Beshear deviates from the party on certain issues such as on gun control and let's not forget that he's a nepo baby and is likely only governor because of his last name.
AOC only outperformed Kamala because the Dem collapse was especially bad in NYC and AOC has exceptional constituent services and retail politics skills. Other Squad members underperform and badly.
Beshear deviates from the party on certain issues such as on gun control and let's not forget that he's a nepo baby and is likely only governor because of his last name.
AOC only outperformed Kamala because the Dem collapse was especially bad in NYC and AOC has exceptional constituent services and retail politics skills. Other Squad members underperform and badly.
тАЬRetail politics skillsтАЭтАФstop right there. THAT is the whole enchilada. All this talk of тАЬneeding to moderateтАЭ is just hot air. People respond to the candidates. Reagan beat Carter and Mondale, Clinton beat GHW Bush and Dole, and Obama beat McCain and Romney because of the charisma gap. Political junkies shudder to acknowledge that itтАЩs just that basic for most voters ЁЯд╖ЁЯП╗тАНтЩАя╕П.
And would you care to name those тАЬcertain issueтАЭ? Are you saying we should run Mike Johnson candidates to appeal to the base nature of the politics of theocracy? Please stop the code speak and tell me what you mean to say.
Immigration, trans, gun control, crime, and in some locales, abortion.
And yes, directionally speaking. The Dems should run pro-democracy candidates with politics tuned to the constituency that they're running for. This means running tough-on-border candidates in AZ, TX, etc. This means running anti-gun control candidates in areas where gun ownership is high. This means tough-on-crime mayors. And it means running presidential candidates with politics tuned to the preferences of (and ideally from) the Rust Belt and Sun Belt. When the Dems had large majorities in the House and Senate, how did they do it? They had a lot of Joe Manchin types. They had people like Mark Pryor, Blanche Lincoln, Heidi Heitkamp, etc. in addition to Manchin and Tester.
I live in Arizona and the immigration issues were only a crisis in peopleтАЩs minds in states that did not have borders with Mexico. What people have wanted on a national basis aligns with seriously reforming our immigration system. This is not what the MAGAs want. They have found electoral solidarity in the southern states whose theocratic culture does not sit well with diversity of our nation. It is not just trans, or immigration, it is white nationalism, and I would rather see it burn than relent.
Oh really? Then why did Gallego run so many ads about how tough he'd be on the border? And MAGA wouldn't be a national problem if it were just the southern states. This "white nationalist" movement also sure has a whole lot of non-whites supporting it as well (in fact, his margin of victory this time was provided by working-class non-whites, mostly Latinos), so I think there's more to it than that.
Because in the absence of meaning legislation border politics are the McGuffin of contemporary issues. Conservatives always demonize progress, meaningful or otherwise. There really isnтАЩt more to the issue than that. They are not eating out dogs, eating our cats, eating our pets.
Because this time itтАЩs not just progressives showing up.
I donтАЩt think AOC or Bernie can win a national election (yet), but this need тАЬmoderatesтАЭ have to stifle and dismiss them when they have not been any more successful has got to stop. A healthy democracy needs a range of viewpoints to be respected and represented.
I mean, I agree, they've been the only ones providing the necessary fight, and that's likely not independent from their ideology, as those who are more ideologically further from the center tend to also be temperamentally more combative due to shared traits underlying both. That said, it's very possible (and desirable, as Sarah often discusses) to be moderate and aggressive at the same time, and it is this combo that will win.
I agree itтАЩs possible, but the problem is that it isnтАЩt happening, and there is a reason for that: Imagine Joe Manchin was still in office. Going on an anti-Trump crusade would have killed him in West Virginia.
Now I personally think he should be willing to take the hit in this hypothetical scenario, but thatтАЩs not reality.
There is no one set of policies that make a candidate тАЬmoderate.тАЭ Moderates are moderates because of their eagerness to compromise and work across the aisle. Elissa Slotkin isnтАЩt actually substantially different than AOC, if you were to do a side-by-side of their policy positions. But strategically, she is going for the compromise approach, and itтАЩs the wrong way to go at this time.
I would like to see more moderates wake up and understand whatтАЩs at stake, and that they canтАЩt compromise on fascism, but compromising on fascism is unfortunately exactly what I am seeing from them. Cory Booker was great; I was hoping more moderates would follow his example. But it appears to be a one-off, sadly. I donтАЩt expect moderate Dems to budge until trumps popularity takes a nosedive, which is a shame, because if they were smart they would be CAUSING his popularity to nosedive.
Had he still been in office, the smart play is for him to not be the one that does so. It would be someone for whom going on such a crusade, *while having a reputation for moderate politics*, would not be a net negative. Cory Booker is one example. The problem with Slotkin isn't her policies, but rather her temperament. Same with Gretch - her Pennsylvania counterpart Josh has been showing a stronger temperament, especially in regards to tariffs, while arguably being even closer to the center in terms of policy stances. I'd say when Tim Ryan was in office, he was good at doing both cultural moderation and hard-hitting rhetoric against Vance, which cut the margin down to 5 points despite Ohio being a R+8 state on top of it being the Biden midterm.
That said, there's a big difference between compromising on policy and compromising on fascism. It is not "compromising on fascism" to want a stronger border policy. It is not "compromising on fascism" to take the L on trans women in sports. That's actually democracy, in fact. It's what the people want, by overwhelming margins. What the Dems absolutely cannot compromise on is making sure that everyone knows that Trump is shredding all semblances of the rule of law, arresting people with impunity and putting them in Bukele's CECOT, defying the Supreme Court, abusing his authority as president to institute tariffs that are a direct hit on most Americans' pocketbook, firing federal employees that do critical work, withholding funding for medical research (and frame it as such, not "federal grants to universities"), and believing himself to be king. All of these are unpopular and good opportunities for Dems!
Beshear deviates from the party on certain issues such as on gun control and let's not forget that he's a nepo baby and is likely only governor because of his last name.
AOC only outperformed Kamala because the Dem collapse was especially bad in NYC and AOC has exceptional constituent services and retail politics skills. Other Squad members underperform and badly.
тАЬRetail politics skillsтАЭтАФstop right there. THAT is the whole enchilada. All this talk of тАЬneeding to moderateтАЭ is just hot air. People respond to the candidates. Reagan beat Carter and Mondale, Clinton beat GHW Bush and Dole, and Obama beat McCain and Romney because of the charisma gap. Political junkies shudder to acknowledge that itтАЩs just that basic for most voters ЁЯд╖ЁЯП╗тАНтЩАя╕П.
And would you care to name those тАЬcertain issueтАЭ? Are you saying we should run Mike Johnson candidates to appeal to the base nature of the politics of theocracy? Please stop the code speak and tell me what you mean to say.
Immigration, trans, gun control, crime, and in some locales, abortion.
And yes, directionally speaking. The Dems should run pro-democracy candidates with politics tuned to the constituency that they're running for. This means running tough-on-border candidates in AZ, TX, etc. This means running anti-gun control candidates in areas where gun ownership is high. This means tough-on-crime mayors. And it means running presidential candidates with politics tuned to the preferences of (and ideally from) the Rust Belt and Sun Belt. When the Dems had large majorities in the House and Senate, how did they do it? They had a lot of Joe Manchin types. They had people like Mark Pryor, Blanche Lincoln, Heidi Heitkamp, etc. in addition to Manchin and Tester.
I live in Arizona and the immigration issues were only a crisis in peopleтАЩs minds in states that did not have borders with Mexico. What people have wanted on a national basis aligns with seriously reforming our immigration system. This is not what the MAGAs want. They have found electoral solidarity in the southern states whose theocratic culture does not sit well with diversity of our nation. It is not just trans, or immigration, it is white nationalism, and I would rather see it burn than relent.
Oh really? Then why did Gallego run so many ads about how tough he'd be on the border? And MAGA wouldn't be a national problem if it were just the southern states. This "white nationalist" movement also sure has a whole lot of non-whites supporting it as well (in fact, his margin of victory this time was provided by working-class non-whites, mostly Latinos), so I think there's more to it than that.
Because in the absence of meaning legislation border politics are the McGuffin of contemporary issues. Conservatives always demonize progress, meaningful or otherwise. There really isnтАЩt more to the issue than that. They are not eating out dogs, eating our cats, eating our pets.
Yes thatтАЩs why she and Bernie are drawing enormous crowds in red states. Because she is an underperformer that nobody likes.
Bernie drew huge crowds in all of his campaign rallies in the 2016 primary, but who ended up winning that primary? (Same goes for 2020, btw.)
Because this time itтАЩs not just progressives showing up.
I donтАЩt think AOC or Bernie can win a national election (yet), but this need тАЬmoderatesтАЭ have to stifle and dismiss them when they have not been any more successful has got to stop. A healthy democracy needs a range of viewpoints to be respected and represented.
I mean, I agree, they've been the only ones providing the necessary fight, and that's likely not independent from their ideology, as those who are more ideologically further from the center tend to also be temperamentally more combative due to shared traits underlying both. That said, it's very possible (and desirable, as Sarah often discusses) to be moderate and aggressive at the same time, and it is this combo that will win.
I agree itтАЩs possible, but the problem is that it isnтАЩt happening, and there is a reason for that: Imagine Joe Manchin was still in office. Going on an anti-Trump crusade would have killed him in West Virginia.
Now I personally think he should be willing to take the hit in this hypothetical scenario, but thatтАЩs not reality.
There is no one set of policies that make a candidate тАЬmoderate.тАЭ Moderates are moderates because of their eagerness to compromise and work across the aisle. Elissa Slotkin isnтАЩt actually substantially different than AOC, if you were to do a side-by-side of their policy positions. But strategically, she is going for the compromise approach, and itтАЩs the wrong way to go at this time.
I would like to see more moderates wake up and understand whatтАЩs at stake, and that they canтАЩt compromise on fascism, but compromising on fascism is unfortunately exactly what I am seeing from them. Cory Booker was great; I was hoping more moderates would follow his example. But it appears to be a one-off, sadly. I donтАЩt expect moderate Dems to budge until trumps popularity takes a nosedive, which is a shame, because if they were smart they would be CAUSING his popularity to nosedive.
Had he still been in office, the smart play is for him to not be the one that does so. It would be someone for whom going on such a crusade, *while having a reputation for moderate politics*, would not be a net negative. Cory Booker is one example. The problem with Slotkin isn't her policies, but rather her temperament. Same with Gretch - her Pennsylvania counterpart Josh has been showing a stronger temperament, especially in regards to tariffs, while arguably being even closer to the center in terms of policy stances. I'd say when Tim Ryan was in office, he was good at doing both cultural moderation and hard-hitting rhetoric against Vance, which cut the margin down to 5 points despite Ohio being a R+8 state on top of it being the Biden midterm.
That said, there's a big difference between compromising on policy and compromising on fascism. It is not "compromising on fascism" to want a stronger border policy. It is not "compromising on fascism" to take the L on trans women in sports. That's actually democracy, in fact. It's what the people want, by overwhelming margins. What the Dems absolutely cannot compromise on is making sure that everyone knows that Trump is shredding all semblances of the rule of law, arresting people with impunity and putting them in Bukele's CECOT, defying the Supreme Court, abusing his authority as president to institute tariffs that are a direct hit on most Americans' pocketbook, firing federal employees that do critical work, withholding funding for medical research (and frame it as such, not "federal grants to universities"), and believing himself to be king. All of these are unpopular and good opportunities for Dems!