2026 Congressional Elections

[Motown Bombers]

 

[pfife]

1 hour ago, ewsieg said:

 but the democrats are a big tent party, except for moderates. 

Yes there are no moderates in the Democratic party.  Hard to find nary a one

 

[ewsieg]

30 minutes ago, pfife said:

Yes there are no moderates in the Democratic party.  Hard to find nary a one

 

That was in reference to some of the hard line progressives.  They want the Democratic leaders to say "We're a big tent, everyone is welcome", but often it's just so they can get invited in.  When it's someone they don't want, they tend to be the first one out of the tent.

[pfife]

23 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

That was in reference to some of the hard line progressives.  They want the Democratic leaders to say "We're a big tent, everyone is welcome", but often it's just so they can get invited in.  When it's someone they don't want, they tend to be the first one out of the tent.

Whats happening here in this thread is a moderate bragging ad nauseum (seriously) about choosing to set the tent on fire because others in the tent may have the audacity to select somone else in the tent he didnt like (a minority)

Furthermore, if a progressive leaves the tent because they disagree with leadership then so be it?   Whats wrong with that?   Didnt you leave the GOP tent over their **** leadership?

Or is this just more "progressives owe the democrats their votes because reasons" stuff?

Edited August 4 by pfife

[Motown Bombers]

California could very well have a more moderate candidate than Michigan or Wisconsin. Dems have great candidates all across the country. It's just Michigan and Wisconsin that looks poised to **** the bed. 

[pfife]

Just now, Motown Bombers said:

California could very well have a more moderate candidate than Michigan or Wisconsin. Dems have great candidates all across the country. It's just Michigan and Wisconsin that looks poised to **** the bed. 

And youre here  bragging about helping the gop win in michigan if you dont get your way

[Motown Bombers]

 

[Sports_Freak]

Haley is gonna lose, isnt she?

[CMRivdogs]

Another interesting piece from JVL today. Since It's primary day in both Michigan and Virginia as well as several other state most voters minds are made up.

However the riff between the flavors of DSA will linger into 2028 if we make it that far

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/democratic-socialists-social-democrats-dsa?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#substack-comments

Quoting the "good stuff"

Quote

I have been asked over and over about the DSA-Democratic party split and today I want to propose a solution. Because there’s a way to bring new ideas into the Democratic party while keeping out the people who want to destroy the party.

First off: What is the DSA?

No one knows. Not really.

There are, broadly speaking, two flavors of DSA. The first are people who want to expand the welfare state and move America closer to the Scandinavian model. They want universal health care coverage, subsidized college tuition, aggressive regulation of big business, and more power for organized labor.

Because I want to avoid prejudicial labels, let’s call them DSA Group A.

Then there are people who want something different. They stipulate to all of the Scandinavian stuff, but their emphasis is on untethering the United States from Israel, “defunding” the police, and blowing up the uniparty.1 Let’s call them DSA Group B.

DSA Group A fits pretty well with the Democratic party.

DSA Group B sees the Democratic party as an enemy indistinguishable from the Republicans. I realize that’s an expansive claim, but this was the official DSA position on the 2024 election:

The DSA was unable to tell the difference between Trump and Harris. It was unwilling to say that Harris would be a better president for America. It was giving people reasons not to vote. And while it was actively undercutting Harris’s campaign, it was eager to prospectively blame Harris for losing to Trump.

To my mind, the inescapable conclusion is that DSA Group A represents a chance for the Democratic party to road-test new ideas and evolve. DSA Group B wants to do to the Democratic party what MAGA did to Republicans.

The challenge is that the amorphous DSA catch-all makes it hard to signal the difference between Groups A and B.

 

The trick is that I don’t think the people in Group A are really democratic socialists. They’re social democrats, in the European tradition. Why not acknowledge that distinction officially? If you’re an AOC, a Ro Khanna, or a Mamdani-type politician, you can distance yourself from the priorities of those Group B guys by saying that you’re a social democrat. That you think the DSA has some good ideas, but that you see a way to synthesize concerns about health care, education, and oligarchy within the historic tradition of the Democratic party.

You don’t have to slag off the DSA Group B types. They’re free to pursue their own program—that’s what the Hong Experiment in Wisconsin is all about. But there’s a way to make clear that the choice isn’t Francesca Hong or Hillary Clinton. There’s a lane between them which gives new blood and new ideas a pathway into the party while keeping the Das Kapital-loving, Mao-admiring tankies out.

And you might as well keep the tankies out. Because as that DSA statement up there 👆 shows, those people were never going to vote for Democratic candidates anyway. They’re not looking to join the party. They’re trying to hijack it. 

Never forget that in 2016, less than a quarter of Bernie’s primary voters ended up voting for Trump, picking a third-party candidate, or staying home in the general election. Most of Bernie’s voters were social democrats, not DSA.

Why not make that distinction official?

 

 

[Motown Bombers]

There is no two flavors of DSA. It's a radical group that is more about a communist revolution than Scandinavian social policy. The DSA primaries congressmen who supported progressive policy like Medicare for All because they were sufficiently anti Israel. 

[pfife]

🤡

[gehringer_2]

18 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

Why not make that distinction official

IDK - I wonder if leftists in the US feel some kind of unpaid debt to Marxism or something. Sort of like Crosby's lyric about feeling like you owe something to someone.

The difference maybe is that in the post WWII period, while the US was fixed on communist witch hunts, parts of Europe, in particular England, actually started getting close to actual state-control-of-the-means-of-production economic socialism without the side order of totalitarianism, and it was still seen within a couple of decades to be a resounding failure. So for Europe, there is already a "been-there-done-that" quality about being 'socialist', and thus the evolution of the 'social democrat' concept. 

And of course JVL is right, American social democrats don't have enough sense of history to know that they are not 'socialists".

Edited August 4 by gehringer_2

[pfife]

I love how some congressmen are apparently above getting primaried.  Of course that group consists only of 'ones magatownbummers likes'

[Tigerbomb13]

48 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

There is no two flavors of DSA. It's a radical group that is more about a communist revolution than Scandinavian social policy. The DSA primaries congressmen who supported progressive policy like Medicare for All because they were sufficiently anti Israel. 

Lol nice red scare MAGA take

[Motown Bombers]

8 minutes ago, Tigerbomb13 said:

Lol nice red scare MAGA take

Whatever. People will realize what they are when it's too late like the Tea Party. 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

1 hour ago, Sports_Freak said:

Haley is gonna lose, isnt she?

Yes, it feels like she is going to. She had messaging that didn't fit the mood of the electorate, she's too moderate for the primary electorate, took bad votes that hurt her reputation, couldn't win over any sizable amount of voters under 40-45 years old, and she didn't campaign all that much save the past few weeks.

The electorate right now in the Democratic Party is upset and frustrated with party leadership. They seems upset that we lost to Trump again and that the party doesn't have a unified message for what they are going to do to improve people's livelihoods. She's tied at the hip with Chuck Schumer and current elected officials at a moment when people in the party feel the status quo isn't working.

The average Democratic Primary voters has moved more to the left, progressive end of the spectrum. Mallory could have been a better bridge candidate to close the gap between the left and center, but with Haley and Abdul both in the race, she got squeezed out. I think Mallory could have beat Haley head to head and possibly beat Abdul head to head. But with both of them in and her being not as moderate as Haley and not as left as Abdul, she had no defined lane to run in or base of support to build from.

The party has lost to Trump twice now. People can crow about Bernie or uncommitted all they want, but there are plenty of reasons Democrats lost twice to Trump. Bad messaging, bad candidate quality, not fitting the change mood of the country, running on the status quo, etc. Haley is a representation of the status quo. The old way of thinking that some voters see cost us against Trump twice now. Maybe Abdul loses to Mike Rogers. Maybe he doesn't. However, voters feel that the so-called establishment has had their day in the sun and failed to make things better and failed to beat Trump twice now.

Haley took several bad votes in Congress and bas positions on the trail that hurt her campaign at a time like this. Most notably she voted to thank ICE agents in a vote for a Republican resolution that was put forward to honor law enforcement including ICE. She then came out later on in the campaign after visiting an ICE facility and essentially said how she felt reassured that there were female agents at the facility that were very nice and respectful. This is after the murder of Renee Nicole Good mind you. Her extreme support for Israel, unwilling to condition any military aid, even offensive weapons hurt with the party base. As well, her being in bed with AIPAC and other big money special interests like big pharmaceutical companies, utility companies like DTE, and other corporate interest groups hurt her brand. Even Elissa Slotkin was shrewd enough to reject corporate PAC money and campaign on a broken system in Washington D.C. Slotkin is a very skilled politician and shows how you can be a moderate and still broaden your appeal and win.

Her failing to connect with young and middle-aged voters under 45 really hurt her to. She is getting crushed with millennial and Gen Z voters, if the polling proves accurate. it would be one thing if Abdul was winning this demographic 60%-40%, she could manage that politically and come out with a win. But if polling is any indicator here, and it may be wrong, she's poised to lost 75%-25% or more with voters under 40-45 years old. She simply doesn't relate to these voters, does stand where they do on issues, and again, is seen as protecting a status quo that has failed so many millennials. Voters between the age of 34-44, who came of age during the Great Recession, are the most progressive block of voters. Her support with them is non-existent.

For Abdul, he has his problems as well. He's got to improve his standing with black voters overall, of any age group. Abdul will probably win black voters under 45. The younger and more educated group of black voters will go for Abdul by bigger margins. Older black voters, north of 50-55, are likely going to be Haley's best demographic. He's got to make sure those voters turn out and vote for him in November to beat Mike Rogers. As well, he's got to improve his standing with white voters 55 and over. He's going to do well with voters under 50 I think and they are continuing to make up a larger and larger chunk of the electorate as boomers and silent gen people starting passing away and millennials become a bigger force within the Democratic Party base. But still, he's going to need voters over 50 if he wants to beat Mike Rogers in November.

[Motown Bombers]

Right from the Detroit chapter of the DSA:

Just good ole fashioned Scandinavian socialism. 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

Just now, Motown Bombers said:

Whatever. People will realize what they are when it's too late like the Tea Party. 

I know you have a blind dislike for Abdul, even though he was on Team Kamala from day one with her campaign. But Abdul as a candidate has far better messaging and is running a better campaign than the goofballs the Tea Party ran in the 2010s like the witch Christine O'Donnell in Delaware and Sharon Angle in Nevada. I think Abdul has his flaws as a candidate, notably what he said in the past about defunding the police. That will come back to hurt him to some effect I fear. I also wouldn't have campaigned with Hasan Piker because it just wasn't needed. He could have won young voters no problem, without Piker showing up in Michigan. But Abdul is just objectively a better communicator and better campaigner than the goofballs Republicans ran for office during the Tea Party wave.

[Motown Bombers]

You're right, Stevens messaging couldn't compete with noun verb AIPAC. 

[Motown Bombers]

Just now, Mr.TaterSalad said:

I know you have a blind dislike for Abdul, even though he was on Team Kamala from day one with her campaign. But Abdul as a candidate has far better messaging and is running a better campaign than the goofballs the Tea Party ran in the 2010s like the witch Christine O'Donnell in Delaware and Sharon Angle in Nevada. I think Abdul has his flaws as a candidate, notably what he said in the past about defunding the police. That will come back to hurt him to some effect I fear. I also wouldn't have campaigned with Hasan Piker because it just wasn't needed. He could have won young voters no problem, without Piker showing up in Michigan. But Abdul is just objectively a better communicator and better campaigner than the goofballs Republicans ran for office during the Tea Party wave.

His messaging is noun verb AIPAC. He's not better. He hasn't won ****. Many nutcase Republicans, like O'Donnell, have won primaries only to lose winnable general elections. 

El-Genocide supported uncommitted. He never supported Biden even after the primary. We needed to be united in defeating Trump and he ****ed around and supported a group that eventually transferred over to Abandon Harris. All he ever talks about is AIPAC despite him receiving millions from dark money pacs. 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

1 minute ago, Motown Bombers said:

Right from the Detroit chapter of the DSA:

Just good ole fashioned Scandinavian socialism. 

Yep, indeed. The government of Norway, a Scandinavian country, recognized Israel was committing a genocide against Gazans. Denmark, Norway, and Sweden have stated that if the ICJ believes it is a genocide occurring in Gaza that they will back that finding. Also, I don't believe that Denmark, Norway, nor Sweden have an equivalent force to ICE. I believe Norway's sovereign wealth fund divested as well.

https://www.norway.no/en/missions/wto-un/latest-news/norwaygovstatementgaza/

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/11/norway-wealth-fund-divests-stakes-in-several-israeli-companies

[Motown Bombers]

1 minute ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Yep, indeed. The government of Norway, a Scandinavian country, recognized Israel was committing a genocide against Gazans. Denmark, Norway, and Sweden have stated that if the ICJ believes it is a genocide occurring in Gaza that they will back that finding. Also, I don't believe that Denmark, Norway, nor Sweden have an equivalent force to ICE. I believe Norway's sovereign wealth fund divested as well.

https://www.norway.no/en/missions/wto-un/latest-news/norwaygovstatementgaza/

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/11/norway-wealth-fund-divests-stakes-in-several-israeli-companies

There is no genocide in Gaza. The only foreign policy they care about is the one that punishes Jews. 

The Scandinavian countries do have immigration enforcement. Completely abolishing it is insane. 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

9 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

You're right, Stevens messaging couldn't compete with noun verb AIPAC. 

His slogan is Money Out of Politics. Money in Your Pocket. Medicare for All. Having been to 3 events for Abdul, I've heard him relentlessly hammer that messaging. Having been to no Abdul events, you wouldn't know that.

 

[Motown Bombers]

WTF do pictures of him have to do with anything? Every interview he does, rally etc. he mentions AIPAC. 

[Tigerbomb13]

1 minute ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

His slogan is Money Out of Politics. Money in Your Pocket. Medicare for All. Having been to 3 events for Abdul, I've heard him relentlessly hammer that messaging. Having been to no Abdul events, you wouldn't know that.

 

Nor would he care to know. The obsession is frankly, weird.