Hardkill

This is what keeps me up at night. I fear that the Republicans from now on may continue to win every future big election going forward no matter how bad the next crisis under their watch will be because their media messaging machine, party brand messaging, and optics game are all superior to that of the Democrats. At this point, it looks like the combination of another Great Depression or Gilded Age Depression, an extremely violent nationwide labor strike movement, and a once-in-a-century inspirational political leader who has the spirit of a Roosevelt-style class warrior may be the only hope that Democrats have to win back the presidency and Congress. Maybe I am wrong.

Actually, Leftists like them have mentioned a number of times before that people do vote on vibes. That's why Cenk and TYT were some of the first Leftists to sound off the alarm that Biden would "lose" in 2024 because he came off as too old, too weak, and too unpopular. Then Kyle and Krystal conceded that Cenk and his crew were "right." Cenk, Ana, Kyle, and Krystal have even talked a number of times before about how Trump won in 2016 and 2024 because of his charisma and populist message and because. Cenk and TYT have said that Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate in 2016 because she came off as too pro-establishment, out of touch, untrustworthy, and unpopular. They also said that Harris came off as too much of a talking point machine and that her campaign needed to energize base and the swing voters by having her do more podcasts like the JRE and have Tim Walz out a lot more.

So, then why is Newsom trying to get along with radical right-wingers like him? Why isn't he fighting him back in the messaging war?

I get that, but see this is what I've never been fully clear on. On the one hand, people like the Pod Bros and BTC, along with, obviously, TYT, Secular Talk, and the Majority Report, are all part of the progressive movement in our country. The purpose of the movement have been to fight against MAGA extremists, corrupt neoliberals, and the corporate oligarchy, and to push the Democratic Party further to the left or back toward its New Deal roots. On the other hand, I still wonder if the progressive movement has been backfiring in the long term:

They may not be as far to the left as Sanders or Warren are, but they are still liberals. Besides, why did they have to vote for that awful bill right away instead of trying to negotiate first with other side? A lot of people are going to be hurt by this. What? I am surprised you say that. Out of all of the progressive commentators out there on the internet and social media, those guys have been the most supportive of the establishment Democrats and have given the most reasonable left-leaning takes on politics. Even you said a while back that they aren't too populist, too anti-mainstream, or too fringe like TYT or Secular Talk are. That's actually not bad. Well, the Democrats better come up with a solid message like that and make that front and center in their campaign by 2026 or 2028. I will say though that one silver lining is that it looks like the party will be doubling down on economic populism instead of "moderating" their stances according to the current consensus of Dem strategists/pundits. Let's hope that they really mean that.

Schumer is not a Blue Dog Dem like Manchin or Sinema were. He and all of the other senators who just voted for that GOP bill all come from blue-leaning to solid blue states. Fetterman ran as a progressive and is still a Bernie Bro. Also, if this wasn't a problem right now then why are Dan Pfieffer, Jon Favreau, Tommy Vietor, and Jon Lovett who are all former Obama officials and their good friend Brian Tyler Cohen saying that the Democratic leadership having been ceding the ground with regarding to the messaging war? I totally agree. A big reason why Dems lost in 2016 and in 2024 was because of how divided and weakened the party were during those years. Yes, they eventually unified under Hillary by the 2016 convention and they eventually unified under Harris by the convention 2024, but the damage was already done during each of those times. However, the Democrats can no longer run on the kind that basically says "Trumpism is bad." They need to run on a unifying message that also is forward-looking and for the people of the country like say "The Great Construction" or "New Nationalism."

It doesn't have to be all AOC or Bernie Sanders types. We need more Democrats out there who have the mindset of fighting back like hell with a powerful populist message like FDR or LBJ. Even the Pod Save America Bros are getting very concerned that too many within the Democratic party still have too much of this mindset of compromise to the point of making compromises with MAGA. That's unacceptable. Otherwise, I fear that many Democratic party base, moderates, and Independents will decide to just stay home and not vote in 2026 or in 2028 and let the Republicans win again with their right-wing "populist" messaging.

I agree that the Democrats should tone it down on social issues and civil rights, but they can't just be focusing on Republican devilry. That didn't work in 2024. They have to also talk about an economic populist vision for the country in the way that TR or FDR did that works for this day and age. Have you checked out this new thread of mine?

You don't know until you try. Even Obama has said that we need much greater regulation on misinformation more than ever before. Otherwise, I fear the Democrats may never win back the presidency or the Senate again.

Biden should've pushed harder for regulation of right-wing information during his presidency.

For decades, the Democratic party hasn't had simple, emotionally resonant phrases like the Republican party has, except for few of them like Bill Clinton's "Bridge into the 21st Century" or Obama's "Hope and Change." I thought that the Harris/Walz campaign's "Reproductive Freedom" was a really good one for messaging on abortion rights for women in America. However, their campaign still never had a bold, unified vision for the whole country's future. Their slogan, "We're not going back" emphasized a desire to prevent a return to previous policies but lacked a forward-looking message that could inspire and unify a broad coalition of voters. Hillary Clinton's 2016 message "Stronger Together" lacked clarity and impact and so did Biden's "Build Back Better" message. So, what messages do Democrats have that really connect with the people and really emphasize that they are on their side? They need to revive the New Deal-style messaging by: 1. Refocus on Universal Economic Messaging – Emphasize economic security, jobs, and wages over culture war issues. 2. Simplify Their Messaging – Republicans excel at short, emotional slogans; Democrats need to do the same. 3. Strengthen Party Unity – Reduce internal divisions that lead to mixed messaging. 4. Invest in a Stronger Media Infrastructure – Build messaging platforms that rival the GOP’s Fox News/talk radio ecosystem. 5. Rebuild Working-Class Trust – Appeal to blue-collar voters (especially in swing states) with concrete benefits rather than ideological rhetoric. Also, now more and more Democratic commentators like the Pod Save America bros and even those on MSNBC are saying that the Democratic party should emulate the messaging style of AOC and Bernie Sanders. I never thought I'd see this day happen this soon in my life.

I want to believe that, OP, but that may not happen if the Democrats and the Left fail to create a strong enough messaging machine to effectively counter the dominance of right-wing propaganda. They also need to develop more emotionally compelling and easy-to-understand messages that clearly present a positive liberal agenda for the country. Otherwise, I fear that the majority of the country will continue to be brainwashed in an Orwellian manner into believing that Trumpism and the GOP are fine or still preferable to the Democratic Party running the country by 2028 and beyond. It's like in the book 1984: "War is peace," "famine is plenty," "poverty is wealth." Yet, I am still very uncertain that the Democrats and the Left will be able to figure out their messaging problem in time. That's why, as of now, I honestly think our country will need not just another severe recession to turn against Trump and his party, but something even more drastic. To annihilate Trumpism and the radical right-wing in this country, it may take both another economic depression—like the Long Depression of the late 1800s or the Great Depression of the 1930s—and/or another national security crisis, such as World War I, World War II, or the Cold War, to push voters to elect a new Democratic or progressive president in their prime, running on a bold liberal populist vision for the country, and to elect overwhelming Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress." The next president may also need to be a once-in-a-generation, charismatic leader and true class warrior—like Theodore Roosevelt or FDR—capable of rallying the American people against corporate oppression and right-wing extremism.

Ah, so now your views on their opinions on the matter have evolved lately. How surprising is it that Mearsheimer has been both commending Trump for "genuinely wanting to broker" a peace deal with Russia and saying that Zelensky failed to protect his country, will probably be forced to step down, and has damaged his legacy?

I agree with what you're saying, but why does Mearsheimer claim that Biden is a warmonger responsible for provoking Russia into invading Ukraine and that he made a mistake by continuing to support the war? Furthermore, I'm stunned that he describes Zelensky as a failure who should resign, will likely be forced to, and will be remembered in history as a leader who let down the people of Ukraine. He also argues that this war probably wouldn’t have happened if Trump had been president instead of Biden because Trump really wants peace with the Russians. I'm shocked that someone as brilliant as Mearsheimer really believes that.

Mearsheimer is saying that Zelensky never should've tried to join NATO. He warned Ukraine and NATO for many years not to agitate Russia by constantly expanding NATO eastward.

Well, Professor Mearsheimer has turned out to be right about these matters more so than the mainstream media analysts have been. I know that Leo doesn't always agree with him on some things, but he still considers Mearsheimer to be one of the best experts on military/foreign affairs. That being said, Leo said before that pundits like Mearsheimer tend to overdramatize the problems the Western world has and like to sound contrarian. But I don't get why he's greatly blaming Zelensky and Ukraine for the hell they are in. I mean, maybe Zelensky did make the mistake of not trying to keep his country a neutral territory, but there's no way that he as well as all of Ukraine deserve so much blame for "starting this war" and for suffering immensely from it.

I am shocked that Mearsheimer went as far as to say that Zelensky is to be blamed for failing to protect Ukraine, should step down, and that that will be legacy:

I didn't say that my dad necessarily did much better than the market. However, most investors have failed at it, especially those who are self-taught because of lack of proper education & strategy, emotional trading & poor risk management, overtrading & high transaction costs, not enough starting capital, and the market can be brutally competitive. Yes, his main strategy has always been the buy-and-hold strategy with serious stocks and keep riding the wave no matter what happens. Fortunately, for people like him who started seriously investing in stocks around 2009, our country went through the longest-running bull market in US history (March 2009 to March 2020), then went through an extremely sharp, but extremely short 2-month bear run, followed by this current near 5-year bull run. Besides, My dad practically taught himself and has been doing all this work on his own since 2009. Unlike Warren Buffett or other brilliant investors like him, my dad never had direct personal mentorship or formal finance education. He built his knowledge purely through self-education (reading books from top investors, not being personally taught by them). Moreover, ever since 2009, he as never relied on financial consultants or experts, even after becoming successful. Also, there's nothing inherently wrong with massive money printing, especially when the economy is in a serious downturn.

That's interesting.... Are you more supportive of Ukraine because of how much the country has already been suffering for almost 3 years now? Wouldn't that be the opposite of what Professor Mearsheimer and Noam Chomsky have been saying NATO should have done long ago—that is, having the U.S. make a stronger effort to negotiate a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine? Also, it is becoming increasingly clear that Ukraine can't win the war, Russia has kept taking more and more land from Ukraine slowly but surely, and the longer this war continues the more territory Russia will keep gaining.

I will say that my dad used the 2008 financial crisis as a major opportunity for buying a lot of solid stocks while learning how to invest in the stock market in a serious pragmatic way for the long-run. He became so successful at it through hard work, discipline, commitment, street smarts, reading books on it by real gurus like Warren Buffett, learning a lot from real experts about the economy, etc. that he made our family much more well off financially than ever before with no serious debt at all over the past 16 years. His trading strategy has still kept making us more and more money every 1-2 years. In fact, if it wasn’t for his amazing success at it, then my family and I would probably be living paycheck to paycheck and/or had to leave California.

You'll come to sorely regret that. Just like how most Americans who voted for Bush deeply regretted voting for him. Even most Republicans and conservatives to this day have said "You know, looking back I think that Bush was a total disaster. He was a bad leader who didn't have a clue about how to run the economy and his handling of military/foreign affairs, especially with the wars in the Middle East, in the end were a terrible mistake. I can't believe I was a Bush supporter."

Sorry OP, but quite frankly you don't deserve any empathy from anyone on here for that. What you did wasn't just a big mistake. You made a truly abominable and truly stupid choice. I applaud you not only for being openly honest about that but also for realizing that what did was such a grave mistake. However, this is something that you are going to have to live with for probably the rest of your life. Elections have consequences. Voting has consequences. Selfishness has consequences. The next step for you is to now take a serious hard look in the mirror and start to question a number of things in your mind: 1. "Why did I really believe that such an absolute monster who already ruined our country before as a failed president was better to have as POTUS than someone like Kamala Harris was who was eminently qualified to be president, much more in her prime, and had serious economic plans for improving people's lives? 2. "Why didn't I do serious research on all of the great things Biden, Harris, and the Democrats accomplished and how well they genuinely governed during the Biden presidency instead of listening to the lies and brain rotting misinformation from right-wing media sources like Fox News or the Daily Wire or Alex Jones?" 3. "Why didn't I before think to myself 'What would some other great president in modern US History like FDR or Obama say or do?" 4. "Why didn't I believe in the real facts put out by real news sources such as NYT and MSNBC. 5. "Why didn't I listen to left-wing media outlets such as Pod Save America, BTC, Democracy Docket, Politics Girl, Majority Report, and Allan Lichtman"? 6. "Why didn't I listen to top independent economists like Paul Krugman or Mark Zandi about how the economy works, real economic policies, and what a president and his/her administration are able to do to manage the economy?"

I guess we'll have to wait and see if he really goes through with these tariffs, eventually.

A typical example of Trump making a grand promise, but then doing something that's the opposite of that. According to top independent economists if Trump really implements his entire tariff plan, then the average American will have to spend about $2600 more from their pocketbook and/or from their business revenue. Also, this move ironically contradicts the decades-long Republican principle of promoting the free market. Tariffs are a form of government intervention that can disrupt private enterprise. This approach is the opposite of Reaganism, which emphasized free trade. Trump is trying to implement an outdated idea used by conservative Republicans like Coolidge in the 1920s and McKinley before that. Their tariff policies had severe negative consequences, particularly with the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which worsened the Great Depression.