Please shut up about inflation (also, a demonstration of the destruction of the middle class)

 So....in light of Nintendo's ridiculous prices, which are only going to be made worse by the Trump tariffs, there are a lot of pro corporate...you know what riders out there who are basically defending nintendo and arguing that we should be willing to pay high prices. Their argument is that if we go back to what consoles and games cost back in the good old days, and compared it to today, we would realize that we used to actually pay higher prices. For example, the Nintendo 64 had like $60-80 games back in the 1990s, when in reality, that was like $120-160 today or something. a $200 console costs like $500+ now, etc. etc. We get this too with the cost of PC parts, with people being like "well ackshully, you SHOULD pay more than GPUs than you did in the 2010-2016 era!" and stuff like that.

But, let's be honest, just because things cost more now, doesn't mean that people can afford more stuff. The living standards of people have declined over the years.  I know in my own life, my family has made roughly the same amount of money since like the 1990s in real dollars, and I don't think that's uncommon in a lot of eras. if anything, it sounds like the hollowing out of the middle class to me.

I mean, let's go back to like the 1990s. In the 90s, my family made somewhere around $40k a year to my knowledge. Not sure exactly, but that sounds about right. That would amount to around $100k today, which actually sounds like a lot. My dad did HVAC and it was brutal work though, and he was miserable doing it. But it did give me a good childhood and a good life. I guess we were on the higher end of middle class, ya know, right when my UBI stuff would start raising taxes on us. Not super rich but comfortable. And yeah, I got a new console for like $130 (never full price) like a year or two after release when they went on sale, and we'd get games. I'd occasionally get games I knew were full price, but most were discounted. My family has always been on the whole "dont pay full price for stuff, wait for sales" kind of people. Scrimping and saving is how you get ahead. As such, while I might get like 2-4 games for christmas, often on sale, a lot of the time, they'd be like $30-40, only occasionally getting a $60-70 one.  

Let's fast forward into the 2000s. my dad is now working a different job in the same field. He quit his old one after he was functionally forced out because he tried to join a union. He had his old one since he started in the 1970s, and ya know, that was the end of that golden era where you could get a job out of high school with a college education and be fine. But then in the 1980s and 1990s as neoliberalism became all the rage, working conditions gradually worsened, with his job being absolutely miserable by the 1990s. And then around 2000, he quit. he took a pay cut, but his next job was pretty easy in comparison. Rather than being a megacorp, it was owned by a small business owner. Pay was lower but things were less stressful. I remember we cut back on things we used to do, like eating out, although our christmases and stuff were still decent. He continued to make somewhere around $40k a year, rising to the 50s and maybe around $60k-ish by the recession. 

Game consoles got more expensive, but they also seemed to come out a lot less frequently, I remember getting a PS2 around 2002 for middle school graduation, having used a much cheaper dreamcast before that. I typically only got one console per generation, although the dreamcast's premature death meant that i got 2 for gen 6. Again, probably not launch price. Actually looking it up, there was a $100 price drop (1/3 of the price) when I got it. So it was a $200 console. And games went down to $50, with me often getting them for much less, like, say, $30 on average. Again, never pay full price for anything. Maybe hold off and get older games on sale and get the newer ones later on. 

Xbox 360, got that when I graduated high school. Was $400, it was less than a year post launch, but I got 3 games. 2 were old halo games from the OG xbox and were literally like $8 according to the sticker on them. Quake 4 was like $50-60, but yeah. Only got one of those. From there, again, mostly got games on sale, $20-40 is what we typically paid. While occasionally, you get something full price, most of the time, we don't.

Same with handhelds. I got into the game boy late in its life cycle after my dad had a game gear at launch. That one was probably pricey. Game boy was less than $100 by the late 90s. GBA was like $130 or $150 or something in 2001. Got that near launch. Games were $30 for it. 

DS, that was $150. Games were $40 max. 

Again, stuff was a lot cheaper. Let's talk about this stuff in line with inflation up to this point.

So, got a sega genesis in 1993 for like $130, that's $287 today. So around $300, that's not unreasonable in my mind for a console. Games generally cost around $30 on average I'd say. That's $66 today, so not that insane. Cheaper than mariokart. 

N64. Same $130 for that IIRC, got it on sale. In 1997 money, that's $258. 

Games were up to $60-70, say a $70 game is $140, that's insane, and you know what? This is why people only had a handful of games. Either way, most games I did get were often closer to $30-40. Let's go with $40, which is about $80 in 1997 money. So again, keeping up with "inflation." 

Of course in the 2000s things went down and things were more standardized. Got the dreamcast near launch, after all I was a huge sega fanboy. $200 in 1999 is $383 today, still cheaper than the switch. Got 2 games with it. Assuming $50, which was full price, that's $95, a bit steep, but again, we were making decent money back then. Keep reading to see how things end up going. Also, we rarely paid $50 and those games were like "yeah you're not getting that many at that price." So again, let's assume a median price of actually $30. $57, so closer to $60. Again, because $80 for games, even today, is kind of a lot of money. 

Lets go 2001. GBA at launch cost $100, looking it up. I guess the $130 figure was with a $30 game. That's $180 today. Not unreasonable, my latest razer edge handheld cost a little more than that. $30 game, that's $54.

2002. $200 PS2.  $354. So as much as some hoped the switch would cost. And again, while games were up to $50, i often got games much cheaper. Like $30. 

2004. $150 for DS. That's $253, not much more than the razer edge. I paid like $212.$40 games are $67 today, and again, I often paid $20-30 for them. That's $33-50.

2006. $400 back then was $633 today. A bit eyewatering but not much worse than the XBSX's price of $500. Also keep in mind other consoles. PS3 cost $600 which was $950 today, and was laughed out of the room. Nintendo wii, nintendo using weaker hardware and being more cost sensitive, $395. Still cheaper than the switch. 

And again, while games were $60, I rarely if ever paid $60. $20-40 was common. $30 is about normal. That's about $47 today, which makes sense, that's me buying a $70 game with a 33% sale. That should be about $40, but yeah. 

So yeah before I continue, let's go back to the story. So, 2008 onward, another big life style change. My dad starts getting laid off, is eventually let go. His small company got bought out by a large company that degraded the working conditions to squeeze every last bit of profit out of people. Laid him off permanently in 2011. Couldnt find a job in field, had to pursue work in another field as a maintenance guy. Goodbye $50-60k, welcome back $40k. 

 I tried to get a job out of college, but the only crap available paid like $8-10 an hour for 25 hours a week with no benefits. Quite frankly wasnt even worth the effort if you could afford to live without it. After all, that's only $11700. This is the difference between older gens and younger ones. Younger ones graduate into this economy and this is what greeted us. I was hoping to make at least $30k outside of school. I couldnt even get that. It was a joke. 

 This continued for most of the 2010s, welcome to the new normal.

Shortly before 2020 and COVID, my dad retired in 2019. Now on social security, goodbye say, $45k, hello $36k. Which is now like $40k. 

Okay so...as you can see, 30 years, still around $40k, back in the 1990s, was a respectable above average middle class income. In the 2000s, was pretty much THE average. In the 2010s, slightly below average, but still respectable. And now we're in the 2020s...

And actually, this is still average in my area. Median household income is actually $45k. Used to be like $30k, but yeah. Again, we're kinda poor. Prosperity in america isnt evenly distributed. Some areas have it really well, others don't. It's the war on normal people at work. For some, big cities and the like, you're making BANK. Others, like my area, you're basically poor AF. The prosperity leaves, your living standards are hollowing out, and you manage to tread water for a while, but every decade, it gets a little worse, a little worse. And now we got a cost of living crisis in the 2020s and it's pushing us over the edge. So with that said, let's go back to the gaming examples.

So, I graduate college in 2010. This is at the peak of our income in raw dollars, and my parents wanna do something really special for me. So I get a gaming PC. It cost $1100. Now, people might think that's WAY more expensive than the other stuff, and it is, BUT, let's look at the cost in context. Since 1999, we've bought PCs every 3-5 years. They cost $600. Consoles cost, on average, about $400 for a really butt kicking graphics powerhouse one like the xbox 360. Nintendo actually stayed cheaper, trying to appeal to more casual audiences and be more budget friendly. This is important for context on the switch 2 as well. Xbox also charged for online $60 a year, that adds up. Over 4 years, that's $240. So....I can either buy a PC which replaces not just a $400 console, but a $600 computer, and $240 in online play, AND you get cheaper games, or you pay for consoles and their nonsense. At this point it actually made more sense to buy a PC. 

So...ignoring the big things, let's focus on the main components. I got a phenom II X4 965 processor, which was $200 at the time. That's $292 today. The GPU was like $260. That's $380 today. Got a free upgrade to a GTX 580 which was RMAed after it died into a 760. Used that computer until around 2017. RIP, sweet prince. 

Games, games on PC are cheap AF, if I really want, I'll go nuts over a battlefield game. BFBC2 cost $50 at the time, that's $73 today. And most of the time I paid anywhere between $10 and $40. Again, sticking to that $30 standard, which is about $43 today. Am able to buy a lot of games, since I'm not regularly upgrading my hardware or buying new consoles. Seriously one year for christmas, we just spent like $200 on like 12 games, it was insane. But that's the power of early/mid 2010s steam sales for you.

Replaced the PC ship of theseus style over a few years. CPU. Upgraded to a 7700k. Spent a lot on it, $300, but also figured, okay, this is the only futureproof option i got, ryzen just dropped, it sucked at gaming, i didnt expect intel to launch a better product soon. But yeah. $390 in today's money. 

GPU. Got a 1060 6 GB for $270. This is $351 in today's money. And again, I used this until around 2022-2023 AND I didn't buy it all at once. Again, a piece here, a piece there. 

After that, you get GPUflation. Heck, GPUs were already inflated. Crypto happened before i bought, and then again after. Prices go up to insane amounts, but go back down. Nvidia launches the 2000 series with its fricking $350 GTX 2060. Again, insane. This was in 2019. That was like $335 in 2017 money. So not much changed. Inflation was very low for most of the 2010s. CPUs also went up more. i5s started costing $260-280, of course, after the 7700k, the i5 8600k offered the same performance for just slightly less so i didnt get that ripped off by that. I7s went up to $400, which is what they should cost post COVID inflation. 

2021, we get the RTX 3060 for $330. That's $300 in 2017 money. A bit high, given the MSRP of the 1060 was actually like $250. Which means $270-280 was more fair. Oh, and did we forget, the 1060 6 GB was basically the 1060 ti, the 1060 3 GB also existed for like $200. So that should've cost $220, which is what the base 1660 cost, not even the 1660 super/ti, which was $270, but yeah. Again, see how we're getting ripped off? 

So...post 2020. 2022 I get a RX 6650 XT for $230 on black friday, has 3060 like performance while they still wanted $340 for that (seriously, F you, nvidia). I got an i9 12900k in a bundle deal for what amounted to $200. Seriously, a FRICKING I9. I admit, raptor lake was out by this point in 2023, but yeah. Still similar to a i5 13600k ot i7 13700k. And the former cost like $280 or $300 or something and the i7 $400. So again, getting good deals. 

Games, they did get more expensive. Steam stopped making deals as good as they used to be so deals on a few year old games are back to $20-40. New games cost $70, I rarely pay more than the same old $50. I cant afford it, and I refuse to. Again, my budget basically amounts to what it always was back in like the 2000s. I'm price sensitive, and I wanna pay like 2000s prices. Because my income hasnt kept up with "inflation."

So yeah, you can go on about how much more expensive crap was back in the day. But jokes on you:

1) my family's income hasnt kept up with inflation

2)  I never paid full price on much anyway. I've always been a bargain hunter spending $30ish on games. I'm not gonna stop any time soon. Even adjusting that lifestyle for inflation, the $40-50 im willing to spend is...about all I can afford. I cant afford $70-80 games. 

And yeah. Lecturing me about what things used to cost and how I should be willing to pay more just pisses me off. First of all, stop licking boot. We should want cheap consumer prices.

Second of all. Quite frankly the only silver lining of the modern economy IS those low prices.

Third of all, I CAN'T FRICKING AFFORD IT. Seriously. Every decade I get bounced around the $40k mark so I still have the same amount of REAL DOLLARS that I always had. And I cant afford to pay more.

Hell, this is probably why trump won the election. Inflation is eating up our money, but WE'RE NOT SEEING A RAISE! And btw, to build on that asmongold thing, this is why people say "F your stocks, F your 401ks, let it all burn." Because the economy isn't working for us. For my generation, in my area, it's NEVER worked. It's a joke. Our entire economy is a joke. It's failing younger generations left and right. I'm only able to be as well off as i am since i live with my boomer parents. If i didn't, again, what's available to me? The same minimum wage jobs that are just as crappy and just as oppressive, that's about it.

people cant afford to live in this modern economy. And now the prices of everything is going up. So let's put this switch 2 thing in context. $450 PRE TARIFFS for the switch. GTFO of here. For a HANDHELD, this is GAME GEAR prices. Like, again, let's not ignore that the switch consoles are home console/handheld hybrids. If you're going desktop, let's look at what I paid for a cheap console over the course of my life:

Genesis- $287

N64- $258

Dreamcast- $383

PS2- $354

And let's look at nintendo prices of consoles since:

Gamecube (2001)-  $360

Gamecube (2003)- $173

Wii- $395

Wii U- $416

 Switch- $390

If anything, the price of HOME CONSOLES has GONE UP since around 2005. 

So yeah, $450 is NOT in line with ANYTHING cost wise. The closest is the Wii U, and that basically was a failure. 

But again, let's focus on handhelds from nintendo over the years:

 Game boy (1989)- $231

Game boy pocket (1996)- $142

Game boy color (1999)- $137

Game boy advance (2001)- $180

Nintendo DS (2004)- $253

3DS (2011)- $354

Switch Lite (2019)- $249

So, yeah, nintendo? You can shove your $450 switch 2. Like, this is what people who scream BUT INFLATION dont understand. Back in the day, the initial costs of these consoles was high, yes, but even waiting just a year or two, would get you better prices. For a home console, from nintendo, since nintendo never uses cutting edge hardware in the first place, I'd say $300ish is fair. 

For a handheld? Nah, maybe $200ish these days. Like to be fair their handhelds are beefy. And part of the reason the console is so expensive is it literally tried to compete with PC handhelds like the fricking steam deck, not understanding it's not in the same lane as a steam deck. Seriously, the thing packs graphics that is Xbox series S tier. But the thing is, THAT THING IS FRICKING $300. And they want $450 for this? Sure its portable, but it sounds like this thing is gonna basically be a steam deck. Limited portability and battery life, fricking huge, they're basically trying to do what sega did with the GAME GEAR, which was a commercial failure. WHy? because while it was amazing for its time and well ahead of the game boy in terms of tech, it also cost a metric crapton MORE! EVEN THEN. That thing cost $150 back in 1990, and it would cost $366 today! IT'S STILL CHEAPER THAN THE FRICKING SWITCH 2. 

And again, did I mention these consoles and games USED to go on sale? Like, the price of hardware and software used to drop like a brick. Here's the problem with nintendo these days, THEY NEVER PUT CRAP ON SALE. Even today, the switch is $300, which is its MSRP. The switch lite is $200, which is its MSRP. Even the fricking 3DS, which I mentioned, had variations that eventually dropped to like $80. The thing launched at $250 in 2011.

And games. Mario Kart 8 normally STILL goes for $60. I'm seeing a walmart deal for $47, but still, THAT GAME IS EIGHT YEARS OLD on the switch, and is even older given it originally launched on the Wii U. So it still holds like 75% of its value despite being over A DECADE OLD.

And this is why Nintendo is just massively screwing people. Now they want $450 for a console, when their competition, the PS5 and the Xbox Series X, cost $500, are 4x as powerful, and guess what? The xbox has a weaker version comparable to the switch 2 for $300. Even then, the xbox series X is $400 right now, The PS5 seems to go as low as $375. And nintendo wants to get away with $450 for this? GTFO nintendo.

Like, here's the thing. It's like this thing was made to compete with the Asus ROG Ally and the Steam Deck. Except....PC....has a massive library, spanning back decades. All of it is playable on the ally, a good chunk of it on the linux based steam deck. Steam deck is integrated with the steam store, which has regular sales of tons of cheap games. 

Even then I didnt buy a steam deck. Why? because it's too fricking expensive. I spent the last few years building up my PC into a PS5/Xbox Series X competing beast, and now I am done. I got a razer edge handheld for retro gaming and streaming. Spent half as much, more akin to GBA or DS prices at MSRP, and yeah. That's what I can afford these days.

Again, you can argue inflation if my income kept up with it, it hasn't for once. ANd for two, YES, WE ARE PAYING MORE THAN WE EVER DID FOR NINTENDO CONSOLES, AND NINTENDO HAS GOTTEN FAR GREEDIER IN RECENT YEARS SINCE THE SUCCESS OF THE SWITCH 1. 

Again, if nintendo lowered prices like 1-2 years after launch, that would be one thing. Because again, you can see the history of that. And that's normally how i bought consoles. I wasnt out there at launch day most of the time, it was like 1-2 years later, THEN i upgrade. And I'm paying like 2/3 of that price.

But you know what? If we fast forward to 2030 or 2033, when we're at the end of the life cycle of the switch 2, I bet it's still gonna be $450 or even higher due to whatever tariff nonsense trump is doing.

Also, can we talk about that? I posted an article the other day pointing out how the switch 2 would cost like $600 with tariffs. However, now people are looking more at $650-750 given the switch 2 is apparently made in vietnam and then trump put like a 46% tariff on them. So...we're ####ed. Trump, you just ruined the one decent thing about the economy. Cheap consumer goods and entertainment. Congrats. Hope you like whatever backlash comes from this. Seriously maybe we will see blexas and blorida before this is done. 

Also, to the bootlickers defending this. Yeah Im gonna join the asmongold people in saying F your stocks and 401ks, let them burn. Stop defending corporations and their greedy BS. 

So...discussing why MAGA is cheering this stuff on...

 So....I watched an Asmongold clip on why a lot of young men are supporting the tariffs, and idk, he actually made sense in a way. Before I go further, yes yes, I know asmongold is a maga chud, especially on social issues, but on economics, sometimes we strangely align. He has come out as anti work and pro UBI for example, as such, as cringey as his views often are, he's one of the more right wing voices I go to if I want to see what the right things. Watching him cheer on vance and his nonsense is cringey, but then once in a great while, he'll have a clip like this.

 Okay...so....here's the thing. Asmongold frames it this way. A lot of young men are supporting MAGA and tariffs and stuff because they have no investment in the system. The economic system has failed them. When they see people freaking out over 401ks, they cheer it on. They're like "yeah F your 401k, now you'll feel the pain I've felt my whole life with this crap."

I...kinda respect this argument in a way. Now, I dont think what MAGA is doing is useful, or smart in any way, I dont endorse this tactic, but their attitude is one of desperation, they're so fed up with this system that doesnt serve them that they see this as their way of "burning it all down." Stock market is a bunch of rich people, they dont have a retirement fund...so F it. And ya know what? Im not super sympathetic about the stock market either. Like, with these tariffs, I'm worried more about like, high consumer prices, or creating tons of unemployment as the glorious "job creators" lay people off. But as far as the stock market itself, it's like...meh, let it burn. Rich people losing money, oh noes. 

Ya know? It kinda is the whole "the neglected child will burn down the whole village to stay warm" mentality. A lot of young people realize this system is crap and they're like, F it, burn it down. Again, in 2016, I was kinda willing to gamble with a third party vote in this way. I thought one term of trump would shift the country toward a progressive political revolution. The GOP would be destroyed from their internal contradictions and the dems would learn from 2016 and move left. But then MAGA just got stronger and like a cancer metastasized into the fascist authoritarian movement that it is now. And this time around, Trump is FAR more dangerous. The GOP is a lot more authoritarian, a lot less respectful of checks and balances, and trump has ZERO guardrails. NONE. The courts mostly back him, congress backs him, he can do whatever he want and no one will hold him accountable, and the GOP seems poised to destroy democracy itself, or at least erode it that it might take a generation to come back from this. As such, I cant cheer on trump. Because this is BAD.

But, I do understand the energy. This is the energy that drove germany to become nazi in the 1930s. And it might feel good for a time, until it gets so out of hand it kills millions of people and turns the country into a genocidal dictatorship. We were here before, in the 1930s, and the democrats had to design a system that stopped us from going that way. It led to the new deal. And while I do have some issues with the new deal, like the left wing work fetishism that came out of that ideology, it actually did save capitalism, until the right rolled it back.

And that's one thing that these guys dont understand, okay, so I get the anger...you guys realize trump is...exactly the kinds of people screwing you in the first place, right? His economics is more trickle down. He's making the rich richer and screwing everyone else. The people who are hurt by maga arent the ultra wealthy, they'll be fine. it's US. We're gonna lose our jobs, lose our safety nets, goods will be more expensive. We are gonna suffer. The rich won't. I mean they might take a hit, but they'll come back. If anything some think trump is tanking the market so his rich buddies can buy a lot of cheap stock and make out like bandits as the economy recovers. So really, what is this solving? other than just nuking the economy for everyone else who suffers already too? 

Really. This ins't helpful. I get the anger, I get the frustration. But this helps NO ONE who needs help. It just screws over everyone. And even worse, most people wont understand this message that youre sending. Because most maga people do genuinely not understand economics, and are christian fundamentalist fascists. And actually do support the ideas out of stupidity. Even if youre supporting the stuff out of "burn it down." No one is gonna understand that, and no ones lives who should improve, will improve from these policies. We're just driving the country into fascism and a depression. Like, even I backed off and supported harris this time. Because I knew a second trump term would be WAY worse than his first. And it IS worse. It's worse than even I expected, and I knew it was gonna be bad. So...hope you're happy, but this ain't gonna help anyone. 

Why I never became alt right (but why I'm still anti woke)

 So, Genetically Modified Skeptic just did a video on why he never became alt right. And given the tone of his video, I decided to do my own post in this. 

Long story short, I never became alt right, because, well, I'm not an idiot! I know this is gonna sound really condescending, but when I look at the factors he talks about and how they influenced my life, yeah, I just never got into that whole realm of politics, because it's always been really stupid.

 GMS starts off talking about gender roles and how he was always considered effiminate, or "gay", or stuff like that and yeah...I experienced that too. I never got into "manliness." Again, because it's just so dumb. It's literal cave man brain stuff. Like, the whole "BE A MAN" thing never got to me. Because what is being a man, liking certain things like football, dressing in uncomfortable clothes that I don't like, and of course, the whole job and work thing. I mean, I always looked at work with dread, sure, young me kinda felt like it was essential, but after watching my dad in the work force and how he hated his job, and how he described it to me, I always dreaded "growing up" and having to be subjected to that stuff. No, I wanted my childhood to last as long as possible. Because all of this "masculinity" stuff just seemed to be leaning into a lot of these maturity type stereotypes, and I never..."got" that. 

I mean, here's my big superpower. Being autistic, I'm the kind of person who doesn't "get" social conventions. If something doesnt make sense to me, I don't follow it. if anything, I question it, I ask "but why does it have to be this way?" And if I think it's stupid, I'll say it's stupid. But this makes me very "uncool." Like, I was always the kid who got made fun of. Because I was always non conforming. And I never was a "cool" kid. I wore "bobo" sneakers, ie, those $10 sneakers from payless that had no laces because being autistic, I couldn't tie my shoe worth a crap, and they wore those $100 Nikes and Reboks and crap like that. I wore sweats, because they were comfortable. They wore jeans, because they were "cool." And you know what? A lot of that masculinity stuff just plays into this weird "cool kids" ethos that I just never got, and as I got older I kinda got vindicated in that it's all a bunch of BS. I mean, I've always just wanted to do MY thing, not everyone else's thing. Sure, sometimes I would be into the cool stuff, but I generally avoided it. I was very uncool as a kid. And as such, I've kinda been immune to appeals to masculinity.

Second, let's discuss my christian worldview. yes, I had a lot of fundie elements in my worldview from my high school years and biblical christianity ended up defining my worldview in my teenage years, but my parents were pretty chill christians. I never got into the gender roles thing. Sure, my mom stayed home and raised me, and my dad worked, but honestly, i knew that men and women were basically equal, it seemed stupid for them NOT to be. I mean, I never got into actual sexist nonsense. I never really glorified the 1950s stepford wives culture. And...I guess I never took those specific bible passages stupid, because why would women be submissive? Idk it just didnt make sense.

Still, at the same time, I did hate "feminism" growing up. By feminism, I meant the very loud variation that carries signs and gets outraged over stuff. I kind of believed society had mostly made the changes needed for egalitarianism before I was born and that no real further changes were needed, and that most feminists were actually women supremacists who bought into weird grievance politics. So...I guess on issues of race and gender relations, I'm kinda the same now as I was then to some extent. Yes, I support liberal ideas of egalitarianism, but I tend to dislike the weird grievance politics of the left. So...liberal, but not anti woke, but also not really traditionalist either. It was just like, whatever.

 GMS mentions that he never had the problems that many people who fall into the alt right pipeline have. Like having trouble with women, and of course, struggling to get a job. Things fell into place for him. Well, they didn't for me, but still, did I become an incel or alt right over it? No. Because, again, I'm not a fricking idiot!

On women...let's face it, I don't even like most women in a romantic level. Sure, I feel sexual attraction, but I never "got" dating. Like dating for the sake of dating. Again, it just seems to be this weird "cool kids" thing that teens and adults get into. I used to get mocked at like 13 because when asked if I was given the choice between screwing a girl and playing video games, I chose the video games. Note, this wasn't a real dilemma, it was a hypothetical, but yeah. I just...wasn't THAT interested in women. The fact is, in our culture, women are raised to like different things than men. And given my hobbies are literally more important than stupid relationships, it's like, yeah, unless the girl can fit into my life in a meaningful way where we share common interests, don't bother. 

 I did eventually get into women as I got older though, and it was nothing but troubles. First, I had online relationships as a teenager because no one in school interested me. Those didn't work, for obvious reasons, and broke my heart. Then I ended up finding someone in real life who I felt like I had common interests with...and...they blew me off for an online boyfriend. And...not gonna lie, I did hate them for it for a while. I didn't hate all women. Like, the incel requirement is to hate all women because of rejection. No, I just held a grudge against this one person for doing something I found incredibly dumb. I mean, I learned that crap didn't work in high school, and I kinda held her to a standard of...uh duh, of course you choose the real life person. But they didn't. In all fairness, I'm just as bad as them in this regard, but yeah...again. Why hate ALL women because of this? I don't get it. it's dumb. It's so, fricking, dumb. 

And the job thing? Okay, so I couldnt get a job when I got out of college. A lot of the cool kid idiots will think that that means they're a failure as a person. After all, "being a man" means being a provider, having a job, and attracting a mate with one's high earning potential. But the economy isn't serving men like it did in the past. A lot of men don't even go to college these days, and the ones who do, yeah, we still struggle to find work. Gotta get a job to get experience, but you need experience to get a job. Honestly, I just became resentful at the economy over that and developed my own political ideology out of it. No big deal, but that's the thing, I blame the SYSTEM for that. I don't blame women, or become alt right, or become maga where i think the modern iteration of the fricking smoot hawley tariff act is a good idea (hello, this week in economics...). Ya know? Again, if anything, as I got older I grew out of conservatism, I found the entire ideology to be a scam. And honestly, the stupid masculinity crap goes into that. As we know from the free time book I read a few months ago, a lot of that crap was just a weird ethos developed to make working aged men spend more time working, because spending time with women made them "girly" and they cant stand their wives because hey, guess what, society pressured them into dating for its own sake and sex without thinking about it much and suddenly they're locked into this life of being stuck with them and then they have kids, and then they nag the everloving crap out of them, and they just wanna be left alone and do their own thing but cant because marriage is for life and blah blah blah. And holy #### our societal norms are super unhealthy and irrational. Kinda glad I dodged the life script bullet there.

But again, why would I buy into the alt right here? The alt right kinda contributes to those problems since they believe in traditionalist crap and traditionalism is behind a lot of those norms being so commonplace in the first place.  

Now, into SJWs. GMS, much like darkmatter2525 and a few other liberal commentators i follow from the skeptic community, start fluffing up SJWs, like, idk, I dont get the hate, they seem like they just support good causes and why should I support them? 

And...as I got older, sure, I did kinda realize there are some inequalities that exist and that society isnt ABSOLUTELY PERFECT in that regard, but at the same time, I dont believe changing things in radical ways is beneficial to society. It just seems like a way to create a lot of resentment over perceived and sometimes very real unfairness that would arise from those policies, and honestly, those guys ARE annoying AF. Like, even if I dont buy into the alt right, I've kinda come to HATE the social justice left too. It isnt that they dont sometimes have a point, it's that their attitude sucks and I find them annoying.

Like, to go off of the dating issues I mentioned above, you'd always get self righteous rant about how no one is ENTITLED to attention and blah blah blah. And...I guess, sure, they're technically right...but...the fact that we're having these people like LECTURE us about it, it's like they're kicking us when we're down and regardless of the correct social standards of liberty, who is entitled to what, it kinda sucks to be rejected. And people are gonna take it badly. It hurts. But thats kinda the thing, a lot of these social justice movements kinda change the entire social standards of everything, confusing everyone, and often inconveniencing the men with these changes. Like we're just supposed to adapt for the women, and the women dont owe us anything and blah blah blah.

Again, I'm not saying women owe men anything, or the girl i mentioned above owes me anything. They dont. I am libertarian and I believe in freedom. BUT....LECTURING men about this comes off as obnoxious and inflammatory. And then if you lash out at all, they accuse you of being an "incel" even when you're not. And I guess I can understand why feminism can drive some to pro men tribalism to counter the obnoxious pro woman tribalism of radical feminism, but at the end of the day...I just look at this and think both sides bad. 

And then you got stuff like elevatorgate, gamergate, the 2016 election. Elevatorgate. Guy asked a girl out for coffee at 3 AM in an elevator at an atheist convention. Guy probably meant well, women goes off the deep end going on about how uncomfortable it was and how men need to change around her comfort levels. Okay, if I can put up with soul crushing rejection in the name of womens' freedom as I pointed out above, you can put up with some uncomfortable moments as men ask you out. I mean, what are we supposed to do? Not? Again, maybe its me being autistic, but "I dont get it." like, these rules make dating, which is already a minefield, and turn it into more of a minefield, so yeah. It's problematic. Like, it's fine to be uncomfortable, you're entitled to your feelings. Just as im entitled to mine (although according to them apparently I'm not?). But no, they want everyone to change around them.

Gamergate. I hate delving into that whole issue, but yeah...while I will admit that the gamers showed some sexism and toxicity, anita sarkeesian should've just stayed out of it, and the feminists should've like...NOT brigaded our communities and tipped off internet world war 3. Like, sure, gaming is a rather male dominated fandom. And I get it, being a girl can be rough since...let's face it, it's a sausage fest out there. But...again, wanting the world to change around them and their feels. It pisses people off. Dont ask US to change, mind your own business. Again, that's the worst thing SJWs seem to do. They dont mind their own business, and they demand the world change around them and their feelings (while completely disregarding ours).

The 2016 election. I mean, up to this point, I've been pretty cordial to them. Sure, I didnt like the way skepchick tried to demand the world change around her, or anita sarkeesian getting involved with gaming culture and demanding us to change, and i hate the lecturey self righteous tone of "you're not entitled to affection", even if I actually agree with the sentiment in practice,  but again, it's just cultural bullcrap. Again, instead of engaging, I just decided to do my own thing, build up my own ideology. And by 2016, I wanted Bernie Sanders. But then I was called a bernie bro, and told I was racist and sexist, and that i needed to check my privilege, and OMG T3H BLACK VOTE! And all of this stupid crap that was seeming to diminish my perspective, make me come off as a bigoted moron, and ugh, yeah. It's like these guys really wanna piss people off. And that's why I hate SJWs. Because, even if you try not to engage with them and their BS, eventually they'll just become SO ANNOYING and SO IN YOUR FACE you kinda snap and have to go back after them. They bring it on themselves. And while quite frankly I'm a better person than going down the literal alt right rabbit hole, yeah, I dont like the other side of that coin either. SJWs have this same weird "cool kids" energy, I don't do the social conformity thing, and after they decided to pick fights with me over and over over the years, eventually I stopped being cordial with them and became more openly hostile. Some might attack me for THAT, claiming that they're good people, and maybe some of them are, but OMG WILL THEY STOP ALREADY?! Like, really, they get in everyone's face, they piss people off, demand the entire world change around them, and yeah, eventually you gotta push back against them, for better or for worse, because if you let them, theyll ruin everything. They're bullies, and if autistic me has learned anything over the years, it's how to fricking stand up for myself and not take crap from the "cool kids" and their cliquey hugboxey nonsense. 

So yeah. I never got into the alt right, because the alt right is dumb and based in traditional values and this weird concept of conforming to what is "cool", even if it is, quite frankly, irrational. However, I also am anti woke because, well, despite whatever well meaning causes they sometimes have, they end up getting in my face, pissing me off, and as a result, eventually I snapped and had to push back. Maybe a lesser person who actually bought into the hyper masculine cool kids club and all there stupid ideas of "what a man should be" gets sucked into the alt right. However...I don't. I'm just me, like me or not, take it or leave it, and I'm not gonna apologize for being me to anyone. And quite frankly, i find all this gender dynamics crap to be a bunch of toxic crap i wish would just die out already. Seriously, theres more to life than this stupid culture war BS.

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.