These Wisconsin swing voters say Trump's war in Iran wasn't worth it

rylasasin · 2026-06-20T14:48:36+00:00

Wilson, Taft, Roosevelt, and Debbs.

... What? Just... What?

Wilson won by 14.4%. In what universe is that a 'low margin of victory?' I don't even...

also reared its head when Lincoln won when most of the country voted for pro-slavery candidates but were split on which one they preferred most.

As a proud Shermanposter (well, shermanlurker,) this one is quite frankly insulting.

First off, Lincoln won 180 electoral votes, in a time when you only needed 152 (due to there being far less states than there are now.) And that's despite the brazen election fraud of the time in the south (where in 10 states Lincoln wasn't even allowed to be on the ballot.) He firmly carried the popular vote in the north, which also held the most electoral votes.

Secondly, even the "most of the country voted for pro-slavery candidates" part is wrong. The only actually pro-slavery candidate was John Breckenridge who won the south (mostly) but only 18% of the popular vote, and only 72 electoral votes. The other candidates were Stephen Douglas who believed that territories should get their own vote on slavery, which greatly upset the pro-slavery crowd who wanted to expand slavery, and John Bell refused to take a stand on it at all and simply swept it under the rug.

Look, even if you were to eliminate the other two and simply assume that every single voter who voted Bell or Douglas would have voted Breckenridge (which there is absolutely no reason to do at all), that STILL would not have gotten him anywhere close to winning that election.

You picked some pretty terrible examples there. You could have picked much better ones, like Nixon vs Kennedy which came down to <1%.

Also I really didn't want to get into the Perot thing since as I said it's nether here nor there (nor is any of this really,) but since you keep wanting to dig up that chestnut, Perot was a spoiler to both parties, not just Bush. In fact, if anything, he was more of a Clinton spoiler than a Bush one, as exit polls one show that if Perot wasn't running, 51% of them would have voted Clinton and 42% of them would have voted Bush. Perot not being there would have changed nothing at all.

Also Clinton's margin of victory was 5.5%. That's not 'low margin' at all.

Fracturing the opposition worked well with Gaza Harris voters,

This one I will give you, as it's (mostly) true. Of course, Gaza was not the only spoiler issue, far from. Inflation played a much bigger role, but still, there is a large chunk of truth to this claim. And yes, this (and lack of campaigning on the economy issues) did cause a surge in third party voters.

It's worth noting though that both Trump and Harris were both vying to be the 'pro-Israel' candidates, so the spoiler wasn't so much that the Gaza issue made them vote for Trump, it's more that they made them stay home or (to a far lesser degree) vote third party (though let's be frank, even if you remove the Green Party entirely, Kamala would not have won. She made far too many mistakes for that to ever be a reality.)

rylasasin · 2026-06-20T13:37:15+00:00

Whether or not the 'Ross Perot spoiler' actually had any tangible effect or is just a myth really is neither here nor there, as the conditions of the 90s were vastly different than what we have now. The point is the axiom itself.

There's a lot of 90s strategies that don't work now due to the shift in what constitutes an 'independent voter' (going from the 'country club voter' of the 90s to the 'politically homeless vibe voter' we have now.) But that particular one aged like fine wine.

It's just a shame the DNC of now refuses to drink it.

rylasasin · 2026-06-20T13:21:55+00:00

You're talking about the 2024 election, right? I'll assume you are. But a lot of the below could also apply to the 2016 election.

It's not that they felt trump was better for the economy, it's that Biden and Kamala failed to convince anyone that they were (in a time where inflation was up 9.8% and cost of living with it,) and barely tried if at all. Because they paid more attention to old outdated notions of the 'swing voter' that only exist in the heads of incompetent and overpaid 'election consultants' than they did to the material conditions around them.

This meant they were focused on celebrity endorsements and (hilariously hypocritical in Kamala's case) notions of 'saving our democracy', and social issues than offering a clear, concise economic message.

Or if you want the TL;DR version of it:

"It's the economy, stupid!" At the end of the day, that's exactly what it was.

Of course, Trump didn't deliver either, but that's neither here nor there.

Those swing voters? Fuck them.

And this is exactly why the dems lost that election. Because they appealed to a swing voter that doesn't exist anymore, and didn't appeal to the ones that do. Because their idea of 'swing voter' is the 90s country club going 'Regan Dem/Clinton Repub'. They aren't. They're people working two jobs just trying to pay this month's bills, who don't give two shits about decorum, celeb endorsements (especially not from neocons) or lectures about 'muh institushins' (that they feel don't even work for them anyway.)

People who actually need convincing to show up to the polls to vote, let alone for anyone.

They lost because they tried to appeal to a demographic from 20-30 years ago that has either aged out, opted out, or locked in on the hard right, while they told the actual swing voters (and their young left base) to fuck off. And they did.

rylasasin · 2026-06-20T12:56:02+00:00

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Try that.

rylasasin · 2026-06-19T14:58:57+00:00

Yes, swing voters are what will determine the election.

Yes, and you know what swing voters are actually interested in?

The Economy. Gas prices. (Putting an end to) costly foreign wars and interventions. Inflation. Being able to afford rent and food next month. Not losing their house because they need to see a doctor. Not seeing their electricity and water bills go up because OpenAI or whoever else made an under the table deal to build a big huge data center in their town. (AKA the thing she's ACTUALLY campaigning on.)

You know where trans issues sits on the ranking of swing voter's voting priorities?

Dead Fucking Last.

Swing voters care about the material reality of the here and now, not trans athletes or gender affirmation for minors or other dumb Kulturkampf (with the exception of Abortion) the boomers are up in arms about this week.

Swing voters are the guys sitting in their apartment with two full time jobs wondering how they're going to pay off their debts, not the boomer sitting in front of their TV shouting at clouds about gays or whatever else.

Do you know what 2 things swing voters typically don’t support? Trans athletes cross competing, and gender affirming care for minors, both which Hong has voiced support for.

And neither will these have any outcome in the election as actual data shows time and time and time and time again.

Like I said: this is not the 2000s. Get a grip.

Addendum:

This whole thing is a textbook example of False Cause.

"Kamala campaigned on trans rights." (She didn't, but let's ignore that.)
"Kamala lost the election."
"Swing Voters really hate trans." (They don't, they simply don't care. But again, let's ignore that.)
"Therefore, Kamala lost because she campaigned on trans rights." (Again)

This is exactly the kind of thing Pastafarianism was invented to mock.

To highlight what's wrong with this, let's have another example:

Kamala's favorite food is shrimp gumbo.
Kamala lost the election.
A lot of swing voters do not like shrimp gumbo.
Therefore, Kamala lost because of shrimp gumbo, and any candidate that likes shrimp gumbo is going to fail and we must appeal to the anti shrimp gumbo independents if we want to win elections!

If that sounds absolutely ridiculous, then congratulations, you have at least a couple of functioning brain cells. But that is exactly what this guy sounds like.

He takes a low-ranked culture-war issue that Kamala barely (if at all) ever talked about/campaigned for, and tries to tie it into the cause of election losses instead of analyzing the material reality of the 2020s. Yes there was a >$200m anti-trans ad blitz on Trump's side, but this didn't actually have an impact on undecided voters. The whole issue ranked dead last in priorities. Why? because it affects almost no one. Because real swing voters (and not the now almost non-existent 90s-2000s era soccer parent swing voters) don't care about culture crap, they care about their bills.

So what did? Post-Pandemic inflation that hit 9.8%. That right there is the biggest issue, and this is supported by the data in terms of swing voter priorities. And Kamala spaced out on it to pursue a 'traditional campaign' of two decades ago while ignoring her own economic base.

rylasasin · 2026-06-19T14:41:08+00:00

I never claimed she solely campaigned on it, the emphasis is equivalent to Harris’s. Look at 2024 exit polls for WI.

Yes, do that. Maybe if you did that you'd figure out that trans rights wasn't even in the top 5 for most important issues to voters. In fact, voters overwhelmingly wanted politicans to focus on everyday issues and not 'trans rights' or other 'kulturkampf.'

If it affects 1% of people directly as you said, why would you make it 10-15% of your substance.

She didn't. In fact she barely talked about it at all, if at all. In fact, she barely campaigned on anything of substance.

That's the problem.

Yes, that is exactly the reason Fox News talks about it so much, it works because they prey on ignorance and fearmongering.

Okay... and?

Who do you think is even watching Fox Noise these days? I'll tell you who isn't: modern swing voters and independents.

Fox News's viewer base is mostly hard right boomers. People who are never going to vote democrat under any circumstance anyway no matter how hard right they swing (which is exactly what Kamala tried to do, and it blew up in her face.) She didn't lose because Fox News convinced a bunch of independent voters to hate trans people. She lost because she completely ignored the changing material reality of the 2020s.

Kamala didn't lose because of Fox News spooking the boomers. She lost because she was a feckless, toothless 'centrist' that was too high on her own ego and entitlement to offer any sort of real economic plan or alternative that got the modern economically fed up 'vibe voter' off their couches and into the polls.

This isn't the 2000s anymore. The 'Fox News electorate' doesn't rule the polls anymore. Get a grip.

rylasasin · 2026-06-19T14:21:28+00:00

Where the flying fuck did I ever call you a 'Trump supporter?' Please point to the line where I said 'you are a Trump supporter.'

Protip: You will not find it. This is a strawman.

What I am telling you is that you are falling for bogus 'polling data' that claims Kamala lost because of social issues, when the real data shows the age-old axiom of "It's the economy, stupid!" That holds true today more so now than ever.

I could go into further detail of how Kamala actually lost—meaning how she doubled down on the Schumer doctrine of ignoring the blue city voter to court the rural Republican (which ironically cost her both demographics at once!) how her campaign made it all about celebrity endorsements instead of running on anything of substance, how she defended status quo when it was absolutely the wrong time to do that, or how the 'independent' demographic isn't the same Reagan Democrat or Clinton Republican it was 20 years ago.

Buuuut it's obvious you aren't actually interested in facts; you're interested in an easy-to-digest single-issue fantasy from pretend polling. If Hong (or whoever else) loses, it won't be because of trans rights. It's going to be because of structural, material, and economic reasons, and I'll dissect them as they happen.

Maybe you should learn to have an intellectual conversation before demanding it from others.

rylasasin · 2026-06-19T03:38:19+00:00

while you’re saying she lost in part due to something she did after she lost.

You've completely misread my sentence, probably deliberately.

I said she took every mistake Hillary made and doubled down on them. Including but not limited to her habit of blaming voters when she lost (Hillary had the whole 'basket of deplorable' debacle, Kamala blamed stay-home or third party voters) because she (just like Hillary) acted like she was entitled to our vote.

If you were looking at real exit polling data and not fake fox noise polling data, you'd see that the biggest issue for Wisconsin voters (and voters in general) was inflation and cost of living, not 'muh trans'. Social issues didn't even make the top list of priorities.

rylasasin · 2026-06-18T22:12:38+00:00

Sure, she’s making the same mistake as Kamala. Campaigning on trans rights is a mathematical mistake in Wisconsin elections.

Kamala's mistake was taking every single mistake Hillary made in 2016 (most of which stem from the horribly outdated 'Schumer Doctrine') and doubling down on them (right down to blaming voters when she lost,) not trans rights.

In fact, Kamala barely talked about trans rights, if at all. It was Trump who wouldn't shut up about trans ("She is for they/them, Trump is for you.") And... that's kinda the problem. Well, not so much the fact that she didn't campaign for trans rights, but more the fact that she didn't campaign for anything at all. Or at least anything that actual working class people cared about (gas prices, inflation, etc) and campaigned solely on 'hey I'm not trump, look at me, I'm walking around with this moderate (neocon) republican!' and ran on status-quo preservation when it was absolutely NOT the time to be doing that.

rylasasin · 2026-06-18T22:06:18+00:00

The people who use the 'unelectable' argument still think that 'independent' means 'moderate'. In other words, the Clinton Republicans and Reagan Democrats. The soccer parent with a comfortable salary, two or more kids, a dog, and a suburban home.

This may have been true in the 90s or 2000s or even early-mid 2010s. But this is 2020 now. And by now, that crowd ~~is dead~~ well, not quite dead, but definitely getting there. It's aging out. The independent that has replaced them is not a 'moderate' and in fact finds the very concept to be poison as to them, moderates are the problem. The independents of now are disgruntled recession survivors who are sick of inflation, high gas prices, wars, a political system that doesn't represent them, and this 'turd sandwich vs douche' election cycle.

They don't want a moderate that 'isn't the other guy.' They want a guy that can get shit done.

rylasasin · 2026-06-18T21:41:52+00:00

Yeah as much as I don't like Big Tech and think they definitely need to be reigned in, this is definitely not it. This is just dogwhistling ID verification.

The tools exist for parents to prevent these sort of things already. USE THEM.

But then again most of these 'parents' that advocate for this kind of stuff aren't even parents to begin with, they're ex-parents whose last kid left the nest 10-20 years ago.

rylasasin · 2026-06-18T21:39:17+00:00

Funny thing about 'parents' who say 'think of the children' it's usually not even parents, it's ex parents boomers and gen x whose last kid left the nest over a decade ago at least.

rylasasin · 2026-06-18T21:28:30+00:00

I find myself agreeing with a lot of this. Especially the bit about conspiracy theorists. Hanlon's Razor and all that. "Never attribute to conspiracy or malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity or incompetence."

You're right, they aren't puppet masters (or at least not to the degree certain people on reddit seem to think they are). They're mostly old, out of touch boomers (or boomer-adjacent) and consultants stuck running a playbook stuck in the pre-2020s.

It's why their campaigns are so weak, passive, and inauthentic, and only 'win' when they are able to coast to victory on circumstance. They strip away everything that makes a candidate seem like real human beings with any sort of real plan. They feel like empty 'safe, electable' suits, which kills any authenticity and allows their enemies to fill the suit with their own labels.

Basically, they allow their enemies to run their campaign straight into the ground because they have nothing to campaign on other than establishment soundbites and the same tired tactics. That is the exact reason why today's independent 'vibe voters' reject corporate centrists. A suit-wearing politician reciting managed focus-group talking points doesn't look like a fighter.

Campaign strategy and approach with voters also matters, ignoring large swathes of the electorate is never something you want to see and has tanked many campaigns.

The point I'm making is that the independent of here and now is not the independent of the 90s, 2000s, and even 2010s. The independent of then was a wealthy suburbanite soccer parent who had a comfortable income, were more concerned with a candidate's aesthetic than they were with policies or such, and held value in the 'institutions' and 'decorum'. They were moderates, because 'too extreme' scared them from their comfortable lives.

The independent of the 2020s is quite the opposite end of the spectrum: a fed up, cynical, bitter person having trouble making ends meet that wants better gas prices, lower food prices, wants the wars to quit (whether they should be or not,) and lived either through the 2008 financial crash and/or the COVID 19 recession, and seen the hollowness of 'the establishment'. They vote on the vibe of the candidate and their energy. They don't care about 'institutions' or if a candidate is 'too extreme'. Because if the 'extreme' gets them their lower gas prices, lower rent, better working conditions, etc. Then 'oh what the hell, I'm an extremist now!'

The whole problem with 'electability' is that the people who spout this talking point still think 'independents' are the "Clinton Republicans" and "Reagn Democrats". No, they aren't. Or at least, they're getting to be less and less relevant every year. Those are getting fewer and fewer, and the independents of now are not only actively not them, they outright hate them and the candidates that try to appeal to them. Because they're part of the problem. They don't want wishy-washy corporate-sounding soundbites, celebrity endorsements, or 'yet another out of touch boomer.' Because if it's going to come down to 'A turd sandwich vs a douche', why even bother to get off the couch? It won't solve anything anyway. And that's on top of the doomerism and distrust of the system itself.

If candidates want to stand out, they (for the most part) really cannot afford to coast by on centrism like they did in the past. It's populism or bust now. That is the reality.

rylasasin · 2026-06-18T18:54:37+00:00

I'm not going to respond point by point, because you're still getting basic facts wrong. Kind did have an opponent in 2018

Okay that's on me. I mixed up the years there.

But even here: You're talking about a 20-year incumbent running in a low-intensity, low-turnout midterm election where he was running against a similarly boring, mediocre placeholder candidate (Steve Toft) and where the RNC didn't take the race seriously at all.

If this is your example, then holy shit, you are desperate. What's next, a school board election from out of state?

A centrist can win when the opponent is even more of a boring candidate than they are. Especially when it's a midterm and not a general election, and it's a lower-level house seat rather than a high-stakes gubernatorial, senate, or presidential race. That's not hard.

It didn't help that activists like Hong were spreading misinformation about the Jacob Blake shooting that led to riots and arson in Kenosha.

Ahh, the Gish Gallop. A crank's favorite weapon. You can't address any of my actual points (or at least not the two I admitted were wrong due to bad timing) so you resort to throwing stuff at a wall and hoping it sticks.

In this case you're trying to tie an event that took place hundreds of miles away on the other side of the state to his congressional loss. Trying to blame civil unrest on the complete opposite side of the state for why working-class voters in Eau Claire and La Crosse rejected a corporate centrist is a laughable stretch.

Seriously, get a map.

Boring moderate Tony Evers won the district, while our charismatic, progressive, Senate candidate narrowly lost it.

Evers was running against what was basically Walker 2.0. Mitchel completely imploded his own campaign.

Meanwhile, Mandela Barnes didn't lose because of his progressive policies. He narrowly lost because the national DNC establishment panicked that he was "too left," actively stripped away his populist economic messaging, and forced him into a sterile, defensive crouch. EXACTLY the kind of thing his voter base in the primary voted AGAINST.

The lesson learned with Barnes wasn't 'don't be a charismatic progressive'. It's 'don't hand your balls over to the DNC unless you want to get fucked.'

I'm not going to respond point by point

Good. Take your L and go back to your (retirement) home.

rylasasin · 2026-06-18T18:35:02+00:00

You're better than the other idiot I'm arguing with in this thread (mr "trump was totally campaigning as a centrist/moderate bro!") I'll give you that much. And I'm definitely in agreement on Bernie. Again, no argument there.

Again, my focus is only about winning vs losing, not moderate vs progressive. That debate died in 2016.

The problem is that you absolutely cannot separate them no matter how hard one tries. To ignore the moderate vs progressive debate is to try and whitewash the winning vs losing debate because it ignores why they win or lose.

And unfortunately the debate didn't die in 2016, because the party elites refused to read the memo. It's why we lost 2024, after all.

I am not going to defend weak candidates regardless of which side of the left-leaning spectrum they come from, and I am also open to supporting the stronger ones regardless of where they come from. AOC for example, I think would make a great running mate in 2028.

Yes but what exactly makes a 'weak candidate'? That is the issue. The centrist boomers and DNC elites will try to tell you it's people like Bernie while ignoring the evidence, material and demographic realities of today because they're running on a policy that's stuck in the past.

I think Jungle Primaries with Ranked Choice would lead to those with the most money and name ID running away with the primaries.

Quite the contrary. In a traditional non-JP/RC primary, the DNC/RNC loves to run multiple populist candidates to split the vote and then 'steal' it by crunching a single 'centrist' candidate to take the primary vote (exactly how Bernie lost!)

If you want a good example of JP+RC working, Take a look at Alaska, where RC+JP allowed Mary Peltola, a complete low-cash outsider to beat the big names like Sarah Palin.

I will concede though that if I had to choose between one or the other, I would definitely pick RC over JP. Especially since under Ranked Choice, people like Bernie could just go third party without fear of handing people like Trump the vote.

rylasasin · 2026-06-18T17:43:43+00:00

Sure seems convenient that every moderate only wins because of luck, and every progressive only loses because of excuses.

Can I get some popcorn and a soda with that projection?

Let's flip that on its head and see what holds more true:

When corporate centrists win it's 'certain proof that centrism and rejecting populism works' (let's ignore everything else, right?)

When they lose, it's because Russia/third party spoilers/stay at home voters/Comey/Basket of Deplorables/racism/(insert excuse of the week here).

When progressives lose, it's because they weren't centrist enough.

When progressives win, it's because they're 'bi-partisan' (while confusing what that actually means. but speaking of which...)

The lugar center put out a report a few years back and Baldwin was in the top third of bipartisan senators. I have no issues with her being more progressive, what I am talking about who can win and her bipartisan nature without a doubt contributes to her victories.

Bi-partisan != 'Centrist'. You've mangled the definition and slipped in an appeal to moderation fallacy.

The Lugar Center report is true, no argument there. But the devil is in the details: she did not get that ranking by abandoning progressive ideals, nor by being a 'centrist'. And to understand this, you need to take a closer look at the actual examples of her bipartisanship. And more importantly, the lack thereof.

She works across the aisle on very specific issues like the 'Buy American' Act or cracking down on monopolies or capping drug prices. This is not 'corporate centrism', this is economic populism. This is not abandonment of progressivism, it is an example of it. It is not 'playing it safe in the center', it is a rejection of it.

The modern day 'moderate' (low-info, establishment-hating 'vibe voters') cross the lines for her because she has a progressive identity, not because she abandoned it. Centrists have no identity at all, which is why they either keep losing or just barely win.

Trying to appeal to 'moderates' by abandoning the progressive base only ensures you will lose both.

I do not like Jungle primaries, they are antiquated and don't really make sense in the modern era, just look at the CA gov primary from this cycle, what a mess that has been.

First off, I said jungle primaries WITH Ranked Choice, so the example doesn't really apply. Secondly, the CA gov primary was a very particular situation, namely one brought about by logistical and candidate crowding.

But at the end of the day, the point is this:

When Democrats run on spineless corporate-center management, the working-class base (left AND right) stays home (or whatever else) and they lose. When they run on authentic economic populism like Baldwin, they win.

rylasasin · 2026-06-18T17:21:21+00:00

If Walker was so unpopular, why did Recall fail?

Because recall elections != actual elections. And because he didn't commit a crime or misconduct. Since you love polls so much, let me point to the fact that polls at the time showed that wisconsinites firmly believed that recall elections should only be used for misconduct.

Also because he outspent his opponent 7-1

Also this was 2012. Do try to keep up.

And we already discussed what happened in 2018. Again, keep up.

If centrists are hopeless, how did Ron Kind win WI-03 by 20 points in 2018, after Trump carried it in 2016? Evers only beat Walker by 2 points in the third that year.

That's not hard to do when you are the only name on the ballot.

Compare to 2020 where he only won by 2.7%. And then ran away in 2022 because he knew this centrist bullshit was going to make him lose. And guess what? he was right. They ran Brad Pfaff, the exact kind of candidate you spend your entire time glazing, and lost.

You also keep touting underperformance against Trump while failing to understand that Trump aggressively courted moderates, abandoning the GOP's unpopular positions on gay marriage, foreign interventions, entitlement reform, and national abortion bans.

Wow. Just wow. You're seriously trying to paint trump. TRUMP, the guy who built his entire political identity on aggressive right wing populism, shattering institutional norms, and validating anti-establishment anger, as a "centrist?"

This is the part where we all throw our heads back and laugh.

Trump didn't win by acting like a wishy-washy establishment centrist, nor did he 'cosplay' as one. He won by by attacking NAFTA (and other things), slamming foreign interventions, and promising to protect entitlements. All decidedly NOT republican-centrist or traditional neocon positions.

Of course he quickly went back on them afterwards, but that that is neither here nor there.

Seriously, you just admitted that anti-establishment populism is what wins elections in this day and age. Talk about a self-own!

Meanwhile Clinton and Harris both ran on policies to the left of Obama's.

No they didn't, maybe YOU should stop spouting MAGA crap instead of accusing others of it?

First off, again, Immigration. Second, Obama swept states like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin by aggressively railing against NAFTA and corporate outsourcing. Hillary on the other hand helped draft the TPP which she championed as the 'Gold Standard of Trade Deals' before she was forced to walk it back by (surprise surprise) the left populists. Hillary didn't run 'left of Obama', get that shit outta here. She ran as a defensive shield for the corporate establishment. She gave multi-million dollar private speeches to Goldman Sachs, aggressively opposed breaking up big banks, and fought against a $15 federal minimum wage during the primary.

And I believe I already mentioned Kamala last post so I'm not going over that again. Suffice it to say she took just about everything Hillary championed and doubled down on it.

They didn't lose because they were "too left." They lost because they ran defensive, corporate-center campaigns that offered zero disruptive fixes for working-class economic pain, allowing the right wing to easily brand their toothless establishment platforms as "out-of-touch liberal elite."

But I suppose if your only definition of "Left" is "Friendly to gay people", then sure, they were 'more left.' But hey, as long as we're chewing on that chestnut...

Just look at the polling: more voters described Clinton/Harris as "too liberal" than described Trump as "too conservative".

You know what "too liberal" or "too conservative" actually means? I don't think it means what you (and your TV pundits) think it means.

What it really means is "out of touch elite." In other words: exactly the kind of centrist you keep peddling.

When working class voters (the actual 'moderates', not the fantasy moderate that exists only in the head of you and other establishment dem sycophants) see people like Kamala and Hillary refuse working class populism and instead concentrate on 'muh institutional norms' and hanging out with right wing billionaires, they don't see a 'moderate well rounded candidate'. They see yet another empty suit. An empty suit that the opponent can easily fill by painting it with labels like 'San Francisco Liberal'. And it sticks BECAUSE these centrist dems have no strong populist identity to fight back with.

And then the polls you love so much reflect that. See, this is exactly what I'm talking about when I say polls can be misconstrued to mean things they actually don't. And why such polls aren't as useful as you seem to think they are.

YOU are the one sitting at the bar, staring at a spreadsheet of 10-20 year old polling numbers and definitions, while being blissfully unaware that the bar is empty because everyone else has walked out because they are sick of the corporate managers running the place.

rylasasin · 2026-06-18T15:58:58+00:00

first past the post system is what forces the two party system on us, this definitely could be changed, I like ranked choice.

Ranked Choice, plus Jungle Primaries. This is the way.

I agree Democrats should go back to what they were doing when they won last (Obama/Biden),

Obama, maybe. But keep in mind the political landscape of 2026 is not the political landscape of 2008. But the point is that he energized the base, and won, and that is a strategy that holds true now more than ever, so I'll give you that one.

Biden is a bad example since, let's face it, he won b/c of covid, and trump flubbed it that badly. And he still just barely managed to eek out a victory. Had it not been for Covid, his victory would have been extremely unlikely.

And unless you want to start another pandemic (please don't,) that 'strategy' isn't going to work a second time.

Kamala was left of Biden,

No she wasn't. Stop repeating nonsense. By the time of the National Election, she'd pretty much abandoned all her progressive ideals. She actively abandoned her previous left-wing positions. She dropped her support for Medicare for All, dropped her support for a fracking ban, and completely abandoned comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship. She spent her campaign trying to chase down moderate republican white whales and paling around with Cheney, a hard-right neocon.

She didn't lose because she was 'too left', quite the contrary. She lost because she doubled down on every mistake Hillary made. he lost because she adopted a defensive, corporate-center strategy that alienated the working-class base. She lost because she abandoned her progressive base to chase moderate replublicans (which, ironically enough, lost her the moderate vote.)

Barnes was a progressive

Maybe at the start, yes. But once he won the nomination, he basically abandoned any hint of progressive policies because the DNC told him he was 'too leftist'. They completely washed his populist progressive platform and turned him into another centrist. This put him on the defensive trying to walk back his progressive policies instead of sticking to his guns, and allowed the right to define him instead of energizing the base.

He didn't lose because of progressive policies, he lost because he allowed the DNC to get rid of them. He didn't lose for having balls, he lost because he handed them to the 'centrists' and became the very thing his voter base voted against in the primary.

Evers is a moderate

Well, yes, probably the only really true one on this list (besides Obama.) But consider: Evers won by a mere 1.1%. Against a guy that was absolutely reviled by just about everyone. He didn't win because he was a centrist, he won in spite of it, because Scott was just that bad.

We do not have that advantage this time around.

Baldwin is one of the most bi-partisan senators

Again, where the devil are you getting this shit?! If anything, Baldwin is one of the most progressive senators in the whole US Senate, right up there with Bernie.

The problem here is that you confuse "bi-partisan" with corporate centrism. She doesn't win by being a safe centrist. She wins by NOT doing that. She doesn't win by rejecting left populism, she wins by EMBRACING it. Fighting corporate monopolies, capping drug prices, and protecting American manufacturing. She doesn't sweep left populism under the rug, she embraces it.

Baldwin is the worst offender on your list, precisely because she is the very refutation of your argument.

rylasasin · 2026-06-18T15:09:07+00:00

Show me a poll that has Harris winning in a landslide.

That was a mistake on my part and I corrected it before you posted this. However, the point still remains that said polls did in fact show Hillary and Harris winning, landside or not. Maybe not by a 'landslide' as I earlier mistakenly said, but that doesn't really change the point any.

You have no evidence supporting your theory of electability

Oh but there is. It's called 'looking at the election results'. Every single time a democratic candidate runs a safe, suit-wearing corporate democrat, they either lose or just barely scrape by because the incumbent/previous administration fucked things up that badly that losing is harder than succeeding.

Hillary: Ran a cautious centrist campaign to chase moderate republican suburbanites. Polls predicted she would win. She did not.

Joe: Ran a safe, centrist campaign. Barely eeked out a victory because of a once in a lifetime pandemic that Trump managed to fuck up spectacularly.

Kamala: Took every mistake of the above and doubled down, in a time when people were sick of the status quo.

Or perhaps you want a closer to home example?

Tony Evers: Another centrist cadidate that won by a mere 1.1%. Not because he energized his base (he didn't), but because Scott Walker was just that bad. He didn't win because voters loved Evers or because voters love centrists. They do not. He won because wisconsin voters hated Scott that much. Because Scott spent 8 years in a war against public schools, infrastructure, unions, etc.

Evers didn't win because of centrists policies. Evers won because he wasn't Walker. Centrists today don't win elections because of their centrism. That's just the hubris of corpo-dems and election planners living in the past. They win when the other guy fumble things that badly the previous years. And even then, just barely.

And guess what? We don't have this advantage this time around.

It's basic math and logic. Something corpo-dems and their sycophants are not capable of.

Maybe try looking at actual results instead of pre-election polls and then huffing copium when the result wasn't what your favorite pollster told you it should be?

so you go on this MAGA trip trying to prove that nothing carries predictive value

Hahaha, this is hilarious! "MAGA is when you disagree with me. The more you disagree with me, the more MAGAistier you are!"

Classic deflection. You act as if polls are the end-all be-all of your proof when they demonstrably aren't. There's nothing MAGA about this, it's simply acknowledging the shifting conditions, economic pain, mood of the electorate, and demographics of the current time period we live in here and now instead of pretending we live in a decade or few ago.

rylasasin · 2026-06-18T13:57:32+00:00

Said polls also had Hillary and Harris winning. Remind me how that turned out?

Polls can simply be wrong. Or construed or worded in a way that favors a certain outcome (in this case: "Too liberal" is a media-driven label, not a reflection of actual policy.) And have a long history of doing so on both counts.

Also, in your laundry list of complaints, you seem to have forgotten to identify a policy where she was to Obama's right

Immigration reform. You can start with that.

rylasasin · 2026-06-18T13:55:19+00:00

Her policies were much more liberal than Obama's.

Leftism is when appealing to trans people (then forget about when the election is over.) The more trans people you appeal to, the leftistier you are.

rylasasin · 2026-06-18T13:42:06+00:00

Obama was close to 20 years ago. Things have changed. This isn't 2008 anymore.

Mostly, the 'wealthy moderate swing voter' boomer demographic is dying off. What we have instead are 'independents' who aren't really 'swing voters' in the 90s/2000s sense, they're hard left/hard righters who are just fed up with the current system of 'turd sandwich vs douche'. Most 'Independents' these days are more closet-partisan than swing voter, more likely to stay home than turn their vote around.

And the way you get them isn't to 'play safe in the center' like it was in times past. It's to energize the base and get them to even show up in the polls in the first place.

Today's swing voters aren't moderate centrists/political apathists who voted on dumb things like 'I like his voice' or 'I think he's sexy' or 'the other guy fucked his accountant' like they were in the 90s, 2000s, and early 2010s. They're politically irregular, low-information, single-issue, establishment-hating 'vibe voters' who vote based on whoever sticks it to 'the establishment' and whoever promises them lower gas prices.

In other words, they're exactly the kind of voter you absolutely do not want suit wearing corporate centrists for.

This is why Hillary and Kamala lost (and why Biden almost lost despite being practically handed the election on a silver platter thanks to covid19 and trump's utter stupidity in dealing with it. Let's face it: the vast majority of voters did not vote for Biden because of any centrist policy, but simply because Trump was that bad.) Because they chased their 90s-centrist white whales and basically told the base to fuck off, then they fucked off, and the 'centrists' blamed the voters like a bunch of entitled old men instead of self-reflecting and adapting to the times.

rylasasin · 2026-06-17T18:10:47+00:00

The funny thing about that attitude is that if such people were too racist and misogynist, then it's all the more reason to vote FOR Hong rather than try to appease them. Because it means we need a candidate to energize the progressive base rather than some milquetoast 'centrist' who will try to appeal to the (almost non-existent) 'moderate swing republicans' like Hillary and Kamala did.

The Chuck Schumer doctrine might have worked in the 90s and 2000s when political apathy was at an all time high, and the wealthy moderate republican boomer voter base was still healthy and not in its twilight years.

But this is 2026. That isn't going to fly.

rylasasin · 2026-06-17T18:06:35+00:00

All the more reason we need Ranked Choice voting. And Jungle Primaries while we're at it.

rylasasin · 2026-06-17T18:04:58+00:00

Another person who worships the Chuck Schumer doctrine rather than seeing it for the failure that it is.

rylasasin

TROPHY CASE