1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

The same could be said for the 1/3 that are MAGA.

I think the big frustration among moderates is neither party seems to be going out of their way to woo them.

Dems are somewhat better in that regard, but stop quite short of moving to the middle during actual campaigns.

The old adage was move to the edges during primaries and to the middle for the general, but now moderates are being asked to make harder choices.

Democrats have been bending over backwards for moderates for 3 elections now and are 1-2 to show for it (against f'ing Trump ffs). Bernie Sanders never won the primary, it was the entire point to Joe Biden twice. The socialist wing has every right to come in now and say "I told you so, it's our turn". I'm not saying this in support of that faction, I'm saying this because it's what any political analyst with two eyes would say.

10 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

The same could be said for the 1/3 that are MAGA.

I think the big frustration among moderates is neither party seems to be going out of their way to woo them.

Dems are somewhat better in that regard, but stop quite short of moving to the middle during actual campaigns.

The old adage was move to the edges during primaries and to the middle for the general, but now moderates are being asked to make harder choices.

The problem is, radical moderation isn't a thing. Moderation is nearly impossible to sell because it's not so much a solution as it is finding a realistic equilibrium. And in the age of social media, explaining why finding a reasonable middle ground is actually the smartest long term solution to a problem is a massive waste of time that no one has the attention span to listen to, even self-proclaimed moderates don't care and don't want to hear it. Dems have spent the last 20 years calmly explaining problems and why they need this or that solution, while Reps have spent the last 20 years screaming 3 word slogans and here we are with a Rep trifecta. The sheet just doesn't work. There aren't enough sane, smart people to drag normal over the finish line anymore.

3 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

Democrats have been bending over backwards for moderates for 3 elections now and are 1-2 to show for it (against f'ing Trump ffs). Bernie Sanders never won the primary, it was the entire point to Joe Biden twice. The socialist wing has every right to come in now and say "I told you so, it's our turn". I'm not saying this in support of that faction, I'm saying this because it's what any political analyst with two eyes would say.

Exactly. Every single Democrat presidential candidate since Obama has been a milquetoast moderate on almost every issue and they've largely gotten spanked by the most transparently fake populist in modern political history. The sad reality here is that these elections continue to reinforce that reactionary dumbFs who believe anything they're told are a motivated and sizable voter bloc.

2 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Exactly. Every single Democrat presidential candidate since Obama has been a milquetoast moderate on almost every issue and they've largely gotten spanked by the most transparently fake populist in modern political history. The sad reality here is that these elections continue to reinforce that reactionary dumbFs who believe anything they're told are a motivated and sizable voter bloc.

And let's be honest, if not for the pandemic, Dems lose 2020 also. I dunno what the GOP brings as a 2028 ticket, but it will be carrying the stench of Trump's robber baron anarcho-kleptocracy with it. You're damn straight a guy like Mamdani is going to sound awesome next to that.

To add a little different spin on it, I think, at a national level anyway, the Dems will probably proceed with a candidate that's generally moderate economically (with the likely exception of being pro-Medicare for All), but who's radical on technocratic, power-balance solutions. I just saw Josh Shapiro basically endorsing packing the Supreme Court, so the balance of power stuff is going to cross all the way into the moderate wing. SC packing, PR and DC statehood, independent redistricting, etc, those are a good way for a more moderate Dem candidate to push for "radical" solutions without actually going leftist. Also, if we're being realistic, pushing those things is almost 100% necessary in an era when Republicans only real goal is power consolidation. Dems basically go down that road or we eventually become a 1 party state because Reps have purged every voter they can't get and have rigged a permanent court that gives the Exec absolute power.

3 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

And let's be honest, if not for the pandemic, Dems lose 2020 also. I dunno what the GOP brings as a 2028 ticket, but it will be carrying the stench of Trump's robber baron anarcho-kleptocracy with it. You're damn straight a guy like Mamdani is going to sound awesome next to that.

He can't run though so it's kind of irrelevant. And every other high profile leftist is a woman, which I can pretty much guarantee won't make it through the primary.

33 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

Democrats have been bending over backwards for moderates for 3 elections now and are 1-2 to show for it (against f'ing Trump ffs). Bernie Sanders never won the primary, it was the entire point to Joe Biden twice. The socialist wing has every right to come in now and say "I told you so, it's our turn". I'm not saying this in support of that faction, I'm saying this because it's what any political analyst with two eyes would say.

I don't think policy has anything to do with those losses.

It's all about the candidates and the culture. Not how far or not far left they are.

2 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

yeah we have to get to a place where it's moderates vs radicals of all stripes.

MAGA and DS progressives are starting to have more in common with each other than with moderates.

Both siders vs the radicals

I'd also note that in the current partisan landscape the advantages of the electoral college towards Republicans are especially acute.

56 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

I think it's LONG PAST time for "moderates" to come to grips with the fact they only make up about 1/3 of the country and don't have the political power they think they have. The country would be best served with 3 parties because the actual distribution is roughly 1/3 MAGA cultist fascists, 1/3 socialist liberals and 1/3 moderates getting torn at the seams.

Yeah multiple parties would be best. In any case, there aren’t enough votes on the left left to win. Go far left policy wise and lose again. A high energy fighter from a moderate left position is the winning formula.

18 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I'd also note that in the current partisan landscape the advantages of the electoral college towards Republicans are especially acute.

A change to the electoral college is a reasonable item to discuss. Packing SCOTUS is not. Fixing the gerrymandering problem should be something everyone could get behind.

1 hour ago, DrPhilly said:

A change to the electoral college is a reasonable item to discuss. Packing SCOTUS is not. Fixing the gerrymandering problem should be something everyone could get behind.

Um...changing the electoral college requires a Constitutional Amendment. Adding SCOTUS justices does not. You have it backwards. I am in favor of neither of these, but the only one that is remotely plausible is adding more justices.

The split is 1/3 MAGA, ~1/3 socialist/woke/far left, and 1/3 sane. Sane can't win anymore.

20 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Um...changing the electoral college requires a Constitutional Amendment. Adding SCOTUS justices does not. You have it backwards. I am in favor of neither of these, but the only one that is remotely plausible is adding more justices.

The split is 1/3 MAGA, ~1/3 socialist/woke/far left, and 1/3 sane. Sane can't win anymore.

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is crazy.

9 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Um...changing the electoral college requires a Constitutional Amendment. Adding SCOTUS justices does not. You have it backwards. I am in favor of neither of these, but the only one that is remotely plausible is adding more justices.

The split is 1/3 MAGA, ~1/3 socialist/woke/far left, and 1/3 sane. Sane can't win anymore.

I think 1/3 far left is a bit high, at least nationally. If we're looking at specific metro areas I could see it being that high, or even higher. But given how few "progressive" candidates actually make it through Democratic primaries as compared to radical-right candidates in Republican primaries, I can't buy the equivalence there.

I think the breakdown of likely voters is more like

30% hardcore MAGA

15% more moderate Republican/Conservative

7% "true" moderates; historical votes go 50/50

28% more moderate Democrat/Liberal

20% progressive/far left.

One of the big difference between the parties here is the tendencies of those "hardcore" / "far left" groups.

On the right, the mentality is more "circle the wagons"; they view the left holistically as "the enemy" and it's easier to get them unified - even if they're part of the hardcore/far right/MAGA group.

On the far left the mentality is "this niche issue is important to me" or "this is my litmus test". They hate Republicans, but they hate Democrats too - just marginally less. Candidates that are not sufficiently progressive will more quickly lose support.

If Dems lose even 30% of the progressive left, they're cooked. And it's easier for them to lose them.

53 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Um...changing the electoral college requires a Constitutional Amendment. Adding SCOTUS justices does not. You have it backwards. I am in favor of neither of these, but the only one that is remotely plausible is adding more justices.

The split is 1/3 MAGA, ~1/3 socialist/woke/far left, and 1/3 sane. Sane can't win anymore.

Umm... never said it wasn't a Constitutional Amendment. The "discussion" is a national one. Adding SCOTUS justices is just simply stupid as it just becomes a continual race to add more. I have these both correct and I'm not in favor of them either though I do think a discussion is warranted so that everyone can align and is informed.

edit: and by "national discussion" I mean a full on debate and discussion on the topic with the concept of a possible Amendment at the end (which I would not be in favor of), we've had several amendments over the years so it is fully possible technically

Sane can't win flat out for sure at this point but it can still decide.

Just now, DrPhilly said:

Umm... never said it wasn't a Constitutional Amendment. The "discussion" is a national one. Adding SCOTUS justices is just simply stupid as it just becomes a continual race to add more. I have these both correct and I'm not in favor of them either though I do think a discussion is warranted so that everyone can align and is informed.

Sane can't win at this point but it can still decide.

Packing the court isn't any less sane than lifetime appointments to the court or McConnell waiting a year to fill a seat because he's a POS. Yes, the GOP will add more and the Dems will add more after that, but the GOP will always, no matter the circumstances, make the move that preserves or adds to their power, so Dems have no reason to ever consider their reaction. It's constitutional for Dems to add seats and after the BS the Reps have done over the past decade, it's completely reasonable.

Just now, VanHammersly said:

Packing the court isn't any less sane than lifetime appointments to the court or McConnell waiting a year to fill a seat because he's a POS. Yes, the GOP will add more and the Dems will add more after that, but the GOP will always, no matter the circumstances, make the move that preserves or adds to their power, so Dems have no reason to ever consider their reaction. It's constitutional for Dems to add seats and after the BS the Reps have done over the past decade, it's completely reasonable.

Yeah, so what? You want to do a crazy thing because someone else did something crazy? With your take on these types of topics we may as well just skip straight to the actual physical violence.

7 hours ago, MidMoFo said:

Do you still go out to find your own Easter eggs?

2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Yeah, so what? You want to do a crazy thing because someone else did something crazy? With your take on these types of topics we may as well just skip straight to the actual physical violence.

5 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Yeah, so what? You want to do a crazy thing because someone else did something crazy? With your take on these types of topics we may as well just skip straight to the actual physical violence.

The GOP's never going back to normal again. It's just never gonna happen. If the Dems don't understand and accept that this is who the Reps are and who they'll continue to be, they'll be perpetually chasing their tail. No thanks.

14 hours ago, lynched1 said:

Half-man here is obsessed with girl D hahahahaha

7 hours ago, Boogyman said:

Half-man here is obsessed with girl D hahahahaha

Interesting that that's how you describe the image.

On 7/3/2026 at 2:10 PM, lynched1 said:

Interesting that that's how you describe the image.

2 hours ago, Boogyman said:

9 hours ago, lynched1 said: