Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Those of you who live in the seven swing states get to see the commercials and have a vote that matters. I did see a few commercials, but whoever paid for that was squandering money.

I tried to find the most impactful commercial, but could not. It starts with Harris, not clear in what capacity, talking to a trans woman at something called (I think) Transnation. She assures the person she made it so tax dollars will pay for sex change operation for inmates. It then cuts to two young black men on a talk show talking about how they are not okay with tax dollars being used for sex realignment surgery. AND they don’t want their daughters having to play sports against men. Then it switches to an image that is a man with a beard who must be 40 and probably 6’ 5” in a basketball uniform with what seem to be her junior high girl team mates.

The point was to drive votes, and in particular black male votes to Trump. Or at least to cause them not to vote.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Maybe Dems have lost workers, but they've definitely lost Silicon Valley billionaires. I'm much more concerned about those people's ability to shape "worker's" beliefs than I am whether Dem policy and messaging appeals to "workers."

More than two decades ago, anti-immigration nonsense was standard fodder for the comment sections of econ blogs, even while the authors of those blogs held more sophisticated views. Watching how the most base of those opinions has become the majority view of the right has been frustrating and confusing.

Elon, Thiel, Ellison, Andreesen, Zuck, Bezos el all know that's nonsense, but it helps them elect the guy who won't bother them and apparently do not care who it hurts.

When Sebby posts about how liberals/lefties see the world I don’t take it as accurate about Ty or RT, but he has you nailed. Do you actually know any people who are in labor jobs? Ever known any? You don’t, no matter what you say.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Maybe Dems have lost workers, but they've definitely lost Silicon Valley billionaires. I'm much more concerned about those people's ability to shape "worker's" beliefs than I am whether Dem policy and messaging appeals to "workers."

Then we're all fucked, because figuring out how to bring those billionaires back into the fold is not the path to any kind of political success.

eta: I do think the media environment is a huge thing to solve, and the best thing I've seen about that is this piece by Brian Beutler.

A taste:

Every honest person working in politics, including the remaining few honest Republicans, knows which party is mission-driven to help working-class people directly, and which party is not. Some of these Republicans might claim to believe that the GOP’s austere, plutocratic goals are in the long-run interest of the working class; that catering to the productive rich produces trickle down benefits for those who pick themselves up by the bootstraps, etc. But everyone at the professional level knows the score: When Democrats win power, they reach for levers that direct more economic and political support to they working class. They reach for the minimum wage (though have lacked the votes to overcome a filibuster), for food support, for improving health and child benefits, and so on. Republicans reach for tax cuts and deregulation.

Thus, it should not be controversial to stipulate here that if working-class people without firm partisan attachments studied and understood these two parties and their budgets, they’d view Democrats as the better steward of their interests every time. They’d never drift secularly toward the GOP.

But of course, that’s exactly what’s happened.

So what’s gone wrong then? As I see it, at least one of these things is true:

1. Working Americans either can’t perceive the differences between Democrats and Republicans because Democrats don’t deliver enough, or workers don’t think the Democratic agenda is sufficiently better than the GOP agenda to merit partisan loyalty. The Democratic agenda lacks zhuzh or oomph, or ideal indicators of class-based solidarity. Without radical change, workers will vote on other bases.
2. Too many working Americans don’t know elemental facts about the parties’ economic commitments. The problem is mostly about information. Perhaps a weakness in Democratic messaging or a triumph of obfuscatory right-wing propaganda or a combination of the two.
3. People’s perceptions of the economy don’t form solely on the basis of their material well-being—they can be made to feel insecure or aggrieved even when their standards of living are on the rise.
4. The theory is wrong—working class people do not dependably cast votes on a single-issue class basis. Improving their understanding of the differences between the parties through platform changes, policy reforms, and/or better messaging will not translate into a political re-realignment.
There may be some merit in all of these, but I believe this election strained the first explanation to its breaking point. And if the story is mostly a mix of 2, 3, and 4, the counsel is similar: flood the information zone, ideally with credible messengers. Either you need these voters to absorb the binary truth about partisans politics and the material state of the world, or you need them to like you on other bases, or both. And the only way to do that is to clean up misperceptions with constant reminders. That is, through media. ...

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Then we're all fucked, because figuring out how to bring those billionaires back into the fold is not the path to any kind of political success.

eta: I do think the media environment is a huge thing to solve, and the best thing I've seen about that is this piece by Brian Beutler.

A taste:

Drivel. Occam’s Razor applies.

Minority voters finally grasped that neither of these parties really cares about them. But under Trump, they’ve got a better chance of making it.

Making it is a term of art here.

People don’t want a handout or a socialized system that helps them. They want a chance. The Democrats continue to think the poor are rational handout junkies. “If we just give them something, as Cass Sunstein says, they’ll be properly nudged.”

Your party’s problem is it thinks the American Dream is about comfort. Ya dumb fucks. If were that, this place would’ve collapsed decades ago.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Drivel. Occam’s Razor applies.

Minority voters finally grasped that neither of these parties really cares about them. But under Trump, they’ve got a better chance of making it.

Making it is a term of art here.

People don’t want a handout or a socialized system that helps them. They want a chance. The Democrats continue to think the poor are rational handout junkies. “If we just give them something, as Cass Sunstein says, they’ll be properly nudged.”

Your party’s problem is it thinks the American Dream is about comfort. Ya dumb fucks. If were that, this place would’ve collapsed decades ago.

In other words, Beutler's #2. Got it.

eta: Your use of "socialized" in this context is, clinically, bullshit. Look it up, if you must.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The Democrats continue to think the poor are rational handout junkies.

Almost zero democrats think that.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

In other words, Beutler's #2. Got it.

eta: Your use of "socialized" in this context is, clinically, bullshit. Look it up, if you must.

You keep telling yourself that.

The Ds' messaging worked. People understood that they were offering more safety nets, a more managed European economy, etc. Nobody missed this. They rejected it. Different thing.

Call them fools for this. See how that works for the Democratic Party. Being scolds has delivered brilliantly for it so far.

Unions, for example, spoke very clearly, and rationally. They preferred to get more projects, more work, that they believe they will receive under Trump, based on Trump's past time in office. This may be a wise or very unwise bet. But it's not a result of "misinformation." They aren't rubes. They just see it differently than, say, the average "intellectual yet idiot" at the top of the Democratic Party hierarchy.

I know, I know... It's all so unfair. The hoi polloi defied their betters. How dare they!

Customer's Always Right. The Ds couldn't close. No coffee for the Ds, and no steak knives. Trump gets the Cadillac, the Ds get fired. Don't like it? Sell something more people want to buy and maybe the results will be different. Or keep telling the people you're trying to sell to that they're fools or deluded if they don't buy what you're offering. People love that approach.

"You won't come home with me? Well, you just don't know how much better I am in bed than anyone else in this bar! Your loss." Works every time.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I did not. Not on the Twitter much anymore. What did he say?

I don't give RFK Jr. very long in whatever role he craves, because his usefulness to Trump is over and his thirst for publicity will threaten the Orange One.

eta: A hugely important dynamic going forward will be that Trump will be term-limited, but will try to retain his top-banana status nonetheless, and will feel threatened by all the jockeying among conservatives to position themselves for a post-Trump world. It was a problem for W., too, and he was not nearly as sensitive about threats to his status as Trump is. J.D. Vance will be a big problem for Trump, because he can't fire him.

Agreed. The easiest way to get rid of Musk, for example, will be to continuously ask Trump about what Musk thinks of his policies or if he went through Musk first. Neither likes being number two. Throw Peter Thiel in the mix and we have an entertaining ego-off, if the stakes weren't so damned high.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

A lot to digest here.