USA Politics
- Thread starter Genghis Khan
- Start date
Vaenyr
Ancient Mariner
I agree with the overall point, but the reason I focus so much on anti-LGBTQ campaigns:
It's been a common point of discussion in this thread, trying to paint it as an advantageous strategy for the Dems or rather pretending trans people were a significant deciding factor in last year's elections.
Data consistently showed that this isn't true. With Mamdani we can clearly see that he got fantastic numbers from queer voters. In other words:
There's no group of voters out there that would normally vote blue but voted for Trump instead because the Dems were too trans friendly. There is no gaining votes as a Democrat by demonizing trans people. No conservative or moderate would change their vote based solely on that. Holding steady, being an ally and supporting LGBTQ minorities will get you their support though. Given how close some of those races have been over the last few years I think it is vitally important to keep that in mind, especially with Newsom's problematic views and a potential candidacy in 2028 in mind.
TL;DR: The Dems need to stop throwing minorities under the bus and should instead focus on the working class and the economy.
I’m not sure I see the relevance of this to the victories last night in multiple states.
Vaenyr
Ancient Mariner
It's meta commentary in response to the bluesky post I shared on the previous page and a few dozen back-and-forths over the last year in this thread.
The first thing to watch is going to be the shutdown fight. Democrats gain a lot of leverage here. Trump is calling for the end of the filibuster, but you also see folks like MTG showing support for democrats demands to extend Obamacare subsidies. I think it’s highly likely at this point that democrats will leave the shutdown with concessions from republicans, which would be a significant legislative loss for Trump.
____no5
Free Man
This is exactly right. At the national level, however, I believe it’s easier for a powerful popular movement to emerge from someone who identifies as a socialist rather than a moderate.
Vaenyr
Ancient Mariner
I actually agree with this lol
The Dems, no matter where they are on the political spectrum, have been called socialists and communists for years now. Even the most moderate voices are called "radical far left" by Trump and the GOP. Why not have actual socialists or democratic socialists try their luck then? They'd see the same type of attacks either way.
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
In the United States? No way in hell.
This is a terrible argument, even by your own low standards. How about “because they’ll lose everywhere except the most left-leaning fringes of the country”…?
Diesel 11
As you scream into the web of silence...
I’m gonna say it like it is: these tweets are stupid and out of touch.
Mamdani was running on a Democratic ticket against a Democrat running on an independent ticket. Cuomo sucked up center Dem votes from Mamdani and Republican votes from Sliwa and still lost.
Obama, Spanberger, and Sherrill were the only Dems running, so of course they got more votes than a Democrat running against a Democrat. Come on now.
Let’s also not forget how little Mamdani was being backed by money or the rest of his party. He won on the backs of the working class that believed in him, not the billionaires who ran ads for Cuomo nonstop. And furthermore, Mamdani won because he got marginalized groups to show up for him, because to him they were not being used as a pawn to toss around and get the majority mad about.
Let’s be clear about what these results are: it is still a rejection of status quo Democrats. Would a candidate like Mamdani work across the country? That remains to be seen, but NYC’s mayoral race became an international spectacle and got plenty of people excited about the prospect of politics for the first time in a long time. That should say something.
Wait, the 22nd amendment hasn’t been repealed yet has it?
Flaming Blimp Crash
Ancient Mariner
Spanberger I fully expected to win by 10 points at minimum, so that checked out. Sherrill's race I expected a tossup, so for a margin to be that big is stunning. She was running on the heels of an unpopular incumbent Dem governor in New Jersey and was running more as a moderate Dem. Looks like Democrats across the political spectrum won big yesterday.
First, I think last night has the potential to be a real sea change for America. I know it has basically become a meme at this point that Trump is going to be finished any day now, but when the entire party is built around a cult of personality it is literally impossible for that to last forever. At the very least, at some point Trump is going to die and if there isn't a successor, the MAGA movement is over. With that in mind, I think Republicans find themselves in a pretty big pickle when you consider that Trump is never going to be on the ballot again. At a certain point self preservation has to kick in and I wouldn't be surprised if you start to see congressional Republicans start to split with Trump in more public ways. I heard a podcaster speculate that maybe that will happen after filing deadlines for 2026 so that Trump has less power to primary people, I think that makes a lot of sense but we'll see.
The other side to this is that Democrats' victories last night were massive, potentially their best electoral performances in the last ten years. There are still a lot of numbers to crunch, but if you look at Democratic margins, exit polling, county data, Trump's approval rating, and the state of the economy, similar conditions suggests that Democrats will easily win the House next year and the Senate could also be in play. That would be a bigger wave than what we saw in 2018. It's still early, but two weeks ago I would've told you that I think the Democrats lack a cohesive message and that if they try to enter 2026 on an anti-Trump message alone they are liable to actually lose the midterms. After last night, I no longer believe that.
One massive advantage Trump had in 2018 was the economy was pretty good. The economy is not very good right now and voters in exit polls last night overwhelmingly blame Trump. They blame Trump for the shutdown. Trump isn't going to run again in 2028 and whatever electoral superpowers he has clearly don't translate to other candidates. There is going to be a fight over the successor, and I look forward to the MAGA schism that might happen as soon as this year due to the current shutdown fight. I don't think this means the end of Trump in terms of his removal from office, but the lame duckness might start to set in earlier than expected, and by 2028 the party might be treating him the way they treated Bush in 08. We'll see what happens.***
Second, I find myself frustrated by the constant "progressive vs moderate" discourse that happens every election when it is pretty obvious that the party needs both wings (and realistically there are many factions within this even) to build a winning coalition. One of the key differences between Democrats and Republicans is that the Democrats do not have to be in lock step ideologically. I have a lot of respect for both Spanberger and Mamdani and what they were able to bring to their respective races. The fact that both of these candidates (and Sherrill as well) were able to win big should demonstrate two things IMO:
1: Economics, specifically cost of living, wins every time.
2: How the candidate approaches economic issues may vary by state/city/etc
The fixation on ideology is also baffling to me when you consider the fact that these elections are almost never won on ideology. The current president is anything but ideological. Joe Biden was pretty progressive with the way he governed, but campaigned in 2020 as pretty right down the middle (I would also point out that in the primary he was one of the few in the "moderate" lane who didn't get bogged down in ideological debates). I would argue that at the very least, the last 5 presidential elections were decided primarily on who voters trusted the most to run the economy.
Ultimately I think the progressive vs moderate thing is missing the forest for the trees when what voters are actually looking for is authenticity. Kamala tried to tack more to the center in 2024, but focus groups repeatedly expressed a sentiment that they didn't know what she stood for. Spanberger and Mamdani, by contrast, are unapologetic about their visions. They actually stand for something. I have tended to lean more toward progressive candidates in primaries largely because I think they present themselves in a more authentic way, and I think a lot of younger people respond to progressives for a similar reason. I've said many times on here that I disagree with Mamdani on a lot of issues, but I am mostly excited to see someone who is willing to make bold moves to fix pretty serious structural problems. I feel the same way about Spanberger though and if there are more moderates who come out of the woodwork in that mold, I welcome that too. I think the primaries are a healthy project and I'm not sure who the best choice for 2028 is, but I think that process has to play out for the party to be successful.
Also, I realize the ideological vs authentic thing is a bit hazy and difficult to explain. Basically, I believe that sometimes speaking to the issue and presenting a solution is more vital in a campaign than the actual content of the solution. That is why Donald "concepts of a plan" Trump has been able to be pretty effective as a candidate while Harris and Clinton failed to resonate.
***Edit; Obviously I am hedging here. But I don't think Trump's impeachment and removal from office is off the table if the bottom falls out for his support. I think if the economy continues to decline and voters trust in his ability to handle the economy goes away his numbers actually will crater. If this starts to look like a sinking ship and Democrats retake the house (or even senate), I can absolutely see Dems being able to find enough vulnerable GOP senators in to remove him from office in 2027. I also don't think we should discount the opportunity of the administration eating itself alive and Vance/Rubio leading a 25th amendment effort. It's not a high likelihood, but I don't think it's stupid to buy stock in Trump not finishing his term (also because he's old as shit).
The other side to this is that Democrats' victories last night were massive, potentially their best electoral performances in the last ten years. There are still a lot of numbers to crunch, but if you look at Democratic margins, exit polling, county data, Trump's approval rating, and the state of the economy, similar conditions suggests that Democrats will easily win the House next year and the Senate could also be in play. That would be a bigger wave than what we saw in 2018. It's still early, but two weeks ago I would've told you that I think the Democrats lack a cohesive message and that if they try to enter 2026 on an anti-Trump message alone they are liable to actually lose the midterms. After last night, I no longer believe that.
One massive advantage Trump had in 2018 was the economy was pretty good. The economy is not very good right now and voters in exit polls last night overwhelmingly blame Trump. They blame Trump for the shutdown. Trump isn't going to run again in 2028 and whatever electoral superpowers he has clearly don't translate to other candidates. There is going to be a fight over the successor, and I look forward to the MAGA schism that might happen as soon as this year due to the current shutdown fight. I don't think this means the end of Trump in terms of his removal from office, but the lame duckness might start to set in earlier than expected, and by 2028 the party might be treating him the way they treated Bush in 08. We'll see what happens.***
Second, I find myself frustrated by the constant "progressive vs moderate" discourse that happens every election when it is pretty obvious that the party needs both wings (and realistically there are many factions within this even) to build a winning coalition. One of the key differences between Democrats and Republicans is that the Democrats do not have to be in lock step ideologically. I have a lot of respect for both Spanberger and Mamdani and what they were able to bring to their respective races. The fact that both of these candidates (and Sherrill as well) were able to win big should demonstrate two things IMO:
1: Economics, specifically cost of living, wins every time.
2: How the candidate approaches economic issues may vary by state/city/etc
The fixation on ideology is also baffling to me when you consider the fact that these elections are almost never won on ideology. The current president is anything but ideological. Joe Biden was pretty progressive with the way he governed, but campaigned in 2020 as pretty right down the middle (I would also point out that in the primary he was one of the few in the "moderate" lane who didn't get bogged down in ideological debates). I would argue that at the very least, the last 5 presidential elections were decided primarily on who voters trusted the most to run the economy.
Ultimately I think the progressive vs moderate thing is missing the forest for the trees when what voters are actually looking for is authenticity. Kamala tried to tack more to the center in 2024, but focus groups repeatedly expressed a sentiment that they didn't know what she stood for. Spanberger and Mamdani, by contrast, are unapologetic about their visions. They actually stand for something. I have tended to lean more toward progressive candidates in primaries largely because I think they present themselves in a more authentic way, and I think a lot of younger people respond to progressives for a similar reason. I've said many times on here that I disagree with Mamdani on a lot of issues, but I am mostly excited to see someone who is willing to make bold moves to fix pretty serious structural problems. I feel the same way about Spanberger though and if there are more moderates who come out of the woodwork in that mold, I welcome that too. I think the primaries are a healthy project and I'm not sure who the best choice for 2028 is, but I think that process has to play out for the party to be successful.
Also, I realize the ideological vs authentic thing is a bit hazy and difficult to explain. Basically, I believe that sometimes speaking to the issue and presenting a solution is more vital in a campaign than the actual content of the solution. That is why Donald "concepts of a plan" Trump has been able to be pretty effective as a candidate while Harris and Clinton failed to resonate.
***Edit; Obviously I am hedging here. But I don't think Trump's impeachment and removal from office is off the table if the bottom falls out for his support. I think if the economy continues to decline and voters trust in his ability to handle the economy goes away his numbers actually will crater. If this starts to look like a sinking ship and Democrats retake the house (or even senate), I can absolutely see Dems being able to find enough vulnerable GOP senators in to remove him from office in 2027. I also don't think we should discount the opportunity of the administration eating itself alive and Vance/Rubio leading a 25th amendment effort. It's not a high likelihood, but I don't think it's stupid to buy stock in Trump not finishing his term (also because he's old as shit).
Last edited:
____no5
Free Man
It happened in the 60s. Then you had the bi-partisan reactionary think tanks that crashed the waves. It almost happened again with Sanders, crashed by the Democrats.
Amen, but this will never happen with this Democratic Party.
MAGA is bigger than Trump who is proven to be another neocon. The future of MAGA could be Vance, who is a fine American firster. Only problem; his boss is all over the place and Vance risks to go down with Trump’s sinking ship.