4 ms·

That seems to be a denial of reality. Democrats are already winning races all over the country, in places that (traditionally) have been Republican strongholds

That seems to be a denial of reality. Democrats are already winning races all over the country, in places that (traditionally) have been Republican strongholds. But don't let me stop you from believing in a worldview that contradicts reality ... lost of Republicans (and some Democrats) do it too.

1024core 8mo ago
Local county races and dog catcher races do not matter. What matters is who occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. That is the only race that counts.
- vjvjvjvjghv 8mo ago
  House and Senate are probably more important than the president.
- dabockster 8mo ago
  False. Local races directly determine the day-to-day laws and rules you live under way more than a POTUS could effectively decree. I don't know about you, but I sure enjoy having reliable electrical, water, and sewer systems.
  - esafak 8mo ago
    They have that in Saudi Arabia too but I would not want to live there. Set higher standards.
- idiotsecant 8mo ago
  So wildly inaccurate. If you disconnect yourself from the cable news outrage pornography cycle you'll find most things that actually impact you happen at the state and local level. A lot of spooky things on the TV to be afraid or mad about, but for the average person there is vanishly little real effect.
- jasondigitized 8mo ago
  That's just not true. If you iive in Texas or California or wherever, your governor, state reps, judges, etc are all going to affect you far more than the President.
- scottyah 8mo ago
  This is absolutely, in my mind, the opinion that has done the most damage to this country. If people didn't abandon politics that affect them at every level for a celebrity superbowl type show we wouldn't have this circus of Presidential campaigns.
vjvjvjvjghv 8mo ago
Democrats are mostly winning because the republicans have totally lost it, not because they are bringing forward a political vision that makes sense. I guess that’s where we are.
- inigyou 8mo ago
  And after 4 to 8 years of Democrats running things and nothing improving, the people vote Republicans just in case it's better. It keeps happening. It's the circle of life!
  - AuthAuth 8mo ago
    People only think nothing improved because thats what Republicans are saying. Anyone even mildly politically informed can see the progress that happens under Democrat leadership.
    - inigyou 8mo ago
      Progress such as...?
      - newAccount2025 8mo ago
        Sadly apt. Democrats don’t make progress fast enough, while Republicans pull us backwards on vaccines, diversity, environment, abortion, healthcare, global prominence, naked corruption, oligarchy, theocracy, and military oppression.
      - deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
cogman10 8mo ago
Dems have lost to Trump twice and it looks like they want to run the same campaign strategies in future elections. They are relying too heavily on "trump bad" to win and I worry about what that will ultimately result in down the line.
- cthalupa 8mo ago
  This is a statement you can make. It's also a statement entirely divorced from reality when you look at the fact that those winning candidates are not in fact doing that, and neither are the candidates that are getting the most national attention like Talarico. Newsom has a vested interest in making it sound like he's the maverick here that knows the special formula, but it's been obvious to damn near everyone that they couldn't run out the same losing playbook.
  - cogman10 8mo ago
    > neither are the candidates that are getting the most national attention like Talarico It's a pretty close race with some recent polling indicating that Crockett will win the primary. Impossible to tell though. I clock her as being a more traditional democrat ultimately policy wise. I'd expect she or Talarico has a good shot at winning in TX. They both have the potential to pivot to a more traditional position in the general election. My main concern is the current elected leaders of the democrats and how the incoming dems view them. Frankly, if a candidate isn't saying "we need to oust Schumer/Jeffries" then I take that as a pretty decent signal that they align close enough with the moderate position to worry me about the future party. I worry about the actions of the dems after election. I think they'll win the midterms, maybe even take the senate. I even think there's a good shot that they win 2028 presidental elections. The problem is that I think they'll run a biden style presidency and future campaigns once they get in power. That will setup republicans for an easy win in 2030 and 2032.
    - cthalupa 8mo ago
      I'm a Texan so I'm following this pretty closely. I slightly prefer Crockett to Talarico, but I voted for him in the primary because I think he's got a significantly better shot to win. Texas is going to need moderate and centrist votes to swing blue - we're not making the state more liberal at a rate that is gonna hand either of them a victory. Both are actually fairly progressive. But Talarico is a lot better at selling those progressive values to everyday people. The hispanic vote is one of the biggest factors in Texas, and while they're obviously not a monolith, culturally a lot of them have much more mixed social values than other voting demographics. Statistically, way more likely to be heavily religious, and that's at odds with a lot of the social values from more progressive candidates. Talarico effortlessly refrains these issues in a way that aligns with stuff he can directly quote scripture on. I'm an atheist so I don't care what scripture says on the matter, but it's the sort of thing that plays well with a lot of a key voting demographic that Crockett just can't do.

1024core 8mo ago

Local county races and dog catcher races do not matter. What matters is who occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. That is the only race that counts.

vjvjvjvjghv 8mo ago
House and Senate are probably more important than the president.
dabockster 8mo ago
False. Local races directly determine the day-to-day laws and rules you live under way more than a POTUS could effectively decree. I don't know about you, but I sure enjoy having reliable electrical, water, and sewer systems.
- esafak 8mo ago
  They have that in Saudi Arabia too but I would not want to live there. Set higher standards.
idiotsecant 8mo ago
So wildly inaccurate. If you disconnect yourself from the cable news outrage pornography cycle you'll find most things that actually impact you happen at the state and local level. A lot of spooky things on the TV to be afraid or mad about, but for the average person there is vanishly little real effect.
jasondigitized 8mo ago
That's just not true. If you iive in Texas or California or wherever, your governor, state reps, judges, etc are all going to affect you far more than the President.
scottyah 8mo ago
This is absolutely, in my mind, the opinion that has done the most damage to this country. If people didn't abandon politics that affect them at every level for a celebrity superbowl type show we wouldn't have this circus of Presidential campaigns.

vjvjvjvjghv 8mo ago

Democrats are mostly winning because the republicans have totally lost it, not because they are bringing forward a political vision that makes sense. I guess that’s where we are.

inigyou 8mo ago
And after 4 to 8 years of Democrats running things and nothing improving, the people vote Republicans just in case it's better. It keeps happening. It's the circle of life!
- AuthAuth 8mo ago
  People only think nothing improved because thats what Republicans are saying. Anyone even mildly politically informed can see the progress that happens under Democrat leadership.
  - inigyou 8mo ago
    Progress such as...?
    - newAccount2025 8mo ago
      Sadly apt. Democrats don’t make progress fast enough, while Republicans pull us backwards on vaccines, diversity, environment, abortion, healthcare, global prominence, naked corruption, oligarchy, theocracy, and military oppression.
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]

cogman10 8mo ago

Dems have lost to Trump twice and it looks like they want to run the same campaign strategies in future elections. They are relying too heavily on "trump bad" to win and I worry about what that will ultimately result in down the line.

cthalupa 8mo ago
This is a statement you can make. It's also a statement entirely divorced from reality when you look at the fact that those winning candidates are not in fact doing that, and neither are the candidates that are getting the most national attention like Talarico. Newsom has a vested interest in making it sound like he's the maverick here that knows the special formula, but it's been obvious to damn near everyone that they couldn't run out the same losing playbook.
- cogman10 8mo ago
  > neither are the candidates that are getting the most national attention like Talarico It's a pretty close race with some recent polling indicating that Crockett will win the primary. Impossible to tell though. I clock her as being a more traditional democrat ultimately policy wise. I'd expect she or Talarico has a good shot at winning in TX. They both have the potential to pivot to a more traditional position in the general election. My main concern is the current elected leaders of the democrats and how the incoming dems view them. Frankly, if a candidate isn't saying "we need to oust Schumer/Jeffries" then I take that as a pretty decent signal that they align close enough with the moderate position to worry me about the future party. I worry about the actions of the dems after election. I think they'll win the midterms, maybe even take the senate. I even think there's a good shot that they win 2028 presidental elections. The problem is that I think they'll run a biden style presidency and future campaigns once they get in power. That will setup republicans for an easy win in 2030 and 2032.
  - cthalupa 8mo ago
    I'm a Texan so I'm following this pretty closely. I slightly prefer Crockett to Talarico, but I voted for him in the primary because I think he's got a significantly better shot to win. Texas is going to need moderate and centrist votes to swing blue - we're not making the state more liberal at a rate that is gonna hand either of them a victory. Both are actually fairly progressive. But Talarico is a lot better at selling those progressive values to everyday people. The hispanic vote is one of the biggest factors in Texas, and while they're obviously not a monolith, culturally a lot of them have much more mixed social values than other voting demographics. Statistically, way more likely to be heavily religious, and that's at odds with a lot of the social values from more progressive candidates. Talarico effortlessly refrains these issues in a way that aligns with stuff he can directly quote scripture on. I'm an atheist so I don't care what scripture says on the matter, but it's the sort of thing that plays well with a lot of a key voting demographic that Crockett just can't do.