|
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.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 14 2026 12:47 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 11:44 WombaT wrote: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.
"Return to equality" and its the largest overton window movement to the right as possible lmao.
|
Northern Ireland26585 Posts
On April 14 2026 16:19 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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 thing is, this isn’t just a problem Neo-Libs have, it’s one progressives have to deal with as well.
If you do acknowledge it and, god forbid propose policies to actually deal with that growing inequality and discontent, America will tell you to get fucked as well.
I mean yeah, him riding that wave in 2016, sure. Electing him again?
I wasn’t merely referring to identity politics with that quote either. China is also one, as you identified. American hegemony has been internalised to be the default and China rising must be down to some fuckery and not, god forbid another country outdoing the US in some areas.
It’s a grievance politics that’ll never be satiated because it can’t be with what people are demanding
|
On April 14 2026 15:55 Sermokala wrote:
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 remember reading something about an interview with Kamala mentioning that they didn't get on that well. It was about the vp debate where he kept making Vance sound reasonable.
|
On April 14 2026 19:23 Luolis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 12:47 dyhb wrote:On April 14 2026 11:44 WombaT wrote: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. "Return to equality" and its the largest overton window movement to the right as possible lmao.
Not to mention how problematic and ironic it is to say that the party obsessed with perpetuating inequality is demonstrating a "return to equality" .
|
The greatest con in history might have been the right convincing anyone to the left of them (and entrenching beliefs for those alreadt lly ideologically aligned) that everything shit has been the fault of the left, who were in power the last X years. They do it again and again and again and every single time droves of people fall for it.
|
On April 14 2026 19:49 Uldridge wrote:
The greatest con in history might have been the right convincing anyone to the left of them (and entrenching beliefs for those alreadt lly ideologically aligned) that everything shit has been the fault of the left, who were in power the last X years. They do it again and again and again and every single time droves of people fall for it. Its just so stupid. We haven't had an actual left wing government in the Netherlands since the 1950's. And still every election the left gets blamed for everything.
|
Northern Ireland26585 Posts
On April 14 2026 14:18 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 13:22 oBlade wrote:On April 14 2026 12:47 dyhb wrote:On April 14 2026 11:44 WombaT wrote: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).
Hey remember when a President had to deal with conspiracies about where they were born and if they were eligible for the Presidency (including from the current President) that totally had nothing to do with their skin colour at all?
Or how the Republican Party has gone insane post Obama, or how some of its base are now so obsessed with ‘DEI’ etc?
Obviously the glass ceiling of a black President being broken had all positive impacts, and negative ones are impossible to consider. Racism stopped being a thing in 2008.
It also can’t it simultaneously the case that a candidate can have flaws that explain their failure, but that sexism was also a factor in some way?
We’ve also solved sexism too, I can’t put as precise a date on it as when we sorted racism, but it’s sorted. Not a factor anymore, phew.
Man if only I could emigrate to this glorious land of equality
I mean I don’t think the post-Obama backlash is remotely entirely racist in nature, nor Clinton and especially Harris’ failure is necessarily down to sexism. Merely a factor
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1278 Posts
On April 14 2026 19:25 WombaT wrote:
I mean yeah, him riding that wave in 2016, sure. Electing him again?
I mean.. the Dems in power didn't exactly stop ignoring it.... The same problem hasn't exactly gotten better.
Will it always be an uphill battle? Absolutely. It's easier to blame the rest of the world than face up to how your country screwed up, despite all the advantages in the world.
At least Bernie addressed the narrative. 'The richest country in the history of the world... most of the wealth controlled by a few etc etc' . At least that is a narrative on why it's getting harder and harder on the working class. It also puts the blame squarely on those who control all the wealth. The fact that they are actually responsible for this is almost a sideshow to the fact that this is playing the grievance politics correctly, people want to feel heard and understood, they want someone to blame. Lets not pretend the victim politics isn't appealing to the left or independents.
I've yet to see the establishment Dems stop running the 'pretend it's not happening' playbook. Though it doesn't help that for many, this is where their bread is buttered.
|
On April 14 2026 20:32 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 19:25 WombaT wrote:
I mean yeah, him riding that wave in 2016, sure. Electing him again?
I mean.. the Dems in power didn't exactly stop ignoring it.... The same problem hasn't exactly gotten better. Will it always be an uphill battle? Absolutely. It's easier to blame the rest of the world than face up to how your country screwed up, despite all the advantages in the world. At least Bernie addressed the narrative. 'The richest country in the history of the world... most of the wealth controlled by a few etc etc' . At least that is a narrative on why it's getting harder and harder on the working class. It also puts the blame squarely on those who control all the wealth. The fact that they are actually responsible for this is almost a sideshow to the fact that this is playing the grievance politics correctly, people want to feel heard and understood, they want someone to blame. Lets not pretend the victim politics isn't appealing to the left or independents. I've yet to see the establishment Dems stop running the 'pretend it's not happening' playbook. Though it doesn't help that for many, this is where their bread is buttered.
It's a communication problem. Stories about rich and powerful people doing regular stuff rich and powerful people do is not very engaging. Now, a story about some Haitian immigrant going around eating neighbour's pets is just much more juicy, you can't almost stop yourself from engaging, either to say how ridiculous and racist that is or to pass it along "look what the immigrants are doing".
You just can't compete with the social media algorithms.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1278 Posts
On April 14 2026 21:18 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 20:32 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 14 2026 19:25 WombaT wrote:
I mean yeah, him riding that wave in 2016, sure. Electing him again?
I mean.. the Dems in power didn't exactly stop ignoring it.... The same problem hasn't exactly gotten better. Will it always be an uphill battle? Absolutely. It's easier to blame the rest of the world than face up to how your country screwed up, despite all the advantages in the world. At least Bernie addressed the narrative. 'The richest country in the history of the world... most of the wealth controlled by a few etc etc' . At least that is a narrative on why it's getting harder and harder on the working class. It also puts the blame squarely on those who control all the wealth. The fact that they are actually responsible for this is almost a sideshow to the fact that this is playing the grievance politics correctly, people want to feel heard and understood, they want someone to blame. Lets not pretend the victim politics isn't appealing to the left or independents. I've yet to see the establishment Dems stop running the 'pretend it's not happening' playbook. Though it doesn't help that for many, this is where their bread is buttered. It's a communication problem. Stories about rich and powerful people doing regular stuff rich and powerful people do is not very engaging. Now, a story about some Haitian immigrant going around eating neighbour's pets is just much more juicy, you can't almost stop yourself from engaging, either to say how ridiculous and racist that is or to pass it along "look what the immigrants are doing". You just can't compete with the social media algorithms.
I mean.. the whole country is riled up about rich people eating babies right now. Why not lean into it, now is as good a time as any to lean into the 'it's rich people's fault' narrative.
Now that they have the opportunity to play the same game they are suddenly too good to play dirty? I hope this is just a case of waiting for Trump to stop shooting himself in the foot on Iran, but I suspect it's just a case of the Libs always trying not to lose, and never actually trying to actually win.
|
On April 14 2026 21:31 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 21:18 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 14 2026 20:32 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 14 2026 19:25 WombaT wrote:
I mean yeah, him riding that wave in 2016, sure. Electing him again?
I mean.. the Dems in power didn't exactly stop ignoring it.... The same problem hasn't exactly gotten better. Will it always be an uphill battle? Absolutely. It's easier to blame the rest of the world than face up to how your country screwed up, despite all the advantages in the world. At least Bernie addressed the narrative. 'The richest country in the history of the world... most of the wealth controlled by a few etc etc' . At least that is a narrative on why it's getting harder and harder on the working class. It also puts the blame squarely on those who control all the wealth. The fact that they are actually responsible for this is almost a sideshow to the fact that this is playing the grievance politics correctly, people want to feel heard and understood, they want someone to blame. Lets not pretend the victim politics isn't appealing to the left or independents. I've yet to see the establishment Dems stop running the 'pretend it's not happening' playbook. Though it doesn't help that for many, this is where their bread is buttered. It's a communication problem. Stories about rich and powerful people doing regular stuff rich and powerful people do is not very engaging. Now, a story about some Haitian immigrant going around eating neighbour's pets is just much more juicy, you can't almost stop yourself from engaging, either to say how ridiculous and racist that is or to pass it along "look what the immigrants are doing". You just can't compete with the social media algorithms. I mean.. the whole country is riled up about rich people eating babies right now.
Did I miss something here in the land of the sane?
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1278 Posts
On April 14 2026 21:39 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 21:31 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 14 2026 21:18 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 14 2026 20:32 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 14 2026 19:25 WombaT wrote:
I mean yeah, him riding that wave in 2016, sure. Electing him again?
I mean.. the Dems in power didn't exactly stop ignoring it.... The same problem hasn't exactly gotten better. Will it always be an uphill battle? Absolutely. It's easier to blame the rest of the world than face up to how your country screwed up, despite all the advantages in the world. At least Bernie addressed the narrative. 'The richest country in the history of the world... most of the wealth controlled by a few etc etc' . At least that is a narrative on why it's getting harder and harder on the working class. It also puts the blame squarely on those who control all the wealth. The fact that they are actually responsible for this is almost a sideshow to the fact that this is playing the grievance politics correctly, people want to feel heard and understood, they want someone to blame. Lets not pretend the victim politics isn't appealing to the left or independents. I've yet to see the establishment Dems stop running the 'pretend it's not happening' playbook. Though it doesn't help that for many, this is where their bread is buttered. It's a communication problem. Stories about rich and powerful people doing regular stuff rich and powerful people do is not very engaging. Now, a story about some Haitian immigrant going around eating neighbour's pets is just much more juicy, you can't almost stop yourself from engaging, either to say how ridiculous and racist that is or to pass it along "look what the immigrants are doing". You just can't compete with the social media algorithms. I mean.. the whole country is riled up about rich people eating babies right now. Did I miss something here in the land of the sane?
Part of the Epstein files (probably taken out of context). But people ran with the narrative, on both sides of politics really.
|
|
|
On April 14 2026 21:39 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 21:31 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 14 2026 21:18 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 14 2026 20:32 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 14 2026 19:25 WombaT wrote:
I mean yeah, him riding that wave in 2016, sure. Electing him again?
I mean.. the Dems in power didn't exactly stop ignoring it.... The same problem hasn't exactly gotten better. Will it always be an uphill battle? Absolutely. It's easier to blame the rest of the world than face up to how your country screwed up, despite all the advantages in the world. At least Bernie addressed the narrative. 'The richest country in the history of the world... most of the wealth controlled by a few etc etc' . At least that is a narrative on why it's getting harder and harder on the working class. It also puts the blame squarely on those who control all the wealth. The fact that they are actually responsible for this is almost a sideshow to the fact that this is playing the grievance politics correctly, people want to feel heard and understood, they want someone to blame. Lets not pretend the victim politics isn't appealing to the left or independents. I've yet to see the establishment Dems stop running the 'pretend it's not happening' playbook. Though it doesn't help that for many, this is where their bread is buttered. It's a communication problem. Stories about rich and powerful people doing regular stuff rich and powerful people do is not very engaging. Now, a story about some Haitian immigrant going around eating neighbour's pets is just much more juicy, you can't almost stop yourself from engaging, either to say how ridiculous and racist that is or to pass it along "look what the immigrants are doing". You just can't compete with the social media algorithms. I mean.. the whole country is riled up about rich people eating babies right now. Did I miss something here in the land of the sane?
In the Dutch glory days they ate their prime ministers and pirated from the rich.
It‘s the inverse now. They eat their subjects and pirate from the poor.
Something like that.
|
On April 14 2026 16:19 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
I said “compared to Trump”. She is smart, she is eloquent, she has tons of experience. She has no criminal record, no bankrupty, no history of cheating and lying, no history of cheating her partners, trampling the constitution, she didn’t attempt a coup, she hasn’t been insulting war heroes and veterans. She is not linked to renowned pedophiles, she hasn’t been accused of rape by several people.
Should I continue? Of course she was an amazing candidate compared to Trump. It’s just, her potential voters standards are soooo much higher than his, which are inexistant as we know. That was my point.
Clinton lost because she was too shady for her electorate. I think in terms of shitiness, corruption and morals she is at 1% of Trump awfulness. That was enough. And i mean, it’s good that people have high standards. The problem is it’s just one side that cares that their candidate is not a massive piece of shit and a total cheat.
|
On April 14 2026 22:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 16:19 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: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. I said “compared to Trump”. She is smart, she is eloquent, she has tons of experience. She has no criminal record, no bankrupty, no history of cheating and lying, no history of cheating her partners, trampling the constitution, she didn’t attempt a coup, she hasn’t been insulting war heroes and veterans. She is not linked to renowned pedophiles, she hasn’t been accused of rape by several people. Should I continue? Of course she was an amazing candidate compared to Trump. It’s just, her potential voters standards are soooo much higher than his, which are inexistant as we know. That was my point. Clinton lost because she was too shady for her electorate. I think in terms of shitiness, corruption and morals she is at 1% of Trump awfulness. That was enough. And i mean, it’s good that people have high standards. The problem is it’s just one side that cares that their candidate is not a massive piece of shit and a total cheat.
I think that's a significant problem. The potential Democratic voters have much higher standards, tend to gatekeep more, and engage in more purity testing, compared to Republicans. Since many potential Democratic voters have different priorities and often can't find the perfect candidate in the primary (let alone in the general election), it becomes more difficult to court their vote without listing a much more diverse and expansive set of policy proposals than what the Republican nominee has to do. And then even when the Democratic nominee does have an attractive vision and advertises it, plenty of voters don't pay attention (she's too boring to listen to!!!) or let themselves become distracted by sensationalist media instead of going to the Democratic nominee's website (Trump and Vance are eating dogs, fucking couches, and taxing penguins???).
|
On April 14 2026 19:25 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 16:19 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: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. + Show Spoiler +The thing is, this isn’t just a problem Neo-Libs have, it’s one progressives have to deal with as well. If you do acknowledge it and, god forbid propose policies to actually deal with that growing inequality and discontent, America will tell you to get fucked as well. + Show Spoiler +
I mean yeah, him riding that wave in 2016, sure. Electing him again?
I wasn’t merely referring to identity politics with that quote either. China is also one, as you identified. American hegemony has been internalised to be the default and China rising must be down to some fuckery and not, god forbid another country outdoing the US in some areas.
It’s a grievance politics that’ll never be satiated because it can’t be with what people are demanding
It's not "America" so much as it is the wealthy and powerful interests that hold more leverage over policy, politicians, and the people than the democratic institutions.
That's the part Democrats (and Republicans fwiw) are fundamentally unable to address because the entrenched wealthy and powerful interests also hold more leverage than their voters.
That's how all significant progress has to be made in the US and that's what the history shows.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1278 Posts
On April 14 2026 22:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 16:19 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: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. I said “compared to Trump”. She is smart, she is eloquent, she has tons of experience. She has no criminal record, no bankrupty, no history of cheating and lying, no history of cheating her partners, trampling the constitution, she didn’t attempt a coup, she hasn’t been insulting war heroes and veterans. She is not linked to renowned pedophiles, she hasn’t been accused of rape by several people. Should I continue? Of course she was an amazing candidate compared to Trump. It’s just, her potential voters standards are soooo much higher than his, which are inexistant as we know. That was my point. Clinton lost because she was too shady for her electorate. I think in terms of shitiness, corruption and morals she is at 1% of Trump awfulness. That was enough. And i mean, it’s good that people have high standards. The problem is it’s just one side that cares that their candidate is not a massive piece of shit and a total cheat.
This is the problem, you have way too much faith in the electorate, yes she is a much more normal person and more competent bureaucrat than Trump. Everyone knows this, Even Trump's diehard base knows he is a shitty person and not very competent public servant. This just makes Kamala boring.
Trump brought the narrative of US victimhood, and reality TV spectacle. Gone are the days of 'hmm this seems like a well adjusted, well spoken, competent person to lead the country'. Here are the days of 'Trump is just much better at monopolizing attention and outrage.'
Maybe this Iran Fiasco will materially affect his own voter base and the independents enough to snap them back to looking for a more traditional candidate, but I doubt it. I suspect the pendulum swing towards populism might be here to stay for some time. Maybe the splashback from the effects of sheer incompetence might win the Dems an election or two, but they better get used to playing dirty.
|
On April 14 2026 22:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 16:19 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: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. I said “compared to Trump”. She is smart, she is eloquent, she has tons of experience. She has no criminal record, no bankrupty, no history of cheating and lying, no history of cheating her partners, trampling the constitution, she didn’t attempt a coup, she hasn’t been insulting war heroes and veterans. She is not linked to renowned pedophiles, she hasn’t been accused of rape by several people. Should I continue? Of course she was an amazing candidate compared to Trump. It’s just, her potential voters standards are soooo much higher than his, which are inexistant as we know. That was my point. Clinton lost because she was too shady for her electorate. I think in terms of shitiness, corruption and morals she is at 1% of Trump awfulness. That was enough. And i mean, it’s good that people have high standards. The problem is it’s just one side that cares that their candidate is not a massive piece of shit and a total cheat.
They have the same pool of potential voters. If people were racist they wouldn't have voted for the black woman more than the white woman. Either Hillary or Kamala would have won with all of 1% or 2% more votes than they got. That's not sexism. I know our European colleagues are looking forward to the first woman president but normal US citizens don't cast a presidential vote to defeat sexism or defeat racism. Especially since getting burned last time. We have bigger worries. You should have bigger worries too and the idea there's an emotional investment in continuing to campaign for already finished elections like this that happened on another continent multiple years ago... wow. This cannot be a pillar of your lives for real. You cannot still be "It was her turn"ing from 2016 and 2024.
The argument A is great, and B is trash, ergo if people voted B it must be because they are bigoted A-ists or support trash, circularly depends on the worldview of person A's worldview to be right. At some point you will just realize the people voted B because they think B is good. Not because they think trash is good. Because they disagree earlier and think B isn't trash. Like please figure out that people just have different opinions.
|
You're not a sexist because your preferred candidate wasn't a woman. You're a sexist because you voted for a guy that bragged about casually sexually assaulting women and have quadrupled down at every possible opportunity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
