I mean, Harris was here in Austin a few days before the election, which made no sense from an electoral standpoint. It was probably less a 50-state approach than a scheduling flub indicative of the incompetence of her campaign, but still, she was here.
I wonder if she made any stops in Wyoming or Montana during the campaign.
And I don't think they will in 2028 either. Certainly none of the people above will, because even if they did, they wouldn't believe it, and therefore wouldn't be able to sell it.
Obviously, this is not a problem for the Right. Trump has shown over the years that what MAGA looks like, in its actual ideas, such as they are, is irrelevant, and can change at any point. What matters is that it breeds fear and nationalist pride, maybe with some cultural nostalgia thrown in. This allows any random Republican to join in and say whatever they want as long as it sounds touch and breeds fear or pride or makes people miss a time when the gays weren't so visible.
The biggest difference I think voters see between Trump and Not Trump is not so much that Trump is selling a revanchist, nationalist, authoritarianism, but that he's selling something, anything, to people who felt like neither party, outside of Trump, was selling much of anything. How bad must things be for people that selling anything, even far right authoritarianism, is better than selling nothing? Bad enough, I'd wager, that a bunch of Not Trump candidates with nothing to sell have little chance of defeating anyone in the Trump mold in 2028, so long as Trump hasn't plunged us into the apocalypse between now and then.
I keep harping on this point, but the Democrats had their own candidate selling things that were not revanchist, were not nationalist, and were not authoritarian, and that could have had a huge impact on people's lives, but the Democrats thoroughly defeated him, to the point that he's now basically exiled, touring the Midwest giving speeches to overflow crowds who want to hear his message of a social democratic change that makes the government work for them, and not for the wealthy.
I know the most popular narrative around here is that the Democrats lost because they went too far left, but do you think people who were offered the choice between a nihilistic billionaire authoritarian who did a half-assed coup attempt and then spent the last 4 years treating becoming president again as an opportunity to get personal revenge, whatever the cost to the American people, and somebody who tells them they should never have to go bankrupt because they or a family member got sick, and that billionaires should pay their fair share of taxes, are going to choose the former because of pronouns in people's email signatures and a half a dozen trans college athletes?
2025-03-13 11:55:46
With the exception of Newsom, who is a proper ghoul, devoid of anything resembling a conscience, this looks like the most boring stable of candidates possible, comprised people who will run almost entirely on the message "Hey, at least we're not Trump!"
Wouldn't it be nice if there were potential presidential candidates in the party who had ideas, principles, even a message? That there aren't is an indictment of the entire party. The Democratic Party delenda est.
The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.
The society of the spectacle.
I mean, Harris was here in Austin a few days before the election, which made no sense from an electoral standpoint. It was probably less a 50-state approach than a scheduling flub indicative of the incompetence of her campaign, but still, she was here.
I wonder if she made any stops in Wyoming or Montana during the campaign.
Yeah, I don't think they went left at all.
And I don't think they will in 2028 either. Certainly none of the people above will, because even if they did, they wouldn't believe it, and therefore wouldn't be able to sell it.
Obviously, this is not a problem for the Right. Trump has shown over the years that what MAGA looks like, in its actual ideas, such as they are, is irrelevant, and can change at any point. What matters is that it breeds fear and nationalist pride, maybe with some cultural nostalgia thrown in. This allows any random Republican to join in and say whatever they want as long as it sounds touch and breeds fear or pride or makes people miss a time when the gays weren't so visible.
The biggest difference I think voters see between Trump and Not Trump is not so much that Trump is selling a revanchist, nationalist, authoritarianism, but that he's selling something, anything, to people who felt like neither party, outside of Trump, was selling much of anything. How bad must things be for people that selling anything, even far right authoritarianism, is better than selling nothing? Bad enough, I'd wager, that a bunch of Not Trump candidates with nothing to sell have little chance of defeating anyone in the Trump mold in 2028, so long as Trump hasn't plunged us into the apocalypse between now and then.
I keep harping on this point, but the Democrats had their own candidate selling things that were not revanchist, were not nationalist, and were not authoritarian, and that could have had a huge impact on people's lives, but the Democrats thoroughly defeated him, to the point that he's now basically exiled, touring the Midwest giving speeches to overflow crowds who want to hear his message of a social democratic change that makes the government work for them, and not for the wealthy.
I know the most popular narrative around here is that the Democrats lost because they went too far left, but do you think people who were offered the choice between a nihilistic billionaire authoritarian who did a half-assed coup attempt and then spent the last 4 years treating becoming president again as an opportunity to get personal revenge, whatever the cost to the American people, and somebody who tells them they should never have to go bankrupt because they or a family member got sick, and that billionaires should pay their fair share of taxes, are going to choose the former because of pronouns in people's email signatures and a half a dozen trans college athletes?
With the exception of Newsom, who is a proper ghoul, devoid of anything resembling a conscience, this looks like the most boring stable of candidates possible, comprised people who will run almost entirely on the message "Hey, at least we're not Trump!"
Wouldn't it be nice if there were potential presidential candidates in the party who had ideas, principles, even a message? That there aren't is an indictment of the entire party. The Democratic Party delenda est.