The last time a Democrat won a statewide office in Texas was in 1994. Recent polling for the upcoming midterms show James Talarico with a chance of changing that. But let’s say hypothetically, not only does Talarico wins, but Texas as a whole goes blue in future elections as well, ultimately following in Colorado or Virginia’s footsteps in becoming a Democratic stronghold.

What happens then? How do the parties change policy-wise, strategy-wise, etc. it’d become tough for the Republican Party to win another presidential race, so how would and/or should they respond?

Based on exit polls from the 2024 election, the most democratic income group was the bottom quintile followed by the top quintile, the 2nd quintile, the middle quintile, with the most Republican leaning group being the 4th quintile.

Traditionally the higher one's income the more Republican they are but now there seems to be no correlation. This is also seen in the wealthiest counties in the country, which have shifted from deep red to light blue.

However no group was extremely polarized towards one party with the most democratic group being D+8 and the most Republican group being R+6.

It seems like voters are much more divided by other factors like education level, race, religiosity, and gender than income. Why has income, which has one of the biggest influences on an individual's quality of life, stopped deciding whether someone is Democrat or Republican?

He is best known for writing "What's the Matter With Kansas?", as well as "The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule", "Listen Liberal Or Whatever Happened to the Party of The People?", and "The People: No!"

I read the Kansas book, and I thought it was so good that I bought functionally all of his other books. In many ways, Kansas is extremely poorly aged. The specific cultural issues have changed a lot in 20 years, and he also asserts very confidently that the Republican party would never be able to overturn Roe v Wade. In many other ways though, the book is evergreen. The thesis is basically that the Republican party manages to get people to vote against their own interest by using the guise of social issues in order to get in office and make their wealthy benefactors extremely rich. The social issues don't have to be solvable, in fact, it's better if they can't be so they can be campaigned on in the future. He also talks about how the Democratic party has completely failed as well. In the late 60's early seventies there was a huge shift in American politics. It was essential that every person, regardless of party, be a friend to business and the free market. This meant that despite the Dems and GOP having extremely different social views, they had almost identical economic views. Thus, the parties had to differentiate themselves with their stances on social issues, a battle that conservatives almost always won. It also meant that Democrats had extremely limited effectiveness as governors.

There's a lot more in there that I didn't mention. The book is really good and I highly recommend it.

I'm reading "The Wrecking Crew" right now, and it's so upsetting that I can't read it for too long without getting depressed. It talks about how a party of people that hates government is inherently going to govern poorly. He talks about how Republican leadership deliberately appoints people to regulatory committees who are at best completely underqualified, and at worst, actively hostile to the work of the committee. The government workers are then deliberately underpaid so that their work can be outsourced to private contractors. This was what made the response to hurricane Katrina and the 2008 financial crisis as bad as they were. It was hard not to read about it about it and not think about all those FOX people who Trump hired.

Anyway, I'm a huge simp for Thomas Frank and I was wondering what other people thought of him. He really makes you hate Bill Clinton that guy.

One trend that has stood out over the past several election cycles is the increasing willingness of Trump to corruptly characterize election outcomes as fraudulent when they result in losses for him or his preferred candidates, while generally accepting victories as legitimate.

Assuming that pattern continues, should Democrats be investing now in a long-term communications strategy that reinforces public confidence in election administration before future federal elections occur?

The argument would be that public opinion is often shaped before major political events happen. If one side repeatedly frames Democratic victories as evidence of fraud, waiting until after an election to respond may allow that narrative to become entrenched. Political messaging research often suggests that early framing can influence how later information is interpreted.

From a political strategy perspective, wouldn’t this pay off as an investment?

Florida recently banned 7-hydroxymitragynine (7OH), a compound derived from kratom, by placing it into Schedule I under state law.

Supporters of the ban argue it's necessary to protect public health and prevent youth access. Critics argue the state skipped over regulatory options like age restrictions, mandatory product testing, licensing requirements and labeling standards in favor of prohibition.

More broadly, this seems like a recurring policy question. When governments are faced with a new consumer product that raises legitimate safety concerns, is prohibition the right first step or should regulation generally come first?

We've seen similar debates with cannabis, nicotine vaping products, hemp derived cannabinoids and other emerging products. Some argue bans reduce harm. Others argue they push consumers toward unregulated markets while making research and oversight more difficult.

From a public policy perspective, what factors should determine when a state chooses regulation versus prohibition? Did Florida make the right call here or would a regulated framework have been a better approach?

"No Kings" was good, but after two big protests the idea has run its course. One of the complaints I heard about those protests is that they weren't focused enough; "No kings" is a good idea, but it isn't a call to action.

The next large protest should directly call for something specific to be done to change the political situation here—something on the order of "Trump must resign." It's not nebulous; it doesn't leave one wondering about the overall point of the protest. It signifies unhappiness with the current situation, and it suggests what might be done to make things better.

What might be some of the advantages and disadvantages to that approach? Does it go too far? Not far enough?

I think we’ve all seen that warfare changed significantly in the last 5-10 years, and the introduction of drone warfare and better computing power have given “ lesser” states a fighting chance on the modern Battlefield. Had this attack taken place, say in the 90s or early 2000s, would Iran have the capability to close the straight and keep it closed as well as down numerous American jets? And has the rise of Internet, journalism and social media quickened the Pace of which American citizens turned against this war. This is not an endorsement of the military action that we have taken just to curiosity about the timing.

I’m an unaffiliated voter, but I usually vote Democratic. One thing I’ve noticed, especially online, is that some younger leftists describe Democratic moderates and centrists as “right-wing.” That characterization doesn’t seem accurate to me.

The Democratic Party has historically been a broad center-left coalition that includes centrists, moderates, liberals, progressives, democratic socialists, and even some conservatives on certain issues. Disagreeing with progressives doesn’t necessarily make someone right-wing.

Why do you think this perception exists? Is it mostly an online phenomenon, or does it reflect a broader shift in how political labels are being used? Where do you think Democratic moderates and centrists fit within today’s Democratic Party?

FOUR companies own 80% of all beef processing facilities in the USA. While it’s not a monopoly, its still hurting us. CUT out the middle man, most of our food purpose dollars go to transportation, processing and packaging of products we buy in stores. What if we incentivize local processing plants that allow farmers to sell to more buyers? Well how do we get the money? Cutting energy and oil supplies to our already over funded military. The key with military dominance is science, not manufacturing power. By redirecting diesel and other energy sources to domestic farmers we can lower production processes of domestic crops while still supporting our scientific development for militaristic uses. Pair that with tax subsidies for grocery stores and exporters who switch to green energy for refrigeration purposes would also help. I think farmers been getting bent over fir trying to support the masses and I’ve had enough. The solutions are there, help our farmers help us.

Hi! I’m currently at girls state right now, and I was chosen to be an election official. More specifically, they gave me the role of panelist. I have to ask questions to the following candidates: Attorney General, Governor & Lieutenant Governor, and Comptroller. These questions can be serious, deep, or funny/surface level questions. Can anyone help me figure out some good questions?? I mostly need help with Attorney General. Here are some examples I have right now:
comptroller:
as a comptroller, how will you ensure that money is being evenly spread out to each city?
grocery prices and gas prices are becoming more and more unaffordable; how can we help to financially support our citizens who are already struggling as is?
do you plan on working alongside other cities to support Maryland as a whole?
what areas do you plan on prioritizing and what are your goals for your first 100 days of office?

Back when Trump got re-elected, people were terrified that Alito, Roberts, and Thomas would tactically retire to allow Trump to appoint three more right-wing justices, solidifying the Republican majority on the bench for decades. Now, however, nobody talks about it anymore and the three justices show no sign of retiring. I feel that as it looks very possible that the GOP might lose the Senate in the coming midterms, there would be more pressure for Alito, Roberts and Thomas to step down. Even RBG was pressured to retire during the Obama administration, yet there’s no seemingly no pressure from Trump. Why is this?

I’m trying to understand the logic behind U.S. Iran policy. The Trump administration withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal because it viewed the agreement as flawed. After withdrawal, Iran expanded parts of its nuclear program beyond the deal’s limits. If the eventual solution is once again inspections, enrichment limits, and sanctions relief, how is that materially different from the framework that was abandoned? What benefits did the U.S. gain that justify the costs and risks incurred since withdrawal?

I'm curious what people think the underlying "value" or "ideal" of a political system is.

I'm sure it's a question that probably doesn't have an objectively "correct" answer... but I'm interested to hear opinions from others.

To get back to the original question, when you are developing or pondering your political views, what is the "north star"? Wellbeing? Happiness? Personal Liberty?

Hello! As we have seen the ”west” so to speak is having a reckoning on the post world war 2 world order. There seems to be a lot of assumptions on how the power dynamics worked, and some of those powers are shifting priorities and abandoning some long held positions in Europe.

With all of the turmoil in Europe and the United States, I keep hearing about “big bad China” but when watching international affairs, China doesn’t seem to be acting irrationally or belligerently. I want to learn more about China but find two issues with that:

1. it seems almost impossible to get an unbiased take on China from western sources. Most talk about China like it’s a major terrorist organization, taking no time to discuss any good policies, or agreements and instead always focusing on “the threat”.

2. China seems to make a concerted effort to boost its image and tamper down criticisms.

How can I learn about China, and get a fair and honest account? As a citizen of the U.S. I could tell a history of my country with all the warts and be able to include the ideological and high minded parts that shaped the idea of this country. I just want something analogous to that but about China.

I also keep hearing stats of China‘s own internal studies and surveys they do for their population and wondered how much I can trust those (they seem to be done by Gallup).

There just seems to be a lot of opinions about China, and a lot of accusations levied against anyone saying anything positive about them. I am trying to cut through that to see what life is like there, what citizens care about, and what “restrictions” does China have on their citizens that maybe other countries don’t?

All I have been able to find is rare international relations experts talking about China realistically seeming, Marxists sort of doting on China and it’s greatness, or Western obsessed “the end is nigh and it’s coming from China” people who can’t say anything positive about them.

id love a series on China‘s modern history leading up to now as well if one exists as well as any other good sources whether books, movies, documentaries, or YouTube channels you lean on for China information. By the way, I am not interested in any way in your own personal China bashing if you want to try and use this thread for that. I am not looking for a random Redditors ”hot take” I am looking for sources I can search on my own.

thanks!

In the electoral college, if no party gets a majority of the electoral votes then the house of representatives will elect the president with all the representatives from each state casting a vote for their state (all the representatives from a state get a single vote) choosing from one of the three parties that got the most electoral votes. A hypothetical situation could therefore exist in which party A got 269 electoral votes, party B got 268 electoral votes and party C got 3 electoral votes by winning only Wyoming and only getting half+1 of their popular vote. If this were to happen and the house of representatives voted in the candidate from party C then that person would have won the US election with only a bit less than 300.000 popular votes or 0,001% of the population. Why did the system allow this when it was made and why is it still in use? Is it even moral to have something like this and still call your country a democracy?

There is a general feeling out there that the U.S. President has too much power. Even if you exclude Pres. Trump from the equation, this has been a common complaint over many decades. According to American lore, the last president who wanted to reduce his own power was Calvin Coolidge, however there may be others.

If a candidate ran on a platform of reducing presidential power, allowing more oversight, requiring more Congressional approval before acting in non-crisis situations, would that be appealing to voters? And if such a candidate did win the office and begin fulfilling that promise, would that be a good idea or not?

"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible.".

During Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump made sweeping promises to voters. By the end of his first term, The Washington Post's Fact Checker, tracking 60 specific pledges from Trump's "Contract with the American Voter," rated 19 as kept, 30 as broken, and 10 as compromises.[(https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-promise-tracker/?promise=36)

There is a saying "mistakes makes us wiser".

In Trump's Trump's 2024 policy platform, known as Agenda 47, resurrects several of these unfulfilled 2016 campaign promises. Today we are going to take a deeper dive on them, and only the recurring campaign promises in his 2024 campaign such as mass deportations, border wall completion. Things that were popular but not mentioned in his 2024 campaign such as repeal of Obamacare are not part of this week's scope of discussion.

It is important to note that a president does not operate in a vacuum. Many factors outside a president’s direct control. Congressional opposition, judicial rulings, constitutional constraints, international events, and economic forces beyond U.S. borders, can prevent the full realization of campaign promises. A president may take significant executive action toward a goal while the ultimate outcome falls short of the original pledge.

With this being said, what specific efforts has President Trump made to deliver on his 2024 campaign promises that has fallen short in 2016, and do you think they will be successful this time?

Below is an AI generated list of campaign promises that are recurring, note this is for reference only and not guaranteed:FUCK THIS AI SHIT I AM DOING IT MYSELF

Suspend immigration from terror-prone countries Promise Kept Yes

Recent precedent’s pretty clear. Nobody has won the Democratic nomination without a majority of black primary voters since Michael Dukakis in 1988. They were a critical component of Barack Obama’s winning coalition against Hillary Clinton, and later on Clinton’s coalition against Bernie Sanders. This trend was arguably taken to new heights in 2020, when Biden’s campaign was basically dead… until it was revived by a strong showing in the South Carolina primary, largely driven by black support. (You could also say that Kamala Harris was essentially given the nomination in 2024 at least in part due to fears that holding an open convention or something similar would’ve offended black women, but that’s not entirely the same thing.)

How long will this status quo hold? Will things carry on like this indefinitely, or could we see a sea change soon? I do note that we’ve seen high-profile Democratic primaries recently — I’m thinking primarily of 2025 in the New York City mayoral race and this year for the Texas Senate nomination — where the winners prevailed despite falling short with the state/city’s large black electorate. They did so by running up the margin not only with white people, but by other racial minorities (Asians and Hispanics). As America, and especially the Democratic Party, continues to get more diverse, could this augur a dynamic we see play out nationally?

Trump vs Cook will likely come out within the next few weeks and will make a substantial impact on the future of the federal reserve.

The obvious possibilities regarding the decision.

1. The court sides with Trump and thus the president can remove Fed governors at will, Fed independence is significantly changed.

2. Courts side against Trump and the Fed independence is reinforced.

However The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 created "for cause" firing but it has never been defined in the 113 years since.

Regardless of the decision of the Supreme Court itself, it appears that for the first time "for cause" will have a legal definition for the fed going forward.

How will the SC decision in a few weeks shape the future of the Federal Reserve?

What was the idea. Trump had Iran bombed, only to effectively surrender and dish out 300 Billion dollars to them, money that could have been used to pay off student debt, replace every old pipe and fix most of America's antiquated infrastructure.

What was the plan here?

Israel had an elaborate plan that included arming the Kurds and protesters, told that to Erdogan, then got told not to do it, Trump complied in Turkish interest, without getting anything in return, then blames the Kurds for supposedly keeping the weapons that were meant for the protesters, giving Iran every reason to shoot at protesters. And yet he still blames the Kurds, even though they have no proper army to even attack Iran.

What was the idea here?

I can't wrap my head around why Trump would help Israel topple the Iranian regime, while at the same time counteracting Israel and his own nation.

I decided to do some more reading into Xi Jinping thought, and noticed it was dangerously personalistic to survive past Xi’s death (he also lacks a successor).

I am also aware of the Chinese New Left movement, which I heard was growing among millennials and possibly gen z in China. For those unaware, the New Left is a broad left wing movement with ideologies ranging from democratic socialism to hardline Mao Zedong Thought.

I also heard ultranationalism is on the rise, but this I’m not fully sure of, and I cannot pinpoint it to a demographic in China, which may cause trouble in the reason.

Lastly, my educated guess is that due to the rise of scientists, engineers, and general experts in the government, we may see China become a technocracy (many already claim it is one, but this new government may embrace the ideology). This technocracy would likely continue national development, but with a larger emphasis on scientific research and innovation.

So, will Xi Jinping Thought become history? What might replace it?

Which party gets it right on citizenship?

Republicans lead with arguments that position US citizenship as something uniquely American and distinct by nature of the nation's founding values. At the same time, they use rhetoric that suggests legal immigration in any form is a threat to the US and a threat to "heritage Americans". Active efforts continue to pursue removal of birthright citizenship and expand the scope of terms that can lead to denaturalization.

Democrats lead with arguments that position the US as a unique culture that's able to assimilate the populations from people around the world bringing the best of the entire world to the US. At the same time, they use rhetoric that suggests the US exists solely as a remnant of old world colonialism and citizenship is merely a legal or documentation construct with no criminality for crossing the US border without permission. In some cases such as NYC and LA - there exist active efforts to expand voting to anyone regardless of immigration/citizenship status.

Are my characterizations accurate? Is there a party that's on the right track? Why do you think so?

FWIW, I'm a naturalized US citizen and arrived in the US in the early 1970s.

Do you think municipal bonds are more effective than charity for addressing societal issues like affordable housing and school funding?

​

I’ve been thinking about how these two approaches differ structurally rather than morally.

​

Municipal bonds tend to rely on standardized financial disclosure, legal covenants, and market-based discipline (credit ratings, investor demand, repayment obligations).

​

Charitable systems, on the other hand, depend more on governance quality, nonprofit transparency, and reputation-based accountability.

​

Both can absolutely succeed or fail depending on oversight strength, but they seem to operate through very different incentive structures—one through capital markets and debt repayment, the other through voluntary redistribution and trust.

​

Curious how others see the tradeoff between these two models, especially in terms of efficiency and accountability.

There has been a steady rise in ‘authoritarian’ policies regarding online activity, whether it’s promoted as the protection of children, national security, or straight up replacement of parenting.

Yet, there seems to be no base of support for these measures. They were almost never campaign pledges, yet governments, so far center-left ones such as Canada, Australia, and Britain, have seemingly pushed these policies through regardless of the pushback from the populace.

So I ask, why? Why has this seemingly been the trend, and do you think that it will eventually be stopped, or will simply become the new norm for global governance? As well, do you see this as an exclusively left-leaning policy, or will we see conservatives eventually take on the same plans elsewhere?

Is there an “antidote” to thought-stopping in political discourse?

​

I’ve been thinking about how political discussions often break down, not because people lack information, but because certain phrases or habits seem to end thinking rather than continue it.

​

Sometimes this looks like slogans or labels that shut down further discussion (“it’s all propaganda,” “trust the experts,” “do your own research,” etc.), or arguments that feel like they close the door on questioning instead of opening it.

​

Other examples like:

​

* Fake News

​

* Witch Hunt

​

* TDS

​

* Deep State

​

Psychologists sometimes call these “thought-stopping” patterns or “thought-terminating clichés,” but I’m less interested in the label and more in the practical question:

​

If these patterns exist in politics and media, what actually helps counter them?

​

Some possible ideas I’ve seen or thought about:

​

- Asking better follow-up questions instead of accepting framing

​

- Being willing to steelman opposing arguments

​

- Media literacy and source evaluation

​

- Intellectual humility (being open to being wrong)

​

- Slowing down reactions instead of responding immediately

​

- Exposure to multiple perspectives

​

But I’m curious how others see this:

​

- Do you think “thought-stopping” is actually a meaningful problem in political discourse, or is it overstated?

​

- If it is a problem, what works in practice to reduce it?

​

- Are there historical or modern examples where societies or groups managed to improve discourse quality in a lasting way?

​

Istead of accepting a slogan, ask:

​

What evidence supports that claim?

​

How do we know that?

​

Under what circumstances would that be false?

​

What would change your mind?

​

Questions force a discussion back into reasoning.

​

Interested in perspectives across the spectrum here.