Basically this, but usually the best ideas come to me during smoke breaks instead. (Still trying to kick that addiction, don’t smoke, kids, I’ve managed to get rid of alcohol and other drugs I experimented with in the past, nicotine just won’t fucking stop with the fucking urges, even when you manage to “quit” for months at a time.)

True, thank you for pointing that point out, because this actually does show an important angle of messaging ahead. What makes the article itself cope in my opinion, is its misleading headline and overall presentation. It’s tabloid-level of presenting the message, your interpretation is actually a lot better.

It’s a single focus group of specifically undecided Latino voters. Only more standardised and statistically significant polling will give a better estimation. Could there be an unexpected, seemingly paradoxical effect? Maybe, shit is complicated, yo. Politics are a chaotic system at times. I personally doubt it, but, hey, we will see.

But this article in particular? To be blunt: It is cope.

I think that analysis is missing an important fact: Yes, Trump’s mental decline is visible to anyone taking a closer look. He is a liar who just as much as Biden, more even, can just get things wrong unintenionally on top of that. But one thing that is important about him, is that he is a narcissist. Projecting charisma and using bullshit to shield himself is literally what his pathology and the very core of his unconscious mind is built on, it will be the very last thing to go. That is why the “Biden is old” narrative is still working with people - both are old, both are showing signs of it, but Trump can keep up the optics, because that is the very essence of what his life and psyche is revolving around.

I had a very quick look at post-debate rallies of both Trump and Biden. (Sidenote - where was that energy during the debate, Biden? Your voice actually had proper inflection and power, what happened there?) Trump spewed bullshit, of course, lies, falsehoods, nonsense. But he knew how to interact with the crowd, he knew how to speak, he knew how to adjust his message and demeanor between talking to his supporters and talking to a more general audience. Biden was competent enough with his speech - more competent than during the debate for sure - but he still felt like someone who had lacking dynamism. And in light of the debate that just happened, his enthusiastic supporters and his hype-people trying to build him up felt… surreal to be 100% honest. The chants of “You can do it” did not feel like a powerful message of competence, but like cheering someone on out of pity. His message in light of the current situation also felt confused. Saying both (not direct quotes, from memory) “I know I am not the youngest”, semi-acknowledging that there were problems, while also saying that “Trump is too dangerous” - that definitely sparked the immediate thought of “Yes, Trump is genuinely dangerous. So why are we running with you as our only hope of defeating him?”

I understand, talking about things right now is also about optics, it’s about trying to convince others, and yourself, to go vote, to believe in your chosen team and candidate and all that. But lets not delude ourselves, because that idea of Biden beating Trump on the sole basis of being not Trump has led to this situation. The optics of the mental decline of both candidates are different, and the pushed narrative of Biden being old is far from effectless.

Yeah yeah, heard it all, haha, dae larper revolution lefties playing teenage boy shooters? Okay, I am sleep-deprived, and I am just genuinely concerned about the state of the world, so yeah, I will write out my position a bit more clearer, well, I will try to, because it is not accelerationism.

So, to assume you are arguing in good faith, even with the ad hominem:

Do you think it’s completely impossible that fascist groups might react with violent actions when Biden or another Democrat wins? I think it is very much a possibility, they are deluded and armed. And they would be trounced, they don’t have the proper support and organisation. It would indeed weaken them.

My goal is not accelerationism, accelerationism is a silly concept to begin with. If so, I would support Trump. But that’s the kind of BS some communist groups did in the 30s “Oh yeah, as soon as the mask of capital falls of its face and Hitler gets elected, people will revolt!”. Nope, as soon as the mask of humanity slips from capital, it kills you. Dead. And uses your hair and teeth as resources. I’m German (and before any arguments come about me keeping out of debating US politics: your politics influences the world, so while I won’t be able to vote, I will have a voice in it). I’ve seen Auschwitz, I’ve read the debates that were held in the 30s. I’ve studied how the center-right thought they could outmaneouver and control Hitler and use him to get rid of those pesky socialists and social democrats. Hell, the NSDAP never even won a proper majority, power was handed to them.

I just look at the global net profit rate over the course of one and a half centuries (spoilers: it’s falling, with the only major times it is rising rapidly after destructive wars - almost like there is something to Marx’s theories of capital consolidation and the pressure it creates. The stagnation only slowed for a while, because the profit crisis of the late 70s was mitigated by neoliberal politics - i.e. class warfare), look at how economical consolidation happened before WWI (the economy was enormously globalised through Colonialism, and trusts or even outright monopolies across industries, with integrated production/logistics/distribution in single companies - think Walmart and Amazon as the closest analogues today), look at how Germany looked in the 30s. I look at ever more desperate venture capital adventures to find avenues of profitability for all the stagnant dead capital that has accumulated, like “Big Data” or now “AI”. I look at the statistics and projected models for the future - I think a lot of people just completely underestimate what kind of a complex shitshow climate change will create. It’s even beyond economics, the material reality of nature is changing under our feet, we have been changing it. There will be death. There will be wars. There will be chaos. I won’t be able to change that, you won’t be, at best, we can mitigate it. That is what the logic of growth and capitalism has given us.

I don’t believe in accelerationism because it is nonsense. No one has to accelerate this shit. Capitalism does its job to reach its logical conclusion fine on its own. It’s also delusional - what, me, some German commie autist who just happened to have the misfortune of having philosophy and history as a hyperfocus is going to influence politics towards anything? Politics follows material reality, with idealism only influencing it insofar as it is itself a material force, in a dialectical, reciprocal exchange with material reality. All I can do at this moment is play Cassandra and argue my position, trying to do my best to support those that are building real-life connections and organisations, within the limits of what this body and brain can do - support unions, neighbourhood groups for mutual aid, educational groups, community defence groups, antifacist groups - and yes, even the Democrats, because I do think, again, that it will be good to have a Democrat in office in this historical moment, even though it, as you may have guessed, it’s very much a lesser evil to me, that I view rather cynically, to give people as much time as possible to organise without extremer persecution, before that one will happen eventually - and maybe weaken reactionary forces by getting them to be stupid, they are good at that.

Now, I don’t write this to convince you. Not to convince many people reading it. In my experience, my positions are usually too radical for centrists, too critical of Marxism-Leninism for the tankies (hell, I think the Soviet Union had, essentially, and in a Marxist analysis, a capitalist economy - even Stalin acknowledged the rule of value still being in effect in “The Economic Problems of the Soviet Union”), too Marxist for the anarchists. And reactionaries, well, I am already looking into what to do if AfD wins over here in a few more years/decades. Not a guarantee, thank god, but that it is even a real possibility in fucking Germany is chilling and just hammering home what the current historical moment and current reaction to the changes in economical and material realities are, globally.

So I am writing this to at least make someone, somewhere think. Take a step back. For one moment, forget that there are teams, and I am on the “enemy” team. Do you think the status quo is tenable? Do you think moderate politics will survive the next decades? Not because of some larping agitators you think are destroying them, like with accelerationism (again - as if some accelerationists are influential enough to do anything there at this historical moment), but simply because capitalism has always had crises, they have had horrible consequences in the past, and this one comes with a huge climate catastrophe on top. Do you think it’s people like me, somehow fantasising about violent revolution like some CoD game as you seem to imply, that push for violence - or do you at least acknowledge the possibility that violence will simply happen due to material and socioeconomic changes, globally? Revolutions are not pushed by agitators and propagandists, they are pushed by the price of bread. And agitators and propagandists can only try to structure the way a revolution plays out. And that is why I think we will have to prepare for that reality, and eventually doing away with the system and mode of production that led us to this point - as it really is not the only option, no matter how much ideology has presented it as that.

Doubt a lot of people will read the wall of text, and feel free to downvote and criticise me for the instance I cose (back when it was afaik the only one, but admittedly, it fit my politics at least somewhat as well), but this time, you can at least attack my character on the point of my actual positions, maybe call them delusional or something - or surprise me and develop your own positions dialectically against mine, I have no absolute guarantee I am right, so proper critique is welcome - while maybe some tankie might call out how I am a liberal reactionary. But keep this wall of sleep deprived autism-energy monologue at least somewhere in the back of your mind, as one option to analyse what will be coming up in the future.

I do have an issue with the tankie dumbfucks who will STILL talk about “Genocide Joe” when we have video evidence of trump saying he outright wants the Palestinians eradicated and thinks Biden is too soft on them.

Oh, I get that one. Might lose me some brownie points with some of my fellow communists, but I think they overestimate their own influence and overly moralise the questions when they talk about Biden. Personally, I think the important thing is moving towards communism by making organisation of the working people possible, and that will be forced much more into the underground under another Trump presidency. To me, the one question on my mind is: How can this situation be further used for empowering an eventual revolutionary change, ultimately, it is about power.

As a bonus point: I do think Biden winning might bait the fascists into doing something stupid, like armed revolts which they are certainly not ready for yet, potentially weakening them further, and moving some moderates into openly antifascist organisations.

Well, beauty is a social construct as well, and yet plastic surgery is a massive industry, with shifting trends as well.

Social construct does not mean entirely abstract, but in dialectic exchange with material reality.

You are correct - this will be about the undecided and independent vote. And yes, signalling in the coming days will be important, focus on Trumps lies and obvious deflections.

That doesn’t change that Biden did not do a good job, and that that will make things a lot harder. It’s not the commies and hard lefties, the “useful idiots” in your eyes, that dominate the discourse, it will be pundits and just your everyday Joes talking to each other. And they have not been given good material from the Democrats with Biden, it’s going to be hard work to counter what is an intuitively understood truth with the average watcher: Biden did not do well and left so much on the table, where he could have done a better job attacking Trump on his obvious deflections and lies. The hope is, that maybe the common undecided voter has become tired of Trump’s shtick, countering the surface-level feelings.

That was ironically the best summary of the damn debate. Two out of touch liches talking about golf.

I wonder how the liberals feel now, that pushed Biden on electability and rejected any more radical options because they were too scary and conflicting with the party line.

He got a little more energetic, but not enough, really.

“We had H2O”, what is he even talking about? It’s scary to realise his cult just accepts anything he says.

And then a confused attack on Trump on climate change that was so softball and not to the point… oof… Biden, why?

Of course, Trump completely deflects on the climate change question.

Well, Biden’s Charlottesville attack on Trump wasn’t too bad all things considered, Trump did deflect of course, but maybe it invigorated the old fart.

If he gets angry enough to get some more strength into his voice and inflection, who knows, he might not crash completely. It seems a little different than in the beginning at least right now.

That would be an interesting outcome. I doubt it, but if it were to happen, I don’t think it would have been planned, just a panic reaction.

It just goes to show, that rhetoric and charisma are important. They aren’t the only important thing, but Jesus, if you have good points to make but can’t make them properly, you will be bulldozed.

Why is there no fact-checking on air? Why even have moderation if they do nothing to challenge the two?

Oh my lord, I will never, ever understand how and why Democrats argued that Biden was “the more electable” candidate. This is painful.

“If the RIAA sued hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”

You’ve got a great point there, actually