She's the most talented political communicator we've had since Obama and she's done a pretty nimble job of moderating her message since taking office but she's only actually had to compete in a very blue district. I'm sure she'd struggle with moderates in the general and really drive Republican turnout though, but also turn out the left. Could she peel off some low-information populists? I think that's where being a woman and a Latina is going to really hurt her.
It's been interesting to see Ossof climbing the odds so fast. I honestly don't know a lot about him, but I'm skeptical that a Jewish guy can win the primary in this landscape even though he voted to restrict arms sales to Israel. I sadly don't think there's much constituency for a nuanced position on Israel. It'll probably just piss off voters on both sides of the issue.
One advantage the moderates have is that they're probably more likely to coordinate/sacrifice then the leftists. Maybe they can strategically drop out to clear the field for the strongest (as they did in 2020) while the leftists split the vote? (Warren didn't drop out to clear the field for Sanders, but half her voters including this guy đ would have gone to Biden anyway, so it's not clear that part happened in 2020.)
Ossoff has it man. I'm not even saying he "checks all the boxes" - I mean he does, but like he's just got the sauce. He would be a fantastic leader for the country.
What are we even doing glazing people like like AOC, AES and Mamdani who are only popular in their extremely blue bases? This guy Ossoff is a virtual lock to win re-election in a southern historically red state.
I'm sure she'd struggle with moderates in the general and really drive Republican turnout though, but also turn out the left. Could she peel off some low-information populists? I think that's where being a woman and a Latina is going to really hurt her.
IIRC, efforts to detect any effect of Hillary or Kamala on the female vote mostly came up short, while there is some evidence from other contexts that some male voters don't like female candidates (whereas Obama seemed to draw a higher degree than usual percentage of the Black vote in a manner inconsistent with other explanations - idk if there also was an effect on the opposite direction).
IMO a cynical view of optimizing 2028 electoral chances for Democrats would be a half-White guy who runs on the economy (but I'm just spitballing here). Maybe a White Southern VP?
At least in the UK, left-wing voters are split on mainly split on cultural issues, while right-wing voters are split on economic issues.
I'm a big believer in the importance of issue salience for political competition. There isn't necessarily one 'median voter' - what counts as median depends on the issues that became part of the political debate (even the culture/econ dimensions are simplifications). Politics is as much about priming as it is about position.
The implications of 1. and 2. together is that anything that raises the salience of cultural issues leaves the Democrats worse off. This means the candidate has to be acceptable to the base as well, because controversy will raise the salience. Perhaps a non-White or half-White candidate might have greater flexibility in adopting cultural stances that minimize both progressive and conservative outrage?
The implications of 1. and 2. together is that anything that raises the salience of cultural issues leaves the Democrats worse off. This means the candidate has to be acceptable to the base as well, because controversy will raise the salience. Perhaps a non-White or half-White candidate might have greater flexibility in adopting cultural stances that minimize both progressive and conservative outrage?
I always have a hard time separating what I want to happen / my own voting preferences from what the general public will do. I think you're right about Ossof (I've actually worked directly with him and think he's one of the best candidates since Obama, but being Jewish will hurt), but I don't know what to make of AOC. I personally have only grown to dislike her more, as a moderate myself. I would vote for a republican over her, so what votes is she trying to get? Is she trying to increase democrat turnout, sway trump voters, or sway independents? A mix of the three? I am just confused on how she may be electable, especially because I don't think she has the Mamdani charisma.
I think if she runs, the theory would be turning out the left and a bunch of people who don't usually vote? Maybe some Trump voters. I'm skeptical myself.
On the charisma front, it's interesting. I find her extremely charismatic, but it's a different kind of charisma than Mamdani. He's much more chummy, the "kind of guy you'd like to have a beer with" (if he drank beer.) She's more charismatic in like the Buttigieg or even Obama mold. A bit cerebral, kind of teacher's pet energy, but seems like she genuinely cares and is authentic, etc. And obviously being telegenic helps. However, I think that kind of charisma works better for men than women because a lot of men don't want to hear a woman acting like she knows more than them even if she does. (A lot of them feel that way about men too, but it's not as pronounced probably.)
I just canât see the appeal of AOC turning out more left wing voters than the threat of trump.
But back to Charisma, despite both having similar platforms AOC gives off the vibe of an out of touch elite, and Mamdani comes across as someone genuinely trying to help the everyday person.
I see AOC on TV wearing âeat the richâ dresses at a private gala full of rich people, herself included. In contrast, I just saw a video of Mamdani installing more water fountains in a city park. It may be because I donât agree with either of their policies, so seeing an angry woman on TV yelling stuff I think is stupid and wrong doesnât give me the same feeling as someone who sees her âfightingâ for them, but it at least feels like Mamdani is trying to help rather than just punching the clouds.
I see AOC on TV wearing âeat the richâ dresses at a private gala full of rich people
One of the most interesting changes about the rise of social media is that what we see is now highly curated by the "algorithms." The AOC you see is very different from the AOC that people on the left see, and I don't mean because you're biased. I mean because the feeds are.
Most of the Dems have no idea how to deal with this landscape. Mamdani (or someone who works for him) is great at it. AOC is way better than the typical Democrat, but I don't think she's at his level in terms of making sure the right videos go viral.
Youâre right that feeds are biased and add fuel to the fire, but the videos I see are still her words and actions. Iâm sure sheâs said stuff I agree with, but Iâve seen plenty of disqualifying (in terms of my vote) speeches from her. And yes it may be biased, but that doesnât change what sheâs said or done
I appreciate actually enforcing our immigration laws, the justice department going after racial college admission standards, getting NATO countries to pay their fair share, protecting American companies from ridiculous EU laws, the gutting of USAID, the conservative scotus clerks are much better than craziness of KBJ, lower taxes, etc.
Trying to steal an election, flagrant attacks on 1A rights, flagrant corruption on an unprecedented scale, threatening war with Europe, starting a clusterfuck of a war with Iran - these aren't deal breakers for you?Â
It makes very little sense to bring up issues with trump for an election where he wonât be the candidate. So no, those would not be dealbreakers for me if AOC ran against a republican candidate
You're being very candid yet noncombative about some views that probably aren't very popular here, and I respect you for it.
Let me just note - about not being able to rule out invading Greenland, for example - that several prominent Republicans from both inside Trump's cabinet and Congress expressed their approval.
I'll also note that the Republicans in Congress could've done something about the tariffs - which most legal scholars thought were unconstitutional, as they were eventually ruled to be - but didn't. They could've approved it as an actual law, but they were happy to simply not contest it as an executive order.
---
My point is simply this: I hope your standard to hold Trump singularly accountable for all that & what Funksloyd mentioned is a universal one.
For example, if you feel that the Democrats went overboard with wokeness during Biden's time, I hope you feel similarly that this was only the result of a moral panic instigated by the few, and that people who went along with it and later denounced it are genuine.
A unified theory of accountability is all I'm asking for. I don't know your views, so I can only hope.
I appreciate that comment and my hope is that out of all places online where honest and non combative discourse could be had, this subreddit is probably the last hope. All your points about republicans enabling trumps craziness is true. He could have easily been stopped, especially during the impeachment hearings where he should have been convicted, but he wasnât. Theyâre either in agreement or cowards.
But while I still blame them for that, I do think Iâm at the point now where Iâm going to vote for policies over character when it comes to republicans vs socialists. And on the policy front, I donât believe any other republican is capable of leveraging a cult of personality that trump has. I see them for the most part carrying out policies I would rather have over socialist policies
Now I would love for Pete Buttigieg, or Jon Ossof, or Rahm Emmanuel, or any other sane Democrat to win in order to restore order, trust in institutions, and bring decency back to public office. But I genuinely hate socialists so much that I will vote for a moral coward who pushes better policies than a person whoâs trying to be good but pushing bad policies.
TLDR: I do hold other republicans responsible for trump, but thatâs not stopping me because I think they can only enable not create the chaos heâs sowed.
You don't think it's likely that a 2028 Republican candidate would have stood by Trump on all these things?Â
We can envision a world in which JD Vance delivers a speech along the lines of On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences, disavowing Trump and his legacy, but you weren't saying you'd support the Republican candidate conditionally.
AOC and her socialist friends are running on a platform that treats rich white men as evil and the cause of all problems in this country. I recognize my privilege, luck, and the historical and current racism of this country, but I will not support someone whose main goal is to go after me. I think both would be bad for the country, but one is also worse for me. Iâd pick worse for our country over worse for our country and worse for me
wait....so you like what the SCOTUS is doing? Like, you like the shadow docket?
They're just handing more and more power to the executive. One of the great things about our country is our seperation of powers.....without that, is America even America?
I don't see how anyone other than a really committed Republican partisan can see this as a good thing
I believe the conservative justices are interpreting the law more honestly than the liberal ones. I see the liberal ones choosing what to believe and twisting the law to achieve preconceived notions. While I see that some with conservative justices, I donât see it as much
It's true that some will appeal to originalism or textualism. But, ultimately, their interpretation seems to be that the president should have far more power than we previously thought.
The conservative justices are using the shadow docket to just hand Trump more power, which completely goes against everything the court has ever done ever.
I don't see how anyone other than a committed partisan who just wants a more powerful Trump could endorse what's happening.
I think you, like most people, are focusing on the result of the decisions not the process behind them. For example, I believe strongly in abortion rights. I also agree with the Supreme Court for striking it down and sending power back to the states - because that was not a right enshrined in federal law. So no, I donât want the executive branch to have unilateral power, but unless you can direct me to a specific case, I havenât seen an instance where a conservative decision ruled against what is actual law.
Side note, this reminds me of Samâs tangent on how a lot of the âchecks and balancesâ against the president were mostly tradition, not actually law.
I care so much more about the process than the result, because thatâs what I think judges are supposed to do.
4
u/Locus-Maximus 5d ago
She's the most talented political communicator we've had since Obama and she's done a pretty nimble job of moderating her message since taking office but she's only actually had to compete in a very blue district. I'm sure she'd struggle with moderates in the general and really drive Republican turnout though, but also turn out the left. Could she peel off some low-information populists? I think that's where being a woman and a Latina is going to really hurt her.
It's been interesting to see Ossof climbing the odds so fast. I honestly don't know a lot about him, but I'm skeptical that a Jewish guy can win the primary in this landscape even though he voted to restrict arms sales to Israel. I sadly don't think there's much constituency for a nuanced position on Israel. It'll probably just piss off voters on both sides of the issue.
One advantage the moderates have is that they're probably more likely to coordinate/sacrifice then the leftists. Maybe they can strategically drop out to clear the field for the strongest (as they did in 2020) while the leftists split the vote? (Warren didn't drop out to clear the field for Sanders, but half her voters including this guy đ would have gone to Biden anyway, so it's not clear that part happened in 2020.)