They're building 1984

 Okay, so this is gonna sound a bit conspiracy theoryish, but I think it's worth grappling with. So...I talked about fascism, techno fascists, and how the trump administration is openly authoritarian, supporting people like the dark enlightenment people who don't believe in democracy, and that Trump might make a pass at going full on authoritarian. But one thing I do want to emphasize is the surveillance state aspect of it. What do flock cameras, data centers, and smart devices all have in common? They create a surveillance dragnet to watch everything you do. Gamer's nexus talked about it today and this has been going around in my head for a while.

Flock cameras 

So...flock cameras, they're everywhere now. And people keep pointing out that they're creepy and dystopian. I have mixed opinions on them quite frankly. I live in a high crime area and some have wanted cameras for years in high crime intersections to track criminals and get them arrested. While there's nothing wrong with this, if they're placed there through democratic consensus, they have a clear purpose, and clear guardrails, these cameras are popping up everywhere, often against the will of the people, they dont have a clear purpose, and they are ripe for abuse. They can track people wherever they go, giving them no privacy outside of their homes. And even if we're okay with THAT, well...buckle up.

Smart devices

So gamer's nexus mentioned smart tvs, but this applies to phones, tablets, laptops, etc. It's possible, in theory, for these things to listen to what you say and record everything you say or do in your own home. It's also possible for them to be used without a warrant if corporations just hand your data over to the government on demand. Which they are probably doing. So not only are you being tracked outside of your home, but in them as well. That heated political discussion at dinner where someone said something they shouldnt have said, its probably in a data base somewhere. Speaking of which.

Data centers

 So we all know AI data centers are being built like crazy. But there's a clear financial problem with them. It's a product/service with no real demand. The whole bubble is artificial. But....what if the real client is the government? All that stuff being recorded, the data needs to go somewhere, right? So...why not tons of data centers? And how are they gonna sift through all that data? AI, of course! So....yeah. Really crappy dystopian spy crap. 

Discussion 

And all of this seems to bypass normal 4th and 14th amendment protections. You have no right to privacy outside of your home, they hide behind terms and conditions and corpo speak no one reads to justify you giving your data to corporations, and the corporations partner with the government and give it to them. 

Now, under a normal administration,  this would be concerning as is. There were concerns about, for example, spying on people during the Bush administration due to the patriot act and its provisions. But during the Trump years? When this administration has explicit anti democratic tendencies and seems to be aligned with some really dark mofos who not just share those tendencies but are the same tech bros pushing this crap? Yeah....scary to think about. They're literally building 1984. They were just 40 years off. 

if our country goes to crap, this data will be used against us in significant ways. They'll find whatever crimes or infractions they can and charge you for them. They'll use directives like NSPM7 to justify spying on the political opposition. They'll try to go after dissenters and jail them. Oh, and they already are putting the apparatus in place to handle that, what with the militarization of the police, the use of troops on US soil, ICE being trump's personal army, etc. Oh, and those camps for migrants. They can quickly be converted into makeshift prisons for dissenters. Kinda like what Hitler did in the 1930s. That's how we got concentration camps btw, they started as places to send dissenters and they ramped it up to genocide in the later years. Fun fact. 

But yeah. This crap is CREEPY. Like....really creepy, and I've been thinking about it for the past few days, and I just wanted to discuss it a bit. We're heading toward a world where the government records everything you do, and if they dont like you, they can theoretically start jailing and disappearing you. This is America in the 2020s. Scary to think about. Vote democrat while you still have the liberty to and hope we can remove trump and the republicans without them going full fascist here. There's still time to reverse course, hopefully....

Election Update 9/4/26

 I figured I'm probably gonna be busy so I'm gonna push the election update out now. I still might do another one in a week or two if I feel like it/if I have time, but yeah. I gotta create one for a contest anyway so I might as well post it here. I won't really comment on it though, so it will be kind of abridged.

Senate

 

House

Governors

 Conclusion

 I don't have much to say on this that hasn't already been said. I just wanted to post the latest numbers since idk if I'll get to do my normal next week one or not. Not much has changed since the last one. House narrowed a little. Dems are doing well in the senate. The odds are what the odds are. Seriously, you guys know how to read my charts by now I hope.

Dear nvidia, can we NOT?

 So....I've mostly been ignoring the talk of DLSS 5, because I dont care about DLSS 5. As I see it, DLSS was created to solve a problem that we didn't need to have in the first place. Ray tracing had an enormous performance cost, and in order to make it run, we needed DLSS to upscale images to higher resolutions.

Now, upscaling is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, I like the fact that I can upscale a game from a lower resolution to a higher resolution. In theory it can extend the life of aging systems. But then developers RELY on it as a crutch, where games expect you to use it and it makes games a blurry mess. 

Now, to be fair, I cant use DLSS< because I bought AMD. Why? Because nvidia thinks charging a 50% premium for a better upscaler and ray tracing I dont want is a justifiable business practice. I just see it as predatory. nvidia wants to be greedy, I'll buy AMD. Anyway, now they made DLSS 5. And the internet hates it. Basically, it takes AI and makes games look better with it. Now, it has mixed results, with some saying AI ruins the art direction of games by making everything realistic. I kind of agree. And quite frankly, I dont really care that much about it. Games look good enough already and I havent seen anything from DLSS 5 that makes me go "wow, I totally want this RIGHT NOW."

But heres the thing. This new tech, much like upscaling, which STILL isnt really worth using on most mainstream systems (keep in mind mainstream gamers game on 3060s/4060s, so basically those "8x 1030" cards that are generally the sweet spot in price/performance for the past 4-6 years), has INSANE performance costs. Like truly, insane, performance costs. Like you're losing 60-75% of your FPS using it. Now, let's be real, is it worth it? I mean, I could see some idiot who goes out and buys a $5000 RTX 5090 act like it totally changes the game and they cant live without it, but let's face it, they're just rich ###holes trying to justify a ridiculously expensive purchase. For mainstream gamers who actually care about getting good value for the money...well....NO.

Like, again. Do we need graphics to keep getting better? It would be one thing if we could just keep pumping out $250 cards that double in performance every 3 years like we used to, I mean, sure, if we do that, and PC gaming was still affordable and things kept getting better, that's one thing. But when we're hitting a performance wall like we are, it's not worth it. And now with rampocalypse making GPUs start appreciating in value like the COVID pandemic all over again, honestly? Who wants this?! No one can afford a GPU that can actually run this stuff at decent settings. Why the heck should I wanna play a game at like 30 FPS when I can play it at 120 FPS? Seriously. And that's if you have a newer nvidia card that can handle it. I mean, Im on AMD but when someone tested a 5050 today with it, it was like...13 FPS with DLSS5 on. On low. At 720p. Again, who wants this?!

I feel like these billionaires are just massively out of touch with the normal person. They have their little visions for the future, and they insist on telling us that their vision is the future, and we gotta get with it, and eventually the devs of major gaming companies start making their games around tech like this, and it forces us to upgrade to expensive GPUs we dont really need outside of the artificial obsolescence, and yeah, it's bullcrap. Idk why we cant just focus on optimizing games better. I dont want this crap. I've been fine with how games looked since around 2016ish. And I still insist most progress since then aint really progress. It's just a bunch of tech bros forcing fancy tech on us no one wants or cares about. Like yeah yeah yeah it looks a little better. Who cares? Games look good enough, theyve looked good enough since BF1. Just give me better frame rates and more longevity for hardware if we can't actually get more raster performance. And no, I dont mean frame gen. That tech is iffy as all fudge too. Fake frames introduce latency which makes games harder to play. it's not free performance and it only works properly ABOVE 60 FPS anyway. And given I run a 60 hz monitor for longevity purposes...yeah. What is this actually doing for us? 

Like again, I really hate all this crap. Everything's expensive, we cant afford new hardware any more, and OH HOW ABOUT A TOOL THAT KILLS YOUR FPS BY 2/3 THAT NO ONE BUY 5090 USERS WILL WANNA USE? Uh...HOW ABOUT NO! *puts pinky to mouth* 

Anyway, end rant.  

Discussing Amazon's sketchy cheap GPUs...

 So....another GPU related article. Sorry for my political audiences, but hey, fired up on this subject, and after seeing another topic about how expensive GPUs were, I decided to check amazon, only to be met with tons of listings for VERY cheap GPUs. Like too good to be true cheap. We're talking R7 350 or GT 740 (~0.8x 1030) for $60-80 cheap. We're talking RX 580s (4x 1030) as low as $120 cheap. Why dont these  show up on PC part picker? What's going on?

Well, it looks like a lot of these GPUs come from china. Googling them, most of them seem to be refurbished cards from china, or ex mining cards. With that said, many of these listings are very sketchy, and are they worth it? Eh....in this market, MAYBE? I mean, the market is pretty dismal for the sub $200 range. Obviously, if you have the money, just buy like an RX 5050 at $300 or a 9060 XT 8 GB for $360. If you really have money, the 16 GB of the 9060 XT for $470 is probably the best "budget" deal. But since when is $500ish "budget?" I mean, that's the problem with this market, it's insane. And given I dont like to pay more than $300 for a GPU if I dont have to, I believe in cheaper options for gamers. Even if they come with compromises. It's just good to know what the compromises are and what youre getting. 

So yeah, should you buy these? Eh...it depends. For the most part, I'm gonna say no. I will make one exception though. ONE of these brands isn't terrible to my knowledge and is a reputable brand partner to Nvidia and other major brands. It just doesnt actually primarily appeal to the US market, but rather, the chinese market. And that's Maxsun. Again, they're chinese, they primarily appeal to chinese consumers. And if you ever wanna do a warranty with these guys youre gonna be sending the card all the way to China, but that might be a risk you gotta take in this economy. The US market for older cards has dried up, and given my current $140ish recommendation is the Arc A380....well.....their 580s for the same price are arguably a better value. 

I mean, the RX 580 is one of the most legendary cards of all time. It's on par with the 1060 (4x GT 1030), it has 8 GB VRAM. It doesnt do ray tracing or have modern APIs, but it'll run most games through 2022 or so adequately and will at least start and maybe get 30 FPS in many made after that. It also is probably better with older games and less finnicky with older systems than an arc card would be. I imagine most people buying a 580 in 2026 are also using dated components like early ryzen or maybe some quad core intel 14nm CPU. Not all of those have resizeable bar, for example. So....again, if we wanna whip out old reliable for an old system, this might be the play. 

Other than that, I'd probably stick to my go to recommendations. GT 1030 for $100, but this would be a massive step up for $140 (4x the performance) and is not only faster than intel arc, but again, less finnicky with the aging systems that people will probably throw this kind of card into. 

In the $200-300 range, you got the RTX 2060 6 GB, I just noticed they're selling those again for $210 from reputable brands like ASUS. Id recommend that over the 3050 6 GB at the same price (4x 1030 vs 6x 1030). 

The 3050 8 GB has more VRAM at $260 but is less powerful than that.

And then beyond that it's the 5050 for $300 (my go to recommendation for a decent minimum gaming experience). 7600 is $320, which isnt great.

And again, Arc always has options. A380 for $140, A580 for $200, B570 for $260, and B580 for $310. They sometimes offer more value for the money, but again, spotty driver compatibility with older games and finnicky with older systems. 

Idk. I just wanted to throw out a few more options. 

Anyway to give you a low down:

R7 350 (sketchy brand)- $60 (0.8x 1030)

GT 740 (sketchy brand)- $80 (0.8x 1030)

GT 1030 (reputable) - $100

Arc A380- $140 (3x 1030)

RX 580 8 GB (semi reputable)- $140 (4x 1030)

Arc A580- $200 (7x 1030)

RTX 2060 6 GB- $210 (6x 1030)

RTX 3050 8 GB- $260 (5x 1030)

Arc B570- $260 (8x 1030)

RTX 5050- $300 (9x 1030)

Arc B580- $310 (9x 1030)

And yeah, that's the market right now. It's not great. The sub $200 options wont run new games). Most sub $300 options have compromises. My go to recommendation would be just get a 5050, if not a 9060 XT (either 8 or 16 GB depending on budget) if you can afford it. I just understand not everyone can, and I want to keep budget gaming open here. ANd yeah.

As always, do your own research, don't blame me if you end up with crap, especially if you do go for like, a sketchy chinese card. I mean, they ARE sketchy for the most part. But yeah. Again, trying to find ways to get affordable GPUs into the hands of gamers who need them, even if they do have compromises....

My opinion on DSA and working with the left

 So I've seen a lot of leftist infighting over the DSA, whether to work with them, whether not to. And I'm mixed myself. I've discussed my thoughts on this to some degree already, but I also kind of had a breakthrough tonight and want to write about it.

So...I'm gonna be brutally honest. I REALLY am politically homeless. I REALLY am part of the left out left. I've actually been feeling down in the dumps over it today after seeing a poll where most people HATE UBI these days and then I had an argument with a socialist who started spouting all of the same bullcrap at me. And it made me realize again, that yeah, I AM politically homeless. I dont vibe with the DSA or socialists at all. Quite frankly, the only reason I'm attached to them is because the republicans are sociopaths, the liberals are useless, and it seems like the left are the only ones advancing goals I agree with.

But even then, that left isn't MY left. Democratic socialism isn't MY ideology. These goals aren't necessarily MY goals. I don't want a jobs program. I dont want socialism. I have nuanced opinions on labor unions and the labor movement, believing that while they've done a lot of good, they're too jobist, ludditeish, and reactionary. I dont believe there is dignity in work. I want a society where people are free from work. I want a UBI, not means tested social programs. I'm okay with a public option, and dont necessarily want medicare for all. I agree with the left where I intersect with them, but I'll show disagreement when I don't. 

I feel like this is the healthy approach to take toward ALL of these factions. I purity test like a champ. I establish my goals, and then I weigh candidates and movements with how well they conform to what I want, I don't change my opinion to fit THEM. If the DSA wants to be run by tankie crazies, well, they're gonna fail my purity tests. If centrist libs wanna be worthless, well, they're not gonna get a good score from me either. 

The breakthrough I have is that I am free. I'm free from everyone else's BS, and I know what I want, and I set my own path. I don't give AF what others wanna sell to me. I care about how well you align with MY goals. And if you don't, well, you don't get my support, period.

This isn't to say i dont make compromises. Sadly, I gotta align with factions that I don't generally like very much. I align with democrats over republicans. I align with progressives and sometimes even socialists over centrist democrats, and the second you get someone who actually represents human centered capitalism, I'm all over that. But sadly, it's so rare we've only seen one candidate like that, and he was horrible at representing the ideology.

If anything, his entrance into politics alienated me more from the left. While Yang deserved some criticism for his inconsistency and abandonment of shared goals at times, he also faced a lot of weird purity tests from the left, and it kinda made me realize how much i dont vibe with these guys in reality. I just align with them because they're less crappy than the alternatives. The same couldn't have been made more stark today as I watched these guys once again tear UBI a new one, and I realize that wait, I don't actually agree with these guys much on anything. 

Again, I dont agree with ANYONE on much all things considered, all of these factions are not just imperfect but horribly flawed, even if I do have a clear hierarchy of preferences. The best ones might be better than the others, but not great.

Like, for me, the right is the epitome of evil, and their morals are just screwed. Centrist democrats' big flaw is basically compromising with these guys and offering a softer version of the same thing. Progressives and socialists want change, but we disagree on specifically what change we need and why. Our ideological bases are fundamentally different. I'm a social libertarian influenced by the basic income and anti work movements. I ultimately want freedom from coercive institutions like wage slavery. Socialists believe that work can be saved and merely want a better version of it with more fair rules, this is better than the psychotic attitudes of the right who basically believe in social darwinism, and the centrist democrats who want a version of that that is a little softer around the edges, but it isn't freedom. 

Again, if I'm not gonna just withdraw from politics altogether, sitting on my mountain of self righteousness and refusing to participate unless someone meets me 100% of the way, I'm gonna have to align with someone, but honestly? it's all lesser evils all the way down. Between republicans and centrist democrats, the democrats are the lesser evil. between centrist democrats and DSA, DSA often comes off as the lesser evil. if DSA goes full tankie, suddenly I'm back to backing the liberals again. And all goes on and on. 

I just want to declare my independence and express that I lack loyalty to ANYONE at this point. I am loyal ONLY to my own ideas. Everything else is a means to an end in achieving them. It should have been obvious all along, but I just want to express that. I am not loyal to say, AOC 2028. I'm not loyal to the democratic party. I just use these various factions as puppets to get as close to my own goals as possible. And the second these factions don't support my goals, well, I'll jump ship. 

Idk why this is so hard for people. It's like people have to be part of a faction or tribe. Even I fall into that, but try as I might, I realize that I just dont fit into any major faction, because my own ideas are so unique and niche that theyre fundamentally different than everyone else's. I really am a super special snowflake with super special needs, and while some people view that as denigrating, in my typical fashion of turning such denigration on its head, I'll embrace it, just like I always embraced being "entitled." Darned right I want a better world and act like im owed something when people say I'm not. I don't care about your stupid little social conventions and your morality. I care about my own morality.

And the same is true with how I approach the left these days. I just got an earful about how workers believe in the dignity of life and how they feel like heroes for sacrificing for their kids. Good for them, but I still see them as victims of oppressive systems and resent the fact that people have to sacrifice to begin with. I dont care if you think I suck because I denigrate your work ethic. I think you suck for embracing it. As I said of AOC, I think anyone who actively embraces the work ethic is a brainwashed fool. And as I pointed out recently, I see most people as ignorant and uneducated. I dont care what they think. I care what I think. They're in the cave, I'm not. And if you think I'm an arrogant little crap for being elitist and thinking you're dumb, well, I'm sorry you're dumb. I'm not sorry I think that way. 

Ya know? That's the kind of attitude I'm embracing here. I'm not conforming to other people's bullcrap. I'm not gonna sugarcoat things to preserve their feelings, if I think your ideas suck, I think they suck, and I'll say it. Maybe if more people thought like me, we could actually get somewhere in society, and maybe people would realize, "gee, that idea I believe really IS stupid, i know you're an ###hole, but thanks for pointing it out to me." Ya know, kinda like how r/atheism did that for me as a questioning Christian. That tough love attitude straight up freed me from the cave in the first place. You dont change minds by coddling peoples' feelings and reinforcing their existing views. You challenge their views by pointing out the absurdity of their existing perspective. And I'm sorry, if you embrace jobism, you're ####ing stupid and you should rethink your life choices. Sorry, not sorry. 

But I digress. Point is, this is how I'm gonna approach politics from this point on this political cycle. A ruthless approach of looking at where candidates agree with me, where they don't, and I'll grade them accordingly. "Metric 1" as I call it, which I've used through 2020 and 2024, does a good job here. Provides a basic understanding of what their worldview is, what their policy priorities are, and how they line up. I might fine tune it for 2028, as I said, I'm considering replacing the "are you a democrat?" Purity test with an "electability" one, but otherwise it mostly holds up. 

Rankings are accordingly:

S tier- 80+

Not many candidates reach S tier. I think Bernie is the only one who got this high. But yeah, I'm grading on a curve given this is scored out of 100. Normally an 80 is a B, but again, so few people are on my level that I feel like 80 is kind of the ceiling for your standard politicians with standard ideologies.

A tier- 70-79

A strong candidate, but has the standard amount of differences. Most progressive left candidate who aren't Bernie end up here. Andrew Yang also ended up here, being aligned with me ideologically but then just being an awful politician in his own ways. I expect the best 2028 candidates to end up here.

B tier- 60-69 

Eh, most moderate democrats top out here at best. I gave Biden and Harris scores in this range in 2024. Previously candidates like Elizabeth Warren ended up here, although it's possible A tier is better for her. 

C tier- 50-59

Mid candidates that I feel "meh" on. In 2020, I called these guys "fauxgressives" because they were fake progressives who sounded like Bernie but without the history to back it up. While my independence from the socialist left did somewhat renovate some of those candidates into B tier given my liberal social and foreign policy views, many candidates still end up here. Ironically a lot of leftists like Jill Stein end up in this tier, because even if I kinda sorta agree with them on economics, they aren't electable and are VERY rough around the edges.

 D tier- 40-49

Crappy centrist democrats who come off as overtly hostile to my goals. Hillary Clinton ended up here in 2016 in retrospect, although I may rehabilitate her into C tier. Explicit centrist democrats who have a hate boner for progressives end up here normally. They're not quite F tier, but they're just one step above that.

F tier- 0-39

While I could separate the F tiers into various rings of hell like Dantes Inferno, at this point, most people who score under 40 arent even democrats or they're some centrist third party ###holes like Howard Schultz who dont really belong in the party. The highest rung of this hell would be those types who score in the 30s, with establishment republicans scoring around the 20s, Tea party republicans scoring in the 10s, and Donald Trump types scoring in the 0s. Again, F tier is dante's inferno of politics, it's really just a matter of what rung of hell you end up on. I guess we could say 30-39 is F-1, 20-29 is F-2, 10-19 is F-3, and -0-9 is F-4.

I guess the same thing could be said if you score above 90, maybe there is like super S tier, like a hypothetical SS tier that no one has met yet above 90. but no one has scored that high. However, some have scored as low as F-4 before. Trump is in the single digits IIRC. 

 But yeah, that's where I'm at with this. I don't conform to you, you conform to me. I judge you by MY standards, I dont care about YOURS. I aint interested in conforming to anyone else's ideology, whether it be milquetoast liberalism or socialism. Again, there's a clear hierarchy here of what I like vs what I don't, but again, the whole thing is a matter of "what conforms to what I want?"  If you dont conform I dont care what you think. Your opinions suck and you'll be rated according to my standards. I'm not negotiating with you. Period. I'm giving you a number and moving on, if I even do that. 

AOC 2028? Let's have a grounded discussion about this and the progressive lane's chances here

 So, Kyle Kulinski had a recent debate about AOC for president, and I have some things to say about this myself.

Honestly? I don't think she'll win. It's not that I don't necessarily want her to win (my opinions on her are kind of complex), it's that based on current polls, she's a distant fourth place.

Quite frankly, the progressive lane of the democratic party has not been strong in recent election cycles. bernie could've probably won in 2016 had that cycle not been so dirty internally. 2020 was a lot more iffy, rather than 45% of the vote, Bernie had closer to 30-35%, and only enjoyed early primary victories because the centrist democrats were split between like 3-5 candidates. In 2024, the progressives didn't even put up a serious candidate. Marianne Williamson was "it", and more people voted for "uncommitted" or "free palestine" than her. And now, AOC is behind 3 centrist candidates, Harris, Newsom, and Buttigieg, and possibly could soon fall behind Ossoff who is the new "dreamy" JFK/Obama like figure that some people are attracted to. The fact is, among polled voters, progressives are a minority of the democratic party. They've been struggling to gain attention, and while ANYTHING can happen in the next 1.5-2 years in that regard, a progressive candidate is gonna struggle to break through. Here's the thing. We progressive types, we're highly educated, and highly engaged. your typical voter...is less educated, and less engaged. Centrist dems love to hang that over us like "you see you stupid progressive normie voters dont have time to ready theory and wait for perfect solutions to problems blah blah blah", and it's kind of true, but it's not the flex they think it is. Your typical voter is relatively uneducated and unengaged, and yet if you tell them this, they get offended, because they have dunning kruger syndrome. They think their ignorance is as good as your knowledge. And for them, they want the names they RECOGNIZE, that's Harris, Newsom, Buttigieg, ya know, the second stringers that were elevated in 2020 and became parts of the Biden administration. And Newsom, who wasnt in the biden administration, but was a governor of a large blue state. They're not thinking of AOC much, and when AOC comes up, people think "Omg isn't she a socialist? (without knowing what that means), isn't she 'too far left'?" Because the media goes full red scare on people who dont know any better. 

It's frustrating, us progressives often have the curse of knowledge. We're mostly downwardly mobile educated people who understand how screwed the system is, but because said system LITERALLY IS "plato's cave", and most of them are still chained up, they dont fricking understand that they're watching a puppet show. 

With that said, let's be realistic about AOC's chances, the progressive wing is gonna struggle. We're gonna be outnumbered by a lot of low information normies who work all day, barely follow politics, and then vote for the person whose name they recognize. When not working, these guys' minds are so fried FROM work that they spend their time on other crap. They know more about football quarterbacks and reality shows and crap than they know about politics, and yeah, most never leave the cave I mentioned. Hate to be cynical, but that's the conclusion I get from this data. 

Now, of the progressive wing...is AOC the right candidate? And this is what's debated. And I kind of agree with Kyle, we cycle through the options, and despite her shortcomings, she's still the one on the radar. They mentioned Ro Khanna who isnt enough of a fighter in their view, I disagree, I think Khanna is fine, but AOC has the numbers. A lot of progressives HATE Yang. I have a soft spot for him given my unique ideological roots, but let's face it, dude doesnt really stay consistent and tends to burn bridges even in the UBI online community. I've been participating more in basic income oriented discussions again and yeah, I see a lot of negativity toward the guy. Kinda happens when you dont stick to the idea or represent it very well. Still, he's another "this is what we got" kind of candidate and we're scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

As far as AOC goes, I understand some concerns. I know this is petty left wing infighting, but I don't care for her stances on work (she went all in with the work = dignity crap in 2024, literally a slave mentality IMO, the reason rich stock brokers were laughing at her is because they KNOW work sucks and its laughable when people romanticize it). She's not for a UBI, she wants a traditional demsoc/socdem agenda, and....well....I don't. Just because I'm in the progressive lane doesn't mean I think that approach is perfect. I have significant differences in policy goals with the progressive left at times and some of these goals are mutually exclusive due to the fiscal realities involved. Although I am somewhat willing to concede the issue somewhat because the alternative is the centrist faction literally bought out by billionaires who want literally nothing, or mere crumbs compared to what society NEEDS.

Like that's the thing, the reason I side with progressives over centrists despite our obvious differences is because at least we agree that change is needed, we just dont agree on what that change should look like. But that don't mean I like her.

Anyway, other than purity tests, why else dont I necessarily like AOC? I think she's still a bit green behind the ears. Like, on foreign policy, she froze and glitched out badly on the taiwan question not long ago. And if youre president, you need to be a commander in chief, you need to make the right decisions, unflinchingly. Yes, we will defend Taiwan. But again, anti war left can't do that. They suck on foreign policy. To be fair, the far left hates her for not being pro Israel enough. For someone with an "imperfect record" in their eyes myself, I'm fine with the more moderate position that Kyle seems to fear from democratic candidates. I'm not a radical leftist on palestine, I just think netanyahu went way too far and should be held accountable for it. 

On economics, I know her original green new deal was $10 trillion, which was laughable, but to be fair, that was posted like 8 years ago now and she's likely learned a lot since then. 

She also had the good sense to not endorse Hong and condemned "woke 1." Which...again, the radical left hates, but I'm fine with. So she has some good political sense. But yeah, she's not polished. it came up in Kyle's video with her not really being good under pressure and enjoying the rough and tumble of politics. And with me, I kinda see issues with that myself. But yeah.

Ideologically, let's face it, my own ideology is so unique and not very popular, that LITERALLY the only one who ever ran on it it seems was andrew yang. And even then, he did a poor job where he left a bad taste in a lot of peoples' mouths with it. I would still potentially support yang for a 2028 run if he commits to a proper platform that passes my purity tests, but yeah, it's unclear if he will, and even if he does, he might not pick up anything but the scraps of some "left out left" types (to make a pew typology reference) while losing both establishment dems and the progressive left at the same time. 

 Beyond that, I'm ideologically compromising, but if we think progressive lane, AOC is it. Ro Khanna could take over if AOC doesn't run, but I think he's less popular. And honestly, there isnt anything else. As I said in 2024, it's like with Biden's win in 2020 and Bernie being too old, the progressive movement ceased to have a bench and died. It's possible Abdul El Sayed could be good, but I doubt he'll run in 2028 either. Although I kinda wish he would. Like, that's why I'm pushing him. I'm looking at the "bench" problem and I'm like, okay, desperate times call for desperate measures, send in the n00b. El Sayed is a n00b. He's gonna be a freshman senator who will have to start campaigning IMMEDIATELY after winning his senate term. But, he has that Obama charisma everyone wants, and for all the balking about him, Obama faced the same criticisms in 2008 and he turned out fine. 

The fact is, if we want this democratic civil war to reach the presidential race, we need our strongest warriors for this. We dont have many, but as I like to say, you gotta fight with the army you have, not what you want. AOC is the best of the likely names running, but I do think El Sayed could be a strong candidate himself if he decides to run. Ideally I'd let him serve a term or two, but thats the thing. Whoever wins 2028 likely locks the party down until 2040...just like how HRC locked the party into the centrist lane until 2028. I thought the timeline would be HRC and then 8 years of a republican, but instead, we got Trump-Biden-Trump. 2028 is gonna be another 2008 style Obama win for democrats in all likelihood. 2032 could go either way. It could turn into Joe Biden again with them marching to certain defeat, or they could run again and win, meaning we wont see the dems open up until 2036. And in 2036, democrats will likely run whomever the VP is, or similar kind of "third term" candidate, and probably lose. This means that we won't have another shot until 2040 or 2044 in all likelihood. So....yeah. We gotta support the best person we can here. if it's AOC, it's AOC, I think I would push El Sayed to run if he can. Yang is an option although I dont think he'll go anywhere. Ro Khanna, etc.

To be fair though, all of this discussion is likely pointless though. We'll probably end up with Harris whether we like it or not. Or Buttigieg, or Newsom, or some flavor of the month centrist dem like Ossoff who all the centrists are fantasizing about lately for whatever reason. And yeah, we'll probably be shut out again. Because it's pain being a progressive. We're an overeducated minority of the country that knows too much but seems powerless to do anything because of the forces of organized money controlling everything, and most people being too stupid to be on our level. It's just the reality of things. So we gotta watch these idiots elect the same fricking losers who got us into the current situation AGAIN, and then we suffer the consequences of sub par policy decisions that dont fix the problem, followed by electing republicans who make everything worse because they're literal psychopaths who are only relevant...again, because big money. *sigh*, but that's American politics. I hate it, these days, can you tell?  

Election Update 8/28/26

 Okay, so it's time to do my biweekly election update. Not a ton has changed, so let's go through it.

Senate

So not a ton has changed since my last update. Michigan now has El Sayed leading which is something. It's not a huge lead but he wasnt down by much in the previous update. El Sayed is painted as some extremist weirdo, but my take is that perception only holds until Mike Rogers opens his mouth on ANYTHING. 

But yeah, same wild map that would be unthinkable in a normal election cycle. New Hampshire seemed to go down further into swinginess, which is weird. it's always been a weird state with weird politics, but given the national environment id normally expect states like NH and MI to be like SOLID blue, like if they made my chart at all, they'd be like D+8-12 or something. Seeing them along side places like Alaska and Texas is wild. The map really does seem to be changing as we shift toward a more post trump environment (I mean electorally, he's done, he's a lame duck, the country is against him, 2028 is looking to be a 2008esque powder keg at this rate). 

But yeah, 63% chance the dems win, 37% the GOP wins including ties. Most likely outcome looking 53-47D. 

House

Not a ton has changed, a slight regression for democrats but polls are gonna fluctuate. Democrats have a 95.1% chance of controlling the chamber, with the most likely result being 229-206D. keep in mind, this is a fundamentals driven model, and while I havent seen extensive polling data yet where I feel comfortable building a polls based one, I have seen some data that contradicts this and much of it seems to favor the democrats. We'll see how things continue to develop. 

Governors

Not a lot of change here. New Hampshire is again, strangely conservative, but Ayotte is apparently popular there and they have strange politics unique to their own state. Beyond that, the map is pretty good for democrats. Crowley in wisconsin is pulling further ahead. Georgia is becoming more swingy, which aint good, but I suspect Lance Bottoms will pull it off. 

Again, some data is strange given how we normally think of the maps. It could be that something is off, but based on that analysis of the 21st century's presidential election maps, I'm guessing the map is realigning to reflect a dislike for Trump and the status quo, and that the map is opening up in preparation for the 2028 battlegrounds. So states like Michigan and New Hampshire might remain swingy, but then states like Texas, Ohio, Iowa, and Alaska come into play more, at least for some races. It's strange, politics are shifting and our perceptions gotta change if we wish to remain relevant and not pull a Romney 2012. 

Conclusion

A pretty ho hum election update. Some minute shifts along the edges, maybe a flipped race or two, but it's generally very similar to the previous one, just with some things shifting around by 1-2 points. But that happens, and if that momentum continues, think of where the race will be a month from now or by election day.

Anyway, september is likely going to be a busy month for me. I'm not sure how much time I'll be spending on here. But I do plan to make another biweekly update around the 11th. Might be a little later in the weekend maybe, but yeah. I'm gonna try to stick to the current schedule for the most part. Maybe after thinks settle down going into october I can shift to a more weekly model leading up to the election itself.  We'll see. 

Anyway, that's where things are, see you for the next one.  

Yikes, maybe don't buy nvidia

 Ok, i totally dont wanna turn this into a hardware blog, but GPU prices have shifted so much like a couple weeks after making a basic GPU buying guide, that now I feel like it's horribly out of date and I have to update it.

So...GPU prices are going haywire. Especially on the nvidia side. like, wtf market? No. Stahp! Anyway. I do wanna provide an update.

I'm not gonna mention the typical ewaste tier stuff at the lower rungs. That's still there, and you can still get it, I wouldnt recommend it unless youre okay NOT playing new games, but yeah, market's gonna market.

The lowest end card for NEW games is the RTX 3050 8 GB. You need an RX 6000 or RTX 2000 series or better for modern games with 8 GB VRAM, and the 3050 is the worst and cheapest one.  So that will be the unit of measurement, not a GT 1030 this time. All prices pulled from here. 

RTX 3050 8 GB- $260

It's the bare minimum card, but generally not worth the money IMO. Still, it'll get you decent performance in modern games, despite being as dated as it is.

Arc A580- $200 (1.4x 3050)

Technically more powerful and cheaper for $200, but intel cards are iffy on drivers and may not work well with every game. 

 RX 7600- $300 (1.8x 3050)

Yeah the $260 deal dried up. Still, worth $40 over a 3050. Probably wouldn't recommend over the 5050 though.

RX 5050- $300-310 (1.8x 3050)

They have a low profile one for $300, but for a normal sized one, it's $310. I'd probably recommend it over the 7600 since Nvidia is more mature driver and features wise. Still, this is the only video card I'll recommend from them.

Arc B580- $310 (1.9x 3050)

Including because it has more VRAM than the 7600/5050 but keep in mind drivers. 

RX 9060 XT 8 GB- $370 (2.4x 3050)

This is still priced similarly, but the RTX 5060 is now $450 for some reason, NO, JUST NO. Buy this instead. Heck, I'd probably just go down to the 7600 or 5050 since 8 GB is gonna age like milk anyway where all 8 GB cards go obsolete at the same time.  

RX 9060 XT 16 GB- $460 (2.5x 3050)

Even MORE VRAM at a higher price. I removed the 7700 XT recommendation since it's $430 and at that point, just spend a little more for this instead. Would also recommend over the 5060 for the same money, because that's a fricking joke. 5060 ti is also a joke, $480 for 8 GB, and an eye watering $729 for 16 GB. Yeah, DO NOT BUY NVIDIA. You can get this way cheaper.

 RX 9070 GRE- $535 (3.4x 3050)

 Not really the "low end" market any more, but yeah. The RTX 5070 is $800. This is $535. Crazy. 

RX 9070- $630 (3.8x 3050)

Stronger than the $800 Nvidia card.

RX 9070 XT- $720 (4.3x 3050)

Close to a 5070 Ti for less than the price of a 5070. The 5070 Ti is $1050 btw.

Anyway this is the highest end card I can recommend even if you're mr moneybags, otherwise you're throwing away your money. 

Wrapping it up

And yeah, unless you're considering a 5050, don't buy Nvidia. Like, wtf, their crap is so overpriced. It's not that good. This is reminding me of 2022-2023 again before the 4060 launched. I hope AMD isnt about to do the same thing, but yeah, this is horrible. 

For anyone wondering why I "defend" the 9050 (which aint available in the US but is 1.4x 3050 for $280), it's because at least its a serviceable option under $300. Like, I tend to spend around $200-300 and Im happy just to feel included at this point. Even if my 6650 XT is better (1.8x 3050). 

Lessons from reviewing election coverage

 So...I did want to summarize what I learned from this experience of reviewing the past 7 presidential elections.

The ever evolving electoral map

We like to think of realignments as like one and done and then basically the map is static for the next 36 years. No. Each president seems to be their own mini realignment.  While we might get a definitive one once in a generation, kinda a shaking an etch a sketch moment like 1932 or 1980, for the most part, much like with evolution, there's micro and macro. Clinton (which i didnt cover) realigned things a bit from the Reagan/Bush years. Bush 2 (where I started chronologically) realigned the clinton map, causing the south to become firmly republican. Obama was able to lock down the rust belt and also start bringing some states over through suburbanization. Clinton attempted to capitalize on suburbanization and alienated Obama's rust belt coalition. Biden had mild success in making the suburbanization work, but Harris didn't.

Trump is likely not a realignment in itself

 While I will argue I think 2016 is the 36 year mark of the reagan alignment and the beginning of a transition to the next era, I dont think he's a great realigner, no more than Obama or Bush were. The Trump era of 2016-2028 will likely be its own self contained alignment. if anything, I expect that given the trends we're seeing in 2026 with the senate, that 2028 is gonna blow the map open, allowing for the next president, probably a democrat, to be able to build their own coalition with a mandate to govern. 

The abandonment of the rust belt was not necessary, but going back to 2012 might be impossible

 This stings for me, but going back to Obama's exact 2012 map, which my own politics is heavily based around, might not be possible. Given the electoral map changes of the 2030 census, we can't win with the rust belt alone, since that would require ohio, which we lost to the republicans. It is possible that georgia is going to drift our way regardless to make up for this, but a sun belt strategy might be necessary to some degree at this point, which i see as ideologically compromising.

At the same time...2028 is gonna blow the map wide open

 At the same time, that could end up proving false, because of the self contained nature of Trump's electoral map. The fact is, 2026 and 2028 are looking like 2006 and 2008. The trust in the republican party is eroding, trump's coalition is falling apart, and just like ohio used to lean republican in 2000 and 2004, only to swing left in 2008 and 2012, maybe when the electorate comes down from the highs of trumpism, maybe they'll be open to a progressive left candidate again. It's possible. We'll have to play it by ear.

Always follow the data

 Whatever we do, we need to follow the math on this one. So many lost campaigns happen because the candidate has some delusional vision that is out of touch with the electorate. Clinton tried to make the suburban strategy work in 2016, even though the demographics clearly werent there for it. Romney wanted to bring back Bush era electoral maps. Again, we can't just be like "let's make 2008-2012 happen again!" If the math doesnt work, it doesnt work. And as much as I'd like to be an ideologue, in the near future, I feel the need to be a team player for the dems due to the trump threat. 

Still, expect 2028 to be SOMETHING like 2008

If I were to look at current political trends and what 2026 and 2028 are going to look like, the closest analogue that I studied is 2008. The republican party's approval is collapsing, we're seeing the rumblings of a massive electoral shift. In 2028, the democrat will almost certainly win, although the electoral strategy the next presidential candidate pursues will determine the trajectory of america for the next 8+ years, and possibly far into the future. 2028 could even become like a full blown realignment if things get TOO bad for trump, although I dont think we're there yet, this is more a 2008 shift than a 1932 one so far, although we still got 2 years to go.

Who should be the next president?

 If we want to repeat the 2008 phenomenon, I'm for Abdul El Sayed, actually. He has many parallels to Obama. Some say he cant be elected because he has a funny name. So did Barack Hussein Obama. Some say he's an islamo communist. They said that of Barack Obama. Some say his ties to hasan piker will disqualify them, but what about reverend wright and louis farrakan to Obama? El Sayed has Obama like charisma. He's midwestern mamdani basically. The parallels to Obama are pretty similar. I really think El Sayed can pull it off. I think he would be better than AOC or Ro Khanna due to his charisma. 

How elections go

 Most videos compressed 7 hours of coverage into 5 hours or so. The first 2 hours are normally BSing with little known at first. By hour 3, we start seeing a winner emerge. By hour 4, it's often clear who wins, and by hour 5, it's normally over.

However, there are elections where this isn't the case. Normally, when the election is close, and the losing side overperforms, it ends up becoming PAINFULLY close, and we might get super messy elections like 2000 and 2020. While most are straightforward, elections like this are nightmarish, because here's the thing. The polls favor one candidate, but the energy goes in favor of the other, and the race becomes tight. We end up having a long drawn out process in 1 or more states that become essential to victory where they end up having to count, and recount, and blah blah blah.

We also saw this in recent primaries like Michigan's senate primary and Wisconsin's gubernatorial one. Basically, El Sayed and Hong were supposed to win, but their opponents overperformed and it ended up being painfully close and taking hours to resolve. Sometimes elections are like that but take DAYS or WEEKS to resolve. Anyway, it's all well and good until the loser decides to incite a mob to storm the capitol over it... 

Speaking of which...

 So...Trump really is a unique threat to American politics. Things got DARK under him. 2016 we didnt know what we were gonna get but the people have spoken I suppose. by 2020 he was screaming the results were rigged and the chilling stand back and stand by comments to the proud boys will go down in infamy given january 6th. by 2024, it felt like democracy itself was on the ballot and we dont know if we're even gonna make it out of this. So far so good, but I still suspect him to try something. 

That said, the trump era is NOT gonna be remembered fondly, we'll be wondering wtf were we thinking, and this will be studied for decades, if not centuries. It's like we're in a mass psychosis right now. Once the fever breaks, and again, to go back to the above, I think it's breaking, we might see a HUGE generational realignment. Like, the 1932 and 1980 types. It's been time for a while, but 2028 might end up being THAT. Again, I'm gonna conservatively say 2008 redux for now, but I really do suspect based on the timing of larger realignments and macro trends that 2028 should be "time." It's been 48 years since 1980. We havent had a full on realignment yet. We're sitting on a ticking time bomb on that one, and if the timing works out as I would suspect, 2028 SHOULD be the year. But we'll see. 

Conclusion

But yeah, those are the main takeaways I have. Just a few things I wanted to write down going forward. i dont know how these 2028 predictions and advise will age, they're just some thoughts that I have, but I think at least some of this stuff is valid. idk about abdul el sayed 2028 or 2028 being THE BIG ONE, that remains to be seen and el sayed is a super long shot right now, but yeah. That's how I feel about this. 2028 is at minimum an Obama 2008 style moment for dems, and who knows where it goes from there. But yeah, let's see where this goes. 

Reviewing 2000 election coverage

 So...I don't have a map for this one so this analysis is gonna be a bit less sophisticated, but I still wanted to live through the chaos again as I was rather apolitical back then, being a kid and all more focused on cartoons, video games, and pokemon cards than on politics. 

Hour 1

Man, they called Florida for Gore QUICK. No wonder in 2004 they refused to call Ohio. Like really, I was gobsmacked by that one. What a monumental F up. Imagine it being 2000 and you call Florida for Gore ALMOST IMMEDIATELY. Wtf. 

Anyway, from what I can tell, they seemed to be basing their views on say, a 1990s Clinton map, where not only was like, the Rust belt in play, but also parts of the south, especially along the mississippi delta. We saw some artifacts of this in the 2004 map with Arkansas being a swing state. They also seemed to think nearby states like Missouri, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, etc. are all swing states. Again, kinda bizarre, until you understand Clinton's electoral map. But yeah. 

It seemed like this was a close election though. They basically said this is the first since 1960 when Kennedy ran against Nixon that they didnt know who won on election night. THat makes sense. Most of those were cut and dried and leaned overwhelmingly one way. We didnt really start seeing maps with set swing states until more recently. In the past, most of the country went one way or another and while each side might have like 100 electoral votes set in stone, we had maps with massive uncertainty all swinging one way or another. So despite the uncertainty of the partisan leans of a lot of states, the country generally leaned one way or another, and the outcome was kinda decisive. So basically the map was less polarized and open to broader electoral swings between candidates. From the 1990s onward, we've seen increasingly polarized electoral maps. 

And yeah, when polling leans one way, yeah, we can see why it would be a blowout for a candidate, but polling was rather close. Generally speaking, if you took the last 5-10 polls of the election cycle, you'd get a Bush +4-5 outcome. Without a map and state wide data its hard to project what that would look like in practice. Again, from what I can tell, there's A LOT of swing states on the table. Like a lot more than a modern election cycle. 

Anyway, I will say this, gore overperformed nationally. As you can tell, if Bush was up 4 or 5, and he actually lost the popular vote, Gore did A LOT better than expected. he made up a lot of ground. And that made it a lot closer. I know RCP projected Bush would win by 400+ EVs. That sounds ridiculous, but if I took the 2004 map from the last analysis I did, center it on florida being a tie, and calculate a D+4 scenario, we get 186-352 Bush. So I'm not really sure if a strong projection for Bush winning actually was that unreasonable. If youre dealing with a R+6 median with it in reality being R+2 to R+10, I'm not sure if that's unreasonable. I mean, it seemed like their low end was Bush winning 308 and their high end was Bush 446. Again, if I took the 2004 map i produced based on their data centered it on florida, and shifted it 4-5 points to the right, something in the mid 300s for Bush isn't unreasonable. There was a lot of possible error in this one. And without detailed polling data on the state level, I literally cant offer a more sophisticated analysis. RCP only has data back to 2004, and I cant really predict more in detail than this. 

Attempting to build a map based off of this, I end up with this:

So yeah theres a lot on the table here. There's around 14 swing states, with a lot of states being "leans" not solids. So I guess a 400+ EV result for Bush is possible if he has a good night. But yeah, that seems a bit outlandish and that article doesnt discuss margins, just categories. But yeah I do see here how assuming gore loses florida, he has to run the table here. 

Hour 2

They called a lot of stuff very fast, and with Gore winning Florida in this scenario, it seemed like a nail biter. Despite Bush having a clear polling advantage, Gore overperformed and it was super close. Gore looked like he could actually win, and had he won Florida, he WOULD have won. 

But Bush started challenging the results for Florida, and the network ended up rescinding the call, as there were a lot of outstanding votes in florida and Bush had a chance. 

Conclusion

Anyway there was more discussion on the race, but clearly it ended without it being called because of, well...the obvious. Gore didnt win florida, and it turned out the whole thing came down to florida. And then we spent weeks trying to figure out who won going through several recounts, until the supreme court just ended up and made Bush the winner. And that was seen as partisan AF, leading to liberals being pissed off and butthurt over it for decades. Still, unlike some psychos, we didnt storm the capitol. We accepted it and moved onto the next one.

The 2000 election has been a controversial one though. The left loves to frame it as "those darned Ralph Nader voters", but this was itself a mini realignment. Look, Clinton won parts of the south, West Virginia used to be a blue state for example, but the Clinton coalition alienated a lot of white working class voters. Clinton was a minor realigning figure himself, he formed an ideological consensus with the Reaganites of the republican party, which caused the remnants of the new deal coalition to turn on the democrats for good. And that's the story of the night. 

We saw this in 2004 too. There were questions of whether the democrats lost the south for a generation. And they did more or less. They became flat out uncompetitive there. They were conservative, the core of Bush's coalition, and a loyal part of the democratic party since, with this only being challenged by the suburbanization of the larger cities down there. 

Bush...also had a huge electoral advantage going into it. As I said, based on what little polling I saw, I'd expect a win from him. Gore actually overperformed, and this was like 2020, but with Bush being Biden and Gore being Trump. What shouldve been a romp ended up being super close, and this was more contested than even 2020. The difference was that we accepted the results and didnt throw a tantrum over it. 

And yeah, that's my analysis of 2000, and that's as far back as I'm gonna go. Been interesting, learned a lot, but there's little point in me going further back without detailed polling or maps. THe elections were before my time, and I just dont have the data to follow them along as well. Most of them were stomps anyway. 

Reviewing 2004 election coverage

 So this is getting to be some really vintage stuff at this point. Doing 2004 election coverage. This might be the last one as this is getting kinda boring, and the further back I go the more detached I feel from it, and the more boring it gets, but I do have a map for this one, and I remember the 2004 election as it was the first I paid decent attention to (although I couldnt vote in as I was too young). I still MIGHT do 2000 if I feel like it, just because it was such a clusterfudge, but yeah. 

Hours 1&2

They didnt seem to cover the map that well, they're just like "oh we'll call it as we go", without being like "these are the swing states." I mean, I guess Florida and Ohio seemed to be the big swing states, but again, they didn't do as good of a job discussing it. ABC seemed a lot lower budget back then and it felt like an 80s news studio by this point. Like REALLY outdated and low end, even for the era. 2008 kinda felt dated too come to think of it, not sure if it's an ABC problem or if it's just a 2000s problem.

ANYWAY, I have MY map based on polling data, so let's discuss the paths. 

 

So, this was a close one like 2016 and 2024, and the news seemed extremely cautious here. Probably because 2000 was such a nightmare with having to retract calls over florida and the like. But yeah, it's a tossup, but a bush favored tossup. 236-300 Bush is the projection, with a 56% chance Bush wins. 

For swing states, Oregon came up a lot, it's D+4.8, but it kept being mentioned because they do their entire election by vote by mail. More common these days, but back then it was a novelty. Michigan and Minnesota were in play. PA and New Hampshire were tossups in the Kerry column, and kerry needed to secure Iowa and Florida to win as the path of least resistance. other tossups included Hawaii, Wisconsin, and Arkansas. Yeah, radically different map than 2008 onward. Obama realigned the electorate himself, and then Trump/Biden did too in their own ways. And 2028 is likely gonna be another free for all as Trump takes a hacksaw to the republican coalition. But yeah, this map is virtually unrecognizeable in some ways, while it's also recognizeable at the same time. Like, just looking at it, Ohio and Florida were THE big swing states to get. The rust belt still leaned liberal, even if I have wisconsin projected for Bush here (it went to kerry). Virginia, New mexico, and Colorado were all red here. Those states used to be more conservative. It was urbanization and Obama that shifted them left. This is the map that Mitt Romney was trying to run on, thinking he could reverse Obama's 2008 changes and be able to pull off a win. But no, the electorate stayed with Obama, and this map is dead, and feels like it's from a different era in a way. Just think of how 2028 might change the map if republicans get unpopular enough. We're already seeing it in the senate this year. 

Anyway, speaking of Obama, he was a bit of a star of the show too. Kept being mentioned because he won his senate race pretty handily and was a pretty major rising star. Say it with me guys: Abdul El Sayed for president, he could be 2028's Obama. 

Anyway, I do wanna discuss this map a bit more. I see why it comes down to Florida and Ohio, if Kerry couldnt snag one of the two, it doesnt seem to matter what else he could do here. Iowa, 245, Hawaii, not sure why that's even a swing state here but let's give it the benefit of the doubt, 249, Wisconsin, 259, Arkansas, again not sure that should even be a swing state but following the polling data, that's 266, New mexico, 271. yeah. He really does need Florida or Ohio here. Probably florida, I wouldnt count on Ohio. I mean, keep in mind, "wave theory of elections." The results arent entirely random, you got red/blue waves and if one state swings, the rest of the country or part of the country is likely to swing similarly. If Kerry doesnt take Florida, or Iowa, or Wisconsin, he sure AF aint getting Ohio in all likelihood. And if he gets Ohio, he will likely carry most states up to Ohio on the map. So...yeah. 

Hours 3&4

And in hour 3, Florida is called for Bush. The rest of the map is largely non controversial for the time. The results mostly went in line with my map, outside of Wisconsin flipping blue (so kerry DID overperform), and HI too. Again, not sure if the polling data was faulty on HI as its normally safe blue, but again, taking it at face value. So yeah, at this point, it all came down to Ohio, and ABC didnt wanna call it even though other networks did because they wanted to be cautious. Possibly due to PTSD from Florida in 2000. *sigh*

Yeah, like, I kinda would say that Kerry was cooked by this point. We've seen this happen again and again. First 2 hours its just back and forth, by hour 3, we get an idea where the energy goes, and we often see the race called by 4 or 5, depending how fast and decisive it is. While 2004 was a closeish election, basically a repeat of 2000, eh...Bush seemed to have the advantage, and if he could get Florida, eh....Ohio is probably locked down.

The only election we looked at where the candidate the energy was against won was Biden in 2020, and he won because he was projected to romp Trump in an Obamaesque way, and then barely won. He had the runway to underperform whereas Clinton and Harris didn't. And 2004 is a lot like a 2016 or 2024 style election, just less stressful because it was boring and low stakes as fudge. I think I recalled someone called it the most important election in their lifetime, and really? Imagine thinking 2004 is the most important election in my life time. If anything, it's probably the most boring, inconsequential one in my lifetime all things considered. A far cry from 2024's "democracy itself is on the ballot" (because the republican is a psychopath who wants to overturn democracy and be a dictator). And again, this is the thing. I know I'm rough on Trump, but I have to be. Bush sucked, but he was just a standard politician. Like, democracy will live on after him. Not sure about Trump in that regard at this point. But I digress. 

Hours 4&5

There was a lot of discussion here about why the race played out as it did. Some asked if the democrats lost the south "forever", and the real question is "well, how long is forever?" Ya know, because party realignments are a thing. In the 2020s now Virginia and New Mexico are blue states. North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona are swing states. Florida is a red state. But yes, they lost it for a generation after 1968, and I cant believe they're still debating that. It was obvious by this point. 

 There was discussion of culture and values. How big city liberals "don't get" the needs of more southern and rural voters with their guns and religion and blah blah blah. And yeah, most republican voters were driven by values concerns. I mean, I get it, if I could vote at the time, I would've been too. I was a Christian nut back then and I was like, god doesnt approve of abortion and gay marriage and blah blah blah. Again, different era, but these crazies still exist today. But back then, they were FAR more popular believe it or not. Not as dialed up with the crazy, but they didnt have to be because since 1980 they just....dominated culture. Again, we're talking core 6th party system here. The last real election where republicans held a real cultural hegemony over the country. As we know, Obama kinda broke that, and then we got trump as these guys turned reactionary and....here we are...

There was also talk of Iraq. And how some voted for Kerry because they didnt think that we should be fighting such a pointless war, but others were like gung ho die hard in favor of it, so they wanted Bush. 

Kerry voters seemed driven by the economy. I mean there was a 2001 recession and the economy wasnt AMAZING in the 2000s, but clearly 2008 changed things a lot.

Really, if anything, 2008 and 2016 seem like their own respective mini realignments. 2008 broke the republican fever of the Reagan era somewhat. But then Trump led the GOP turning reactionary. And then post Obama the dems crapped the bed with their centrist direction. And here we are. It's hard to tell if we're in like a full on different era or a transition period, but yeah, its clear CORE 6th party system is dead. Like the Reagan conservative dominated era is gone. It's unclear if anything can be said to have replaced it. Obama led to the idea that the GOP was toast, but then Clinton's hubris and Trump managing to realign the country in his own way gave new life to the GOP. Although now 2028 is looking like ANOTHER possible 2008 moment for the GOP, and if we get the right candidate, maybe we CAN end this era for good and turn the page. But yeah. It's been a rough 20 years politically. 2004 seems very quaint and distant now. I see why people are sometimes nostalgic of this era these days, but let's face it, back then we thought the world was on fire too, especially after 9/11. 

 Anyway it doesnt look like they ever called Ohio in these videos. Again, they're cautious because of 2000. Although it seemed like everyone else DID call Ohio, and the Kerry people seemed somber like is often the case for the losing side. Again, Ohio by this point was never seriously gonna go to Kerry. Look at my map, if Kerry wasn't carrying Florida, Ohio was most likely out of reach. I get the whole "let's be cautious" mentality, but by the end of the video, everyone else DID call it. so it was this one network that didn't. There was talk of Kerry possibly contesting the results, but I dont think much came out of that. Nor did anyone die because sore losers stormed the capitol. Ya know, because that was psychotic ####, Don. 

Conclusion  

Anyway, that's 2004. Lessons....not many. Literally the most boring election I covered. Very ho hum. Very quaint. And despite how competitive it was on paper, it was still a bit of a romp for Bush. I recall it at the time and I always felt like Bush would win. Liberals just werent popular back then, and yeah, values voters, Iraq, ya know, people were happy enough with Bush to go along with him. I dont even think the democrats really tried at the time. Like...they were siding with Bush's agenda after 9/11 until it was time to campaign. Then suddenly they started attacking him and it felt very...fake.  I dont think the democrats did a very good job here. Kerry was uninspiring, they largely agreed with Bush until it was time to campaign against him, and people didnt buy it. Bush just was the default option...and he won because not enough people wanted change. It's just...the curse of centrism to some degree. You cant motivate your own side, you cant convince swing voters. You come close, but then you implode last minute. Gore did it too, and Clinton, and Harris. Same crap. 

Anyway, will I do 2000? Again, not feeling very motivated, I run out of polling data going further back so I cant make good electoral maps for predictions to compare my results to, and it looks like back then they didn't have the sophisticated "here's the map, here's the swing states" either. Whole thing felt super low budget. Like, I swear, I've seen podcasters have better presentations than this. Felt like a local station, not a national syndicate. And at that point, i dont really wanna bother. But again, 2000 was a mess so it might be fun just to do one more for posterity's sake. Tbd on that.

If I dont do that, this series is complete. Hope you enjoyed it, was kinda fun going back over elections over the course of my political life, looking at how things changed over time. The world has changed a lot in 20 years. Sometimes for the better but also for the worse. The 2000s kinda feels like the 80s these days, which makes sense since the 80s are as far from the 2000s as the 2000s are from the 2020s. But really, wtf is with these super low budget news presentations. Holy crap. Talk about dated. But I digress. 

Reviewing 2008 election coverage

 So...I'm gonna keep going for now. Kinda getting bored with this, the further back I go, the less attached I feel to the outcome, but I'll likely go to at least 2004, and maybe 2000. 2004 is the limit for the data I have. If I cant follow along with the polling, it kinda destroys half the fun for me. Although I might do 2000 because it was such a dumpster fire with the florida situation. Anyway, 2008, Obama vs McCain, let's go. 

Hour 1

Like always, they go over the map, and I'll do my map here. This is pretty much the prediction I had I think, I know I got north carolina wrong, but I cant imagine getting indiana right, so I'm gonna assume I did get both wrong. At the time, I was in college, I was actually in political science taking a stats class at the time, and we were encouraged to make election predictions. I think the closest one got a prize, but I lost because someone nailed it 100% apparently. But yeah, i did go over RCP data, past voting records, and I even looked at the probabilities based on the MOE based on what I learned in class. That's how I developed the basics for my current methodology btw, I used a 3 point MOE at the time, not 4, I didnt go 4 until 2016, but yeah, that said, this was a romp. it was always gonna be a romp, and with a 3 point MOE, Obama winning was basically statistically significant. With a 4 point, it's slightly less than that, but still close. Either way, mcCain wasn't winning. It seemed obvious.

 

Anyway, I was a conservative at the time, so I was dooming HARD looking at this. It seemed like Obama winning was a foregone conclusion. Come to think of it, 2008 for republicans kinda felt like 2024 for democrats. Might be why we're finally seeing a left wing tea party rise from the ashes. Hope that leads somewhere, but I digress. Anyway, let's look at the map.

On Obama's side, we got all of the usual suspects, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Michigan is basically not even on here as it's SAFE. Minnesota, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Nevada. And that brings us to 270 by itself. With a margin of 6.5%. Yeah, 95% shot at winning with my adjusted 4 point MOE. McCain was screwed. But then it goes on, we got VA and CO, which i discussed in 2012, we started seeing the suburban realignment here. Ohio and Florida are both in the Obama column as well. I got a projected 339 votes for Obama and 199 for mccain. As I said, a romp.

On McCain's side, the swing states seem so bizarre here. South Dakota? You never see that any more. Then North Dakota was only at 2.5 for the dems. Indiana was at 1.4, and that actually did go to Obama (he overperformed). North Carolina did too. Missouri was a swing state by less of a point. And what are now the sun belt states were red only by 3-4 points. And this was in 2008, crazy, absolutely crazy. This itself felt like a realigning election at the time, and I guess it was. As I said, I feel like each president in the 6th party system minus maybe Bush 1 and Biden were mini realignments, and even Biden was kind of a map realigner himself. This is why Im not sure if it's safe to say trump is a full blown realigner, or simply self contained mini alignment. It's very well possible 2028 could see a further realignment of the map as Trumpism tears itself apart and we see the democratic party in a civil war between the centrists and the DSA types. 

But yeah, for McCain to win, he would need not just everything in his column, but Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and then either Nevada or pennsylvania. Long story short? Not happening. There's a reason he has a 5% shot. 

Anyway, the first hour mostly talked about the map and also stuff that happened like Joe the plumber on the campaign trail, who I forgot about until this replay.Anyway, what seemed to drive people to vote for Obama? Apparently it was the economy. The great recession just happened, and it is what caused this massive blue wave. Kinda like that meteor from deep impact wiping out the east coast. BOOM. The republicans never had a shot. Honestly, even without that, I doubt that McCain could win. Republican party morale was at rock bottom, even among republicans. Bush's approval was awful, the war on Iraq backfired massively and turned into a quagmire with no end in sight. The deficit was out of control, which alienated a lot of fiscal conservatives. And Obama had this youthful energy of hope and change causing droves of young people to turn out for him. The recession just made it worse. Honestly, the Reagan coalition should've ended right there, but as we know, republicans fight for what they believe in, and democrats...don't. So they were able to claw themselves back to relevance while democrats just kinda roll over. 

Hour 2

We start getting states called that actually matter, like Pennsylvania. And it's called basically as soon as the polls closed, which apparently pissed off the McCain campaign. What do you expect dude? You're down 7.3 with a 3% chance of winning. And it doesnt matter how much time he invested in PA. Maybe he needed it to win, I mean normally when youre down 7.3, I'd say youre wasting your time and you should consider another path to victory, but this actually WAS the path of least resistance for him. He was just at such a disadvantage. And yeah they talked about voters here, and again, it was the economy, they talked about how even a lot of racist white voters voted for him because they thought hed improve their lives. Makes me feel a bit better about El Sayed, although he isnt facing a crippling recession with his campaign in Michigan. Still, thinking back, the attacks on "Barack Hussein Obama" remind me of the attacks on "Abdulrahman Mohamed El Sayed." Ya know, he's a muslim, he's a communist, he's gonna destroy America, blah blah blah. We've heard it all before and Obama won. Hopefully El Sayed will too. Hell, let's go further, Abdul El Sayed is attacked for ties to Hasan Piker who is more radical than he is. Obama had ties to people like Reverend Wright and Louis Farrakan. Reverend Wright is infamous for being like "NOT GOD BLESS AMERICA, GOD DAMN AMERICA!" And yeah, you can imagine how that went over. Again, the more I think about it, the more parallels this guy has, to the point I would almost like to see him run in 2028. Abdul can be the new Obama with better healthcare. 

Beyond that, they talked about how Obama actually was winning both among lower income people, but also higher income people. Again, this is where you start getting the suburban shift idea that Clinton tried to build on, only to end up imploding Obama's coalition. And winning both did allow Obama to win by a comfortable margin. But maybe at the same time the Obama coalition was always unsustainable. Maybe we were either gonna see white working class men or upper class suburbanites leave, since the democrats cant reliably keep both, and maybe the Obama map was doomed to fail like it did. Something to think about. Maybe the implosion of the Obama coalition was inevitable the way the implosion of the Trump coalition may very well happen in the next couple of years. Even if trump has his loyalists, I cant see him keeping independents and swing voters on his side here. There's a reason he's at like -20 approval and the map is swinging so blue. Independents are leaving him in DROVES, causing only his core coalition to back him. Again, each president seems to bring in a mini realignment with their own respective coalitions, and after 8-12 years, they implode. Sure, we got the larger 36+ year cycles, but again, just looking at Bush, Obama, and Trump being their own little self contained eras, and knowing the clinton years and Reagan/Bush 1 years were their own little self contained eras as well gives credibility to this. Maybe each new president has to chart their own path with their own coalition, building on what was done in the past, but not going nuts with replicating the past.  

Hour 3

By this point, it seems obvious that McCain is losing. There's discussion of what went wrong, and it seems to come down to the economy and demographics. The republican party has a long term demographic problem. It's what's driven them to their modern bout of fascism as they're preparing for minority rule. If they cant win through democracy, break it until they can. But yeah, 2008 is where this problem started to be obvious. THe republicans were appealing to a demographic that was aging out. A lot of millennials were voting for the first time around 2008 (including me), and the republican party was out of touch with these demographics. Republicans appeal mostly to whites, and younger demographics are increasingly nonwhite (again, which is why the republican party is going fascist). It's a math problem. And while Trumpism/democratic incompetence pushed back the expiration date of the republican coalition, they still face this looming problem, and 2028 is looking to be 2008 again.

Hour 4

So, this got called pretty early again, and I aint watching beyond this. Sure, there's McCain/Obamas' speeches, but I really am more interested in how the election played out, especially relative to my predictions. When it was finally called, it seemed like they were willing to admit the obvious: McCain was never gonna win. He was DOA. It was like 2024 when Biden was still the nominee. Actually, Biden STILL had better odds than McCain did in 2008. Seriously. It was the economy, it was demographics, it was everything. 

Conclusion

2008 feels like a different world. The video was grainier, there were still phone calls in the news room, it feels like the 80s and 90s do in my head. Which is weird since back then, it didnt feel THAT much different than now at the time. We lacked smart phones but thats about it. 

At the same time, 2008 feels closest to the modern 2026-2028 environment. Here we are again, and the GOP once again feels DOA over the economy, unpopular wars, etc. And while Trump is unique in that he is uniquely incompetent, the root problems with the GOP are the same. They cant govern, but they win when democrats suck. But Obama was youthful, he seemed progressive, and he was himself a bit of a generational change candidate. He was the millennial candidate. And while I still consider the Obama era as part of the 6th party system, he kinda has that nixonesque charm where he could have been the template going forward (Nixon preceded Reagan in that regard).

WHich...incenses me more about 2016. I had to post this in an internet argument, but I was watching this at the time, and hey, looks like the same map just about!

Gee, if only we ran that guy in 2016. Would've had the same energy. And after 2008, it would've wrecked the GOP for a generation. 

Which...brings me to 2028, I know I just talked about suburban strategies and the sun belt, but uh...the map is changing...again. Apparently PA just had a special election out in butler county, ya know, where Trump was shot and the people out there practically worship him, and the democrat won. IN BUTLER COUNTY. For the 2026 senate, we got tons of red states like Texas, Iowa, Nebraska, Ohio, and Alaska all in play. Yeah, Ohio, which we lost to the republicans due to democratic incompetence is in play again. 

And....an anecdote I heard about James Talarico I heard today reminds me of that anecdote about Obama, how all these die hard conservative white guys who are normally racist AF are gonna be going for the democrat this year. IN TEXAS. 

We got Abdul El Sayed in Michigan, and he's facing the same crap Obama did in 2008. Oh, he's a muslim, oh he's a communist, oh, he has questionable connections to extreme people. And despite whatever moral outrage the centrists had over it, Obama DOMINATED. And you know what? Maybe El Sayed will too.

Hell, Im starting to think El Sayed should run for president. If we want to replicate the Obama phenomenon but with a progressive, he might be a good option. AOC doesnt have the charisma, neither does Ro Khanna. And before people say El Sayed is too young, hes too inexperienced, he wont even serve a full term in the senate, NEITHER DID OBAMA! He won his senate seat in 2004, ran in 2008, and got in. Again, Abdul El Sayed comes off to me as 2028 Obama. Mamdani also has that magic but he wasnt born here, so....yeah, El Sayed for president? I'd be behind it. 

We might have a once in a generation (or at least half of a generation) opportunity to flip things in 2028 and finish what Obama started with the destruction of the GOP and the reagan coalition. But we gotta run a progressive who actually intends to enact generational change. THat's where Obama F-ed up, he had this energy, then did nothing with it, and then the centrists got back in and ran Clinton/Biden/Harris....which brought us back to the dark Gore/Kerry days of the 2000s. 

Speaking of which, I plan on covering both. 2004, I have a map for that one, 2000 I don't, but I wanna reexperience the dumpster fire first hand, because that was arguably wilder than 2020 was. We didnt know who the president was for WEEKS afterward. But yeah, I'll do those next. 

Was the sun belt strategy necessary for democrats in 2016? is it necessary now?

 So....it's no secret at this point, that Clinton and Trump changed the electoral map. We just analyzed the 2012 electoral map, and Obama basically had a rust belt firewall that, as long as it remained impenetrable, republicans were functionally locked out of the electoral college. I mean let's bring up the 2016 election prediction again. 

 We had Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania all firmly in the D column similar to virginia and minnesota in more recent cycles. Obama was a bit less, similar to say, new hampshire. We had iowa. And at this point, VA and CO, which are now democratic mainstays, were just starting to flip blue. Obama's coalition was mixed. It relied primarily on a rust belt strategy, but also started to appeal to a second suburban strategy instead, relying on the suburbanization of previously red and purple states.

This led to the 2016 electoral map:
 

 Here, the rust bely was still important, but Clinton clearly downplayed it. And that's actually why she lost. She literally lost Obama's main firewall that made him invincible. She neglected it. She was so busy on winning the sun belt, trying to win North Carolina, and Georgia, and Arizona, and quite frankly, this was a stupid and suicidal strategy. 

Quite frankly, it's obvious to me why she did this. She was a centrist, she wanted the party to remain centrist, and democrats made a deal with the devil to trade working class rust belt workers for suburbanites, so they could push fiscal moderation instead of economic populism, this proved to be disastrous, and led to the rise of the trump era, and his realignments. In 2024, the map looked like this:

 Now, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are chief swing states needed to win elections, with Ohio being lost, Iowa being lost, Florida being lost. VA and CO on the other hand are reliable parts of the democratic coalition. And the electoral map is a lot more hostile to democrats than it was.

Now, centrists will argue this was necessary, they'll argue that due to demographic shifts, that the rust belt will be a less reliable path to the presidency, and we need to expand to the sun belt. The real question is...is it?

Well....yes and no.

It's no mistake in 2020, the rust belt took a beating as reapportionment took away some population, and democrats stand to take another beating in 2030.  Between blue and rust belt states losing population, we stand to lose a whole 11 electoral college votes, most of which go to republican states.

If we rely on the current WI/MI/PA strategy to win exactly 270, this strategy will fail, because in 2032, those states will be worth less and only net 261 electoral votes, leading to another state to win.

 Map is from 270towin btw. Anyway, The problem with this theory though is it assumes the CURRENT electoral map. The map of 2024. Had we stuck with the 2012 rust belt map, we'd be able to win Ohio and Iowa. Here's what it looks like with Ohio.

See, we didn't need to abandon the rust belt, we just needed to be able to keep winning fricking Ohio. We could lose Florida. Say that still turned into Desantis land due to retirees and Cubans hating "socialism." We'd still be able to maintain the Obama coalition into the 2030s....as long as we could keep Ohio on our side. And this isn't even counting Iowa and Nevada. 

So the idea that this change was "necessary" was complete BS. 

However, at the same time, is it necessary now? Not because it was a looming necessity, but because the centrists butchered our winning coalition and now the map is different to the point that we're not getting Ohio back? Perhaps. 

Right now, Ohio is in the same category as states like Texas, Alaska, Florida, and Iowa. All pretty soft red states, maybe likely R in a neutral cycle. Sure, many of them are in play in 2026 and maybe even 2028, but that's only due to an apocalyptic blue wave on the horizon. In normal election cycles, these would be republican. 
 

So what's the alternative? Basically, we do gotta do the sun belt. Nevada is too small on its own to count and that's been in play for a while, but now the big states to swing are going to be Georgia, North Carolina, and Arizona. And here's the catch. My politics HATE the sun belt strategy. While economic populism can work well in the rust belt given the lack of good jobs, the sun belt is more suburban people who are more fiscally moderate. 

Say we get MI/WI/PA/NV, we still need ONE more state. Assuming we can't get IA or OH, we're gonna need AZ, GA, or NC. 

 One might wonder why I threw Alaska in there. Well, it too has been going in a strange democratic direction lately, and even more so, it basically has that oil dividend which is basically pro UBI, so if I wanted to run on UBI and needed THREE more electoral votes, well, that's 270!

 

otherwise, what would I bet on of the three I posted? Georgia. Here's why. I don't believe in going to the rust belt, I believe in the rust belt coming to us. Georgia is pulling a Virgini right now. It's rapidly urbanizing around atlanta, and it's like the one state that still had movement to the left in 2024. I remember a map showing that in a sea of red, atlanta was still moving in a blue direction. NC and AZ have been resisting those trends more, so I see them as harder sells, but I think GA is gonna do what CO and VA did. So assuming we can win that, we can make up for the loss of Ohio. Still, it fumes me we even lost Ohio. The Obama map was perfect for my own electoral strategy. Having to deal with suburbanites with conflicting ideas down south really throws a wrench in the leftward momentum of the party toward economic populism. 

 So, do dems have paths to the white house? Yeah. But without a trumpesque map change to reclaim the rust belt, we're now stuck relying on sun belt states to win. Which compromises an economically populist platform. While during the Obama era, we could win without the south, we didn't need the south, and why oh why do we wanna bother appealing to those conservative guys? Now we kinda do. It's not that this was inevitable though. Had we maintained the Obama map, even with demographic shifts, we could've maintained an electoral advantage that would have shut out the republicans. WI/MI/PA/OH, boom. Done. CO and VA become part of the coalition anyway, maybe eventually we get GA NC or AZ, but let's not push it. 

But....Clinton pushed it, we lost Ohio, and while sun belt states are eventually drifting our way anyway....they should be a bonus, not necessary. I really hate how 2016 shifted our politics, it is a realignment from hell, and we on the left might be screwed. Even if we win primaries, we not be able to win a general election without suburbanites approving of them, and given how these ideas would raise their taxes...well....yay, we got republicans in our coalition now and we cant get rid of them!

*sigh*

I really can't express how much I hate the centrist wing of the democrats for this. I'm only voting for them at this point because, well, Trump's a fascist, and short term, he needs to go. But post trump? Assuming the GOP DOESNT go full groyper? Yeah I might go back to being a purity testy ###hole and voting for third party candidates out of spite. It depends. We'll have to see how the next couple election cycles go.