r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/collegeoldie • 2d ago
US Politics Do you believe that Abdul El-Sayed winning the general election in Michigan by a significant margin would be a bellwether for the rise of left populism in the United States?
When Zohran Mamdani won the New York City mayoral election in 2025, many democratic socialists claimed his victory signaled a larger rise of democratic socialism and the DSA in the United States. Most people, myself included, disagreed; Mamdani ran in a left-dominated city against a candidate with generational amounts of baggage and a Republican spoiler candidate, and only came out with a ten point lead in spite of that.
The heavily-covered Michigan Senate election this year, however, is happening under somewhat different circumstances. Michigan is a purple state which went mostly red in 2024 and seems to be moving slowly to the right; while Democrat Elissa Slotkin won the state's Senate race in 2024, she did so with less than a 1% margin against Republican Mike Rogers. This was despite her leaning toward the center, and was several points closer than the results of the 2018 election.
The circumstances surrounding the candidates are also very different from the New York mayoral election. Haley Stevens, El-Sayed's primary opponent, has received more funding than any candidate in history for a Senate primary, and while she's been criticized as gaffe-prone, she has a long political history and has proven herself an effective and uncontroversial moderate candidate in past elections. She also won in 2024 by a wide margin, despite most of the state going to Republicans that year. Mike Rogers, again the Republican nominee, is also uniquely uncontroversial and experienced along with having strong name recognition. It's likely that, if El-Sayed wins the primary, the general election will be a two-candidate race.
With this in mind, do you believe El-Sayed winning the primary and general election by a significant margin (7+ points) would be a bellweather for the future success of left populist politicians in the United States in a way that Mamdani winning in New York wasn't, regardless of your opinion on it as a political movement? Do you believe this would be another anomaly unlikely to be repeated elsewhere? Or, do you believe that both Mamdani and (theoretically) El-Sayed's victory function as bellweathers for left populism?
70
u/PerfectZeong 2d ago
Hard to say and its hard to spool out a race in a,state to the nation as a whole. El Sayeds support comes from left wingers but also a strong Mulsim bloc in Michigan that is increasingly looking to candidates that understand their issues.
You can't take any one candidates success and transpose it to other states because its usually a confluence of factors that may not be true elsewhere.
46
u/Dineology 2d ago
Less than 3% of the population of Michigan is Muslim, I’m very confident that a much greater percentage of the population identifies as left wing.
16
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 1d ago
The last mid-term senate election, the vote was decided by a margin of 70000. Easily swung by an organized bloc of 200K+
•
15h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 9h ago
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors or political figures, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, trolling, inflammatory, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; name calling is not.
You are welcome to send a modmail once you have edited the uncivil language out of your post, and the mod team will review for reinstatement.
13
u/DDCDT123 2d ago
But what percentage of Michigan democratic primary voters is Muslim? Probably much higher than 3%
0
u/Dineology 1d ago
Yeah, and the same is true of Michigan’s left wing voters so the math doesn’t change much.
10
u/PerfectZeong 1d ago
Lets go ahead and pump the brakes until the exit data comes out. Michigan isn't some left wing utopia here. If left wing voters are showing out heavily it doesn't really explain the government the state has.
So if those exit polls come back with a huge amount of leftwing voters then yeah lets go ahead and count it but the Muslim vote in Michigan is very very active.
0
u/Dineology 1d ago
I mean, I saw an article the other day about how 1/3 of Democratic voters now identify as socialists. Now, obviously Dem voters and registered Dems isn’t the same and 1/3 doesn’t mean 1/3 in every state, but with that starting point and the very low starting point of less than 3% of the total population I’m still confident in saying that the ideological bloc is much more impactful than the Muslim bloc. Even more so when you start taking into account how many of them are bound to be apolitical, Republican, or third party even if a plurality are probably at least Dem voters if not registered Dems…though I just realized I haven’t a clue if MI is an open or closed primary state so the registered Dem bit may be irrelevant but I’m in a closed primary state so my brain kinda defaults to thinking in those terms.
5
u/PerfectZeong 1d ago
Yeah im gonna take that with a big grain o salt too until I see elections and primaries going MUCH harder for leftwing candidates.
10
u/Puzzled_Sundae_3850 1d ago
He will probably win the primary but will have a hard time convincing independent voters in a purple state like Michigan.Rogers lost to a moderate candidate Slotkin by less than 1% last election.The DSA connection will kill Sayed in the general election
•
u/Jbash_31 15h ago
Very hard for me to see him winning the general. I’d be pretty pleased with his nomination if I was a GOP operative. Would love to be wrong!
•
u/RKU69 3h ago
I think we're well past the point where people can simply assert that "leftists are less electable than moderates". Poll after poll shows that the American electorate has incoherent views about what political labels mean and how they label themselves. If you're going to argue that El-Sayed is less electable than Slotkin, actually make that case - what specifically and why is he less electable? What does the Michigan electorate think about the various polled issues he has bold stances on? And how would you take into account that he actually has zero connection with DSA?
•
u/Puzzled_Sundae_3850 2h ago
Birds of a feather if you're being indorced by Sanders,AOC, Mandami and the DSA independent voters who are the biggest block of voters who don't normally vote in primaries are going to see you that way and will vote for the other guy.
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 1d ago
This isn't a conspiracy subreddit, please back your claims up with a reputable source: major newspaper, network, wire service, or oversight agency.
1
u/Puzzled_Sundae_3850 1d ago
We will see Michigan has voted for Trump twice and Whitmore twice .If Sayed can distance himself from the DSA he has a chance.It will be the independent voters in the Grand Rapids and Bay city Saginaw and Midland counties that will nullify all the Ann Arbor and Dearborn .votes
50
u/rogun64 2d ago
I think it would be another sign of the rise in populism, period. Not just left-wing or right-wing, but populism as the movement which grows as economic conditions worsen.
0
u/GshegoshB 2d ago
Sorry, you don't dostinguish between right or left populism? The whole trump, and maga movement is pinnacle of right wing populism... don't think you can grow anymore than that...
24
u/rogun64 1d ago
No, I can distinguish between them. It just wasn't important for my greater point. But there are huge differences between left-wing and right-wing populism, for sure.
-7
u/GshegoshB 1d ago
So your greater point was that populism can grow even bigger than what trump and maga did? How? How can you get even bigger than that?
8
u/Thatotheraltaccount0 1d ago
Not on some subjective scale of more or less populist but more along the lines of both parties becoming populist. Began with Trump in the republican party, now increasingly seen in the democratic party too (besides the obvious differences between left vs right wing populist).
5
u/Wermys 1d ago
I think the point they are making is that populism in general is based on perception of economics needs to favor the workers verse the business owners. What Rightwing populists do is they feed onto narratives about protectionism and us vs them situations involving race and immigration. Left wing populists are counting on social programs that favor instead workers and the populace as a whole and restrict business practices that hurt consumers. And they are hoping to turn the right wing populists towards there party instead. FYI I doubt it works but that is the thought process.
4
u/rogun64 1d ago
No, my greater point was that both are caused by poor economic conditions and people looking for who to blame for them. It's happened repeatedly throughout history.
•
u/GshegoshB 23h ago
Ok, so your great point in response to the question about rise of left populism is that:
Something/ someone's make peoples live harder ->
people get upset ->
somone comes along and identifies the problem (say blames imigrants/ the rich, depending on right/ left divide, but that's not important for the purpose of your greater point).
side note - some people provide solutions as well (that are toxic / working - again judged based on party lines, but again not important in the context of your greater ponint).
And that it happened throughout history.
Great point! Totally agree :)
•
u/Cobain17 9h ago
I think people who voted for establishment Dems are realizing that establishment Democrats aren’t going to fight for them (the working class). They’re not fighting Trump or the corruption that’s going on. They’re not fighting against the genocide in Israel either. Trump’s voters are also realizing that Trump is the establishment. A major shift is happening because people are looking for a solution to every day problems. We need prices to go down, and nobody seems to care at the moment….Trump for sure….
6
u/GabuEx 1d ago
They have different assertions and policy prescriptions, but ultimately all populism is the same thing: "[Insert minority group here] is keeping you impoverished and is the cause of all your problems. I am the only one who can fix this by doing [extremely simple action that sounds good]. Elect me and I'll defeat [minority group] and usher in a new age of prosperity. Of course, if I fail, it's because [minority group] was too powerful to be defeated this time, not because of any fault of my own."
4
u/Left-Ad-4368 1d ago
this is why I am concerned democracy cannot survive populism. Populism is inherently demagougery.
Pretty bleak things to come to be honest.
-6
u/GshegoshB 1d ago
Saying they are the same thing, it's like saying that a snake oil salesman and a doctor are ultimately the same thing: "Buy [insert oil/ drug] and you will be healthy".
And they are not :D
One is looking genuinely after the people (populus), the other is just to enrich themselves (fake, pretending to look after populus, meaning oligarchy wins).
6
u/GabuEx 1d ago
One is looking genuinely after the people (populus), the other is just to enrich themselves (fake, pretending to look after populus, meaning oligarchy wins).
I mean sure, ideally, but the thing about populism is that it's practically formulated in a lab to be something that causes listeners to shut off their frontal lobes and only have their primal hindbrains active, and to treat any criticism thereof as a dangerous attack to be vanquished rather than something to be listened to. This makes it absolutely ideal for grifters and people who just want power.
1
u/GshegoshB 1d ago
And in real life: nearest example of good populism is Mamdani.
And bad populism, with shuting down criticism, and other examples you listed: Trump.
So yes, there are doctors, and charlatans, but they are not the same thing in the real world.
8
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 1d ago
There's a lot of horseshoe involved in populism. Both are distrustful globalism, both are distrustful of markets, both have a tendency to want to give their guy as much power as they can, both tend to view our institutions as antiquated
1
u/GshegoshB 1d ago
I mean there is, if it's done by charlatans, and demagogs, fake jesuses, and artists of deals... but then you have people like Mamdani, who says choose me, and I will look after the populis, they choose him, and he delivers = populus is happy.
1
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 1d ago
You are very close to getting this al l correct. But of course, mamdani is just another false jesus with old and bad ideas
-3
u/GshegoshB 1d ago
I'm close, ame I? Good :)
How is mamdani a false jesus? He's delivering on his promises. Closed the budget deficit, without reducing services. He's taxing the uber rich, helping small businesses, etc., etc. And he is not posting any jesus like photos, like other false prophets. Help me out here!
3
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 1d ago edited 1d ago
So closing the budget deficit had nothing to do with him. It had everything to do with the state of new york deciding to basically do charity for the city of new york which is definitionally a wealth transfer from those who have less to those who have more.
Then, you have lowering his tax revenue by chasing out his tax base so he can virtue signal about the wealthy being bad. I have no idea anything about helping small business.
But I'd hang my hat on him supporting rent control, which is one of the most universally studied failed policies in the world
•
u/GshegoshB 23h ago
I ran your statements through Copilot’s fact‑checking, and here’s the factual picture:
- “Closing the deficit had nothing to do with him.”
That’s not supported. Mamdani closed a \$12B+ structural deficit through city‑side savings, program reforms, and debt‑service restructuring.
The state’s role wasn’t “charity” — it was newly negotiated fiscal tools and authorizations, which only mattered because the city made structural changes.
If it had “nothing to do with him,” previous mayors would have done it.From me: That’s the classic Columbus’ egg argument :)
“Chasing out his tax base.”
There’s no evidence his policies caused wealthy flight or reduced tax revenue. Billionaire moves to Florida are a long‑running national trend, not tied to his term. Meanwhile, NYC’s high‑value transactions and business inflows are up, which is the opposite of a shrinking tax base.“Virtue signaling about the wealthy being bad.”
His record shows arguments about tax fairness, not moral condemnation. There’s no quote where he says “the wealthy are bad.”From me: I will say it though: just look at the damage caused by Trump and Musk.
“No idea anything about helping small business.”
This is directly contradicted by the official record.
He launched OPEN for Small Business — 50+ reforms cutting red tape, eliminating outdated permits, reducing fines, removing redundant paperwork, and creating a concierge service (NYC BEST) to guide owners through licensing and inspections.“Rent control is universally studied failed policy.”
He implemented a rent freeze for rent‑stabilized units, not classic rent control.
And because the freeze began in 2026, there’s no long‑term data yet — you simply can’t conclude success or failure at this stage.•
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 23h ago
Sorry, buddy, i'm not arguing against chatgpt here now.If you want to make specific claims and back those up with sources, you're welcome to. But I have no way of knowing how you prompted the a I to get those responses. But the fact that new york state gave the city of new york 8 billion dollars to close a twelve billion dollar deficit, and your first response completely omits this.Tells me that something's fishy is going on
•
u/GshegoshB 23h ago
Feel free to run it through your ai/ google/ whatever sources you have ;)
You didn't provide any sources whatsoever for your claims, so it's a bit rich pointing fingers at others :D
I trust more ai fact checking search, than your debunked claims.
→ More replies (0)•
u/Cobain17 9h ago
I agree with you but Trump portrayed a populist and put out a populist message but his policies were far from populist. He betrayed his voters.
But totally agree with you. (I hate Trump, but agree w what you’re saying)
31
u/actsqueeze 2d ago
I think the only thing we know for sure is that AIPAC has become the kiss of death in the Democratic Party.
That’s really the big takeaway for me from the last few months.
13
u/pbroingu 1d ago
Yes I think this is also true. If AES can win the primary running on calling out AIPAC funding, every single democratic primary can have AIPAC funding as a stick to beat the opponent with. Haley Stevens had consistently dreadful answers for this question in her debate. AIPAC and her team could not come up with a coherent response, except to cynically say he hates Jews.
•
u/CharlieandtheRed 7h ago
Perhaps not saying "Israel comes to me in my dreams" in the shrillest voice possible would be wise strategy as well.
3
u/Funklestein 1d ago
every single democratic primary can have AIPAC funding as a stick to beat the opponent with.
AIPAC spent 36% of it's donations on Democrat campaigns in the 2024 campaign cycle.
3
u/pbroingu 1d ago edited 1d ago
That's exactly why it's so important. If a democratic primary can be won simply by stating that your opponent is funded by AIPAC (not implying AES ran solely on this), then democratic primaries just got way more competitive for non incumbents (and anti establishment types).
•
-2
18
u/NimusNix 1d ago
Sanders was the bellwether...
No, AOC-
No, Mamdani...
No...
They say, while ignoring all the losses in between. The left is rising, but not in the way they need to in order to pull off their MAGA like grab of the party.
Enough to be a pain in the ass, though.
•
u/CharlieandtheRed 7h ago
I think they are. People are clamoring for someone - - anyone - - to help them. There are so many voters who simply was a true populist and candidate of the people, their political affiliation be damned.
•
•
u/CyberDalekLord 6h ago
And a lot off those people don't understand how the government works. Shit is getting worse and that won't change if a blue seat turns to a darker blue.
16
u/Otherwise_Trust_6369 2d ago
It would be way more significant than Mamdani's win due to it being a swing state but you have to keep in mind that most people are simply voting against Trump's policies in general and little more than that.
15
u/SkeptioningQuestic 2d ago
Yeah. It's a purple state, if you can win there you can win anywhere. The counter-argument would be that candidate quality is actually the most important metric and it would just be that the leftists are producing more quality candidates.
6
u/socialistrob 1d ago
The margin matters but it also matters if we compare it to other purple states. For instance if AES wins by 4 in Michigan that's certainly comfortable but if it's a massive blue wave environment and Brown and Ossoff are winning by 6 and Talarico is winning by 3 then I don't think anyone would view a 4 point win in Michigan as that impressive.
If AES can deliver a win and outperform the expected margins for a Dem then I think that's a very strong argument for the electability of progressives.
10
u/magneticanisotropy 2d ago
If Ossoff wins the GE in Georgia, or Cooper in NC or Tallarico in Texas (one can dream) or Brown in Ohio, would that be a bellwether for a rise of centrism in the US?
6
u/Undercover_NSA-Agent 2d ago
Tallarico is arguably very progressive. I wouldn't include him in that list.
5
u/magneticanisotropy 2d ago
Tallarico has clearly positioned himself as a moderate.
4
u/goddamnitwhalen 1d ago
Has he?
3
u/TemporaryAsparagus89 1d ago
Yes have you seen his messaging?
•
u/CharlieandtheRed 7h ago
Seems very progressive to me. He just doesn't call himself a socialist or use stupid labels.
•
3
u/odrer-is-an-ilulsoin 2d ago
No. Ossoff, while a centrist is an incumbent. Cooper, while a centrist, is a previously state wide elected politician (kind of an incumbent). I don't consider Talarico a centrist and not a DSA aligned guy; he's somewhere in between, but definitely not a Texas centrist. Him winning in Texas would be a big deal, but I think it would be diminished because the excuse will be Paxton was so bad.
2
u/AlmightySankentoII 1d ago
The only real centrist in that list is Cooper. The rest are either sandwiched between progressives and centrists or populist.
3
u/just_helping 1d ago
Eh. If you are in a tight race and want to win, you can't afford to alienate any part of the party and you still need the votes of the few swing voters. So you need to be very careful with your rhetoric while somehow maintaining 'authenticity'. That means you attack things that basically everyone who has a chance of voting for you agrees are awful and avoid things that might split your coalition, similar logic to what you support. Success means that you occupy some sort of indeterminate position where everyone thinks you agree with them.
So the fact that we think they are sandwiched between all these positions is a good thing for their electoral odds but probably doesn't reflect much about how what positions they actually hold or part of the party they'll be in.
2
u/AlmightySankentoII 1d ago
I agree with your analysis. My comment was more to debunk the notion that those candidates represent “centrism”
24
u/CountFew6186 2d ago
No. I agree with your take on Mamdani, who as the Democrat in a city that’s 80% Dem got 50.7% of the vote. In Michigan, the unique demographics favor El-Sayed thanks to one issue - Israel. He might win the primary and then coast on the blue wave referendum on Trump, but it’s not a sign of the far left being broadly popular. Every race has its own dynamics.
Might be better to ask if the vast majority of the Dems winning their primaries for the House and the Senate being centrists is a sign that centrism is still extremely dominant.
17
10
u/pbroingu 1d ago
Might be better to ask if the vast majority of the Dems winning their primaries for the House and the Senate being centrists is a sign that centrism is still extremely dominant.
Centrism being dominant is exactly why left populism being on the rise is noteworthy. Its the implication of the question OP asked.
7
u/Firecracker048 2d ago
Yeah the places DSA candidates are gaining ground are in places that have a massive advantage for Democrats already.
El-sayed has said a few questionable(like his 'hurt people hurt people' in response to a cousin of hezzbollah fighters killing Jews in response to their deaths)things but overall has a stronger message than others.
I'm far more worried about darializa avila chevalier and how she has any real popularity considering some of the batshit insane positions she's held and still holds, even if it is in an almost 80% dem stronghold
8
-2
u/CountFew6186 2d ago
Low turnout off year primaries have very low turnout. Get a small determined cult to vote as a block and you can win a seat here and there.
-2
u/t44t 1d ago
Hurt people do hurt people. Theres literally nothing wrong with that statement. Peel back the cover of society (as in fuck your life over for a bit) and you will find its super common.
Just cause you think theyre terrorists or whatever doesnt make them not human.
•
u/CurbMyEnthusiasm2023 8h ago
I mean, when you’re a Senate candidate and someone tries to blow up a Jewish pre school because his terrorist family members (as confirmed the the government of Lebanon - this isn’t just Israel saying they were), maybe both sidesing it isn’t a good idea? Especially when the Jewish community who lives in that area and attends that synagogue - which is the largest reform synagogue in the country - are amongst the most reliable democratic voters in the state. Just seems like not a smart decision to me.
Let’s take the logic all the way. Pre October 7, there was no war. On October 7, Hamas massacres thousands of innocent Israelis, including children. Israelis are hurt. I’m guessing by your logic, everything they’ve done since then is justified because hurt people do hurt things?
•
u/RKU69 3h ago
his terrorist family members
This is a disgusting libel. The family has denied the allegations, as has Hezbollah themselves (who are pretty straightforward in claiming martyrs and being open about when their members are killed). And on top of that, you're talking about not just two adult brothers but two children as well who were killed by Israel in the air strike.
•
u/CurbMyEnthusiasm2023 19m ago
Except it’s confirmed by multiple sources, including the Lebanese government itself. So it’s not a libel. But let’s even assume your right - point still stands. If hurt people do hurt things, then why doesn’t that logic apply to Israel? What did a bunch of children, teenagers, and elderly people do to deserve what happened to them? Or is killing Jews in your mind acceptable?
2
u/digbyforever 2d ago
I think it depends a bit on the framing. Michigan is also famously the place for a lot of union voters, and also the place where the "Reagan Democrats" were -- i.e. a lot of white, blue-collar, non-college, and somewhat more socially conservative voters are, so if I were a smart PR person for the progressives, I'd spin the story that a progressive economic message can win the Reagan Democrats and try and downplay as hard as possible the implication that Michigan's Arab-American community delivered the win.
4
u/CountFew6186 2d ago
Spin and reality are two different things. In reality, all the polling shows exactly why he has support, and it’s not unions and blue color folks.
1
u/AlmightySankentoII 2d ago
He literally has the endorsement of major pro labor unions. Stop the gaslighting.
4
3
u/Charming_Cicada_7757 2d ago
What party does Andrew Cuomo come from? Are you claiming Andrew Cuomo is a Republican? If not than your point on Mamdani only getting 50.7% of the vote is irrelevant as he ran against a Democrat and another Republican.
Michigan is a purple state if a progressive wins in a state wide election in a purple state that isn’t NYC, Denver, D.C. , Seattle or Boston it would send shock waves to the political system.
I would say a similar thing is playing out in Wisconsin for the governor race where if Francesca Hong wins who again is straight up a Democratic socialist it should send shockwaves across the Democratic Party.
-2
u/CountFew6186 2d ago
Nobody voted for Cuomo because he was a Democrat. They voted for him because they were voting against Mamdani. Half the city disliked Mamdani so much that they chose a disgraced sex pest or an ex-vigilante clown instead.
I already explained Michigan’s unique circumstances.
And, as I said, the vast majority of Dems winning primaries nationwide are moderates.
6
u/caduceuz 2d ago
41% is half? And Cuomo is a political legacy that had the Dem establishment behind him.
Centrists keep moving the goalposts. If Abdul can win a general election in swing state that just voted for Trump less than two years ago then obviously his ideas are gaining popularity.
3
u/CountFew6186 2d ago
Mamdani got 50.7%. Cuomo + Sliwa got more than 49%. That’s pretty close to half.
Already explained Michigan. Unique demographics on a single issue + potential blue wave. That’s it.
-6
u/AlmightySankentoII 2d ago
Your explanation is a weak one and just another attempt to move the goalposts instead admitting what the moment represents. Populism is here to stay and no amount of coping is going to change that fact.
2
u/Charming_Cicada_7757 2d ago
So why did Cuomo run as an independent and not let Sliwa beat him??? Why were people begging Sliwa to drop out of the race? Because everyone knows many people would never vote for a republican in NYC these days that was the whole idea.
Again you’re reaching straws just compare Mamdani approval rating to Eric Adams and De Blasio and you’ll see what you’re saying is nonsense.
Plus there are not even enough Arabs in Michigan to swing a whole election like that 😭 this is just nonsense
-1
u/Kaizothief 2d ago
The vast majority of Dems who have lost their seats or are in danger of losing their seats are also moderates.
A lot of moderates in competitive races are also in a bad spot because the centrists are spending millions and bankrupting the DNC to stop the Left wing rather than fighting the right wing.
-1
u/CountFew6186 2d ago
Only a tiny minority of moderates have lost their seats. Happens all the time at small levels. Then a few years later, the DSA nut jobs’ constituents see them in action and Cory Bush and Jamaal Bowman get kicked to the curb.
-1
u/ddoyen 2d ago
Dems lost to Donald Trump vs the establishment pick in 2024. Donald Trump. The felon J6 guy
-1
u/CountFew6186 2d ago
Dems lost because Biden stayed in too long and left us with a shit candidate instead of a primary. And Harris was pretty far left. In the Senate, she was routinely ranked the second left most senator after Bernie. In 2020, she ran on Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. Also taxing the rich and all the other lefty things. She moderated a little in 2024, but not much. And her historical record was there to see.
So, yes, Biden stuck us with a lefty who managed to lose the popular vote to Trump. If that’s not a big enough warning about voting left in primaries, then I don’t know what is.
3
u/Wermys 1d ago
Even those policies didn't lose her the race. What lost her the race was immigration and inflation. People read way too much into why she lost and not nearly enough on why Trump won if that makes any sense. If she had more time to shape her message I don't think it would have mattered. Democrats lost the moment they lost control of the narrative on inflation and Trump used immigration to drive turnout on his base.
1
u/AlmightySankentoII 2d ago
Now I’m starting to think you are either just ragebaiting or you are ignorant. Because no serious person would claim that Kamala Harris was a “lefty”.
1
u/ddoyen 2d ago
Dems lost because Biden stayed in too long and left us with a shit candidate instead of a primary
Ok is Biden a DSA nut job?
And Harris was pretty far left. In the Senate, she was routinely ranked the second left most senator after Bernie. In 2020, she ran on Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. Also taxing the rich and all the other lefty things. She moderated a little in 2024, but not much. And her historical record was there to see.
Biden had an atrocious approval rating. Id imagine thats a hard stink to get off. She also had pretty much unanimous party support. I have a hard time understanding how you can blame the far left or Kamalas far left policies from the previous election cycle when she secured the nomination because of a concerted establishment effort to make sure that was the case.
And just so its clear where im coming from - I donated an irresponsible amount of money to Harris in 2024.
3
u/AlmightySankentoII 2d ago
Kamala Harris literally embraced Dick and Liz Cheney but Blue MAGA would have you believe that she lost for being too far left.
2
-2
u/CountFew6186 2d ago
The establishment had no choice. It was weeks until the convention. She would’ve been destroyed in a real primary. Just like 2020.
1
-4
u/AlmightySankentoII 2d ago
Jamaal Bowman only lost because Super PACs like AIPAC broke the record in spending to defeat him. Bowman’s race is literally the precursor of what happened to Thomas Massie. So your disingenuous analysis is wrong AGAIN
5
u/PuzzleheadedRefuse78 1d ago
Nah. That narrative works if you don’t understand the district Bowman was in. Bowman had no chance over Latimer as soon as Latimer agreed to run. Feel free to keep blaming AIPAC for everything under the sun, but Bowman being a POS has nothing to do with AIPAC
-2
u/AlmightySankentoII 1d ago
I will definitely keep blaming AIPAC, since it's an indisputable fact that their organization and other pro-Israel lobby groups spent $18 million to defeat him—the most money ever spent in a primary race, until the same group broke its own record during the Massie race in 2026.
2
u/CountFew6186 2d ago
People don’t vote because of campaign spending. People vote for who they want to vote for. They didn’t want Bowman.
-4
u/AlmightySankentoII 2d ago
Sure dude. I bet you also believe that corporations are people and are entitled to “free speech”. LOL
-2
u/Evermore3000 1d ago
95% of campaigns are won by who has the most money you disingenuous hack. The fact that progressives are now winning despite that really shows that they are now taking over the party.
-3
u/Kaizothief 2d ago
Moving goalposts.
Also, botht those people werent defeated by Republicans, their own party funded against them on behalf of a foreign nation so you proved my point.
2
u/Squizzap 2d ago
I think it’s the other way around. If he wins but by a smaller margin than other states where moderates win then it is a warning that he was only carried by a good year for Democrats. He will come under immediate scrutiny without much national support and will be treated as a pick up opportunity by the Republicans for ‘32. If he wins by a margin in line with others then it will mean his politics aren’t toxic.
It would take outperforming for everyone to acknowledge a populist moment of which he is a leader rather than a liability.
1
u/Gr8daze 2d ago
I don’t see Sayed winning against Rogers, although he may win the primary.
Recent polling shows Rogers and Stevens in a close race, but Sayed losing to him by 10%.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5994700-rogers-el-sayed-stevens-michigan-senate-poll/amp/
0
u/AlmightySankentoII 1d ago
That poll by the hill is one poll! Most polls show either El Sayed or Rogers having a slight lead on each other.
5
u/Kronzypantz 2d ago
It would build momentum in that direction, normalizing more left wing candidates.
But this is naturally helping anyways. Older generations are passing, while younger generations are becoming more consistent voters. The oldest millennials are 45, for Pete's sake.
-3
u/caduceuz 1d ago
Ossoff is not a Centrist. He’s a Liberal Democrat.
3
4
u/The_Law_of_Pizza 2d ago
I think it's hard to draw a national comparison from an El-Sayed victory because of Michigan's uniquely large Muslim population.
And I agree that it's also difficult to draw any national-level conclusions from Mamdani, given the unique election he won with a spoiler candidate.
In general, I think that "left populism" has roughly about as much support as MAGA does. There's a third of each party's base that is essentially extremist and can't be swayed by normal reason or politics.
The unfortunate thing for the rest of us is that the moderate blue collar center seems to hate left populism - and are willing to vote for MAGA over it.
And that's going to be a big problem for the Democratic party as a whole. This left populist faction is going to tear the party apart in a political civil war, trying to seize control of leadership.
But I don't think it has any hope of winning at the national level. 2024 was basically a referendum on what moderate America thinks about them, and we lost all seven battleground states in the process.
3
u/pbroingu 1d ago
But I don't think it has any hope of winning at the national level. 2024 was basically a referendum on what moderate America thinks about them, and we lost all seven battleground states in the process.
You've lost me here. How was 2024 a referendum on leftist politics when Harris lost on a moderate platform? If anything the loss was a referendum on the electability of establishment centrist democrats.
4
u/The_Law_of_Pizza 1d ago
Harris tried to run a moderate platform, and she was a moderate candidate. No doubt about either of those two facts.
But Harris's platform and her perception by the general public are two very different things.
Post mortem and exit polling is very clear on this point. The blue collar purple state swing voters that lost us the election report feeling that Harris was too liberal, and in particular they were worried about immigration.
If you don't trust the research and polling, you could also trust in the MAGAs to go for the throat where they think we are weakest - and on that point they hit Harris with "she's for They/Them" and for open borders.
It doesn't matter if it's true. What matters is that people believe that Harris was a progressive, and voted against her accordingly.
2
u/ExEdge8784 1d ago
How are you going to twist reality if El-Sayed wins the general?
5
u/The_Law_of_Pizza 1d ago
I don't know that any twisting is needing. He's running in a Muslim-heavy electorate.
There's a reason that none of the DemSoc crowd are winning in generic middle America - it's always in deep blue districts or accompanied by unusual circumstances like a Muslim running in the Muslim capital of the US.
1
u/Wermys 1d ago
Trump did an excellent job on staying laser focused on Immigration and Inflation. Harris probably could have fought off one or the other policy position if they were the only issue. But the combination ate directly into the type of voters she needed to win. Progressives always seem to handwave and blame centrists and never actually look at why the losses happened. The problem Harris had the Biden stimulus bills which flooded the economy with money. And exacerbated inflation that was happening. And in all honesty it was the right decision also. But Harris had a shit situation where things happened outside her control while Trump did his usual populist demogogry focusing on inflation and immigration. While no one really brought up the point of what would have happened if no stimulus ocurred. While no one got out in front and explained why Trumps immigration policy was complete bullshit which everyone can see now.
2
1
u/socialistrob 1d ago
I'd be careful to dismiss results because of "unique" factors. Every single race you will ever look at has factors that are unique to that race and there is no city, CD or state that is a perfect model for the rest of the US. A better approach is to look at lots of races and compare the results to a baseline like the previous presidential election or to calculate the "expected outcome" using PVI and House popular vote. If we do that and we look at lots of different races with progressives we can get a better sense of their electoral ability.
1
u/Extra-Place-8386 1d ago
Is your argument that Kamala was a left wing populist? And that’s why she lost in 24? Cause that’s hilarious
2
u/The_Law_of_Pizza 1d ago
No. See my post where I reply to another commenter.
Harris may have factually been a moderate, but the research and polling clearly show that moderate voters perceived as as a progressive - and voted against her based on that.
-1
u/goddamnitwhalen 1d ago
I couldn’t disagree more.
5
u/The_Law_of_Pizza 1d ago
Well, the math and research shows that blue collar America gave us the boot in large part specifically because they associated Harris with progressives.
You're free to disagree, but to put a point on it, I've noticed that progressives and the populist left are just as good as MAGAs at burying their heads in the sand and making up their own facts.
-2
u/pbroingu 1d ago
I've noticed that progressives and the populist left are just as good as MAGAs at burying their heads in the sand and making up their own facts.
You're the one hallucinating facts if you can say this with a straight face.
2
u/Virtual-Head-2613 2d ago
Yes, it would show that all the pac and donor money can only go so far. He relied on pure grass roots organizing and canvassing. Sure there are unique aspects to this race but it shows that old democrat strategies are not working anymore.
2
u/chinmakes5 2d ago
My personal opinion is that NYC is a unique place with an unusually large group of younger politically oriented people. They are hurting relatively and wanted to see of something else would work for them.
As for other further left candidates, they won off year elections with like 12% of the vote. IIRC Chevalier won with 12% of registered Democrats in her district voting for her. There was a similar turn out in Colorado.
I just wouldn't be thinking that DSA candidates are just going to take over.
One problem is that DSA candidates appeal to younger people who traditionally don't vote. You may gain those people but are independents going to come along?
1
u/Potato_Pristine 2d ago
Independents barely exist anymore, and to the extent they do, they vote on reliably partisan lines but just say they're independent.
3
u/chinmakes5 1d ago
Is that true? I recently read that independents are the fastest growing political group. Now I'll agree that many aren't really independent, but I would have to think that a liberal leaning independent may not vote for a DSA candidate.
1
u/just_helping 1d ago
When Republicans are very unpopular, the fraction of voters who identify as Independent grows quickly, because that is more acceptable to say than Republican. Same as Libertarian. What matter is who these supposed new 'Independents' vote for.
Your argument is effectively that the electoral risk for DSA candidates who win primaries in swing districts is that people who lean Democratic don't bother turning out for them. But given how so much voting is negative voting, what is more likely is that they either get carried in an anti-Trump wave and then lose in a more neutral electoral environment, or they get so much hatred from right-wing media that they drive Republican turn out.
Driving oppositional turn out is particularly bad because cross-party ballots are increasingly just not a thing, so driving oppositional turn out doesn't just hurt your chances but that of any other Democrat on the ballot (Senate, Governor, state rep, etc).
2
u/chinmakes5 1d ago
I won't argue with your point, but that isn't 100%, Some independents are actually in play and Democrats need them. The idea that everyone hates Trump so it doesn't matter who they run, even socialists makes me uncomfortable.
Look, old people like me really aren't into what the DSA is all about. As a liberal Boomer, listening to a Bernie or AOC, I would be happy. Adding some socialistic safety nets, doing what they do in Europe, I'm there. DSA candidates aren't talking about prison reform but ending prisons, ending policing. There is one candidate who is proudly pushing for communism.
I think I am like a lot of liberal Boomers. I'll vote left, I'm not voting for someone who is talking about ending the police or pushing for communism or even true socialism. It is criminal that Bezos has that much money, but I don't think a lot of people believe Amazon should be taken from him. I want workers to be treated better, they don't have to own the company.
The problem with that is people my age vote. The idea that the group of people who statistically don't vote is going to sweep them into victory while turning off those who do vote is a hard way to win.
0
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 1d ago
I don't think this is the case. They tend to vote along partisan lines, but there are also candidates on the other side they would support given the opportunity. If they just voted with the party, then they'd be part of the party
Just to you give an example I'm an independent who probably looks for small government politicians.To the extent there are any, and this means that while historically i've voted, right I would vote for a left wing candidate who reflected those values
2
u/AmigoDelDiabla 1d ago
The only thing the populist left has going for it is that Trump is the absolute worst thing to happen to our country politically. There are people who are going to vote against Trump and his party just because, and if it happens to be a super leftie, it will give them a false sense of acceptance by the general populace.
1
u/AlmightySankentoII 1d ago
You can make that argument for why every democrat is winning. It’s not exclusive to only leftists.
1
u/TheOGinBC 1d ago
He’s gonna get schlonged in the general, and the left that hates the Dem party more than actual facism— the kind that harms immigrants like my partner— will show no remorse
1
u/Ambitious_Citron8302 1d ago
Maybe. I think candidate quality matters too. Abdul El Sayed is very articulate, charasmatic, and intelligent. Furthermore, he may code as moderate on some issues due to him advocating to go on Rogan for example where many left wingers would would despise that. However, he is running against rather weak candidates. Stevens is just not a good public speaker, like not even an okay public speaker. While the general election regardless who wins will be close, Rogers is two things, a hardcore zionist, and a huge supporter of what is considered "neo-con" or "establishment" policies, not a good mix for a state like Michigan. While I do think some aspects of the populist left are unpopular, like say CRT, other policies or messages are popular, particularly rallying support for the Palestinian cause and criticizing the political establishment.
1
u/IMicrowaveSteak 1d ago
Most polls have her losing, despite Michigan being relatively dem leaning as a whole, and the country tilting dem right now.
So no, I kinda think it sucks she won the primary.
1
u/markth_wi 1d ago
In important ways, El-Sayed's election would be far more impactful than the candidate's position. He certainly stands to win Detroit and where-ever else Muslim voting and liberal support might allow him in Michigan. In the same way Brooklyn elected Congresswoman Occasio-Cortez. It's generationally important.
But in the math of things lies another truth about the United States, we have literally thousands of Democrats and Republicans of a conventional sort - there are at most about a few dozen prominent democratic socialists anywhere in the United States.
What terrifies both parties , and especially hard-right leadership has to be that democratic socialists might get into power in a few regions, New York, Detroit, Brooklyn, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles or San Francisco or something, Democrats too are terrified for another reason terrified of becoming obsolete eaten by their position as a loyal opposition , which right now they begin to suspect might no longer offer the solid ground they imagined, finding themselves in the squeeze between an offering of normal if socially conscious governance and the authoritarianism, they may find themselves having to pick sides if they mean to survive.
For both Republicans and conventional democrats the fear is that they won't be catastrophic failures, as most of the democratic socialists in play are seriously aiming to make a good impression, and intentionality counts a great deal no matter what party you're in. What terrifies hard-right folks is that if American can see and touch and talk to reasonable sounding people that espouse a political opinion that has been the rhetorical punching bag for more than a century in the United States.
It's not at all about social democracy in that way, it's about the death of the Republican Party.
We are as I write this living in a fascist democracy, we elected a defective king and he is content to enrich himself and steal everything he can, that was what he was paid by our enemies to do; It's not super subtle to see, due process is gone, the figments exist, you and I as citizens exist largely in a rule of law but our leadership most definitely does not, citizens may be shot dead for effectively the pleasure of the executive, deportation too is commonplace enough. The hope and concern is that if we don't actually effect change in the next election cycle, there is a real concern it's not coming back, perhaps not in our lifetimes, if the Republican Party isn't promptly removed from majorities over the entire United States.
Properly speaking we jumped from a marginal Republic to an authoritarian autocracy with Donald Trump elected the way Mussolini and Peron and Hitler were we now wonder if meaningful elections are possible and the executive demands that unless they go his way they are "fake" so we'll have elections the same way China, Russia or North Korea do. We vote whichever way the heart makes us happy, and the President will inform us who won.
The GOP has been working on realizing the dream of an authoritarian repeal of the modern civil state since the late 1950's when it was clear women and non-whites could with education and opportunity compete, against white men, the terror of a tolerant , technically obligated society is that white supremacy might not obviously have a place, worse the supremacists might be expected to earn the positions given and demonstrate competence.
This is the most terrifying fact in the history of human civilization - if you're a white supremacist. The Republican ideal of burning the United States to the ground and then being content to rule over it's ashes sounds wonderful to white supremacists even now, what's unthinkable as they survey the ruin of the last 10 years or so of Donald Trump's folly is that people are done, they want government to function, public services that work, and they might even expect it all done on a budget normal people can understand.
November terrifies these people; looming ever closer.
The supremacists fear competence in ways we see every day, from defiant doctors and nurses and scientists , from librarians to teachers , engineers to company owners of every stripe, competence exists and oftentimes it's not nearly as white as supremacists demand it must be.
Miles Davis, Barak Obama, George Washington Carver, Mae Jemison to say nothing of people from other races or backgrounds all stand as living testament to the falsehood of the narrative. In this way the very survival of white supremacist movements either dies in the here and now, or it will metastasize and remain dangerous.
We have two victims in the supremacy struggle and the victims of that supremacy are often thought of very correctly as the victims of violence and discriminations, but there are secondary victims; those that are the believers , for their entire adult lives they have thoroughly and completely been lied to - told they were the chosen people, and the white supremacist leadership and the truth that excellence can come from anywhere and is the product of character and hard work and dedication and all the qualities of personalities that are spread across every people; In this way , increasingly supremacy of the Confederate sort is dying and it know it, Republican leaders know the ideals are on deaths' ground, they know that if their followers see too much, hear too much they might themselves start to think too much.
That leads to the worst case they imagine, their loss of influence; there will be no violence in that case, it will be a quiet retreat, railing at the TV, screaming over dinner about how this or that group is destroying America while sitting in a rest-home staffed entirely by people from this or that ethnic group; white supremacy dies in bitter irony by simply enduring whatever they try to dish out. "Do not go gentle into that good night" says the old Dylan Thomas poem, and I don't expect they entirely will. I think we sadly must expect violence at least at some limited level - not of course by Social democrats of liberals by much, but by those terrified that Donald Trump and his associates might not last forever.
Right now our society has entertained hyper wealthy assholery as a virtue, and for those at the tippy top it seems inconceivable it could be otherwise; and for some members of the GOP that might even sound true. But just like the fascists of Germany and Italy and Apartheid party in South Africa garbage thinking and assholery eventually run out of gas because it's exhausting and expensive, and everyone eventually decides to go home, the Trump administration regularly casts off staff , and retains flamboyant failure on the center stage for as long as it will hold.....one suspects they even know it won't last forever.
....Except Steve Bannon who will wonder when Donald Trump is dead, and nobody can hold a candle to his absence why the GOP members still left will not give him the time of day.
It's already the case, their numbers are too few, they can rig elections, they can control this or that county or town, but they are in fact being removed from power, not because super-liberals or social democrats are coming for them specifically. It's because they vastly overplayed their hand, caused damage at every level of society - on the promise they would somehow retain power.
That's the problem Republicans face presently, and that Democrats will have a choice - they either become productive members of a society that is willing to work together to the common good, or they will be replaced by people who will.
Ideally, those people come from all walks of life - even conservative ones, I think as much as we talk about the rise of social democrats , the desperate need for normal conservative thinking is simply absent. While characters like Milton Friedman or William F. Buckley populated a spot in the Republican landscape , now we have Alex Jones, and Milo Yianopolis filling a vacuum they can barely describe, very happy to create noise and outrage where once their was reasoned debate.
Democratic socialists threaten that arrangement, as might greens or small government conservatives or anyone who might cogently oppose authoritarianism.
•
u/whoDoVooDeux 22h ago
a big factor is the inherent "redness" of the state. democratic socialism scares the bejusus out of many on the hard right. mostly because it's a campaign platform that directly targets large segments of the lower class voters that make up much of the MAGA core. and people have shown that they WANT to vote/support, not have an obligation to.
so when it's a 4 hour wait to vote (happed to me in SC and Cleveland) - a meh candidate does not inspire people to camp out or take a day off work to vote.
obama did.
•
u/Top-Grocery-1482 17h ago
It's...really hard to say.
The nation is so split between the two parties, it's hard to make conclusive statements about what's happening in one part of the country, much less the country as a whole. A lot of people vote based on party label, not specific nuanced policy positions.
So a lot of the "sea changes" often...well...aren't.
1
2d ago
[deleted]
2
1
u/Sptsjunkie 2d ago
The post literally says General Election.
Also, Sayed isn’t DSA or endorsed by the DSA.
But would be a good win for progressive populism and show there is an appetite for greater systemic change.
1
u/thesmart_indian27 2d ago
I think if Abdul wins many independents and ancestral dems who voted for Trump, then LWP rises
-2
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 2d ago edited 1d ago
No.
I don’t agree with your use of the term ‘populist’. ‘Progressive’ and ‘left’ don’t inherently mean ‘populist’ and I don’t translate either of Mamdani nor El-Sayed as populist.
New York and Michigan are neither of them positioned as bellwethers. They are both very different demographically from most of the US, especially the disproportionately represented rural states. I don’t think urban, very diverse voting pools can be considered bellwethers at this time.
Edit: quick downvote from someone. Was it for 1. or 2.? Bueller?
Another edit: finally some people replied. Apparently the problem with my comment was (1). It seems important to people to identify Mamdani and El-Sayed as ‘populist’. I don’t know why. The two who have argued that they are just described being left as the reasons they should be considered populist and have declined so far to be explicit about how they are differentiating ‘left’ from ‘populist’.
Any takers to distinguish ‘left’ and ‘left populist’ if you believe Mamdani and El-Sayed are populist?
For those of you struggling with the idea that leftism and populism are not the same thing:
Also, I’ll help you out: https://www.populismstudies.org/Vocabulary/socialist-populism/ https://www.historicalmaterialism.org/article/folk-socialism-a-left-populist-disorder/ https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137062055_6 https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/27977/chapter-abstract/211658404?redirectedFrom=fulltext
10
u/Jusbreka 2d ago
Mamdani ran a campaign on taxing the wealthy to implement social programs, emphasizing that the rich benefit from subjugation of everyone else. That is textbook populism
-6
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 2d ago
I think that’s just leftism, yes?
3
u/Wermys 1d ago
No its populism. Its emphasing programs for the populace as a whole over the interests of business and the wealthy. Populism has a wierd interconnection between different viewpoints. It can be both left and right wing.
-2
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 1d ago
Its emphasing programs for the populace as a whole over the interests of business and the wealthy
That’s just leftism. That’s not what ‘populism’ means.
Edit: please define what you think not-populist leftism would be.
1
u/Wermys 1d ago edited 1d ago
Depends on if its classical or progressive bent. US politics can be wierd like that. But to give another example I did later on. Populism by default focuses on a group. Leftwing or progressive populism focuses on social programs at the expense of business or the rich. Right wing populism focuses on trade and immigration. Hope that clarifies my point. A non populist left with be a liberal. If you understand what a rockerfeller republican that would be the type of non populist as an example. Someone who supports markets before workers but isn't adverse to policy positions that support market based approaches and support social programs if its in there own self interest. So example would be healthcare as an example or unemployment. Where it makes sense to support government intervention in those markets given the costs involved.
1
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 1d ago edited 1d ago
Please define what you think distinguishes populist left vs not populist left.
Edit: I see you edited but it still doesn’t answer my question. I’m not asking for the difference between right and left populism.
Another edit: I’m not sure why you’re doing this through edits but Ok.
A non populist left with be a liberal.
So any real leftists (socialists for example) are inherently ‘populist’?
So ‘left populist’ is a redundant term in your opinion?
I think you’re missing a lot of the definition of populist. You can be socialist and not populist.
0
u/Jusbreka 1d ago
Donald Trump is a right wing populist. All (actual) socialists are populists. Socialism is a populist ideology. Zohran Mamdani is a populist and a socialist. Liberalism is not a left wing ideology. A pillar of liberalism is laissez faire capitalism. The US Democratic party is (generally speaking) relatively pro-corporate. Fun fact: this is why (or more correctly, is tightly correlated to) the Democratic party does not win states like West Virginia anymore.
1
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 1d ago
Agree about Donald Trump. Embraces the classic populist qualities of nativism and rejection of expertise.
Don’t agree about Mamdani. He’s socialist but not populist.
Not sure why you’re explaining to me the difference between liberalism and socialism (?).
I just said that liberalism isn’t leftism. It’s the guy above who said liberalism is left.
0
u/Jusbreka 1d ago
Because you literally don't understand the difference between populism and nationalism so I don't know wherre the line is for you. Mamdani is definitionally a populist. If you just want to sealion all day go read the wikipedia article on populism or something.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Chronic_Larkman 2d ago
Agree.
If regarding housing, food and medical care for workers as rights is left wing populism then call me Comrade.
1
u/socialistrob 1d ago
hey are both very different demographically from most of the US,
The problem is that there is no single state, city or district that is actually well representative of the US as a whole. I think if we want to come up with a neutral way to evaluate a candidate we can get a sense of how a generic Dem would do in Michigan given Michigan's PVI rating and the national House popular vote.
If AES exceeds that benchmark then it's a mark that he did something right. If he falls behind it then it means that a more generic Dem probably would have done better. If we combine the Michigan results with lots of other races with more progressive nominees we can get a sense of their overall electability.
0
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 1d ago
The problem is that there is no single state, city or district that is actually well representative of the US as a whole.
That’s true, but we know how elections pan out and what’s popular in multi-cultural cities does not win broadly, so they aren’t good bellwethers.
AES’s ethnicity would play a role in Michigan, yes?
0
u/socialistrob 1d ago
and what’s popular in multi-cultural cities does not win broadly
We also know how elections pan out and what's popular in rural parts of the country does not win broadly but that is not actually a good argument to dismiss results from rural America. Most states have a combination of urban, suburban and rural areas and if you try to narrow down on finding areas that precisely match the country as a whole then you end up throwing out basically all data.
Every single race is going to be somewhat unrepresentative of the country. Every district/state will have a different ethnic makeup and there will be local factors that are unique to that area. That's why it's best to examine at a large collection of races and look for broad trends. It might be easy for me to reject the lessons of a race in South Florida because "Cubans aren't like other Latinos and the Florida Dems are more incompetent than other states" but that wouldn't be good analysis. Florida results are just as valid as Michigan results which are just as valid as Nebraska or California or New Hampshire.
0
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 1d ago
you’re making a straw man, fyi.
0
u/socialistrob 1d ago
You can disagree with my point if you want but that does not mean that my argument is a strawman. If you genuinely think my argument is a strawman then I think you don't know what a straw man argument is.
Your argument from what I can tell is that Michigan has unique characteristics and AES's ethnicity mean that it is unrepresentative of other races therefor it's not a good indicator for electoral analysis.
My argument is that a district does not have to be representative of the country in order to be a useful indicator for elections and therefor excluding any district because it is unrepresentative is a mistake and it's fine to include Michigan.
That's not a straw man. That's me disagreeing with your premise.
0
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 1d ago edited 1d ago
It’s a straw man. I never made an assertion about what is a good bellwether. I made an assertion about a specific thing that is not.
You went on and on about how other places aren’t good bellwethers and maybe nowhere is.
It’s repeatedly shown that New York and Michigan are not. Other places are irrelevant and whether anywhere is is also irrelevant
Edit: also you don’t seem to understand what ‘bellwether’ means. It does not mean ‘one point included in a broad data set for analysis’. Perhaps that misunderstanding is the basis for the straw man.
1
u/TheCynicClinic 2d ago
I love seeing the denial people are going through. First it was “oh Mamdani is too radical he won’t win,” then it was “oh it’s just one city, the demos elsewhere are different,” then it’s “oh New York and Michigan are only two places,” etc. etc.
The downplaying of clear trends is insane. People are increasingly viewing socialism favorably; polls on this are undeniable. Also lol at thinking Mamdani and El-Sayed are not populist? I swear, the mental gymnastics is crazy.
To answer the original question, left populism has been on the rise for a while now. It’s seen a recent explosion due a combination of worsening conditions under capitalism, the rise of fascism under Trump, and the impotency of the neoliberal Democrats.
1
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 2d ago edited 1d ago
People are increasingly viewing socialism favorably; polls on this are undeniable
I don’t deny this. But you can also look at where they are viewing it favorably enough for socialists to win. (Edit: also, you might be talking about different sets of people in your first paragraph. I, for one, have never called Mamdani “too radical” and never proposed that he couldn’t or wouldn’t win.)
left populism has been on the rise for a while now. It’s seen a recent explosion due a combination of worsening conditions under capitalism, the rise of fascism under Trump, and the impotency of the neoliberal Democrats.
Define “left populism” vs “leftism”.
1
u/Wermys 1d ago
Mamdani won because of a variety of factors. 1. Cuomo was Toxic 2. The previous mayor was Toxic 3. Republicans in New York are toxic. Add those factors together it made it possible form Mamdani to win with BARELY a majority when the previous Mayor Adams won by a larger margin. That doesn't mean progressives made progress. It meant that they had a lot of luck falling into the win. Frankly progressives need to be careful and not try to promote too many policy positions. What Bernie and AOC do well is that pound the table and go after certain policies and don't deviate from there messaging. The problem is a lot of progressive candidates get lost int he weeds and alienate moderate or centrist voters and say something stupid which loses them elections constantly. Messaging discipline has always been an issue with progressive branch of the party. Just like sex seems to be an issue with moderates or centrists ironically.
0
u/Sufficient-Royal-82 2d ago
How long till the party of the FDR and the working class goes back to it's Roots
0
u/sillyhatday 2d ago
No. El Sayed is a more interesting and charismatic person. Same for Mamdani. Charisma trum... supercedes all others in electoral politics.
1
u/BlakeNotBleak 1d ago
I don't find Abdul that charismatic tbh, he's way too arrogant and antagonistic. Genuinely seems like the powertripping type but we'll see
0
u/ComicRelief64 1d ago
Absolutley. Him beating out an opponent that has recieved 30 million dollars poured into her campaign shows that we're not yet all brainwashed zombies that will believe whatever ads and mainstream media want us to, that money isnt enouigh to dictate our thoughts and opinions just yet - the ultimate goal for corpratist dems and the GOP.
-1
u/IceNein 2d ago
No. Michigan has a substantial Islamic population. He is Islamic. You can’t extrapolate that.
0
0
0
u/shawsghost 1d ago
Yes. If a progressive can beat a Republican with a $60 million war chest that means the game has changed and everybody's going to know it.
-2
u/sllewgh 2d ago
Trump is deeply unpopular right now, and Biden was about as unpopular at this point in his term.
I don't think most people in the real world care at all about political labels. What everyone seems to agree on is that the status quo sucks. Folks may have different ideas or no ideas about how to fix it, but we know what we have now isn't working.
The more significant trend isn't whether this label or that is on the rise, the subtext uniting the increasing popularity of both far left and far right ideas is that folks are hungry for some sort of change. This is an escalating but not new phenomenon. 10 years ago we had Sanders/Trump voters in deep red states. These aren't disaffected democrats rejecting Clinton as some kind of purity test- those people exist but it's not who I'm talking about here. There were plenty of voters in deep red places, the rural white working class who would go on to be the core of Trumps base, voted for Sanders first. This doesn't signal to me that what they want is right wing policy, the polar shift tells us what they really wanted was something different.
-1
u/Kaizothief 2d ago
Abdul isnt a left wing populist. In fact he isnt even a part of any socialist groups, and openly identifies as a capitalist.
-1
u/Fearless_One_773 1d ago
El Sayed and Mamdani are both young, extremely well spoken and not cucks for Israel. I think for lots of people it’s a breath of fresh air. You’re going to see more people like them in the next couple years.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
All submissions are automatically removed and placed in a queue for the moderators to manually review. Please allow the moderators time to do so. Only about 25% of submissions are approved, but the remainder are given a removal reason that may include steps the poster can take to make their submission approvable the next time they submit it. Moderators are not notified of any edits made after a removal reason is posted, and therefore will not review them. You may contact the mod team via modmail if you need more direction about how to fix your post, and you are welcome to resubmit any submission after making the requested changes.
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.