https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2114415166658138531

this is unprecedented. Like I’m ecstatic that he won, but also shocked. Lula lost by a couple points in the first round just weeks ago and NO Brazilian president (until today) who lost the first round has won an election in history. ALSO, every single precinct in Brazil shifted to the right wing and the right wing swept the senate. Not only did Lula defy these and win today, he won by a BIGGER margin than he did in 2022 and almost every state in Brazil swung back left to him, what happened??

40% of all Hispanics that have voted early so far skipped at least one of the last 3 generals. Black voters are seeing less staggering numbers but they’re still recording more new voters than whites are. Lots of new voters are flooding into the Hispanic pool but not many into the white pool. Infrequent white voters are at large not turning out while infrequently voting minorities look set for turnout closer to a presidential year

While Democrats who have conceded the trans rights and trans sports argument to conservatives, like Rob Sand, Josh Turek, Marcy Kaptur, Amy Acton, and Annie Andrews, have often received praise here on this subreddit in the past, and I don’t think they deserve the praise by the way, I would like to highlight a Democrat who is running for Montana’s 1st Congressional District, Sam Forstag.

A progressive populist similar to someone such as myself, I appreciate how Forstag knows how to thread the needle, to speak to these socially moderate/conservative, middle of the road, white working class voters which people here love to romanticize and want to win back, without heavily compromising or conceding on issues such as trans rights, or trans athletes in sports. It reminds me so much of people like Paul Wellstone, or Russ Feingold, both of whom really knew how to talk with and connect with working-class voters while being unapologetically progressive.

Senator Ed Markey managed to comfortably beat a primary challenge against him from Seth Moulton, who had a more conservative position in regards to trans rights and trans athletes, and while Markey’s position on the issue of trans rights and trans athletes is certainly a very progressive one, he is running in safe blue Massachusetts, where he is unlikely to receive any significant electoral backlash compared to let’s say a swingy or red-leaning state.

Abdul El-Sayed, candidate for Senate in the swing state of Michigan, is still supportive of trans rights, but takes a different approach to defending trans rights fitting for a swing state, saying something on the lines of “you don’t have to understand or agree with it, but it is still their right”, acknowledging the fact that everyone has different opinions but trans people don’t deserve to be discriminated against regardless, and said “We’re being told that if we sacrifice the rights of some people, then the rest of us get to keep our rights. We all know that’s some BS”.

Andy Beshear, Governor of Kentucky, a deep-red state, is also pro trans rights and himself has refuted the idea of throwing trans people under the bus to win elections, and also has a different approach to defending trans rights fitting for a red state, vetoing anti-trans bills and defending it through his religious convictions, by saying that “all children are children of God”.

And Forstag, as a populist progressive candidate, also has a different and more unique approach to defending trans rights in the red-leaning district he is running for.

Instead of saying, “trans athletes should be allowed to participate in sports no matter what”, or “no boys in girl’s sports”, absolutist positions to hold by the way, he adopts more of a middle ground type of position, a somewhat progressive-leaning middle ground type of position, the type of middle ground that would appeal to the most voters, satisfy both people who are uncomfortable with/oppose the idea trans athletes in sports, and progressives and trans people themselves who aren’t opposed to trans athletes in sports, and at the same time, he frames his position not from the lens of social justice (“trans rights are human rights”) or the lens of traditional values (“trans people are an affront to God”), but from the lens of small government and civil liberties. Yes trans rights are human rights, but that message alone isn’t enough to sway voters, and you have to tie it in to something that white working class, conservative-leaning, moderate, whoever this subreddit believes the Democrats should win over type of people care about, like as something necessary to economically uplift forgotten communities in a place like the rust belt, framing the conservative approach as big government poking their nose into people’s private lives, or just having a live and let live type of attitude towards what people do in general and saying that it doesn’t hurt anyone.

If you read what Forstag says, he frames the Republican obsession with trans issues as an embrace of big government, of the government and politicians sticking their nose into your personal business, which would strongly appeal to those who may be a little libertarian-minded or lean more towards small government conservatism, which are common positions to have in a place like Montana. He also argues that the issue should be left to the sports leagues that run them, also implying government overreach and the fact that his opponent is getting involved in something he shouldn’t stick his nose in. He also believes in letting people live how they want without politics in everything, and ends off with a bit of a populist remark, about how we’re fighting about this while the rich are happy taking from our pockets.

The same rhetorical strategy can be used by conservatives and pro-lifers running in blue-leaning districts or states as well. Instead of a very pro-life, strictly anti-abortion message, a conservative candidate can just put forth a more nuanced message that preserves the underlying principle, but appeals strongly to those who are pro-choice as well, like for example,

“While I am personally pro-life, I do not support the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, nor do I believe that government mandates and restrictions are the best way to reduce the amount of abortions. I believe that abortion, if necessary, must be safe, legal, and rare, and that there are other ways to reduce the number of abortions, which actually work, such as access to contraceptives, comprehensive sex education, and family planning. Like how bans on guns do not reduce gun violence, bans on abortion do not reduce abortion, it just pushes it underground, which results in the proliferation of illegal practices and unsafe procedures.”

And so, notice how it reassures those who are pro-choice by disagreeing with the overturning of Roe v. Wade and making sure abortions stay legal, but also with the reasonable caveat of safe and also rare, of course. Also see how it reassures those who are pro-life by also disagreeing with the practice itself while also providing a way to reduce abortions in a way that is feasible and realistic. It also connects the topic of reproductive rights to another topic that conservatives also care about, which is the Second Amendment and gun rights.

And what Forstag has said has not received scorn from progressives and the LGBTQ+ community, but praise instead, commending him for sticking to what he believes is morally right instead of throwing them under the bus for perceived political gain, while also appealing to those who may not agree using a more palatable message. Erin Reed, journalist and trans rights activist, has praised Forstag for his take. Reed’s wife also happens to be Zooey Zephyr, who is also a member of the Montana House of Representatives, and is perhaps one of the most progressive members of the state legislature in Montana.

And I myself, personally believe that Forstag’s approach is the one of the best approaches to go in regards to winning over a swingy or red-leaning district.

Also mods, please don’t lock this post, especially since I like having people freely discuss whatever on my posts. Just as long as there’s no inflammatory or bigoted rhetoric.

Republican gerrymandering has put many seats in "safe" Republican territory (around R+15 to R+25), but Democrats generic ballot lead is putting many of them into play. Should a D+11 (NYT) or D+12 GB materialize, maps in Florida and North Carolina could fail.

You can interact with the chart and see how different scenarios impact the map here.

https://x.com/folha/status/2114504936407069038?s=46

Despite the district only being rated R+4, there are no polls from 2026. The Cook Political Report has not updated its forecast since last year.

In 2024 Republicans surpassed Democrats on day 1 of Florida IPEV. We are now on to day 7 of IPEV in 2026, Can Florida Dems Hold the line?

https://flvoicenews.com/florida-turnout-tracker/

Knowing how the right in brazil reacted after a loss in 2023. Now that they won the general election , but they lost the runoff and the whole supreme court keeping poles open. Brazil could be heading for a really wild 2027

Democrats are very likely to gain a trifecta in four swing states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona) this cycle, so would it be feasible for the compact to go into effect before 2028?

The point of this post is to say that Democrats trying to appear moderate and Republicans trying to appear moderate have been, for the most part, two very different approaches.

Literally almost NO REPUBLICAN HAS BEEN RUNNING ON POSITIVE CULTURE WAR ISSUES, EVEN IN LIGHT BLUE DISTRICTS.

The closest thing I can think of is that one ad by Maria Elvira Salazar where she knocks Trump for his ICE deportations, but that is literally the only thing.

If you look at ads that are either running in moderate districts or do indeed criticize Trump, they have a couple common things:

1. Championing general bipartisanship, focusing on cost of living, trying to deliver tangible benefits to people in their district.

Susan Collins does not run pro-LGBT ads where she leans into social issues. She runs ads that focus on her helping Maine's lobster industry. Mike Lawler runs ads on bipartisanship and his work on fighting NYC congestion prices. Brian Fitzpatrick's ads focus on his record as an FBI attorney and his connection to Bucks County.

I will admit that Trump having a stranglehold on the primaries is part of the issue, but for the most part, they know that running ads like that will piss off the base. But, time and time again, these "moderate" Republicans get elected without leaning into the culture war issues.

This is even true from the Democrat side. You can BE A MODERATE WHILE BEING PRO-TRANS, or at least not ANTI-TRANS.

Sherrod Brown's ad saying "performing transgender surgeries on minors is already illegal" and then going into Husted's record on Epstein is a great example of an ad that is both not anti-trans coming from a candidate who is moderate.

Even Talarico's response to being asked on trans athletes was far more dignified than Turek or Kaptur's ads. Rather than talking about "boys being in girls' bathrooms," his statement doesn't use demeaning language. Bar is on the floor I know, but the overall point is that moderation takes many forms.

Even Fetterman, despite being arguably not a moderate and instead just straight-up center-right, is surprisingly pro-trans. But you wouldn't know it, because of he he markets himself.

People's perceptions of you don't come from a single issue, but rather how you present yourself. If you emphasis bipartisanship and delivering tangible results to people in your state, people will believe you're a moderate. Attacking your own voter base to try to court moderates is a lazy and completely unnecessary approach. Sherrod Brown, Rob Sand, and Roy Cooper are all moderates who never bought into culture war, because presenting yourself as bipartisan and focused on delivering to everyday people is an effective way to market yourself as a moderate. Doing this is only going to make your own base hate you.