Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On April 14 2026 11:21 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: Just to be clear to all the replies. My problem is not against a pragmatic safe candidate to win the election.
It's against the concept of 'Backlash'. In today's media environment? You are going to get backlash anyway, that ship has long since sailed, hit an iceberg and sunk.
Why does that environment exist?
To misquote somebody on something else, it’s the death rattle of the historic majority, and it’s a destructive one. It’s shaped a lot of politics since.
In my particular locale, we see the same pattern. Those accustomed to dominance view equality as oppression.
I think it’s possible to view the election of Obama as a positive thing, but also acknowledge the big backlash it precipitated
I mean the place was generally trending in the right direction socially and then decided Fascism was a good look.
I do broadly agree with you here, ultimately you can’t predict the future. I think Kwark is broadly correct in his assessment of America’s first black President driving the worst of instincts, equally at the time it was a huge glass ceiling that was breached, and hopeful predictions were entirely reasonable.
I don’t think we can make such calls outside the filter of ‘who can actually win?’ because it’s simply too unpredictable and attempting to do so is a fool’s errand.
Nobody here in 2010 or whenever could have predicted either Trump’s rise or governance to pick one
On April 14 2026 10:51 Fleetfeet wrote: I don't think 'triggering the right' is the objection. There's plenty of racism/sexism across the US, not just on the right. You don't avoid putting another woman against trump because if you did win you'd trigger the right, but because you're hurting your own chances at victory by pretending racism/sexism don't exist on your side.
(I hear the echo of BJ insisting Kamala's defeat isn't just sexism, and that's probably correct. I'd still find it extremely unlikely that it helped her/dem chances)
And bingo goes his name-oh
Exactly, there’s plenty of racist, sexist shits on my side of the ledger to go with the anti-Semites etc.
You’re a lunatic if you don’t think this is a factor for left-leaning candidates amongst their own bases as well as oppositional ones.
Sexism and racism are either deeply ingrained and embedded at an even subconscious level, or they’re not.
The idea they’re merely confined to 40-50% of the population is preposterous
It’s something I’ve put a good amount of effort into mitigating in me adult life, there’s biases I rather don’t exist in my psyche but they’re hard to scrub.
And I’d wager a good chunk of folks don’t even try that
You‘re not obligated to like everyone. Ultimately it matters how you treat people differently based on the perception of superficial features you have of them or whether you care about those at all. People who have more in common automatically tend to flock together.
This is fucking hilarious... 1976 Hotel California: "you can check out any time you want ... you can never leave".
Don Henley and Glenn Frey wrote those lyrics in 1976 as a metaphor for the dark underbelly of the American Dream and the excesses of the L.A. music scene, but today, tax pros use them to describe the Franchise Tax Board (FTB). [1, 2] The "Check-out any time you like, but you can never leave" line has become the unofficial anthem for the California "Exit Tax" debate because of how the state tracks departing residents. [3, 4] Why the Lyrics Fit the Tax Reality:
The "Tail Tax" (AB 259): This specific proposal (which has stalled but keeps resurfacing) suggested that if a wealthy person leaves, they would still owe California a percentage of their wealth tax for up to seven years after moving. [2, 5] You physically leave, but your checkbook stays "registered" at the Hotel California. [1] The Residency Audit: The FTB is famous for "Hotel California" audits. Even if you move to Florida or Texas, if you keep a California driver’s license, a local doctor, or a club membership, the state can argue you never truly left and demand taxes on your worldwide income. [4, 6] Sourced Income: If you earned stock options or own a business in California, the state will follow that money across state lines for years. [3, 6] The song was meant to be a cautionary tale about hedonism, but for high-net-worth Californians today, the "beast" they "just can't kill" is often the tax bill that follows them to their new home. [1, 2]
For reference here is the actual song @4:14 " you can check out any time you like.. you can never leave".
Perhaps we can rename the state of California to "The People's Republic of California".
The thing that is wrecking California and New York state is not the ultra rich leaving.. its the middle class leaving.
On April 14 2026 12:24 JimmyJRaynor wrote: This is fucking hilarious... 1976 Hotel California: "you can check out any time you want ... you can never leave".
Don Henley and Glenn Frey wrote those lyrics in 1976 as a metaphor for the dark underbelly of the American Dream and the excesses of the L.A. music scene, but today, tax pros use them to describe the Franchise Tax Board (FTB). [1, 2] The "Check-out any time you like, but you can never leave" line has become the unofficial anthem for the California "Exit Tax" debate because of how the state tracks departing residents. [3, 4] Why the Lyrics Fit the Tax Reality:
The "Tail Tax" (AB 259): This specific proposal (which has stalled but keeps resurfacing) suggested that if a wealthy person leaves, they would still owe California a percentage of their wealth tax for up to seven years after moving. [2, 5] You physically leave, but your checkbook stays "registered" at the Hotel California. [1] The Residency Audit: The FTB is famous for "Hotel California" audits. Even if you move to Florida or Texas, if you keep a California driver’s license, a local doctor, or a club membership, the state can argue you never truly left and demand taxes on your worldwide income. [4, 6] Sourced Income: If you earned stock options or own a business in California, the state will follow that money across state lines for years. [3, 6] The song was meant to be a cautionary tale about hedonism, but for high-net-worth Californians today, the "beast" they "just can't kill" is often the tax bill that follows them to their new home. [1, 2]
For reference here is the actual song @4:14 " you can check out any time you like.. you can never leave".
Perhaps we can rename the state of California to "The People's Republic of California".
The thing that is wrecking California and New York state is not the ultra rich leaving.. its the middle class leaving.
They are of course following in the footsteps of the US tax code that necessitates US citizens entirely living overseas to still pay taxes to the US. (you can file an exemption if you area already paying taxes to the local government).
On April 14 2026 12:24 JimmyJRaynor wrote: This is fucking hilarious... 1976 Hotel California: "you can check out any time you want ... you can never leave".
Don Henley and Glenn Frey wrote those lyrics in 1976 as a metaphor for the dark underbelly of the American Dream and the excesses of the L.A. music scene, but today, tax pros use them to describe the Franchise Tax Board (FTB). [1, 2] The "Check-out any time you like, but you can never leave" line has become the unofficial anthem for the California "Exit Tax" debate because of how the state tracks departing residents. [3, 4] Why the Lyrics Fit the Tax Reality:
The "Tail Tax" (AB 259): This specific proposal (which has stalled but keeps resurfacing) suggested that if a wealthy person leaves, they would still owe California a percentage of their wealth tax for up to seven years after moving. [2, 5] You physically leave, but your checkbook stays "registered" at the Hotel California. [1] The Residency Audit: The FTB is famous for "Hotel California" audits. Even if you move to Florida or Texas, if you keep a California driver’s license, a local doctor, or a club membership, the state can argue you never truly left and demand taxes on your worldwide income. [4, 6] Sourced Income: If you earned stock options or own a business in California, the state will follow that money across state lines for years. [3, 6] The song was meant to be a cautionary tale about hedonism, but for high-net-worth Californians today, the "beast" they "just can't kill" is often the tax bill that follows them to their new home. [1, 2]
For reference here is the actual song @4:14 " you can check out any time you like.. you can never leave".
Perhaps we can rename the state of California to "The People's Republic of California".
The thing that is wrecking California and New York state is not the ultra rich leaving.. its the middle class leaving.
Can you just format a post like everyone else does where the point is clear and it doesn’t feature 8 emojis?
On April 14 2026 11:21 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: Just to be clear to all the replies. My problem is not against a pragmatic safe candidate to win the election.
It's against the concept of 'Backlash'. In today's media environment? You are going to get backlash anyway, that ship has long since sailed, hit an iceberg and sunk.
Why does that environment exist?
To misquote somebody on something else, it’s the death rattle of the historic majority, and it’s a destructive one. It’s shaped a lot of politics since.
That feels more apt to fall on the post-Obama world. You were used to dominance in center-left to left-wing political policies, that the thought of Clinton losing to Trump seemed unthinkable. Now, the return to equality feels bad. You can't just dismiss segments of the country as deplorables, or point and shriek at the Republican *everything*, or shove in a Biden replacement candidate at the last second in a presidential race: you've actually got to pitch the American people on your ideas. And do so consistently and repeatedly.
Whether that's single payer, or a more progressive tax rate, green energy subsidies, or student loan debt subsidies or porgrams.
You didn't lose because of America being sexist about women, and you're not going to lose with a minority non-Christian candidate because America is bigoted against minorities and non-Christians. You will lose if you have a bad candidate in candidate quality and message. The moderate candidate appeal is not losing a lot of winnable votes right out of the gate. Democrats have a few that are likely 2028 candidates and I hope one of that crowd is nominated.
You will lose if you have a bad candidate in candidate quality and message.
What is Trump, if not this? Mr They Are Eating Cats and Dogs and concepts of a plan for healthcare? Who tried to seize power after he lost the election?
On November 11 2023 Trump said: “We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections”
On April 14 2026 10:51 Fleetfeet wrote: I don't think 'triggering the right' is the objection. There's plenty of racism/sexism across the US, not just on the right. You don't avoid putting another woman against trump because if you did win you'd trigger the right, but because you're hurting your own chances at victory by pretending racism/sexism don't exist on your side.
(I hear the echo of BJ insisting Kamala's defeat isn't just sexism, and that's probably correct. I'd still find it extremely unlikely that it helped her/dem chances)
And bingo goes his name-oh
Exactly, there’s plenty of racist, sexist shits on my side of the ledger to go with the anti-Semites etc.
You’re a lunatic if you don’t think this is a factor for left-leaning candidates amongst their own bases as well as oppositional ones.
Sexism and racism are either deeply ingrained and embedded at an even subconscious level, or they’re not.
The idea they’re merely confined to 40-50% of the population is preposterous
It’s something I’ve put a good amount of effort into mitigating in me adult life, there’s biases I rather don’t exist in my psyche but they’re hard to scrub.
And I’d wager a good chunk of folks don’t even try that
You‘re not obligated to like everyone. Ultimately it matters how you treat people differently based on the perception of superficial features you have of them or whether you care about those at all. People who have more in common automatically tend to flock together.
Sure, agreed there.
I found myself somewhat lacking in these domains, mostly subconsciously imprinted, and I’ve worked to purge them. I’d still say it’s not 100% complete and I’ve been actively trying for a decade+
From where I’m sitting I’ve tried and made considerable improvements on those biases over the years
But I don’t think a big chunk of people are even aware of them, never mind trying to combat them.
You will lose if you have a bad candidate in candidate quality and message.
What is Trump, if not this? Mr They Are Eating Cats and Dogs and concepts of a plan for healthcare? Who tried to seize power after he lost the election?
I would classify everyone who does this "but Trump" or "but whatabout Trump" routine as exactly the problem I'm trying to detail for you. If you could coast to victory just pointing out the flaws in your opponent, you'd have Obama's third term in 2016 and some evolution of that in 2020.
Politics isn't fair. Republicans ran against a buzzsaw in brilliant rhetorician Obama, and I don't want to hear Republicans whining about that one either. Trump also doesn't get a third term (sorry doomers and MAGA idiots), so you won't have to overcome the big bully and clown for at third time. But you will have the option to just throw all your mental energies about why it's so unfair that you have to adopt and advance policies aimed at middle America, while your opponent just pretends all the cool populist shit worked. See previous post.
On April 14 2026 11:21 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: Just to be clear to all the replies. My problem is not against a pragmatic safe candidate to win the election.
It's against the concept of 'Backlash'. In today's media environment? You are going to get backlash anyway, that ship has long since sailed, hit an iceberg and sunk.
Why does that environment exist?
To misquote somebody on something else, it’s the death rattle of the historic majority, and it’s a destructive one. It’s shaped a lot of politics since.
That feels more apt to fall on the post-Obama world. You were used to dominance in center-left to left-wing political policies, that the thought of Clinton losing to Trump seemed unthinkable. Now, the return to equality feels bad. You can't just dismiss segments of the country as deplorables, or point and shriek at the Republican *everything*, or shove in a Biden replacement candidate at the last second in a presidential race: you've actually got to pitch the American people on your ideas. And do so consistently and repeatedly.
Whether that's single payer, or a more progressive tax rate, green energy subsidies, or student loan debt subsidies or porgrams.
You didn't lose because of America being sexist about women, and you're not going to lose with a minority non-Christian candidate because America is bigoted against minorities and non-Christians. You will lose if you have a bad candidate in candidate quality and message. The moderate candidate appeal is not losing a lot of winnable votes right out of the gate. Democrats have a few that are likely 2028 candidates and I hope one of that crowd is nominated.
The great success of finally having elected a half-black man to the presidency is that any time a Democrat doesn't win after that, it obviously means democracy failed and racism won again. The Democrat party broke the glass ceiling only to fall through it.
You said you cannot have a bad candidate in candidate quality and message. Trump is both, so clearly you can and something else is at work. It needn't even be sexism or whatever, but what you said isn't true.
If you could coast to victory just pointing out the flaws in your opponent, you'd have Obama's third term in 2016 and some evolution of that in 2020.
But no, I don't think anyone should coast to victory by pointing out flaws. They should run on prosecuting the corruption of Trump's regime and re-establishing the checks and balance and turfing all his incompetent toadies. Start borrowing lines from Peter Magyar to pursue those who plundered, looted, betrayed, indebted, and ruined America while Trump was in charge.
Whoever they select needs to be a fighter whatever their skin colour who can shut down and flip back on the attack against the MAGA propaganda machine. They cannot fold like Tim Walz. And preferably someone in their 50s or so.
On April 14 2026 13:24 Falling wrote: You said you cannot have a bad candidate in candidate quality and message. Trump is both, so clearly you can and something else is at work. It needn't even be sexism or whatever, but what you said isn't true.
As a Democrat running against the current crop of Republicans, you cannot.. In case it wasn't apparent, I am suggesting that the Republican primary is not an interesting topic of discussion.
On your edit:
But no, I don't think anyone should coast to victory by pointing out flaws. They should run on prosecuting the corruption of Trump's regime and re-establishing the checks and balance and turfing all his incompetent toadies. Start borrowing lines from Peter Magyar to pursue those who plundered, looted, betrayed, indebted, and ruined America while Trump was in charge.
Whoever they select needs to be a fighter whatever their skin colour who can shut down and flip back on the attack against the MAGA propaganda machine. They cannot fold like Tim Walz. And preferably someone in their 50s or so.
And we're just back at prosecuting the Biden regime for all their corruption, while the other side dispatches pardons and accusations of political prosecutions. Just swap the names around.
Sorry, you can place this on the political buffet table (and should), but the main course is selling America on policies that will help them. With believable candidates that can speak in complete sentences. You miss that, and you aren't talking seriously about 2028. You're just the rehash 2016 and 2024 campaign managers with some new ribbons.
On April 14 2026 11:21 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: Just to be clear to all the replies. My problem is not against a pragmatic safe candidate to win the election.
It's against the concept of 'Backlash'. In today's media environment? You are going to get backlash anyway, that ship has long since sailed, hit an iceberg and sunk.
Why does that environment exist?
To misquote somebody on something else, it’s the death rattle of the historic majority, and it’s a destructive one. It’s shaped a lot of politics since.
That feels more apt to fall on the post-Obama world. You were used to dominance in center-left to left-wing political policies, that the thought of Clinton losing to Trump seemed unthinkable. Now, the return to equality feels bad. You can't just dismiss segments of the country as deplorables, or point and shriek at the Republican *everything*, or shove in a Biden replacement candidate at the last second in a presidential race: you've actually got to pitch the American people on your ideas. And do so consistently and repeatedly.
Whether that's single payer, or a more progressive tax rate, green energy subsidies, or student loan debt subsidies or porgrams.
You didn't lose because of America being sexist about women, and you're not going to lose with a minority non-Christian candidate because America is bigoted against minorities and non-Christians. You will lose if you have a bad candidate in candidate quality and message. The moderate candidate appeal is not losing a lot of winnable votes right out of the gate. Democrats have a few that are likely 2028 candidates and I hope one of that crowd is nominated.
The great success of finally having elected a half-black man to the presidency is that any time a Democrat doesn't win after that, it obviously means democracy failed and racism won again. The Democrat party broke the glass ceiling only to fall through it.
On April 14 2026 11:21 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: Just to be clear to all the replies. My problem is not against a pragmatic safe candidate to win the election.
It's against the concept of 'Backlash'. In today's media environment? You are going to get backlash anyway, that ship has long since sailed, hit an iceberg and sunk.
Why does that environment exist?
To misquote somebody on something else, it’s the death rattle of the historic majority, and it’s a destructive one. It’s shaped a lot of politics since.
That feels more apt to fall on the post-Obama world. You were used to dominance in center-left to left-wing political policies, that the thought of Clinton losing to Trump seemed unthinkable. Now, the return to equality feels bad. You can't just dismiss segments of the country as deplorables, or point and shriek at the Republican *everything*, or shove in a Biden replacement candidate at the last second in a presidential race: you've actually got to pitch the American people on your ideas. And do so consistently and repeatedly.
Whether that's single payer, or a more progressive tax rate, green energy subsidies, or student loan debt subsidies or porgrams.
You didn't lose because of America being sexist about women, and you're not going to lose with a minority non-Christian candidate because America is bigoted against minorities and non-Christians. You will lose if you have a bad candidate in candidate quality and message. The moderate candidate appeal is not losing a lot of winnable votes right out of the gate. Democrats have a few that are likely 2028 candidates and I hope one of that crowd is nominated.
The great success of finally having elected a half-black man to the presidency is that any time a Democrat doesn't win after that, it obviously means democracy failed and racism won again. The Democrat party broke the glass ceiling only to fall through it.
Yes,Obama cleaned up with the white working class,Trump flipped a bunch of Obama voters, but clearly the story is anger over a black man. Meanwhile in 2016 his primary win (which was competitive for a long while) brought in new voters. Somehow they voted for Obama twice but were angry and so went back to the old white guy. It couldn't be for any other reason. And it couldn't be that people were warning that Hillaey Clinton was a bad candidate for *years* or that Kamala had underperformed in every election she ever ran in (even in a deep blue state, which is its own problem and will hamper Newsom, God willing).
They have qualified women and qualified minorities that stand a good chance to win the presidency in a (likely) favorable political environment given Trump, but apparently the left on this forum have deemed the country too racist and sexist to elect them, should they win the primary. Please, just a little more self-examination on the lost elections of the past. This is some bullshit coping with the frustration of loss. It's like people here are physically manifesting the news story on the DNC not releasing its report on what went wrong for Democrats in 2024.
On April 14 2026 11:21 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: Just to be clear to all the replies. My problem is not against a pragmatic safe candidate to win the election.
It's against the concept of 'Backlash'. In today's media environment? You are going to get backlash anyway, that ship has long since sailed, hit an iceberg and sunk.
Why does that environment exist?
To misquote somebody on something else, it’s the death rattle of the historic majority, and it’s a destructive one. It’s shaped a lot of politics since.
That feels more apt to fall on the post-Obama world. You were used to dominance in center-left to left-wing political policies, that the thought of Clinton losing to Trump seemed unthinkable. Now, the return to equality feels bad. You can't just dismiss segments of the country as deplorables, or point and shriek at the Republican *everything*, or shove in a Biden replacement candidate at the last second in a presidential race: you've actually got to pitch the American people on your ideas. And do so consistently and repeatedly.
Whether that's single payer, or a more progressive tax rate, green energy subsidies, or student loan debt subsidies or porgrams.
You didn't lose because of America being sexist about women, and you're not going to lose with a minority non-Christian candidate because America is bigoted against minorities and non-Christians. You will lose if you have a bad candidate in candidate quality and message. The moderate candidate appeal is not losing a lot of winnable votes right out of the gate. Democrats have a few that are likely 2028 candidates and I hope one of that crowd is nominated.
The great success of finally having elected a half-black man to the presidency is that any time a Democrat doesn't win after that, it obviously means democracy failed and racism won again. The Democrat party broke the glass ceiling only to fall through it.
Yes,Obama cleaned up with the white working class,Trump flipped a bunch of Obama voters, but clearly the story is anger over a black man. Meanwhile in 2016 his primary win (which was competitive for a long while) brought in new voters. Somehow they voted for Obama twice but were angry and so went back to the old white guy. It couldn't be for any other reason. And it couldn't be that people were warning that Hillaey Clinton was a bad candidate for *years* or that Kamala had underperformed in every election she ever ran in (even in a deep blue state, which is its own problem and will hamper Newsom, God willing).
On April 14 2026 11:21 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: Just to be clear to all the replies. My problem is not against a pragmatic safe candidate to win the election.
It's against the concept of 'Backlash'. In today's media environment? You are going to get backlash anyway, that ship has long since sailed, hit an iceberg and sunk.
Why does that environment exist?
To misquote somebody on something else, it’s the death rattle of the historic majority, and it’s a destructive one. It’s shaped a lot of politics since.
That feels more apt to fall on the post-Obama world. You were used to dominance in center-left to left-wing political policies, that the thought of Clinton losing to Trump seemed unthinkable. Now, the return to equality feels bad. You can't just dismiss segments of the country as deplorables, or point and shriek at the Republican *everything*, or shove in a Biden replacement candidate at the last second in a presidential race: you've actually got to pitch the American people on your ideas. And do so consistently and repeatedly.
Whether that's single payer, or a more progressive tax rate, green energy subsidies, or student loan debt subsidies or porgrams.
You didn't lose because of America being sexist about women, and you're not going to lose with a minority non-Christian candidate because America is bigoted against minorities and non-Christians. You will lose if you have a bad candidate in candidate quality and message. The moderate candidate appeal is not losing a lot of winnable votes right out of the gate. Democrats have a few that are likely 2028 candidates and I hope one of that crowd is nominated.
The great success of finally having elected a half-black man to the presidency is that any time a Democrat doesn't win after that, it obviously means democracy failed and racism won again. The Democrat party broke the glass ceiling only to fall through it.
Yes,Obama cleaned up with the white working class,Trump flipped a bunch of Obama voters, but clearly the story is anger over a black man. Meanwhile in 2016 his primary win (which was competitive for a long while) brought in new voters. Somehow they voted for Obama twice but were angry and so went back to the old white guy. It couldn't be for any other reason. And it couldn't be that people were warning that Hillaey Clinton was a bad candidate for *years* or that Kamala had underperformed in every election she ever ran in (even in a deep blue state, which is its own problem and will hamper Newsom, God willing).
I think we've seen on this thread multiple times why democrats are completely immune to self examination and honest diagnoses of their problems. People to this day still say Kamala was a great candidate who ran a great campaign and its just all the awful hate that explains why she lost.
On April 14 2026 11:21 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: Just to be clear to all the replies. My problem is not against a pragmatic safe candidate to win the election.
It's against the concept of 'Backlash'. In today's media environment? You are going to get backlash anyway, that ship has long since sailed, hit an iceberg and sunk.
Why does that environment exist?
To misquote somebody on something else, it’s the death rattle of the historic majority, and it’s a destructive one. It’s shaped a lot of politics since.
That feels more apt to fall on the post-Obama world. You were used to dominance in center-left to left-wing political policies, that the thought of Clinton losing to Trump seemed unthinkable. Now, the return to equality feels bad. You can't just dismiss segments of the country as deplorables, or point and shriek at the Republican *everything*, or shove in a Biden replacement candidate at the last second in a presidential race: you've actually got to pitch the American people on your ideas. And do so consistently and repeatedly.
Whether that's single payer, or a more progressive tax rate, green energy subsidies, or student loan debt subsidies or porgrams.
You didn't lose because of America being sexist about women, and you're not going to lose with a minority non-Christian candidate because America is bigoted against minorities and non-Christians. You will lose if you have a bad candidate in candidate quality and message. The moderate candidate appeal is not losing a lot of winnable votes right out of the gate. Democrats have a few that are likely 2028 candidates and I hope one of that crowd is nominated.
The great success of finally having elected a half-black man to the presidency is that any time a Democrat doesn't win after that, it obviously means democracy failed and racism won again. The Democrat party broke the glass ceiling only to fall through it.
Yes,Obama cleaned up with the white working class,Trump flipped a bunch of Obama voters, but clearly the story is anger over a black man. Meanwhile in 2016 his primary win (which was competitive for a long while) brought in new voters. Somehow they voted for Obama twice but were angry and so went back to the old white guy. It couldn't be for any other reason. And it couldn't be that people were warning that Hillaey Clinton was a bad candidate for *years* or that Kamala had underperformed in every election she ever ran in (even in a deep blue state, which is its own problem and will hamper Newsom, God willing).
I think we've seen on this thread multiple times why democrats are completely immune to self examination and honest diagnoses of their problems. People to this day still say Kamala was a great candidate who ran a great campaign and its just all the awful hate that explains why she lost.
It’s much, much harder to unite the left than the right. Progressives consider center left folks as their enemy, and the opposite is also true. Just look at the conversations here.
I think Kamala was a terrible candidate, but she was absolutely amazing compared to Trump. So the Democrats will always face an uphill battle while apparently republicans are ready to vote for a literal pig, a rapist, a criminal, a bully, a deranged narcissist, and an incompetent buffoon as long as he had R- next to his name.
I will never understand why they decided to hide walz as the election went on. Guy was popular in the states they needed to win. Just keep him on a loop along the great lakes.
I can't co-sign Kwark on this one. Yes, there are way too many racists/sexists in America, but that's not why Trump is in office. Grievance is the answer. Racism/sexism is a part of it, but far from the whole picture. Obama was a great campaigner, but very mediocre as president. He only had 2 years with a friendly congress and he pre-negotiated health care and then compromised more with the Republicans and still barely got any on board. That was his primary legislative accomplishment. Sure, the Republicans in congress are mostly at fault, but that's not how low information voters think. They see things being mediocre, their lives not really improving, and they blame the president and put the other party in charge. Same thing happened with 4 years of Biden. Harris was a notably bad campaigner, but people were also sick of Biden's lack of accomplishments, fair or not.
Trump, as much as I hate him, does something emotionally for Republicans that basically no other candidate does. The Republicans have plenty of other old white racists, but those guys don't have the following that Trump has. I'm not going to get into his appeal in this post, but just note that he has a cult like following that typical politicians don't have. If all it took was racism/sexism, plenty of other Republicans would also share that popularity.
As for what Democrats should do. Push issues, not candidates, for now. Let the candidates get behind the popular issues. I'm expecting a wide open primary this time around. I don't want the democrats to pick their candidate too soon as that candidate will have to deal with the Republican smear machine. Right now, that smear has to get spread around to a half dozen candidates and that's nowhere near as effective as when it's focused.
I'm perfectly okay with the Dems eventually picking AOC, she has charisma and I think she can win a general election. Same with Buttigieg or one of a few governors - although I prefer Pritzker over Newsome if we go for straight white guys. Newsome feels like an empty suit. The people will have had 4 years of Trump again, and unless something changes in a major positive way, people will be pissed at the Republicans and we can all get behind our own preferred candidates and let the best one win... then eventually support that winner. Right? RIGHT?
I do still worry about anyone on the left looking for reasons not to support a candidate while people on the right look for any excuse to support a candidate. Combine that with billionaire control of basically all media now and there will always be an uphill battle for progressive policies that requires voters to come out even when they aren't enthused.
On April 14 2026 15:27 Biff The Understudy wrote: I think Kamala was a terrible candidate, but she was absolutely amazing compared to Trump. So the Democrats will always face an uphill battle while apparently republicans are ready to vote for a literal pig, a rapist, a criminal, a bully, a deranged narcissist, and an incompetent buffoon as long as he had R- next to his name.
WAS she as a brilliant candidate compared to Trump?
In terms of competence once in office? Probably, that's a low bar.
In terms of turning out voters to actually vote? Whether that's getting their existing base to actually get off their asses to vote, or finding new voters not necessarily solid Dem base? Ehh, not really, that's what made her a terrible candidate.
I think Wombat had it, he just didn't realise just how right he was.
On April 14 2026 11:44 WombaT wrote: Those accustomed to dominance view equality as oppression.
Yes, to a non-trivial percentage of the country this might have been about the Right side of identity politics. This was also probably the part that wasn't going to vote with the 'LiBErAls' anyway. At best Trump energised this part of the base so more of them turned out. They don't win you elections, they provide a floor to the right.
But the bigger loss of dominance is that they have lived so far beyond their means that their empire is not sufficient to offset the vacuuming wealth to the small capital owning class anymore.
Somehow the Libs still miss this. If there's something Trump is good at, it's reading the room. There was an actual populist wave of discontent with the inequality/decline in economic outcomes of the working class in the US. Clinton and Harris barely acknowledged it, Trump ran on it.
Which is going to be a more popular narrative:
1. The US sits in the middle of their global empire set up to materially benefit the US. They give out dollars that can be made up out of the thin air, and are able to borrow trillions on top to buy actual material goods/services from the rest of the world. They are able to outsource their cheaper labour work to the rest of the world while creating higher value labour work internally due to all this inflowing wealth. Despite this, they have still managed to live well beyond their means and have let a small capital owning elite suck up so much of the wealth, and align so much of the politics to their interests that not only has the US burdened itself with so much debt that it's offsetting the effect of this inflowing real wealth... but the everyday middle class person increasingly never even get to benefit from this exorbitant wealth.
or
2. The US did nothing wrong, NATO is taking advantage of US largesse, also immigrants, and Canada and Mexico and CHAIIINA. The whole world is taking advantage of us! All those countries with a trade surpluses, despite this being the direct requirement of being the world reserve currency that support so much of this money printing and borrowing. The US is not at fault, it's the victim.
1. is the truth, 2. is infinitely more appealing.
Both Kamala and Clinton more or less chose 3. 'Nothing is wrong, we are doing fine, get a load of the orange clown!'. Trump actually won independents against Clinton. He came very close against Kamala, who wasn't even popular enough to bring out her own base.
Trump understands the politics of victimhood and aversion to responsibility that the Neo-Libs somehow do not.
The Forbes written article is behind a paywall so I am posting the youtube video version of it. Canadian car visits to the US are down 35% in 2 years. 90% of Canadians are within a 2 hour drive of the border so car is the primary way Canadians get to the USA. In contrast, American travel to Canada is on the rise.
Once Trump gets impeached or replaced the next President has a bunch of easy, small wins in front of him. Tourism will easily improve and manufacturing can get relief with the removal of giant tariffs on steel, aluminum, and copper... just to name 2.
On April 14 2026 12:24 JimmyJRaynor wrote: This is fucking hilarious... 1976 Hotel California: "you can check out any time you want ... you can never leave".
Don Henley and Glenn Frey wrote those lyrics in 1976 as a metaphor for the dark underbelly of the American Dream and the excesses of the L.A. music scene, but today, tax pros use them to describe the Franchise Tax Board (FTB). [1, 2] The "Check-out any time you like, but you can never leave" line has become the unofficial anthem for the California "Exit Tax" debate because of how the state tracks departing residents. [3, 4] Why the Lyrics Fit the Tax Reality:
The "Tail Tax" (AB 259): This specific proposal (which has stalled but keeps resurfacing) suggested that if a wealthy person leaves, they would still owe California a percentage of their wealth tax for up to seven years after moving. [2, 5] You physically leave, but your checkbook stays "registered" at the Hotel California. [1] The Residency Audit: The FTB is famous for "Hotel California" audits. Even if you move to Florida or Texas, if you keep a California driver’s license, a local doctor, or a club membership, the state can argue you never truly left and demand taxes on your worldwide income. [4, 6] Sourced Income: If you earned stock options or own a business in California, the state will follow that money across state lines for years. [3, 6] The song was meant to be a cautionary tale about hedonism, but for high-net-worth Californians today, the "beast" they "just can't kill" is often the tax bill that follows them to their new home. [1, 2]
For reference here is the actual song @4:14 " you can check out any time you like.. you can never leave".
Perhaps we can rename the state of California to "The People's Republic of California".
The thing that is wrecking California and New York state is not the ultra rich leaving.. its the middle class leaving.
Can you just format a post like everyone else does where the point is clear and it doesn’t feature 8 emojis?
The other poster seemed to grasp my point.
On April 14 2026 16:19 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: 2. The US did nothing wrong, NATO is taking advantage of US largesse, also immigrants, and Canada and Mexico and CHAIIINA. The whole world is taking advantage of us!
Canada just assumed the USA would protect them while Trudeau ran around crowing about how Canada controls the north west passage. Trump was correct to call out Canada in that area. Canada did the right thing and brought its military spending up... and Canada is not just spending money to spend money.. they are rebuilding their military.
Trump's criticism was valid and Canada, post Trudeau, adjusted properly. Trudeau tried to string Trump along during his first term and got stung for it.
The rest of Trump's complaints about Canada are psychotic. Does Trump really think his hero, Ronald Reagan, got taken advantage of in Free Trade negotiations with Canada? please....
On April 14 2026 11:21 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: Just to be clear to all the replies. My problem is not against a pragmatic safe candidate to win the election.
It's against the concept of 'Backlash'. In today's media environment? You are going to get backlash anyway, that ship has long since sailed, hit an iceberg and sunk.
Why does that environment exist?
To misquote somebody on something else, it’s the death rattle of the historic majority, and it’s a destructive one. It’s shaped a lot of politics since.
That feels more apt to fall on the post-Obama world. You were used to dominance in center-left to left-wing political policies, that the thought of Clinton losing to Trump seemed unthinkable. Now, the return to equality feels bad. You can't just dismiss segments of the country as deplorables, or point and shriek at the Republican *everything*, or shove in a Biden replacement candidate at the last second in a presidential race: you've actually got to pitch the American people on your ideas. And do so consistently and repeatedly.
Whether that's single payer, or a more progressive tax rate, green energy subsidies, or student loan debt subsidies or porgrams.
You didn't lose because of America being sexist about women, and you're not going to lose with a minority non-Christian candidate because America is bigoted against minorities and non-Christians. You will lose if you have a bad candidate in candidate quality and message. The moderate candidate appeal is not losing a lot of winnable votes right out of the gate. Democrats have a few that are likely 2028 candidates and I hope one of that crowd is nominated.
To siphon through the bolded in sequence - I wasn’t. Bush was a thing, my own country had a centre-right government for 14 years. - What equality are you referring to? - I can, and will join Hillary Clinton in doing so. - Half of which aren’t especially popular at all
We may see a carrying of the day nonetheless. But Hillary didn’t lose to like Jeb Bush, she lost to Donald Trump. And a Donald who got a second term.
I’m not sure who the ‘you’ is here, but hey.
The idea that it’s some domain of policy particulars these days is fanciful to me.
They elected an idiot first time around, they elected a Fascist strongman who’d precipitated an insurrection attempt the second time around.
EPT
