No. Minneapolis and some other local governments use ranked choice voting in local elections. Minnesota as a whole does not.
The Democratic party in Minnesota is officially the Democratic Farm Labor party . . . .
If we’re going with “officially,” it’s officially the Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party of Minnesota. It’s commonly known as the DFL.
Could more cities turn to Democratic Socialism for mayoral candidates? What would that be like if it reaches the state and then national levels?
Then Democrats would win in some places and lose in other places. It is unlikely, I think, that Democratic Socialists would win anywhere that doesn’t already lean blue (like Minneapolis). It is much less likely, I think, they’d win in toss-up areas, where winning candidates need to appeal to the political middle.
Democratic Socialists candidates everywhere is not a recipe for taking back Congress, I don’t think.
Democratic Socialists candidates everywhere is not a recipe for taking back Congress, I don’t think.
Probably not, but they could heavily influence how the party LEANS if not in the next midterm, there will be the future presidential elections. I do think there will be such a strong reaction to Trump that they have a pretty good chance of impacting the democratic platform.
Republicans are already loading their cannons for the next battle.
The Las Vegas prognosticators gamblers are taking bets on who will be the next nominee for President. So far only Newsom and Buttigieg have double digits (20 and 12 respectively). Harris comes in at 7.
On the Republican side, Vance is at 55 and Rubio is around 12.
Recently Senators Murphy of Washington State, and Warren of Massachusetts gave speeches that are encouraging the Democratic party to develop a populist platform.
Trump ran on making things more affordable, but he has not been able to pull it off. Could Democrats do better? What could be in a Democratic Platform that would be attractive?
Three things I can think of is:
Universal health Care
A living wage
Making housing affordable.
Or should we go full bore like Mamdani did in NYC?
The problem for the democratic party is that it's very hard to build a single platform that holds the whole mess together.
What sells in NYC is going to turn people off in the heartland, which has been the conundrum for the American liberal-left for a long time.
Trump might be ugly-pushy enough to press that coalition back together, again, but the fissures are pretty obvious.
It's going to take investing in a lot of neglected areas while not losing the areas where we're already strong, but these are divergent places with (in their eyes) diverging needs. And it's a hard thing because the rhetoric that gets you cheers in one place is going to get you run out on a rail in another. The GQP knows this fact and has gotten extremely talented at manipulating it.
I think there would be a number of reforms that would play in Peoria as well as Seatle and LA.
For instance, universal health care. I think most Americans would agree health care is a right, not a privilege.
Affordable housing. Very high in many parts of the country. We have homeless families everywhere.
Climate mitigation. Many farmers were left holding the bag when Trump cancelled renewable energy projects on farms. Encourage the installation of solar panels, move toward carbon free transportation in ten years. We have the technology
Better trade relations: cancel the Trump tariffs. Strengthen the Canada-Mexico-US trade pact. Give farmers a chance to compete on the global market.
Work towards a living wage ~$25 in most parts of the country, may have to work in a differential for certain regions.
Encourage immigration--many new businesses are started by immigrants. We have a declining/aging population that needs to be replaced and supported.
Academic and trades education. Four year public schools tuition free. Student loan forgiveness
Trade schools free with guaranteed placement in critical jobs.
Minnesota has the Democratic Farmer Labor party. There were similar parties in the Dakotas, though now they are solid red. Ohio is a swing state with a strong Democratic party. Michigan. Wisconsin, Illinois is reliably Democratic at the state level largely because of Chicago. Recently, centrist Democrats are overperforming in deep red areas of Iowa during special elections. Texas could swing democratic in this next election--many of the metropolitan areas are blue. Moving West: Colorado is solid democratic. Arizona has moved Democratic as has New Mexico and Nevada.
In the South, South Carolina Democrats have done very well in local elections, and even in deep red Mississippi Democrats won multiple mayor elections.
Oh yes. I am looking for a heavily democratic sweep.
In the South, South Carolina Democrats have done very well in local elections, and even in deep red Mississippi Democrats won multiple mayor elections.
There are a number of examples of races, local and statewide, of Democrats doing well in the South. But I can pretty much guarantee that one reason Democrats have done well in those elections is by knowing their electorates.
With some exceptions, a Mamdani-style candidate isn’t likely to appeal to enough of the electorate to win in the South. Democrats’ best chance will come with accepting that the party needs to embrace a range of approaches and attitudes rather than expecting everyone to toe exactly the same lines. Making a mold based on a winning candidate in one place and expecting all candidates everywhere to fit that mold is a recipe for losing.
One interesting anecdote is that if you could get a democrat to do well in West Virginia back in the day, it'd be Bernie Sanders. Because a lot of those folks are very ferociously anti-establishment. But of course, a lot of city voters are very establishment because you can't really run a public transit system without an establishment. We understand the need for social welfare and...folks out there probably should too. And for similar reasons they absolutely hated Hillary Rodham Clinton with the undying fire of 10,000 suns...plus right wing propaganda and sexism.
And I think the "right wing propaganda" machine has only gotten worse for a lot of people.
A lot of winning elections is knowing the local game and sometimes that's a real hindrance for a national party. If you do it badly, you get twits like Fetterman.
Sometimes I wish the national parties just gave resources to local party organizations and just allowed them to cook without undue interference. Let the locals win local elections on local terms. And trust them to win and when it gets to the national process, you have to trust it to work instead of trying to strong arm everything for pet causes.
Mind, I have pet causes I'm really protective of, that gives me pause. It'll make some bloody awkward conversations and failures in some regions. But maybe it'll work.
I am thinking of the most Western of the Midwestern states and the western states immediately adjacent to them.
I guess I still have to ask can you be more specific. Are you talking about Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona? I can tell you Wyoming will stay red come hell or high water. Montana is pretty proud of its wildlands. There is a sizable group there who want to keep it that way, but there is a group that wants to sell off some of the public lands. And emphasis on ecology would work there. Western Montana in particular will be suffering from a prolong drought because of climate change. Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona lean Democratic anyway. The unions in Las Vegas pretty much control how Nevada will vote. Utah has long been a moderate Republican state. It can flip. They are also concerned about water rights. Idaho has had some Democratic leaders in the past, but it is largely Republican.
As a Canadian, I do not have the expertise to be more specific. I guess I was essentially asking what could move the needle for states in that general area that might have voted Dem in ther past.
Comments
If we’re going with “officially,” it’s officially the Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party of Minnesota. It’s commonly known as the DFL.
Then Democrats would win in some places and lose in other places. It is unlikely, I think, that Democratic Socialists would win anywhere that doesn’t already lean blue (like Minneapolis). It is much less likely, I think, they’d win in toss-up areas, where winning candidates need to appeal to the political middle.
Democratic Socialists candidates everywhere is not a recipe for taking back Congress, I don’t think.
Probably not, but they could heavily influence how the party LEANS if not in the next midterm, there will be the future presidential elections. I do think there will be such a strong reaction to Trump that they have a pretty good chance of impacting the democratic platform.
Republicans are already loading their cannons for the next battle.
On the Republican side, Vance is at 55 and Rubio is around 12.
Long, long way to go.
Recently Senators Murphy of Washington State, and Warren of Massachusetts gave speeches that are encouraging the Democratic party to develop a populist platform.
Trump ran on making things more affordable, but he has not been able to pull it off. Could Democrats do better? What could be in a Democratic Platform that would be attractive?
Three things I can think of is:
Universal health Care
A living wage
Making housing affordable.
Or should we go full bore like Mamdani did in NYC?
What sells in NYC is going to turn people off in the heartland, which has been the conundrum for the American liberal-left for a long time.
Trump might be ugly-pushy enough to press that coalition back together, again, but the fissures are pretty obvious.
It's going to take investing in a lot of neglected areas while not losing the areas where we're already strong, but these are divergent places with (in their eyes) diverging needs. And it's a hard thing because the rhetoric that gets you cheers in one place is going to get you run out on a rail in another. The GQP knows this fact and has gotten extremely talented at manipulating it.
For instance, universal health care. I think most Americans would agree health care is a right, not a privilege.
Affordable housing. Very high in many parts of the country. We have homeless families everywhere.
Climate mitigation. Many farmers were left holding the bag when Trump cancelled renewable energy projects on farms. Encourage the installation of solar panels, move toward carbon free transportation in ten years. We have the technology
Better trade relations: cancel the Trump tariffs. Strengthen the Canada-Mexico-US trade pact. Give farmers a chance to compete on the global market.
Work towards a living wage ~$25 in most parts of the country, may have to work in a differential for certain regions.
Encourage immigration--many new businesses are started by immigrants. We have a declining/aging population that needs to be replaced and supported.
Academic and trades education. Four year public schools tuition free. Student loan forgiveness
Trade schools free with guaranteed placement in critical jobs.
Infrastructure Enhancements Replace crumbling bridges, expand primary and secondary road construction.
Increase retirement income. Expand existing social security benefits. Remove income caps.
Develop a progressive tax system based on ability to pay.
Improve and expand National Parks and other wildlands.
I am not asking for much, am I?
Does the Dem party have any kind of toehold in the heartland at all?
It could if they worked at it. The upper midwest is a start. But...yes. There's a lot of work to do.
That said, no state is 100% one party or the other. It's just work.
In the South, South Carolina Democrats have done very well in local elections, and even in deep red Mississippi Democrats won multiple mayor elections.
Oh yes. I am looking for a heavily democratic sweep.
With some exceptions, a Mamdani-style candidate isn’t likely to appeal to enough of the electorate to win in the South. Democrats’ best chance will come with accepting that the party needs to embrace a range of approaches and attitudes rather than expecting everyone to toe exactly the same lines. Making a mold based on a winning candidate in one place and expecting all candidates everywhere to fit that mold is a recipe for losing.
And I think the "right wing propaganda" machine has only gotten worse for a lot of people.
A lot of winning elections is knowing the local game and sometimes that's a real hindrance for a national party. If you do it badly, you get twits like Fetterman.
Sometimes I wish the national parties just gave resources to local party organizations and just allowed them to cook without undue interference. Let the locals win local elections on local terms. And trust them to win and when it gets to the national process, you have to trust it to work instead of trying to strong arm everything for pet causes.
Mind, I have pet causes I'm really protective of, that gives me pause. It'll make some bloody awkward conversations and failures in some regions. But maybe it'll work.
What area are you referring to?
I guess I still have to ask can you be more specific. Are you talking about Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona? I can tell you Wyoming will stay red come hell or high water. Montana is pretty proud of its wildlands. There is a sizable group there who want to keep it that way, but there is a group that wants to sell off some of the public lands. And emphasis on ecology would work there. Western Montana in particular will be suffering from a prolong drought because of climate change. Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona lean Democratic anyway. The unions in Las Vegas pretty much control how Nevada will vote. Utah has long been a moderate Republican state. It can flip. They are also concerned about water rights. Idaho has had some Democratic leaders in the past, but it is largely Republican.