Hard Lessons to be Learned Before the Next Election

[Doktor Howl]

it looks like they lost a lot of votes because Leftists stayed home to me.

The term for this behavior is "being the architect of your own reward."

[Abbot Mythos]

-Creating and funding alternative media spaces online. You can't prop up the next Joe Rogan overnight, but you can start to cultivate and develop the next Ben Shapiro, Candance Owens, Tim Pool, ect. The problem right now is that the biggest left-of-center voices online are people like Hasan and Vaush who openly trash Democrats and Democratic candidates; Republican online streamers, podcasters, and posters are basically in a cult that bring in followers that will blindly support, vote for, and donate to your candidates. They need this structure of their own to prevent right wingers from completely dominating the medium.

I rarely leave the the confines of the internet, but I've noticed a couple of posts on the political sites I do frequent about Jeff Tiedrich being on Bluesky social media, and Bluesky itself.

I realize Tiedrich's style may not be for everyone, but what's your opinion about Bluesky as an "alternative media space online?"

[Abbot Mythos]

10. First impressions matter. Many voters may have little more than a first impression to utilize when judging a candidate's worthiness for office.

This particular article happened to remind me of my first impressions of Kamala Harris:

"Split ticket voters offer some bracing lessons for the Democratic Party"

"Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was surprised to see her New York 14th congressional district swing heavily toward Trump even as voters there showed strong support for her candidacy."

If you take the time to read this article, you'll find the reasons some voters "split their ticket" between AOC and TSF are varied. And, some of their reasons may not even make all that much sense.

Here's the link to this article, if you're interested:      Split Ticket Voters Offer Some Bracing Lessons

In truth, none of the "split ticket voters" mentioned in this particular article actually talked about their first impressions of Kamala Harris. But, it occurred to me that few voters are "political junkies" like myself. Many, if not the majority of voters, have probably spent no more than a few minutes of their time, over the course of the last four (4) years, even willingly paying any attention to Kamala Harris. So, all that type of voter really had to go on when weighing her worthiness for the office of POTUS amounted to little more than a first impression.

And, in truth, my first impressions of Kamala Harris were not at all favorable. I remember telling Mrs. Mythos, on more than one occasion before the 2020 election, that I expected the person one heartbeat away from the presidency of the United States to be able to do more than just sit and giggle with Rachel Maddow on TV. But, I did vote against TSF and whoever, and wished Joe Bidden a long and happy life. It took me a long time to realize that Kamala Harris was actually up to doing the VP's job. And, it was only then that was I satisfied she was ready to be president, if and when her time came.

Please don't mistake my little confession to mean that I think if Joe Biden had dropped out earlier, Kamala Harris could have won the election. No, I do not think that at all. What I think right now is that Kamala Harris was the wrong candidate for the Democratic Party. It didn't really matter that she's intelligent, she has the right experience, her heart is in the right place, her head is in the right place, her party's platform was far better, and she's superior to TSF in every way imaginable. She was simply a candidate the majority of voters were never going to take the time to know. And so, based upon what amounted to little more than a first impression, the majority of voters were not impressed.

[Abbot Mythos]

-Appeal to men. I hate to say it as a feminist, but they need to stop the bleeding and bring some back from voting red. Run macho man candidates in the midterms like when the DNC specifically recruited veterans for the 2006 midterms when the Iraq War was starting to become toxic politically. It'd also be smart to recruit Latino men to run in states like Florida, Texas, Arizona, ect.

You will, obviously, get no argument over this idea from me!

"Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be."
— Frank Zappa

[Pergamos]

it looks like they lost a lot of votes because Leftists stayed home to me.

The term for this behavior is "being the architect of your own reward."

Well sure, and you can be angry at folks who didn't vote all you want, but that doesn't inspire them to vote.  Meanwhile a candidate that actually speaks to their desires probably would.  Offering to put Republicans in the cabinet, pledging to be the toughest on immigration, and otherwise courting conservatives didn't get any of them to vote for her.

[Abbot Mythos]

-Let independents run opposition-free in GOP states. Independent Dan Osborn would have won the Nebraska Senate race if the national environment was like 2020. Don't run Dems in GOP states, it's a toxic brand. Let populist independents run against the GOP without a Dem stealing votes.

I don't totally agree with you on this idea, but it's a good idea nevertheless.

I disagree about not running Democrats at all in red states. I think the Democratic Party must continue to make its presence known in all fifty states. But, I do agree that being selective, and allowing acceptable independent candidates to run unopposed by the Democratic Party in some red states, is probably the best solution to the problem of having no real way of keeping some of these extreme MAGAt candidates from reaching elected office. (This idea is something I had never really thought about before now.)

And so, I think I've now responded to all of your talking points from your original post. But, I may still come back to some of them, from time to time, to preach some more.

I hope you've enjoyed this extended discussion of ours as much as I have.

[Mandelbrot Slapper]

Now me, I am all for abortion on demand. Tbh with you, there's a damn fine case to be made for it being compulsory for a lot of folk.

Your fascist tendencies are showing.

Compulsory abortion, like forced sterilization, belongs under the umbrella of eugenics.  Prohibiting abortions for those belonging to the superior breed of human is morally indistinguishable from mandating abortions for those you've decided are inferior.

I wouldn't be particularly surprised if you subscribe to the notion that criminality is inherited.

And retroactive in other cases.

Anyway back to my salient point because your inability to recognise low farce is frankly quite dull.

Maybe just maybe it is possible that the Tangerine Titwanker didn't win because suddenly after a couple of hundred years of the democracy thing 70 million NeoNazis registered to vote. Maybe the other candidate was just significantly shit.

Now stretch yourself a bit here Dok Whiney and see if you can't comprehend what this bit of satire is communicating.

https://youtu.be/MWSRgPpYKrg

[chaotic neutral observer]

Now me, I am all for abortion on demand. Tbh with you, there's a damn fine case to be made for it being compulsory for a lot of folk.

Your fascist tendencies are showing.

Compulsory abortion, like forced sterilization, belongs under the umbrella of eugenics.  Prohibiting abortions for those belonging to the superior breed of human is morally indistinguishable from mandating abortions for those you've decided are inferior.

I wouldn't be particularly surprised if you subscribe to the notion that criminality is inherited.

And retroactive in other cases.

Anyway back to my salient point because your inability to recognise low farce is frankly quite dull.

I didn't get the impression that your endorsement of eugenics constitutes low farce, and that is the only subject on which I've engaged with you.  Frankly, I'm not terribly interested in your "salient point".

Maybe just maybe it is possible that the Tangerine Titwanker didn't win because suddenly after a couple of hundred years of the democracy thing 70 million NeoNazis registered to vote. Maybe the other candidate was just significantly shit.

You sound like you're trying to rebut something I said, but I have not expressed any opinions regarding the cause of the election outcome.

Now stretch yourself a bit here Dok Whiney and see if you can't comprehend what this bit of satire is communicating.

Now the cause of your apparent non-sequiturs becomes clear.  I'm not Dok.  Maybe you replying to the wrong post?  Or you're confused about who is who?


Replying to the wrong post while not addressing its content doesn't seem like a winning strategy.

[Doktor Howl]

Now me, I am all for abortion on demand. Tbh with you, there's a damn fine case to be made for it being compulsory for a lot of folk.

Your fascist tendencies are showing.

Compulsory abortion, like forced sterilization, belongs under the umbrella of eugenics.  Prohibiting abortions for those belonging to the superior breed of human is morally indistinguishable from mandating abortions for those you've decided are inferior.

I wouldn't be particularly surprised if you subscribe to the notion that criminality is inherited.

And retroactive in other cases.

Anyway back to my salient point because your inability to recognise low farce is frankly quite dull.

I didn't get the impression that your endorsement of eugenics constitutes low farce, and that is the only subject on which I've engaged with you.  Frankly, I'm not terribly interested in your "salient point".

Maybe just maybe it is possible that the Tangerine Titwanker didn't win because suddenly after a couple of hundred years of the democracy thing 70 million NeoNazis registered to vote. Maybe the other candidate was just significantly shit.

You sound like you're trying to rebut something I said, but I have not expressed any opinions regarding the cause of the election outcome.

Now stretch yourself a bit here Dok Whiney and see if you can't comprehend what this bit of satire is communicating.

Now the cause of your apparent non-sequiturs becomes clear.  I'm not Dok.  Maybe you replying to the wrong post?  Or you're confused about who is who?


Replying to the wrong post while not addressing its content doesn't seem like a winning strategy.

That person doesn't know.  That person is confused.

However, it is the usual prog line:  "I can only punch directly to my right, so everyone to my right is a fascist."

It's basically a replay of the 2015 purity Olympics, and it's boring.

[Doktor Howl]

Now me, I am all for abortion on demand. Tbh with you, there's a damn fine case to be made for it being compulsory for a lot of folk.

You support culling people you consider inferiors?

Sorry, for a moment I was calling you a prog.

You're not.

You're a full-out fucking Nazi.

[Abbot Mythos]

11. The best any Democratic candidate can hope to do in any red state is to "neutralize" the gun issue.

Fondling a gun is the same to a self-proclaimed macho 'Merican man as a security blanket is to a toddler. For the gun fondlers, horrific civilian gun violence is an acceptable consequence of the near unlimited availability of all types of guns, gun accessories, and ammunition.

I believe the Harris campaign wisely did their best to make guns a non-issue in this last election. I write this because, typically there is a big run on gun and ammo purchases prior to a presidential election. But, that did not happen this time around.

Once again, I do believe, and will continue to preach, "An ounce of image is worth a pound of performance." My ideal image for a Democratic candidate seeking election in red states, is to be a target shooter who packs a firing replica of a Colt Army Model 1860 cap & ball .44 caliber revolver. And, when being photographed at the shooting range, the candidate will be dressed in jeans, a flannel shirt, etc. This image is guaranteed to make the gun fondlers associate the candidate positively with both the Old West, and Dirty Harry.

Now, don't get me wrong, the gun fondlers are still not going to vote for a Democrat. But, at least, they won't whine as much about "their guns being taken away" to other people who might vote for a Democratic candidate.

[Sophia the Altered]

I like your idea. And, I especially like the idea of possibly creating a Countercult™ to the Republicult™.

So, who, what, or where do you think is the best starting point(s) for getting this off the ground?

The Resistance 2.0...

The worst part about this is that I think Destiny is the best bet at this going forward, because Destiny is one thing above all else right now: a blind partisan to the Democratic Party and that's what is needed. No wishy-washy carpetbagging principled leftists like Hasan or Vaush who spend months relentlessly shitting on the Democrats and their candidates up until one week before the election where they go "umm yeah well like it's best to vote for them but yeah they suck, don't they? " It needs to be actual propaganda. Extremism sells. And it can't be guys like Pod Save America, they're just too establishment.

Ideally, you find some relatively apolitical streamer or YouTuber and start to make them your next Rogan (apolitical, but will platform your guys in interviews, videos, streams, ect.) like Rogan or Adin Ross while having a separate network of propagandists like Destiny, Cenk Uygur, David Pakman, and so on. The "Hot Ones" guy refuses to have politicians on like an asshole, but he's like the perfect example. Have him be "apolitical" and build up an audience of millions and then shove your guys in front of there for basically free advertising and PR to normies while you have your propaganda network building up a base of loyal, devout voters and donors. As for actual examples, I don't know if Binging with Babish is big enough, but they should be trying to do stuff like that too, or gaming with xQc, Kai Cenat, IShowSpeed, ect. But you can't reward disloyal people like Hasan. They've already extended to Twitch so they're in the right mindset. Tim Walz livestreamed himself playing Crazy Taxi on the Sega Dreamcast with AOC, and hell I believe Bernie has a Twitch account himself. They just need to go further with their efforts in a more discreet way.

[Abbot Mythos]

I like your idea. And, I especially like the idea of possibly creating a Countercult™ to the Republicult™.

So, who, what, or where do you think is the best starting point(s) for getting this off the ground?

The Resistance 2.0...

The worst part about this is that I think Destiny is the best bet at this going forward, because Destiny is one thing above all else right now: a blind partisan to the Democratic Party and that's what is needed. No wishy-washy carpetbagging principled leftists like Hasan or Vaush who spend months relentlessly shitting on the Democrats and their candidates up until one week before the election where they go "umm yeah well like it's best to vote for them but yeah they suck, don't they? " It needs to be actual propaganda. Extremism sells. And it can't be guys like Pod Save America, they're just too establishment.

Ideally, you find some relatively apolitical streamer or YouTuber and start to make them your next Rogan (apolitical, but will platform your guys in interviews, videos, streams, ect.) like Rogan or Adin Ross while having a separate network of propagandists like Destiny, Cenk Uygur, David Pakman, and so on. The "Hot Ones" guy refuses to have politicians on like an asshole, but he's like the perfect example. Have him be "apolitical" and build up an audience of millions and then shove your guys in front of there for basically free advertising and PR to normies while you have your propaganda network building up a base of loyal, devout voters and donors. As for actual examples, I don't know if Binging with Babish is big enough, but they should be trying to do stuff like that too, or gaming with xQc, Kai Cenat, IShowSpeed, ect. But you can't reward disloyal people like Hasan. They've already extended to Twitch so they're in the right mindset. Tim Walz livestreamed himself playing Crazy Taxi on the Sega Dreamcast with AOC, and hell I believe Bernie has a Twitch account himself. They just need to go further with their efforts in a more discreet way.

I admit, I'm not even vaguely familiar with Destiny. The only podcaster, or streamer you've mentioned who I've ever watched is Cenk Uygur. I've heard David Pakman's name, but I don't recall ever watching him.

So, I've got some serious catching up to do.

[Sophia the Altered]

I admit, I'm not even vaguely familiar with Destiny. The only podcaster, or streamer you've mentioned who I've ever watched is Cenk Uygur. I've heard David Pakman's name, but I don't recall ever watching him.

So, I've got some serious catching up to do.

I envy you. I wish I could not be as terminally online as I am.

I realize Tiedrich's style may not be for everyone, but what's your opinion about Bluesky as an "alternative media space online?"

I have a Bluesky account myself and it's a much better version of Twitter. It was dead before, but the platform's userbase has increased massively due to a multitude of factors (Trump winning the election, artists involuntarily having their content used as data to train Twitter's shitty "Grok" AI, Musk ruining the block function to spy on his ex-wife and daughter's posts, and so on). It resembles Twitter before Musk utterly butchered it and for some people, that's good enough. For me, the best part is leaving behind the god forsaken reactionaries and bots that have plagued the site for years. It's a breath of fresh air not seeing mouthbreathers with checkmarks on the top of the reply list for every single post.

But, all in all, I don't care for the website that much, nor do I wish to suck it off. I dislike social media as a concept and the main reason I've looked at either is because that's where a majority of artists migrated to ever since Tumblr banned porn. But I do appreciate Bluesky for what it does. One of its official accounts said it won't use art to train any generative AIs and honestly, that's good enough for me.

I sincerely hope the Democrats filibuster like mad, it's not their style, but it could happen.

It's their only option at this point until the midterms. I'll be surprised if they don't, but we'll have to wait and see. I'll hold off on dooming.

I disagree about not running Democrats at all in red states. I think the Democratic Party must continue to make its presence known in all fifty states. But, I do agree that being selective, and allowing acceptable independent candidates to run unopposed by the Democratic Party in some red states, is probably the best solution to the problem of having no real way of keeping some of these extreme MAGAt candidates from reaching elected office. (This idea is something I had never really thought about before now.)

I wrote that block of text while still emotionally charged about the election two weeks ago, but thinking more clearly, yeah we shouldn't go full scorched earth over it.

And so, I think I've now responded to all of your talking points from your original post. But, I may still come back to some of them, from time to time, to preach some more.

I hope you've enjoyed this extended discussion of ours as much as I have.

I have, don't worry. It's nice to make a contribution to this niche little corner of the internet.

[Abbot Mythos]

This long "Election 2024 Postmortem" repeats many of the popular talking points of all the other media postmortems currently out there. But, there is something in this one that caught my attention:

"Where Do We Go From Here?"
 
"The New Republic's staffers grapple with Donald Trump's victory—and how Democrats should respond."

As per this article:

"Winning Back the Working Class

After the 2024 election, do the Democrats remain the party of the working class? Yes and no.

Despite Republican gains with working-class voters, the Democrats remain the only mainstream party that cares about working-class issues. Even granting the party's reorientation in recent decades toward centrist suburbanites and cosmopolitan city-dwellers—what Thomas Piketty calls the "Brahmin Left"—Democratic administrations still promote union rights, a living wage, and worker safety. Republican administrations, including Trump's earlier one, oppose all three.

The working class only sometimes rewards this Democratic Party with actual votes. The 2024 presidential election was the third in a row in which Democrats failed to win a majority of the working class, which is defined conventionally as those lacking a bachelor's degree. That matters because, over the past century, no Democrat except Joe Biden has won the White House without a working-class majority.

In 2024, the problem got a lot worse. Hillary Clinton lost working-class voters by 3 percentage points yet won the popular vote; Biden lost them by 4 yet won the presidency and the popular vote; preliminary estimates show Kamala Harris losing working-class voters by 14 points and losing the popular vote.

That isn't unprecedented for Democrats: Working-class voters have always been somewhat fickle. Even during the heyday of the New Deal coalition, Democrat Adlai Stevenson lost the working class by 14 points in 1952 and nearly 18 points in 1956. Democrat George McGovern lost it by 30 points in 1972, and Walter Mondale lost it by 16 in 1984. But those were all routs. A new era may be dawning when Democrats lose big with working-class voters even when they lose the popular vote by a mere 3 or 4 points."

Here's the link to this article:      New Republic Asks, Where Do We Go From Here?

And, once again, I do believe, and will continue to preach, "An ounce of image is worth a pound of performance." Adlai Stevenson did not have the image, but General Dwight D. Eisenhower did. George McGovern did not have the image, but Tricky Dick Nixon did. Walter Mondale did not have the image, but Hollywood Ronald Reagan did.