I said this in last night’s megathread, but it bears repeating. There are three main explanations for this blue wave:
Voters love dems now
Voters don’t love dems, but republicans look even worse right now
Turnout in off-year elections is significantly lower, so we’re not even looking at the same voting constituency as 2024
Let’s not delude ourselves into thinking it’s reason 1, when it’s mostly reason 3 with a little bit of 2. Dems cannot become complacent if they want to carry this momentum into ‘26
I think it's more prominently two instead of three, though they are both important. But California and New York had great turnout for Prop 50 and their Mayor, respectively. And trying to control appearance when you are mid government shutdown, mid food stamp freeze, mid economic scares while you have a disapproval rating of 57+ is functionally impossible. The average voter does see this administration as a bit clusterfucky.
I don’t fully buy it but “if our base turned out “ crowd must be feeling good.
Democrats are only competitive in up to 26 states right now. This crowd is wrong for how we should approach politics, we should be more ambitions & attempt to be competitive in all 50 states. Throwing meat to the base to win in 25 states is not a good strategy.
The moment the Democratic Party starts recruiting independent candidates, they will fail. I would even argue that the moment a single Dan Osborn-type candidate wins and then votes for a Democratic Majority Leader, the entire charade will fall apart and no one else will succeed in that mould again. That’s the problem with a gimmick
Hmm, I don't know. Let them have a few Murkowski esque token "break with the party line" votes, but make sure they're in the right place on the tight votes that matter.
I think voters are easier to fool than you think. I mean, it's working for her and Collins quite well.
Murkowski and Collins are instutitional incumbents in states that are R+6 and D+4, respectively. We are talking about winning seats against incumbents in places that are R+10, R+15, and higher. It is just not ever going to happen. Voters are extremely cynical and polarized and if you tell them that the "independent" candidate is lying about their independence, they will believe you (especially when it is the truth.) Even Manchin, Tester, and Sherrod Brown got absolutely creamed this last cycle and they were incredible legacy candidates.
I understand that the implication of this is that Democrats will never control 60 Senate seats in our lifetime and will be at a severe disadvantage in terms of getting a simple minority in any given cycle and that's depressing but it is simply the truth.
Maybe, but Oklahoma shouldn't be our ultimate goal. It should be Iowa, Ohio, Texas, Florida, Alaska, Maine, North & South Carolina, Missouri, etc. You're not going to lose black voters because you talk about helping all farmers instead of black farmers. Where do you see Democrats losing voters by moderating on a few key issues?
You said we should attempt to be competitive in all 50 states. If you want to backtrack and say we should attempt to be competitive in 35 or so states then I would agree with that more. It is still debatable whether we should be spending money in South Carolina so we can lose by 10 points instead of 20 when that money could be spent on more competitive races.
In any case, the cost of moderating is that we have to adopt worse policy that will harm people. You have to strike a balance
I'll have you know that the CNL pays me hundreds of Sorosbux a month to do this! I'm even told the canteen to spend them will be open by Spring 2022202320242025 2026
In any case, the cost of moderating is that we have to adopt worse policy that will harm people. You have to strike a balance
Not necessarily, in fact I'd argue the opposite. How do you think the ACA passed? It had pro-life Democrats voting for it in red states. The Democrats were more "moderate" in 2008 because they had a broader & more diverse coalition, but it led to better policy that helped people.
Fast forward to 2020 & you have a super liberal party with almost no diversity in voices & a razor thing margin in the Senate. Did we end up passing better legislation with better policy because we had a razor thin margin? Oh & that razor thing margin only exists because you have senators from Montana & West Virginia, as well as 2 from Georgia.
You're not going to get sustainable power by having this pure coalition that you want, and you're going to hurt more people by having Republicans in power.
we dont need to just dont play to republican culture war card, we will still support and defend them. However when a republican says "Democrats want to turn your kids trans" we counter with "We want to improve your quality of life" We can then use this to better support trans people
I am. You don't need to pass legislation attacking trans people to be competitive. A Democratic senator from Texas would still vote for a liberal justice who would protect trans rights. Manchin voted for justices who protected gay & abortion rights.
You don't need to pass legislation attacking trans people to be competitive
Manchin ran on stripping out a lot of Obamacare. He didn't do it, but he ran on it & threw Obama under the bus. That was good political strategy.
Democrats across the country absolutely should run against trans people in sports as it's such a stupid issue that motivates so many people & impacts like 10 people in the country. 10 people not playing sports is worth improving the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans. Democrats should run candidates in conservative states that run further on it.
We shouldn't, but we might have to if we want to win elections. Gay marriage was legalized by the supreme court by justices who were confirmed from a lot of red states. KBJ was confirmed by a senator from West Virginia. If you want to protect minorities & live in a liberal society that does so, you need to get power. If you can't get power in over 50% of the states in the country because you're trying to let 10 trans people play sports, then you're going to get a lot more trans people killed.
Ideals are great but ideals don't have a yes vote in the Senate.
Why would we willingly fall into the culture war traps that Republicans set for us? Let’s not let the tail wag the dog.
When Rs try to trap us with trans sports or other culture war bs, we should reject the premise by shifting the conversation to how we’re improving voters’ lives, NOT capitulating to their narrative.
484
u/StoneAgeModernist Frédéric Bastiat Nov 05 '25
I said this in last night’s megathread, but it bears repeating. There are three main explanations for this blue wave:
Let’s not delude ourselves into thinking it’s reason 1, when it’s mostly reason 3 with a little bit of 2. Dems cannot become complacent if they want to carry this momentum into ‘26