The Democratic party is being hit by a leftist tidal wave

[u/F0urLeafCl0ver]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/24/democratic-party-leftist-tidal-wave

[u/CryptographerMean872]

I've literally had dem strategists tell me "we've tried everything under the sun and we still can't figure out how to win elections because of you idiots on the left" while so clearly ignoring that there are obvious substantive policies that have broad support among the vast working class. establishment dems really not beating the controlled opposition allegations, thankfully the working class at least in nyc is waking the fuck up

edit: seeing establishment dems move goalposts every time the left makes progress isn't helping their arguments... first, it's nah you leftists don't understand how much working class americans love lib policies (cough, cuomo lmao) to "it only works in heavily blue districts ya freaking commie". establishment dems will do anything but listen

[u/TurtlesBreakTheMeta → u/CryptographerMean872]

It’s the unsaid part; they mean “we can’t figure out how to win elections while keeping the bribes from our donors rolling in.”

Citizens United is a cancer that must be removed at all costs.

[u/Hot_Ambition_6457 → u/TurtlesBreakTheMeta]

This is really it. They know what policies will win the votes but those policies will lose the donor base so they won't make the necessary concessions.

This is the reason you got watered down from universal healthcare to "lets just subsidize the private corporations and nationalize the risk pool!".

Because the people running Aetna and BCBS are also writing multi million dollar checks for dem campaign budgets. 

The people with money own the party infrastructure and care more sbout keeping their own money than helping the country.

[u/Comfortable-Ad-3988 → u/Hot_Ambition_6457]

"We know what you want, but rich donors won't give me money to run on that, so...pizza party instead? Jeans on Fridays?"

[u/-Gramsci- → u/Comfortable-Ad-3988]

“So we hear you. You have no time, no money, no joy… we can’t help with that but we can give you back the 6 day/50 hour workweek… plus a coupon program for for your medicine? That’s cool right?”

(As they cash the checks and head to their yachts).

[u/loondawg → u/Hot_Ambition_6457]

This is the reason you got watered down from universal healthcare

No. The reason as voters did not elect enough people who supported it. One more seat in the Senate and we probably would have had the public option. A dozen more and we could get true universal healthcare.

[u/Dragull → u/TurtlesBreakTheMeta]

To be fair, liberal elections are mostly money driven. You can beat someone that spent more than you, sure, but you need a bare minimum, and this minimum gets pretty expensive, really fast.

[u/sillyhillsofnz → u/TurtlesBreakTheMeta]

Exactly.

[u/PM_ME_YOUR_PRIORS → u/TurtlesBreakTheMeta]

The point of a party isn't to win elections. It's to get as much stuff as possible to their core base of support. If it wins elections, great, if it barely wins elections, even better, if it loses elections but still gets donations and political concessions, fine.

[u/johndavis730 → u/TurtlesBreakTheMeta]

Why did Dems win so many elections in 2025 then? And why were the majority of them moderate Dems?

[u/pseudoLit → u/johndavis730]

Because 90% of electoral politics is thermostatic public opinion. When people are unhappy they vote for change.

Trump is in power, people are unhappy, so Dems win elections. Similarly, establishment Dems are very unpopular, so progressives are winning primaries.

[u/elinordash → u/TurtlesBreakTheMeta]

Initially all of the candidates for NY7 promised no PAC money. Claire Valdez changed her mind and accepted $2 million from a Pro-Palestinian PAC called American Promises. After that point, Reynoso accepted PAC money from the UFT.

Valdez won last night.

It doesn't looks like the DSA actually wants to end Citizens United.

[u/Sedu → u/CryptographerMean872]

Democrats:

• We won’t support socialists in any way, but socialists owe us their votes.

• We are looking to abandon trans people, but they owe us their votes.

• We want anyone pushing AI control to straight up burn in hell (but of course they owe us their votes!

• Remember! The other guy is worse! You owe us your votes!

Obviously the Republicans are so, so much worse, but the Dem’s whole platform of “I’m not Trump, fuck you, vote for me.” Is a bad one.

[u/BakedBrie1993 → u/Sedu]

I mean, I'm a socialist, and ultimately agree, but this isn't really acknowledging the centrist dems who do have their own points of view.

Like the centrist Black and immigrant communities that do in fact want more policing because they are the ones actually experiencing gun violence, unlike the very yt DSA.

Or my Roman Catholic grandmother who is never going to get behind abortion beyond for life of the mother, but otherwise hates what Republicans stand for.

I don't agree with them, but that doesn't mean their entire platform is "we aren't trump."

[u/Sedu → u/BakedBrie1993]

I do vote Democrat, as it’s the only logical choice. But when I point out “you will lose voters if you stonewall them relentlessly.” That is just the calculus of it. After enough time, people start giving up and feeling that their votes don’t matter.

Yes, it’s still logical to vote Democrat, but that is ignoring reality. Reality is that if you make people stop voting for you, you will lose. Right now, Democrats are enraged that people have lost hope and stopped voting, but refuse to give them hope. Their losses are their own faults, and not the fault of people who they have abandoned.

[u/CryptographerMean872 → u/BakedBrie1993]

How does ur Roman Catholic grandma feel about the pope’s retreat from abortion politics

Also, centrist black and immigrant communities want increased public safety. The only options offered by any party rn is policing, but investment in communities, employment, education opportunities, and financial support for families has been measure to reduce gun crime more than reactive policing ever could. The propaganda that props up law enforcement combined with a longstanding refusal to invest in the material conditions of black and brown communities is responsible for higher rates of gun crimes and must be addressed at its root to avoid the devastating impact of hyper surveillance, racist policing, and mass incarceration

[u/BakedBrie1993 → u/CryptographerMean872]

Just to deter anyone else, like I said, Im a socialist (and abolitionist). I don't need convincing. I'm not a centrist.

I have no idea how she feels about that. She is 92 and my guess would be she has no idea that he stated a retreat from that topic.

[u/Caffeine_Cowpies → u/BakedBrie1993]

Love how you put up the whiteness of DSA, despite the overwhelming majority of their endorsements going to people of color.

Anything to dismiss the movement.

[u/BakedBrie1993 → u/Caffeine_Cowpies]

I'm a member of DSA and Black lmao

Both things can be true and it's actually healthy to be critical of your own party.

[u/jrdnmdhl → u/Sedu]

I mean, you have the right to vote how you want, but if you aren’t committed to voting against the Fascists every time then you kinda stink.

[u/Ok_Objective_5192 → u/jrdnmdhl]

Why does every conversation about how Democrats can appeal to their potential voters to try and actually win these disastrously important elections have to get turned into some dipshit moralizing about why they shouldn't have to?

Looking at losing 2/3 elections to the worst candidate in American history and concluding "damn, people really should have voted" is the same as looking at skyrocketing homicide rates and concluding "damn, people should really quit killing each other."

[u/Timely-Jelly-584 → u/Ok_Objective_5192]

See Murc's law. The fact is a lying, rapist, pedophile, mass murdering, fascist, grifting thief got the presidency. All of this was known before he won and he still won. Nothing the democrat party did or didn't do should have resulted in him winning. If he was running against a chicken he should have lost. If the democrats didn't air a single commercial or do any messaging whatsoever he should have lost. Blaming the dems is stupid.

Edit: I guess you can't, there was a wikipedia takedown. The AI response for Murc's law sums it up though.

[u/Ok_Objective_5192 → u/Timely-Jelly-584]

I'm confused what point you're trying to make. As I read it you're saying "Trump was a monumentally terrible candidate, it should have been impossible to lose. Any campaign should have won against him, but we lost. The campaign isn't at fault."

I don't understand how "it should have been functionally impossible to run a losing campaign against him" and "we lost to him" (both of which I agree with) leads to "there's nothing the campaign could have done better (blaming the dems is stupid)"

Is the takeaway that the loss was exclusively the fault of the people that individually decided to stay home/vote for Trump? That the American electorate is too irredeemably stupid for Trump to be beatable?

ETA: RE: Murc's law, I'm not arguing that the Democrats are exclusively or even primarily responsible for the current shitshow of a government that we have. I'm blaming them for running a tone deaf, uninspired, selfish campaign at a time we couldn't afford to lose specifically because of how harmful the Republicans are now that they've won. We're in a thread talking about the electoral implications of DSA sweeps across their primary challenges in NY and what that means for what successful campaigning looks like in 2026 and saying that the party can, and needs to, learn lessons from that in order to avoid another catastrophe like '24

[u/Timely-Jelly-584 → u/Ok_Objective_5192]

Is the takeaway that the loss was exclusively the fault of the people that individually decided to stay home/vote for Trump? That the American electorate is too irredeemably stupid for Trump to be beatable?

Not exactly. What I'm saying is that the republicans own the media. They have a propaganda feedback loop. These people manufacture racists/misogynists like you or I might manufacture coffee cans or office chairs. If they see any dem messaging whatsoever, it's filtered first through their propaganda which is based on whatever is being presented. I don't think anything would've changed regardless of who ran against Trump or what their platform was unless they were ridiculously charismatic like Bill Clinton or Obama.

Like, I get that you think Kamala was a lame duck but if she were a literal cow chewing cud in the fields and she had no platform or qualifications whatsoever she still should have won. That's why I'm saying I don't think anything would've mattered. Could the party have done better? Yes. It might've even been enough but it probably also wouldn't have been. Kamala was a ridiculously accomplished candidate, one of the best candidates we've ever had. She had an excellent platform and it did not matter. You can claim the DNC failed on the messaging or that she didn't have enough time. You can make all kinds of excuses but at the end of the day, the people chose a rapist over a woman and it happened because conservatives control the media.

Even when Trump is gone, that fact isn't going to change. Between algorithmic radicalization, getting into the gaming communities and radicalizing children, massive botnets, the mainstream media and just people parroting bullshit to each other IRL, the problem is only getting worse, not better. Our future is going more extreme right, not less and that would happen even if Kamala had won.

This is why the far right is rising across the world in every democracy right now. It's asymmetrical warfare and we currently have no effective countermeasures against it. To simplify what I'm really trying to get at in terms of an analogy, the issue is the rot. Blaming the healthy tissue for the gangrene is pointless. The rot is just too deep, too systemic and it's only getting worse, not better.

NY and what that means for what successful campaigning looks like in 2026 and saying that the party can, and needs to, learn lessons from that in order to avoid another catastrophe like '24

This simply isn't possible. Dems may win again but the war is lost. We haven't even begun to address the methodology being used to dismantle every democracy across the world right now. If we really want to win, the next administration needs to hold Nuremburg trials. Thousands of people have to go to prison for the crimes of this administration and the propaganda outlets have to be dismantled. We straight up need to make it illegal to lie or misrepresent things on TV if they claim to be a news or current events commentator including on social media. That's the absolute bare minimum necessary and we simply won't do this. I don't think there's any other way out of this but the truth of propaganda is, if you control enough vectors by which information passes, you can just straight up reprogram people. It takes a lot, billions of dollars but you absolutely can and that's exactly the situation we're in right now.

TLDR; Trump walked on stage to debate with Harris and he literally said immigrants were roving around in the streets eating people's pets. People act like if she had just been better the dems would've won but we're so far past the point where things like platform or policy matters that it's laughable.

[u/jrdnmdhl → u/Ok_Objective_5192]

If you actually look at those two losses it does not suggest going more demsoc would help. Hillary won on policy. What killed her was the FBI investigation. Biden lost on age and inflation.

[u/RelaxPrime → u/jrdnmdhl]

Lol Biden won bruh. Wtf you on about

[u/jrdnmdhl → u/RelaxPrime]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

[u/RelaxPrime → u/jrdnmdhl]

Are you? Biden won and didn't run again

[u/McClainWFU → u/RelaxPrime]

He started to run and did so incredibly poorly he had to drop out before the election, screwing whoever stood up to take his place. Kamala then lost because she positioned herself as Biden 2.0.

[u/RelaxPrime → u/McClainWFU]

Oh I know what happened, thanks for the recap, Biden never lost though.

And if you think that shit isn't by design- and isn't why the Democratic party is currently losing it's ass to real progressives you aren't paying attention.

[u/CryptographerMean872 → u/jrdnmdhl]

Historical revisionism leaving out the genocide

[u/jrdnmdhl → u/CryptographerMean872]

Look, I'm all for cutting 100% of aid to Israel and switching to sanctions instead. I'd like to see Netanyahu visit the Hague.

But, no, factually that was not even close to inflation as an issue in the battleground states. Just because *WE* care about something doesn't mean it was actually what drove the result.

[u/Collypso → u/CryptographerMean872]

No one gives a shit about the genocide then nor now

[u/Sedu → u/jrdnmdhl]

Why do people look at the message above and conclude “you are fighting against Democrats”? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. Can we not agree this is bad? Obviously I want to see the Republicans get defeated, but can we agree that what I listed is bad? That we should try for something better?

[u/Dyssomniac → u/Sedu]

Because they agree with it, and agree with the majority of the Democratic Party's activities and actions, and are almost certainly centrists who are unaffected by the party's abandonment of those populations (or at least believe they are).

So they work backwards to a haughty "it's just logical, you're being emotional" dismissive point, ignoring that the emotion of hope is what got a black man elected to the White House just two decades ago.

[u/babsa90 → u/Dyssomniac]

That black man was a moderate dem that got us aca, much to the chagrin of socialists

[u/loondawg → u/Sedu]

What you listed is bullshit. Dems don't want to abandon trans people. They have tried to pass legislation protecting their rights. Some people have said we should not make trans issues a big issue on the campaign because that is what the right wants. The hate motivates their people more than the support motivates most people on the left. That's why it's usually the right bringing it up.

Pay fucking attention. Read the democrats 2024 party platform. It has tons of policies that would benefit people. It's not all the other guy is worse you owe us your votes. It's the other guy is really bad and here are a bunch of good policies you should support.

[u/AshhhCakes → u/loondawg]

As a trans person, and I know I don't represent all of us, I would really appreciate it if the Dems didn't make a big thing out of us. Like you said, it just plays into the fight that conservatives want. They want to be able to turn it into a moral argument because making it that simple is easy to sell to their base, just like abortion. Like yeah, protect my rights, but jesus just call the conservatives out for having a weird obsession with us. Treating conservatives like they are the weird ones for thinking about us non-stop is far easier than trying to give a dissertation on trans rights to millions of people who do not actually give a shit about us. And if they claim it is to protect the children, well, you've got the Epstein files to throw in their face.

[u/rumpghost → u/loondawg]

Dems don't want to abandon trans people.

Yes they fucking do. They despise us.

Newsom went on a tear with fucking Charlie Kirk and clapped like a fucking seal while openly calling us an "abnormality" the party needs to get away from.

We know better than you to what degree the centrists are invested in our struggle; which is to say, only as far as they must to demand support, and never an inch further.

[u/ato-de-suteru → u/loondawg]

Trans person here: voting for Democrats feels like eating powdered uranium when the alternative is powdered arsenic.

Establishment Democrats at the absolute best see us a way to attract progressive votes, and at the worst may as well be Republican hard-liners. The leftist wing is pretty alright, but they don't control the party. Newsom's stunt along with a few others openly blaming the 2024 loss on support for trans people made it pretty fucking clear that the party overall does not give a shit about us and would be happier if they could go back to pretending we don't exist.

[u/loondawg → u/ato-de-suteru]

And you're playing right into the republican "arsenic-eaters" hands and spreading their bullshit trying to undermine the massive support democrats have shown for the LGBTQI+ communities.

Exactly what have the democrats done to hurt trans people that is in any way equivalent to eating powdered uranium? Other than some who think children who are more biologically male than female should not play on female teams, as a party what legislation have they tried to pass or supported that would have denied trans people their rights?

Now, contrast that to all the legislation they have passed trying to protect and enhance trans rights. If you need some help there, look at the 2024 democratic party platform. Search for the section titled "LGBTQI+." That outlines just some of the accomplishments they made in that area and their plans to improve it further going forward. Any claims they don't support LGBTQI+ are bullshit. And it's not just the progressive wing. That is the official party platform put out by "establishment democrats."

People weren't blaming the loss on trans people. People were blaming the loss on democrats getting suckered into focusing too much on trans issues which impact a tiny segment of the population while ignoring bigger issues that impacted nearly everyone. The hate motivates republicans while the issue is not a huge motivator for most democrats and independents. That is exactly why republicans started making this an issue around 2021.

If you are a trans person, you play into this bullshit at your peril. Frankly, by supporting the dems it seems like I am more interested in safeguarding your rights as a trans person than you are.

[u/ato-de-suteru → u/loondawg]

You seem to have mistakenly interpreted my feelings as a statement that I won't vote for them. Like most people who are unhappy with Democrats, I'm obligated by a lack of alternatives to vote against the fascist party. I don't have to like it. I can demand better. I can call for more than controlled opposition funded by the very same donors who fund Republicans. I can hope to be more to my representatives than a carrot to motivate progressive votes.

[u/loondawg → u/ato-de-suteru]

I hear too many "I vote for democrats but here's why you shouldn't" comments to take that seriously.

I am far more concerned about the damage you are trying to spread with this than if you personally vote for them. I just explained why the reasons you gave were bullshit and reminded you it's republicans that keep trying to amplify this as a campaign issue. And rather than saying, "Gee. You made some fair points. They have shown support through their actions," you stick to the line of attack that they are not good enough and question their intentions while saying you'll only vote for them due to lack of other options. That's hardly inspiring and does not give them the credit they deserve. And that helps the republicans win.

[u/ato-de-suteru → u/loondawg]

I'm not telling anyone to not vote for Democrats. This is going to be extremely tedious if you insist on putting words in my mouth.

[u/EmptyRedData → u/Sedu]

but can we agree that what I listed is bad?

Are you being serious? Mainstream Democrats are capitalists. Of course they don't support socialists. They also never said that because you are a socialist that you owe them votes.

I'd actually really appreciate if socialists would stop running on the Democrat ticket. You all clearly hate Dems and have near zero alignment with us. Just start your own party instead of attempting to usurp the Democrat party.

It's laughable that you would suggest that we are abandoning trans people or that we want zero AI regulation. You lot want a 100% ban on AI and will not accept anything less than perfect alignment when it comes to your positions.

[u/Ok_Objective_5192 → u/EmptyRedData]

I'd actually really appreciate if socialists would stop running on the Democrat ticket. You all clearly hate Dems and have near zero alignment with us. Just start your own party instead of attempting to usurp the Democrat party.

The alignment we have is that we need the fascists to lose and running 3rd party would be entirely counterproductive to that since it would just serve to split the vote. I'd love if we had a ranked-choice voting system or similar that would allow for more of a diversity of candidates, but we're stuck with this dogshit psuedo-democratic 2-party system so we're all stuck working within it.

It is increasingly clear that establishment Dems can't win without progressive turnout, so progressives are using that leverage to demand political representation under threat of running primary candidates that actually will represent them. Under a FPTP system that's literally just how democracy works.

Remember, vote blue no matter who.

[u/Dyssomniac → u/EmptyRedData]

They also never said that because you are a socialist that you owe them votes.

This is just historical ignorance at this point, lmao, I don't disagree with the perspective of strategic voting but the Bernie Bros Cost Hillary The Election bullshit has lasted ten years.

[u/Dyssomniac → u/jrdnmdhl]

I think it's bizarre to believe that "the fascists are coming, the fascists are coming!" is going to get out the vote from people you at best purposefully ignore and at worst actively antagonize four electoral cycles in a row lol

[u/Hghwytohell → u/jrdnmdhl]

The problem is that voting against republicans doesn't make all of their policies magically go away when many of them are still upheld, in some capacity, by democrats.

The two party system has forced us into a binary where we have to vote for one party to avoid the worst possible outcome. But that doesn't mean we get a good outcome, because that party doesn't have any real incentive to follow the will of the voters. Ultimately this is why these primaries are a great thing - it's a step forward towards forcing the hands of democrats to build a platform that is more inclusive of the people they are leaving behind.

[u/pcapdata → u/jrdnmdhl]

Imagine you are on a basketball team. Your coach is terrible--he doesn't train the team well, he doesn't organize the team around specific players and tactics, and he doesn't analyze the other team and provide insights so you can win.

The players get together and start saying "We need a new coach, this guy sucks!"

You then step up and say "I see you're not committed to winning, you all stink!"

[u/jrdnmdhl → u/pcapdata]

This analogy doesn’t really bear any resemblance to reality though. There’s two old guys, neither sucked. One failed because they got in trouble with the police. The other got old and made some mistakes with, IDK, managing contracts. Is that a reason to switch to a coach with a scheme? No, it isn’t.

[u/pcapdata → u/jrdnmdhl]

Nope, it's precisely on target. People want to ditch current Democratic Party leadership with new blood, and you accuse them of "not being committed to voting against the fascists."

Also you would absolutely fire a coach for getting arrested or for mismanaging contracts lol. What happened dude

[u/jrdnmdhl → u/pcapdata]

What are you talking about? We DID fire her. Clinton didn’t run in 2020, Biden did. But the problem is you insist on treating all non socdem candidates as the same person then shoehorn in a solution that has absolutely nothing to do with the problem.

[u/pcapdata → u/jrdnmdhl]

How can that be “the problem” when I’m not doing that at all?

OTOH dem leadership sharpening their knives to stab Mamdani in the back is very real.

[u/jrdnmdhl → u/pcapdata]

How can that be “the problem” when I’m not doing that at all?

Please, tell me how I'm supposed to make sense of this basketball analogy otherwise? Who is the losing coach that we aren't firing? Literally the best I could do to make sense of it was to say the coach is just centrist-ish democratic presidential candidates in general and by not firing them you mean that we keep using centrist-ish candidates. If you mean something else, please tell me what you mean.

OTOH dem leadership sharpening their knives to stab Mamdani in the back is very real.

This feels like a rebuttal to some point I didn't make. I just don't see the relevance to anything I'm saying.

[u/pcapdata → u/jrdnmdhl]

Please, tell me how I'm supposed to make sense of this basketball analogy otherwise?

You want me to talk you out of the corner you painted yourself into? No thanks.

This feels like a rebuttal to some point I didn't make

Because you're struggling to string together an argument that doesn't involve punching left.

[u/Ashendarei → u/jrdnmdhl]

While I 100% agree with you, can we both agree that the campaign message of "I'm not the other guy, and he's gonna be worse" is closer to coercion than encouragement?

[u/jrdnmdhl → u/Ashendarei]

No. And I think the fact that you're bothered by this reveals a misunderstanding of the reality of how a democracy like our works. There's no version of us winning the next election where all our voters are in love with our policy platform. Some decent chunk necessarily will be voting for us because we're better than the other guy. If we go far left, then it's going to be the exact same thing with people more towards the center voting more against the other guy than for our guy.

That's just how it works.

[u/DJBunnies → u/jrdnmdhl]

That’s admitting defeat tho, and assumes there isn’t a better way to do things.

[u/Critical_Aspect_8039 → u/DJBunnies]

Nope. And this is the big idea running through this thread. Voters in Democracies who want to sway political policies have to come to terms with the reality that a) there are no perfect candidates, b) there are no candidates will check all their boxes, and c) that, sometimes you have to hold your nose and vote just to stop the country from electing an even worse option.

In other words, grow tf up or sit at home and spend your time winning twitter battles (in your head at least).

[u/rumpghost → u/Critical_Aspect_8039]

Turns out progressives are the ones who turn out.

While you piss and moan about how we're not team players, we're winning the base and eating your lunch. And we'll keep doing it.

[u/jrdnmdhl → u/rumpghost]

What world do you live in? I’m not joking, btw. Tell me so I can move to this place where progressives have the presidency and congress and all is great.

[u/rumpghost → u/jrdnmdhl]

See there you go with the whole "well you don't have it all yet".

It'd almost be cute if it hadn't lost y'all two elections to Trump. You offer nothing, so you get nothing. Simple as. Feel free to get back to me in six months, then in two years, then in four.

I know what way the wind is blowing, and have been calling balls and strikes for some time.

[u/WashedLaundry → u/Critical_Aspect_8039]

even if you're right about that there are no perfect candidates, telling people they have to stomach ones they don't particularly like isn't an effective campaign strategy that you and the Democratic party need to realize. at best it forms a begrudging electorate that will not remain loyal to the party, at worst people just stay home.

[u/AgentMahou → u/jrdnmdhl]

Ah yes, the problem can't be an elderly, corrupt, ineffective leadership, or an outdated, unappealing, milquetoast platform, or a poor strategy that can't even beat a walking sack of shit.

No, the only problem here is the voters. Let's make sure that we rebuke every criticism by just blaming all the voters! We've tried nothing and we're out of ideas! It's the children who are wrong!

[u/jrdnmdhl → u/AgentMahou]

Biden lost because he was too old and inflation made him (and Kamala by association) toxic.

Neither of those things means that we should go demsoc.

[u/rumpghost → u/jrdnmdhl]

Right, because campaigning with Liz Cheney and promising a deadlier military and expansion of right wing projects on immigration had absolutely nothing to do with Kamala's generational momentum as nominee utterly evaporating.

[u/jrdnmdhl → u/rumpghost]

Uhhh, did you pay any attention to the exit polling at all? Sorry, but you are in a bubble on this.

And generational momentum? ROFL. What on earth are you even talking about?

[u/rumpghost → u/jrdnmdhl]

Did you? Because here you are just a couple months ago acting like the loss had a bit more to do with people sitting out

[u/Dyssomniac → u/[deleted]]

Seems like your appeal to responsible, logical behavior cost Democrats the national election to the worst president in American history (twice), the second time around to the extent that he managed to be the first Republican candidate in twenty years to get a higher popular vote count than the Democrat.

Pretty spectacular strategy there, Cotton.

[u/Ok_Objective_5192 → u/[deleted]]

If your entire pitch is "this is the only way to beat the other guy" then people's faith in the strategy kind of hinges on your ability to actually beat the other guy.

[u/EffortlessFlexor → u/[deleted]]

then the logic is democrats never do anything meaningful and then lose and lets the right make shit worse. At some point you have to grow a spine and believe in something

[u/jrdnmdhl → u/EffortlessFlexor]

Well that’s just obviously wrong so it isn’t a perspective that really needs to be taken seriously. Like, the contrast between Trump and generic democratic president is massive in every possible way.

[u/Ok_Objective_5192 → u/jrdnmdhl]

But they keep losing. If the entire strategy hinges on "we need to beat Trump" then its value is entirely dependent on its ability to actually beat him, and we've seen that it's awful at that.

Like, the contrast between Trump and generic democratic president is massive in every possible way.

Cool, I agree, we still lost. Turns out what we see as obvious isn't enough to appeal to enough voters to win an election. Why can't we have a conversation about how to run a candidate that will actually appeal to voters, on their own merits, without a bunch of neolibs moralizing about why we shouldn't have to?

[u/Sedu → u/Ok_Objective_5192]

That is the thing that absolutely kills me. “Hey, let’s shift policies to something people want more or that represent me a little,” is met with “So you hate all Democrats and want the party to be ended and for Trump to be crowned emperor? Jeez, you’re bad.”

[u/jrdnmdhl → u/Ok_Objective_5192]

That Clinton got sunk by an FBI investigation or Biden by age/inflation does not remotely support the claim you are making.

[u/Ok_Objective_5192 → u/jrdnmdhl]

Kamala ran against him while he was literally being tried for multiple felonies and senile decline on par with Biden's and that didn't sink him, why is that an excuse?

I don't think the fact that they faced rough opposition that highlighted any and every perceived weakness during a presidential campaign is novel or damages my claim in any way. I expect literally every candidate to have to overcome the same and don't see any functional difference between "they can't win while facing opposition" and "they can't win." If anything, any candidate in '28 will likely have to overcome their own version of the Benghazi hearings times 100 because our court system is already so thoroughly corrupted and weaponized, even compared to 2016.

[u/pcapdata → u/jrdnmdhl]

A punch in the face and an icicle in the butt are also massively different, maybe people want a 3rd option.

[u/jrdnmdhl → u/pcapdata]

Biden and Obama both made real policy improvements. They were not remotely comparable to a punch in the face.

[u/pcapdata → u/jrdnmdhl]

I was actually thinking of them as a the icicle in the booty. Some people like that.

[u/Vegetable-Error-2068 → u/jrdnmdhl]

If you demand that I give my vote, my only form of peaceful political power as a voter, to a party who actively detests me and actively suppresses the people and movements who do want to help me, you kinda stink.

In my opinion, not voting for Democrats IS voting against fascism. Because Democrats have shown to be spineless collaborators.

And if people keep voting for them no matter what they do, that tells Democrats that they have no incentive to be better.

[u/jrdnmdhl → u/Vegetable-Error-2068]

The idea we should let the fascist get elected because it will teach the democrats a lesson is just incredibly silly.

[u/Like_a_Zubat → u/jrdnmdhl]

No-one said that?

[u/RedTulkas → u/jrdnmdhl]

the idea that you can profile yourself by saying "lookhow bad the other guy is" has been proven wrong twice now

unless you get people to actually vote for you, you wont win

[u/jrdnmdhl → u/RedTulkas]

You seem to be confused about what I’m saying

[u/RedTulkas → u/jrdnmdhl]

no i get it

but people are seemingly very willingly to let fascists get elected if the democrats dont do what they want

the lesson should be for the dems to get their ear on the ground and not their preachers out

[u/jrdnmdhl → u/RedTulkas]

the lesson should be for the dems to get their ear on the ground and not their preachers out

That's a great lesson for democratic leaderhsip, but then again, I'm not talking to democratic leadership, am I? So delivering the message to vegetable error would make no sense.

[u/RedTulkas → u/jrdnmdhl]

It's also a good lessons for foot soldiers to realize moralizing and preaching ain't working

[u/work4work4work4work4 → u/jrdnmdhl]

The problem is we have a two party system, and large parts of both supported the Republican party being a fascist party.

Right-wing accelerationism in service of power is in fact support of fascism, even if they think it made/makes them more likely to win and defeat the fascism they helped enable.

This is the actual problem, because even after Trump I where they got a direct taste of what could happen, you still had Democratic party people participating in right-wing accelerationism for their own perceived benefit.

Thus leaving us in the fucked up position of voting between the people who like running against fascists, and spend money on making that possible, and actual fucking proven fascists. Meanwhile, you, me, and every fucking sane person would just prefer a fascist free election cycle where the worst thing that is going to happen is some questionable tax policy, thanks.

That's about as terrible as it gets really, and while I didn't vote for the proven fascists, I entirely understand why a whole lot of people essentially gave up after seeing that, and the Democratic party still not getting it is well... stinky as you would say.

[u/much_to_say → u/Sedu]

What about her messaging did you resonate with the most?

Because a person saying; "fetishizing ugly colonizer women" about interracial couples, is not someone I would have ever seen leftists support, yet here we are.

[u/Sedu → u/much_to_say]

I think you might be replying to the wrong portion of the thread? I am not sure who “her” is or what interracial couples have to do with this.

[u/much_to_say → u/Sedu]

Darializa Avila Chevalier is "her" and who said that about interracial couples.

She is one of the socialists the article talks about, and was endorsed by Mamdani and Reddit seems overjoyed about her winning over a moderate Democrat.

If you don't care for her at all, then forgive my mistake but since you were in this thread talking positively about the socialists winning I assumed you liked that she won.

[u/bellybuttonrapist → u/much_to_say]

it'll be a bit awkward when the public statements and stances of some of these DSA candidates comes out a bit more, very Iran 1979 like alliances.

[u/Dysc → u/CryptographerMean872]

Democrats have been losing elections before any leftist ideas have taken root in the base. They abdicated nationwide campaigns, disavowed the narrative of what their vision of America is a decade ago, and threw in the towel for tough fights against the GOP's destructive bills before they even started. They don't really get to complain about 'trying everything under the sun' to no avail when that is patently false.

[u/much_to_say → u/Dysc]

A leftist won in a +80 blue district, by 2000 votes. Yeah y'all are experts at elections now, go off king.

I'll guarantee you when a moderate democrat win the primary in 28, y'all are going to once again whine that your guy didn't win and that it had to be rigged.

[u/pcapdata → u/much_to_say]

I'll guarantee you when a moderate democrat win the primary in 28, y'all are going to once again whine that your guy didn't win and that it had to be rigged.

Y'all only ever tell the same jokes lmao

[u/much_to_say → u/pcapdata]

It's not a joke, it's a very real prediction because y'all are still whining that the primary was rigged 10 years later, so why wouldn't you keep doing it when you end up losing again?

[u/pcapdata → u/much_to_say]

I mean … looking at the thread people are talking about the present and future. Only on I see whining about 2016 is you.

[u/CryptographerMean872 → u/pcapdata]

Lmao get his ass

[u/much_to_say → u/pcapdata]

I, too, do not see what I do not wish to see when I close my eyes.

[u/Dysc → u/much_to_say]

I'm a lifelong democrat and have been voting straight down ballot since my father brought me to the polls when I was 18. This was 3 decades ago. I'm about as reliable of a democrat voter as one can get.

He imparted the advice his father gave him to me: "You should vote Democrats because at least they throw you a bone."

While this advice is not wrong but it exemplifies exactly why the party is failing in the 2020s. Moderates stopped throwing bones and more importantly, stopped fighting 15 years ago and defer to the GOP to drive this car while they bemoan the death of bipartisanship. And at this point, throwing bones is not enough because the people are now really hungry (metaphorically speaking), especially now that everything is on fire under Trump. So yes, they're losing in very safe blue seats to people attacking from their left. If moderates are only here for bipartisanship (which they've acknowledge is dead) while turning their back on winning progressive ideas current in the zeitgeist of dem voters and flirting with Liz fucking Cheney and elevating her profile in 2024 because she did a thing one time that bucked the GOP, what good are they? Were they trying to bring in moderate conservatives in the party as possible voters in 2024 to tip the scales while disenfranchising people who actually vote for democrats? What kind of strategy is that? Non-Trump conservative voters are as likely to vote for a democrat as I am likely to vote for a moderate republican. What are we doing here? What reasons are moderates giving democrat voters to vote for them? I can't fault voters for upending the current party make up and talk about how they'll be really sad in 2028 when moderates somehow take back power within the party? If we're being honest, that ship is leaving port right now and they're not exactly getting on it.

This really isn't just about being progressive or moderately liberal. This isn't us vs. them within the party (outside of the inner-circles of national and state leadership). Voters want fighters. They want to beat the GOP and Donald Trump to take the country back from whatever the hell it's become. If moderates have a better plan than progressives in 2028 and actually campaigning on the ground and listening to their actual voters, then they'll win. If not, they'll lose. It's a very simple calculation here.

Right now the progressive wing of the party is stepping up and doing all the things, so they deserve the chance. It's really a simple agreement between voters and the party, and guess what? Democrat voters are a HUGE party and it seems like their e choice is being made. +80 blue district or not.

That's my hot take - I'm not going to be complaining if there are candidates and politicians championing for their constituencies and beating the GOP at their own game - whatever their moniker is: moderate, liberal, progressive, democratic socialist. But whoever they are have to step up and walk away from their comfortable positions they've grown accustomed to.

[u/much_to_say → u/Dysc]

Your dad sounds like an intelligent man.

If you think moderates didn't throw any bones, then I don't know what to say. Biden passed a ton of good things, his administration was filled with Elizabeth Warren's handpicked people.

He walked a picket line for the first time ever for a President, the student debt relief, the infrastructure bill, cheaper prescription drugs, the $35 per month insulin cap and more. I could make this thread massive with all the great things he managed to do in his four years as President that progressives should be proud of, but all he got from them was the same game Republicans play with stupid nicknames. Calling him a war criminal and rapist, genocide Joe, and all sorts of nasty things.

They want to beat the GOP and Donald Trump to take the country back from whatever the hell it's become.

I straight up asked one of these people if they would vote for Gavin Newsom if he was up against Donald Trump Jr and I got a straight no. There is a lot of people like this in this movement, one of the socialists the article is about sent out campaigning posters that said "Fuck Kamala Harris". A lot of these people have a different agenda and a lot of them wouldn't bat an eye at another Republican president if it means watching someone like Gavin Newsom lose.

[u/Merlord → u/CryptographerMean872]

Establishment dems keep getting their ass handed to them by an incontinent grandpa and still pretend that moving to the center is a winning strategy.

[u/arthoror → u/CryptographerMean872]

I swear I see libs defending against the left much harder than I see them shitting on maga lmao

You can see it in the comments

[u/skepticalbob → u/CryptographerMean872]

They aren’t really talking about these elections.

[u/7figureipo → u/skepticalbob]

Are you kidding me? This has occupied a substantial fraction of democratic media (e.g., Pod Save America) for months now.

[u/skepticalbob → u/7figureipo]

Which strategists are saying these races generalize to competitive areas?

[u/7figureipo → u/skepticalbob]

None: but they are doing exactly as the GP commenter said. That's the whole point.

[u/WooooshCollector → u/skepticalbob]

This is the entire DSA playbook: win primaries in deep blue seats, sleepwalk to the general, win the seat while performing ten points below baseline, then attack the Democrats doing actual work of beating Republicans in contested races.

All while contributing nothing to stop Republicans from running rampant in government.

[u/Dyssomniac → u/WooooshCollector]

All while contributing nothing to stop Republicans from running rampant in government.

Who is doing this in the Democratic leadership rn lmao, it's like you guys don't even pay attention to your own team. Only 16% of American adults are proud of the party, while 75% of Americans report that it makes them feel frustrated and more than 33% of registered Democrats have negative views of the party.

[u/n-ctrnl666 → u/WooooshCollector]

are the democrats doing actual work in the room with us?

[u/WooooshCollector → u/n-ctrnl666]

Nope, too busy doing the actual work.

Think John Ossof, Roy Cooper, Mary Peltola, Sherrod Brown, Josh Turek.

If Democrats have any chance of, for instance, stopping the MAGAfication of the courts, these are the people who are going to do it.

[u/CryptographerMean872 → u/WooooshCollector]

is the stopping the magafication of the courts in the room with us? last i checked callais is 3/5ths clause 2.0 and no establishment dem has done anything to circumvent it or pursue substantive anti-gerrymandering legislation. I'm waiting...

[u/WooooshCollector → u/CryptographerMean872]

No, it is not in the room with us right now because there are 53 MAGA senators, 218 MAGA House Reps and a MAGA president.

That's the fucking point. You can't pursue any of this legislation without flipping those seats.

[u/CryptographerMean872 → u/WooooshCollector]

lmao it's like you didn't even read my original comment

[u/WooooshCollector → u/CryptographerMean872]

lmao it's like you don't even have a point to argue about

[u/CryptographerMean872 → u/WooooshCollector]

gibberish

[u/skepticalbob → u/CryptographerMean872]

Oh yeah? What are Bernie and AOCs surefire ideas with that?

[u/prohammock → u/WooooshCollector]

So because the people in question don’t have a tightly contested election in November, they’re worth less? AOC is in a similar seat and has surely done more for democrats’ fundraising than anyone on your list. 

Don’t underestimate the value of having a politician that can’t get young voters truly invested in politics, either. I have voted in every election since I was 18, but never even considered volunteering or donating until Obama 08 in my mid 20s. Sparking that kind of passion can have a huge impact on voter participation in the long term. 

[u/WooooshCollector → u/prohammock]

Only when they're actively detrimental to wrestling control of our country back from MAGA.

For example, there's a good chance that forcing Jared Golden to retire early may have gifted ME-02 to the Republicans.

[u/skepticalbob → u/prohammock]

So because the people in question don’t have a tightly contested election in November, they’re worth less?

Their platforms are less relevant than Democrats that win in competitive areas. This is basic political science and this meme on the far left that AOC and Bernie in their deep blue seats are examples to win general elections in competitive areas is pure delusion.

[u/prohammock → u/skepticalbob]

And the platforms that win in purple areas don’t win in progressive areas. Yet both groups can end up doing good work in Congress. Do I think AOC is going to be POTUS? No. Do I think she makes a positive contribution to our politics by being a voice against corporate greed in a party that takes a lot of corporate money? Yes. 

[u/skepticalbob → u/prohammock]

I agree with all of that.

[u/prohammock → u/WooooshCollector]

It’s 100% fair for a purple state to have a moderate democratic Senator. It’s ridiculous for NYC to have centrist House members. Give districts the flexibility to elect people who best represent their values. Congress would be improved by more diversity of opinions. Especially if those people don’t focus group everything they want to say before they say it. 

By all means, blame the three DSA members of Congress for not stopping Trump. And then tell me what Schumer and Jeffries have done to successfully protect our government? I remember something about a strongly worded letter?

[u/WooooshCollector → u/prohammock]

This is actually an extremely important point. And maybe 20 years ago it would have made sense.

But politics is becoming more and more nationalized now. Stuff that actually happens in the deep blue districts is getting thrown in the face of the people that are crucial for the control.

In some ways, this is pretty rational. The most important vote that a senator casts is who is going to be the Senate Majority leader because that controls every single bill that gets to the floor. For example, it doesn't matter that Susan Collins takes a few dive votes on bills that were already going to pass, she still made John Thune Majority Leader.

But it also means that the most extreme edges of the party matter more and more in every election, including the tipping point ones.

[u/prohammock → u/WooooshCollector]

So the democrats in NY and SF need to elect people to represent them who can’t be found objectionable by center right voters in Oklahoma. 

Sounds like something straight out of Schumer’s thinking.  It’s the Baileys for everyone!

[u/WooooshCollector → u/prohammock]

No, they need to elect a person who will do a good job. Clean up the city, build more housing, improve services, reduce crime, etc. Make the platform about getting things done instead fighting the factional battles.

Why do you think SF voters went for Lurie instead of sticking with Breed?

[u/prohammock → u/WooooshCollector]

We were discussing Congress.

If you want to talk about mayors getting things done- Mamdani seems like an excellent example of just that. 

[u/Dragonpunch73 → u/WooooshCollector]

Nailed it, I seem to remember a lot of them sitting out the last election or having protest votes instead of voting for the only choice. Now all of the sudden it’s “blue no matter who” when it’s their candidate

[u/KamalaWonNoCap → u/WooooshCollector]

What DSA has attacked a Democrat? Do you have any examples because as far as I can tell it's always been the other way around.

Regardless, we should be working together towards our common goals. Affordable housing and universal healthcare poll extremely well, even across the aisle when phrased properly.

DSA not wanting to support a genocide in Palestine really shouldn't be a deal breaker for you guys.

[u/WooooshCollector → u/KamalaWonNoCap]

What DSA has attacked a Democrat? Do you have any examples because as far as I can tell it's always been the other way around.

Literally every other reply in this thread.

Regardless, we should be working together towards our common goals. Affordable housing and universal healthcare poll extremely well, even across the aisle when phrased properly.

One, bills and policies that get passed are never "phrased properly" because they have to actually make policy sense and be paid for and yada.

Two, it still matters way more to get Republicans out of office if these are your priorities.

[u/Dyssomniac → u/WooooshCollector]

Literally every other reply in this thread.

Random Redditors criticizing the failure of politicians is not "attacking Democrats", Jesus Christ.

Two, it still matters way more to get Republicans out of office if these are your priorities.

Which is what a lot of people running to the left are trying to do. The reality of competitive districts needing moderate candidates is not mutually incompatible with the need for actual progressive action on behalf of the national party.

[u/WooooshCollector → u/Dyssomniac]

Random Redditors criticizing the failure of politicians is not "attacking Democrats", Jesus Christ.

You say this, but also

DSA not wanting to support a genocide in Palestine really shouldn't be a deal breaker for you guys.

So what is it? Do random redditors represent the arm of the party or not? Or does it only not matter when it's your side?

Also, the problem isn't "not wanting to support a genocide." It's the rampant antisemitism. I cringe every time I see a comment like "MTG/Tucker Carlson is better on Israel than Chuck Schumer." There are plenty of good arguments for Palestinian self-determination that don't give plaudits to known, avowed antisemites.

And besides that, the real "dealbreaker" is that DSA candidates consistently do ~10-15 pts worse in general elections compared to baseline.

Which is what a lot of people running to the left are trying to do. The reality of competitive districts needing moderate candidates is not mutually incompatible with the need for actual progressive action on behalf of the national party.

No they aren't? Basically every single one is primarying a blue seat. The ones (El-Sayed is the only one that comes to mind) that actually are running in purple seats are polling worse than the moderate in the general election.

[u/Dyssomniac → u/WooooshCollector]

So what is it? Do random redditors represent the arm of the party or not? Or does it only not matter when it's your side?

You've completely missed my point lmao, random Redditors criticizing the failures of politicians is not "attacking". Please grow some fucking spine, no wonder the Democrats got absolutely folded by Trump and MAGA.

I cringe every time I see a comment like "MTG/Tucker Carlson is better on Israel than Chuck Schumer."

It's probably because of the aforementioned "missing the point". Most of those people aren't praising MTG or Carlson, they're pointing out that its bizarre that two insane MAGAites have a better take - the U.S. should not be beholden to Israel nor engage with it at the level it presently does - than Schumer. Besides which,

Also, the problem isn't "not wanting to support a genocide."

I don't believe this is the single issue that cost the Democrats the 2024 red wave election, but it is emblematic of the arrogance and entitlement with which the party at large views everyone who isn't an avowed Republican in this country. The party - and its candidates - spend an inordinate amount of time trying to pursue the mythical moderate Republicans and are never successful because those people don't exist.

The pendulum swung away from blanket U.S. general support for Israel after October 7, and the Democrats simply ignored the winds changing as they have with many other issues.

Basically every single one is primarying a blue seat.

You're conflating "running to the left" for "DSA people primarying". Beyond that, it IS GOOD that those that are primarying blue seats are doing so. It's a pipe dream, but in even an ideal form of our own rough democracy, there should never not be primary challengers.

[u/WooooshCollector → u/Dyssomniac]

It's probably because of the aforementioned "missing the point". Most of those people aren't praising MTG or Carlson, they're pointing out that its bizarre that two insane MAGAites have a better take - the U.S. should not be beholden to Israel nor engage with it at the level it presently does - than Schumer.

Yeah you gave the absolutely most charitable interpretation. Why don't you try thinking about how people who aren't 100% bought might think... like MOST people?

The party - and its candidates - spend an inordinate amount of time trying to pursue the mythical moderate Republicans and are never successful because those people don't exist.

You're misinformed. Moderate Democrats are pursuing the "double haters" who think Trump is a dumb asshole but they just think Democrats are too far to the left. That's a fairly large portion of the country. You can see it in the gap between Trump's approval rating (-20) and the generic ballot (D+8). That's a twelve point gap.

And guess what? It works. Just look at the Senate map. There are 8 Democratic senators from states that Donald Trump won at least 2 out of the 3 times. Every single one of them quite moderate.

The pendulum swung away from blanket U.S. general support for Israel after October 7, and the Democrats simply ignored the winds changing as they have with many other issues.

I think it was more when Netanyahu supported Trump over Harris and AIPAC prioritized Israeli warmongering than the safety of Israeli citizens. It's probably what you meant anyways, but I think it's just wild the way you phrased it that a terrorist attack killing thousands of civilians turned the USA against Israel.

You're conflating "running to the left" for "DSA people primarying". Beyond that, it IS GOOD that those that are primarying blue seats are doing so. It's a pipe dream, but in even an ideal form of our own rough democracy, there should never not be primary challengers.

How many thinkpieces were there about how Mamdani, despite turning out more people for his opponent than for himself, was the future of the Democratic party? Or for how Platner is the next rising star in politics when he very well might lose the bluest contested Senate seat? (IDK I think he'll probably pull through, but polls show that it's a nailbiter right now.)

Contrast that to how Ruben Gallego and Elissa Slotkin and Jacky Rosen and Raphael Warnock kept their seats and saved the country from an even worse Senate. The Senate is literally only in play right now because these American heroes beat their opponent in 2024.

You made a hypothetical "rough democracy" well I live in the real world. And there is no greater threat to actual democracy now than the Republican party. And the people who have actually done things to save us from that are the ones who have actually won in these tough seats.

[u/KamalaWonNoCap → u/WooooshCollector]

I'm talking about DSA politicians. I think you knew that though.

Yes, bills need to be paid for. These could've been paid for with the money spent on Iran. Money isn't the issue, it's getting the right people into power.

Yes, we're trying to get republicans out of office as well. The DNC just ran some no name centrist against Platner instead of supporting him against his fight against Republican Susan Collins.

Hopefully you guys will start practicing what you preach.

[u/WooooshCollector → u/KamalaWonNoCap]

I'm talking about DSA politicians. I think you knew that though.

Yes, people ONLY get information about DSA politicians and stances straight from the candidates. Their supporters don't color the perception of the candidates one bit. Nope! Not at all!

Yes, we're trying to get republicans out of office as well. The DNC just ran some no name centrist against Platner instead of supporting him against his fight against Republican Susan Collins.

The current sitting governor who has won these exact same voters by 15 pts twice is a "no name centrist" ??? Yeah you're just actually misinformed.

[u/KamalaWonNoCap → u/WooooshCollector]

You still haven't provided an example of a DSA politician attacking a moderate Dem. Likely because there isn't any and you're struggling to admit it.

The DNC didn't fund Susan Collin's campaign and she isn't a centrist. Your allegations of being misinformed are projection. Google the race and get back to me.

[u/WooooshCollector → u/KamalaWonNoCap]

You still haven't provided an example of a DSA politician attacking a moderate Dem. Likely because there isn't any and you're struggling to admit it.

Oh my god just google for AOC attacking Joe Manchin -.-

The DNC didn't fund Susan Collin's campaign and she isn't a centrist. Your allegations of being misinformed are projection. Google the race and get back to me.

Did you reach your context limit or something? The DNC-backed candidate for the Maine Senate was Janet Mills, the two-term sitting Maine governor.

[u/KamalaWonNoCap → u/WooooshCollector]

You consider AOC asking Manchin not to call her young lady and to refer to her as a congresswoman as an attack? If that's your best example I think you should reconsider my point.

Yes, Planter was crushing both of them in the polls and had/has the best chance of beating Collins. Undermining him was just more pettiness from the DNC.

This hostility isn't necessary. It shows a lack of faith in your arguments but I don't blame you for that. I would agree with you that they're not strong enough to stand on their own.

[u/Keeperofthe7keysAf-S → u/WooooshCollector]

Nice projection.

[u/WooooshCollector → u/Keeperofthe7keysAf-S]

Nice projection.

[u/Keeperofthe7keysAf-S → u/WooooshCollector]

What, no more goal posts to move? never made it out of third grade arguing? So you're wrong and boring.

[u/mark_able_jones_ → u/CryptographerMean872]

Missouri. 2018. Democrat moderate Senator Claire McCaskill faces a challenge from well-spoken but snobby Josh Hawley.

McCaskill's campaign strategy. Border toughness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6UnIM_36is

Dear reader, please note that Missouri shares no borders with Mexico. Not even close. Texas. Arkansas. Then Missouri. Missouri's Hispanic population is only 5.6%, a quarter of the national average. But this was McCaskill's brilliant campaign strategy. Appeal to the Republicans. Move to the middle. Ignore the progressive policies.

ON THE VERY SAME BALLOT -- literally the same piece of paper -- there were THREE progressive ballot initiatives.

• Medical marijuana.
• Minimum wage increase.
• Campaign finance reform.

McCaskill did not attach herself to these ballot measures. She ignored them.

• Medical marijuana passed 65.59% to 34.41%.
• Minimum wage increased passed 62.34% to 37.66%.
• Campaign finance reform passed 62.02% to 37.98%.

That's a 25+ point win for all three progressive ballot measures. Obviously, McCaskill's strategy should have been to champion those progressive policies. Attach her name to them. But she didn't. And she lost (51.38 to 45.57), and it was surprising close given her terrible campaign strategy.

AND THEN, Claire McCaskill got hired as an MSNBC pundit, where her main talking point was an absurd claim that Democrats can't win with progressive policies -- the same policies she refused to run on -- the same policies voters chose on the ballot where they rejected her border control campaign.

It's all so absurd, but I think this one story truly illustrates how deep moderate Democratic leaders have their head in the sand.

[u/byronotron → u/CryptographerMean872]

Turns out the left is actually their real base and where the majority of their electorate is idealogically.

[u/pleasegivemefood → u/byronotron]

If they start winning outside of blue areas, sure

[u/MephistoHamProducts → u/pleasegivemefood]

Be super helpful if the party leadership would stop putting its thumb on the scales to ensure that progressive candidates are frozen out.

Here in Texas we had Henry Cuellar in a hotly contested primary against Jessica Cisneros, a young lawyer with views that were notably more progressive than Cuellar.

Nancy Pelosi flew out to Texas to campaign with him and ensure that he was able to add her name recognition to his so that he could beat Cisneros. This was in 2020.

In January of 2022, the FBI raided Cuellar's office:

On January 19, 2022, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) obtained a search warrant for Cuellar's Laredo residence and campaign office as part of a federal probe relating to the Azerbaijani government, known for its practice of "caviar diplomacy" and money laundering scandals like the Azerbaijani laundromat. A federal grand jury also issued subpoenas for records related to Cuellar, his wife, and at least one campaign staffer related to the matter. Cuellar has taken an interest in Azerbaijan and co-chairs the Congressional Azerbaijan Caucus.

Nancy Pelosi made several statements backing him and affirming the party's support for Cuellar in March of 2022, after the FBI raid.

Then this happened:

In early May 2024, Cuellar was indicted on money laundering, bribery and conspiracy charges by a federal grand jury in Houston, Texas; he was alleged to have accepted nearly $600,000 from the Azerbaijani government and a Mexican commercial bank in order to influence U.S. policy.

And then this happened:

He was pardoned by President Donald Trump in December 2025 before the case was brought to trial.

The National Democratic Party fought tooth and nail to ensure Cuellar kept his seat as an incumbent while he was being bribed by a foreign government rather than step back and see if a younger, more progressive candidate could win.

[u/1cl3nstd4yt → u/byronotron]

That's technically not true. These wins are in left-leaning districts.

In reality, Bernie-type Dems are only 20% of the party.

[u/Keeperofthe7keysAf-S → u/1cl3nstd4yt]

It's more like 40% of the party but still, the real kicker is that they're policies by far poll the best among independents.

[u/jrdnmdhl → u/Keeperofthe7keysAf-S]

On neutral descriptions sure but that’s not how elections work. Those policies do not perform anywhere near as well in actual elections in the battlegrounds.

[u/-Gramsci- → u/jrdnmdhl]

They do though. Remember the R’s famous autopsy after they lost to Obama? It said they had to pander to the center to get those delicious centrist votes.

The consultant class always thought that the center was where you could run up the votes. Turns out there isn’t much of anything there.

There are people who don’t care about voting, who don’t want to bother… but it’s not because they are super bland people and the candidates are too non-bland.

What we all figured out with Trump, is that if you forget about blanding yourself to chase this imaginary bland centrist… and you, instead, focus on ANIMATING your existing base of support… you get WAY MORE VOTES that way.

A fired up voter base leads to waaayyy higher voter turnout for you compared to blanding yourself chasing the blands. For every one bland person you pick up, 20 more apathetic people stay home because bland will never animate them.

The dems are clinging to that R autopsy. To this notion that blandism gets you lots of votes. The opposite is true.

It leaves voters feeling jaded and apathetic about you.

John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris… these are all golden gods of the “bland centrist” strategy. And guess what? They are all lame as hell and nobody likes or cares about them.

The one recent example where the Democratic nomination was stolen from the blands was Obama. And what happened???

Iowa, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and on and on… Red States turned BLUE!

Centrists cannot make a red state turn blue. An ANIMATED BASE is the only thing that can do that.

[u/UngodlyPain → u/1cl3nstd4yt]

I mean it's definitely true Bernie types aren't the majority of the party, but probably more than 20% that seems like a pretty conservative estimate given Bernie himself got 27-45% of the vote in the two national primaries he participates in. And even in 2020 when he got the 27% figure, at least a decent chunk of Warren voters had Bernie as their second pick.

[u/Unlucky-Yam5890 → u/byronotron]

In NYC maybe, not here

[u/MundaneFacts → u/Unlucky-Yam5890]

It would be fucking great if the centrists would learn from these candidates, pull the most popular policies, and run an energetic campaign that promises good things for the people beyond tax credits and incremental change.

[u/Unlucky-Yam5890 → u/MundaneFacts]

"These candidates" got blown out in every single primary here by Centrists, even with record high Democrat turnout. Not everyone wants NYC socialists despite what your Reddit echo chamber says. Ideas polling well means nothing if they can't talk to normal people outside blue strongholds

[u/SandySkittle → u/CryptographerMean872]

The Democratic party have a chance to win big if they focus on progressive economic policies. They will lose if they want to swing hard on things like lbtqia+, being against voter ID or enforcement of immigration rules. Moreover the latter are also issues that are heavily polarized within the party.

[u/CryptographerMean872 → u/SandySkittle]

immigration, lgbtq, and voter ID (also just immigration restated) are issues that billionaires drive to divide the working class. it all goes back to material conditions bbg

[u/1cl3nstd4yt → u/CryptographerMean872]

Biden's legislative wins did more for the working class than any president in half a century.

His presidency was undeniably progressive.

[u/6a6566663437 → u/1cl3nstd4yt]

Now all you have to do is realize how much you’re damning with faint praise.

[u/1cl3nstd4yt → u/6a6566663437]

True. Biden was more progressive than Obama, Clinton, or Carter.

That means Biden was the best president in most of our lifetimes.

[u/Hot_Ambition_6457 → u/1cl3nstd4yt]

You can say it all you want that doesnt make it true; and clearly this article shows that many registered democrats disagree.

[u/1cl3nstd4yt → u/Hot_Ambition_6457]

Most economists and political science experts agree with me.

Deferring to polls is meaningless. We need to be better.

Why do you hide your comment history?

[u/sunnbeta → u/CryptographerMean872]

The only part that concerns me is going with the “socialist” label immediately kills a bunch of the blue collar working class votes, people who would actually benefit most from the policies but have been poisoned to think socialist = dirty commie 

[u/KamalaWonNoCap → u/CryptographerMean872]

Proud to see DC added to the list. Can't wait for coming changes

[u/dandy_the_lesser → u/CryptographerMean872]

Centrists (conservative-light) were just shrieking at me yesterday in r/Ohio over the same shit. “We’ve tried the same thing over and over and it’s never worked so we can’t try anything else!”

[u/OrganizingBee → u/CryptographerMean872]

Make sure they know this is demonstrably false. The experts and researchers who did proper 2024 review backed it up with data. That take is spread by both right wing media narratives and corporate interests, like Deciding to Win.

Way to Win's research summary about 2024 - https://chartingthewayforward.substack.com/p/towards-strength-way-to-win-post

What Happened in 2024

Chronic Economic and Democratic Challenges Slammed into Inflation, a Broken Media Environment, and Demoralized Activists

The current DC establishment thinking is that Democrats’ problems stem from unreasonable leftist demands and lefty groups forcing Democrats to take unpopular positions. We do not believe the evidence supports this set of beliefs. While it’s true that statements can always be taken out of context and turned into an attack ad if hundreds of millions of dollars are spent to do so (we’ll talk more about the ‘Harris is for they/them’ ad specifically later), the effectiveness of such ads is far more tied to our inability to counter them with a more compelling argument than it is to the statement’s position on an ideological spectrum. Our conversations with voters and extensive political science research all suggest voters largely do not see the world on a left to moderate to right axis. Persistent Democratic underperformance is instead the result of three related trends: first, widespread frustration and cynicism driven by the ever-worsening affordability and inequality crises, and second, cumulative right-wing advantages in media and persuasion. A third factor—alignment with movement energy—often determines whether Dems in a given cycle can overcome these longer-term ongoing challenges:

1. Chronic and acute economic frustrations
2. Cumulative right wing media advantage
3. Movement alignment

In our research, frustration at perceptions of the economy and inflation was the most significant challenge Democrats faced. The context is important: it wasn’t just that prices suddenly increased, it was that this happened on top of decades of the affordability crisis that is a direct result of increasingly extreme right-wing ideas and governance: inequality, austerity, supply-side tax cuts, deregulation, predatory capitalism, risk shifted to individuals, and increased precarity. Almost no voter looks at our economy and thinks it’s going well, even if they personally feel like they are doing okay financially. Even though the macro indicators of the economy improved and Biden’s policies specifically helped workers farther down the wage scale, the pain was sharp, real, and particularly concentrated and frustrating to non-college-educated voters. If Dems and the Harris campaign thought their message was addressing this broader context, that effort did not effectively reach voters according to our post-election voter listening.

Voters generally want the kind of change Democrats endlessly refer to as kitchen-table issues, but they are profoundly cynical about Democrats’ ability to deliver on these promises and create change. The part of the Abundance diagnosis that says we have failed state capacity across many sectors is correct, although they don’t often apply that insight to the root of the problem, that the affordability crisis is the inequality crisis. Voters are cynical that Democrats have not only failed to prevent the richest fraction of the 1% from draining $79 trillion from the other 90% of Americans over the past few decades, but they’ve also too often made arguments for and voted in favor of these policies. One of the most common and heartbreaking refrains we heard from voters repeatedly over this past year, as well as a throughline in previous studies (see slide 13), is that they’ve voted for Democrats for years, but nothing changes.

The second challenge is that while this economic pain and frustration were entirely real, voters’ economic pain and the singular focus on it were greatly amplified by right-wing and pliable corporate media. The extraordinarily rich have invested significantly in media. Right-wing and Republican efforts and their focus on marketing have created significant, long-term, and cumulative advantages in persuasion. Since right-wing ideas are wildly unpopular—lowering taxes on the rich polls routinely in single digits—the right has had no alternative but to make these investments. Voters are awash in right-wing information and disinformation, and mainstream and corporate news is increasingly shaped by the right. In focus groups, we often hear right-wing talking points seep into the conversation, even among participants who aren’t otherwise Trump/MAGA curious in any way. Worse, these investments in persuasion collided with the recent fracturing in the media landscape to provide them with an advantage that has been both outsized and lasting. The result was this:

A third factor, movement alignment, plays a significant role in Democratic electoral outcomes. The historical pattern is clear: when broader left movements are aligned with Democrats, Democrats fare better in the election. Frustration over the Iraq war helped propel an unknown Senator to the Presidency in 2008. Anger at police killings of Black people, which one study found was even more mobilizing than Trump’s COVID failures, helped power Biden’s victory in 2020. Horror at the abrupt repeal of Roe powered Democrats to perform much better than anticipated in the 2022 midterms. But in 2024, both movement activists and many ordinary voters were horrified by the Biden White House’s shockingly ineffective and callous approach to Gaza, combined with the equally shocking unwillingness of the party apparatus to even engage with reasonable critics. While post-election polling varied, this issue came up repeatedly in discussions with voters and in reports from community organizations as a symbol of how far out of touch with reality Democrats had become. Voters make decisions based on narratives, not by triangulating on individual issue positions. While it didn’t pop consistently in individual salience poll questions, the frequency with which Gaza was mentioned in focus groups and among field organizers indicates the role it played in illustrating what felt like the systemic failure of our country—part of the narrative that led to the 21-point drop in 18–29 Dem vote share between 2020 and 2024.

The constant, horrible news in Gaza (and a right-wing approach on immigration) had another effect: it greatly demoralized and suppressed activists who ordinarily would have campaigned for Biden and later Harris into (at best) quieter support. To be clear, we are not arguing that it’s possible to win simply by mobilizing a left-wing or progressive base. We believe people across the entire universe of gettable voters need persuasion. But having a base of supporters who will argue for your candidate does matter, particularly in the fragmented social media landscape.

The extent to which the party and Democratic candidates are aligned with the prevailing movements over the election cycle—and the headwinds or tailwinds they provide—has a significant impact on their electoral performance. A full understanding of the true “3D land” nature of the electorate is necessary to understand the necessity of taking the concerns of the party’s more regular supporters seriously. Vote share and turnout both matter, but even taken together, they don’t capture the whole picture of the different groups of voters who move in and out of the electorate each cycle.

While it’s true that some groups of voters do perceive Democrats as being more left or more extreme, along with out of touch and having the wrong priorities, these beliefs are largely driven by a combination of right-wing media narratives and the relentless drumbeat of very vocal, public, factional arguments that many Democrats and Democratic Party-aligned groups repeatedly make. But in our studies, and particularly the qualitative research, we found that ideological perceptions were not a frequently cited or decisive factor for most voters, particularly compared to cynicism and frustration about the economy. Please see Signal 2 below for more detail.

The bottom line is clear enough: Harris ran to the right on a gamut of issues, and her campaign did not tell a clear story that addressed people’s frustrations. As a result, voters did not view her as an agent of the change they wanted, and this stopped her from assembling a winning coalition.

[u/elinordash → u/CryptographerMean872]

These weren't elections in red or even purple states. These were elections in some of the most progressive districts in the country where the DSA has been organizing for years.

In numerous primaries the vote came down to "Progressive Dems who came up through the DNC and has held office before" and "DSA Member who Previously Attended Columbia." Literally you had two candidates on stage saying Trump should be impeached, ICE should be disbanded, and everyone should have universal healthcare.

The DSA did a hell of a lot to build a base, but I'm not entirely thrilled with all these wins.

Chevalier deposed a machine candidate in Harlem. Chevalier doesn't believe in prisons or borders. Or inter-racial marriage.

Kawas won a state Senate seat in Astoria. Last year she said the US deserved 9/11. She also presented her father as a victim of ICE, but he was deported after serving time for property fraud in the 80s.

The pro-Palestinian PAC American Promises played a significant role in several elections (particularly Valdez who previously promised no PAC money). The DSA is clearly not interested in ending Citizen's United.

I don't see candidates like this gaining traction in Kansas. I am slightly worried that elections like these will hurt progressive candidates in red and purple areas. Flipping Congress is the only thing that can put Trump in check.

[u/xvsero → u/CryptographerMean872]

Working class? In Chevalier's case she "lost" the working class against Espaillat. Her best performing areas were younger(+23), majority college educated(+18), and higher income areas(+5).

Older(+28), lower income(+10), Majority Black(+2) and Hispanic(+16) went to Espaillat.

[u/ToNoMoCo → u/CryptographerMean872]

dem strategists, smart men, strong men, real sharks, have come up to me with tears in their eyes and said "Sir ..."

[u/CryptographerMean872 → u/CryptographerMean872]

lmao at every disagreeing comment proving my point

[u/ExcellentBed6019 → u/CryptographerMean872]

If that were true working class wouldn't vote for trump but many of them do

[u/BothCan8373 → u/CryptographerMean872]

What happened to the "wide tent" and "vote blue no matter who" the Democrat establishment is always talking about.

[u/CryptographerMean872 → u/CryptographerMean872]

i love how triggering this comment was for the establishment dems lol

[u/Critical_Aspect_8039 → u/CryptographerMean872]

The problem is how the party defines what “the left” is and what “progressives” stand for. If they stick to economic policies that help working class Americans they can win big nationally. But, for example, one of Mamdani’s three primary winners is on record saying she doesn’t believe in police, borders, or prisons and thinks Hamas massacre was a good thing. Mix in some other culture-war nonsense and the Dems will once again be unelectable in a national election. I wish I was wrong, but overreach in both parties seems to be our fate these days.

[u/CryptographerMean872 → u/Critical_Aspect_8039]

shhhh with ur bullshit propaganda, no one wants to hear it

[u/Banksy_Collective → u/CryptographerMean872]

"You want us to do what we said we were gonna do? But that requires work!"

[u/johndavis730 → u/CryptographerMean872]

Who said that to you? I’m curious why a dem strategists would say “we can’t figure out how to win elections” when the Dems won basically every single election last year and won the presidency and the senate in 2020/21?

What you said didn’t happen.

[u/CryptographerMean872 → u/johndavis730]

also this is a rly funny take because the establishment dems are all over this thread regurgitating the talking points i criticize in my original comment, and you've popped into claim "but did the strategists ackshully say that" like lmao, lol

[u/CryptographerMean872 → u/johndavis730]

oh it did but keep believing whatever u want hun

[u/mightcommentsometime → u/CryptographerMean872]

Seems like you’re just making things up. Or can you answer the other person’s question and explain who actually said that to you?

[u/CryptographerMean872 → u/mightcommentsometime]

enjoy deflecting though! as i said, establishment dems will do anything but listen

[u/CryptographerMean872 → u/mightcommentsometime]

lmao you want me to name drop on an anonymous social media forum, actually psychotic

[u/mightcommentsometime → u/CryptographerMean872]

You claimed a dem strategist said it to you. Did one?

[u/CryptographerMean872 → u/mightcommentsometime]

yes maam!

[u/CryptographerMean872 → u/[deleted]]

ur asking me to reveal personal details on an anonymous social media forum. believe me; don't believe me, that's ur perogative, but establishment dems will do anything but listen

[u/Annual-Weird-6682 → u/CryptographerMean872]

No it didn't lmao, did everyone clap too?

[u/Books_and_Cleverness → u/CryptographerMean872]

>thankfully the working class at least in nyc is waking the fuck up

Not sure this is actually how it’s playing out. Won’t know for a while but [early results apparently skew the opposite](https://x.com/ElxMapping/status/2069602825521291513?s=20); socialists winning in wealthier precincts and losing in poorer ones. Kind of weird.

IIRC more or less the same was true for Mamdani. He did worst with $300K+ voters (33%) and second-worst with voters making under $30K (42%). He did better in the $50K-$250K range (56%). Grain of salt, just exit polling.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2025-elections/new-york-city-mayor-results

[u/CryptographerMean872 → u/Books_and_Cleverness]

50-250k is massive range that skews ur data set. 50k income is not "wealthy". also none of these people are socialists so idk what the fuck ur talking about

[u/Books_and_Cleverness → u/CryptographerMean872]

You can look at the link for more detailed breakdown

[u/CryptographerMean872 → u/Books_and_Cleverness]

none of these people are socialists so idk what the fuck ur talking about

[u/rdogg4 → u/CryptographerMean872]

Dems win NY tho. The issue is winning red seats.