Great job, US government. You went so overboard with your “TikTok is an evil Chinese app” and deciding to ban it that you’re pushing kids to go even deeper into the Chinese app ecosystem. The US go…
That is an interesting phenomenon. I suspect it’s just out of spite, because people not understanding the technology is almost like a new law of the internet, and that it’ll blow over eventually.
If it doesn’t, WTF, basically. People are already getting kicked off of Xiaohongshu for being openly gay.
Man, if any of that youth passion had shown up at the polls we (yes, including us in the rest of the world) wouldn’t have this problem in the first place. Somehow, the fervour never translates away from from the soft keyboard, though - probably because it’s mostly fake. God, we’re a D-tier species.
Passion isn’t felt towards everything equally, it’s specific, and Democrats can’t figure out how to make people passionate about their candidates without compromising on their leaders’ neoliberal economic policies and their so-called “rules based order” of American hegemony, so they keep losing. Obama ran as a populist candidate, and he blew away previous numbers even though he turned out to be a staunch neoliberal. Biden barely managed to eke out a win in 2020 (“Despite his relatively comfortable 74 vote margin in the Electoral College, Biden only won the decisive states of Wisconsin, Georgia and Arizona by a combined 43,000 votes.”), and it was only because he was coming straight out of Trump’s term. Harris had 2 months to try to turn around Biden’s dumpster fire of a campaign, and she made too many missteps.
Ultimately, candidates have to earn votes, and the DNC’s anti-populism and pro-neoliberalism clearly aren’t doing it for people. Maybe in the '90s when people’s salaries were booming, Clinton was able to win on it, but we’re not in that economy, and most Millennials and younger have only seen recessions and stagnation. Even after Trump, we’re in for more losses if Democrats only allow for Progressive social policies, and not economic or political ones.
There’s a few things there. Young people have always had low turnout, it’s not anything the politicians are doing. We’ve actually had a bull market for a decade or so, with a pretty momentary pause for COVID. Apathy happens in other countries like mine too, so it’s not just the Democrats.
As per usual, people primarily care about their own life, and just aren’t motivated by big abstract concepts. Here people’s toys got broken, so they’re mad, simple as. All the discussion about climate change and gun violence or whatever is just a smokescreen for that. If it wasn’t they could have fixed those problems all along. That goes for the geezers too, BTW - they just found out in '83 or whatever that voting is easy and doesn’t require knowing what you’re voting for.
The stock market is not the economy. The economy on the ground has not been bullish. The US stock market doing well benefits the wealth-holders, not workers.
people primarily care about their own life, and just aren’t motivated by big abstract concepts
I agree, which is why the DNC’s attempt to allow a leftward shift only in its social policies has fallen largely flat with connecting with voters. It’s a sort of Rainbow-Politics, if you will. Voters see that they’re not actually moving Leftwards on economic policies that would help their own lives.
Sadly, it seems the DNC is taking this as a message that the Leftward shift on social issues was the problem, rather than the lack of economic change. Sanders has been talking about exactly this ever since election day, but the DNC leadership is already signaling they don’t believe that or care. I am worried we’re in for several Presidential election losses before they all die out or get the message.
The stock market is not the economy. The economy on the ground has not been bullish. The US stock market doing well benefits the wealth-holders, not workers.
So what are you referring to, then? Inflation-adjusted wage growth? That was shit in the 90’s too. The tipping point was the 70’s or early 80’s based on what I’ve seen.
Voters see that they’re not actually moving Leftwards on economic policies that would help their own lives.
You’re ascribing way too much rationality to the average voter here. The politicians themselves don’t - if you’re inside a campaign one day, a rational defense of policies is not how the strategy ever works.
I am worried we’re in for several Presidential election losses before they all die out or get the message.
Bold of you to assume there’s more to come, in light of recent events.
So what are you referring to, then? Inflation-adjusted wage growth?
Purchasing power, which was not shit in the 90s compared to today. That’s what really matters; what can you get with the money you have.
You’re ascribing way too much rationality to the average voter here.
I think you’re ascribing too little. The average voter is not a political philosopher, but they’re also not comatose. They understand simple economic principles like tax cuts being given to others and not to them, or subsidies for certain industries and not others, or the lack of government action to curb rising prices, etc. They may not have all the proper labels to describe what they’re seeing vs what they want to see (and indeed, the US has spent so long demonizing Socialism and propagandizing Capitalism that most can’t describe either properly), but polling proves that most Americans (hilariously, even most Republicans) don’t want cutthroat neoliberal everyone-for-themselves economic policies.
Bold of you to assume there’s more to come, in light of recent events.
I think that Trump would love to install himself as a dictator, and maybe he will, but even dictators keep controlled elections going for the appearance of legitimacy. He’s already 78, and no other Republicans have managed to replicate his popularity among GOP voters. One way or another (unless the US government literally dissolves, which is my preference tbh) we’ll be dealing with a post-Trump US government sooner or later.
but polling proves that most Americans (hilariously, even most Republicans) don’t want cutthroat neoliberal everyone-for-themselves economic policies.
Yes, but what if you repackage austerity as “patriotic manly tax cuts”?
Look, sales so isn’t my department, but I’ve been far enough down this path to know bullshit dominates politics because bullshit works. And yeah, it’s fueled by apathy much more than actual stupidity, but comatose isn’t far off of what the average door knock feels like.
I think that Trump would love to install himself as a dictator, and maybe he will, but even dictators keep controlled elections going for the appearance of legitimacy. He’s already 78, and no other Republicans have managed to replicate his popularity among GOP voters. One way or another (unless the US government literally dissolves, which is my preference tbh) we’ll be dealing with a post-Trump US government sooner or later.
Yes, post-Trump will be “interesting” for sure. I’d be mildly surprised if everything went back to normal, though, because it was just so broken before, and there’s so many alternative trajectories available.
That is an interesting phenomenon. I suspect it’s just out of spite, because people not understanding the technology is almost like a new law of the internet, and that it’ll blow over eventually.
If it doesn’t, WTF, basically. People are already getting kicked off of Xiaohongshu for being openly gay.
I hate to link to Reddit (and I’m too old to know how to get to the original video), but this also seems pretty relevant: https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1i302rf/if_tiktok_being_banned_doesnt_radicalize_you_as/
Man, if any of that youth passion had shown up at the polls we (yes, including us in the rest of the world) wouldn’t have this problem in the first place. Somehow, the fervour never translates away from from the soft keyboard, though - probably because it’s mostly fake. God, we’re a D-tier species.
Passion isn’t felt towards everything equally, it’s specific, and Democrats can’t figure out how to make people passionate about their candidates without compromising on their leaders’ neoliberal economic policies and their so-called “rules based order” of American hegemony, so they keep losing. Obama ran as a populist candidate, and he blew away previous numbers even though he turned out to be a staunch neoliberal. Biden barely managed to eke out a win in 2020 (“Despite his relatively comfortable 74 vote margin in the Electoral College, Biden only won the decisive states of Wisconsin, Georgia and Arizona by a combined 43,000 votes.”), and it was only because he was coming straight out of Trump’s term. Harris had 2 months to try to turn around Biden’s dumpster fire of a campaign, and she made too many missteps.
Ultimately, candidates have to earn votes, and the DNC’s anti-populism and pro-neoliberalism clearly aren’t doing it for people. Maybe in the '90s when people’s salaries were booming, Clinton was able to win on it, but we’re not in that economy, and most Millennials and younger have only seen recessions and stagnation. Even after Trump, we’re in for more losses if Democrats only allow for Progressive social policies, and not economic or political ones.
There’s a few things there. Young people have always had low turnout, it’s not anything the politicians are doing. We’ve actually had a bull market for a decade or so, with a pretty momentary pause for COVID. Apathy happens in other countries like mine too, so it’s not just the Democrats.
As per usual, people primarily care about their own life, and just aren’t motivated by big abstract concepts. Here people’s toys got broken, so they’re mad, simple as. All the discussion about climate change and gun violence or whatever is just a smokescreen for that. If it wasn’t they could have fixed those problems all along. That goes for the geezers too, BTW - they just found out in '83 or whatever that voting is easy and doesn’t require knowing what you’re voting for.
The stock market is not the economy. The economy on the ground has not been bullish. The US stock market doing well benefits the wealth-holders, not workers.
I agree, which is why the DNC’s attempt to allow a leftward shift only in its social policies has fallen largely flat with connecting with voters. It’s a sort of Rainbow-Politics, if you will. Voters see that they’re not actually moving Leftwards on economic policies that would help their own lives.
Sadly, it seems the DNC is taking this as a message that the Leftward shift on social issues was the problem, rather than the lack of economic change. Sanders has been talking about exactly this ever since election day, but the DNC leadership is already signaling they don’t believe that or care. I am worried we’re in for several Presidential election losses before they all die out or get the message.
So what are you referring to, then? Inflation-adjusted wage growth? That was shit in the 90’s too. The tipping point was the 70’s or early 80’s based on what I’ve seen.
You’re ascribing way too much rationality to the average voter here. The politicians themselves don’t - if you’re inside a campaign one day, a rational defense of policies is not how the strategy ever works.
Bold of you to assume there’s more to come, in light of recent events.
Purchasing power, which was not shit in the 90s compared to today. That’s what really matters; what can you get with the money you have.
I think you’re ascribing too little. The average voter is not a political philosopher, but they’re also not comatose. They understand simple economic principles like tax cuts being given to others and not to them, or subsidies for certain industries and not others, or the lack of government action to curb rising prices, etc. They may not have all the proper labels to describe what they’re seeing vs what they want to see (and indeed, the US has spent so long demonizing Socialism and propagandizing Capitalism that most can’t describe either properly), but polling proves that most Americans (hilariously, even most Republicans) don’t want cutthroat neoliberal everyone-for-themselves economic policies.
I think that Trump would love to install himself as a dictator, and maybe he will, but even dictators keep controlled elections going for the appearance of legitimacy. He’s already 78, and no other Republicans have managed to replicate his popularity among GOP voters. One way or another (unless the US government literally dissolves, which is my preference tbh) we’ll be dealing with a post-Trump US government sooner or later.
Yes, but what if you repackage austerity as “patriotic manly tax cuts”?
Look, sales so isn’t my department, but I’ve been far enough down this path to know bullshit dominates politics because bullshit works. And yeah, it’s fueled by apathy much more than actual stupidity, but comatose isn’t far off of what the average door knock feels like.
Yes, post-Trump will be “interesting” for sure. I’d be mildly surprised if everything went back to normal, though, because it was just so broken before, and there’s so many alternative trajectories available.