– James Carville, lecturing people in the Democratic Party
.
(James Osyf is entirely correct when he says "Silence won’t serve this moment." But in the case of the chronically-overexposed James Carville I think we can make an exception. Although he occasionally does have a valid point, I really do wish mainstream media would find someone better than Carville to interview about Democratic strategies.)
Yeah, the problem isn't that Axelrod (and Plouffe) weren't in charge of well run campaigns. They were. They did an excellent job with Obama's 2008 and 2012 campaigns, which were well run and highly effective.
The problem is that their insight isn't necessarily of the extra high value that they and others think it is. It's been 13 years since Obama's last campaign. A lot has changed in that time period. Many electoral lessons of yesteryear are no longer relevant or accurate. Many assumptions and understanding of the electorate and the political landscape are no longer applicable.
Nobody ever fully understands what makes the electorate tick as the electorate is always some combination of disconnected, incoherent, and heterodox. And, of course, in most national elections, 2% of voters swing the outcome. I'm still inclined to trust campaign veterans with winning track records than newcomers convinced that voters are gonna embrace close variations on positions that have been rejected over and over and over again in both the recent and distant past.
The Democratic Party's biggest problem remains what it was a year ago and five years ago. The issues that motivate its donor class have 65% disapproval ratings with the public. This puts "the establishment" in a tough position.
Right. And this is why I say nobody ever fully understands the electorate. It's not at all clear to me whether the post-Trump direction of either the country or the Democratic Party will be centrist or populist left. The issue landscape of the time will dictate it. If hundreds of hospitals close and AI disruption is even a fraction as comprehensive as forecast, Cuomo-style messaging will not inspire. On the other hand, if immigration, gender, and racial grievance remain at the center of the national conversation, Dems will continue to play defense.
If things are about to get as bad economically as some think (I’m not quite there but I think it’s going to be very rough in rural red states very fast), we will soon discover whether Tom Nichols observation that Trumpist cultural grievance politics are the luxuries of an affluent and bored society and not one that is feeling actual acute struggle that we have not seen in at least forty-five years if not longer
Obama also ran in 08 with an incredible wind at his back. I'm not at all convinced he would've won if he'd been the nominee in 04. His campaign was good, but it would've actually taken effort at that point (in 08) to run a bad one.
He was not established enough to run in 2004. That was the year he burst onto the national scene with his keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention about there being no red or blue America, something he was completely wrong about.
Bryce, sadly, yes. However, self-respecting journalists should instead be interviewing the strategists behind the downballot campaigns that had the greatest overperformances in the November election and in Special Elections* since then. THAT is how you shine a bright light on "best praxis"!
(After all, the Downballot has a wonderful overview, which should make the journalists’ job much easier.)
Melat Kiros is a perfect example of the type of hard left zealot that is killing the Democratic brand in the Midwest. Hopefully she gets blasted out of the water in the primary.
Don't see based on what was written above, including the link to her thoughtful blogpost, which I suggest you read, how she is a "hard left zealot." Whatever that means. Or how her views are "killing the Democratic brand in the Midwest."
She has called for the elimination of the state of Israel. I don't want to get into a fight over this issue, but anyone with any common sense should be aware of how extreme that position is and how offensive that is to many voters. The Democratic party would be much better off without extremist cranks like her who can and will constantly use up all their political capital and then some fighting over Middle East politics.
How can it be against the rules to discuss something mentioned in the digest? The digest says
“Kiros, 28, is the daughter of immigrants from Ethiopia and has never run for office before. She did, however, attract attention two years ago when she was fired by her law firm, Sidley Austin, after she reportedly refused to take down a blog post criticizing a letter signed by more than 100 firms (including hers) because it included "calling for … the elimination of the State of Israel" as an example of "anti-Semitic activities."
If we’re not supposed to discuss that, it shouldn’t be mentioned in the digest, just like how the digest doesn’t discuss Democratic presidential primaries. I personally would argue that not including that in the digest and discussion would stop us from fully capturing and learning about the dynamics of the race, but either way the rules should be consistent between the digest and the comments.
I believe the decision was made back in the Daily Kos Elections days. I’m not sure myself as to why the Digest and the comments are separate, I’m just going off what I remember.
We're still living off Daily Kos rules or some other website before that i guess. I agree if it's mentioned in the digest it's silly to ban it in the comments.
Those are our rules. Whether or not you agree or find them reasonable, I ask that you respect them.
They aren't up for debate, but I'm happy to explain why we have them. The rule exists because invariably this turns into one of the ugliest topics imaginable in online comment sections. I've been around for decades, and it happens every time. We don't want to spent our days having to police such conversations and deal with the inevitable fallout and hard feelings that comes when you allow those conversations. If you want to see what I mean, just check out any I/P thread on Daily Kos—always toxic, and always spills over elsewhere.
Sometimes we have no choice but to address the topic in the Digest. That doesn't mean we relax or change our rules for the comments, because it doesn't change the fact that I/P discussions always turn poisonous.
I was thinking that because it's mentioned in the digest, it could be brought up without debating the issue. It's confusing to describe her position and then for us to be unable to even allude to it.
I have never seen anyone change their opinion on any I/P topic as a result discussions or argument. Especially not online. Beyond inevitably becoming a highly acrimonious discussion, it's a waste of everyone's time if there's no real possibility that anyone will change their view.
Describing a politician's views and discussing how popular they are or are not is not the same as arguing one's own positions about the issue, but it's generally been hard for people to continue to make that distinction and threads have been repeatedly derailed by personal invective over this issue. But it's at least a bit awkward for the mods to say "Do as we say, not as we do," and it would also be helpful for them to put up a specific disclaimer somewhere in the digest when it mentions things we're not allowed to mention.
It's a bit awkward, but life is awkward sometimes! You're right, though - we need a "Rules of the Road" post. We have one on the Discord server, but I should post it here, too.
I’m just saying if you don’t want people to discuss it, don’t bring it up in the digest. You don’t bring up when a candidate endorses someone for president in the digest even if it’s relevant to their campaign, you don’t need to bring up their positions on Israel either if we’re not allowed to talk about it.
Like I said, it's not a policy up for debate. We sometimes need to address the issue in the Digest so that people can have a complete picture of a race. Just because we write about something in the Digest doesn't mean it's fair game for the comments.
We have different objectives in each: With the newsletter, we want to inform people about elections. With the comments section, we want to preserve a healthy community. Occasionally those two goals conflict, as is the case here, but this is how we've chosen to resolve the conflict.
Again I say, you're free to disagree with our approach. I only ask that you adhere to our rules. If that's a problem, it's a big internet.
Without getting into the I/P debate or merits of Kiros candidacy I kinda hope DeGette sticks around until redistricting and then retires. Yes there is a commission but I think her retirement would help ease the idea of cracking Denver at least somewhat.
I second this. Even without debating the I/P issue, we can and should acknowledge that calling for the elimination of Israel is an extreme position that is deeply damaging to the Democratic Party – and is likely to sink the campaigns of candidates in most states and districts.
The other thing is that because Diana DeGette has been in Congress for a long time, I didn't realize she was just 67, and I certainly don't believe the Democratic Party should purge liberal, effective members who are merely in their late 60s, by contrast to 82-year-old Rosa DeLauro. If I were living in her district, I'd carefully consider whether her opponent is good enough to vote for them merely on the basis of their being younger, though that would by no means be automatic, as a healthy 82-year-old woman could easily successfully complete a new 2-year term. But come on, 67 is not that old!
No, it’s not, especially in comparison to some of the people currently there. But if someone wants to run and thinks they are better than the current representative, it is their very right as an American and Democrat to run for office, regardless of who they face and how they align on policy. This is still a democracy after all (as shaky as it is).
So I do truly hope you aren’t saying what it sounds like you’re implying: that anyone of a certain age (or lower) should be rubber stamped by Democrats as our candidate and face no challenger because you think they are young enough to not be too old for there to be a different option for voters in who represents them.
You may not like someone challenging them and not support it, which is totally fair, but we can’t just say “anyone below 70 should stay in office and no one should run against them” because you don’t think they’re old enough to warrant a potential different choice. Your opinion is valid, as is your vote choice, but other people have that right too, it’s not just about you and what you want.
Our party, in case it isn’t crystal clear, needs to have these discussions on party direction, age, health and policy. That only happens in the primaries when candidates take their message to the people. Our voters choose who we want to represent us, not the other way around. Democrats in office are only there because we put them there. They aren’t there forever, they’re there as long as the voters support them.
It is our choice alone on if we decide we want someone else or if we decide to keep the incumbent. Just because I know this is going to be misconstrued or misinterpreted, yes, I’m ok with older Democrats primarying younger incumbent ones. I wouldn’t support it, but every single person has the right to run for office regardless of my preferences or whether I align with them politically.
That is how we build a stronger, more inclusive party of all ideological wings of it from right to left. Fwiw in DeGette’s district, if I was a voter there, I’d support her over her challenger, so this isn’t me arguing my preference either, it’s me arguing for letting the voters decide, giving them choices for whatever they may choose and no one else for any stated reason.
All people who want to run, should run. May the best candidate win.
You think I don't believe in contested elections? Come on! I just don't believe in some kind of militancy of youth above all that would withdraw support from everyone above 60 or something.
And who exactly stated that youth above all and withdrawing support from anyone over 60 is what they want? You interpreted someone challenging a single politician as an offensive to rid Democrats of anyone over age 60 in office.
As for whether you believe in contested elections or not, maybe I misinterpreted what you said, would you clarify for me what exactly you meant when you said:
“But come on, 67 is not that old!”
Because I can’t come up with any interpretation in my mind other than the implication I stated. The rest of your post I had zero disagreement with, but that last part I did. I also stated I’d support DeGette in the primary, so you must be talking about someone else entirely.
There has been a lot of advocacy on this board for older politicians to retire or be forced out by younger challengers, and while few if any folks posting in the response threads completely dismiss the idea, there is a danger of overreacting to the very real problems of officials in sensitive positions becoming incapacitated or dying in office, and this challenger is making an age-based appeal as "part of a new generation of Democrats" although the incumbent has "done some really incredible work and meaningful work" and is not the kind of hack that is causing the Democratic resistance to autocracy to be weak (or maybe she's using the "methods of the past" and somehow Kiros would be more effective - she can and should argue that and explain how, beyond mere generational differences). She has the right to do that. (I mean, DUH! Arguing that people have the right to run is not a reasonable argument on this site unless someone is arguing against primaries in general, which would be a stupid, anti-democratic position.) And I have the right to push back at it. But this discussion is unpleasant because you insist on arguing with your caricature of my position.
The problem about this discussion is it’s entirely subjective. Your position about fearing an overreaction, could be another Democrat’s view of finally getting someone who they feel represents them. Your opinion that DeGette isn’t the problem for not resisting Trump effectively, is met by someone else who believes she is (that’s not me, for the record). Her message about a new generation of leaders doesn’t appeal to you, but it may appeal to someone else.
I am very well aware of how cliche it is to fight it out in the primaries, but that’s why I’m supportive of all challenges to incumbents even ones I don’t align with, so all people regardless of what I think and want are heard. In this more detailed and fleshed out explanation though, your position makes perfect sense notwithstanding the snark/smarm written at points that I’ll just choose to ignore.
I don’t agree with all of it obviously, but I understand what you’re saying and where you’re coming from. Thank you for taking the time to do so.
OK, I'm glad I read this response and appreciate it. But of course it's somewhat subjective to say that DeGette is or isn't effective, and if I were in that district, it would be on the basis of arguments about whether she or the challenger would be most effective (forgetting about important foreign policy questions) that I would want to consider challenges to her, not age.
I'd have to say I don't always like primary challenges by people I disagree with. I think most regulars from the Swing State Project days groaned every time Ed Case ran in Democratic primaries, because he tends to win and then is significantly further right than a Hawaii Democrat has to be.
Yeah, 67 is not that old since (checks notes) I am turning 67 later this month.
People age at different rates and some are more suitable to be candidates than others. I wouldn't be a very good candidate based on my energy level and lack of charismatic leadership skills. I wouldn't have run at 37 or 47 or 57 either. You have to have high self-confidence and determination to want to run for office. It is not all about chronological age...
Indeed. I'd be a bad choice to run for such a position because I'm not good at waking up early in the morning, essential for campaigning, and I've been like that since part way through high school.
It’s starting to feel like anything to the left of Bill Clinton is “hard left” to some of the Democratic center. Unless you have evidence, I refuse to also believe that the existence of the left is somehow killing our “brand” in the Midwest.
Actually, what would you define as our “brand”? What would you say Democrats should stand for?
Honestly I feel like “fighting the left” is beginning to take precedence over “fighting Trump”.
Philips has a constituency of one, which I think reflects how much clout he carries with the more moderate side of the party. All I've seen since his statement on CNN have been dunks on it by more "moderate" Dems.
I don't know anyone who likes Axelrod either. The cable news shows will just have them on routinely because they love the storyline of intra-Dem civil war.
The point is, the internal anti-Dem narrative is not left exclusive. Whether they have influence or not, that people like Phillips and Axelrod are around is itself evidence that figures in the center engage in this behavior too. I’m not even saying the whole center, mind you, just the grifters.
Many of them, but seemingly not Mamdani. I'm not sure how similar his views are to Kiros', though, and we can't get into any point-by-point discussions of those here.
Something caused fucking Trump to win all of the Midwest except for Illinois and Minnesota, so there's no reason for any of us to be sanguine about leftists winning back those voters, is there?
But how do we know it was the left that was responsible? I’m not saying the left can win them back, I’m saying that unless I’m presented hard evidence, the left simply existing did not cost us those voters. Remember - inflation was a major issue in 2024, and quite frankly a lot of voters are frighteningly stupid and likely thought Trump would just magically end inflation. Even here in suburban NY I was seeing Biden “I did that” stickers next to gas prices. I don’t believe the left’s mere existence cost us those voters, I really think it was an inflation election. I’m not sure it would have mattered what we did. People are stupid sometimes.
I would argue that the reason we lost was due to inflation and unhappiness with the economy. However, the more progressive left is trying to use the 2024 election results as a reason to move leftward on a variety of issues and unfortunately some of their positions are far from helpful at making us the majority party in swing states because some of their positions on issues related to crime and foreign policy are far from popular among swing voters. As someone who is from Ohio and has lived in the Midwest my whole life, I can say with certainty that while the Democratic party can move towards a more progressive position on some economic issues, other issues like "Defund the police" and the progressive position on I/P are deeply unpopular here and are hurting us.
I think there’s been in the last few weeks a sentiment amongst more left-wing elements that if Mamdani could win a primary in NYC despite his stated views on I/P, then they can win a primary anywhere.
I think this badly misreads the reasons for Mamdani’s win and emphasizes the “despite” there a bit too much, but that’s my read on it. I doubt they’ll succeed on that front vs. generational change (which in fairness do go hand in hand to an extent)
They have a point, though. New York City is the last place I would have expected someone with Mamdani's views and even background to win a Democratic primary. I'm not sure just how similar Kiros' views are to his, but we can't discuss that...
in this counterfactual it's hard to figure. King Andrew sucked all the energy out of the race, and forced/caused more established politicians to cower away from running
I think it's a difficult argument. Cuomo has name-recognition. Since Mamdani drubbed all the others, I think that he was more charismatic and his campaign was more effective than all the others, and therefore that he is likely to have won a campaign without Cuomo, too, and maybe by a higher margin.
In a deep blue city a charismatic young guy with a good campaign modestly beating an old, carpet bagging, scandal plagued asshole who campaigned poorly isn't exactly a huge shock to me. Last year I'd said that there was no way Cuomo would win. Polling told a different story but polling can certainly be off.
He's only a tick or two to the left of DeBlasio. I think this whole thing is going to end up ugly (as almost everything does in NYC politics), and we'd lunatics to try to replicate it in most other parts of the country, but I am slightly gladdened by the fact that the serial abuser of women didn't win.
What in New York's electoral history makes you think it's "deep blue" in mayoral elections? As for DeBlasio, his background (and I mainly mean religion here) and views on a topic we can't discuss were different from Mamdani's, but I would also argue that Mamdani is at least a couple of levels further left. DeBlasio didn't call for all MTA buses to be free, froze rents only during a period of almost no inflation and didn't promise a pilot city-owned grocery store program.
Registered Dems outnumber Republicans 2 to 1. While the city moved right after the pandemic and DeBlasio it is still a very blue city. You also have a point that they are willing to elect Republicans and moderate independents in a general election. If their candidate this year weren't a joke there might be wider concerns. You might be correct that it is more than a couple of ticks.
Registration figures do not tell the tale of this city's electoral history in mayoral elections. New Yorkers chose the furthest right Democrat last time, and before DeBlasio, we had 3 terms of Bloomberg and 2 terms of Giuliani. In other races, this city almost always votes Democratic, though rarely for non-establishment figures in citywide or state-wide races.
I think we need to start going beyond working solely in the currently politically possible and start moving towards the aspirational. Voters are willing to accept politicians whose views don’t align with them on some issues. That means any candidate who can connect with voters can be elected regardless of how many controversial or divisive positions they have on “insert issue x here”. Voters will tolerate almost anything for a candidate they believe will help them: they elected Trump twice after all.
I don’t think every progressive on the unmentioned subject will win, but I don’t think they’ll all lose either and I certainly don’t think their position which is currently outside the mainstream position means they can’t get nominated and/or elected. Voters shrugged at Mamdani’s policy views on foreign policy. I’d bet they probably shrug it off in other races as well.
I don’t disagree. But I get the sense some of these primary races are inspired by people motivated by [forbidden] rather than people who just happen to have staked out a position more left wing on it, a la Mamdani. Say what you will about his policy proposals and their efficacy (which clearly inspired people!), that subject was not part of his pitch to the electorate
I think it’s extremely difficult to assess that factually. I’m sure some primary challengers are solely from the unmentioned topic, but everyone has different motivations on why they run for office and it’s almost always not a singular one.
Some people want the good pay and benefits to help their family. Others run because the incumbent doesn’t align with them politically. Some want a promotion from running staff to being the candidate. Others want to be in the spotlight. Many run because they feel the country needs saving. Often, it’s a mix of a bunch of different reasons that only that single person can understand.
There are selfish reasons and good reasons and which is which is entirely subjective. I could go on forever, listing the various reasons candidates run. The actual motivation for any person running can never actually be determined because it entirely depends on their own personal experiences unique to them as individuals.
I do agree that it certainly was not Mamdani’s focus of the campaign because if it was he would have lost in a landslide (and those on the left would be wise to follow how he handled it if they want to get elected).
Yes, most voters knew of his position/s. He didn’t hide from them, but he didn’t get a megaphone and shout it to passersby either. I think that’s the happy medium, don’t twist your views to fit the people, fight for your views, stand by them, just make your campaign about improving Americans lives in ways they can actually feel it every day if they vote for you.
To be fair, retirement funds are also in question. New York City has huge retirement funds, and where they are or are not invested can make a difference.
I agree with this, but I also think that most people who voted for Trump won't suddenly go to the other extreme - and yes, I as a socialist do nevertheless recognize some positions by the DSA to be extreme, although by no means threats to democracy.
There is no one thing that is responsible for where we are now. Inflation seems to be the top one to me. But I think we need to really twist ourselves into pretzels not to see 2022-2024 as largely a rejection of, in no particularly order, immigration, criminal justice reform, multi-culturalism, student debt reform, equality (for women, lgbtq, etc.). Most of that is cultural stuff (though it all still touches on economics, particularly immigration) and the rejection was coming from the right at every turn. After Trump won in 2016 there were some minor leftwing gains in deep blue areas that allowed the left to think it was more powerful and popular than it was and allowed some Dems to think that certain policies were more popular - or popular at all, than they were with the people who vote. It feels like the cycle is just resetting and people are allowing themselves to think that again.
I'm obviously not against multiculturalism, just acknowledging the facts of our political world.
The post-election polling was very clear and very heavily shared. The top 3 issues were 1) Inflation. 2) Immigration. 3) Transgendered rights (insanely).
Of course Trump's position has nosedived in popularity. It did the same thing 8 years ago. A certain percentage of people want immigration curtailed but don't like immigrants being treated harshly like this. It won't stop them from voting someone for someone else who will promise to stop immigration 4 or (more likely) 8 years from now.
I still believe public opinion can change though. Sometimes very rapidly back and forth. Gay marriage was once completely unacceptable as a view. Then it was widely accepted. Now it’s going back again.
Ultimately I don’t know what will and won’t stick as far as opinion goes. I will say that Trump has been far more extreme this term than his last. I think that that will have short- and long-term effects, perhaps similar to Biden’s policies and the poll you mentioned. Whether or not they stick remains to be seen.
I know it's only one among a list of many but on student debt reform the only consistent complaints I saw throughout the election were that we "didn't do it", even if that was the fault of the courts and not democratic willingness.
Leaning into that I feel a lot of our electoral failure isn't so much our policy stances as our policy ineffectiveness.
Look at things from the perspective of a typical voter who only follows things at a surface level at best...
- Democrats have talked about raising the minimum wage since at least 2008. We've won three presidential elections in that time frame. The minimum wage is unchanged.
- Democrats have talked about immigration reform since at least 2004 and I assume it goes back further than that. Nothing durable has been accomplished.
- Same story with clean energy, judicial reform, criminal justice reform, etc.
- When we finally did get some accomplishments like with Biden's infrastructure bill or Obamacare, we took too long to implement everything. Obamacare took years to be implemented and we even managed to fuck up that launch. Biden left office with something like half of his infrastructure and electric vehicle spending unappropriated.
Our party has high aspirations and we rarely deliver on them. Everyone here knows why that is. The senate is a buzzsaw to our ability to get things done even before you get into the filibuster. We've only held all of congress simultaneously with the presidency for four years total this century. SCOTUS packed with conservative justices that will twist themselves into knots to stop us from doing things that they allow republicans to do.
To most voters none of that fucking matters. They want to know that they get something better than a prevent-defense out of the party they're voting for and realistically we're doing a poor job offering that to them. With Schumer around we're not even doing all that great a job at the prevent-defense either for that matter.
I think we might need to reassess and focus on things we can deliver, and deliver in a way that cannot removed by a single executive order by the next president. And when we deliver do those things we need to do so promptly even if it might not be as efficient. We need ask ourselves how we expect to deliver any of our policy goals in senate that will remain closely balanced for the foreseeable future all while the filibuster is still in effect.
A budget reconciliation bill is not going to deliver enough of our goals, regardless of if you are at the moderate or progressive ends of the party, regardless of if you are establishment or anti-establishment.
I'd expect the average voter sees us as an ineffectual party more than anything else.
(1) Voters they don't so much have a strong ideological preference. They might see both parties as offering acceptable solutions for their problems. Maybe they like our solutions better, but if they feel we cannot deliver those solutions they will vote elsewhere.
(2) Voters that do have a strong ideological preference. The problem with them isn't that they will vote for republicans but that they will not vote at all. Many of them will presumably be younger and at the more progressive end of the party, but not all. Moderates can be disappointed in failure to accomplish much just the same as anyone else.
I think a lot of voters just punish the party in power for whatever they don't like, regardless of how bad the party out of power is and how much it will damage the country.
That's definitely something that happens a lot, but it doesn't explain why we're still an unliked party right now. We hold almost no power at present. Dems are still unpopular.
We can rely on the typical backlash against the party in power to carry us through next year, but that isn't a long term electoral strategy.
Next time we have a trifecta we need leaders who are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve these goals. If that means killing the filibuster, then so be it. We can't be afraid of what Republicans MIGHT do when they're already inflicting so much harm as it is. They don't need to kill the filibuster to achieve their goals. We do. Kill it. Add DC and PR as States and just keep pushing. If SCOTUS stands in our way then expand the court too. Screw norms, the old ways of doing business have only enabled the fascists.
All that needs to happen but in my opinion that is only necessary to enable the other parts to happen.
Imagine that we get a trifecta, we pass some giant spending bill that reforms or improves something. For the sake of the discussion it doesn't matter what thing it is. What happens 12 months later? If we appropriate $500b to improve thing A, and in 12 months we've spent $50b, we're still stuck with the same problem. How much of the CHIPS act ever got spent? Why did it take a full presidential term to get Obamacare fully running, and even longer for it to run well?
We know government can move fast when it matters enough, just look at how fast money appeared to prop up the financial sector in 2008, or how the funding during Covid showed up. This isn't a matter of topics being too complex to implement. The government has created and funded complex systems in the past and gotten them operational in timely fashions.
We need to have a focus and desire for that concurrent with our focus and desire to accomplish things as well.
I think that Dems need to stop coddling Big Business and be actively Anti-Big Business. I'm talking Trust Busting anti-business that will actually help the average person. But we all know they get a lot of funding from them too so it would require finding those funds elsewhere but I think the tide is turning especially with the advent of AI and the prevalence of Private Equity. The Party that channels that anger the best is the one that will win out and unfortunately it's the Republicans right now even if their actions don't match their rhetoric.
I wouldn’t go that far. Much of the Dem base is now made up of suburbanites with “big business” jobs. I work for one of the worst “big businesses” and good lord, I just want a paycheck like everyone else.
Be great if American politics wasn’t about attacking anyone and we all just pay our taxes so we can live happy lives with lots of freedom.
How long are those suburbanites with "big business" jobs going to have that opinion when their bosses are actively trying to replace them with AI? Everyone either has been a victim or knows someone who has been a victim of Jack Welch-ian Shareholder Capitalism. I think the tack is that Big Business has gotten TOO big and they need to be reined in.
It would be great but good luck with that. Big Business has been trying to convince the general public that they're a better alternative to Big Government and any attempts to bring them to heel is essentially Communism.
People were voting for or against Harris and Trump. The Left was not on the ballot. It's such a vague notion that no one here can define it. It's a convenient punching bag for MGP and others (along with "the faculty lounge") who want to court big donors. The problem in WI, PA, & MI was not that they were too Left in 2024.
No, it was inflation, and listen, I'm part of the left. But as I said, people who vote for Trump don't usually then turn around and vote socialist. Some do, but certainly not a huge fraction.
But I'm saying that people don't vote for Trump because they fear something called the Left. In American political discourse, the Left means "views that don't align with mine and threaten my self-identification." Actual policy views labeled as "Left" often do quite well in polls. But Republicans are better at messaging and can beat us even on our good ideas. I agree it was inflation & bad messaging, not the Left that lost us 2024.
I didn't think I was being condescending to you but as far as what I would define as the brand... We allow our enemies to brand us. I think the brand is whatever the consultant class believes plays well. I'm not sure if I have a proposal as you have to overcome so much Conservative Media Machine propaganda but I think being unapologetic about what we believe in is a start. For all of their faults people like Mamdani and Abughazaleh are unapologetic about their stances and aren't afraid of the Right's attempts to define and smear them.
I have to assume that a primary challenge to a popular incumbent from someone whose main qualification is having been an attorney for a a couple of years before being canned is not overly likely to go anywhere far.
Diana DeGette is popular? Since when? Every politically active person I've talked to in Denver either dislikes her or is ambivalent. I've never met a DeGette superfan. She is not a very remarkable representative despite being in office forever. Most people just think she's invincible. I hope she sweats a little in a primary, I don't like when politicians just sit in office forever doing next to nothing because they arrogantly think they "deserve" it.
She's no Pat Schroeder that's for sure but she has been in office since the 90's so it really doesn't matter how popular she is if people are still showing up to vote for her but yes i agree no politician should feel safe from a challenge.
Serving 30 years in Congress with little electoral trouble seems like a good indicator of popularity. Even if you mostly attribute it to inertia, if DeGette were unpopular then she’d be gone by now or at least struggling to hold on.
It may be worth testing her to see just how strong that popularity is or if it’s just inertia from not being challenged much, but Kiros doesn’t sound like a great candidate to do that.
As a somewhat local (I work in her district) I would agree with the general assessment. I've never met a "superfan" either but I also haven't met anyone who's grievance is much beyond ambivalent or minor dislike for her being kind of a back bencher.
On that sidenote, I find those things fascinating to look at from further back.
Cycle to cycle changes almost always make sense. In a lot of ways the political landscape of a year like 2004 is not fundamentally that different from 2024. Northeast and west coast are blue along with Illinois. Upper midwest and Pennsylvania is competitive, along with Nevada. Parts of the south are better for dems than other parts.
But then you dig into it and a lot of things have changed dramatically. Colorado and Virginia went from safely but not deeply red to safely but not deeply blue. Missouri, Iowa, Florida, and Ohio are no longer seriously competitive. The west coast went from lightly but reliably blue to deeply blue. Arkansas got insanely red. New Jersey and New York have done a U turn in the interim years and aren't that far off from where they started, but a lot changed in between. Arizona and Georgia are now competitive when they previously were not. Texas is not competitive but looks like it could become so sometime in the next decade, where in 2004 that looked impossible.
Going into any of the state results maps will show a deep blueing of the urban and suburban parts of each state and an even deeper reddening of the rural areas, roughly balancing out in net. Probably the least changed states by geography of outcome are all part of New England. Which makes sense as democrats saw far less of a drop with rural voters in this region, as rural here is not the same as rural elsewhere.
In a lot of ways if you showed someone from 2004 the presidential margins by state and party for 2024 a lot would look logical to them. But a lot of it would be quite the dramatic change as well.
New Hampshire is much more Democratic for presidential elections now than it was in 2004, though of course Kerry had the great advantage of being from neighboring Massachusetts. And Colorado seems much more Democratic than Virginia.
NH 2004 and NH 2024 aren't substantially different. Kerry +1.5 and Harris +3. We did see Biden +7 in 2020, but immediately preceding that was Clinton +0.5 (she won by a bit less than 3k votes).
NH has a higher floor for dems at the federal level but as a state it goes fairly strongly with the winds of the election cycle. We've been fortunate that our stronger baseline has been enough to allow us to survive even in poor cycles, but I wouldn't say the state has moved that substantially to the left at the presidential level.
Definitely somewhat, though. I'd put it at present as a second tier competitive state, such that if dems are losing NH we're already in trouble anyway. In the past it would have been a first tier swing state that could conceivably swing the election.
I don’t think they’re better either, but that is only your opinion. I’m sure others here disagree with you and that’s fine and healthy, that’s the whole point of democracy! To give everyone a chance to be heard and let the voters choose.
We haven’t offered options to our voters in a very long time, so it’s about time to make all of our party heard from conservatives to progressives. From older to younger. From Israel supporters to Palestine supporters and everywhere in between on every issue of importance.
Our party has desperately needed this, for, to be quite honest, decades, so it’s good that people are now stepping up to run, instead of the party choosing who leads us. We are in charge, not the party. It’s our choice and I have faith that regardless of who we choose, that the voters will make the right decision at the ballot box.
I didn't express an opinion on whether she was better or not. You should stop reading things other than my actual words into what I say. It'll make it a lot easier to understand my opinions, rather than straw men. If you want to know if I mean something I didn't say, ask me.
The part that’s bugging me about your posts is you never say “I think”, you state something with certainty “she’s not the better option”. To me that means you’re speaking for everyone. Maybe I’m wrong to assume that, but that’s why I’ve responded politely with frequency. I haven’t attacked you, I just disagree with how you’ve framed your opinion as fact I guess.
And yes you did say that though?
michaelflutist
michaelflutist
1h
And maybe someday they will, but that doesn't mean this opponent is better.
To me that means you’re stating that she’s not better.
I agree that we need to offer options to voters. Actually, one positive possibility from doing so is it can indicate which voters like which type of candidates and policies, where. Potentially helpful info to know for targeting swing seats in areas, the areas certain policies do best in, etc.
Sounds a lot like Rep McCollum MN-4 representing a deep blue seat centered on the state capitol St. Paul. In all my years of being active in politics, I think I’ve only seen her in person one time, and she seemed annoyed to be there. She’s entrenched and is very high up the Appropriations Committee totem pole so don’t rock the boat bc she’s going to be insanely powerful someday soon. But she gets a big fat meh from me.
"The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Title II of Pub. L. 95–223, 91 Stat. 1626, enacted December 28, 1977, is a United States federal law authorizing the president to regulate international commerce after declaring a national emergency in response to any unusual and extraordinary threat to the United States which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States."
Brazil isn't doing anything that's a threat to the U.S., so with a reasonable Judiciary, Trump's unilateral actions would be annulled, but we don't have a reasonable Supreme Court.
I think there’s a real chance SCOTUS sides against Trump here. The panel that unanimously struck down Trump’s tariffs in May included a conservative judge.
It also dovetails nicely with the major questions doctrine and post-Chevron jurisprudence and, frankly, is what basically all of corporate America wants but Trump simply won’t accept tariffs don’t work the way he has convinced himself they do
Alito and Thomas are consistent Republican hacks. Roberts, Barrett, Kavanaugh and to a lesser extent Gorsuch are more like right-leaning loose cannons, we can't ever count on them to do what's right but the fascists can't really count on them either. (Gorsuch is the weirdest of those four by a wide margin, but he's also the least likely to break with the GOP position.)
Ironically he may be giving Lula. whose approvals have gone into the dumps, a political boost a la Canada and Australia. Most Brazilleans won't appreciate the POTUS meddling in their domestic affairs.
Hopefully Lula doesn't also propose amending the nation's constitution. If I had a Real for every time that ruined a South American left-leaning leader the past decade, I'd have at least two Reals.
Due to the Congress being way more conservative than in his first run, he's governed much more moderately. Which has probably also hurt his popularity.
“We just lecture people too much.”
– James Carville, lecturing people in the Democratic Party
.
(James Osyf is entirely correct when he says "Silence won’t serve this moment." But in the case of the chronically-overexposed James Carville I think we can make an exception. Although he occasionally does have a valid point, I really do wish mainstream media would find someone better than Carville to interview about Democratic strategies.)
It’s either him or Axelrod. Everyone else is either still working, or straight up faded into obscurity
Axelrod really thinks he did something with "hope" and "change", amazing work.
Why wouldn't we credit him for that? It was a brilliantly successful campaign.
Yeah, the problem isn't that Axelrod (and Plouffe) weren't in charge of well run campaigns. They were. They did an excellent job with Obama's 2008 and 2012 campaigns, which were well run and highly effective.
The problem is that their insight isn't necessarily of the extra high value that they and others think it is. It's been 13 years since Obama's last campaign. A lot has changed in that time period. Many electoral lessons of yesteryear are no longer relevant or accurate. Many assumptions and understanding of the electorate and the political landscape are no longer applicable.
That's reasonable, but it's a different argument.
Nobody ever fully understands what makes the electorate tick as the electorate is always some combination of disconnected, incoherent, and heterodox. And, of course, in most national elections, 2% of voters swing the outcome. I'm still inclined to trust campaign veterans with winning track records than newcomers convinced that voters are gonna embrace close variations on positions that have been rejected over and over and over again in both the recent and distant past.
The Democratic Party's biggest problem remains what it was a year ago and five years ago. The issues that motivate its donor class have 65% disapproval ratings with the public. This puts "the establishment" in a tough position.
Agreed on your 2nd paragraph. Not as sure on your 1st, as we have to consider how newcomers helped the young Mamdani to thump Cuomo in the primary.
Right. And this is why I say nobody ever fully understands the electorate. It's not at all clear to me whether the post-Trump direction of either the country or the Democratic Party will be centrist or populist left. The issue landscape of the time will dictate it. If hundreds of hospitals close and AI disruption is even a fraction as comprehensive as forecast, Cuomo-style messaging will not inspire. On the other hand, if immigration, gender, and racial grievance remain at the center of the national conversation, Dems will continue to play defense.
If things are about to get as bad economically as some think (I’m not quite there but I think it’s going to be very rough in rural red states very fast), we will soon discover whether Tom Nichols observation that Trumpist cultural grievance politics are the luxuries of an affluent and bored society and not one that is feeling actual acute struggle that we have not seen in at least forty-five years if not longer
Obama also ran in 08 with an incredible wind at his back. I'm not at all convinced he would've won if he'd been the nominee in 04. His campaign was good, but it would've actually taken effort at that point (in 08) to run a bad one.
He was not established enough to run in 2004. That was the year he burst onto the national scene with his keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention about there being no red or blue America, something he was completely wrong about.
He appealed to our better angels, and won twice. But we couldn't sustain it, and the lower devils won in the long run.
Bryce, sadly, yes. However, self-respecting journalists should instead be interviewing the strategists behind the downballot campaigns that had the greatest overperformances in the November election and in Special Elections* since then. THAT is how you shine a bright light on "best praxis"!
(After all, the Downballot has a wonderful overview, which should make the journalists’ job much easier.)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JGk1r1VXnxBrAIVHz1C5HTB5jxCO6Zw4QNPivdhyWHw/edit?gid=415249345#gid=415249345
Melat Kiros is a perfect example of the type of hard left zealot that is killing the Democratic brand in the Midwest. Hopefully she gets blasted out of the water in the primary.
Don't see based on what was written above, including the link to her thoughtful blogpost, which I suggest you read, how she is a "hard left zealot." Whatever that means. Or how her views are "killing the Democratic brand in the Midwest."
She has called for the elimination of the state of Israel. I don't want to get into a fight over this issue, but anyone with any common sense should be aware of how extreme that position is and how offensive that is to many voters. The Democratic party would be much better off without extremist cranks like her who can and will constantly use up all their political capital and then some fighting over Middle East politics.
We are not allowed to discuss Israel and Palestine here. It is against the rules.
How can it be against the rules to discuss something mentioned in the digest? The digest says
“Kiros, 28, is the daughter of immigrants from Ethiopia and has never run for office before. She did, however, attract attention two years ago when she was fired by her law firm, Sidley Austin, after she reportedly refused to take down a blog post criticizing a letter signed by more than 100 firms (including hers) because it included "calling for … the elimination of the State of Israel" as an example of "anti-Semitic activities."
If we’re not supposed to discuss that, it shouldn’t be mentioned in the digest, just like how the digest doesn’t discuss Democratic presidential primaries. I personally would argue that not including that in the digest and discussion would stop us from fully capturing and learning about the dynamics of the race, but either way the rules should be consistent between the digest and the comments.
I believe the decision was made back in the Daily Kos Elections days. I’m not sure myself as to why the Digest and the comments are separate, I’m just going off what I remember.
We're still living off Daily Kos rules or some other website before that i guess. I agree if it's mentioned in the digest it's silly to ban it in the comments.
Those are our rules. Whether or not you agree or find them reasonable, I ask that you respect them.
They aren't up for debate, but I'm happy to explain why we have them. The rule exists because invariably this turns into one of the ugliest topics imaginable in online comment sections. I've been around for decades, and it happens every time. We don't want to spent our days having to police such conversations and deal with the inevitable fallout and hard feelings that comes when you allow those conversations. If you want to see what I mean, just check out any I/P thread on Daily Kos—always toxic, and always spills over elsewhere.
Sometimes we have no choice but to address the topic in the Digest. That doesn't mean we relax or change our rules for the comments, because it doesn't change the fact that I/P discussions always turn poisonous.
I was thinking that because it's mentioned in the digest, it could be brought up without debating the issue. It's confusing to describe her position and then for us to be unable to even allude to it.
I always appreciated this rule in particular.
I have never seen anyone change their opinion on any I/P topic as a result discussions or argument. Especially not online. Beyond inevitably becoming a highly acrimonious discussion, it's a waste of everyone's time if there's no real possibility that anyone will change their view.
Describing a politician's views and discussing how popular they are or are not is not the same as arguing one's own positions about the issue, but it's generally been hard for people to continue to make that distinction and threads have been repeatedly derailed by personal invective over this issue. But it's at least a bit awkward for the mods to say "Do as we say, not as we do," and it would also be helpful for them to put up a specific disclaimer somewhere in the digest when it mentions things we're not allowed to mention.
It's a bit awkward, but life is awkward sometimes! You're right, though - we need a "Rules of the Road" post. We have one on the Discord server, but I should post it here, too.
I’m just saying if you don’t want people to discuss it, don’t bring it up in the digest. You don’t bring up when a candidate endorses someone for president in the digest even if it’s relevant to their campaign, you don’t need to bring up their positions on Israel either if we’re not allowed to talk about it.
Like I said, it's not a policy up for debate. We sometimes need to address the issue in the Digest so that people can have a complete picture of a race. Just because we write about something in the Digest doesn't mean it's fair game for the comments.
We have different objectives in each: With the newsletter, we want to inform people about elections. With the comments section, we want to preserve a healthy community. Occasionally those two goals conflict, as is the case here, but this is how we've chosen to resolve the conflict.
Again I say, you're free to disagree with our approach. I only ask that you adhere to our rules. If that's a problem, it's a big internet.
Without getting into the I/P debate or merits of Kiros candidacy I kinda hope DeGette sticks around until redistricting and then retires. Yes there is a commission but I think her retirement would help ease the idea of cracking Denver at least somewhat.
I second this. Even without debating the I/P issue, we can and should acknowledge that calling for the elimination of Israel is an extreme position that is deeply damaging to the Democratic Party – and is likely to sink the campaigns of candidates in most states and districts.
The other thing is that because Diana DeGette has been in Congress for a long time, I didn't realize she was just 67, and I certainly don't believe the Democratic Party should purge liberal, effective members who are merely in their late 60s, by contrast to 82-year-old Rosa DeLauro. If I were living in her district, I'd carefully consider whether her opponent is good enough to vote for them merely on the basis of their being younger, though that would by no means be automatic, as a healthy 82-year-old woman could easily successfully complete a new 2-year term. But come on, 67 is not that old!
No, it’s not, especially in comparison to some of the people currently there. But if someone wants to run and thinks they are better than the current representative, it is their very right as an American and Democrat to run for office, regardless of who they face and how they align on policy. This is still a democracy after all (as shaky as it is).
So I do truly hope you aren’t saying what it sounds like you’re implying: that anyone of a certain age (or lower) should be rubber stamped by Democrats as our candidate and face no challenger because you think they are young enough to not be too old for there to be a different option for voters in who represents them.
You may not like someone challenging them and not support it, which is totally fair, but we can’t just say “anyone below 70 should stay in office and no one should run against them” because you don’t think they’re old enough to warrant a potential different choice. Your opinion is valid, as is your vote choice, but other people have that right too, it’s not just about you and what you want.
Our party, in case it isn’t crystal clear, needs to have these discussions on party direction, age, health and policy. That only happens in the primaries when candidates take their message to the people. Our voters choose who we want to represent us, not the other way around. Democrats in office are only there because we put them there. They aren’t there forever, they’re there as long as the voters support them.
It is our choice alone on if we decide we want someone else or if we decide to keep the incumbent. Just because I know this is going to be misconstrued or misinterpreted, yes, I’m ok with older Democrats primarying younger incumbent ones. I wouldn’t support it, but every single person has the right to run for office regardless of my preferences or whether I align with them politically.
That is how we build a stronger, more inclusive party of all ideological wings of it from right to left. Fwiw in DeGette’s district, if I was a voter there, I’d support her over her challenger, so this isn’t me arguing my preference either, it’s me arguing for letting the voters decide, giving them choices for whatever they may choose and no one else for any stated reason.
All people who want to run, should run. May the best candidate win.
You think I don't believe in contested elections? Come on! I just don't believe in some kind of militancy of youth above all that would withdraw support from everyone above 60 or something.
And who exactly stated that youth above all and withdrawing support from anyone over 60 is what they want? You interpreted someone challenging a single politician as an offensive to rid Democrats of anyone over age 60 in office.
As for whether you believe in contested elections or not, maybe I misinterpreted what you said, would you clarify for me what exactly you meant when you said:
“But come on, 67 is not that old!”
Because I can’t come up with any interpretation in my mind other than the implication I stated. The rest of your post I had zero disagreement with, but that last part I did. I also stated I’d support DeGette in the primary, so you must be talking about someone else entirely.
There has been a lot of advocacy on this board for older politicians to retire or be forced out by younger challengers, and while few if any folks posting in the response threads completely dismiss the idea, there is a danger of overreacting to the very real problems of officials in sensitive positions becoming incapacitated or dying in office, and this challenger is making an age-based appeal as "part of a new generation of Democrats" although the incumbent has "done some really incredible work and meaningful work" and is not the kind of hack that is causing the Democratic resistance to autocracy to be weak (or maybe she's using the "methods of the past" and somehow Kiros would be more effective - she can and should argue that and explain how, beyond mere generational differences). She has the right to do that. (I mean, DUH! Arguing that people have the right to run is not a reasonable argument on this site unless someone is arguing against primaries in general, which would be a stupid, anti-democratic position.) And I have the right to push back at it. But this discussion is unpleasant because you insist on arguing with your caricature of my position.
The problem about this discussion is it’s entirely subjective. Your position about fearing an overreaction, could be another Democrat’s view of finally getting someone who they feel represents them. Your opinion that DeGette isn’t the problem for not resisting Trump effectively, is met by someone else who believes she is (that’s not me, for the record). Her message about a new generation of leaders doesn’t appeal to you, but it may appeal to someone else.
I am very well aware of how cliche it is to fight it out in the primaries, but that’s why I’m supportive of all challenges to incumbents even ones I don’t align with, so all people regardless of what I think and want are heard. In this more detailed and fleshed out explanation though, your position makes perfect sense notwithstanding the snark/smarm written at points that I’ll just choose to ignore.
I don’t agree with all of it obviously, but I understand what you’re saying and where you’re coming from. Thank you for taking the time to do so.
OK, I'm glad I read this response and appreciate it. But of course it's somewhat subjective to say that DeGette is or isn't effective, and if I were in that district, it would be on the basis of arguments about whether she or the challenger would be most effective (forgetting about important foreign policy questions) that I would want to consider challenges to her, not age.
I'd have to say I don't always like primary challenges by people I disagree with. I think most regulars from the Swing State Project days groaned every time Ed Case ran in Democratic primaries, because he tends to win and then is significantly further right than a Hawaii Democrat has to be.
Yeah, 67 is not that old since (checks notes) I am turning 67 later this month.
People age at different rates and some are more suitable to be candidates than others. I wouldn't be a very good candidate based on my energy level and lack of charismatic leadership skills. I wouldn't have run at 37 or 47 or 57 either. You have to have high self-confidence and determination to want to run for office. It is not all about chronological age...
Indeed. I'd be a bad choice to run for such a position because I'm not good at waking up early in the morning, essential for campaigning, and I've been like that since part way through high school.
It’s starting to feel like anything to the left of Bill Clinton is “hard left” to some of the Democratic center. Unless you have evidence, I refuse to also believe that the existence of the left is somehow killing our “brand” in the Midwest.
Actually, what would you define as our “brand”? What would you say Democrats should stand for?
Honestly I feel like “fighting the left” is beginning to take precedence over “fighting Trump”.
We're all left here to some degree but i think history tells us the DSA types would much rather protest dems than protest Trump, let's be real.
Versus what Dean Phillips, et al. have been doing? I’m no DSA fan but it’s not like it’s only the left doing this.
Philips has a constituency of one, which I think reflects how much clout he carries with the more moderate side of the party. All I've seen since his statement on CNN have been dunks on it by more "moderate" Dems.
I wasn’t only talking about him though. People like David Axelrod too. Really anyone preaching moderation and primarily attacking Democrats.
I don't know anyone who likes Axelrod either. The cable news shows will just have them on routinely because they love the storyline of intra-Dem civil war.
The point is, the internal anti-Dem narrative is not left exclusive. Whether they have influence or not, that people like Phillips and Axelrod are around is itself evidence that figures in the center engage in this behavior too. I’m not even saying the whole center, mind you, just the grifters.
That isn't helping either
Many of them, but seemingly not Mamdani. I'm not sure how similar his views are to Kiros', though, and we can't get into any point-by-point discussions of those here.
Not true at all.
Something caused fucking Trump to win all of the Midwest except for Illinois and Minnesota, so there's no reason for any of us to be sanguine about leftists winning back those voters, is there?
But how do we know it was the left that was responsible? I’m not saying the left can win them back, I’m saying that unless I’m presented hard evidence, the left simply existing did not cost us those voters. Remember - inflation was a major issue in 2024, and quite frankly a lot of voters are frighteningly stupid and likely thought Trump would just magically end inflation. Even here in suburban NY I was seeing Biden “I did that” stickers next to gas prices. I don’t believe the left’s mere existence cost us those voters, I really think it was an inflation election. I’m not sure it would have mattered what we did. People are stupid sometimes.
I would argue that the reason we lost was due to inflation and unhappiness with the economy. However, the more progressive left is trying to use the 2024 election results as a reason to move leftward on a variety of issues and unfortunately some of their positions are far from helpful at making us the majority party in swing states because some of their positions on issues related to crime and foreign policy are far from popular among swing voters. As someone who is from Ohio and has lived in the Midwest my whole life, I can say with certainty that while the Democratic party can move towards a more progressive position on some economic issues, other issues like "Defund the police" and the progressive position on I/P are deeply unpopular here and are hurting us.
I think there’s been in the last few weeks a sentiment amongst more left-wing elements that if Mamdani could win a primary in NYC despite his stated views on I/P, then they can win a primary anywhere.
I think this badly misreads the reasons for Mamdani’s win and emphasizes the “despite” there a bit too much, but that’s my read on it. I doubt they’ll succeed on that front vs. generational change (which in fairness do go hand in hand to an extent)
They have a point, though. New York City is the last place I would have expected someone with Mamdani's views and even background to win a Democratic primary. I'm not sure just how similar Kiros' views are to his, but we can't discuss that...
Had Cuomo not sucked all the oxygen out of the room I think the primary would have gone very differently. But, I am not a New Yorker
If Cuomo hadn't run, you think who would have beaten Mamdani?
in this counterfactual it's hard to figure. King Andrew sucked all the energy out of the race, and forced/caused more established politicians to cower away from running
I think it's a difficult argument. Cuomo has name-recognition. Since Mamdani drubbed all the others, I think that he was more charismatic and his campaign was more effective than all the others, and therefore that he is likely to have won a campaign without Cuomo, too, and maybe by a higher margin.
Exactly my point
In a deep blue city a charismatic young guy with a good campaign modestly beating an old, carpet bagging, scandal plagued asshole who campaigned poorly isn't exactly a huge shock to me. Last year I'd said that there was no way Cuomo would win. Polling told a different story but polling can certainly be off.
He's only a tick or two to the left of DeBlasio. I think this whole thing is going to end up ugly (as almost everything does in NYC politics), and we'd lunatics to try to replicate it in most other parts of the country, but I am slightly gladdened by the fact that the serial abuser of women didn't win.
What in New York's electoral history makes you think it's "deep blue" in mayoral elections? As for DeBlasio, his background (and I mainly mean religion here) and views on a topic we can't discuss were different from Mamdani's, but I would also argue that Mamdani is at least a couple of levels further left. DeBlasio didn't call for all MTA buses to be free, froze rents only during a period of almost no inflation and didn't promise a pilot city-owned grocery store program.
Registered Dems outnumber Republicans 2 to 1. While the city moved right after the pandemic and DeBlasio it is still a very blue city. You also have a point that they are willing to elect Republicans and moderate independents in a general election. If their candidate this year weren't a joke there might be wider concerns. You might be correct that it is more than a couple of ticks.
Registration figures do not tell the tale of this city's electoral history in mayoral elections. New Yorkers chose the furthest right Democrat last time, and before DeBlasio, we had 3 terms of Bloomberg and 2 terms of Giuliani. In other races, this city almost always votes Democratic, though rarely for non-establishment figures in citywide or state-wide races.
I don't understand the carpetbagging accusation against Cuomo? Is he not from queens?
He hadn't lived in the city for decades until he decided to run.
Right, but because he's from Queens, I doubt that landed.
It's a silly accusation, i wouldn't use it.
My thoughts as well
I think we need to start going beyond working solely in the currently politically possible and start moving towards the aspirational. Voters are willing to accept politicians whose views don’t align with them on some issues. That means any candidate who can connect with voters can be elected regardless of how many controversial or divisive positions they have on “insert issue x here”. Voters will tolerate almost anything for a candidate they believe will help them: they elected Trump twice after all.
I don’t think every progressive on the unmentioned subject will win, but I don’t think they’ll all lose either and I certainly don’t think their position which is currently outside the mainstream position means they can’t get nominated and/or elected. Voters shrugged at Mamdani’s policy views on foreign policy. I’d bet they probably shrug it off in other races as well.
I don’t disagree. But I get the sense some of these primary races are inspired by people motivated by [forbidden] rather than people who just happen to have staked out a position more left wing on it, a la Mamdani. Say what you will about his policy proposals and their efficacy (which clearly inspired people!), that subject was not part of his pitch to the electorate
I think it’s extremely difficult to assess that factually. I’m sure some primary challengers are solely from the unmentioned topic, but everyone has different motivations on why they run for office and it’s almost always not a singular one.
Some people want the good pay and benefits to help their family. Others run because the incumbent doesn’t align with them politically. Some want a promotion from running staff to being the candidate. Others want to be in the spotlight. Many run because they feel the country needs saving. Often, it’s a mix of a bunch of different reasons that only that single person can understand.
There are selfish reasons and good reasons and which is which is entirely subjective. I could go on forever, listing the various reasons candidates run. The actual motivation for any person running can never actually be determined because it entirely depends on their own personal experiences unique to them as individuals.
I do agree that it certainly was not Mamdani’s focus of the campaign because if it was he would have lost in a landslide (and those on the left would be wise to follow how he handled it if they want to get elected).
He also doesn't get to have a foreign policy as Mayor. His main motivations are very clearly his hopes to improve things for non-rich New Yorkers.
He didn't emphasize it (Cuomo did emphasize it in his attack mail), but he also didn't run away from it.
Yes, most voters knew of his position/s. He didn’t hide from them, but he didn’t get a megaphone and shout it to passersby either. I think that’s the happy medium, don’t twist your views to fit the people, fight for your views, stand by them, just make your campaign about improving Americans lives in ways they can actually feel it every day if they vote for you.
Fully agreed.
Foreign policy should be mostly a nonissue in city races, except maybe for promoting trade and tourism with other countries.
To be fair, retirement funds are also in question. New York City has huge retirement funds, and where they are or are not invested can make a difference.
I agree with this, but I also think that most people who voted for Trump won't suddenly go to the other extreme - and yes, I as a socialist do nevertheless recognize some positions by the DSA to be extreme, although by no means threats to democracy.
There is no one thing that is responsible for where we are now. Inflation seems to be the top one to me. But I think we need to really twist ourselves into pretzels not to see 2022-2024 as largely a rejection of, in no particularly order, immigration, criminal justice reform, multi-culturalism, student debt reform, equality (for women, lgbtq, etc.). Most of that is cultural stuff (though it all still touches on economics, particularly immigration) and the rejection was coming from the right at every turn. After Trump won in 2016 there were some minor leftwing gains in deep blue areas that allowed the left to think it was more powerful and popular than it was and allowed some Dems to think that certain policies were more popular - or popular at all, than they were with the people who vote. It feels like the cycle is just resetting and people are allowing themselves to think that again.
Wait, you’re anti-multiculturalism? What do you propose we do instead?
Even if you aren’t, we can’t just support whatever is popular. Slavery was once normal and accepted. Did that make it right?
And do you have hard evidence for these claims, such as polling or data indicating it was a top issue, or does it just feel like it’s true?
I'm obviously not against multiculturalism, just acknowledging the facts of our political world.
The post-election polling was very clear and very heavily shared. The top 3 issues were 1) Inflation. 2) Immigration. 3) Transgendered rights (insanely).
Do you have a link to said polls?
And is this still true? I’ve seen polling indicating Trump’s immigration policy has nosedived in popularity.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/11/trump-immigration-crackdown-poll-00448342
https://blueprint-research.com/polling/why-trump-reasons-11-8/
Of course Trump's position has nosedived in popularity. It did the same thing 8 years ago. A certain percentage of people want immigration curtailed but don't like immigrants being treated harshly like this. It won't stop them from voting someone for someone else who will promise to stop immigration 4 or (more likely) 8 years from now.
Thank you for the link.
I still believe public opinion can change though. Sometimes very rapidly back and forth. Gay marriage was once completely unacceptable as a view. Then it was widely accepted. Now it’s going back again.
Ultimately I don’t know what will and won’t stick as far as opinion goes. I will say that Trump has been far more extreme this term than his last. I think that that will have short- and long-term effects, perhaps similar to Biden’s policies and the poll you mentioned. Whether or not they stick remains to be seen.
It's way more likely to have short-term effects. Voters don't remember what happened freakin yesterday!
I know it's only one among a list of many but on student debt reform the only consistent complaints I saw throughout the election were that we "didn't do it", even if that was the fault of the courts and not democratic willingness.
Leaning into that I feel a lot of our electoral failure isn't so much our policy stances as our policy ineffectiveness.
Look at things from the perspective of a typical voter who only follows things at a surface level at best...
- Democrats have talked about raising the minimum wage since at least 2008. We've won three presidential elections in that time frame. The minimum wage is unchanged.
- Democrats have talked about immigration reform since at least 2004 and I assume it goes back further than that. Nothing durable has been accomplished.
- Same story with clean energy, judicial reform, criminal justice reform, etc.
- When we finally did get some accomplishments like with Biden's infrastructure bill or Obamacare, we took too long to implement everything. Obamacare took years to be implemented and we even managed to fuck up that launch. Biden left office with something like half of his infrastructure and electric vehicle spending unappropriated.
Our party has high aspirations and we rarely deliver on them. Everyone here knows why that is. The senate is a buzzsaw to our ability to get things done even before you get into the filibuster. We've only held all of congress simultaneously with the presidency for four years total this century. SCOTUS packed with conservative justices that will twist themselves into knots to stop us from doing things that they allow republicans to do.
To most voters none of that fucking matters. They want to know that they get something better than a prevent-defense out of the party they're voting for and realistically we're doing a poor job offering that to them. With Schumer around we're not even doing all that great a job at the prevent-defense either for that matter.
I think we might need to reassess and focus on things we can deliver, and deliver in a way that cannot removed by a single executive order by the next president. And when we deliver do those things we need to do so promptly even if it might not be as efficient. We need ask ourselves how we expect to deliver any of our policy goals in senate that will remain closely balanced for the foreseeable future all while the filibuster is still in effect.
A budget reconciliation bill is not going to deliver enough of our goals, regardless of if you are at the moderate or progressive ends of the party, regardless of if you are establishment or anti-establishment.
I'd expect the average voter sees us as an ineffectual party more than anything else.
The insane thing is, if voters want to deal with these things, that they vote for the party that promises to ignore them or roll them back...
I think there's two groups for that.
(1) Voters they don't so much have a strong ideological preference. They might see both parties as offering acceptable solutions for their problems. Maybe they like our solutions better, but if they feel we cannot deliver those solutions they will vote elsewhere.
(2) Voters that do have a strong ideological preference. The problem with them isn't that they will vote for republicans but that they will not vote at all. Many of them will presumably be younger and at the more progressive end of the party, but not all. Moderates can be disappointed in failure to accomplish much just the same as anyone else.
I think a lot of voters just punish the party in power for whatever they don't like, regardless of how bad the party out of power is and how much it will damage the country.
That's definitely something that happens a lot, but it doesn't explain why we're still an unliked party right now. We hold almost no power at present. Dems are still unpopular.
We can rely on the typical backlash against the party in power to carry us through next year, but that isn't a long term electoral strategy.
A lot of people are down on the party because of its overall political incompetence and Biden’s decision to “run.”
It is not, and that's one of the reasons this country is in deep trouble.
Next time we have a trifecta we need leaders who are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve these goals. If that means killing the filibuster, then so be it. We can't be afraid of what Republicans MIGHT do when they're already inflicting so much harm as it is. They don't need to kill the filibuster to achieve their goals. We do. Kill it. Add DC and PR as States and just keep pushing. If SCOTUS stands in our way then expand the court too. Screw norms, the old ways of doing business have only enabled the fascists.
All that needs to happen but in my opinion that is only necessary to enable the other parts to happen.
Imagine that we get a trifecta, we pass some giant spending bill that reforms or improves something. For the sake of the discussion it doesn't matter what thing it is. What happens 12 months later? If we appropriate $500b to improve thing A, and in 12 months we've spent $50b, we're still stuck with the same problem. How much of the CHIPS act ever got spent? Why did it take a full presidential term to get Obamacare fully running, and even longer for it to run well?
We know government can move fast when it matters enough, just look at how fast money appeared to prop up the financial sector in 2008, or how the funding during Covid showed up. This isn't a matter of topics being too complex to implement. The government has created and funded complex systems in the past and gotten them operational in timely fashions.
We need to have a focus and desire for that concurrent with our focus and desire to accomplish things as well.
I think that Dems need to stop coddling Big Business and be actively Anti-Big Business. I'm talking Trust Busting anti-business that will actually help the average person. But we all know they get a lot of funding from them too so it would require finding those funds elsewhere but I think the tide is turning especially with the advent of AI and the prevalence of Private Equity. The Party that channels that anger the best is the one that will win out and unfortunately it's the Republicans right now even if their actions don't match their rhetoric.
I wouldn’t go that far. Much of the Dem base is now made up of suburbanites with “big business” jobs. I work for one of the worst “big businesses” and good lord, I just want a paycheck like everyone else.
Be great if American politics wasn’t about attacking anyone and we all just pay our taxes so we can live happy lives with lots of freedom.
How long are those suburbanites with "big business" jobs going to have that opinion when their bosses are actively trying to replace them with AI? Everyone either has been a victim or knows someone who has been a victim of Jack Welch-ian Shareholder Capitalism. I think the tack is that Big Business has gotten TOO big and they need to be reined in.
It would be great but good luck with that. Big Business has been trying to convince the general public that they're a better alternative to Big Government and any attempts to bring them to heel is essentially Communism.
People were voting for or against Harris and Trump. The Left was not on the ballot. It's such a vague notion that no one here can define it. It's a convenient punching bag for MGP and others (along with "the faculty lounge") who want to court big donors. The problem in WI, PA, & MI was not that they were too Left in 2024.
No, it was inflation, and listen, I'm part of the left. But as I said, people who vote for Trump don't usually then turn around and vote socialist. Some do, but certainly not a huge fraction.
But I'm saying that people don't vote for Trump because they fear something called the Left. In American political discourse, the Left means "views that don't align with mine and threaten my self-identification." Actual policy views labeled as "Left" often do quite well in polls. But Republicans are better at messaging and can beat us even on our good ideas. I agree it was inflation & bad messaging, not the Left that lost us 2024.
Let's be honest. The Democratic "brand" is toxic in these places so maybe we should try something different.
What do you propose? What do you define as the “brand”, how would you change it, and what evidence do you have that said change would help us?
Also enough with the obnoxious condescension, from everyone here.
I didn't think I was being condescending to you but as far as what I would define as the brand... We allow our enemies to brand us. I think the brand is whatever the consultant class believes plays well. I'm not sure if I have a proposal as you have to overcome so much Conservative Media Machine propaganda but I think being unapologetic about what we believe in is a start. For all of their faults people like Mamdani and Abughazaleh are unapologetic about their stances and aren't afraid of the Right's attempts to define and smear them.
Thanks for the reply. I do agree we need to be unapologetic and willing to fight the right, for the record.
I guess we’ll just see what happens in the buildup to 2028.
(Apologies for the misinterpretation as well. I’m going to step back and cool off for a second, I’m getting too angry.)
All good! It happens.
Like what?
I have to assume that a primary challenge to a popular incumbent from someone whose main qualification is having been an attorney for a a couple of years before being canned is not overly likely to go anywhere far.
Diana DeGette is popular? Since when? Every politically active person I've talked to in Denver either dislikes her or is ambivalent. I've never met a DeGette superfan. She is not a very remarkable representative despite being in office forever. Most people just think she's invincible. I hope she sweats a little in a primary, I don't like when politicians just sit in office forever doing next to nothing because they arrogantly think they "deserve" it.
She's no Pat Schroeder that's for sure but she has been in office since the 90's so it really doesn't matter how popular she is if people are still showing up to vote for her but yes i agree no politician should feel safe from a challenge.
Serving 30 years in Congress with little electoral trouble seems like a good indicator of popularity. Even if you mostly attribute it to inertia, if DeGette were unpopular then she’d be gone by now or at least struggling to hold on.
It may be worth testing her to see just how strong that popularity is or if it’s just inertia from not being challenged much, but Kiros doesn’t sound like a great candidate to do that.
As a somewhat local (I work in her district) I would agree with the general assessment. I've never met a "superfan" either but I also haven't met anyone who's grievance is much beyond ambivalent or minor dislike for her being kind of a back bencher.
Sidenote kind of crazy to think how much Colorado has changed since she was elected in 96 when Dole was narrowly winning the state.
On that sidenote, I find those things fascinating to look at from further back.
Cycle to cycle changes almost always make sense. In a lot of ways the political landscape of a year like 2004 is not fundamentally that different from 2024. Northeast and west coast are blue along with Illinois. Upper midwest and Pennsylvania is competitive, along with Nevada. Parts of the south are better for dems than other parts.
But then you dig into it and a lot of things have changed dramatically. Colorado and Virginia went from safely but not deeply red to safely but not deeply blue. Missouri, Iowa, Florida, and Ohio are no longer seriously competitive. The west coast went from lightly but reliably blue to deeply blue. Arkansas got insanely red. New Jersey and New York have done a U turn in the interim years and aren't that far off from where they started, but a lot changed in between. Arizona and Georgia are now competitive when they previously were not. Texas is not competitive but looks like it could become so sometime in the next decade, where in 2004 that looked impossible.
Going into any of the state results maps will show a deep blueing of the urban and suburban parts of each state and an even deeper reddening of the rural areas, roughly balancing out in net. Probably the least changed states by geography of outcome are all part of New England. Which makes sense as democrats saw far less of a drop with rural voters in this region, as rural here is not the same as rural elsewhere.
In a lot of ways if you showed someone from 2004 the presidential margins by state and party for 2024 a lot would look logical to them. But a lot of it would be quite the dramatic change as well.
New Hampshire is much more Democratic for presidential elections now than it was in 2004, though of course Kerry had the great advantage of being from neighboring Massachusetts. And Colorado seems much more Democratic than Virginia.
NH 2004 and NH 2024 aren't substantially different. Kerry +1.5 and Harris +3. We did see Biden +7 in 2020, but immediately preceding that was Clinton +0.5 (she won by a bit less than 3k votes).
NH has a higher floor for dems at the federal level but as a state it goes fairly strongly with the winds of the election cycle. We've been fortunate that our stronger baseline has been enough to allow us to survive even in poor cycles, but I wouldn't say the state has moved that substantially to the left at the presidential level.
Definitely somewhat, though. I'd put it at present as a second tier competitive state, such that if dems are losing NH we're already in trouble anyway. In the past it would have been a first tier swing state that could conceivably swing the election.
Yeah I don’t hate DeGette or anything, I just feel like Denver could do a lot better.
And maybe someday they will, but that doesn't mean this opponent is better.
I don’t think they’re better either, but that is only your opinion. I’m sure others here disagree with you and that’s fine and healthy, that’s the whole point of democracy! To give everyone a chance to be heard and let the voters choose.
We haven’t offered options to our voters in a very long time, so it’s about time to make all of our party heard from conservatives to progressives. From older to younger. From Israel supporters to Palestine supporters and everywhere in between on every issue of importance.
Our party has desperately needed this, for, to be quite honest, decades, so it’s good that people are now stepping up to run, instead of the party choosing who leads us. We are in charge, not the party. It’s our choice and I have faith that regardless of who we choose, that the voters will make the right decision at the ballot box.
I didn't express an opinion on whether she was better or not. You should stop reading things other than my actual words into what I say. It'll make it a lot easier to understand my opinions, rather than straw men. If you want to know if I mean something I didn't say, ask me.
The part that’s bugging me about your posts is you never say “I think”, you state something with certainty “she’s not the better option”. To me that means you’re speaking for everyone. Maybe I’m wrong to assume that, but that’s why I’ve responded politely with frequency. I haven’t attacked you, I just disagree with how you’ve framed your opinion as fact I guess.
And yes you did say that though?
michaelflutist
michaelflutist
1h
And maybe someday they will, but that doesn't mean this opponent is better.
To me that means you’re stating that she’s not better.
"That doesn't mean this opponent is better" does not mean "She isn't better." I don't actually know much about her.
Ok, I guess my brain misinterpreted what you meant. I appreciate you explaining your position.
I agree that we need to offer options to voters. Actually, one positive possibility from doing so is it can indicate which voters like which type of candidates and policies, where. Potentially helpful info to know for targeting swing seats in areas, the areas certain policies do best in, etc.
Sounds a lot like Rep McCollum MN-4 representing a deep blue seat centered on the state capitol St. Paul. In all my years of being active in politics, I think I’ve only seen her in person one time, and she seemed annoyed to be there. She’s entrenched and is very high up the Appropriations Committee totem pole so don’t rock the boat bc she’s going to be insanely powerful someday soon. But she gets a big fat meh from me.
Trump trying to use the tariff to turn Brazil law into U.S. law and spare his fascist buddy:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/11/world/americas/brazil-trump-tariffs.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Vk8.G0Pe.NhXI256ip6c-&smid=url-share
The appeal case over IEEPA cannot come soon enough
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Economic_Powers_Act
"The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Title II of Pub. L. 95–223, 91 Stat. 1626, enacted December 28, 1977, is a United States federal law authorizing the president to regulate international commerce after declaring a national emergency in response to any unusual and extraordinary threat to the United States which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States."
Brazil isn't doing anything that's a threat to the U.S., so with a reasonable Judiciary, Trump's unilateral actions would be annulled, but we don't have a reasonable Supreme Court.
That assumes Brazil would have standing to sue. But a U.S. business that imports from Brazil would.
The problem for the Supreme Court majority is that they would be torn between two of their heroes. An imperial president and a corporation.
I think there’s a real chance SCOTUS sides against Trump here. The panel that unanimously struck down Trump’s tariffs in May included a conservative judge.
It also dovetails nicely with the major questions doctrine and post-Chevron jurisprudence and, frankly, is what basically all of corporate America wants but Trump simply won’t accept tariffs don’t work the way he has convinced himself they do
We can only hope, but we can never count on them to do the right thing or to limit Trump's power in any way.
Alito and Thomas are consistent Republican hacks. Roberts, Barrett, Kavanaugh and to a lesser extent Gorsuch are more like right-leaning loose cannons, we can't ever count on them to do what's right but the fascists can't really count on them either. (Gorsuch is the weirdest of those four by a wide margin, but he's also the least likely to break with the GOP position.)
Ironically he may be giving Lula. whose approvals have gone into the dumps, a political boost a la Canada and Australia. Most Brazilleans won't appreciate the POTUS meddling in their domestic affairs.
What's caused Lula's loss of popularity this time?
Not a Brazil expert but same things that are hurting nearly all incumbents . .cost of living and crime (or perceptions thereof).
Hopefully Lula doesn't also propose amending the nation's constitution. If I had a Real for every time that ruined a South American left-leaning leader the past decade, I'd have at least two Reals.
Due to the Congress being way more conservative than in his first run, he's governed much more moderately. Which has probably also hurt his popularity.
Have they deliberately sabotaged him?
And not even for the right reasons like being too tight with Russia.
Also, Jair could have just claimed asylum when he was visiting Disney World or something. He's an idiot for going back.
“He’s an idiot” yep that Jair for ya
The special election to replace assassinated Minnesota Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman has been set:
September 16th with a primary, if necessary, on August 12th.