Outlaw83
30d ago
As a leftist/social democratic, there are no puppet masters. It's always weird when people assume the other side are these insane puppet master, wielding superpowers that can't be stopped. The left was like this for a long time as well, and it was annoying then. Karl Rove wasn't some Sith Lord, he was just pretty good at his job.
Like guys, there is no secret decoder ring. If anything, we on the left complain about how bad we're at politics as much as you guys do, because neither side thinks they're winning.
it would have been 2008 with Trump taking the L for COVID happening in his watch just like 2008 was a blowout
I'm always interested when people assume this - in every other country, regardless of ideology, the incumbent leadership gained a huge advantage, and many of them won big electoral victories. Now, inflation and other issues have run some of those politicians aground, but in 2020, they were all very popular. The only reason Trump didn't get that was not that the left would not give him any credit (see various Republican governors who had insanely high approval ratings during COVID), it's he did a terrible job, outside of the one thing his base now hates (Operation Warp Speed).
I do think a non-COVID 2020 election would've been interesting, because Trump would've had a good economy, but it was basically just the late-era Obama economy continuing, there would've been no checks going out to low-info voters, and many things people on this forum like Trump that normies don't would've been a bigger deal. I also think there might've been a bigger move among the center-right to basically sit out things, especially the people who got radicalized by COVID and then supported Trump/DeSantis/etc. harder than they would've before.
I don't mean famous people, but the owner of a HVAC company in suburban Michigan whose kind of annoyed by Trump, dislikes immigration, but also dislikes that he tired to repeal Obamacare, but hated that the country was shut down, and like the PPP loan he got. Without the latter, maybe he doesn't vote for Biden, but does he turn out for Trump?
Let me start this by saying Trump could totally win with a hiccup in the economy, Biden looking old at the wrong moment, something going really bad in foreign policy, or something else off.
But, where are you seeing this idea the Democratic ground game in shambles? In reality, in basically every special election for the past few years, plus the midterms, the Democrat's have run past their prior margins, including just this past week, winning a Trump +1 state legislative seat in suburban Huntsville by twenty five points.
In addition, Biden just raised $25 million in one night, with a plan to actually get a healthy bit of funding out to state parties, all while many Republican state parties, including swing states like Michigan and Arizona, are either in feuds with each over who is actually in control of the state party, is basically in a deep fundraising hole, or in some cases, both.
Also, Trump's own small donor fundraising has fallen apart, which is why, along with the whole needing money for legal bills, is why all of the sudden he's friendlier with Chamber of Commerce types, and has done things like talk about being OK with entitlement cuts, and totally flipped on TikTok, once a billionaire with a stake in ByteDance got close to him.
Plus, on the actual primaries, even in closed primary states after Haley dropped out, she was still getting 15-20% of the vote in some of these places. Now, I don't that's representative of actually 20% of the GOP voter base, but in a close election, you need every voter you can possibly get.
As far as the polling goes, it is interesting - all the polls are showing the biggest shift since the Civil Rights Act with Trump supposedly winning 25-30% of the black vote, straight up winning the Hispanic vote, and either winning or getting close with the youth vote, but the other thing people don't mention because it make things look even weirder, is these polls usually show, because otherwise Trump would be up by like 10, is Biden is somehow turning around 30 years of movement, and winning older white voters.
Now, maybe that's happening.
But, we're not seeing this shift among non-white voters in special elections, and even in 2022, the only real shifts to the right happened in Florida, along the Texas border, and in some deep blue parts of NY & CA, all while the national vote for both African-American & Hispanic voters basically stayed steady from 2020.
In addition, polls that oversample black, Hispanic, and youth voters to get more than just a subsample with a higher margin of error show numbers much closer to 2020 & 2022.
Again, Trump can win. I even think he could get to 15% of the black vote and 45% of the Hispanic vote. The issue is, in places like the Atlanta, Dallas, Milwaukee, etc. suburbs, the bottom is falling out of the suburban vote, especially among women who are turned off by Trump, then got turned off by Dobbs. Plus, there's a new generation of 30-something's coming to the suburbs, and they're more diverse, and less conservative than the prior generation.
But, my personal belief, is here are the actual most likely results of the 2020 election.
-
2020 redux - it turns out, most people haven't shifted their views
-
Trump inside straight redux of 2016 - slight turnoff shift by minority voters, youth vote dropoff, etc.
-
Big Biden win - what happened to rural voters among Democrat's in the past few decades happens to the GOP among suburban voters, there's more Haley voters/supporters who decide not to turnout, Trump's non-voter base that he turned out in 2016 & 2020 have gotten bored, and the Genocide Joe types are overstated on Twitter, and it turns out young single women care more about abortion than whether Biden is old or Doordash delivery is more expensive.
Outlaw83
30d ago
Yup, I have sympathy w/ pharma companies over R&D costs. I don't have sympathy for all the TV, magazine, and online commercials they run. The only downside is we might have a flood of unemployed attractive, moderately intelligent women from various sororities around the country if pharma has less marketing dollars.
Outlaw83
1mo ago
Yes, imagine something in media doing a 'serial number filed off' story of a very prominent person currently in society, done to affect the public image of that person - god knows that's something new and never done before.
Obviously, I'm not saying Knives Out is equal to Citizen Kane, but this is nothing new, and people who were on the side of those being put in less than a fantastic light in past times didn't react well back then, or think said portrayal was actually good - Hearst famously basically tried to ruin Welle's career.
Again, none of this is new - it's just people you're closer to supporting than prominent media creators are the ones getting their ox gored, and just like all of history, you're claiming it's a terrible, bad portrayal.
Outlaw83
1mo ago
Interesting polling shows weirdly, conservatives are most likely to think Israeli civilians are valid Hamas targets, conservative students are more likely to avoid Jews because of Israel, conservatives are less likely to see anti-semitism as a problem in American society. Now, there's some interesting stuff about how Jewish students feel on campus, but the idea it's progressives are the leading edge of general Jewish hatred.
He is a public figure, due to the coverage of what happened. Like, I'm sure there were parodies, TV films, and episodes of TV based off Scott & Laci Peterson. Those were not public figures initially either, and I'm sure not all of the above took great care, but they were OK. Ironically, if the right-wing press hadn't made such a martyr out of him, there'd be a slightly better case. Not enough to do anything about it, as 1st Amendment laws are fairly clear about this.
Outlaw83
1mo ago
Does everybody involved in 'ripped from the headlines' that Law & Order made more salacious deserve 500k then? Because there are plenty of otherwise unknown people that L&O, and L&O:SVU adjusted stories about. Hell, SVU was even crazier at times, due to it being about sexual violence cases.
Also, as a white male, I don't feel portrayed as a Nazi, because other than my skin, there's nothing connecting me with Daniel Perry, and unless I missed something, there was no implication white men are like this, generally. On the other hand, OK, if you're a reactionary who thinks urban streets need to be cleaned up like an 80's Death Wish sequel, then you might feel aggrieved.
Outlaw83
1mo ago
Yup, I was going to point this out. This is what Law & Order does. It has from the start. If Daniel Perry has a case, literally dozens of 'normal' people whose story got big from the media have cases as well.
Outlaw83
1mo ago
Every single "Ripped from the Headlines" Law & Order story in many cases is more salacious than the actual case is almost 100% of the time. Because even 'ripped from the headlines' stories are sometimes not tight stories for a 43-minute show on network TV.
The only reason you're seemingly upset about this portrayal, which from your description, is no less over the top than other 'ripped from the headlines' story I remember from when I watched the show, as opposed to the other portrayals of criminals, is you don't think Daniel Perry is a criminal and is instead, a hero. Welcome to being for criminal justice reform then, I guess.
Also, the actual reason Law & Order moved from more realistic crime stories in it's first couple of seasons to basically ripped from the headlines and rich people doing terrible stuff wasn't wokeness - it's that the over the top stuff got more viewers.
Outlaw83
1mo ago
I generally prefer my TV shows to have shades of grey in them (BSG, GoT, The Expanse come to mind).
Most people, especially the older people still watching network TV, don't. That's why shows like Bluebloods, FBI, 9 different CSI and NCIS's are all on the air and more popular than 99% of shows that get Emmy's.
Outlaw83
1mo ago
I mean, the pro-life side has tried the whole "show pictures of fetuses after abortions" in ads and such, and it hasn't seemed to work. Even low-info people understand that medical procedures are messy. Hell, if I was an enterprising liberal media type, I'd take a video of some perfectly benign medical procedure, chop it in a way it could be seen as possibly a late term abortion, then go to a pro-life rally, and see what reactions I could get.
Because once a baby is born, the rest of society can step in, not while it's still in the mother's womb, and we've decided it's bad to force a woman to go through a pregnancy when it might affect her mentally or physically, only for a child to barely survive or only survive for hours or days.
Well, I'm not a doctrinaire libertarian, but neither are most American's, but most Americans have an undercurrent of 'don't tell me what to do', which makes life difficult for both lefties like me and social conservatives. But, I'm happy to use the libertarian-style argument when it's to my advantage.
Ironically, though, government licensure is why people both want the government to make sure a hairdresser isn't a fly by night operator (especially for more complicated things a guy like me with short hair doesn't understand) and why they think it's OK for a doctor, who has been licensed by the government to make a decision, with a woman when it comes to reproductive choice, instead of getting the OK from a panel of conservative politicians who were formerly used car salesmen, dentists, and McDonald franchise owners.
Outlaw83
1mo ago
I mean, any smart pro-choice person can make the late term abortion argument - "Almost all late term abortions are tragic situations where there is no other choice, and it's sad religious extremists want to make these women jump through hoops to appease their own doctrines. Like most American's, I trust women and their doctor to make the right choice for them, as opposed to thinking they need to fulfill whatever those who have already openly said they want to ban all abortions want them to do."
Then, depending on the audience, maybe throwing in a crack that Republican's want it to be more difficult for a woman and a doctor to come to a conclusion about an abortion than for a teenager to get an assault rifle.
Outlaw83
1mo ago
This is sort of the problem for the pro-life argument. There are basically zero 'oops, let's not have a baby' decisions in month eight of pregnancy, and as you said, there are basically no doctors willing to do that. Almost all late term abortions are terrible tragedies and incredibly sad situations, and pro-lifers look bad when they try to make some poor woman jump through a bunch of hoops to appease their religious beliefs, instead of trusting a couple (far more women with partners have abortions than you think) and a doctor all not to be blood hungry monsters desperate to kill a baby.
Even most second trimester abortions outside of medically necessary ones are because a lack of money to afford the abortion in the first trimester or some sort of waiting period or lack of access, as opposed to somebody suddenly deciding they don't want a baby after four months.
Outlaw83
1mo ago
So, the Europe thing is a dodge.
In a sense, some Western European countries are more strict about abortion, but not in reality. As a 'up until birth' pro-choicer, if the GOP position on abortion was unlimited abortion on demand in the first three months at any hospital paid for by the government, then basically incredibly socially liberal judges giving OK to later term abortions via giant loopholes, then yes, that'd be an election winner.
The problem, is Republican's idea of 'moderate' restrictions are all the downsides of European restrictions plus the supply side restrictions that make it difficult to keep a clinic open plus waiting periods and so forth.
If the choice was European abortion laws vs blue state abortion laws, European abortion laws would win. But, the GOP isn't putting forth European abortion laws. It's putting forth unpopular restrictions, being backed by people who have talked about completely banning abortions.
Plus, again, there is a very American-style libertarian defense of expansive abortion laws - 'we trust women and doctors with their reproductive freedom. Have an abortion or don't have an abortion, that's your choice. Meanwhile, the Republican's want to make a government small enough to get between your doctor, yourself, and your own beliefs, because they think they know better than you.'
Outlaw83
1mo ago
The problem is Trump regularly talks about being the one who put the three judges who turned Roe on the court during speeches, since he's been told it's a big deal, and he like that he did a big thing. Not because he's a committed pro-lifer, but because he likes having accomplishments. It's why he still talks about the vaccine, even though it's unpopular among his own base.
Plus, to a certain extent, it's actually the reverse, among say, secular non-college educated Obama/Trump voters in the Midwest. You remind them a lot of the Republican Party they're now voting for are weirdos who want to stick their noses in your sisters or daughter's personal life, and go from there. Maybe you don't get them to vote for Biden, but you get them to stay home.
Outlaw83
1mo ago
I mean, the problem for pro-lifers is the vast majority of moderates are OK with "oops, the condom broke or I forgot my birth control" when it's their daughter, sister, et al whose about to go to college, and tells them they missed their period. Which is why in every single vote on the matter, no matter how extreme the pro-choice bill is written, it passes. Even in places like Kentucky, Kansas, and Montana.
Because yes, American's may not like 'up 'til birth' extremists like me (because I trust women and doctors not to be crazy), but if given a choice between me or the median pro-lifer who wants to ban abortion after six weeks, they'll choose no limits every damn time.
Outlaw83
1mo ago
The problem with 'returning it to the states' is if you're a purple state Republican, you get questions about what Alabama is doing, and how can we trust you not to do the same?
The normal voter does not care about federalism.
All they know is they hear a lot about Republican's wanting to ban abortion, and perhaps more importantly, every prominent Republican, outside of the 10 most liberal states, have talked their whole careers about abortion. It's kind of hard for a voter to suddenly believe candidates they only want reasonable exceptions when they've desperately tried to get the endorsement from every organization that talks about all abortions being murder since Roe v Wade.
It also doesn't help that those restrictions may be popular in theory, but not when people believe they're the first step to total bans.
Outlaw83
1mo ago
You basically hit on all the major parts. An erotic thriller was an actual big deal, even in 1991, especially if you were say a married middle-class man who couldn't really get away to watch porn on your own, while today, that same married middle class guy has a world of porn at his fingertips. But also yes, if you're selling to a worldwide audience, you can't upset anybody.
I will point on the celebrity thing, another thing is if you're a famous woman, you have alternatives to be sexual, where you make the money. For instance, instead of posting for Rolling Stone or whatever, Rhianna makes her own lingerie line, is one of the models for it, and so on. The actual reality is, the actual amount of nudity and sexuality among famous women is about the same as in 1993, it's just centered about celebrities who actually want to do it, as oppose to those felt they are forced to do it to get a roll.
Which explains Game of Thrones or more accurately, many cable dramas. There'll be far more sex scenes and nudity in the first season or two, because the actresses don't have the power to say no to a gratuitous nude scene. Even if you aren't well-paid by the 2nd or 3rd season, you're now plot important to a show that has a plan, so you have the leverage to say no. Also, even putting that aside, there's no need for the random nudity to bring people in at that point.
Outlaw83
3mo ago
Yes, this past decade or so has been that very specific political moment I'm talking about. By 2028, it'll be over, outside of Trump.
If Hillary had done a little better on Super Tuesday in '08, maybe she's the nominee, picks Obama, and either she loses in 2012 in Romney and Obama comes back to win in 2016 or she's a two-term incumbent, Obama's the obvious nominee, and so on.
Outlaw83
3mo ago
Lots of fairly educated middle-class women in comfortable air-conditioned suburbia with nothing to do, meant there was far more time to start reading Betty Friedan (or becoming her in the first place), because your house is comfortable, you have less housework to do, and there's no danger of ending up with six kids.
I think though, this is somewhat overrated - like OK, you hate modern feminism, fine. But, even the vast majority of tradcath mothers with six children in rural Iowa would find the America of say, 1970 insanely sexist. So, I'd say the conditions were ripe, especially in a society with the founding myth of equality America has.
Outlaw83
3mo ago
There won't be nostalgia for the bad things, just like there's no nostalgia over the Rodney King riots or the OKC bombing, but for the aesthetic, and how it was better for reasons. It'll just be nostalgia for Fortnite, whatever shows on Netflix teens like these days, maybel Marvel, and the styles of the time.
As a side note, nobody was under lockdown for 3 years in the US. I'm in one of the most blue parts of America, and even here, things were fairly normal by summer/fall of 2021 as far as places being open and being able to go to them. Yes, mask mandates were longer and concerts checked for vaccines longer, and you can dislike that, but saying there were three years of gov't lockdown is just a lie.
Outlaw83
3mo ago
I'm going to be blunt here - the reason why there's current nostalgia for the 90's, is that is now the age where middle-aged people were now children. Shockingly, about a decade ago, there was nostalgia for the 80's, including I'm sure paens to how the culture was better then as well, because everybody, even libs, didn't like the Commies or whatever.
Also, as somebody who was alive during the 90's, there were many, many, many, many social conservatives upset about the current state of things at the time, and looked toward the prior generation of pre-11/22/1963, just like the current middle-aged people look to a pre-9/11 age. Oh, wow, groups of people looking back around 30 years to an imagined past. Weird how that continually happens.
There will be people upset about whatever in 2050, who will talk about the 2020's as a golden time. Hell, there was nostalgia for the Depression as people freaked about how teenagers had freedom and such in the late 50's and early 60's.
Outlaw83
3mo ago
From the outside, that was maybe more true under this place's prior home, but I think there are far more just out and out right-wingers or more accurately, people who have become more right-wing over time. Sure, there are some Grey Tribe or whatever people still here, but many of the comments here, policy-wise, when American politics come up, are just a more erudite version of the comments under any National Review or Federalist article.
No, it's mostly a bunch of weird situations and specific political moments.
In 2028, yes, if Trump doesn't win in 2024 is alive and out of prison (or maybe if he is in prison), he'll run again.
Otherwise, on the GOP side, you'll have a bunch of normal-aged politicians like DeSantis, Noem, Kim Reynolds, Stefanik, Abbott, Vance, on the GOP side who are all normal politicians ages.
Same thing on the DNC side - Kamala, Whitmer, Shaprio, Walz, Newsom, AOC.
Again, like or don't like these people, but they're all normal politicians ages. Same thing with the House & Senate leadership. Jefferies & Mike Johnson are normal political ages. Schumer & McConnell will be both are on their way out in the next 2-4 years.
Putting aside Trump, outside of him, I'll bet you a Trading Spaces dollar both nominees are under 70.
I guarantee you that almost every swing Tory-Labour in the UK, Liberal-Conservative in Canada, or Labour-National in the New Zealand hasn't suddenly decided COVID policies were the wrong way to go.
They think, "it was good we got checks and didn't go crazy like the American's did opening up so soon, but bad prices rose."
Meanwhile, part of the reason, outside of general two party dominance that despite his current not great approval ratings, Biden is still outpacing most other incumbent world leaders is because regardless of what the Right and Left both think, the economy is currently the best in the world and inflation is amongst the lowest.
More options
Context Copy link