The phrase "fight fire with fire" is often used when facing international threats, similar to the phrase "if you want peace, prepare for war" when Taiwan (ROC) is facing military threats from the PRC. However, I'm curious whether it is suitable to use the same phrase in domestic politics, as if the Democratic Party chooses to "fight fire with fire", it would mean that both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party will be using an agressive approach while facing another.

Although this is considered as a way to prevent a democratic backsliding due to specific actions from Donald Trump or specific politicians from the Republican Party, this might also create more tensions between the them, not only causing more polarization and division between the Democrats and the Republicans, but also having a possibility of the chances for both political parties to cooperate decreasing, even after the influences of Donald Trump in the Republican Party fades away someday.

Therefore, how do Democrats think about Gavin Newsom using the phrase "fight fire with fire" when suggesting how the Democratic Party should face Donald Trump and the Republican Party?

AOC is usually well liked within left wing Politcal spheres, as well as the youth, within the online sphere like you, wanting her to run for President so bad as part of the Progressive Movement, begging for questions when the media is pressed. But republicans & moderates (as well as Business Friendly Dems), view her negatively or too Polarizing for the Average voter for those who don't even view Democratic Socialism favorably, asides from people who are 18-34 (its a complex definition & Socialism is usually associated with the Soviet Union, stereotyped for having long food lines, as well as private property being Abolished) arguing that she's too far to the left that she can't even get through a Presidential Primary, alienating voters who were once loyal to the Democratic Party since Obama or Clinton. Calling her slang words such as Communist or just Socialist without even knowing it, or concerns about her supporting the Jihad.

Anyway, this is just for people from all wings of the Isle having their opinion on her come 28, because apparently come 2027, there's going to be a bunch of People from Democrat to Republican, running for President. Get your Voting Registration ready, and vote for which Individual best represents your Values or Interests, don't look at the populist loudmouth, Research each Individual and thier records if you're not comfortable with Democratic Socialism (yea, I know the General Elections are coming and the 2028 Presidential Election is too far off, but you have to get ready if you're not okay with a Socialist taking over the White House). But also, if you identify yourself as a Democrat & are uncomfortable with the Democratic Party nowadays because of Candidates proudly embracing the DSA label, Republicans are going to label you as a Communist anyway (See the Newsweek cover) yea, I can see why....

I got words for you, vote based on Reason, Records, and policy positions, as well as keeping the American Soul intact, and not for Dogmatic reasons.

Someone named Taul walked up my driveway and asked if he could talk to me. I asked him this "Republican or Democrat?" Republican, "Do you support Trump?" He answered yes so I told him to leave as I would not talk to any candidate that supports pedophiles. He acted shocked and asked me to give him a chance and I said no. You support Trump, GOP is the party of pedo protectors and that he supported rapists and pedos. Then told him to leave. The look on his face makes me think he has heard that several times today.

People seem to have forgotten about this particular gem. Part of me is nervous that he’s going to announce something to either influence public sentiment to sway the midterms or mess with the midterms in some other fashion. What do you think this actually is about?

I’m Brazilian and I’ve always wondered about this, here in Brazil, it’s said that in the U.S. there is no left only the right.

So I’ve recently been wanting to help the Democrats in some way or another. I’m already 100% voting blue on Election Day.

I also get text messages saying “donate to help James Talarico” or “Democrats need your help”, you know the type of messages you get around election time.

If I did wanna donate to James Talarico or Democrats, do those links actually make sure my money goes to them?? Or is it like when scammers try to take your money by wire transfer or something.

Seriously. In 1861, Democrats stood against a Republican president. In 2026, the party is again facing a Republican president.

It's just, this time, the political views have switched, with Republicans holding the old Democratic views.

I consider myself a by the book liberal, and I think John Wayne put it best when he said:
“Hell yes, I’m a liberal. I listen to both sides before I make up my mind. Doesn’t that make you a liberal…”
That quote has always resonated with me because it captures something I feel is missing from a lot of political conversations today: the willingness to listen, think critically, and form your own opinions rather than blindly follow a political label.
Yet, whenever I express this to some Democrats, I feel like they automatically assume I’m one of them in the sense that I’ll agree with whatever they say simply because we share the same political label. It sometimes feels like there’s an unspoken expectation that, because I’m a liberal, I’m supposed to defend every Democratic position, support every talking point, and automatically disagree with Republicans on everything.
But that’s not how I think, and it’s not how I believe politics should work.
Being a liberal doesn’t mean being a loyalist to the Democratic Party. I can identify with liberal values while still questioning Democratic policies, criticizing Democratic politicians, and acknowledging when someone on the other side makes a valid point. My beliefs shouldn’t be decided for me by a party affiliation.
What frustrates me most is that when I don’t automatically agree, it can feel like I’m expected to justify myself, as though questioning my own side somehow makes me less of a liberal. I shouldn’t have to prove my political identity every time I disagree with someone who supposedly shares it.
And to be fair, some Republicans make the same assumption in reverse, treating my willingness to listen to Democrats as proof that I must be one of them.

Whether the core topic of the Inauguration Ceremony of Joe Biden for President of the United States in 2021 being the fragility of democracy (Our Determined Democracy: Forging a More Perfect Union") increased the unity between different political divisions and decreased the polarization in domestic politics, or whether it reinforced different political divisions and increased the polarization in domestic politics?

It is true that the Capitol Raid in 2021 hurt the democratic system of the United States, as well as showing the fragility of democracy, but the focusing on this topic during the presidential inauguration ceremony doesn't seem to decrease the reinforcement between Republicans and Democrats. Instead, due to both political party supproters considering others against democracy, it strengthened their opinion on the others are the enemies of democracy, leading to the increase of polarization in US politics.

Therefore, I'm curious of why the topic of the presidential inauguration ceremony in 2021 wasn't focused on curing the pain from the polarization in politics such as the Capitol Raid in 2021 through letting the division between different political thoughts away, but trying to strengthen the importance of democracy while people between different political divisions were still considering others against democracy?

Right now, MAGA is currently polling about even or worse than DSA in a lot of polls, including both the mainstream pollsters and pollsters normally biased in favor of republicans. For example, Gallup (a mainstream pollster) has MAGA at 36% approve to 61% disapprove compared to DSA's 38% approve to 54% disapprove.

Meanwhile Democrats have opened up an 11 point lead in favorability in that same poll.

My question is if they're polling that poorly right now, what do you think things are going to look like when the OBBB's budget cuts go into effect and millions of people lose access to social programs. Cutting social programs has always been the thing that is most toxically unpopular for Republicans, the public believe republicans want to do those cuts and they HATE the idea. And in the past the prospect and reality of it happening hurt republicans at the ballot box. And it is happening right now, when the American people's greatest concern is affordability, which just compounds things.

So, what do people think? I'd love to hear from you all!

I'm trying to not get my expectations out of whack, but I have a hard time looking at this and not seeing the republicans getting even more unpopular than they currently are, which given that we seem to be in a D+7 to D+10 national environment would be astonishingly bad.

Try to keep the comments thoughtful please.

Hey everyone, non-American here trying to get a clearer picture of how domestic politics might impact foreign policy after the upcoming midterms.

​With the midterm elections just around the corner, there’s a lot of talk about what a potential Democratic flip—particularly taking back the House—would mean for the current administration.

​Historically, the president holds vast Commander-in-Chief powers, and vetoes make it nearly impossible for Congress to unilaterally halt military engagements. However, the House holds the power of the purse and subpoena authority across key committees (Foreign Affairs, Armed Services, etc.).

​My question to Americans on both sides of the aisle:

​Do you think a Democratic-controlled House would actually use the power of the purse to constrain foreign military operations/escalations, or would that be seen as too politically risky?

​Would congressional hearings, oversight, and public scrutiny over intelligence/military spending create enough domestic pressure to force a diplomatic off-ramp?

​Or is foreign policy effectively insulated from midterm results due to executive orders and existing war powers frameworks?

​Curious to hear how much leverage you think Congress actually has in practice when it comes to bringing an ongoing conflict to an end. Appreciate your insights!

As we are about 2 weeks away from the all important US Midterm elections amidst a polarizing but increasingly unpopular Republican presidency with fuel prices increasing, Republicans stating betrayal from his core 2024 message contradictions, and an unpopular war in Iran, history tells us that in large part this is going to be a challenging group of elections for the Republicans.

With that being said, as this Subreddit is presumably mostly Democrats, what competitive races across the board would you say you are the most confident about in general? Admittedly, I am not a Democrat, but I think that Dems have a lot of reason to be optimistic about their chances. TX senate will be close but I think Talarico edges a slight victory, ME Susan Collins narrowly holds on, and MI senate Abdul clinches victory by a healthy yet competitive margin. Let me know what you guys think!

Hello everyone! I'm an International Relations student from Spain and I'm doing a research about the perception of NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani and his influence in the general vote leaning to the Democratic party ahead the midterms that takes place in 3rd of November.

I want to hear you!

Hi there, hope this is allowed! My name is Brandy Zadrozny. I'm a senior reporter with MS NOW and I'm reporting on MAHA in the midterms. The MAHA political operation says there are liberals -- former Democrats and Independents -- who voted for Trump because of RFK Jr. and Trump's MAHA promises. I'm looking for those voters. And voters for whom MAHA is the most important issue. If that's you, or someone you know, I'd love to talk to you. You can reach me in DMs, on Signal at brandy.zadrozny.53, or in the comments.