This fits with what I've heard anecdotally about really young straight up Gen Alpha kids just being totally unmoved by/sick of right wing culture war shit because they've known about it since they were literal children.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Fuentes has been smart insofar that he’s correctly realized that Trump’s popularity has tanked with young voters (his target audience) and that he has nothing to lose by appealing to that new pool given that the GOP will never fuck with him no matter how much he stays in line.
He gains credibility both with floaty anti-Trump independents and his base of angry ultra-rightists by opposing an admin that everyone outside of its payroll can recognize is betraying its promises while being a creature of RW donors.
You know that this entire trip was 1000% his own idea because any self-respecting young leftist staffer gave up on the idea of WV as fertile ground for the revolution at least half a decade ago.
Bernie still remembers Logan County voting for McGovern though he will not be moved by people calling them social fascists
I feel like this debate would be much better served if the people arguing in favor of the delegate system would just say that they think it’s better because they know better than the mass membership. It’s not like that’s some unheard-of consideration in voting system design.
Having MPs elect leaders is the most common democratic system in the world. It’s been regarded as fully legitimate for literal centuries. Why not just argue in favor of it outright instead of making convoluted arguments as to how it’s actually *more* democratic (it isn’t).
Granted this is pretty similar to them holding on to 2020 Woke for years after the fact even when electorates as lib as NYC Democrats were voting for guys like Eric Adams.
Literally none of these orgs have ever actually predicted trends in advance in a long time, they've just followed big things after they happen and stay stuck on them for years after the fact.
Irt AOC: from a clinical standpoint, Zohran showed that you can totally avoid spats online by just never mentioning or explaining moderation. When he left his shift on policing unstated, nobody cared, while writers who explicitly said they liked what he was doing got pilloried.
When you just avoid bringing up sore spots with your supporters, it puts the impetus on others to start an outrage cycle, which often is perceived as wrecker behavior and pisses people off. But when you light the spark yourself it gets rid of that barrier entirely.
Ofc not making dumb decisions like funding Israel is the first step here—there’s no way out of criticism if your choices don’t even make sense from an electoral perspective. But in other areas where there are obvious trade offs, the critics can often be very inconsistent.
The actual establishment DMFI guy came in third!!!! What are we doing here?
So unbelievably disingenuous to connect Zohran (who is part of an EXTREMELY well defined movement) to any left-ish candidate who runs on themes they PRESUME he ran on but actually didn't.