The main thing we have to do is not allow MAGA to make the entire midterms a referendum on Trans in sports/bathrooms.
They see this as an effective subject to derail the real, substantial discussion and focus it on something that affects nearly nobody, but makes some uncomfortable.
We have to ignore it, dismiss it, disparage it, mock it, and shift the conversation to real Progressive issues. MAGA is good at controlling the messaging, we have to take that away from them.
They should just pretend they’re pedophiles. They’ll get die-hard conservative support that way.
At least they are doing something. The NC DNC wants your money but does jack shit in the western part of the state to unseat our 3 shitbirds one of which is Virginia Foxx.
The NC DNC wants your money
That’s fucking precisely it. They want money! Why else does the DNC not refuse PAC money?
Maybe I did not make my point well enough. They want my dollar and every other dollar individuals give them but they do nothing to fight any candidate the GOP puts up in any NC district even going to the point of not putting money to help any candidate in a gerrymandered district. They only want to spend money on a sure thing. There is no fight in them at all. As for PAC money none of it ever gets funneled to help the districts that are not a sure thing. I have attempted to engage with the party at both the local and state level and the only response I get from them is funding request.
Fight oligarchy by supporting our good friends the oligarchy
In red districts, Democrats should run centrist candidates so they can draw independents and Republicans.
I have lived in a red state my whole life. Every time I see a Dem run as a “centrist/moderate” or right of center, they get destroyed cause nobody who would vote for them wants that. Right leaning people will just take a full on Republican over Republican-light and libs want someone with an actual backbone that stands for their wants instead of somebody that’s already showing compromise on the campaign trail.
From https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5732030-democrats-2028-centrist-progressive-debate/
A Gallup poll from last year showed that 45 percent of Democrats said the party should become more moderate, up from 34 percent in 2021. The survey showed that 29 percent of those polled said they wanted the party to move further left.
Democratic strategist Hyma Moore said the best candidate is one who can incorporate both ideological lanes to win.
“You’re going to need a little bit of both, and I think that’s what most of us would like to see,” Moore said, predicting that a Democratic ticket will likely see a moderate and a progressive champion.
I don’t care what polls say when I am literally seeing it happen in my state. In 2022 the Democratic choice for governor (or maybe some other government position) outwardly ran as “I was conservative, but the party went too far so now I’m running as a Democrat”. It was in all of his campaign ads. He lost BADLY.
It’s not just polls. Ruben Gallego ran as a centrist in purple Arizona and won. Kamal Harris lost Arizona.
You’re using a purple state when I stated I’m talking about a red state…
Are you saying that a progressive can’t win in a purple state but can in a red state? Are you saying that a progressive can win in Texas but not Arizona?
I’m saying someone who isn’t openly a conservative running on the Democratic ticket has a better chance in a red state, but Dems don’t care what happens in red states. It’s why their presidential candidates never come here or campaign on things that help us.
That was the strategy in 2024, it failed soundly unfortunately - mostly because it’s not a compelling platform.
Meanwhile Bernie’s approach of actually selling a progressive message to voters in Red states has actually clicked.
No, it wasn’t. Trump made border security a top issue because Americans were angry that Biden was allowing a flood of illegal migrants.
What? First off, how is that related to what I was talking about?
No, what I said is what happened. Especially for down ticket candidates trying to play moderate.
Harris tried to walk a moderate line as well which wasn’t selling anyone on voting for her; at least not anyone that wasn’t already sold for reasons aside from her or her team’s lack of a compelling message.
Harris was not a moderate. She said that she would do nothing different from Biden who allowed illegal migrants to flood across the border. Trump made border security a top issue because he knew Americans wanted tighter border security. Ruben Gallego ran as a centrist in purple Arizona and won.
It’s the other way round. Trump repeated again and again and again that the borders were a problem until people believed it and believed it was something important.
That gave him something none substantive to run on without coming up with real policies.
It was continuously in the news. Don’t you remember Greg Abbott bussing migrants to blue cities?
That does not make it reality. There were immigrants, but, IIRC, the Biden Administration was stopping more than any administration before. The “migrant crisis” was made up, but it was useful to Trump and got good rating for news agencies. News agencies get paid for views, not for accuracy.
He wasn’t allowing it, MAGAs were literally INVITING people to flood here, screaming loudly, over and over that Biden had OPEN BORDERS, which was not true at all. Nobody was more responsible for all the illegal migration than MAGAs, and they damn well know it.
They did it by design - invite them to come here, then blame Biden, and you were gullible enough to fall for it.
MAGAs weren’t inviting migrants and even if they were Biden could have stop them at the border just as Trump is doing.
Of course they were, how many times a day did we hear the phrase “Biden’s Open Borders?” It wasn’t Dems saying that, they were saying exactly the opposite, but MAGAs had obviously been told to tell that particular Big Lie over and over.
That’s a standard MAGA strategy. They’ll be doing it again this election, probably something to do with trans in sports or bathrooms, instead of the real issues. And gullible dopes like you will listen to them.
People have eyes. They saw it in the news. Abbott busing migrants to blue cities. Mayors of these cities pleading for Biden to help because the migrants were overwhelming city services.
The news is as real as reality television.
Is that why the republicans in congress torpedoed bipartisan border legislation at trump’s bidding because if it passed then he would have lost his only talking point?
Republicans only care about the grift, and clearly it’s working on people like you.
That is the reason Trump stopped the bipartisan border bill, but Biden didn’t need it to stop the flood of migrants. He could have used executive orders. Republicans told him he could.
Oh, well as long as republicans said it’s okay, then I guess he can disregard the constitutionally defined limits on presidential authority in order to abuse executive orders to accomplish things they’re not intended for, right? Is that really what you’re saying?
Also, it’s funny how you’re trying to attack Biden over this, even though you openly admit that trump told republicans in congress to kill the legislation specifically because he didn’t want to lose the ability to blame Biden and the Democrats for not doing enough.
No they weren’t and no he wasn’t
It isn’t worth running a candidate that can’t win just because they have a platform like what hasn’t won you the seat in living memory.
A bunch of Republican voters are disillusioned libertarians who want to be free to live their lives and would rather government work effectively if it’s going to exist at all. Mamdani style socialists who run government like a grown up have at least as good a chance as some empty suit who votes with dems but talks like a republican.
It is too early to make a conclusion on Mamdani’s policies.
You weren’t talking about the merits of progressive vs moderate policy though, and neither was @[email protected], this conversation is about the electability of progressives vs moderates in red districts. Do you concede that progressives are just as electable in red districts as moderates if not more so? Pivoting when you’re losing an argument rather than conceding the point is a sneaky thing to do.
La Raja said moderates typically do better in contested districts, but that doesn’t necessarily mean progressives will cost Democrats victory in November—though they could get “washed out” in future elections.
Balancing the budget by collecting monies already owed and taxing social bads is a pretty damn good idea even if the whole “city owned grocery store” thing flops.
The problem is that large taxes will encourage the wealthy to leave New York City.
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
New York leaders are desperately trying to stop billionaire bigwigs from hightailing it out of the Big Apple with their cash, businesses and thousands of jobs — as fears mount that Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s policies will accelerate the Empire State’s nation-leading loss of wealth.
The splashy one-two punch of Citadel CEO Ken Griffin and Apollo Global Management honcho Marc Rowan pledging to expand outside New York City has been coupled with a silent wave of businesses “quiet quitting” the city over its hostile environment, insiders told The Post.
1: the NY Post is a tabloid generally worth ignoring.
2: A tabloid story saying unnamed “NY Leaders” want what billionaires want should be treated as nothing more than a statement of preference for what the tabloid’s (billionaire) owners want.
3: Even if Mamdani suddenly gets on his knees and grovels for billionaires to stay it wouldn’t argue that billionaires staying is a good thing.
Most Americans support progressive policies. They just don’t know what progressive policies are. When polled, with neutral wording, they continuously side with the progressives. It’s only when we use the messaging the media has controlled where it loses.
We need to run more progressives, not corporate (aka “moderate” as it’s usually used) dems. They don’t interest people. We need to run candidates who actually inspire people. We need candidates who actively fight the oligopoly. It’s what most people want. The message just has to get to them.
It’s up to the candidates to get their message across. If they aren’t doing it, it’s because they are unwilling to talk to people, which means they probably don’t know what people want. Ruben Gallego ran as a centrist in a purple state and won.
I’m not sure why you posted this comment. It isn’t relevant to the discussion. Obviously it’s up to the candidate to get their message across. The fact is though that a progressive message has better support, even by Republican voters, than a centrist Dem.
Gallego said he got his message across by talking to people. He won a Senate seat in a purple state as a centrist.
Again, I’m not sure how that last bit is relevant. The same as been done by progressives. What’s the appeal of a centrist? Sure, getting the message out is important. That’s obvious. What message is important though? The progressive message is more appealing to more people. Why run a centrist? What does that gain us?
The gain is victory. Had Gallego lost, Republicans would have a greater majority in the Senate. Progressives might win in a blue area but in a contested area such as Arizona, it’s better to run a centrist such as Gallego. A centrist is able to attract independents.
I don’t agree. Again, progressive policies are more appealing to most Americans than “centrist” ones. So called “centrist” candidates usually have a hard time appealing to moderates or conservatives because the only thing they want to do is help corporations, not people.
As someone who has lived their entire life in a red district, this is woefully incorrect. The only people here who would describe themselves as moderates are liars or people who never vote.
La Raja said moderates typically do better in contested districts, but that doesn’t necessarily mean progressives will cost Democrats victory in November—though they could get “washed out” in future elections.
The article you linked includes this quote from La Raja:
The Democratic Party is a very mixed coalition, and primary voters are more concerned with winning this election rather than being purists on policies
This quote alone immediately removes all credibility La Raja might have had as a political commentator since it is so obviously out of touch with reality. If this were true then Kamala Harris would have won in 2024. The fact that she didn’t (in large part due to her support of Israel’s genocide - a fact which these policy-wonk types bend over backwards to ignore - as well as economic concerns) shows that the Democratic voting base is predominantly less concerned with simply winning and more concerned with electing a candidate that proposes policies with a strong moral foundation and which address the people’s most pressing economic needs during a time of crisis.
This next quote at the end of the article completely gives away the game for La Raja:
"One of the things that concerns me about some of the recent Democratic primary results is the apparent emergence of an anti-Israel stand as a litmus test,” he said. “ If this assumes the same importance as, say, a pro-choice position in order to be a legitimate candidate on the Democratic side, I don’t think this will be good for the party, the country, American Jewish people, the Middle East, or the world.”
This man is a genocide apologist applying motivated reasoning in suggesting that “moderates” run in red districts not because he thinks they will have a better chance of winning the general (even in the bit that you quoted he states that he thinks progressives have just as much of a chance), but because he fears an anti-genocide coalition achieving a majority in the DNC.
I would ask, how much are voters willing to punish the Republican party? Increasingly, it seems they are very unhappy with direction of country with Trump and Republicans in charge. So that means ideology matters less in the general election - so progressives may do just as well in the general election
In fact, after reading the whole article it’s very apparent that they are framing the recent trend of progressive insurgents winning primaries as something potentially dangerous that is only made possible by Trump’s historic unpopularity. You started this thread by making an electability argument against progressives in red states, but the article you linked eschews the electability argument in favor of fear-mongering about an anti-Semitic strawman of the progressive left.
Democrats simply wanted a candidate who could beat Trump. In Kamala Harris they chose the wrong person. She was so dumb that she said she wouldn’t do anything different than Biden despite knowing that the GOP strategy was to link her to Biden.
Democrats should be anti-Netanyahu, not anti-Israel.
Progressives might win in some areas because voters are frustrated with Trump but later, they might regret electing a progressive just as some voters now regret voting for Trump.
Democrats should be anti-Netanyahu, not anti-Israel
This is like saying you should oppose Hitler but support the German Reich. Israel is a settler-colonial apartheid state that was established by the violent displacement and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in living memory and motivated by Zionism, an ethno-supremacist fascist ideology that works towards- and has succeeded in - establishing a Jewish ethnostate that upholds a regime of apartheid, occupation, and genocide.
Progressives might win in some areas because voters are frustrated with Trump but later, they might regret electing a progressive just as some voters now regret voting for Trump.
Voters elected the centrists who have been in control of the party for years and now regret it. Trump’s victory is the establishment dems’ failure, and their refusal to learn and change is rooted in their willful incompetence, lack of any real conviction aside from maintaining their comfortable positions, and their willingness to cater to the interests of their wealthy donors over the interests of their constituents.
Democrats simply wanted a candidate who could beat Trump. In Kamala Harris they chose the wrong person. She was so dumb that she said she wouldn’t do anything different than Biden despite knowing that the GOP strategy was to link her to Biden.
It’s odd that you criticize her for being like Biden while advocating for more of the same. How do you cope with the cognitive dissonance?
The US was founded by displacing indigenous people. Are you saying that indigenous people should retake the US? All Israelis do not agree with Netanyahu.
Biden was not a centrist. He allowed illegal migrants to flood across the border despite polls showing that most Americans wanted tighter border security. Trump made border security a top issue.
Harris was not a centrist. She was like Biden. See above.
The US was founded by displacing indigenous people. Are you saying that indigenous people should retake the US? All Israelis do not agree with Netanyahu.
Does peaceful coexistence and equal rights not even occur to you, or is it that you have no desire to peacefully coexist with those who are different from you, that you would frame the discussion as if the only possibilities are one ethnic group displacing the other?
Both indigenous Americans and Palestinians have a right to self-determination, and yes, I do support reparations and land reform in the US that restores stolen and privatized land to the commons, so long as no one is currently living on it. In the case of Israel much of the land has been stolen in living memory and all homes occupied by first-generation settlers should be immediately restored to the Palestinians they were taken from (or their nearest relatives if the IDF already killed the previous occupants in the genocide). Second-generation and so on can continue to live where they are, but it will be in a free Palestine where Palestinians must be able to return to these places and live freely alongside them. The apartheid state of Israel is not entitled to exist, people are, and the name of the country in which they live scarcely matters more than if they have equal rights.
Biden was not a centrist. He allowed illegal migrants to flood across the border despite polls showing that most Americans wanted tighter border security. Trump made border security a top issue.
First off, Biden did cave to you reactionaries and tighten border security in the second half of his presidency after he had reversed only some of Trump’s border controls in the first half. Second, immigration is not harmful (although the exploitation of immigrant labor is, both to the immigrants themselves and to the working class as a whole) and the only thing strict border security and mass deportations do is cause astronomical suffering and deprive millions of their basic human rights.
Democrats simply wanted a candidate who could beat Trump.
Lies. If that’s all they wanted they had that in Biden. They wanted to side with corporations over American workers and send weapons to Israel for use in a genocide. That’s what they prioritized over beating Trump.
Biden was a senile man who permitted illegal migrants to flood across the border despite polls showing that Americans wanted tighter border security. Trump made this a top issue because he realized that he could exploit this.
K. Doesn’t change the fact that this is a lie
Democrats simply wanted a candidate who could beat Trump
Have you been living under a rock?
