Opinion MAGA and lefties should work together to defeat Vance (kinda long read)

[Sweater of AV]

 

[SuperLuigi]

no, the horseshoe coalition is not a good idea. Leftists and MAGA have very different worldviews, arguments, values, end goals, audiences and strategies. They may agree that a thing is bad, but it's not the same as being able to work together.

For example I see a bunch of Massie clips. He's a libertarian, he's annoyed that the BBB cuts didn't go deep enough in social programs like SNAP and Medicare (despite this BBB still exploded the debt) and he wants to shrink government. and reduce debt. Leftists want the social safety net expanded, reduced privitisation, bigger government, wealth redistribution, and for Trump not to give tax cuts to the rich. Pushing in opposite directions, even if the outcome is voting against the bill.

I also don't see Massie as MAGA, he's a Libertarian. MAGA folks are essentially paleocons (anti-immigration, protectionism, anti-free trade) but with more anti-immigration sentiment than usual, but unlike paleocons MAGA folk don't give a shit about power grabs as long as it's their guy. Libertarians aren't too fond of power grabs and centralising power in the executive and are far more open to free trade and immigration.

So, I don't even know to what extent MAGA can work with Massie either. He's his own thing.

Edit - I just saw you put John Fetterman as a DNC or left presidential choice. He's getting primaried first opportunity. He's viewed as a traitor to the DNC and especially the left and among the most hated politicians in the coalition.

Its true that nobody will be entirely happy, but hopefully we can get someone who hits the big points which 80% of people have wanted for decades. Also while the sides of the horseshoe are different they might find they have more in common with each other than they think. Massie has been living on solar energy for 20 years as an example. But above all else I think people can be united in their opposition to the common enemy of corporatist neocons. You say MAGA will support any power grab as long as its the right guy but there is more dissent than you might think. MAGA is at its roots a populist movement and anyone who deviates from that is something else.

 

[BAM]

Its true that nobody will be entirely happy, but hopefully we can get someone who hits the big points which 80% of people have wanted for decades. Also while the sides of the horseshoe are different they might find they have more in common with each other than they think. Massie has been living on solar energy for 20 years as an example. But above all else I think people can be united in their opposition to the common enemy of corporatist neocons. You say MAGA will support any power grab as long as its the right guy but there is more dissent than you might think. MAGA is at its roots a populist movement and anyone who deviates from that is something else.

well, if you want to take on corporate power, then the route is actually anti-capitalist politicians, ie AOC and Bernie. And I don't see MAGA doing that because of their social takes. Everything else is just window dressing because they don't want to do anything about corporate power - libertarians, DNC, RNC, etc.

Maybe this guy if you're into ex-military, working class, pro-union, anti-PAC money, pragmatic soc dem/socialist policies:

The oysterman trying to oust Susan Collins raised $1 million in nine days • Maine Morning Star

Democrat Graham Platner, the Sullivan oyster farmer trying to oust long-time Republican U.S. Sen. Susan Collins in 2026, announced Thursday that his campaign has raised $1 million in his first nine days in the race.

mainemorningstar.com

 

[SuperLuigi]

@SuperLuigi

there isn't a real MAGA ideological successor, they're all full of shit. But your closest alternative is probably Josh Hawley, but it's hollow. He for example protested the SNAP and Medicare cuts and put forward the bill to stop insider trading for congressional members. But at the same time also voted for the BBB he opposed with all the cuts he said were bad going through anyways.

You're SOL for a true MAGA successor. It's all a grift.

Maybe look for an old school paleocon instead, if you are focused on anti-intervention, pro-protectionism, convervative social values and reduced federal and executive power (state's rights).

Thanks for mentioning Hawley, he seems like an interesting character. Unfortunately he follows the Tucker Carlson school of foreign policy - "Everything is about China so we need to appease Israel at every turn so we can focus on China."

 

[SuperLuigi]

well, if you want to take on corporate power, then the route is actually anti-capitalist politicians, ie AOC and Bernie. And I don't see MAGA doing that because of their social takes. Everything else is just window dressing because they don't want to do anything about corporate power - libertarians, DNC, RNC, etc.

Maybe this guy if you're into ex-military, working class, pragmatic soc dem/socialist policies:

The oysterman trying to oust Susan Collins raised $1 million in nine days • Maine Morning Star

Democrat Graham Platner, the Sullivan oyster farmer trying to oust long-time Republican U.S. Sen. Susan Collins in 2026, announced Thursday that his campaign has raised $1 million in his first nine days in the race.

mainemorningstar.com

View attachment 1110775

Yeah I think the democrats could steal the next election if they had AOC but a White dude with no strong divisive social opinions and sticks to their principles. Maybe this guy could be the ticket. They still have 3 years to get their act together so its possible.

 

[tenniswhiz]

I agree in theory but the problem is with this shit ass 2 party system the left will probably throw someone like Gavin up for election and there's no way in hell I'm voting for him either.

Massie sounds interesting though but I'm largely ignorant on him

Out of curiosity, who would be your ideal presidential candidates that exist outside of our current polarized two party system?

Anyone you want, historical or current, American or not. Not judging. Just curious.

 

[BAM]

Yeah I think the democrats could steal the next election if they had AOC but a White dude with no strong divisive social opinions and sticks to their principles. Maybe this guy could be the ticket. They still have 3 years to get their act together so its possible.

that's the thing, whomever is going to actually win the democratic nomination must turn out the democratic base - which means catering to social issues you may not like. It's not about the anti-capitalist nominee moving to the right, a Bernie affiliate isn't going to do that, it's about whether you can stomach whatever social policies you don't like for the greater good of taking on corporate power.

That's where the MAGA thing tends to come to a screeching halt, because soc dems and socialists aren't going to budge on that stuff to attract you. No throwing the trans-people under the bus in a Bernie coaltion (that's a DNC move). The Bernie coalition is going to target disaffected liberals and independents and hope you come along as well based on economic need.

So the question you need to ask yourself, is what is more important - your social preferences vs real enonomic change, can you form part of a Bernie style coalition, and then if not, ask yourself, why not.

 

[ChrisBenoit]

Vance needs to take over after mid terms so we get ten years

 

[ShadowRun]

Speaking of Iran

 

[IDGETKTFO]

Because Vance was groomed his entire career by a neocon to be a neocon and was saying Trump is Hitler until his handlers realized they couldnt beat Trump and changed his marching orders. Hopefully that is short enough.

I mean, Either way it seems like a win win, Trump still wanted him as VP, and if what you say is true, Democrats should want him over Trump. You just ain't making sense. Your TDS is flaring up.

 

[BAM]

@SuperLuigi if the right and left wanted to work together, it wouldn't really be on a candidate, but rather structural election reform:

1. get ranked choice voting - allows for independents and 3rd parties to compete in local and federal elections because it eliminates the vote splitting argument (that's how Zohran Mamdani was able to beat Cuomo). For a right wing perspective, you would likely have a stronger libertarian party, a paleocon party, maybe a new Tea Party, and a weaker corporate neocon coalition. For the left that would mean more independents, a stronger green party, stronger DSA and weaker corporate Hilary Clinton style DNC coalition.

2. amend the consitution to get rid of Citizens United type corporate spending and lobbying. Make it all transparent grassroots fundraising. Everybody disarm.

3. the following will never happen but - change the constiution to get rid of the presidential election and move to a parlimentaray system. Makes it so that the leader doesn't require a billion dollar campaign fund to be decided. Essentially it means the equivalent of the president (prime minister) is like the Speaker of the House - win a local election and then have party support. Also easy to rid of if they suck and easier to hold them to account (Kevin McCarthy got ousted).

 

[fedorthegoat777]

Nice writing, can I buy the book on Amazon?

Nah, Vance doesn't have a chance.

No Chance Vance

 

[Confucamus]

Democrats have the lowest approval rating in recorded history. They need to worry about fixing their own party first before anybody expects them to be effective at working together on anything.

 

[Daverisimo]

So, no disrespect meant, but there are a few reasons why this idea is dumb as shit.

1: the "Querfront" model never has worked, and it never will. There is literally no theoretical model where the right doesn't stab the left in the back. As much as I loathe admitting that rightists are ever correct, I have to admit that there is some truth to Carl Schmidt's idea that all of politics boils down to the "friend enemy" distinction. The left and right are enemies, and there's no way around that (granted, the friend enemy distinction isn't symmetric in this case. The enemies of the left are purely ideological, whereas the enemies of the right are both ideological and identitarian).

2: Vance, and the neoreactionary agenda in general, is what committed rightists actually want, and it's what they've wanted for a long time. They want a calcified social hierarchy, and the neoreactionary movement of Vance, Thiel, Yarvin, etc is the one political project that offers the most clear cut path to delivering that.

3: the rank and file of MAGA are completely politically illiterate. They are totally averse to analyzing political theory (which is why you have MAGAts accusing milquetoast centrist neoliberals like Harris or Biden of being communists), and so, they'll gladly support the neoreactionaries no matter how much their political project promises to fuck them, and if anyone points this out, they'll just reason that "the left hates it, so it must be good".

 

[K-Bag]

Is Vermin Supreme still alive?

 

[Daverisimo]

Edit - I just saw you put John Fetterman as a DNC or left presidential choice. He's getting primaried first opportunity. He's viewed as a traitor to the DNC and especially the left and among the most hated politicians in the coalition.

Yeah, Fetterman is a weird choice to put forward if you're concerned about the influence of AIPAC. The left abandoned him primarily because of his shilling for Israel.

(On a sidenote, the fact that Fetterman basically became a conservative after receiving severe brain damage will never not be hilarious to me).

well, if you want to take on corporate power, then the route is actually anti-capitalist politicians, ie AOC and Bernie. And I don't see MAGA doing that because of their social takes. Everything else is just window dressing because they don't want to do anything about corporate power - libertarians, DNC, RNC, etc.

Maybe this guy if you're into ex-military, working class, pro-union, anti-PAC money, pragmatic soc dem/socialist policies:

The oysterman trying to oust Susan Collins raised $1 million in nine days • Maine Morning Star

Democrat Graham Platner, the Sullivan oyster farmer trying to oust long-time Republican U.S. Sen. Susan Collins in 2026, announced Thursday that his campaign has raised $1 million in his first nine days in the race.

mainemorningstar.com

View attachment 1110775

Yep, the fact that rightists utterly detest the social democratic wing of the democratic party shows how hollow their "anti-elitist" rhetoric is. They're the only faction of US electoral politics actually working against "the elites".

That said, what little hope I do have in electoral politics lies with people like Platner. He's chud-coded enough to trick rightists into voting for him, in spite of the fact that he seems to be to the left of even most socdems.

 

[Rod1]

I agree in theory but the problem is with this shit ass 2 party system the left will probably throw someone like Gavin up for election and there's no way in hell I'm voting for him either.

Massie sounds interesting though but I'm largely ignorant on him

1.- One side says that poor banks should be able to charge BS surcharges that people don't have the energy or time to fight with impunity because otherwise its socialism

2.- The other side thinks that consumers shouldn't be buttfucked by said banks because consumer protections should be a thing

I mean even if you consider both evil, its pretty clear which is the lesser one

 

[SuperLuigi]

I mean, Either way it seems like a win win, Trump still wanted him as VP, and if what you say is true, Democrats should want him over Trump. You just ain't making sense. Your TDS is flaring up.

If anything I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt that he started off faithful to his base and still will be on some issues. Democrats dont want Vance because he wants a calcified social hierarchy with tech CEOs at the top. If I had TDS I wouldnt be trying to warn Trump guys about a wolf in sheeps clothing.

 

[SuperLuigi]

So, no disrespect meant, but there are a few reasons why this idea is dumb as shit.

1: the "Querfront" model never has worked, and it never will. There is literally no theoretical model where the right doesn't stab the left in the back. As much as I loathe admitting that rightists are ever correct, I have to admit that there is some truth to Carl Schmidt's idea that all of politics boils down to the "friend enemy" distinction. The left and right are enemies, and there's no way around that (granted, the friend enemy distinction isn't symmetric in this case. The enemies of the left are purely ideological, whereas the enemies of the right are both ideological and identitarian).

2: Vance, and the neoreactionary agenda in general, is what committed rightists actually want, and it's what they've wanted for a long time. They want a calcified social hierarchy, and the neoreactionary movement of Vance, Thiel, Yarvin, etc is the one political project that offers the most clear cut path to delivering that.

3: the rank and file of MAGA are completely politically illiterate. They are totally averse to analyzing political theory (which is why you have MAGAts accusing miqultoast centrist neoliberals like Harris or Biden of being communists), and so, they'll gladly support the neoreactionaries no matter how much their political project promises to fuck them, and if anyone points this out, they'll just reason that "the left hates it, so it must be good".

I give MAGA more credit than that but some replies in this thread are making me second guess that. For the back stabbing, I figured we could all work together now and all stab each other in the back later.

 

[curryjunkie]

I give MAGA more credit than that but some replies in this thread are making me second guess that. For the back stabbing, I figured we could all work together now and all stab each other in the back later.

Have you listened to the average maga? I wouldn't credit most of them with the ability to tie their own shoes, they are deranged..