It’s getting hard to tell if they even want to win. Even a year ago it might be plausible to argue that centrism is a smart strategy, but at this point, with victories like Mamdani and Mejia, it’s just demonstrably wrong. Hell, Platner is still leading Mills in Maine even after the whole, “having a Nazi tattoo,” thing. If the Democrats are still pursuing centrism going into 2028, then they have to admit they would prefer losing to fascists than adding progressives to their tent.
Honestly, I’m not even sure that’s the right term for it. She was to the right of most centrist liberals on Gaza, immigration, and even guns.
This continues to be the stupidest, least productive way to think about elections. The lesser of two evils argument may be true, but it failed to motivate people to vote for Kamala in 2024 (or Hillary in 2016, for that matter). You can bitch about protest votes or an apathetic electorate all you want, but at the end of the day, you don’t win elections if you don’t get votes, and, “yEaH, bUt TrUmP iS wOrSe,” didn’t get votes. If the Democrats once again run a candidate who doesn’t reflect their base and once again lose the election, it will once again be their fault for repeating a losing strategy that produces losing candidates.
however, enough of the protest votes would have swung the election in her favor.
I have never seen a single piece of data to back up a claim like that. If you have, I’d love to see it
they didn’t all protest the vote. I would say most of them just didn’t vote because they couldn’t be bothered.
I would guess this is true, but this is a failure of the candidate, not the electorate. In a country without mandatory voting or a national holiday for elections, motivating your base is extremely important, especially when you base is working class people who are less likely to be able to take time off to vote. Even ignoring her centrist economic platform and genocide support, her strategy was explicitly to target disaffected Republicans instead of energizing her own base, and that strategy failed. Kamala and the incompetent consultants she surrounded herself with own this loss, and whining about the voters won’t change that.
I’m pretty sure punching another kid in high-school isn’t going to do lifelong damage to every part of his life.
I keep thinking about how much this kid rules. He warns the other kid instead of suckering punching him, understands and accepts the consequences of his actions before he takes them, then acts without hesitation. Not only does he punch fascists, he does it with principles.
Yeah, I played the N64 version of Rainbow 6, and that game seemed to want me to regularly switch between joystick and D-pad, so I guess some 3rd party developers didn’t get the memo, but you’re not supposed to design games that way. Technically the Sega Saturn had a joystick on one of it’s controllers, but you could also get a D-pad only controller. My friend had that Mario party glove, but we wouldn’t let him use it, since it was an unfair advantage. He had to rip the skin off his hands just like the rest of us.
I just left two long comments about this, but tl;dr, there’s no DualShock without Nintendo inventing this derpy thing first. DualShock was an industry defining design, but they were refining the functionality Nintendo created.
The N64 invented 3D platforming with this controller, which is why Mario 64 puts things like Crash Bandicoot and Laura Croft to shame; they’re creation of the C-buttons allowed for a free moving camera that could be used simultaneously with the joystick, which no one else could do at the time. Here’s an old promotional video for the DualShock where a developer even says, “What I’m really excited about is that we can do this on Sony, we don’t have to go do it on Nintendo.”
Nintendo invented an entirely novel system of inputs to give unprecedented control over a 3D environment. Sony looked at what Nintendo was doing and found a way to simplify those controls, and it was a great design; it’s the template for every modern controller. But criticizing Nintendo for not taking the time to, “reflect or refine,” the design, even though the design was a groundbreaking achievement in game development at a time when there was literally a new dimension being added to games, is ridiculous.
It wasn’t impossible, it just hadn’t been done yet. 3D games were a new concept, and no one was really sure how to implement them. A joystick made the most sense for moving a character through a 3D world, but the D-pad would work better for pretty much every game that had been developed up until that point. The Sega Saturn and the Playstation both prioritized the D-pad; they both launched with D-pad controllers (the Saturn had a joystick-optional controller, but it’s games could be played with the D-pad). The drawback to their designs was camera controls; their games either needed a fixed camera (like Crash Bandicoot) or camera switching (like Laura Croft), where you alternate using the D-pad to, “look,” or, “walk.”
The N64 controller’s design was basically a, “best of both worlds,” senerio. Hold it one way and it was a standard D-pad with 6 buttons. Hold it the other and it’s a joystick controller with a small D-pad (the c-buttons) and three regular buttons (A, B, and the Z-Trigger). That design made Mario 64 the industry standard for 3D platforming; the c-buttons could control a fluid, free moving camera without giving up access to the joystick. It was revolutionary and set a new standard for 3D gaming…for about a year. Then Sony invented the Duelshock controller, which pretty much every modern controller is based on. But for a while, the N64 controller was the only controller capable of fully utilizing the joystick and the D-pad, and years later, it gets ridiculed for being first.
Honestly, I think, “both,” really was the only choice. No one had developed for a joystick-exclusive console since the Atari days. Most third-party developers would have had a tough time porting and adapting their games over to an exclusively joystick layout. The other consoles of that generation, the Saturn and Playstation, both had D-pad only controllers and D-pad/joystick combination controllers; no one went joystick only. The N64 design was imperfect, but it allowed them to launch Mario 64 and Mortal Kombat Trilogy in the same year (and it was a step up from Sega’s crack at it).
I mean, at the time it was designed, “both,” pretty much was the right choice. Without the D-pad a lot of the titles they could reliably develop, like fighting or puzzle games, would have been incredibly difficult to get working well, but without the joystick, they couldn’t launch with titles like Mario 64. It’s easy to look at the PS1 Duelshock controller and assume they were idiots, but original PS1 controller only had a D-pad. The N64 beat the PS1 to the joystick by two years, and while it was much derpier than the Playstation’s solution, it was integrated from day one.
How the hell did you use the Z-trigger?
It’s gotta be Zoomers looking at it with no frame of reference. Anyone who played this at the time would have recognized the layout here; they were taking the SNES controller, adding an extra set of buttons to be more in line with the 6 button layout popularized by Sega, and then sticking a joystick in the middle. Assigning the c-buttons as directional was actually pretty insightful. They work for camera controls on stuff like Mario 64, but they also function as a top-row/bottom-row for strong-attack/light-attack on D-pad fighting games like Mortal Kombat.
The worst has to go to the Phillips CDI. In fairness, this was designed primarily as a remote control, and there was a much better dedicated gaming controller available, but they believed this layout would be adequate for gaming.
It was designed at a transition point between joysticks and the D-pad. Your right hand goes on the right prong for the A, B, and C buttons. Your left hand should be on the center prong when using a game designed for the joystick, or on the left prong when using a game designed for the D-pad. It’s not the most elegant design, but it’s really not that hard to figure out.
No, I’m on mobile, and my phone is constantly correcting incorrectly. Lately it’s been, “anyway,” to, “Anyway,” because I start a lot of sentences with it, so no it thinks it’s supposed to be capitalized. It’s learned that, “thar,” is a word because I frequently fat-finger type it when I want to write, “that,” so I have to periodically delete it from learned words or it will start automatically switching to, “thar,” even when I type it correctly. I’m sure I wrote something that was a letter off from dispersing and it changed it to disbursing because I had a conversation with my dad about his mandatory 401k withdrawals six months ago.
Fucking autocorrect.
I did vote for her. I live in a comfortably Blue state, but I agreed to vote for her in solidarity with some of my swing-state friends that didn’t want to vote for her.
As for strategy, well, Kamala’s entire strategy was, “our base is already going to vote for us, so we’re going to instead pursue disaffected Republicans by campaigning with Lize Cheney and Barbara Bush.” That choice depressed the turnout of her own base and cost her the election. Motivating Democratic voters instead of chasing imaginary moderate Republicans would have been a better strategy, and it probably had a bigger impact than the Gaza protest votes.
Anyway, let’s just say you’re right, and the electorate is full of childish leftist dummies that won’t vote for Harris because they’re idiots that can’t see the big picture. Well, then what? You can piss and moan about these voters all you want, but you seem to think they were the deciding factor in 2024, so what are the Democrats gonna do to win them over? It seems unlikely that all of these people you think are idiots that can’t reason or forecast will be radically different in the next two years, so are the Democrats going to do something different in 2028, or have you just resigned to losing now?