Factually, that’s what he did during his time in office as well. I’m not sure what they thought had changed.

  • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    345
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Ever play an arcade video game from the 1980s? I’m talking about the ones in the arcades where you had to pop a quarter into the machine to play.

    Here’s the thing about those games. The first 2 levels or so were usually pretty easy. Weak AI opponents. Easily distinguishable patterns. But then you hit level 3 or 4. And the difficultly skyrockets. With absolutely no warning. You go from “Hey, this game ain’t so bad” to regretting all of your life choices. And if you don’t know what you’re doing, you’re going to get owned, hard. Only a few people could get past a couple of levels, and only the best of the best were skilled enough to be able to play as long as they wanted until they clocked the game.

    That’s where we’re at now. Trump played those first couple of levels. Clinton was a divisive figure in her own right and treated the 2016 race like she could skate to victory too. Biden had weaknesses that Trump could easily exploit. The real game has begun and Trump has absolutely no idea how to actually play. So Trump wants to start the game over. He doesn’t want to make it to level 3 because he knows he’ll never beat level 3. He’s looking for a reset switch like on the Atari 2600 so he could keep playing the first two levels over and over and over. Because he knows how to beat those.

    But he can’t. So he’s essentially stopped playing the game. He’s telling everybody in the arcade how rigged that machine is, the joystick’s broken, and you need to hit the fire button 10, 12, 15 times for it to fire. And he’s getting jealous that all the cool kids in the mall aren’t listening to him, and are circling around the new girl who popped her quarter in and has gotten to levels Trump hasn’t even seen before, while he goes to the corner of the arcade, pops a quarter into the dusty, old Pong machine, and wonders why nobody fucking cares.

    • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      152
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Only semi-related:

      Hunter S. Thompson took great pains to speak in sports metaphors, because that’s the language of “middle America.”

      I’ve thought that, for a while now, video games have become the language of “middle America” and whoever can speak to the gamers in their language will capture their minds.

      Steve Bannon also understood this, and that’s why he succeeded in capturing many young men’s minds through Gamergate.

      We need people better than Steve Bannon speaking this language and leaving gamers with positive, healthy understanding of the world around them.

      Anyway, I write this because I think your video game metaphor really works here, and I think that’s the way to speak to a large portion of our populace now.

      • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        3 months ago

        Make the guy who makes tier zoo on YouTube teach all democrats.

        Seriously, the devs took a big risk with the 2016 patch, they just didn’t like what the players did to that gorilla.

      • PugJesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        3 months ago

        Anyway, I write this because I think your video game metaphor really works here, and I think that’s the way to speak to a large portion of our populace now.

        I don’t know that arcade metaphors really work for most of the population now, though. Even when I was young they were dying.

        • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          3 months ago

          I think we might be talking about two different types of “arcades” here.

          The arcades where you go and play pinball and pac man and street fighter are the ones we’re talking about. That was the 80s. Those of us who remember those days fondly would probably be between 40 and 60. I don’t know about the rest of my middle-aged community members, but I ain’t planning on dying any time soon.

          If you’re living in a place where 40-60 year olds are dying on the regular, you’re probably living around methheads.

          • PugJesus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            3 months ago

            , but I ain’t planning on dying any time soon.

            I mean the arcades were dying, not the people in them.

            If you’re living in a place where 40-60 year olds are dying on the regular, you’re probably living around methheads.

            … though there’s that too…

        • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          I mean, that’s fair, but that’s also why I said it was only semi-related.

          The arcade metaphor works here on Lemmy with a mostly Gen X/Millennial audience, but you’re correct that the people who need to be opened up politically are the Fortnite generation and younger.

        • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          Video games > arcades.

          Playstations, Xboxes, desktop games are where gamers are playing.

          Twovery evident impacts are regarding others as NPCs ( instead of humans) and the application of Min-Max philosophy to economic endeavors.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        The idea that Thompson was particularly accessible to middle America is so strange to me as a Midwesterner.

        But also I agree. Gaming metaphors speak to the apolitical in ways sports metaphors used to

    • Rhaedas@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      3 months ago

      while he goes to the corner of the arcade, pops a quarter into the dusty, old Pong machine

      Correction, he puts a quarter into a pinball machine in the corner, then shortly after gets the tilt warning because he once again tries to cheat instead of having skill.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        3 months ago

        Tilts are perfectly valid in pinball tournaments, though. As long as the machine’s setup only warns you instead of stopping the game, it’s OK in most leagues. And if it does stop you, then you can continue to the next ball.

        • Rhaedas@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          3 months ago

          Interesting. It looks like the older games did just stop when sensing some movement, while newer ones allow it to some degree or times, so there’s a fudge factor that I guess a professional would know how much to push things. Some might take away the power ups and just let you finish that ball on a “vanilla” setup.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 months ago

            Some old games do, some don’t. The sensor is a plumb bob in a metal ring that completes a circuit. Been that way since the 1950s or so, and is still the same system in today’s digitized games.

    • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      3 months ago

      But he lost on level 2. The only candidate he’s beaten is Hillary, who’s one of the least popular politicians in the US.

      • Natanael@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        3 months ago

        And he won only via the electoral college, while still losing the popular vote against her

      • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

        He lost the first time. Then he inserted another quarter to continue and (essentially) beat him the 2nd time.

        And after the brief intermission cutscene, he played level 3. He doesn’t like level 3. He even tried to call the attendant over so he could play level 2 again. And when the attendant said “Um…you’re on level 3 now, what’s the problem?”, he stopped playing. Because level 3 is fucking hard.

    • 𝔼𝕩𝕦𝕤𝕚𝕒@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Trump is the kid who got good at PacMan. Then the arcade brought in MrsPacMan and no matter how high he scores and tries to get attention, the kid who scores well in Mrs PacMan is stealing his thunder because it’s harder. And he’s mad no one is paying attention to his New High Score because it’s irrelevant in the face of the new game. But he can’t get good enough at MrsPacMan, so he’s sulking on PacMan setting new scores and slowly filling the board while his friends try to give him the new Guide for how to score better or get farther in MrsPacMan. Trying to get him to take on the new kid. But he’s just broken from constantly being the loser every time he 2 players. He’s scared of it because it’s a new age where it’s not a solved game, the enemies react to you, and he’s not fast enough anymore to handle that and it scares him - no matter how much his friends try to get him to get good.

        • ryrybang@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          He’s has a mastery of gish galloping. There’s no way I could ever approach half of what he does.

          But that’s about the only thing I can think of that he’s good at. And it’s definitely something he’s good at due to severe character flaws and mental development issues, not exactly a learned skill or intentional thing he applies. But good nonetheless.

      • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Excuse me, but Trump would never play Pac Man. He can’t handle Kamala Harris alone. He’d be complaining about having to go up against 4 non-white opponents at once.

        And he’d certainly never play Ms. Pac Man. Sure, it’s one thing playing an unidentifiable yellow mass that runs around popping pills and doing the same thing over and over while trying to avoid all the non-white people in town, but there’s no chance in hell he’d play as a female.

    • #!/usr/bin/woof@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 months ago

      Wonderful metaphor. Although it’s hard to suspend disbelief in a story about Trump wanting to / knowing how to play video games. He strikes me as the type that’ll buy an arcade but never set foot in it. And then remove all that is good about it and fill it with ticket games.

      • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        Although it’s hard to suspend disbelief in a story about Trump wanting to / knowing how to play video games.

        Have you played those old games? Usually, the first level is easy. Easy enough where you actively have to try to lose. I mean, you get 3 lives. That means you have to make not just bad decisions, but the worst possible decisions, over and over and…oh.

        Never mind. You’re right.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      It wasn’t like a switch got flipped, no one would keep playing.

      They’d make a tiny segment super hard so you’d have to drop a couple bucks to get past it. Go back to easy for a little. Then hit another hard part.

      It’s basically the whole reason for boss fights.

      • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        Once games started developing storylines, plots, etc. it was like that. It was an intentional strategy developed to keep you playing. But early developers weren’t thinking that far ahead. The idea was to give you a couple of easy levels so you feel you got your 5 minutes worth of entertainment worth, then start punishing you at level 3 or 4 so you’d lose and the next person would play.

        And some were made by simple oversight. Space invaders’ increasing difficulty was solely the result of hardware limitations of the time that just happened to result in the exact difficulty spikes they were looking for. As a programmer, I could, for example, set level 1 vs. an opponent that was slow as festering dog shit, but be lazy and just double his speed with every level. As long as the player’s speed stays the same, it would become nearly impossible to win in a couple of levels.

        Either way, the results were the same: 25 cents for about 5 minutes worth of entertainment. That was the goal of the day. As you mentioned, they fine tuned it by the mid 80s with games like Mario and the like. but those early games were meant to get you off the cabinet as quickly as possible so soneone else could pop in their quarter.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          set level 1 vs. an opponent that was slow as festering dog shit, but be lazy and just double his speed with every level. As long as the player’s speed stays the same, it would become nearly impossible to win in a couple of levels.

          Exactly, and long term people would stop playing because they always get stuck about the same time.

          It’s like how humans respond to rewards, a steady consistent reward is kind of motivating, it’s why we go to work in the morning

          But what works a shit ton better is sporadic rewards that have a tiny tiny chance of paying off.

          That’s why people get addicted to slot machines and not working at McDonald’s. If a slot machine paid out 75 cents for every dollar everytime, no one would play.

          Have them win $7.50 every tenth time they put a dollar in tho, and people will flush their entire lives away chasing that 1/10 of a time they “win”.

          So if you really want to exploit gamers, you can’t steadily increase difficulty. Linearly or exponentially, it doesn’t matter. To hook people they need those “wins” and they’ll keep dropping quarters or spinning loot boxes.

          In coin operated video games, that’s when things get easy

          A better example with Space Invaders is once they beat a level, they get to the next one and it’s slow again due to the amount of enemies on the screen. Letting the player get that easy time again hooks them. If the next level they were all as fast as the last one from last level, it wouldn’t have been as addictive

    • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The first few weeks of Trump’s presidency you could’ve easily seen what a terrible decision it occurred. Yet people will still vote for this dotard.

  • nkat2112@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    159
    ·
    3 months ago

    This is an interesting article - thanks for sharing! I found this snippet noteworthy:

    According to one former aide who served in the White House under the former president, Trump has lost the plot.

    “The stakes for Trump this election are arguably the highest they’ve ever been. His criminal cases don’t go away if he loses. Yet he seems to be phoning it in, running a remarkably low-energy, undisciplined campaign,” explained Alyssa Farah Griffin, a former Trump spokesperson. “From spending days off the campaign trail golfing to coming up with frankly weak nicknames like ‘Kamabala,’ it feels like he’s lost his mojo.”

    That is a good point about the criminal cases not going away if he loses, right? It’s interesting how it’s openly stated by the former aide.

    I’m unable to muster any sympathy for the felon’s perpetual state of stewing.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      70
      ·
      3 months ago

      He must think that “his” SC will protect him regardless, so he has an out if he loses. Or, he knows about the plan to ratfuck the election regardless of the outcome.

      • linearchaos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        73
        ·
        3 months ago

        A. Win it. (Looking increasingly unlikely)

        B. Steal it. Most of the fake electors are still in place, they’ve had four years to hire a new sleepers

        C. Coup 2.0 historically the Democrats haven’t been very smart about things and it’ll totally blindside when you pull it again only this time with more people. All those people that got locked up in serious consequences we’ll just tell them that we’ll pardon them again

        D. Civil War 2.0. if he doesn’t win it, and can’t steal it, and if there’s actually military protection around the Capital for 2.0. he’ll just openly call for the south to rise again. Only this time it’s not the south, it’s the rural areas, hell plan a Vietnam style offensive where the rural armed people lay siege everywhere.

        My real actual best guess is he’s tired. He’s old, he’s out of shape, he’s stressed to the nines and he’s just trying to blow off the stress, he probably does have a plan b in a plan c. His actual plan d is probably two take a flight to Russia.

        • Rhaedas@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          26
          ·
          3 months ago

          Even the recent movie “Civil War” didn’t touch on how and why such a thing started, because it just doesn’t make sense. There may be regional conflicts and riots, I don’t doubt that, but there’s no single organization to pull off a new Confederacy or whatever it would be. People watching the film even laughed at the union of Texas and California…what? Maybe that was a subtle message by the writers to not take the overall thing seriously, the movie wasn’t about the background events but about the characters in a hypothetical situation.

            • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              3 months ago

              The movie is a counter point to the romanticism of political conflict. It intentionally doesn’t go into the specifics of politics that lead to the war as that would be saying “this political side is bad” which wasn’t the point. The far right romanticizes a civil war, the far left romanticizes a revolution. What you see in the movie is what it would look like if there was a wide spread political conflict. It shows the gory details to ask people on both extremes “is this what you really want?”

              For a lot of people the best case scenario is to end up in that refugee camp in the football field. Worst case is to end up in a mass grave because some psychopath decided you’re from the “wrong America”. Does the politics matter to people that wind up in those outcomes? Does it even matter to the soldiers storming the Whitehouse? Just seemed like they had a mission to accomplish, the politics aren’t all that relevant anymore at that point.

              People sometimes feel like using violence may achieve a better political outcome. But the reality is everyone is just worse off because of it. That was the point.

              • eran_morad@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                IMO, “war bad” is just so fucking pedestrian as to be a complete waste of the capital that goes into a film.

                • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Methinks you have a romanticized notion of a civil war (or revolution) and don’t like having that bubble burst.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          3 months ago

          C and D might be slipping away from him, and possibly even B. They require a base that’s fired up to support him. He’s starting to lose that. They’ll still vote for him, and his best chance is to take a straight electoral college victory without the popular vote, but nothing extraordinary to subvert the system. If he doesn’t make that, though, he’s probably done.

          • linearchaos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            He wouldn’t be able to succeed at C without military backing. In fact I don’t think he has much of a chance of any of it succeeding. But go ahead and put it on your bingo card for trying. I suspect he’s going to take a good shot at each one of those before it’s over.

        • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          I don’t think he ever wanted to be president, but now he has no choice.

          Russia is probably plan B or C.

        • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          I think the civil war one is actually the best case scenario.

          Imagine a tired con man, not ready to fight, barely any energy. Calls for his die hard supporters to show up en masses and then a very tiny group show up and get arrested by the army (assuming the army doesn’t side with them).

          • linearchaos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 months ago

            I’m not too worried either. But The average age of the rural Texan is not 60. The guys that own the farms might be 60.

            • Krauerking@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Yeah this is more just an indicator of the boomer monopolies that heavily exist.

              They don’t pass on their wealth or business they hold onto it until they die and look at how big some of those parcels of land are.

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          For D the winning strategy for the United States needs to be to treat them as harshly as we treat eco terrorists. The viet cong had experienced Japanese and French occupation and so were more willing to engage in prolonged conflict. The confederacy had a lot of build up to prepare the common rabble for war. Martyrless crackdowns with a propaganda campaign can remove the will to fight.

    • Windex007@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      3 months ago

      Also a good point that a critical measure for the leader of the free world in the mind of a Trump staffer is how strong the nickname game is.

    • anon6789@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      3 months ago

      If he loses, I’m very curious to see if people in power still support him. I don’t think he will be very viable again in 4 years, physically or mentally.

      He may become more useful if they let him get eaten by the legal machine. Then they’re able to invoke his image like they do with Reagan all the time, but with some martyrdom thrown in about how those mean libs kicked a former president when he was down, nevermind he got away with the crimes he’d be charged with for about a decade by then.

      He might not ever serve time, but having everyone ignore him as useless as he sunsets might be an almost fitting punishment. We know the right struggles with empathy, so he could be facing some very frosty cold shoulders.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        3 months ago

        The best thing that could have happened for Republicans was trump got assassinated and Biden refused to step down.

        Now they’re stuck with trump and Dems cut all their baggage by dropping their elderly infirm candidate.

        trumps only real shot is stepping down to. Letting someone else run, and counting on them to pardon everything possible and the SC to take care of the rest.

        That has a chance at least, but he can’t beat Kamala.

        • anon6789@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          3 months ago

          I’m glad he put in as much effort into this as he did to stopping Covid. I think I’d have preferred Biden to Kamala, but Joe just stopped bringing it, so I was getting nervous. Without years of Sleepy Joe and Brandon memes, Trump just can’t figure it out lately, and barely seems to be trying.

          I’m in Pennsylvania, so I’m going to be voting the hell out of this election, and hopefully we’ll reach Jan 7 without drama. Then we can start getting on Kamala for her less than great positions, but until then, we got bigger things to deal with and I’m not going to crap much on the better of the 2 options. Post election is another story.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            Without years of Sleepy Joe and Brandon memes,

            Fuck man…

            Are neoliberals doing that thing again where they insist their candidate is perfect and if anyone tries to point out that there are valid flaws with neoliberal politicians it’s because they fell for Republican misinformation?

            Anyone that was or is going to vote D doesn’t care what Republicans say.

            Dem voters didn’t want Biden to run against trump, Republicans did

            That should tell you all you need to know about how good of a candidate Biden was.

            • anon6789@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              I don’t believe any of it swayed any votes, but I do believe it got a significant amount of people that either wouldn’t vote or wouldn’t promote a candidate to do so. From a hype and marketing viewpoint, I don’t think one could argue MAGA has not been a tremendous success for Republicans. I don’t recall a candidate of either party owning the media or having so much merch-aganda as Trump, and it’s going to hurt them when he’s gone. No one’s going to be sporting I’m going HAM for Lindsey Graham stuff.

              I said in my original comment I’m all for getting in any candidate not doing the best thing. There were things I didn’t like about Biden, and there are a number of things about Kamala I’m not excited about, but that is hopefully next January’s problem.

              The concept of Biden as a candidate was viable, but the man himself no longer was. The Republican average Joe that was the real mass behind the MAGA movement no longer knows what to do though now that the Lock Her Up, Sleepy Joe’s Got To Go, etc is gone. It’s not just Trump with the wind knocked out of his sails, but a lot of supporters as well. Trump spoke their language, but now he’s at a loss for words, and I’m happy to see it.

              EDIT: Not me that downvoted you. I don’t downvote for disagreeing, just for misinformation or bigoted crap and you haven’t done anything like that.

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                but I do believe it got a significant amount of people that either wouldn’t vote or wouldn’t promote a candidate to do so.

                No, Biden flaws made people not want to vote for him or promote him

                Harris doesn’t have that baggage, so as soon as she took over people were willing to do those things for the Dem candidate.

                They say the same shit about Kamala as Joe.

                It’s just when they said stuff about Joe, some of it was true and what anyone could tell from his incredibly limited public appearances.

                He did the lowest amount of press conferences as any president since Reagan…

                https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/21/us/politics/biden-public-appearances-media.html

                Do you really need me to tell you what common trait president Reagan and President Biden share?

                • anon6789@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  The Rs fired up for Trump and the Ds bummed at Biden are 2 separate groups. Whoever minimizes the damages from their own respective group is going to come out on top. I don’t see undecideds as a factor with as divergent as both parties are. They both had sagging bases, but the Kamala swap got one group fired up, but the other side just seems caught unprepared, and that’s why polling is flipping.

                  Whoever doesn’t think Kamala has baggage isn’t paying attention. There’s reasons she was hardly anyone’s choice last time around, and anyone reading any articles other than the kiss up ones now is already getting a reminder of those reasons. Lemmy was full of articles about dropping the anti-death penalty stance from the platform this week, for example. But there isn’t any good to come out of beating up on her about that unless she’s elected first.

        • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          3 months ago

          The Republicans couldn’t even elect a House Speaker, you think they’ll be able to agree on a new Presidential candidate this late in the game? Trump is the only thing holding the GOP together. Without him they’ve got nothing.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            3 months ago

            Seriously?

            The one defining feature of Republican voters is their willingness to fall in line and vote for anyone with an R by their name.

            There’s some diehard Trumpers who are voting specifically for trump, but Republican turnout is fairly steady (obviously population changes in four years). What decides elections is how good a candidate Dems put forward.

            We’re the party that needs a good candidate to vote for and has to keep it’s voters happy

        • Revan343@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          The best thing that could happen for Republicans and Trump is that they manage to fuck with the election enough that it doesn’t matter who wins the vote, either the Senate or the Supreme Court awards the election to Trump.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 months ago

            Senate

            I mean, if Mike Pence wouldn’t do it, I don’t know if Chuck Schumer will…

            Supreme Court

            It’s really not that easy for them. It worked on Gore because party leadership was telling Gore to concede, if he won he’d have put progressives in charge of the DNC.

            But even if the SC tries to hand it to trump, it doesn’t mean much. They can say it till they’re blue in the face, it only matters if the Dem candidate goes along with it and concedes. The DNC won’t push Kamala to “do the right thing to unite the country” because Kamala ain’t going to significantly change the course of the DNC or the personal at it’s helm.

            That’s the big difference, and why I don’t think we have to worry about the SC this time installing a republican.

            We would likely see some civil unrest and strife if they tried, but hopefully that would at least convince Kamala to actually do something about the SC instead of just fucking ignore it like Biden did.

            • cogman@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              I don’t have this much faith. What lost gore the election is the fact that it was a terribly close election that the supreme court could swing one way or another (and they swung it for bush). If this is a close election for trump and there’s 1 or 2 cases that would make him win, I definitely see the supreme court swinging in his favor. This is quite obvious if you look at the recent case that granted him full immunity. The SC is more than willing to bend of over backwards if it furthers rightwing ideals.

              As for what the house/senate can do to swing the case, that loophole was mostly closed after the 2020 election. There’s not the same room that trump was trying to exploit to steal an election from congress. I worry a lot more about election laws in swing states stealing the election for Trump. There were more than a few laws passed in republican controlled swing states that gave republicans more discretion in figuring out “legitimate” votes.

      • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        If he loses, there will be another Jan 6 with both sides being more ready for it, maybe even the supreme court tries to forcefully install him, then the cognitive decline will be so severe he no longer needed for the GOP, then global fascism goes from moderate decline to steep decline, with currently far-right parties pulling the “let’s pretend we’re moderates” game like Fidesz and many others will actually have to become moderate.

        • anon6789@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          I just don’t feel the same energy. I see much less Trump signs and so on, though it’s picked up a little, it’s nowhere near what it used to be. The MAGA relatives aren’t going on about it at get-togethers, and when they do, it’s much less passionate than prior years.

          I think any gathering in DC is not going to be met with the same light hands as before. There’s no one there to whip them into a frenzy, and with a Dem president and potential future president in charge, win or lose, I don’t feel they would go out sitting idle. Last time was the guy in the oval office trying to stay. Now he’s got to try to get in, and that seems to be a much steeper hill to climb.

          Don’t get me wrong, even if Dems were to sweep everything, the fascists aren’t going to go quietly. Plenty of Americans have always been monarchists, and plenty supported the literal Nazis up until bombs fell. Then they just didn’t like those Nazis.

          A large portion of this country still seems pissed the North won the Civil War, and until that gets resolved, the need to guard our country isn’t over.

          • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Yeah maga round here aren’t pro trump anymore they’re “Kamala is four more years of this economy”. It’s definitely a different energy than in the past

    • APassenger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 months ago

      Between criminal charges, a reinvented and reinvigorated Dem campaign and havi g been grazed by a bullet… I think he he’s cratered.

      To say nothing of his noticeable cognitive decline.

  • cultsuperstar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    116
    ·
    3 months ago

    What worries me is we’ll have a repeat of 2016 where everyone just assumed Hillary was going to win so they didn’t vote. Hopefully people will go out and vote regardless.

    • Cranakis
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      3 months ago

      Absolutely. When I saw the headline I thought the same thing. Bad actors will try to sew exactly that thought in liberal circles as long as Dems have the momentum.

      We can’t buy into it and need to resolve ourselves to fight like hell until election day, regardless of what “the polls” or “the experts” say. We need to make Kamala win in an indisputable landslide. We need to send a message that will make Trump and his acolytes political pariahs from now on.

    • Donebrach@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      3 months ago

      thats not entirely accurate. Yes there was not as much enthusiasm behind Hillary as there was behind Obama, and she had a lot of (mostly invented) baggage, but she lost beacause she didnt campaign in a meaningful way lost a few swing states by a small margin (because yes, most reasonable people assumed she’d be the next president—and so many reasonable people assumed that eventuality that she won the popular vote by a wide margin).

      Trump is noise and makes money for media outlets so they give him a massive and constant boost of brand recognition. They could’ve all been even mildly responsible in 2020 and just stop talking about the out of office former president but instead they kept him in the zietgeist which allowed him to run again this year.

      I am still finding hope in the fact he did not win reelection the first time against a walking corpse elder statesman, and has not won elections for most of his endorsed down-ballot candidates in the past X years.

      Anyway, people who do not want him in office should go and vote against him.

      (and people who do want to see him in office again, sorry you shouldn’t vote for a lot of reasons but the biggest one being they’ll know who you are and that’s how they get you and also vaccines are mandatory for the polls so you should stay away and they’ll also forcibly swap your genitals and ITS REALLY TRUE FOLLOW ME ON FACETUBE)

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        Even if she had won I’d be pissed at them, you don’t celebrate a candidate’s victory if you don’t even bother voting for them.

        • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          To be fair they were mostly in states that still went blue. But it’s the principle of the thing…

    • Macallan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      3 months ago

      I didn’t vote for Hillary because she sucked. I voted 3rd party that election. I’m definitely voting Harris/Waltz this time.

          • spongebue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            27
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Yes, I figured as much when you said you voted 3rd party. Unless we get ranked choice or some other form of voting, we are going to get a president from one of the two main parties for the foreseeable future. Until then, a vote for the person who shares 90% of your views instead of 75% will help the guy who shares 5% of your views with you. Not to mention that the 75% candidate had about a decade of being dragged through the mud prior to the election to make her seem worse than she really is.

            • Macallan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              3 months ago

              I (and a lot of others) are not going to “Toe the line” for whoever the DNC shoves down our throats if we don’t feel like it. The DNC learned a good lesson in 2016. I’m not ashamed that I didn’t vote for Hillary just because she was “better than Trump”. I didn’t like either candidate, so I voted third party to help boost their numbers to help get away from a 2 party system. I’m not sorry for that, and whatever shit you give me isn’t going to change my opinion.

              • cheesebag@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                23
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                In 1992, Ross Perot got about 20% of the popular vote as a third party candidate. How did that “help get away from a 2 party system”? That’s not a rhetorical question, I’m curious.

                What “lesson” do you think the DNC learned in 2016?

                What’s your plan to institute ranked voice voting & national popular vote?

                • Macallan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I wasn’t old enough to vote in the 1992 election. I was only 15.

                  I think the DNC learned that pushing a candidate that wasn’t well liked isn’t going to win them an election, just because that’s who they wanted to put in the spotlight. (Anecdotal based on my personal conversations. I haven’t researched it.)

                  Reducing the 15% National electorate requirement by the FEC for presidential debates would be a start. This allows lesser known parties and candidates a voice on the national stage and gives them more national coverage.

                  I’m just a random person. I personally don’t have a plan how to institute ranked choice voting, but I would absolutely vote for a ranked choice voting system rather than keeping the current 2 party system.

              • Jackie's Fridge@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                16
                ·
                3 months ago

                “Boosting their numbers” in the single biggest election doesn’t make them a viable party. Third party candidates got an average of 5% of the vote in the 2016 presidential election (unless you include Utah to blow the bell curve to a whopping 7%).

                Getting that party’s candidates established in local governments across the nation so they gain a following, experience, and momentum is what does make them viable. It’s not easy, but it’s the only way. Zero people care who didn’t win the presidential election or why - it’s winner take all. No message is received.

                • Macallan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I don’t care. I didn’t like either candidate and voted accordingly. 2016 wasn’t my fault. Put up a better candidate and I would have voted for them.

    • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      The possibility worries me, but this situation seems closer to Obama’s campaign than Hillary’s. Somewhere inbetween for sure, but people are enthusiastic.

    • forrcaho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Young people need to get enthusiastic to vote; and Hillary didn’t do that for them. Hillary didn’t do that for me-- because she’s best buds with Jamie Dimon and his ilk, and would only be joining a picket line when hell froze over-- but I still got out and made the only realistic vote against Trump because I’m a grownup.

      It’s different this time because Democrats are finally being convincing that they’re not aligned with the billionaires, and because we’ve seen what a Trump presidency was actually like now. I think that will get more of the youth vote (with lots of GOTV effort, of course).

  • PenisDuckCuck9001@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    110
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Bullshit. They’re going to keep pumping out “Trump is losing so horribly no one has to vote anymore” propaganda so then we’ll have another 2016. Our rights are at stake and life is going to be harder for everyone except the elites if Project 2025 happens. All I know is I’m showing up to vote regardless of who’s “winning”.

    • leadore@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      3 months ago

      The thing is, whether Harris would win without your vote or not, you still have to vote for all the other offices too, so we can have a Dem majority in the House and Senate, and more Dems at your State level in the legislature, governor’s office, AG, election board, school board, etc. Those things are just as important as POTUS. Not to mention that even in states Harris winds up losing, the margins need to be made as small as possible to show how much support she really has in all states (very important for both parties to see this–it impacts what policies get implemented, what they think they can get away with), also for future funding allocation of candidates by the parties, etc.

      Bottom line is that voting is tremendously important to do, no matter what! Not voting just has too many negative consequences.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Also treating voting as optional decreases your sense of obligation to democracy. Voting and political participation are rights, but they carry with them duties. Even if I feel the need to turn in a blank ballot I see it as a responsibility to turn in a ballot of some kind. To let myself not do so is to take the first step towards only voting if I feel like it. So no, every two years non negotiable, every major primary, and usually even off year elections. On the Tuesday following the first Monday in November I’m busy unless I voted early.

        • leadore@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          I agree, I’ve voted in every election since I was old enough to vote. I’m pretty old so that’s a lot of elections. I wish civics was still taught in school. We were taught that voting is a civic duty and that you have to constantly defend your rights or you will lose them. Anyone who doubted that can no longer deny it or be shocked at how quickly it can happen.

  • 800XL@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    105
    ·
    3 months ago

    That’s because he only cares about when the election happens. He has plans in place to deny the results and to send his chud army out to terrorize. That’s all he is waiting for.

    • bluemellophone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yeah… this feels right. He seems to have checked out because the real campaign starts once he has lost. They’d rather use their dollars shielding him from further judicial consequence and preparing to set the country on fire once he loses.

      • phx@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah, the whole “Dems cheated by pulling a switcheroo with candidates” line seemed to feed into that, but I also feel like there was a bit of slack-jawed “well we didn’t see this coming” panic in the Republican party as well

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yeah I think there’s also a panic of nothing they tried before is working anymore and now without Biden trump’s age related degeneration is becoming really obvious

    • rainynight65@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      3 months ago

      Thing is though, if that’s his plan, he still needs to keep his base energised. If all they see him do now is slack off and visibly not care, they may just think he’s given up, and not turn up on election day. Fraud will be harder to argue with meagre turnout of his voters. They may also be harder to mobilise in November if they got disenchanted with him in September.

      So in a way, by stewing, sulking and slacking off, he may just not be doing himself any favours.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I wish every election could be this easy

    Remember to still vote, there was a time when too many people just didn’t because it was assured Hillary would win.

    Roe V. Wade was appealed and many women are dead now as a result

    • abracaDavid@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      3 months ago

      I know that the Republican party made this happen, but Democrats are absolutely complicit in letting it happen.

      Obama promised to codify Roe v Wade when he had a super majority, and he just didn’t. Why didn’t he?

      Ruth Bader Ginsberg could have retired and let us set a better judge into the Supreme Court, and yet the Dems somehow couldn’t look one presidential term into the future and try to have a contingency plan. Why?

      • Nurgus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Obama never had a supermajority. He got close but peaked at 59 senators in the senate and one in hospital. One shy of 60 is not enough.

      • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        He didnt codify roe because he didn’t have the votes. There were several “conservatives” democrat senators in the 2 yr span when they had a super majority, and they would not have voted for abortion protections at that time.

        He instead focused on something he could do, which was give 100s of millions of Americans a chance at healthcare. Even that had single payer attached until it was scuttled last minute by Joe Liberman, an independent that cacused with dems that refused to cast the deciding vote for the ACA with single payer attached because his state of Connecticut had several large insurers HQ’ed there. Obama wouldn’t have needed Liberman, but Ted Kennedy died, and his replacement was a Republican.

        RGB held on because she saw McConnel ratfuck Obama out of his Scalia replacement posting. She knew he would either get screwed again, or have to appoint someone conservative like Garland. So she waited for Hilary, who had a 70% of winning, but who didn’t.

        The only things Obama did wrong was try to bridge the partisan divide. He was doing politics like it used to be, with compromise at its core. He didn’t realize, or at least didn’t want to realize, that the GOP had made politics a game of winner takes all. If he had, he could have placed two supreme court justices and got single payer.

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        3 months ago

        The voters are complicit too then. Too many people didn’t vote in 2016. Maybe you’re complicit too! Let’s all finger point at everyone other than the people that did the bad things!

        Or maybe we should just say the people doing the bad things are responsible for the bad things. Yeah I know taking things to a meta extremes is fashionable among intellectual types, but it’s really silly and doesn’t accomplish anything.

      • Makhno@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        I know that the Republican party made this happen, but Democrats are absolutely complicit in letting it happen.

        The dems were singing some dumb bullshit on the steps after it got repealed. Fuck them, they’re 100% complicit

  • Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    3 months ago

    Trump since the 80s has gotten away with deplorable crimes and was still liked. He doesn’t know how to handle hate and reality that only freaks like him. Then you add a black women kicking his ass, chief kiss.

  • Myxomatosis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    3 months ago

    Trump is really weak, old and tired. I prefer the younger, energetic Kamala rather than a whining, fat old man.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      As President, he spent a lot of time doing rallies and fundraisers for other GOP candidates. He was a perfect little spokes model who could open wallets and hype candidates.

      Now he’s just in full on burnout. He’s got no faith left in his campaign and doesn’t want to admit he’s fading.

  • vga@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Respectfully, fuck this noise and take the thing seriously. The election is not decided until the votes are counted and the secessionists (if any) are shot or incarcerated.

  • Adderbox76@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    3 months ago

    Trump is being told by his donors that the voting isn’t important because they’ll litigate the shit out of the election if they lose.

    What’s important to understand is that Trump isn’t the one in charge. He’s a useful idiot.

    Trump’s motivation isn’t Project 2025, or abortion bans, or anything at all for that matter. He has no principles. He agrees with the last person who spoke with him. That’s how his brain works. What Trump cares about is having the power to pardon himself and make all of his criminal charges go away.

    So a bunch of fundies see an opportunity. THEY have an agenda. THEY have a plan. THEY tell Trump, WE WILL get you into power by hook or by crook. We’ll pay for your campaign because we know you’re broke. We’ll get our people in place everywhere we can. From a vote perspective, you’re going to lose this election…WE are your only chance to avoid prison and (potentially worse) no longer being useful to Putin and falling out a high window.

    Trump is golfing not because he’s given up. But because a) he’s miserable and has no interest in being the president, but he has no choice if he wants to avoid prison. and b) He honestly believes he doesn’t need the votes because his “people” (who he’s stupid and egotistical enough to think that HE controls rather than the other way around) have it wrapped up for him.

  • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    3 months ago

    Either it’s a demotivated Trump, or it’s a Trump who figures that if he’s going on the offensive now, then the Harris campaign will still have time for a comeback.

    Friends don’t let friends get lazy, remind everyone to vote!

    • smayonak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      We have to take the election fraud seriously. The only reason a felon like trump, facing jailtime, would take it easy is if he knew he was guaranteed the presidency in November. Either he got assurances from the Supreme Court or he knows something we dont.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    3 months ago

    Oh! I’ve seen this one! This is a classic!

    Let me guess, he’s “growing increasingly isolated” yeah?

  • ryrybang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    3 months ago

    Trump aides alarmed that Trump is ranting about crowd sizes.

    Trump aides alarmed that Trump’s skin is orange.

    Trump aides alarmed that Trump only cares about himself.

    Trump aides alarmed that Trump is living in the past.

    Trump aides alarmed that Trump is a convicted felon.

    Like, who are these aides? Where were they the last 20 years?

    • just_another_person@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 months ago

      These are probably new people who, like the old aides, can’t say anything honestly to anyone surrounding the campaign for fear of being fired, or outed (they’ve done this to their own people expect fanatic followers to do them harm). So these new folks realized this pretty quickly, and now just leak to the press like the entire old group of aides and confidants did. It’s pretty fucking pathetic.

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        And then sell a book detailing all the crimes they could have done something about a year later when they quit the administration.

        • orcrist@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          It’s not relevant what Trump did last 20 years. It’s only relevant what Trump did during close campaigns in the last 20 years, which is maybe one year in total, or two years, depending how you measure.

          Which is to say, just because most people would predict it, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t talk about it and report on it now when it’s actually happening. Because Trump could have woken up. There was always a chance that at some level he realized that he doesn’t want to face what’s coming to him if he loses.