The legendary 'Cartoons Hate Her' joins Central Air to argue Democrats need a president who 'fucks.' And we consider the political implications of 'looksmaxxing' with a very special guest.
Pushing back against the haters here. I loved the episode though I understand why others didn't. I'm a huge CHH fan and think she's hilarious but the vibe definitely was different.
I have loved the podcast…until today. Ugh. The gag just went on and on. I’m sure some people may like this stuff, but I listen for the smart analysis and commentary. This was the opposite. Looking forward to next week
I enjoyed the Trump interview, even if it went a bit long.
The deep dive into who does or does not "fuck" reminded me of when my teenagers tried in vain to teach me what makes someone or something skibidi rather than not skibidi. I guess parents just don't understand.
To the extent I comprehended what makes a politician fuck or not, I will be crossing my fingers that, by 2028, a voting majority of Americans will be exhausted from the non-stop circus show and eager to cast their ballots for someone who absolutely without question does not fuck. In my ideal world, an entire generation of Americans will forever recoil at the thought of having another performative badass boss mofo who fucks for President. Trump v1 wasn't enough, but I have faith that Trump v2 can get it across the line.
I'm still on the fence for whether the next one should be skibidi.
I've been thinking about this a lot and I think "fucking" has nothing to do with someone's appeal, and much more to do with their aura. In the pop culture space, the two definitive versions of "guys who fuck" are Adam Driver and Pete Davidson. Both are not conventionally attractive, but carry themselves in a way that makes them desirable for ineffable reasons. This can also be true for women. The first example that came to mind was Natasha Lyonne. Natasha Lyonne fucks and this is independent of her physical attractiveness.
All that said, I think the unifying appeal of "someone who fucks" is that they don't care whether or not you think they fuck. Your desire for them seems in some way disconnected from their own view of themselves.
As a result, I think it is incredibly difficult for any traditional politician to "fuck" simply because they visibly want to be wanted. This is doubly true for presidential candidates, especially Democratic presidential candidates. They all simply care too much, either about the power and the prestige or the actual policies. Newsom doesn't fuck because he wants it too much. Buttigieg doesn't fuck because he's a try hard nerd. Klobuchar could fuck, but seems to restrain this part of herself from public view. If the version of Klobuchar that seemed to viscerally hate Pete Buttigieg was the one who was in public, then she would fuck. AOC could fuck, but I think she wants to be symbolize something too much. Bernie Sanders in 2016 fucked, but he did not fuck in 2020. Just looking at the odds for the top 20 candidates on Polymarket, the only one that fucks is probably Stephen A. Smith and I think even he cares too much about how he's perceived.
I think some of the deranged dating content reflects the fact that the kind of people obsessively reading about dating online are probably struggling with dating in some way. People who are in relationships or dating just fine aren’t posting about it or watching videos about it.
Also, it’s important to note that Gen Z is less social and dating less than millennials, but we shouldn’t exaggerate it too much. It’s hard to find good data on it, but it all points to most adults 20-30 being in a relationship, and many of the single ones have been at some point.
Honestly, I am disappointed with where this is going. I signed up to hear centrist analysis of current trends, political and otherwise.
So okay, the idea that the Dems need a candidate who fucks. My friends and I could provide our own giggling guesses as to which politicians do and do not engage in what sorts of sex. How about delving into the underlying ideas:
1) Is the assertion true? Or is this actually a case of fighting the last war? Trump got to play the part of alpha male in contrast to an ailing, failing Biden who needed help walking. But does it follow that an extreme alpha male has an advantage over a candidate of middling assertiveness?
2) If this assertion is true, then why? I heard your quick take that Americans are individualists, and that may possibly be, but we've elected quite a few presidents since WWII who no one would have singled out of the crowd of potential candidates of their time as particularly fitting this bill. Has something changed? What? Because I have a hunch that if something changed, "a candidate who fucks" may turn out not to be a very exact description of what new condition it is that we are trying to meet.
Personally, I suspect that this is mostly baloney, that we can't be offering up wimpy or senile people, and that physical looks unfortunately do still count, but that this is otherwise just a diversion.
As to your joining The Atlantic and The New York Times in assisting Braden Peters's move to the mainstream... again, I am really surprised by your lack of analysis.
Remember, even if every single one of his followers is an American (highly doubtful!), his total following would amount to less than a third of one percent of the US population. Does it not seem like a strange phenomenon that a group of that size warrants the level of attention that it is receiving?
As people blame social media and the internet for coarsening our sensibilities, Isn't it worth noting that more is going on here than simply an overthrow of the gatekeepers? I mean, yes, it's certainly true that a small group of news editors no longer control what goes "out" on mass media. But still, the number of people natively attracted to this crazy stuff, even something being labeled as a huge breakout, sits at well under 1% of the population -- until the old gatekeepers and people who claim to be respectable inheritors of that role... rush in to publicize the stuff. In my mind, THAT is worth analyzing, because I'm pretty sure it is the engine that has powered not only Peters but also the political extremists.
Signing up to a podcast with Ben Dreyfuss then complaining they bring on CHH and talk about which politicians fuck... as a centrist I'm not a whiny morality policing baby. I hope one day you reach that stage too.
Where is the whining or the morality policing? Talk about fucking all you like.
But, as I think I made clear, it's the lack of analysis I bemoan.
Of course, I am not here because of Ben Dreyfuss, don't really know the first thing about him. Megan McArdle over the years has struck me as one of the more consistently thought-provoking writers, and when I have come across him, I have thought Josh Barro interesting too. Since that is getting eclipsed, I get to be disappointed, eh?
You are treating evaluating whether a candidate fucks like a scientific endeavour. It is not science, it's fun. Centrists have fun, people who can't turn into whiny leftists or souless even whinier rightists like Stephen Miller.
Have loved listening to previous episodes, but fast-forwarded through most of this one. The prolonged Trump impression was just too weird, and the discussion that followed was just too crass for my taste.
I wanted to hate the first 15 mins but Donny from Queens won me over.
It was fucked up what Newsom did with the French Laundry.
I appreciate that one person liked it hahahaha. I'm eternally grateful that they let me do this, and I'm sorry so many people are mad!
You came on and did exactly what was asked of you with commitment and warm spirit. You shouldn't apologize.
Not mad, just not my preference.
Pushing back against the haters here. I loved the episode though I understand why others didn't. I'm a huge CHH fan and think she's hilarious but the vibe definitely was different.
I would like to register that I absolutely hated the first 15 minutes of this, fwiw
Yeah, it was like a really bad SNL sketch that wouldn’t end.
First part was weird but actually pretty funny once it got going. Completely out of step with McArdle’s persona haha
I have loved the podcast…until today. Ugh. The gag just went on and on. I’m sure some people may like this stuff, but I listen for the smart analysis and commentary. This was the opposite. Looking forward to next week
Little long on the opening bit.
Edit: A lot too long.
I enjoyed the Trump interview, even if it went a bit long.
The deep dive into who does or does not "fuck" reminded me of when my teenagers tried in vain to teach me what makes someone or something skibidi rather than not skibidi. I guess parents just don't understand.
To the extent I comprehended what makes a politician fuck or not, I will be crossing my fingers that, by 2028, a voting majority of Americans will be exhausted from the non-stop circus show and eager to cast their ballots for someone who absolutely without question does not fuck. In my ideal world, an entire generation of Americans will forever recoil at the thought of having another performative badass boss mofo who fucks for President. Trump v1 wasn't enough, but I have faith that Trump v2 can get it across the line.
I'm still on the fence for whether the next one should be skibidi.
A vote for loved this episode and loved CHH! Love her on Twitter as well.
F the haters. As a 35 straight man, CHH fucks.
Being centrist means not being fun police. The people demand more CHH!!!
I've been thinking about this a lot and I think "fucking" has nothing to do with someone's appeal, and much more to do with their aura. In the pop culture space, the two definitive versions of "guys who fuck" are Adam Driver and Pete Davidson. Both are not conventionally attractive, but carry themselves in a way that makes them desirable for ineffable reasons. This can also be true for women. The first example that came to mind was Natasha Lyonne. Natasha Lyonne fucks and this is independent of her physical attractiveness.
All that said, I think the unifying appeal of "someone who fucks" is that they don't care whether or not you think they fuck. Your desire for them seems in some way disconnected from their own view of themselves.
As a result, I think it is incredibly difficult for any traditional politician to "fuck" simply because they visibly want to be wanted. This is doubly true for presidential candidates, especially Democratic presidential candidates. They all simply care too much, either about the power and the prestige or the actual policies. Newsom doesn't fuck because he wants it too much. Buttigieg doesn't fuck because he's a try hard nerd. Klobuchar could fuck, but seems to restrain this part of herself from public view. If the version of Klobuchar that seemed to viscerally hate Pete Buttigieg was the one who was in public, then she would fuck. AOC could fuck, but I think she wants to be symbolize something too much. Bernie Sanders in 2016 fucked, but he did not fuck in 2020. Just looking at the odds for the top 20 candidates on Polymarket, the only one that fucks is probably Stephen A. Smith and I think even he cares too much about how he's perceived.
Elizabeth Warren fucks marines
I think some of the deranged dating content reflects the fact that the kind of people obsessively reading about dating online are probably struggling with dating in some way. People who are in relationships or dating just fine aren’t posting about it or watching videos about it.
Also, it’s important to note that Gen Z is less social and dating less than millennials, but we shouldn’t exaggerate it too much. It’s hard to find good data on it, but it all points to most adults 20-30 being in a relationship, and many of the single ones have been at some point.
Josh! Amy Klobuchar can have women wanting to have sex with her too
Honestly, I am disappointed with where this is going. I signed up to hear centrist analysis of current trends, political and otherwise.
So okay, the idea that the Dems need a candidate who fucks. My friends and I could provide our own giggling guesses as to which politicians do and do not engage in what sorts of sex. How about delving into the underlying ideas:
1) Is the assertion true? Or is this actually a case of fighting the last war? Trump got to play the part of alpha male in contrast to an ailing, failing Biden who needed help walking. But does it follow that an extreme alpha male has an advantage over a candidate of middling assertiveness?
2) If this assertion is true, then why? I heard your quick take that Americans are individualists, and that may possibly be, but we've elected quite a few presidents since WWII who no one would have singled out of the crowd of potential candidates of their time as particularly fitting this bill. Has something changed? What? Because I have a hunch that if something changed, "a candidate who fucks" may turn out not to be a very exact description of what new condition it is that we are trying to meet.
Personally, I suspect that this is mostly baloney, that we can't be offering up wimpy or senile people, and that physical looks unfortunately do still count, but that this is otherwise just a diversion.
As to your joining The Atlantic and The New York Times in assisting Braden Peters's move to the mainstream... again, I am really surprised by your lack of analysis.
Remember, even if every single one of his followers is an American (highly doubtful!), his total following would amount to less than a third of one percent of the US population. Does it not seem like a strange phenomenon that a group of that size warrants the level of attention that it is receiving?
As people blame social media and the internet for coarsening our sensibilities, Isn't it worth noting that more is going on here than simply an overthrow of the gatekeepers? I mean, yes, it's certainly true that a small group of news editors no longer control what goes "out" on mass media. But still, the number of people natively attracted to this crazy stuff, even something being labeled as a huge breakout, sits at well under 1% of the population -- until the old gatekeepers and people who claim to be respectable inheritors of that role... rush in to publicize the stuff. In my mind, THAT is worth analyzing, because I'm pretty sure it is the engine that has powered not only Peters but also the political extremists.
Signing up to a podcast with Ben Dreyfuss then complaining they bring on CHH and talk about which politicians fuck... as a centrist I'm not a whiny morality policing baby. I hope one day you reach that stage too.
Uh, what an internet comment.
Where is the whining or the morality policing? Talk about fucking all you like.
But, as I think I made clear, it's the lack of analysis I bemoan.
Of course, I am not here because of Ben Dreyfuss, don't really know the first thing about him. Megan McArdle over the years has struck me as one of the more consistently thought-provoking writers, and when I have come across him, I have thought Josh Barro interesting too. Since that is getting eclipsed, I get to be disappointed, eh?
You are treating evaluating whether a candidate fucks like a scientific endeavour. It is not science, it's fun. Centrists have fun, people who can't turn into whiny leftists or souless even whinier rightists like Stephen Miller.
Have loved listening to previous episodes, but fast-forwarded through most of this one. The prolonged Trump impression was just too weird, and the discussion that followed was just too crass for my taste.