It pains me to say this, but this is why buttigieg polls so low. I agree we need a candidate that fucks at least twice a week. Preferably more when they’re campaigning for maximum aura.
Buttigieg is kinda autistic-coded (he was the trains secretary) but lacks the high nerd-out energy one would expect from an autist so he comes off as overly neutral & boringly nerdy.
He may not fuck but when he gets invited over by an enemy to repeatedly humiliate them like he does with Fox News regularly it should qualify as some sorta erotic fill-in
I keep telling all of the Boomers who love him and think he's so smart/polite. .Buttigieg has zero rizz and a POTUS candidate needs that in the post-Trump social media age.
Buttigieg is the liberal Trump. By that I mean he wins over his supporters by displaying the cultural signifiers of their socioeconomic class. Trump appeals to the fantasies of the sort of people who eat a lot of fast food, are awed by big trucks, and spend all day watching Fox News. Buttigieg appeals to the fantasies of the sort of people who get graduate degrees, learn Norwegian, and spend all day listening to NPR. It’s easy to miss because the cultural signifiers are so different, but they have the same sort of appeal to different sorts of people. And the problem for Buttigieg is that not enough people have graduate degrees for his shtick to work.
You gotta expand on your AOC take because it makes no sense wrt the rest of the article.
Also, wouldn’t mind seeing the polymarket disclaimer at the top of the article vs the bottom. Feels like a rug pull to read something and then realize it’s like backwards-justified sponcon.
If I understand the CHH's take, it's not about being fuckable or even about having sex, its about having agency. AOC sometimes has her "one who fucks" moments, she's got slick direct-to-voter videos and self-confidence. Other times she lacks that energy, seeming comfortable to just lament the system and take on hopeless causes, rather than be someone who moves the agenda forward. Vs other leftists she does have a pragmatic streak which I think is quite underrated.
Early AOC most definitely fucked. She probably still does, but I think she's in a position where she needs to tamp down her aura a bit to be effective. I think she can reignite it if she gets in a leadership role or runs for another office.
Maybe that's what CHH is responding to, I dunno. This is by far the hottest take in the post.
I like AOCs politics and she is clearly hot, but CHH is right. She gives off “we need to have a long boring conversation about our relationship” vibes, not girl who likes to fuck vibes. If she released more early videos like the old one of her dancing on the roof it could change
See this is exactly why I’m shocked we only got a one-liner on AOC. Even if this article is using “fucks” to mean “cool”, men have this insane reaction where somehow she’s not cool because it doesn’t seem like she would fuck them.
I would love to hear her expand on that, but as a conventionally attractive woman who has zero rizz, CHH is uniquely qualified to make this assessment.
As someone who also has zero rizz, I think it’s very possible for CHH to write tons of charming and funny articles and still suffer from the condition. It’s oddly separable from your actual communication skills. More to do with high social anxiety and an inability to hide it or maladaptive ways to hide it (I’m more Type I and from her anecdotes CHH seems more Type II).
CHH has taught herself rizz (and even wrote some helpful guides). But she has many, many stories of her rizzless life prior (which you've described well). Like many drama kids, she had some rizz-gredients but not the total package. A lot of comedians are like this.
Being charismatic is innate for some and not others. While it's learnable to some degree, CHH's perspective is unique because 1) she has deep enough insight into her mental conditions to learn, and 2) can effectively describe her journey to rizzdom.
I think that when talking about her flaws she can be an unreliable narrator, like how she describes herself as being physically unattractive as a teenager, and then you see actual pics.
The 1960 election between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon was really close, and the obvious fuck-gap between the two of them probably made the difference.
Outstanding example. The thing was, Nixon fucked too (which is why he absolutely demolished McGovern in 72), but he ran into a world-historic example of a candidate who fucked with JFK.
Completely agree with your AOC hot take. I like and respect her a lot, but a skinny, nerdy, feminine woman with a high pitched voice and leftist policy positions will struggle in a presidential election.
She’s basically built in a lab to appeal to reddit socialists, but that’s not at all similar to what working class swing voters in the Midwest and South find charismatic and appealing.
There’s always one sentence in a CHH essay that jumps out at me and makes me wants to give a hot take, and this was it. AOC doesn’t fuck?? What?! Are you kidding me??
But they are not curves of the middle aged matronly sort that we associate with female presidential candidates. They are young woman curves. She has a little waist.
This is the most reddit shitposty article ever (and it was awesome).
I'm sadden CHH doesn't like Clavicular because everyday he is getting into some wacky shenanigan. The best way to describe him is he is a reverse IShowSpeed, where Speed is constantly getting into situations but it's an upwards trajectory, Clavicular's life is constantly getting worse and worse.
Also with the Obama photo, I'm waiting for the (((CHH))) conspiracy theories, that she is the daughter of a high ranking illuminati member or something. It would explain why she thinks ISIS is trying to kill her.
Curious to see whether CHH commenters will get as mad about the Polymarket thing as Yglesias's did.
Also, people forget that during the entire Obama administration The Onion had a running gag about Biden that could basically be boiled down to: he fucks.
Senator Biden had a lot of swagger, and he carried that into the VP role, and the first part of his presidency. That's one of the reasons people were always pointing out his gaffes -- he wasn't afraid to swing a big stick (pardon the pun), and sometimes he missed. Sometimes Aaron Judge strikes out, too.
I don't mind that much about the Polymarket thing because of the context. This is a shitpost about how we need politicans with ineffable fucking-ness; the Polymarket widget is superfluous and doesn't have anything to do with the thesis of the article.
Yglesias' article was about how non-elites are stupid and get worked up over things that aren't actual out-and-out corruption. Getting money from a malign source for no discernable analytical benefit while saying in essence, don't worry your pretty little heads about corruption rubbed people the wrong way. If he had used it for an article about, say, counter-cyclical potato price subsidies, I doubt he would have gotten half the pushback.
That’s an extremely bad faith reading of his thesis. He wasn’t saying “don’t worry about corruption”, he was saying “corruption is very bad, but voters’ understanding of what corruption is makes essentially every politician ‘corrupt’ and that makes it harder to punish actual corruption”
Yeah, I was really pre-disposed to dislike that Maddie article, but after reading it I agree with maybe 80% of it. A lot of people really do have this kneejerk tendency to think "this politician's position on issue ABC is very unpleasant to me, therefore they are clearly taking money from Big XYZ", even when the position is 100% consistent with said politician's general worldview. Kinda like how some folks here will attribute points of view they disagree with to virtue-signaling, even when there's zero reason to think that the person is being dishonest about their beliefs.
Highly disagree, plus that incorrect take on things *always* benefits the most corrupt politicians. If you think that they're all equally devious and corrupt, you'll put up with anything, right?
Polymarket and kalshi are terrible. Gambling is terrible. It’s funny that this is a free article in the name of getting more people addicted to gambling.
What I think is interesting about this framework is that "one who fucks" is totally independent from "is fuckable". Female politicians have debated for decades whether it is a blessing or a curse to be regarded as "fuckable", but CHH knows the real-deal is about being able to wield the power. It's all about being the one who fucks.
Sipping my coffee and contemplating being brutally aura-mogged by Bernie Sanders. It is a beautiful world you created for us, CHH.
At the risk of making everyone reading along throw up, my first election was Reagan versus Carter, and I can sign on with the thesis here. Between those two men there is no doubt on who fucked. However, the previous election of Carter versus Ford is a head scratcher - our country must have been at an all time low. No fucks to be found.
I wasn't born yet, but my sense is that Chevy Chase somehow aura-mogged one of the most chadmaxxed humans in existence. Ford had political issues, no doubt, but:
National champion QB
Model
Decorated Navy vet
Survived two assassination attempts
Defeated Reagan
Ford obviously had some major political liabilities, but losing to Carter is may be one of the greatest upsets in rizzstory.
This is really quality analysis. As a corollary, I’d add that the reason that JD Vance will forever be associated with fucking a couch is that he really comes across as a guy who fucks couches
I mean this is a “tongue in cheek” post but I’m reading this thinking that there is some real research indicating this is true. If I’m not mistaken wasn’t there a pretty consistent finding that the taller Presidential candidate consistently won?
By the way, this is kind of dark I admit, but it’s hard not to read this and not think about why elites wanted to still not only hang out with Epstein after his first conviction but almost pathetically groveling for his advice or just to hang out with him like 15 year olds desperate to hang out with the cool kid. I mean there were the creeps who almost certainly knew the full story and wanted “in” on actual horrific sex crimes. But I’d say a lot of the others just wanted to hang out with the charming sociopathic “guy who fucks”. I mean, to repeat, it’s pathetic but it seems to me you basically nailed in this post what was going on.
And while I share most of concerns of MattY wrt Newsome (who fucks and meh electoral record) and Susan Collins (who doesn’t fuck and awesome electoral record), when it comes to presidential elections, I feel like this element of fuckery is more important than say off year senatorial elections!
And I guess another type of election this matters - nyc mayor!
Pelosi fucks in reality, but she doesn’t give the outward impression that she fucks. The people who know how she works get it; that’s why she had a lock on the Democratic caucus for two decades. But she doesn’t convey that impression in media appearances. (For the most part. I think it came through most clearly when she showed how utterly unimpressed she was with Trump)
Oh duh, brain fart on my part... the whole time I was thinking "voting record". Obv her electoral record is great, she's very good at getting elected. Voting-wise, she's a marginally less insane Republican.
I feel like I need an actual definition of "fucks" here. If it means "has lots of sexual intercourse" then that's obviously true of Clinton and Trump but there's no way it's right about George W Bush. If it just means "seems cool" then we're back to arguing about whether 20 year olds named Braden who hang around college campuses trying to pick up chicks are cool.
I think the problem is the "does he fuck" filter is necessary-but-not-sufficient. Like, if an older male doesn't present in a Presidential campaign like he could be sexually desirable, at least to his wife, that's...not going to go well. I buy that.
I would argue that Al Gore fucked, _but_ he chose to hide that aspect of himself consistently for his entire campaign. He had an "I'm like paint drying" schtick that he did and it was bad for a presidential campaign. I saw him on his first appearance on Letterman after he lost and he was fantastic except for, like 3 minutes of policy wonkery during which I left my body due to boredom. And I'm a nerd! "Al Gore: I fuck but for the purpose of this campaign let's all agree that I don't."
Anyway, I could see Newsome doing that to himself too.
To be fair, Gore was running in the wake of Clinton's Lewinsky debacle/impeachment, and needed the votes of people who didn't approve of what Clinton had done but needed to keep him in office anyway.
Bush's comparison points were Gore and Kerry. He'd get destroyed in an election against Bill Clinton for sure and probably Trump too in a Republican primary even pre-2016.
Love seeing you use your massive platform to support small voices like George W. Bush's Substack 😂
I love supporting independent art!
It pains me to say this, but this is why buttigieg polls so low. I agree we need a candidate that fucks at least twice a week. Preferably more when they’re campaigning for maximum aura.
Buttigieg is kinda autistic-coded (he was the trains secretary) but lacks the high nerd-out energy one would expect from an autist so he comes off as overly neutral & boringly nerdy.
I still remember the David Brooks column lamenting the fact that millennials aren't supporting this nice young man who dresses so sharply.
He may not fuck but when he gets invited over by an enemy to repeatedly humiliate them like he does with Fox News regularly it should qualify as some sorta erotic fill-in
Mayor Pete definitely fucks. I guess the awkward question CHH didn't broach was whether this requirement of voters is satisfied by a gay candidate.
Yeah I like Buttigieg, but he's a technocrat, not a president.
I keep telling all of the Boomers who love him and think he's so smart/polite. .Buttigieg has zero rizz and a POTUS candidate needs that in the post-Trump social media age.
Buttigieg is the liberal Trump. By that I mean he wins over his supporters by displaying the cultural signifiers of their socioeconomic class. Trump appeals to the fantasies of the sort of people who eat a lot of fast food, are awed by big trucks, and spend all day watching Fox News. Buttigieg appeals to the fantasies of the sort of people who get graduate degrees, learn Norwegian, and spend all day listening to NPR. It’s easy to miss because the cultural signifiers are so different, but they have the same sort of appeal to different sorts of people. And the problem for Buttigieg is that not enough people have graduate degrees for his shtick to work.
It's not the political analysis that we deserve, but it's the political analysis that we need.
You gotta expand on your AOC take because it makes no sense wrt the rest of the article.
Also, wouldn’t mind seeing the polymarket disclaimer at the top of the article vs the bottom. Feels like a rug pull to read something and then realize it’s like backwards-justified sponcon.
I also did a double-take at that.
If I understand the CHH's take, it's not about being fuckable or even about having sex, its about having agency. AOC sometimes has her "one who fucks" moments, she's got slick direct-to-voter videos and self-confidence. Other times she lacks that energy, seeming comfortable to just lament the system and take on hopeless causes, rather than be someone who moves the agenda forward. Vs other leftists she does have a pragmatic streak which I think is quite underrated.
Early AOC most definitely fucked. She probably still does, but I think she's in a position where she needs to tamp down her aura a bit to be effective. I think she can reignite it if she gets in a leadership role or runs for another office.
Maybe that's what CHH is responding to, I dunno. This is by far the hottest take in the post.
I was taking it as updated shorthand for “who do i want to have a beer with” and I don’t understand how AOC doesn’t fit.
Yeah that polymarket disclaimer was a jumpscare. I don't like that creators are partnering with them at all. Kalshi and them are pure evil
I like AOCs politics and she is clearly hot, but CHH is right. She gives off “we need to have a long boring conversation about our relationship” vibes, not girl who likes to fuck vibes. If she released more early videos like the old one of her dancing on the roof it could change
See this is exactly why I’m shocked we only got a one-liner on AOC. Even if this article is using “fucks” to mean “cool”, men have this insane reaction where somehow she’s not cool because it doesn’t seem like she would fuck them.
Yeah, I'm not sure what's up with the polymarket sponcon lately? Seems like a weird partner to have.
I would love to hear her expand on that, but as a conventionally attractive woman who has zero rizz, CHH is uniquely qualified to make this assessment.
I strongly question the “zero rizz” part.
As someone who also has zero rizz, I think it’s very possible for CHH to write tons of charming and funny articles and still suffer from the condition. It’s oddly separable from your actual communication skills. More to do with high social anxiety and an inability to hide it or maladaptive ways to hide it (I’m more Type I and from her anecdotes CHH seems more Type II).
CHH has taught herself rizz (and even wrote some helpful guides). But she has many, many stories of her rizzless life prior (which you've described well). Like many drama kids, she had some rizz-gredients but not the total package. A lot of comedians are like this.
Being charismatic is innate for some and not others. While it's learnable to some degree, CHH's perspective is unique because 1) she has deep enough insight into her mental conditions to learn, and 2) can effectively describe her journey to rizzdom.
Like half her essays are about having zero rizz
I've always understood the situation to be that CHH has rizz, but it's cancelled out by other traits that subvert rizz.
I think that when talking about her flaws she can be an unreliable narrator, like how she describes herself as being physically unattractive as a teenager, and then you see actual pics.
The 1960 election between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon was really close, and the obvious fuck-gap between the two of them probably made the difference.
Outstanding example. The thing was, Nixon fucked too (which is why he absolutely demolished McGovern in 72), but he ran into a world-historic example of a candidate who fucked with JFK.
Completely agree with your AOC hot take. I like and respect her a lot, but a skinny, nerdy, feminine woman with a high pitched voice and leftist policy positions will struggle in a presidential election.
She’s basically built in a lab to appeal to reddit socialists, but that’s not at all similar to what working class swing voters in the Midwest and South find charismatic and appealing.
I’m not super confident on my take there I overall like her, but I just don’t know if she “has it.” Certainly more than Hillary Clinton but yeah.
There’s always one sentence in a CHH essay that jumps out at me and makes me wants to give a hot take, and this was it. AOC doesn’t fuck?? What?! Are you kidding me??
“I have to be honest, I don’t think AOC fucks.“
“Skinny?” AOC got *curves*, yo!
But they are not curves of the middle aged matronly sort that we associate with female presidential candidates. They are young woman curves. She has a little waist.
This is the most reddit shitposty article ever (and it was awesome).
I'm sadden CHH doesn't like Clavicular because everyday he is getting into some wacky shenanigan. The best way to describe him is he is a reverse IShowSpeed, where Speed is constantly getting into situations but it's an upwards trajectory, Clavicular's life is constantly getting worse and worse.
Also with the Obama photo, I'm waiting for the (((CHH))) conspiracy theories, that she is the daughter of a high ranking illuminati member or something. It would explain why she thinks ISIS is trying to kill her.
Haha it’s not that I don’t find clavicular funny, I just have my doubts about his staying power!
I like this comment for many reasons, but especially for “wacky shenanigan.” Who knew that “shenanigans” could be singular?!
Curious to see whether CHH commenters will get as mad about the Polymarket thing as Yglesias's did.
Also, people forget that during the entire Obama administration The Onion had a running gag about Biden that could basically be boiled down to: he fucks.
Senator Biden had a lot of swagger, and he carried that into the VP role, and the first part of his presidency. That's one of the reasons people were always pointing out his gaffes -- he wasn't afraid to swing a big stick (pardon the pun), and sometimes he missed. Sometimes Aaron Judge strikes out, too.
I don't mind that much about the Polymarket thing because of the context. This is a shitpost about how we need politicans with ineffable fucking-ness; the Polymarket widget is superfluous and doesn't have anything to do with the thesis of the article.
Yglesias' article was about how non-elites are stupid and get worked up over things that aren't actual out-and-out corruption. Getting money from a malign source for no discernable analytical benefit while saying in essence, don't worry your pretty little heads about corruption rubbed people the wrong way. If he had used it for an article about, say, counter-cyclical potato price subsidies, I doubt he would have gotten half the pushback.
That’s an extremely bad faith reading of his thesis. He wasn’t saying “don’t worry about corruption”, he was saying “corruption is very bad, but voters’ understanding of what corruption is makes essentially every politician ‘corrupt’ and that makes it harder to punish actual corruption”
Yeah, I was really pre-disposed to dislike that Maddie article, but after reading it I agree with maybe 80% of it. A lot of people really do have this kneejerk tendency to think "this politician's position on issue ABC is very unpleasant to me, therefore they are clearly taking money from Big XYZ", even when the position is 100% consistent with said politician's general worldview. Kinda like how some folks here will attribute points of view they disagree with to virtue-signaling, even when there's zero reason to think that the person is being dishonest about their beliefs.
I haven't read the MattY piece but..
> voters’ understanding of what corruption is makes essentially every politician ‘corrupt
...seems a broadly accurate reading by the electorate. #notallpoliticos
Highly disagree, plus that incorrect take on things *always* benefits the most corrupt politicians. If you think that they're all equally devious and corrupt, you'll put up with anything, right?
Yeah, that's a fair point! It didn't really bother me much, but definitely a poor choice for the roll-out
Polymarket and kalshi are terrible. Gambling is terrible. It’s funny that this is a free article in the name of getting more people addicted to gambling.
Diamond Joe
What I think is interesting about this framework is that "one who fucks" is totally independent from "is fuckable". Female politicians have debated for decades whether it is a blessing or a curse to be regarded as "fuckable", but CHH knows the real-deal is about being able to wield the power. It's all about being the one who fucks.
100%
Finally we get an explanation from CHH, our top political analyst, of why Epstein was the hub of the ruling class
Sipping my coffee and contemplating being brutally aura-mogged by Bernie Sanders. It is a beautiful world you created for us, CHH.
At the risk of making everyone reading along throw up, my first election was Reagan versus Carter, and I can sign on with the thesis here. Between those two men there is no doubt on who fucked. However, the previous election of Carter versus Ford is a head scratcher - our country must have been at an all time low. No fucks to be found.
Happy Monday!
I wasn't born yet, but my sense is that Chevy Chase somehow aura-mogged one of the most chadmaxxed humans in existence. Ford had political issues, no doubt, but:
National champion QB
Model
Decorated Navy vet
Survived two assassination attempts
Defeated Reagan
Ford obviously had some major political liabilities, but losing to Carter is may be one of the greatest upsets in rizzstory.
This is really quality analysis. As a corollary, I’d add that the reason that JD Vance will forever be associated with fucking a couch is that he really comes across as a guy who fucks couches
Exactly
I mean this is a “tongue in cheek” post but I’m reading this thinking that there is some real research indicating this is true. If I’m not mistaken wasn’t there a pretty consistent finding that the taller Presidential candidate consistently won?
By the way, this is kind of dark I admit, but it’s hard not to read this and not think about why elites wanted to still not only hang out with Epstein after his first conviction but almost pathetically groveling for his advice or just to hang out with him like 15 year olds desperate to hang out with the cool kid. I mean there were the creeps who almost certainly knew the full story and wanted “in” on actual horrific sex crimes. But I’d say a lot of the others just wanted to hang out with the charming sociopathic “guy who fucks”. I mean, to repeat, it’s pathetic but it seems to me you basically nailed in this post what was going on.
Lmaooo I really liked this one
And while I share most of concerns of MattY wrt Newsome (who fucks and meh electoral record) and Susan Collins (who doesn’t fuck and awesome electoral record), when it comes to presidential elections, I feel like this element of fuckery is more important than say off year senatorial elections!
And I guess another type of election this matters - nyc mayor!
Agreed!
I think it applies to high profile politicians, regardless of their office.
I really want CHH's take on whether Nancy Pelosi fucks (I think she does). Hakeem Jeffries? Not so much.
If Pelosi didn't fuck, we need to redefine the term.
Pelosi fucks in reality, but she doesn’t give the outward impression that she fucks. The people who know how she works get it; that’s why she had a lock on the Democratic caucus for two decades. But she doesn’t convey that impression in media appearances. (For the most part. I think it came through most clearly when she showed how utterly unimpressed she was with Trump)
Wait, Susan Collins? The “he’s learned his lesson” lady?? “Awesome electoral record”??? Sir, please step away from the crack pipe.
You can dislike Collins all you want and I will happily agree with you, but she indisputably has an awesome electoral record.
Oh duh, brain fart on my part... the whole time I was thinking "voting record". Obv her electoral record is great, she's very good at getting elected. Voting-wise, she's a marginally less insane Republican.
She survived 2008 in a blue state when Ted Stevens couldn’t in Alaska.
I was perfectly fine with not knowing what mogged means and kind of regret knowing now.
I actually appreciated the explanation...a bunch of previous CHH posts were inscrutable to me. But all this wisdom does only make one sadder. :-)
I feel like I need an actual definition of "fucks" here. If it means "has lots of sexual intercourse" then that's obviously true of Clinton and Trump but there's no way it's right about George W Bush. If it just means "seems cool" then we're back to arguing about whether 20 year olds named Braden who hang around college campuses trying to pick up chicks are cool.
It’s a specific type of cool
Yeah but there are no types of cool that Newsom has over AOC, for example.
"Does AOC Fuck?", the greatest thread in the history of forums, etc. etc. (likely highly NSFW)
The Lisztomania video should conclusively settle this debate in her favor.
Ah, I see you're a man of culture as well
I think the problem is the "does he fuck" filter is necessary-but-not-sufficient. Like, if an older male doesn't present in a Presidential campaign like he could be sexually desirable, at least to his wife, that's...not going to go well. I buy that.
I would argue that Al Gore fucked, _but_ he chose to hide that aspect of himself consistently for his entire campaign. He had an "I'm like paint drying" schtick that he did and it was bad for a presidential campaign. I saw him on his first appearance on Letterman after he lost and he was fantastic except for, like 3 minutes of policy wonkery during which I left my body due to boredom. And I'm a nerd! "Al Gore: I fuck but for the purpose of this campaign let's all agree that I don't."
Anyway, I could see Newsome doing that to himself too.
To be fair, Gore was running in the wake of Clinton's Lewinsky debacle/impeachment, and needed the votes of people who didn't approve of what Clinton had done but needed to keep him in office anyway.
Bush's comparison points were Gore and Kerry. He'd get destroyed in an election against Bill Clinton for sure and probably Trump too in a Republican primary even pre-2016.