I've been watching a few of the post-election "MAGA meltdowns" on YouTube. A repeated theme is that the red states went blue because of blue-staters who had moved to the red states and continued voting Democratic.
Another one I just heard is that Republican mothers are too busy raising their kids to go and vote.
Also at least one blue-state Republican says she stayed home because voting in that state will get you doxxed.
It’s long been my belief that people are more likely to change their vote by abstaining rather than actively switching. In the U.K. for example the “stay at homers” effectively handed Brexit to the leavers.
I don't understand what you mean, @Sandemaniac. You wish @Nick Tamen's comment had been briefer?
EDIT: Oh, sorry. You were refering to Harrison's brief tenure.
Yes, I was. As one of the few C19th US presidents this brit can name, I'm mildly surprised someone from the US - you are, aren't you, if not I apologise! - missed the reference. Still the shortest serving president, I think?
Actually, I'm Canadian, but I knew about WHH and his brief tenure. Tippecanoe and Tyler too.
I think what threw me off is that you quoted the whole post, so I wasn't focusing specifically on the last paragraph.
I've been watching a few of the post-election "MAGA meltdowns" on YouTube. A repeated theme is that the red states went blue because of blue-staters who had moved to the red states and continued voting Democratic.
Another one I just heard is that Republican mothers are too busy raising their kids to go and vote.
Also at least one blue-state Republican says she stayed home because voting in that state will get you doxxed.
Actually, just found out it was Mrs. Stephen Miller who said both of those things.
I've been watching a few of the post-election "MAGA meltdowns" on YouTube. A repeated theme is that the red states went blue because of blue-staters who had moved to the red states and continued voting Democratic.
Another one I just heard is that Republican mothers are too busy raising their kids to go and vote.
Also at least one blue-state Republican says she stayed home because voting in that state will get you doxxed.
It’s long been my belief that people are more likely to change their vote by abstaining rather than actively switching. In the U.K. for example the “stay at homers” effectively handed Brexit to the leavers.
Absolutely. And there are numerous examples of parties explicitly targeting their ads at potential stay-at-homes to get them to the polls. That was the theme of the series of Democratic ads in 1964 that included Daisy.
Vote for President Johnson on November 3. The stakes are too high for you to stay home.
I don't understand what you mean, @Sandemaniac. You wish @Nick Tamen's comment had been briefer?
EDIT: Oh, sorry. You were refering to Harrison's brief tenure.
Yes, I was. As one of the few C19th US presidents this brit can name, I'm mildly surprised someone from the US - you are, aren't you, if not I apologise! - missed the reference. Still the shortest serving president, I think?
I think what threw me off is that you quoted the whole post, so I wasn't focusing specifically on the last paragraph.
I am American, and it took me a few seconds for me to put it together for the same reason.
. . . but if Angie Freaking Nixon can do what she did in Florida then all is surely not lost.
I would class Angie Nixon’s very good performance in the Florida US Senate race as riding the Blue Wave and as anti-Trump/anti-GOP rather than as wide endorsement of her socialist positions. I can’t help but think that, given the Blue Wave, a more moderate Democrat might have been a better fit for Florida and done better.
But Florida used to be solidly purple only a generation or two ago, it's not Texas - and surely a Blue Wave is the ideal time for less moderate candidates anyway?
Wouldn’t that depend on whether one prefers more or less moderate candidates? Not the “done better” part but the “better fit for Florida” part, or even just “better person for the job”?
So, should the Dem ticket in 2028 contain a centrist for president and a progressive for vp?
I think that depends on what their positions are and how centrist or progressive one wants. Not everyone wants as centrist as possible, and not everyone wants as far left as possible. Not to mention that it may depend on the issues.
. . . but if Angie Freaking Nixon can do what she did in Florida then all is surely not lost.
I would class Angie Nixon’s very good performance in the Florida US Senate race as riding the Blue Wave and as anti-Trump/anti-GOP rather than as wide endorsement of her socialist positions. I can’t help but think that, given the Blue Wave, a more moderate Democrat might have been a better fit for Florida and done better.
But Florida used to be solidly purple only a generation or two ago, it's not Texas - and surely a Blue Wave is the ideal time for less moderate candidates anyway?
Wouldn’t that depend on whether one prefers more or less moderate candidates? Not the “done better” part but the “better fit for Florida” part, or even just “better person for the job”?
I meant that if more people are going to be voting blue no matter who, it's a more opportune time to give candidates who are more of an acquired taste a go since they're more likely to get in vs in a more closely tied election. I meant it in the sense of, this is when less mainstream candidates would have a better chance of getting in.
. . . but if Angie Freaking Nixon can do what she did in Florida then all is surely not lost.
I would class Angie Nixon’s very good performance in the Florida US Senate race as riding the Blue Wave and as anti-Trump/anti-GOP rather than as wide endorsement of her socialist positions. I can’t help but think that, given the Blue Wave, a more moderate Democrat might have been a better fit for Florida and done better.
But Florida used to be solidly purple only a generation or two ago, it's not Texas - and surely a Blue Wave is the ideal time for less moderate candidates anyway?
Wouldn’t that depend on whether one prefers more or less moderate candidates? Not the “done better” part but the “better fit for Florida” part, or even just “better person for the job”?
I meant that if more people are going to be voting blue no matter who, it's a more opportune time to give candidates who are more of an acquired taste a go since they're more likely to get in vs in a more closely tied election. I meant it in the sense of, this is when less mainstream candidates would have a better chance of getting in.
Maybe. But it comes with big risks, like “Will a Blue Wave actually materialize and will enough people actually vote blue no matter who?,” or “Will nominating candidates who are more of an acquired taste blunt a blue wave?,” or “Do we need to give the GOP that kind of ammunition to attack our candidates?” Republicans tried to paint all Democratic candidates as socialists, and a major reason that didn’t work was because voters could see they weren’t all socialists.
And if they’re smart, Democrats are thinking not just of this election but of future elections, and of re-electing these candidates.
I think the far better course is know your audience/electorate and recruit and nominate candidates that can have broad appeal among those who will actually vote.
@The_Riv, have you seen this interview with Ty Pinkins, the Black independent candidate in MS? He says polling told him back in April that he had no chance of winning, but that 70% of his little group of voters were white. He says he stayed out of the Mississippi Delta area and only campaigned in heavily white areas, hoping to draw votes away from Hyde-Smith (EDIT: as @Gramps noted above). I'd love to believe this, but the stuff he said when actually campaigning sounds like he could run in California, so I'm wondering if he really spoiled Hyde-Smith's chances and not Colom's.
I meant that if more people are going to be voting blue no matter who, it's a more opportune time to give candidates who are more of an acquired taste a go since they're more likely to get in vs in a more closely tied election. I meant it in the sense of, this is when less mainstream candidates would have a better chance of getting in.
Maybe. But it comes with big risks, like “Will a Blue Wave actually materialize and will enough people actually vote blue no matter who?,” or “Will nominating candidates who are more of an acquired taste blunt a blue wave?,” or “Do we need to give the GOP that kind of ammunition to attack our candidates?” Republicans tried to paint all Democratic candidates as socialists, and a major reason that didn’t work was because voters could see they weren’t all socialists.
And if they’re smart, Democrats are thinking not just of this election but of future elections, and of re-electing these candidates.
I think the far better course is know your audience/electorate and recruit and nominate candidates that can have broad appeal among those who will actually vote.
"Vote blue no matter who" is aimed at people who are solidly on the left who might stray because a candidate is not sufficiently leftie, not at swing voters. On Bluesky I saw the slogan aimed at trans people who expressed dismay and/or anger at candidates like Josh Turek (now Iowa's senator-elect), who not only wants to ban trans girls on girls' sports teams but also to ban federally funding gender-affirming healthcare. It will be aimed at me if California Governor Gavin Newsom becomes the 2028 Democratic candidate for president (God forbid, I hate that guy -- please, nobody vote for him in the primaries) and I start talking about him throwing away homeless people's belongings for a photo op and interviewing Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon on his podcast.
100% agree with Nick that you run the candidates who will appeal to the specific electorate you're talking about, especially in states you're trying to flip. You can run the acquired taste/pushing the envelope kind of Democrat in a House race here in California in Los Angeles or the Bay Area where the Republican doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell and get the fringier ideas into Congress that way. But not somewhere like Florida or Louisiana.
Another thing -- Democrats can't take for granted the votes they pulled from the other side and the middle last week. One huge mistake the Republicans made after 2024 was thinking that all those Latinos and young men who voted for them were firmly on their side, that the electorate had been re-aligned. It hadn't then, and it hasn't now. Democrats will now need to deliver results for those folks and then make sure they know it was Democrats who did that (something Biden's crew didn't do).
Someone posted Talarico's Scanduel ad here recently. I watched it a coupla times, yeah, it's clever. It manages to approximate betting-bro culture, without going overboard with aggressively mocking the bros. I'd imagine you could be a customer of gambling apps and still think the ad was cool.
Another thing -- Democrats can't take for granted the votes they pulled from the other side and the middle last week. One huge mistake the Republicans made after 2024 was thinking that all those Latinos and young men who voted for them were firmly on their side, that the electorate had been re-aligned. It hadn't then, and it hasn't now.
If I had money on the line, I'd still put it on the shift of Latinos back to the Democratic Party being solid for at least the medium-haul. Less sure about the young dudes, but if they still continue to believe the econony is sh*t AND that Trump remains the primary culprit, they might stick around for 2028, at least.
Democrats will now need to deliver results for those folks and then make sure they know it was Democrats who did that (something Biden's crew didn't do).
Senator-elect Al-Sayed has said he'd be willing to call Medicare For All "Trump Care For All", if it would help get the policy passed without a veto.
At one time, I mighta worried that a dangerous number of voters would assume that since it's called "Trumpcare" Trump musta been the benevolent mastermind of it all. But I now suspect that most people outside the cult would know that it was just an old has-been putting his name on some popular legislation to save face.
Sorry. I left out my main point from my first paragraph there.
If I had money on the line, I'd still put it on the shift of Latinos back to the Democratic Party being solid for at least the medium-haul. Less sure about the young dudes, but if they still continue to believe the econony is sh*t AND that Trump remains the primary culprit, they might stick around for 2028, at least.
But a great way to thwart that happy outcome would be for Democrats to start shouting from the rooftops about how they are now and forever the deeply party beloved by Latinos and blue-collar males.
Comments
It’s long been my belief that people are more likely to change their vote by abstaining rather than actively switching. In the U.K. for example the “stay at homers” effectively handed Brexit to the leavers.
Actually, I'm Canadian, but I knew about WHH and his brief tenure. Tippecanoe and Tyler too.
I think what threw me off is that you quoted the whole post, so I wasn't focusing specifically on the last paragraph.
Actually, just found out it was Mrs. Stephen Miller who said both of those things.
Absolutely. And there are numerous examples of parties explicitly targeting their ads at potential stay-at-homes to get them to the polls. That was the theme of the series of Democratic ads in 1964 that included Daisy.
Wouldn’t that depend on whether one prefers more or less moderate candidates? Not the “done better” part but the “better fit for Florida” part, or even just “better person for the job”?
I think that depends on what their positions are and how centrist or progressive one wants. Not everyone wants as centrist as possible, and not everyone wants as far left as possible. Not to mention that it may depend on the issues.
Fair enough - editing quotes is a PITA on my phone so I'm lazier about it than I should be.
I hear ya.
I meant that if more people are going to be voting blue no matter who, it's a more opportune time to give candidates who are more of an acquired taste a go since they're more likely to get in vs in a more closely tied election. I meant it in the sense of, this is when less mainstream candidates would have a better chance of getting in.
And if they’re smart, Democrats are thinking not just of this election but of future elections, and of re-electing these candidates.
I think the far better course is know your audience/electorate and recruit and nominate candidates that can have broad appeal among those who will actually vote.
I do think there's some truth to this.
"Vote blue no matter who" is aimed at people who are solidly on the left who might stray because a candidate is not sufficiently leftie, not at swing voters. On Bluesky I saw the slogan aimed at trans people who expressed dismay and/or anger at candidates like Josh Turek (now Iowa's senator-elect), who not only wants to ban trans girls on girls' sports teams but also to ban federally funding gender-affirming healthcare. It will be aimed at me if California Governor Gavin Newsom becomes the 2028 Democratic candidate for president (God forbid, I hate that guy -- please, nobody vote for him in the primaries) and I start talking about him throwing away homeless people's belongings for a photo op and interviewing Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon on his podcast.
100% agree with Nick that you run the candidates who will appeal to the specific electorate you're talking about, especially in states you're trying to flip. You can run the acquired taste/pushing the envelope kind of Democrat in a House race here in California in Los Angeles or the Bay Area where the Republican doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell and get the fringier ideas into Congress that way. But not somewhere like Florida or Louisiana.
Another thing -- Democrats can't take for granted the votes they pulled from the other side and the middle last week. One huge mistake the Republicans made after 2024 was thinking that all those Latinos and young men who voted for them were firmly on their side, that the electorate had been re-aligned. It hadn't then, and it hasn't now. Democrats will now need to deliver results for those folks and then make sure they know it was Democrats who did that (something Biden's crew didn't do).
@Ruth
If I had money on the line, I'd still put it on the shift of Latinos back to the Democratic Party being solid for at least the medium-haul. Less sure about the young dudes, but if they still continue to believe the econony is sh*t AND that Trump remains the primary culprit, they might stick around for 2028, at least.
Senator-elect Al-Sayed has said he'd be willing to call Medicare For All "Trump Care For All", if it would help get the policy passed without a veto.
At one time, I mighta worried that a dangerous number of voters would assume that since it's called "Trumpcare" Trump musta been the benevolent mastermind of it all. But I now suspect that most people outside the cult would know that it was just an old has-been putting his name on some popular legislation to save face.