Manosphere

[Sven Golly]

Some brain dead c-nt at the NewYork Times is blaming the Harris loss on this.

Can you liberals ever admit to anything??

Jesus H, she lost because she was a horrible candidate, and 80% of the country thought we are on the wrong track.

Keep shifting blame and elections will continue to go red.

[mvscal]

Screwy is reaching for a bottle of lotion and Googling one handed to find out more about this "manosphere"

[Sven Golly]

Screwy is reaching for a bottle of lotion and Googling one handed to find out more about this "manosphere"

Indeed he is

[HighPlainsGrifter]

This is a fantastic read

Since most of you won't bother to click a link, here's the details:

I listened to this so you don't have to. Long form interview with the heads of the Kamala campaign.

Actually you should also go listen to it if you're interested in where the Dem's heads are at right now after 2024. I'll post some of my takeaways below

1. The campaign was perfect.

It's a low key interview but there's an air of defensiveness and avoiding criticism. Overall it's very illuminative but the short end of it is these people told their story and they're sticking to it.

They do not point to anything in particular they could've done to change the outcome. It was just a jump ball and that's that.

2. Kamala was the perfect candidate in every way. They are pretty clear about this. She receives no criticism from them that I noticed.

This is more surprising than the first point. It's manifestly untrue to everyone. She could be their scapegoat and would deserve it.

The way I read it is she is not going to be totally rejected by the party. Remember when Obama felt like he had to endorse her because the Clintons did? I see the same energy. Everyone's thinking it but no one wants to be the one to say it.

3. Did you know it was a short campaign?

They keep saying they are not making excuses but they are. Some of them are pretty valid. But "we weren't given time" is also used as a catch-all. They don't say it but ultimately this shifts the blame to Biden.

4. It's also Trump's fault, obviously.

One thing they get really defensive about is going negative on Trump. The criticism against them is that people already knew Trump and they should've put their focus on giving a positive presentation of Harris instead.

They vehemently argue against this. They maintain (hilariously) that they just didn't say "convicted felon" enough times to enough people.

5. They keep saying they aren't blaming the media but they are. There's anger there. Above all that the media kept going on about how Harris wouldn't give interviews.

This was totally unfair you see because it was a double standard. Why didn't CNN say anything bad about Trump??

6. Men are still to blame, folks. They are supposed to be more political and like Democrats more but they keep failing at it!

Trump had some mysterious way of connecting with them, esp the low propensities. Total mystery why men won't do as they're told.

7. Kamala DID go on all the podcasts actually. She would go anywhere anytime. All the ones she didn't go on were just due to scheduling conflicts (you know it was a short campaign).

She was totally stoked to go on Rogan. Kamala is fearless and confident in any space!!

But also the podcasts were inconsequential. Going on Rogan et al would not have made any difference in the race.

Podcasts didn't play any role in how Trump was secretly able to target men. Those men have to be reached by Democrats but it's not possible. They must just love Trump because they stink.

8. The efficacy and credibility of the "Trump is a criminal and insurrectionist and fascist" narrative is totally unquestioned. It is bulletproof. There is no way it will not convince you to vote against Trump if you're not already being mind controlled by him.

It's not a perspective, it's scientific facts. It's not that disagreement is wrong. There is no disagreement. There are normal people that obey Democrats and then some people that like voting for criminal insurrectionist hitlers.

(The question I would pose to them would be: were there any voters who were well informed about the criminal convictions and J6 and the ~former Trump officials~ and all the other stuff you think is pertinent, who were not in a Trump personality cult, but who voted for him anyway, considering the charges and allegations against him false? Astonishingly I think they would say no.)

9. There is a desperation for the Republican breakaway vote. They consider these voters to have been absolutely key to all of their recent election victories. That's why they maintain campaigning with Liz Cheney and that whole crew to have been exactly the right move.

But they don't see the far left as expendable either. Their position is that the party must and can satisfy both. They noted there are Senate seats coming up in 2026 that absolutely hinge on the Republican breakaway caucus.

From the Republican perspective, this makes the actions of the NeverTrumpers even more egregious than I have held them. I'm starting to think this is the correct take.

I have some hope that this contingent will weaken as the power of the lib media is breaking. In my view this is a cohort made up of people that are informed primarily and equally by both CNN and NRO.

It is a luxury position, held mostly by people that are comfortable enough that they think they do not have skin in the game. The good news is the price of eggs does effect them, the bad news is they easily forget that fact.

10. Trump's advantages are all unique to him.

This is repeated often, and the effect is "don't worry, no other Republican will ever be about to do this to us again."

It's hard to know that particularly they are referring to, though. It sounds like "no other Republican would be able to be convicted of crimes during the campaign and it not hurt them politically."

That's true enough, but that fact would only be good for them if they plan on lawfare against all opposing candidates generally going forward. Maybe they are just giving with game away. If they wanted to pretend that the lawfare is legitimate, they would admit that Trump's unique strengths (being convicted of crimes not harming him politically) are paired with his unique weaknesses (being convicted of crimes).

I guess the implication could be that all Republicans are actually criminals and they just need to find the crimes. Aight.

A more compelling case would be that what if unique to Trump is that he is especially likable, authentic, celebrated, and trusted. But they can't say things like that.

11. If they had had more time (remember that the campaign was short!!) the Puerto Rican vote following Garbagegate would have won the day for the Democratics. They just didn't have enough time to spread the news in the community that the joke had been made and that it needed to mobilize.

12. Dems have always owned kitchen table issues. Kamala was so perfect at speaking to them. Dems in general should make a return to talking about kitchen table issues, following Kamala's leadership in this space.

13. Climate change didn't come up. Abortion barely came up.

14. The trans ad seemed effective but actually it didn't change anyone's vote.

The Harris campaign was right not to respond to it, cuz that would've distracted from central issues.

The ad was dishonest of course, which is why it's so frustrating that the center of it was a clip of Kamala Harris clearly stating her position about taxpayer funded sex changes. Classic dirty trick by the seizers and pouncers.

The ad was also of racist intent, because it was blasted primarily in urban markets, clearly to target black men (aka the white men of the BIPOCverse).

It didn't move the needle with black man, it just made it impossible for the Dems to move the needle to the correct place for black men, which is totally different (???).

And really that ad was an economic message rather than a cultural one.

15. Later in the interview there is some divergence in perspective which was the most interesting part.

One perspective was that Trump leaned into machismo by going to UFC and in to podcasts and stuff, and that was his appeal to men.

But Dems should not take from that that they need to do the same thing. (Why that would be something to avoid is not clarified). Rather, the men who are attracted by that kind of thing will be attracted also by kitchen table issues like prices. Fortunately Dems will now be going back to their dominance of kitchen table issues, so this shouldn't be a problem.

(That from Steph Cutter and Jen OMalley)

16. The opposing view came from Quentin Fulks. His contributions to the interview were by far the most interesting. The next couple will be from him.

17. Men don't like men that apologize. Trump doesn't apologize. Democrats are constantly apologizing. There is a culture in the Dem party of scoring political points off other Democrats by demanding they make an apology, or bow to a shibboleth. The purity tests are ways from individual Dems to boost themselves in the party.

(This is obviously all true)

18. The Republicans in 2024 were strong online. Their stuff reverberated throughout X, Tiktok, YouTube. He called it an "echo chamber", but what he's describing is not an echo chamber. It's just success online.

19. "We're losing the culture war."

(Said first by the interview Dan Pfieffer then repeated by Fulks).

While the Dems stuck to legacy media and talking points, Trump was popping off on X, on podcasts, at UFC, roping in actual cultural figures.

The arsenal of legacy corporate celebrities that supported the Dems were useless. The legacy corporate media was useless.

20. That paired with a perspective, though, that the Republicans are lock-step.

It blew my mind but, these people really see our side the same way we see their side. They see Republicans as totally unified, homogenous, always on message, trapped in an echo chamber, always propped up by the liberal legacy media, and Republican voters as totally reliable to turn out unquestioningly.

21. My big takeaway question:

Will the progressives allow a long term pivot toward the center? The marquis issues of the Dem party for decades have been climate, abortion, LGBTQAAIP+2, and victim politics (racism, sexism).

What is going to happen to those? In one sense they have been screwed by 2024 because they were all pushed out of the spotlight (except, arguably, abortion). On the other hand, the movement to push them out of the spotlight lost the election. Which way will the Dem party go?

Who is to blame, Kamala 2024 or Kamala 2019?

All of the other points touched on are under the umbrella of that question.

Fulk's insights are alarming. If the Dem party as a whole is able to recognize that it is losing the culture war, they have a shot of getting back in the fight by pivoting. But can you imagine? "Let's cancel the pride events." "A little climate change is ok." "Maybe not DEI."

Moreover--can you imagine their base letting Dem leadership doing it? This train has momentum. The interparty cannibalization culture they have created for themselves is a death spiral, forcing them to get more and more radical and farther and farther away from men and from kitchen table issues.

[Sudden Sam]

No, no, no.

Diego said it’s because of her skin color.

The little shit said I didn’t vote for her because of her race. When, in fact, I voted for people of several races. But the wimpy little U&Ler says I, and I would assume he thinks many other voters as well, overlooked her incompetence, her brainless commentary, her advocacy for wokeness, her dereliction of duty as veep, and avoided voting for her because she wasn’t white.

Let the idiots misread their blowout loss. That’ll keep ‘em floundering about for a decade at least.

[Biggie]

I voted for people of several races.

How many different political parties?

[mvscal]

I voted for people of several races.

How many different political parties?

Fuck off, partyist.

[Biggie]

Maybe he meant in several races.

[mvscal]

Maybe he meant in several races.

OK, but I'm at least supposed to be angry or outraged, right?

[Biggie]

That’s one approach.

[Dr_Phibes]

Maybe he meant in several races.

I suspect Sam was being Chaste.

[Biggie]

His cablinasian refrigerator was running for office as a Republican so he chaste after it.

[Sudden Sam]

I voted for people of several races.

How many different political parties?

2

I vote for people who stand up for what’s right. Party be damned.

[Left Seater]

If Manosphere is the opposite of feminism, does it include support for transgender stuff?

[The Seer]

BREAKING: Trump reportedly told Justin Trudeau that if his tariffs destroyed Canada, and the country could not survive without “ripping off the U.S. to the tune of $100 billion a year,” then Canada should become the United States’ 51st state, with Trudeau serving as its governor.

If accurate it's worth a rack.

[Mikey]

Man O' Sphere

[Left Seater]

Thanks for reminding me. Got to pay for the box at the 151st Oaks and Derby this week.

[Mikey]

Have fun. Hopefully you can afford some long pants this year.

[Left Seater]

Derby will be long pants, Oaks will be short pants.

[Mikey]

Ahh...I should have known that.

[mvscal]

Derby will be long pants, Oaks will be short pants.

Perhaps something not quite so garish and homosexual this time. You wouldn't want to be mistaken for Fat Elton John with a badger on your head again.

[Left Seater]

I get it, from the outside it looks ghey. However, when at the track on Oaks day it makes sense.

[The Seer]

I vote for people who stand up for what’s right. Party be damned.

What about personalities?

[Sudden Sam]

I vote for people who stand up for what’s right. Party be damned.

What about personalities?

Of course. And hotness.

[The Seer]

I vote for people who stand up for what’s right. Party be damned.

What about personalities?

Of course. And hotness.

[The Seer]

https://x.com/i/status/1864727567095284179