USA Politics

I can't say I've seen anything Mamdani has said thats antisemitic. He's a fierce critic of Isreals genocide, and some are quick to twist that into antisemitism. It's the same playbook we've seen many times before.

I think Democrats will ride a pretty huge blue wave in the mid terms. Even some MAGA's are getting sick of Trumps nonsense with tariffs, the shutdown and taking so long to release the Epstein files.

What worries me is that they'll use that success to go down the centrist road again. The left will be told to fall in line behind the corporate dems. If they don't make serious moves to make normal peoples lives materially better then it just enables another Trump like figure in a few years.

I agree there's a growing problem with young men that follow Andrew Tate, cypto bro's etc. We're seeing this crap in the UK and these influencers are getting younger and younger followers. I think this is going to be a ongoing serious problem in the coming decade.
 
I edited my post before you posted. Mamdani is anti-Zionist, which isn’t flattering either. I agree that the Dems need to look after the hardworking men and women of the country.

Imo, the Dems need to abandon that socialism nonsense that stems from Marxism and is a relic of the USSR. If they want to introduce more socially oriented policies, speak like a human: social-democratic politics, “we want you to live like in Northern European countries,” etc.
 
I edited my post before you posted. Mamdani is anti-Zionist, which isn’t flattering either. I agree that the Dems need to look after the hardworking men and women of the country.

Imo, the Dems need to abandon that socialism nonsense that stems from Marxism and is a relic of the USSR. If they want to introduce more socially oriented policies, speak like a human: social-democratic politics, “we want you to live like in Northern European countries,” etc.
Name one American politician that is a Marxist. I swear, if FDR ran for office in 2028, CNN, Fox, and Joe Rogan would call him a communist.
 
Ok, maybe I’m wrong. I implied that all Dem socialist factions are from the Marxist branch of socialism. I don’t have the facts or knowledge on that. To me, far-left + socialism is an instant red flag. Like I said, call yourself social-democrats — I can live with that. I agree that the state needs to look after its own people to an extent. Just be reasonable.
 
Honestly the "far left/socialist/communist" label just seems to be a stick to beat your opponents with.

Centre right corporate Dems use it to attack anyone left of them.
Republicans, Fox News etc use it even to attack the centre right Dems.

Are these "far left" Dems advocating for the state to seize the means of production? Eliminating capitalism? Mandating every company to become a worker co-op?

No. They want to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, create a social healthcare system like every other developed country in the world, stop letting the super rich dodge taxes, create tuition free public colleges, and to actually take meaningful action on climate change.

These aren't really extreme positions at all. They're pretty normal positions for anyone that isn't a right wing loon.

But Fox News etc fucking scream SOCIALISM! whenever anything that might benefit the average person is hinted at.
 
Obama emerged relatively quickly in the 2008 primaries and I don't believe he was particularly a favorite going into it prior to them starting. Harris is still polling in the top-three of the Democratic field right now and Buttigieg is up there as well. I think of the current 'favorites', Newsom has the only chance of lasting as a frontrunner. Personally, I think anyone in the previous administration isn't going to get too far in the next set of primaries - although I think Buttigieg will go further than Harris again.

My frontrunners for the Dem nom at this point are Newsom, Beshear, Moore and Shapiro if he throws his name in. I think it'll be a governor. Pritzker's been falling down the ranking for me as I think anti-billionaire sentiment will take him out of the running.
 
Is it time for way too early speculation about the next two major elections? I'll start with 2026 as I've been thinking about this a lot since the special election last month.

I think the House is pretty much gone for the GOP, which is no big surprise really. It is very rare for the president's party to keep the house after the midterms. The interesting thing though is going to be margins and whether gerrymandering will have an impact. With the current map (and a lot is still in litigation), there aren't a lot of swing districts. I think last I looked a "wave" environment for democrats would net something like 20 seats, which is a comfortable enough majority but wouldn't be an over-performance and doesn't point to democrats winning the senate or a major political sea change beyond the usual case of independents punishing the party in power. On the flip side, there has been some wild generic ballot polling showing up to a D+13 environment which would be landslide territory and put the Senate in play. It would be the biggest wave we've seen in the Trump era (I'm talking every cycle since 2016). I don't believe that this is going to pan out, that is a massive shift, but if it's in the ballpark Republicans are seriously in trouble. This polling combined with Democrats overperforming last month, and in particular seeing young voters and latinos snap back, makes me think that netting 30 - 40 seats isn't impossible. If the economy continues to crumble and Trump's approval keeps tanking it starts to seem more feasible.

That brings us to the Senate. It's a bad map for Democrats frankly, but here's where things sit, from safest D to more competitive:

Open seats in MN and NH, the Democrats will win these.

Open seat in Michigan, it's a state Trump won in 2024 but I doubt Democrats will lose here either.

Ossoff (D) being reelected in Georgia, this is the first one that could be competitive and a lot will depend on who runs against Ossoff. The biggest threat is Governor Kemp, but I don't think he's going to run. It seems like Republicans are going to run into the same problem they had in 2022, which is qualified and high quality Republican candidates like Kemp won't have interest in running to be in a dysfunctional government body for a lame duck president. Ultimately I think Ossoff is fairly safe based on what we've seen so far in specials.

Maine: Technically this shouldn't be past Georgia on the competitive spectrum since it's the only state with a Republican senator that Harris won, but Susan Collins has proven to be formidable. This is a must win race and I think a lot of it is going to come down to recruiting the right candidate. I don't love anybody who is in the primary right now, but ultimately they just need to run whoever best speaks to Maine voters. Frankly, if Democrats can't win this race, they have serious problems.

North Carolina: Another Trump state but one that has elected democrats, notable a D governor in 2024 despite also voting for Trump. This is an open race and Roy Cooper is running, so in a strong D environment I actually think he can win this one handily.

The problem for Democrats is that even if they win all of these races, that still puts them two seats shy of a majority, which means they need to win two states that Trump won three times. I think it's doable, but only in play if we see a bigger wave than 2018. Not outside the realm of possibility, but it's a tall order. Here's where I think they have potential:

Ohio: Frankly you can put this one in the must win category, I don't think there's a Senate majority without Ohio. They have Sherrod Brown running who has been Senator in Ohio before and has a recognizable brand. Ohio continues to be more out of reach for Democrats but in the right national environment it could be in play.

Texas: Texas has gone from a Democratic fantasy to a state that they actually need to become competitive in if they want to be able to win national elections. By 2030, with new census data and redrawing of electoral maps, Democrats will not be able to win the presidency without being competitive in Texas (or Florida). That's all to say that Texas should be a priority this cycle both because it could lead to a senate majority and because it needs to be in play for 2028.

Iowa: Open seat, decent college population, similar to Ohio it could flip in the right environment but it's a long shot and I'm not seeing it right now.

After that you're looking at places like Alaska and Florida, so it really comes down imo to Ohio and Texas (and in that scenario Iowa probably flips as well). It's not great but it's possible.
 
Kemp already declined to run in GA and Ossoff breathed a sigh of relief as a result. Slight Dem lean in that race.

Roy Cooper's looking strong in NC thus far. Texas I think for both sides really depends on which candidate wins the primary. AG Paxton looks strong in a conservative primary, but doesn't fare as well as Cornyn in a head-to-head general election. I think if Colin Allred wins the primary again he loses the general regardless. James Talarico's a newer face on the national stage but is a rep in the Texas House, I think he could make for a neck and neck race if he gets the nom.
 
Last edited:
Texas I think for both sides really depends on which candidate wins the primary. AG Paxton looks strong in a conservative primary, but doesn't fare as well as Cornyn in a head-to-head general election. I think if Colin Allred wins the primary again he loses the general regardless. James Talarico's a newer face on the national stage but is a rep in the Texas House, I think he could make for a neck and neck race if he gets the nom.
This is exactly right imo. Talarico vs Paxton is probably the dream scenario for dems. I probably said this about Beto before, but Texas Democrats have been building up a bench for over a decade now and they have a lot of talented rising stars, there's no reason to rerun someone who has already lost before imo.
 
As for 2028, I'm going to go against the grain here and say that even though a lot of people are probably going to get in, I can easily see this turning into a two person race. Gavin Newsom is going to come in with a massive head start and if he ends up being competitive, I think a lot of others running in his lane become non viable. Shapiro, Buttigieg, Beshear, Pritzker, etc are just going to steal votes from each other while Newsom will be able to have enough name ID and campaign money to get through the primary ala Biden in 2020.* I don't think Whitmer is going to run. I think ultimately Harris won't run - among other things Newsom's big 2025 victories killed any Harris 2028 hope.

That leaves room for a more progressive challenger, or someone who presents as a "change" candidate or outsider. The one potential governor candidate I'll be interested in is Wes Moore. He's extremely charismatic, gives great speeches, and is a military guy. While I don't think he would be championed by the left, he would provide enough of a contrast to Newsom than any of the other potentials mentioned above and would be formidable if he could lock down the older black vote. As for an actual progressive choice, I am not ruling out the possibility of AOC running. I think she's more interested in running for Senate and maybe being a kingmaker in the presidential primary, but there isn't an obvious progressive choice right now and if that remains to be the case I could see AOC getting in.

Obviously this is all way too early, I don't think we'll have anything resembling a clear picture of what the primary looks like until after the 2026 midterms.

*Of course Biden looked really weak for most of the campaign until South Carolina. I expect the primary calendar this time around will eliminate a similar scenario and whoever wins the first two states will probably be the favorite.
 
Back
Top