont go away. Because they're too entrenched in people. People internalize this stuff and when you do away with it, it's like it breaks their brain. Part of this is because people are entrenched in the so called objective morality of the protestant work ethic like a kid who still believes in santa claus, and some of it is because it presents a chicken and an egg situation. If we were to get off of this crazy work train, what comes first? Do we change the culture and wean ourselves slowly off of work? or do we change society, allowing us to wean ourselves off of the culture? That's the thing. BUT, we do have that problem, where our cultural beliefs accept a certain idea so strongly it goes unquestioned, and then our structures reinforce the culture, even if it's no longer needed. So when you get get a guy like me who sees it as all BS, I end up facing intense resistance as the culture is so entrenched, and the institutions back up the culture, that it becames insanely difficult to change it, even if it really should be changed. 

But to me, this is why I'm so uncharitable to these ideas. I despise them, I despise their origins, I despise the fact that they dominate society and dictate how we live, and I quite frankly believe a better world is possible. I believe we DO need a different value system. But that involves being confrontational to the one that exists. Not coddling it. Not babying it. But outright confronting it, rejecting it, and advocating for a full replacement.

And that's what human centered capitalism is about in a sense. It's a more pragmatic value system that recognizes the objective value that work has, but does away with the BS honorifics and just treats it for its utilitarian value. 

If we really wanna do away with work, we gotta stop putting it on a pedestal. We gotta full on reject the feedback loop that work culture thrives off of where it kind of justifies its own existence by requiring an insane amount of rethinking society in order to move past it. But...at the same time, that's what I offer. A different worldview. A different way of thinking about things. 

I don't wanna coddle it or respect it. I despise it, and I believe society should do away with these outmoded ideas. I give it as much charitability the right gives to the concept of "government", or the social justice left gives to "racism and bigotry." Okay, maybe not that much as I wouldnt actively try to "cancel" people for working...it is good that SOME people like that exists, but it shouldnt be everyone, and those ideas shouldnt be replicated to the extent that they are. Again, we need society to be at 50 right now. That can mean either everyone is a 50 on the question, or it can mean half of society is at 0 and the other half is at 100. Either way, we need to tone down the ideas significantly and diminish their cultural importance. 

Remember, from a humanist point of view, work has no inherent value. It's just about the value that it produces for society. That's it. We need to stop treating it like this sacred rite of passage. It's basically akin to having kids or joining the military. Sure, some people should do it, but should everyone do it? no. And doing it should be voluntary. And I know those who do it often look down with resentment among those who don't, but that's their problem, not ours. And sure, some weirdos, especially on the right, might wanna force everyone to do such things, but it really isn't necessary, and their ideas are harmful. You know? 

And yeah, I'll leave it there.