The Democrats recently convened a crack team of (alleged) electoral experts to figure out what precipitated their humiliating electoral defeat last October.
That being the same team of experts, one might note, that caused that exact defeat in the first place — a bit like consulting the captain of the Titanic on how to improve ship safety after pulling him into a dinghy in the middle of the ocean at midnight, frostbite eating his extremities.
People like Jen Psaki, one of the Obama staffer twinks from Pod Save America, and diverse MSNBC ogre Symone Sanders.
Jen Psaki and Other Top Dem Strategists On How To Beat Trump and MAGA
Related: Columbia U Video Promotes Hillary Clinton’s New Foreign Policy Course
Just when you thought these people couldn’t get further out of touch with the rabble, lo and behold, halfway through the first video above at the 45-minute mark, Walmart™ — the epitome of corporate welfare queen and leech upon the middle class that encourages its own employees to apply for food stamps so that the government is forced to subsidize its slave wages — hijacks the programming to pimp its wares.
The whole masturbatory navel-gazing exercise in delusion is sponsored by Save Money. Live Better. Walmart™ — not in the abstract sense that both major parties service corporations as their raison d’être but in the literal sense that Walmart™ donated money to facilitate these millionaire party apparatchiks’ condescending lecture to the peasants!
The only panelist with any political acumen, Hasan Piker — for the record, a vicious anti-white, anti-Western, dog-abusing, literal communist whom I don’t endorse — repeatedly tried to introduce some analytical sanity into the conversation by explaining that running campaigns devoid of substance that focus entirely on identity politics don’t appeal to normal people in Ohio who have no job opportunities except Door Dash and OnlyFans and whose kids are all addicted to fentanyl.
His attempts to smuggle said sanity into the conversation were, predictably, derailed constantly by DEI mascot, Democrat operative, and real-life Shrek Symone Sanders, who repeatedly redirected the conversation to “muh white supremacy” talking points.
“As a black woman…”
Related: WATCH: Obama Demands ‘Regulatory Constraints’ of Social Media
———————————
I could have solved the “why do voters hate us?” riddle in less than a minute for them, though they would never allow me to.
Here it is:
Literally all the coconut lady had to do to snatch victory from the jaws of victory, with all of the institutional and financial advantage on her side, was come off slightly less like a sociopathic corporate whore strung out on benzodiazepines, distance herself from the Biden open border policy (disregarding her role at border czar), and throw a couple of economic bones to the peasants — and she would have been in like flint.
—————————————–
Why are politicians pathologically incapable of delivering for their constituents?
Of course, the reason economic populism can never take root is that the donors — Symone Sanders’ sugar daddies — have no interest in economic or cultural populism.
Hence the delusional spectacle in the videos above, fixated on messaging strategies (in other words, how to sell a stinking pile of shit by convincing the marks it’s brown gold) rather than policies that appeal to voters.
They love the ceaseless riddle; it sustains them. Many a vacation home has been built by pseudo-answers to the ceaseless riddle.
The obvious electoral answer, which is to woo voters with the best policies that would actually improve their lives, only works if the government functions as it’s theoretically intended to — meaning: on behalf of its constituents.
Of course, on the contrary, the government functions to serve the special interests that prop up the infrastructure of both parties, but most especially the Democrat Party — one of the reasons why these people went ape over the gutting of their special cash cow, USAID.
Related: Politicians and Multinational CEOs Created America’s Top Geopolitical Menace
It’s a new age; there’s nothing written in stone that the political system has to work this way.
If one were inclined to win elections with grassroots support — even against all of the institutional barriers designed to prevent populist politics from succeeding — one no longer needs a billion-dollar war chest, endorsements from establishment bigwigs, and an army of consultants to win elections.
Donald Trump of 2016 — who steamrolled the army of establishment whores arrayed against him one by one but who unfortunately resembles very little of late the Donald Trump of 2025 — proved that.
Bernie Sanders in 2016, and again in 2020, nearly proved the same thing on the other side — only losing the first time because the DNC literally stole the nomination from him and the second time because Obama organized a massive behind-the-scenes coup to prop up the Brandon entity and force all of the other candidates to drop out and endorse him.
With greater variety and independence in media fostered by the internet and popular demand, the PR flotsam designed by the professional political class to trick voters into voting for X or Y candidate doesn’t work the same way it did in the 1990s. With greater access to information comes greater awareness of the political rot, and as a result, a rejection of the status quo.
Still, because of the endemic corruption and gatekeeping native to both parties, making any real headway remains an uphill battle.
I have covered this study before, but it bears reprinting, in part because of its poignancy and pertinence, based on a thorough quantitative analysis, concluding that the United States government operates either entirely or nearly entirely independent of popular will.
Via Cambridge University Press (2014) (emphasis added):
“When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it… average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence [over US policy].”
