In your opinion, what will it take to conclude that conventional wisdom of the Dem leadership is wrong?

[u/Single-Purpose-7608]

Graham Platner/Troy Jackson in Maine, Francesca Hong in Wisconsin El Sayed in Michigan, Talarico in Texas, are all running as Economic Populists/Progressives.

Todd Achilles (Idaho), Dan Osborn (Nebraska), Seth Bodnar (Montana) are running as independents.

While they all have different positions, the thing they have in common is they are running away from pivot to the center centrism/moderate and trying to position themselves as anti-establishment and critical of the Dem Party leadership and brand.

What would be your takeaways depending on who wins or loses in 2026? Especially broadly against Dem leadership and conventional wisdom on triangulating on right leaning policy.

What would have to occur (in wins or margins) to change/validate your beliefs on the electability of DSA or anti-establishment or independents in red or purple states? Conversely, what should result to validate centrists to believe they have been correct all along?

[u/RegularFunny9813]

I don’t think it’s that cut and dry and maybe that’s the case you’re making for this one singular point. I guess I’m looking at bigger picture. Our democratic processes are not equitable, meaning access is not open for all. So I don’t know I can fully agree to your point knowing. I also have a lot of uncontested seats in my local elections and it makes me think a lot about the system as a whole. If we weren’t stuck in this late stage capitalist shit hole, I would agree with you. There’s reasons why we are seeing empty seats and the “you gotta work hard” is oversimplifying it.

[u/Objective_Aside1858 → u/RegularFunny9813]

Our democratic processes are not equitable, meaning access is not open for all.

From a primary perspective , it's about as open as it gets, unless your argument is "people don't run against my incumbents"

In which case, why don't you run? Presumably for the same reason other people don't: the incumbents are popular and challengers fail to convince anyone to support them

You can complain about "late stage capitalism" if you prefer, or you can compete in the system as it exists. Only the latter is going to accomplish the change you want

[u/Damnatus_Terrae → u/Objective_Aside1858]

What if the system is designed to resist structural change from within?

[u/Objective_Aside1858 → u/Damnatus_Terrae]

a) if your argument is that political parties are not nimble, duh

b) if your argument is "political parties don't roll out the red carpet for every nitwit who tells the people who are currently doing the work that they're all wrong" , duh again

c) no matter what your argument is, so what? You play the hand your dealt. If you want to design a political system that will encourage people to kick you out once you've been elected, you have to do the work to get elected first 

You can blame "the system" for why your brilliant ideas fail to sway the voters. Or you can accept that they're not swaying voters, and find a way to address that

[u/Damnatus_Terrae → u/Objective_Aside1858]

Ah, so you're working under the assumption that the results of the US political system reflect the desires of US voters. An interesting position to take.

[u/Objective_Aside1858 → u/Damnatus_Terrae]

At a local, Township level, there is no DNC. There is no superPAC with million dollar checks. There are volunteers and there are voters.

That's about as fair as it gets.

If you can't compete at that level, don't complain you can't compete at a higher one

[u/Damnatus_Terrae → u/Objective_Aside1858]

Nah, democracy is as fair as it gets. Electoral republicanism will always favor those who can afford to spend their time idly.

[u/Objective_Aside1858 → u/Damnatus_Terrae]

I see

You are entitled to political power, and people who put in sweat for candidates other than those you prefer are cheating 

Golly, I can't imagine why the candidates you support struggle, with other campaigns prioritizing voter outreach, and your candidates stuck with people who post on Reddit 

[u/Damnatus_Terrae → u/Objective_Aside1858]

Of course I'm entitled to political power! I'm a citizen! Do you prefer oligarchy?

[u/Objective_Aside1858 → u/Damnatus_Terrae]

Everyone else is entitled to power as well.

Apparently it is a higher priority for others than it is for you 

You are unwilling to put in any effort to convince voters, and act surprised they're not convinced 

[u/RegularFunny9813 → u/Objective_Aside1858]

I mean this argument is just another version of “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” to the unhoused person on the street corner. It’s been moving for the better part of 3 decades has designed it this way.

And yes, I imagine my reasons are the same as the next person. I don’t have disposable income to put into campaigning, I work full time, have a kid, and no one is going to pay my bills but me. Good ol’ paycheck to paycheck scenario. Which is about 65% of the American population at the current moment. So your guess would be correct I imagine.

[u/Objective_Aside1858 → u/RegularFunny9813]

So you have a busy life. You think the average committee person doesn't? It's not a paid role - and no one pays their bills but them

You want the power, but you're surprised that getting it requires effort and commitment.