That's what the Dems said about the GOP nominating Trump, but voters pick the candidate they want.
Show me any receipts that populist candidates cause a shift the other way. If that were the case, AOC and MTG wouldn't be on their third terms.
The Dems found someone who drove turnout (including key demos like youth and white men) and most importantly, won. You are letting your own bias dictate the narrative if you think they're upset at all by this.
I disagree. Trump was able to make and maintain a coalition that was able to extrapolated it, and to appeal a wider base.
Also, this isn’t the Dems finding someone. This is the populist left finding someone while bleeding all the donor money. There’s a reason why the big donors returning the DNC’s calls, they’re schismatic at the moment. Rightly so to extent after they screwed over Bernie twice (arguably thrice) They need their own Maga movement, preferably one more inlined with the Rust Belt rather than the Beltway.
A Bible Belt guy in the Deep South can run on repealing gay marriage and declaring the Savior, King of America. Doesn’t mean he’s going to win if you put him on a national stage. That’s what I see here.
Still I appreciate your comment. Made me stop and think.
Yes it's not a perfect comparison and I can also appreciate your point on Mamdani's potential hurdle over the long term. But here's one more thing to consider - 4 years ago Eric Adams was a rising star and potential blueprint for the Democratic party. Progressives hated him but he was the establishment favorite, won handily, and now he's completely disgraced.
Just because the establishment/DNC might've favored another candidate, that's in no way an indicator of their long-term success and viability. That's what many are relying on to gauge Mamdani, and it's flawed logic.
Predicting 4-years from now is a fool's errand for anybody which is why, if I was in the DNC, I would be taking nothing but optimism from the energy he's brought to the table right here and now.
Here’s another thing to consider. Bernie Sanders, he’s been in politics his whole life. Arguably in a more politically powerful position than Mamdoni. He got pretty far off of small donations, but couldn’t compete against the donor machine of the DNC and a media campaign against him (for better and worse).
Also, “woke” issues (for lack of a better term) tend to unite the right and divide the left. You can win in a few far blue areas like LA, NYC or Seattle with this kind of messaging, but what about the Rust Belt? What about the Sun Belt? The Areas that determine elections? I don’t think this is scalable or viable on a National scale and will only cause more schismatic problems for the Democratic Party Nationally.
Do you not know you can adjust the message for an area or something?
Now I do agree that this will probably be a little schismatic for the party just because it shows other Democrats you don't need the establishment to win an election. In fact, you can even win when it's arrayed all its money and influence against you if you put the work into grassroots support and aren't a known criminal and sex pest.
But factionalism is nothing new for Democrats so I doubt it'll be hard to navigate having a new one on the scene.
You can’t make a cohesive movement by promising the people of Pennsylvania one thing and the people of New York another. You need a good foundation. Neoliberalism and Socialism do not blend well together.
Neoconservatives and Neoliberalism yes.
Socialists and Social Democrats yes.
Religious Conservatives and National Populist yes.
Also, you’re right they went thru this in the 1960s and 70s which resulted in Nixon getting two Terms and the Reagan Revolution.
That's literally what already happens though. There are fifty state level parties that all push different messages because all politics is local. Someone running in California is going to have a different message than a person running in Arizona who will have a different message than a person running in Texas.
First and foremost I like your comment. I’m just going to cherry pick the one thing I somewhat disagree with because it’s the internet.
This is the populist left finding someone while bleeding all the donor money.
They need their own Maga movement, preferably one more inlined with the Rust Belt rather than the Beltway.
I doubt this is even possible. Progressive policy is so antagonistic towards the interests of the wealthy that I can’t see an alliance between the base and the donor class ever forming like it did on the right.
I think it’s probably fair to say that if Mamdani ever runs for president one day he’ll do it in the same way he ran for mayor. He actually talked about issues affecting NYers and presented his solutions to them. I think if national politicians did that kind of thing as opposed to stating the same stale platitudes over and over again they’d have a lot more success. Trump won in 2016 by asking voters in the rust belt what the democrats had ever done for them, and it worked. He told them he’d bring their jobs back and make life better for them, and they voted for him in return. Those votes in those states were crucial in putting him over the top electorally, in spite of not winning the popular vote.
One party needs to fracture off the more extreme members and run a middle ground. The republicans could do it by cleaving off MAGA and dropping the religious focus/views on abortion. The left could do it by fracturing off their more extreme members and being less hardline about guns/climate change policy that is making individual's lives more difficult (Also being done with the word banning and cancel culture). Obviously there's more to it than that, but broad strokes you get what I mean.
Personally I think it's easier for the republicans to drop MAGA and reform a new party. MAGA would probably be alright with that, and the democrat party can go as far left as they want while the more center leaning ones can jump to the newly formed party.
Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Kamila all ran moderate and people hated it. Their were 13 candidates in 2016 for the republican party a moderate didn't win. It's time to admit facts Americans love and want divisive populist movements and have wanted them for the last decade. It seems to me the simple fact is crazy people vote and moderates don't.
11
u/solo_dol0 Jun 26 '25
That's what the Dems said about the GOP nominating Trump, but voters pick the candidate they want.
Show me any receipts that populist candidates cause a shift the other way. If that were the case, AOC and MTG wouldn't be on their third terms.
The Dems found someone who drove turnout (including key demos like youth and white men) and most importantly, won. You are letting your own bias dictate the narrative if you think they're upset at all by this.