on the Mamdani movement in New York
I don't know what the political effect of this is going to be on the rest of the country or the Democratic Party. I am just going to say this: If you can't win presidential elections, you can't help anyone. You can't reverse income inequality. You can't expand affordable healthcare. You can't help the poor. The general population doesn't like politicians who call themselves socialists.
= new reply since forum marked as read
He has also supported some questionable people.
That OP is completely inaccurate and the whole purpose is to divide Dems.
Posting anything about Jeffries or Schumer (or Garland) is like ringing the bell for drooling Pavlov dogs.
The Dem bashing here has definitely picked up lately. I wonder why. 
... it's called wanting to win.
The DSA operates under a very different strategic playbook, and the reality is that the "socialist" label carries immense baggage with the general public in a national election. Pointing out that branding matters if we want to win presidential elections and help people is just common sense.
I appreciate you having the courage to state the obvious here, even if some choose to mischaracterize an honest conversation about winning strategy as an "attack."
To give a Democratic president a cooperative House and Senate, we have to win competitive purple seats, not just safe D+30 seats in New York. If the branding coming out of our safest strongholds makes it harder for our front-line candidates to win in swing territory, then it hurts our chances of taking back total control.
I think we are ultimately pulling for the same team here. We both want a unified Democratic government.
My point is simply that national branding matters. While these candidates won't be on the ballot in swing states, in the real world, their political labels are absolutely weaponized by Republicans against our front-line Democrats in purple districts.
Having an honest conversation about how localized rhetoric creates national headwinds isn't working against the party... instead, it’s how we protect our vulnerable incumbents so we can actually secure the majority we both want.
You're completely right that the GOP will look for any ridiculous label to tank a Democrat. Because the opposition is so ruthless with branding, our own national branding becomes incredibly important.
Voters are smart, but modern campaigns are won and lost on the margins in swing districts. If the branding coming out of our safest blue strongholds makes it easier for Republicans to paint our front-line candidates into a corner, it hurts our chances of building that congressional majority we both want.
Republicans are going to weaponize whatever they can, which is exactly why the labels our candidates use matter so much. A Democrat running in a deep-blue NYC district can use a label safely, but a Democrat running in a purple district is the one who has to pay the price when the GOP clips that footage and uses it against them.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to have an honest conversation that points out the importance of being strategic about our national brand so that we protect our most vulnerable candidates and give them the best chance to win.
Local tailoring is exactly what wins elections on the margins, and it ensures our candidates fit the communities they want to serve. At the end of the day, we both want a strong, unified Democratic majority to protect our values, and I’m glad we can find common ground on that.
Thanks for the thoughtful back-and-forth... I appreciate the chat today. Take care, and have a wonderful rest of your week!
... in fact, I already said we should get behind the nominees. Nobody is disputing that.
The discussion the OP started (and that I am agreeing with) is about national branding. Acknowledging that the general electorate nationwide views political labels differently than voters in deep-blue urban strongholds isn't "anti-nominee." It's a realistic, mature, adult and honest conversation about how we build a majority capable of winning presidential elections.
The reason we have "heard this argument for years" is because it remains an unavoidable mathematical fact of the Electoral College. What works in a district with a Cook PVI of D+30 does not work in a swing district that is R+2.
We can support our local nominees while also being realistic about what it takes to win a national map. Both things can be true at the same time.
I am 100% for policies that expand healthcare, protect labor, and fight income inequality. Why would anyone believe that I felt otherwise?
But let's be honest here... having the best policy ideas in the world doesn't mean anything if we don't have 51 votes in the Senate and 218 in the House to pass them. We live in a highly polarized country where labels and branding heavily influence moderate and independent voters in swing districts.
Acknowledging that reality isn't opposing the platform --- it's recognizing that we need a winning strategy to turn those policies into real-world results.
... which are the suburbs and competitive areas that actually decide control of Congress... but since you brought up rural red areas and non-voters, let’s look at the actual data.
Political scientists have studied the "mobilizing non-voters" theory extensively. The reality is that non-voters in rural, red areas are not "closet progressives". When they do turn out, data shows they actually trend overwhelmingly conservative.
Pushing a hard-left agenda with DSA branding in those areas doesn't flip non-voters to our side. Instead it just supercharges Republican turnout and alienates the moderate Independents we actually need to win. The independent, suburban voters who decide elections in swing states are highly attuned to branding and labels. Ignoring them to chase a mythical wave of rural non-voters is exactly how we lose majorities.
You asked "what are we doing" if that's a losing strategy? What we are doing is being smart. We run progressives where they can win, and we run pragmatists where they can win. That is how we actually build a majority. I've stated my piece and the math is clear. We've reached an impasse it seems, so I'm content to leave it there.
Have a nice day.
Flame wars like this are why we lose.
The maga propaganda machine labels Dems as Imperial oligarchs, way more than radical Bolsheviks.
THEY PULLED THE WOOL.
ATTACK THE SCOUNDREL, RAPING, EPSTEIN CLASS.
This bickering plays into their hands.
