America is the best country in the world. No not the best government, but the best civilization/country

The beauty of America

You have a civilization that spans an entire continent, encompassesing 3 different Seas, and 3 different timezones. From the mucky swamps in Florida, to the frozen tundras in Alaska, to the sunny beaches in California, to the volcanos in Hawaii, to the Deserts in Arizona, to the great lakes in Michigan, to the Yellowstone in Wyoming. All united under ONE government and people.

• You have a regional balance where the Midwest gets access to both coastal waters for trade. The Eastcoast states get access to West coast. The West coast gets access to East coast. Every state gets influence everywhere and can lead at a federal level. Hell, we had a small state like Delaware (Biden) leading the Republic for a while.

• Despite reddit saying Americans dont know Geography, we are a nation that has shown its military might in every continent and beaten empires in every continent on their own land. Outperformed them all.

How did America start?

The 13 colonies were divided but eventually came together. New England's Egalitarian Theocratic Puritan colonies, The South's hierarchy Business-Based Anglican Colonies, and the Middle Quaker Colonies. To gain our independence, 13 colonies, of all different types of culture, idealogy, and religion UNITED out of resentment of British and formed army and congress.

At Valley Forge, the continental army made up of 13 colonies (after a demoralizing loss to Britian) endured the harsh winter, starved together, suffered together, trained together, and came out unified under Washington to eventually win the war. That harsh crucible BONDED all eventual 13 colonies together into a nation with a common identity.

They beat the biggest empire in the world at their prime in a monumental upset victory. Probably the biggest upset in the entire history of warfare (Aided by France, ofc).

Every region of America contributes to American Greatness on a federal level.

Now, lets talk about the BEAUTY of how each region benefits each other in a symbiotic relationship.

• New England is our intellectual capital (MIT/Harvard). This region has insane geniuses and contributes to national technological advancement. They also run our federal government most of the time and ensure good governance (not now tho).

• The Midwest is our fertile breadbasket and lifeblood to the Republic.

• The South, while annoyingly regressive at times, has insanely good military sense and won America nearly ALL of its wars on EVERY SINGLE CONTINENT on earth. You don't send nerds to conquer, you send southerners. Also, Louisiana controls the Mississippi/Missouri River which is EXISTENTIAL to the Midwest. If it was gone/in enemy hands, millions of Midwestern Americans would starve from famine.

• The Rust belt is our industrial capital. Making our cars, war machines, and ALOT of useful products. Henry Ford was born here, an iconic American.

• The West Coast is where USA got its cowboy, wild west, and crazy libertarian culture from. Colorado is the most libertarian state with drugs. California started the hippie movement. This area is a cultural center that makes stuff that unites an entire continent and civilization in crucial unity (Hollywood, Endgame, Star Wars, Disney childhood movies and TV Shows like iCarly or SpongeBob). The West Coast ALSO gives access to an ENTIRE ocean for the Midwest, Southern, Eastern states. Allowing VITAL trade from both the Pacific and the Atlantic into our Republic.

• Now for our distant states! Hawaii protects the nation at the Pacific & are the first line of Pacific/West Coast defense (Why Japan Attacked there with Pearl Harbor). The U.S Pacific fleet Command is stationed there. Alaska provides vast amounts of oil and natural resources and is one of the most strategic places on earth which defended the USA from the USSR during the Cold War. Alaska also controls the Pacific entrance to the Arctic ocean/Northwest shipping lane for Americans. Greenland (hopefully the 51st state if they vote to join) also protected the USA from the USSR and virtually controls the atlantic entrance to the Arctic ocean. It could hold an entire Naval fleet with its 150 icy Fjords and would likely be an Arctic Naval fleet Command for Arctic Ocean (3rd Ocean)

Political System

• You have a political system where no one is taken forgranted. Every state is equal in the senate and has equal say. Arizona has recently botched 2 POTUS Administration's Legislative Agendas despite being like 10X smaller than Cali or Texas.

• In the House of Reps, you have every community, by district, sending THIER BEST & SMRARTEST people from around across American Civilization to WORK ON national issues. (Granted, this isn't how it's working right now with MTG/Gerrymandering/Partisanship, but this is the idea.)

• Our Senate Majority leader is Thune from South Freaking Dakota. And our House speaker is from Louisiana who organizes all national policy for American Civilization. This is despite being small states.

• Presidential Term-Limits. Presidents, while in office, typically become cults of personality and win their 2nd term. Can you imagine Reagan running for a 3rd term or Obama running for a 3rd term? Or Bill Clinton running for a 3rd term? Or Eisenhower running for a 3rd term? Or even 4th or 5th terms? The nation would just turn into a cult of personality at a federal level (FDR for example). The term limits also give a chance for the opposing party to counter-balance the previous administration and gives hope as well.

• An Electoral college where NO ONE is taken forgranted. Without 100K Midwest farmers, the entire country would plunge into chaos, so despite having a lower population, they still get more voting power than 200K coastal actors/directors/hairdressors/Wallstreet bankers. Land/Regions do matter and Electoral College takes in effect everyone's opinions.

• If a person doesn't like thier state government? They have 50 states, 50 governments, to choose from. If you like drugs? Go to Colorado. If you like technology? Go to silicon valley in California. If you like Religious Communities? Go to the south. If you like Urban Environments? Go to Connecticut or New Hampshire. If you wanna live in a Desert, go to Arizona. If you want to live in the Arctic? Go to Alaska. It's absolutely beautiful.

American Culture and Unity

A great thing about America is that there is no "right of blood", you are just American. It provides no barbaric ethnic squabbles that get in the way like with other countries. In Europe, they allowed Syrian refugees and your seeing Neo-Nazi parties pop out and might even be in control (AfD) because they can't comprehend living with another non-white ethnicity. That doesn't happen in America anymore after the Civil Rights Movement of the 1900s.

• 360K+ white Northern Americans died for black southern slaves in 1860 out of PRINCIPLE of freedom and unity. After the North beat Confederates, they elected monuments and statues to their southern rebel leaders as reconciliation and the children of Civil-War Americans (whose parents just viciously killed each other) went on to fight, side-by-side, and had each others backs in the 1916 WW1 and 1942 WW2.

• USA is a multi-ethnic society where anyone can immigrate here and be considered American. (New World bonus). This doesn't happen in Non-NA/SA countries as they have "right of blood" laws.

• In 2008, we had Obama, who was born in Hawaii, with no ethnic ties to America, win a landslide popular vote against a war veteran. Hell, if McCain won, we would've had an Alaskan/Arizonan leading every state on a federal level.

• 1/5th marriages are now interracial (shown by JD Vance and now maybe Obama with Jennifer Aniston LMAO). A nation where 20% marriages are interracial compared to Europe's 8%. A truly multi-ethnic country. (South America is like 33% & Japan is 4% btw)

• USA has a cultural Unity where everyone is Politically American. An Alaskan or Michigan's top issue can be the southern border despite not being near it because they care so much about other states. This doesn't really happen in other countries or at least not on the same extent. You also have the flooded Northwest offering solutions to the parched Western US's water crisis with desalination.

• USA had a guy named "Eisenhower" lead the biggest coalitional military force against Nazi Germany and no one cared about his last name/ethnicity. Why? Because from childbirth, Americans pledge their identity to the federal government every single day. They KNEW he cared COMPLETELY about America than ANY ethnic ties in Germany. Like that's REALLY something special.

• You had a majority of Legal Hispanics voting to DEPORT their own race in 2024 because they disagreed with the principle of illegal immigration, harboring Nativist sentiment like the whites did. That's freaking INSANE to see considering South African whites and blacks can't go with a day without apartheid/trying to ethnically cleanse each other.

• In 2001 when terrorists attacked New York. We didn't care what race of people died. It wasn't X Asian Americans died, or Y Black Americans died, or Z Whites died. No, it was 3,000 Americans dead from Foriegners and we revenged the people who committed the terrorist attack as one single people.

• In the summer of 2021 when 13 Americans died in Kabul, no one was complaining about Half of those Americans being minority, thus not mattering. No! They got pissed at Biden for 13 Americans dying and his approval ratings plummeted like 20 points to which he never recovered.

And this is VERY rare for a civilization to do btw.

• In the Balkans, if you combine people, they'll start trying to commit an ethnic genocide against each other. Yugoslavia was tried and failed.

• In India, they used to be one country but couldn't get over Hindus hating Muslims

• In Africa, you get constant ethic squabbling becomes one tribe can't figure out how to get along with the other. They have small tribal identities.

• In China, it's like 97.5% Han Chinese. Not Chinese but HAN Chinese and they put other ethnicities in concentration camps because they can't handle living next to non-chinese.

In America, you are literally trained from childbirth to pledge yourself to an American federal identity, not an ethnic tribal one. A person from Hawaii could come to mainland USA and be treated the exact same as a neighbor. We are all "One Tribe". That is INSANELY rare. Even Germany, despite all being German, had to have Prussian Bismarck try for DECADES to unite Germania under common warfare/threat of France.

Now, lets examine the bad things that the USA has done.

America bad (Domestic)

• American President FDR put Japanese in holding camps during WW2.

• America botched reconstruction by not listening to radical Republicans and let the south implement Jim Crow and segregation. Then after Jim Crow was fixed, Nixon flooded black communities with drugs to destabilize and imprison them.

• Severly broke treaties with Indigenous Peoples and committed some atrocities in warfare which were, most of the time, one-sided.

American Bad (Foriegn)

• America destabilized the middle east causing massive amounts of death/hardship.

• America couped South American governments and illegally broke treaties with Indigenous Peoples.

America Bad (Politics)

And yes, I know Trump is not the best of America. I hate him too, he has desecrated norms and caused alot of American lives to be ruined and helps bad people.

Marjorie Taylor Greene and her beach blonde hooker hair is not the height of American vales. Lauren Boebert in not the height of American values. George Santos is not the height of American Values.

We have a goverment beholden to corporations because of Citizens United. We have mentally ill people who shoot up schools who should not have access to guns. We have crony capitalism causing the USA to have the worst Healthcare system in the world. Our school systems are failing.

America has done alot of bad things, I know and will not deny it, and it fills me with some shame. But EVERY country, that has had the ability to do so, has done bad things, we aren't specially bad, we are just as bad as every other country. To judge a country based on it's crimes instead of its good to the world is a child's understanding of the earth and large-scale communities and their descendants.

Lets look at ol great nice Canada. Like you can't say that if Canada was as strong as the USA, That they wouldn't do the same bad things that the USA did. They have ZERO ability to do so, and when they did have the ability to do bad things, they did so immediately.

I know we're a culture and nation in decline, but American greats are simply unmatched at their height, which are what we should judge a country by.

American Accomplishments

• We conquered the skies being the first nation to fly planes due to the Wright Brothers (Ohio). We mastered the art of nuclear power by assimilating German scientists and kids into the nation. We made the Polio and Flu vaccine which saved millions of lives. We took humanity to the stars by placing a man on the moon (Also Ohio) which still hasn't been accomplished by any nation for decades, and we'll likely do the same with Mars.

• America (Michigan) made the internet that your looking at this on. America (Illinois) made duck tape which is a common household item lmao. America (Maine) made the microwave. America (New York) made the MRI due to a Turkish immigrant's son. America (Vermont) created the GPS which is widely used by nearly everyone today. Our states, united, have made VAST improvements over human quality of life.

• We would've beat the world on 5G Wifi too if it wasn't for our broken immigration system deporting the "father of 5G tech" to freaking turkey with China taking advantage of it lmao. (Btw, USA should create a High-Skill immigration streamline act NAMED after this guy so that it NEVER happens again similar to how the USA named the Laken Riley act)

The USA has beaten civilizations on every continent in the art of warfare/espionage.

• When the Pacific Japanese Empire went against America? They fell.

• Mediterranean Italy? They fell.

• Arabia Iraq? They fell.

• Iberian Spain? They fell.

• The vast Euro-Asia USSR? They fell.

• The successors of the Aztecs? They fell.

• When 1790s Europe couldn't deal with pirates in Africa, Who did they call? They called the US navy and we defeated the Barbarary states in African Libya and Algeria.

When countries went against American interests? What did our federal intelligence agencies do? Coups.

• Southern Brazil? They fell (1964)

• Southern Chile? They fell (1973)

• Persian Iran? They fell (1953)

• Arabian Syria? They fell (1949)

• African Congo? They fell (1960)

Some of these were extremely morally bad coups btw, that REALLY shouldn't have happened (I heavily disagreed with Iran's coup), but for an isolated country to project it's Espionage all over the world is actually impressive.

End

Yes, America has gotten complacent with its government/laws and has the lowest quality of life with 1st world countries, but we're still the best country in the world.

The quality of life or education laws could be switched on a dime, and what would happen? America would be the best at it. If America adopted universal healthcare, it would probably be the best at it.

America not having the best quality of life in the world is simply a matter of political will to sign a piece of paper, not because we aren't able to.

ALOT of European states made their welfare states Post-WW2/Post-NATO. Without U.S military protection and their 2.8 million armed forces protecting them, they'd have to cut costs at welfare causing lower quality of life while the USA would have drastically more money to spend on quality of life programs.

I don't consider measuring how great America is based on X/Y/Z stat. Is it the best country to live in? No, it's not. But is it the best country in the world? Yes, it is.

A kindergartner could tell you what’s wrong with this chart.

from r/europe

Making a campaign too much about identity politics

Trying too hard to appeal to the youth vote

Flip-Flopping on important issues

Picking a boring unkown uninspiring VP (Pretty much everybody on her shortlist are completely unknown to the average voter)

Being too overconfident because of polling

Taking postions that are unpopular with the voters she needs to appeal too

There are probably other similarities but these were the only ones I could think off the top of my head

Because of Mallory McMorrow's withdrawal from the race, only two viable candidates remain: Abdul El-Sayed and Haley Stevens. Both candidates have their own pros and cons, but when it comes down to it, I believe that, from a Democratic Party standpoint, Haley Stevens is the superior pick. Before I start, please note that this is my opinion, and nothing more.

The biggest issues that I see in Abdul El-Sayed are his character, policies, and integrity. The integrity aspect is rather minor, but it's something worth touching on. A key part of El-Sayed's campaign messaging is his role as a doctor, which he uses to shoehorn his healthcare policies, particularly Medicare for All. However, during the course of the campaign, El-Sayed has repeatedly misrepresented his medical credentials, as evidenced by articles from Politico and this 2018 advertisement in which he donned a white doctor's coat. He would later use this photo for his current campaign, in which he dressed the same way. The concern with this messaging is that El-Sayed is not a licensed medical doctor and has no experience in medical practice. The following excerpt from the Politico article is helpful in demonstrating this fact:

His LinkedIn profile currently says he’s a “physician,” and late last month he called himself “a physician and epidemiologist” at a Council of Baptist Pastors debate in Detroit.

Contrary to his claims, the article, corroborated by evidence, states that he has never been granted a medical license in any U.S. state, with the very little treatment experience he has coming from a short sub-internship at a Manhattan hospital. He said himself on a podcast that his "job was to be the, like, worst doctor on the team" and that he was "cosplaying a doctor." (podcast here). This directly conflicts with his claim to be a physician.

My main issue with this is that it represents El-Sayed's rationale for running and has become a keystone factoid in his stump speeches. This would be different if it were put on the back burner, but the fact that it plays a central role in his campaign is what makes me question his integrity. If I were a Michigan voter, I wouldn't trust El-Sayed to be honest about his intentions as a United States Senator if he can't be honest about his experience and rationale for running. It is a bad reality to have a Senator that you can't trust, and El-Sayed may very well end up being one of the many who suffer from that problem. Haley Stevens isn't perfect either, and has a spotty record when it comes to PAC contributions. However, she hasn't lied about her biography or centered her campaign around deliberately false information, while the same can't be said for Abdul El-Sayed. A Senator with integrity is important, and I don't believe El-Sayed brings that to the table.

Besides this, El-Sayed's affiliation with Hasan Piker for campaign purposes also raises valid questions about his character and politics as a whole. Hasan Piker is quite controversial and has been a well-known advocate for tankie-aligned politics. Among other things, he has generated controversy through his support of the Iranian regime, abuse of his dog, support for the atrocities on October 7th and the terrorist groups involved, denial of the Uyghur genocide, statements that "America deserved 9/11," and reports that he visited brothels with underage girls. Plain and clear, this is not someone that any politician should want to be around. However, Abdul El-Sayed seemingly pushed these controversies aside, as he and Hasan Piker held multiple joint rallies, with El-Sayed later defending Piker's involvement and dismissing concerns about his controversies as "cancel culture." Regardless of whether or not El-Sayed personally holds the same beliefs as Piker, this isn't a good look. Campaigning with someone of such poor character is one thing, but defending them is another, and someone content with doing both and lacking qualms about it is someone who, from my viewpoint, shouldn't serve in the Senate. I can understand not caring much about this specific controversy, and I somewhat agree. This alone wouldn't fully compel me to vote against El-Sayed. But this, combined with issues of integrity and electability, makes for a mix I don't see as ideal.

His past controversies aren’t my only disagreements; I disagree with him on policy as well. I’m largely a moderate, and economically progressive and socially conservative. Progressive candidates typically aren’t my first pick, as I disagree with them on social issues such as immigration, as well as certain fiscal issues, depending on how progressive they are. Abdul El-Sayed, by and large, is democratic socialist-adjacent, which naturally clashes with my political viewpoints. I don’t support Medicare for All, as the information available doesn’t detail how it would be costed. It would lead to a ~5-year gap before full coverage, eliminate private insurance, and leave working families without adequate healthcare coverage for the entire period. I disagree with abolishing ICE, and I don’t believe that it solves the problems that our immigration system faces. I’m in favor of voter ID, as I believe that it enhances our election security and puts us on par with most other Western nations. I disagree with eratically adding justices to the Supreme Court, as I believe that it sets a dangerous precedent that will ultimately disadvantage Democrats in the end. My policy disagreements form the brunt of my opposition to El-Sayed, and I don’t believe that the aforementioned policies (opposite to my positions) are helpful for the situation that our economy finds itself in, nor is it beneficial to the Michiganders that El-Sayed is running to represent.

Despite El-Sayed's controversies and my personal qualms with him, Haley Stevens has some merits of her own as well. Stevens is regarded as one of the most effective legislators in the House of Representatives and the most effective Democrat in the House on technology-based legislation. She also maintains a near-perfect attendance record. Her record was impressive upon first examination, and she seems to be a competent legislator, from what I've been able to decipher. In many political environments, an activist can work, but in a Senate race, legislative effectiveness is what people want to see. An activist might appeal to your political viewpoints more, but when it comes time to bring home the bacon, they'll come up empty on most occasions. In the competition of legislative effectiveness, Haley Stevens wins, and it isn't close. This isn't to mention that he's untested in legislation and has never held elected office.

On policy, I also believe that Haley Stevens is the better alternative. Abdul El-Sayed is running a campaign on national issues, such as Medicare for All, getting money out of politics, and taxing billionaires. While there isn't necessarily anything wrong with this, it raises the question of what would be accomplished for the state he could represent. A senator such as Bernie Sanders has this problem, as he focuses on national issues rather than specific issues affecting his state. I also have doubts about how feasible some of his proposals are, particularly regarding implementation. Abdul El-Sayed, if elected, will be one of 100 senators, and unless he ends up on par with Amy Klobuchar, I highly doubt he'll be able to accomplish most of his agenda. It's easy to disregard local politics if you aren't a resident of a certain state, county, or town, and it's something that I fall victim to as well. However, if I were a Michigander, I would want a senator who can secure funding for the roads, schools, and hospitals that keep me afloat each day, rather than one who says the right things on many issues but struggles to be effective in legislating. From my viewpoint, it comes across as overly idealistic and unrealistic to assume legislative passage for hot-button issues, especially when coming from an inexperienced legislator. In my view, Haley Stevens has run a much better campaign on local issues. During her time in the House, her focus was on technology and industrial policy, both of which were important parts of her district's identity. During her campaign, her message has largely remained the same. Manufacturing, auto jobs, and standing up to China are the three main issues I've seen her talk about extensively, and all three are important to Michigan as a whole, given its position as one of the few states where the economy is dominated by manufacturing. Action on those three fronts in the Senate will likely accomplish more for the average Michigander than a Medicare for All proposal will, and because better industrial policy and competitiveness with China are two issues I'm passionate about, it makes my decision to support them all the easier. On top of her focus on Michigan issues, Stevens is also a proven legislator, and an effective one at that, making passage of her proposals less dubious.

Electability is also a concern. As someone within the DSA sphere of American politics, Abdul El-Sayed faces a bigger challenge than other candidates would in winning a swing state. DSA candidates and those aligned with them have long struggled to achieve electoral success outside deeply Democratic cities and regions. Democratic socialists and those further to the left have also run in the Rust Belt in recent elections, and the results they've achieved haven't been impressive. Deidre DeJear, for example, ran as a "Berniecrat," or a Democrat aligned with the Bernie Sanders wing of the party, in Iowa. She lost by 19 percentage points in a year that was neutral for Democrats, and she significantly underperformed both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. This isn’t to mention that Kim Reynolds was unpopular and had underperformed Trump by several points in her previous election. Mandela Barnes, while not necessarily a "Berniecrat," is a staunch progressive, yet lost to Ron Johnson that same year, despite Ron Johnson being unpopular and never a very strong candidate. Barnes lost by 1 percentage point, underperforming Biden by nearly 2 percentage points and Kamala Harris's eventual margin by nearly 1. While there haven't been many candidates in that vein of Democratic politics within the Rust Belt, the few that did make it to the general election never fared well. This is the concern I have about Abdul El-Sayed's electability. His approach, at least from what I've seen, hasn't significantly differed from either of the two aforementioned candidates. He has largely run a national campaign and hasn't done much to appeal to Michigan's electorate. Candidates who take approaches like that are usually either underperformers or electoral losers, and I fear that El-Sayed would be one or both if he were to win the nomination. The future of the seat is also a consideration. While he would certainly be favored to win this year, he would likely face issues in 2032, especially if his term doesn't play out swimmingly. As someone who tends to dislike Rust Belt Republicans, I don't want the Senate seat to fall to the Republicans in 2032, solely because a weak candidate was nominated in 2026.

One point worth considering (and one that I've seen many of his supporters make) is that Abdul El-Sayed is a decent public speaker and charismatic. And it is somewhat valid. Haley Stevens isn't nearly as charismatic as he is, and I don't think any serious person believes that she is. However, charisma isn't everything, especially in a state like Michigan. One thing that many people overlook is that Michigan, by and large, falls on the "establishment" side of politics in many aspects. Yes, it's a swing state, but that doesn't mean it's populist. Certain populist strongholds, such as Macomb, Genesee, and Saginaw counties, do exist, but suburbanized, more "establishment"-coded areas, such as Grand Rapids, Holland, Oakland County, Ann Arbor, Kalamazoo, and Grand Traverse, also exist, and are electorally dominant over the more populist regions of the state. Areas like those usually aren't as swayed by charisma or populism, and if Abdul El-Sayed fails to appeal to those voters, it leaves an opening for Mike Rogers, a largely generic Republican candidate, to make inroads, which could cost El-Sayed the election. Michigan's Senate delegation also isn't dominated by populists. Elissa Slotkin and Gary Peters, widely regarded as "establishment" politicians, currently occupy both seats. Before Slotkin was Debbie Stabenow, also an "establishment"-coded politician (she outperformed the party baseline in every election). Haley Stevens isn't an electrifying candidate by any stretch of the imagination. But because of Michigan's electoral base, an electrifying candidate isn't necessarily needed. Michigan has consistently been, for the most part, represented by those who are characterized as more "bland" and tend not to rock the boat. This is largely why the argument revolves around electability, rather than charisma. Haley Stevens, considered a more centrist Democrat and largely in line with the aforementioned electoral tenets, would likely be a safe pick for the seat, certain to defeat Mike Rogers, and with a solid chance of holding on to it in 2032. Abdul El-Sayed, based on the campaign that he's running, seems a bit out of step with the more centrist/independent electorate that he would need to win, and electorally, that isn't a safe bet. When it comes to winning the seat and holding on to it in the future, I'd rather have Haley Stevens than Abdul El-Sayed.

Before I finish, it's also worth pointing out that some people overstate Haley Stevens' centrism. While she is classified as such and holds several positions in line with a centrist stance, she's also broken with the label before. She has filed articles of impeachment against Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is an advocate for strengthening tax and contribution disclosure, and has openly supported campaign finance reform throughout her House career (and has directly sponsored legislation addressing it), in addition to opposing the Iran War. While I'm not a progressive, this, at the very least, seems serviceable from a progressive standpoint, and given that she would likely be a safer pick for the seat, Stevens would be the more pragmatic choice through this lens. Is she a perfect candidate? No. She certainly wouldn't have been my first choice, and she isn't someone that I particularly like even now. But between her and Abdul El-Sayed, I believe that she would be the best pick.

Anyway, if you've finished reading this, then thank you, kind stranger. Apologies for any grammatical errors or mistakes made.

NOTE: This is NOT an argument as to why Abdul El-Sayed will or will not win. This is a post detailing the reasons why I personally don't want to vote for El-Sayed, and why I believe Haley Stevens would be a better pick.

I've noticed the hypocrisy of democrats the last week. As soon as Paxton won the Texas primary they came out in droves saying "HE CHEATED ON HIS WIFE". This was literally the main thing they mentioned about Paxton despite his other scandals. Now that Platner is reveal to be a scummy cheater, they're saying "that's between him and his wife" and "we should give them privacy". You don't have to defend depravity because some guy with a Nazi tattoo tweets mean tweets about ICE or whatever pet issue they have. The only reason they like Platner is because he's not old and is a man. A woman or POC would've been told to drop out months ago even if they were leading in the race.

https://freebeacon.com/democrats/abdul-el-sayed-has-campaigned-three-times-with-9-11-truther-imam-who-served-in-iranian-propaganda-unit-helped-lead-think-tank-sanctioned-for-funding-hezbollah/

Pete Buttieg is what happens when you combine the entitlement of Hillary Clinton, the flip flopping of Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris‘ word salad. Has no real accomplishments and is only tied to the unpopular Biden administration. Has a very shady record with black citizens in his rando town in Indiana to top it all off.

Buttigieg wants to be president because he thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room and the White House should be gift wrapped to him because of that. The insanity of thinking a transportation secretary and mayor of town bumfuck is more qualified/electable than AOC/Harris.

People here have been claiming that Hispanics will revert to Beto 2018 margins and for a while, I was willing to accept that Hispanics are a transactional group with significant elasticity.

But is this actually what the data shows?

2020 was a blue year at the presidential level. Biden won the PV by 4.5%, and the GCB was D+3.1.

But Hook of Holland, says the reader — that was a presidential year. Turnout was higher than normal!

Correct. Let us instead compare 2012 and 2018 with Beto:

Okay, that's an incredibly blue year. And look at that, Beto was already losing voters in the Rio Grande Valley relative to 2012, and losing voters in other heavily Latino areas also. His strengths were in suburban areas and urban cores.

It gets even funnier when you realise that this was considered a high water mark for Democrats in Texas, and he still lost. By 2 points!

And it gets even better — in the 2022 Gubernatorial, a red ripple midterm year (a stalemate, let's be honest) — the long-term trends of the state, which repeat in every map here, reveal themselves: The RGV is going to keep getting redder, even if Talarico manages to stave off that redness for a while.

EVEN if we grant that Trump is clearly underwater with Hispanic voters that otherwise voted for him in 2024, the truth is that many Hispanics are simply leaving the Democrat plantation and have had enough of progressivism. They are deeply conservative Catholics, after all.

IF a Mainline Protestant preacher like Talarico somehow reaches to these voters — and every county in the RGV shifts left a bit — it won't be mathematically enough (as we saw with Beto '18) to win Texas.

This applies for Florida and other Hispanic-heavy states also, but especially Texas…

These protests are def giving me 2016/2021 “resist” vibes, except Democrat leaders and politicians are actually being targeted more noticeably (killing in Minn., threats towards Newsom), and I personally feel like these protests don’t have the cringe woke vibe that a lot of others have had in the past.

Is this what the Dems need in terms of energy towards a movement, or am I off the mark? Lmk ur thoughts

Whitmer has had a terrible 2nd term. She is not popular with dems and Michiganders despite what the polls and spin doctors say.

And on her way out of the governorship she endorses for senate a candidate that is beholden to special interests.

People are gonna say this endorsement means a Stevens victory. Maybe in 2022 it would.

But in the summer of 2026, forget it.

Establishment dems in Michigan are gonna face accountability on primary day, just like Maine, New York, and Colorado.

The DEMONRATS made ROBOTS to RIOT against THE WONDERFUL PRESIDENT DONNIE! Sad! Many such CASES!

Beto was more charismatic and had less cringey comments than Talarico. If Beto was running against Paxton, he would be ahead in the polls way more than Talarico is now.