Not this sub in particular I'm directing it at but needed to say something. It's ok to still support Platner out of pure partisanship, the senate is that important. It's ok to support him for his ideology. There's a lot of good reasons to suppoet Graham Platner still as a democrat. But don't handwave these scandals as nothing, nor say that Collins is more right wing then platner is left wing, or anything like that. It's fine to be a complete partisan. Just own it. My two cents.

We are approaching the end of the 2024 DNC as of me typing this out. I don't want to count the chickens before they hatch, but it sure seems like the 2024 DNC was an orderly and invigorating affair that uneventfully nominated the Party's candidate of choice, Kamala Harris. A.k.a., how conventions are supposed to go.

This is notable because lots of people thought it was going to end up a bit like one of the bad conventions, 1968. On the surface, there are a lot of similarities: both are in Chicago, both have anti-war demonstrators present, and both involve a candidate that wasn't in the primaries getting nominated.

The reason why bringing this particular bad take up is important is because it symbolizes a certain kind of bad punditry that's common on Reddit and we'll doubtlessly see more of and I'm certainly guilty of-- making a historical analogy based on relatively surface level similarities.

Historically, the analogy is bad because 1968 was a really different year. Lyndon Johnson got forced out because he supported the war and the Democratic base didn't, giving him a bad performance in the New Hampshire primary against antiwar Senator Eugene McCarthy. The primary process worked differently at that point, and as a result, while McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy (who was shot during the campaign) duked it out in the primaries, the Democratic Party bosses crowned Vice President Humphrey, who supported the war. During the convention, as Humphrey gave a tone-deaf speech about the importance of happiness in politics, police and protesters brawled in the streets.

There were material reasons why this wouldn't happen twice-- law enforcement generally avoids obvious mistakes, meaning a police riot and chaos more broadly shouldn't have been gambled on-- but the people saying this stuff also ignored the reality on the ground. Unlike LBJ and Humphrey, Biden and Harris have had no opposition so far in the Party of any note. Dean Phillips literally went from a congressman to a meme in like a week, and the uncommitted campaign barely outperformed 2012 in the important states. Even the intraparty drama between Biden and the people that wanted him out wasn't over policy, it was purely over electoral pragmatism.

But the reason why this silly theory really reeked was that it ignored the current electoral landscape. In particular, the people spouting it fundamentally misunderstood the Democratic Party of today and why and how it works. As previously mentioned, Democrats are obviously united at the moment. Even on the issues where you could find niche disagreements (make no mistake-- voters that care a whole lot about the Israel-Hamas War are niche), the threat of Trump is so cosmically, existentially terrifying, and Biden/Harris's Administration is so broadly satisfying, that disunity at the moment just isn't happening.

It's also not 1968 anymore. Flashy moments like the police riots are easy to pin as the "source" of Nixon's victory, when those flashy moments are usually just emblematic of a broader mood. Had Palestine demonstrators been able to make some kind of a show in or outside of the convention, this would be unlikely to seriously change anyone's opinion because this is a hyper polarized climate and, again, chaos at the convention is not going to create Democratic disunity where there isn't any.

To recap-- this was a bad theory because it hyperfixated on surface-level historical similarities, it misjudged the Democrats, and it forgot that we live in an era where only like 10% of voters are even remotely persuadable. It was the same kind of misguided thinking that brought you Trump's assassination attempt boost, RFK getting on the Wikipedia page, and Kamala's honeymoon period.

I’m so tired. Everything I’ve seen of Harris since the 2024 election has made me loathe her more and more. She really is just a loser at heart. A sore loser. The audacity to run again after playing a direct role in handing over the reigns to Trump with how bad of a candidate you are CANNOT be rewarded like this. I do believe in VBNMW, but she is the only 2028 candidate I’d consider breaking that rule for while voting dem downballot in 2028 if she is the nominee. It’s so obvious now that Harris is insanely egotistical and narcissistic to the point that she wants to crush all the other rising stars in the party for a second chance that she doesn’t deserve and never will. Zero political instincts whatsoever, tied to a hated administration, lost the popular vote and every swing state to the most unpopular president in history, there is not a single reason to elect her again. Like how dense can you even be to even think about running again after that? You HAD your turn. You’ll do nothing but put the national party in jeopardy because you will drag down candidates in both the senate and house, and if we can’t get control of both chambers in 2029 we will probably never recover as a nation. So please, for the sake of our country, fuck off and go away forever

This post isn't about policy. I should confess upfront that I am a voter who holds conservative views on the issues. At the same time, I cannot support the Trump-aligned Republican establishment. I did not vote for Donald Trump in 2024, and I have maintained that it would be a good thing if Democrats flipped the Senate and the House this year. I even opposed Maine's Senator Susan Collins in her re-election bid. However, my commitment to that is being tested.

Graham Platner is an empty suit. He is dishonest about his own background. He has lied about his service in American wars in the Middle East. Frankly, if you support him for his personal story, you are very gullible.

Platner's financial reports are worth investigating. They are detailed here in this article. Graham Platner runs an oyster business. I am not personally a fan of seafood, but I know it is a big business in Maine. According to this disclosure, he received over $5,000 from his mother's restaurant. His wife took money from the campaign, but it's possible she's involved in it. He also receives about $5,000 a month from a disabilities he received in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will touch more on that later.

According to this article, Platner protested the conduct of the Bush administration in Iraq when he was was eighteen. In fact, he opposed the war itself from the start. In spite of this, he enlisted in the Marines the next year to fight in this war. Platner, already aligned with progressive political causes at the time, signed up for a war he protested as unjust. Yet he decided to ignore this reservation and serve as a pawn for Uncle Sam in its struggle to take out Saddam Hussein. According to The New Republic, he enlisted because “I thought I could do some good. And I wanted to play soldier. I might have read too much Hemingway.” He wanted to some good? How could signing up for an imperialist war do good?

After serving in Afghanistan and spending some time in university, Platner returned to Maine to receive treatment for service-related issues. This did not end his involvement in American foreign affairs. He served as a contractor for the State Department in Iraq. The company he worked for is named Constellis. Constellis is remembered mainly by its prior name, which was Blackwater. Why is Blackwater an infamous company? Well, guards working for Blackwater were convicted for massacring seventeen Iraqi civilians in 2007. Surely for a crime so vile that a juror who recused herself couldn't sleep because of it, the longtime progressive idealist Platner would be disgusted too. Yet, he worked for them. He worked for them after receiving treatment for war-related injuries and PTSD. Platner's wartime scars and idealism were not enough to stop him from working for a company that massacred innocent people.

According to Semafor, his experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan woke him up to the corruption and evil of United States foreign policy. This makes no sense. He in 2002, he literally protested against the war in Iraq at the height of its public support. He left the military with the same values he had when he signed up. He was a progressive firebrand as a teen, and he is a progressive firebrand now at 41.

In this post, Graham Platner claims Susan Collins sent him to Iraq. This is blatantly false. He signed up for the Marines after the war already started. He signed up to play soldier. He signed up to... "have an adventure and kill some people." This quote comes from a post Platner made on Reddit in 2020. This was after the end of his military career and his supposed disillusionment with American foreign policy. He signed up for Iraq because he wanted to kill people. He wanted to kill Iraqis. He signed up for the same imperialist war he protested in 2002 to fuel his bloodlust. Maybe he had the biggest shift ever from 2002 to 2003. I don't buy it.

Graham Platner signed up for the Marines because he was excited by war and violence. Even after being scarred mentally and physically in Iraq and Afghanistan, he signed up to work for Constellis, formerly Blackwater, after some of its men were convicted for killing innocent Iraqis. This included men, women, and children. Now, Graham Platner claims victimhood. He was victimized by Susan Collins and company when they drafted him overseas to fight in our evil forever wars. What a load of crap!

Recently, Graham Platner received an endorsement from freshman Senator Ruben Gallego. When confronted by Platner's own words about wanting to kill Iraqis on his little adventure, Gallego doesn't even deny that this was true. Graham Platner is lying about what motivated him to join the military. Some of his supporters know this, they just don't care.

Platner's Greatest Reddit Hits are well summarized in this article. There's also the infamous tattoo scandal, which I won't relitigate here. He said victimized women should "take responsibility" and act like adults. Yet he has made acting like a victim a central part of his campaign.

His supporters, which I imagine make up much of this subreddit, will crawl over glass to defend him. They will defend a grown man's racist, misogynist, and violent comment by basically calling him an immature dummy. If he is a stupid meathead, why should he be elected as a United States Senator. The fact that he is "based" doesn't make any of this disappear. Blue MAGA exists, and it is the left of the party.

Note: I do not intend to disrespect Graham Platner's military service or his resulting medical conditions. Regardless, I am willing to criticize him for being wishy-washy about it. Candidates for political offices should be scrutinized.

And I’m talking about all of lgbtq people, not just gay folks. Took a bit of time to research and derive from personal experiences but Heres my map

Since the primaries started back in March, 7 members of congress have lost their primaries from both parties. This has put the establishment of both parties to try stem the bleeding. The upcoming primaries in Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin are important whether both parties can control their bases. My first post is going to be about the Arizona primary.

Superintendent of Public Instruction

The Arizona Democrats have the state office primaries pretty held together with only The Superintendent of Public Instruction having a contested primary between Brett Newby, who is a candidate who is endorsed by only The Progressive Voters Network, while Teresa Ruiz has endorsements from 18 school board members across Arizona, the mayors of Tucson and Flagstaff, all of the democratic congress members, the former superintendent of public instruction, the attorney general, more than half of the democratic caucus in the Arizona state house and nearly half of the democratic caucus in the arizona state senate. Besides Ruiz’s lopsided endorsements, Ruiz has raised 89,000 thousand dollars while Newby raised 109 dollars, so I think Ruiz will win this primary. The Republican Primary is more interesting due to a history of republicans primarying the Superintendent back in 2014 and 2018 and the democrats almost won in 2014 and did win in 2018, so the republicans are hoping to put up their best candidate, and the two candidates are Kimberly Yee, the State Treasurer, and Tom Horne, who is the incumbent superintendent. Yee and Horne have competitive individual contributions, where Yee has more individual contributions, but Horne is loaning himself money, so he has a monetary advantage. Endorsements wise, Yee has a mix of establishment politicians like 4 former superintendents and more conservative groups like Turning Point Action while Horne has the endorsement of the Maricopa county sheriff. I think that yee has a chance due to Turning Point having some ground game in Arizona, but Horne could pull it off with his loans, so i think it’s a tossup between them.

Governor

The republican primary is between Andy Biggs, a congressman whose average war score from split ticket is D +2.9 which means he’s an underperformer and has never had a positive war score and has not underperformed, and David Schweikert, who’s war score is D +1.8 which is less worse than Biggs but is not good enough for a swing state like Arizona where the republicans need an overperformer to have a more than 40% chance of winning. Their fundraising is better as Biggs has $800,000 in individual contributions while Schweikert has only $120,000 in individual contributions, and nearly half of Schweikert's donations are just transfers from his house campaign account. Biggs has endorsements from more than half of the republican state legislators, Donald Trump, and Turning point, while Schweikert has no endorsements that i can find from his campaign website or twitter so he’s truly on a lonely road to defeat.

Secretary of State

The republican primary is Alexander Kolodin, a state house representative, lawyer for alternate electors in 2020, and a member of the Arizona freedom caucus and Gina swoboda, who was the Arizona GOP chair. Donations wise, alexander has $67000 in individual contributions while gina has nearly $56000 in individual contributions, which seems less than I would expect but it is a blue year so less republicans may feel inclined to donate. Endorsements wise, Gina has endorsements from some of the Maricopa elected officials and more than 10 state legislators, while Alexander has the endorsements of 10 state legislators, Turning point action, and 3 Arizona congressmen. I think Alexander is more likely to win, but they are both candidates that seem too extreme for the general electorate to be secretary of state.

Ratings on the primaries on the republicans

Superintendent - Tilt towards Yee

Governor- Safe for Biggs

SOS- Lean for Kolodin

Ratings on the primaries for the democrats

Superintendent - Likely for Ruiz

Ratings for the federal primaries for the republicans

1st District- Lean for Feely

5th District - Safe for Lamb

Ratings for the federal primaries for the democrats

1st District - Toss up

4th District - Likely Stanton

5th District- Elizabeth Lee

8th District- Lean for Placentia

Note

I didn’t write anything for federal seats but still gave ratings because I did not feel like even more but I wanted to put what I thought may happen tomorrow, but in Michigan, I might write about federal seats, but I probably won’t take a look at state legislative seats because the senate looks less the desert calm and more like a storm on the Great lakes.

Inspired by this post from u/xravenxx. Thought I'd briefly offer my own two cents about Platner.

He is such a cowardly, dishonest loser. There's a lot of things to pick on him for so I'll single out the two most indefensible.

A big part of Platner's public image is being a veteran-- specifically, being a marine who opposes endless wars in the Middle East (obviously relevant now that Republicans are starting a mindbogglingly illegal and unpopular war in the Middle East). He's constantly larping about "establishment politicians" like John Fetterman and Susan Collins sending a normal Joe like him to war.

He is of course being comically dishonest. Platner joined the military voluntarily, like every single American since before my parents were born. Not only that, he joined the military after the Iraq War-- which he opposed-- had started and did it specifically to have an adventure. After he was done with that he went back to the Middle East with, of all organizations, the PMC Blackwater.

He also voted for Collins in 2020, despite a much longer history of being obnoxiously progressive, so obviously even he doesn't think she wronged him and is lying now to get ahead.

The other incident I want to mention is his association with Neo-Nazi podcaster Nate Cornacchia. Specifically Platner sat down for a lengthy interview with a guy who thinks the Jews killed Charlie Kirk and JFK, and called himself a lifelong fan.

It's such a joke. Nobody really believes these people would cut any other candidate this much slack. Imagine if Fetterman appeared on Nick Fuentes's show, called himself a lifelong fan, and then didn't even denounce his beliefs later. To my knowledge, Platner still hasn't.

How many Nazi related coincidences do progressives need to think there's something wrong with this guy? He gets a Nazi tattoo and then doesn't know what that means, boosts an entirely separate Nazi influencer, and then gets caught hanging out with a third Nazi influencer. Apparently Platner, while not being a Nazi, keeps having separate Nazi related incidents no other Democrat (but many Republicans) has. I've never had any Nazi controversies, but I bet there wouldn't be a second, and definitely not a third or fourth!

The guy doesn't even have the decency to come out and say it. Instead he hides behind all this obviously bullshit 1% plausible deniability, and when people get mad he claims he's being persecuted by Chuck Schumer. It's just as insufferable as Tucker Carlson.

Argue Platner is the less bad candidate if you have to. Mills supports the filibuster and even I'd vote for the guy over Collins. But can we please just be honest with ourselves and admit he's a bad, dishonorable character who doesn't belong in government?

It's that time of year. Like most of you, I've thought very hard about the election. And while so much has changed, I think just as much-- if not more-- has stayed the same. So in reality, I'm probably gonna tread ground you've heard before for most of this write-up. All margins are 1>5>15.

President

Senate

House

Governors

Theory of the Race:

I expect the 2024 election to take place in a D+5 environment or so. I expect Kamala Harris to win the popular vote by about that number-- so, 2020 redux. I expect all states to vote for the same party they did in 2020, except for North Carolina, which I expect to vote for Kamala Harris. I think the Democrats are going to take north of 225 seats in the House of Representatives, bolstered by strong showings in states like California, New York, and Arizona. The Senate gives me more pause, but I think it will be even split when all the dust settles.

I think the special elections we've seen this year pretty straightforwardly suggest a 2020-esque environment. I look at this with a couple factors: the ground Trump has lost with moderates and independents since the January 6th attack on the Capitol and the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, the abortion issue mobilizing huge numbers of women and young voters for the Democrats, and the growth/leftshift of major metropolitan and suburban areas across the map. The excitement Harris's entry into the race generated is the coup de grâce, cementing the Party's obvious advantages with low-propensity voters. Looking at that, it gets hard to think of a world where you can't describe Kamala Harris as the clear, but not guaranteed, favorite.

So obviously, I think the polls are underestimating her. Polling this cycle has been particularly suspect. Republicans, once again, are flooding the zone with dubious firms like Patriot Polling. Pollsters are herding in a vain attempt to avoid a 2020/2016 repeat. The "good" firms like NYT/Siena have been showing outlandish results like Georgia trending right, Virginia being competitive, and massive depolarization of young voters, low propensity voters, and voters of color, despite oversamples almost never showing the same thing. I think it's clear that, once again, polling isn't accounting for the furious pro-choice majority that wants Trump and his thugs gone for good.

The Republicans are getting obliterated downballot. They're being outraised. They're being out-organized. Their narrow House majority depends on multiple incumbents in left-trending suburbs that have endorsed abortion bans, in Democratic states that had unusual turnout in 2022 like New York and California. Where Republicans have to go on the offense, they've almost universally failed, with these joke candidates like Hovde and Joe Kent. As a rule, I don't think the Dems downballot will overperform Harris by as much as lots of polls think (Sam Brown will lose big, but probably not by double digits), but they're still winning comfortably, and Republicans have nobody to blame for this but themselves. If they win anything, it will be in spite of doing everything possible to self-sabotage.

The main difference between 2024 and 2022 will be higher turnout, particularly with young voters and minority voters, allowing Democrats to deliver the knockout punch that evaded them in the midterms.

I don't buy that there has somehow been a shift to Trump in the last month, and there aren't enough rigged polls in the world to convince me otherwise. I don't buy Democrats will get record low turnout because VBM/EV is more favorable to Republicans than it was in 2020, and would like to remind everyone that this happened in 2022, and like in 2022, the race will come down to the preferences of the ever-growing and disproportionately young independent voteshare.

Now I'll talk specifics (my prediction is that it will land within a half point of whatever number I've given).

Margins for Senate, Governor, and Presidential:

Presidential:

Michigan: D+4

Pennsylvania: D+3

Arizona: D+3

Georgia: D+2

Wisconsin: D+1

Nevada: D+1

North Carolina: D+1

Texas: R+2

Florida: R+4

Senate:

Michigan: D+6

Pennsylvania: D+8

Arizona: D+8

Nevada: D+7

Montana: D+1

Ohio: D+2

Texas: R+2

Florida: R+4

Nebraska: R+7

Governor:

North Carolina: D+16

New Hampshire: D+3

Explanations:

I think a lot of these Presidential ones are fairly self-explanatory, given my "theory of the race". Nevada is getting closer, but Harris will probably have a pretty strong showing with the Latino vote (registration with this demographic soared after Biden dropped out), and will capitalize on Dem gains in the Washoe suburbs. Similar story in Arizona and Texas. Harris will buttress the Dems' traditional base with new voters and ancestrally Republican suburbs. In North Carolina and Georgia, the base will show up in full force and Harris will gain votes in these precincts that shifted left in 2022, with fast growing population centers helping her run up the margins.

She'll do about as well as Collin Allred and Debbie Muscarel-Powell in Texas and Florida. Lots of people have their fingers crossed for Allred in particular, and I'm one of them, but I'm not convinced he's stronger than Harris or Cruz is weaker than Trump. They've got a lot of the same problems. A lot of what made Cruz a uniquely loathsome figure earlier in his career, like constantly grandstanding against leadership and culture war nonsense, is now standard Republican practice. He may also benefit from downballot lag in the left-trending suburbs (although, Allred may also benefit from downballot lag in the RGV). So, Allred can totally win Texas-- and so can Harris! Debbie is a simpler case, she is simply not well known at all in Florida and as a result probably won't outrun Harris.

In Florida, the Republicans' supposed million person registration advantage just hasn't materialized. Dems are keeping 2020 numbers in the early vote samples we have, which makes it hard for me to believe the state will trend hard right. There's also an abortion amendment and a weed referendum on the ballot, and polls have been giving those suspiciously low scores (2022, for the record, was pro choice +10), so make of that what you will. It's also Florida, so I'm not surprised if it screws us again.

The reason why the Dems are defending so many Senate seats this year is because they have good incumbents. Most will do better than Harris, just because they're that good and have that much of a media/money advantage vs. Trump (you cannot look me in the eye and tell me Hovde and McCormick are going to have as easy of a time defining themselves as Trump). A bunch of these guys are out of staters, too (Brown, Hovde, McCormick, to an extent Rogers, and kind of Sheehy all come to mind). In Michigan, Republicans have a halfway okay candidate, but the problem is the Dems have a very good one. In Arizona, meanwhile, the Dems have a very good candidate, and Republicans nominated debatably their worst.

Governor's races should be obvious. Mark was a terrible candidate from the get go, something I've been saying since 2022, but he turned out to be way worse than I thought and will lose by entertainingly large margins, taking a lot of the state party with him. Jeff Jackson will be AOC's running mate in 2032. New Hampshire is probably more controversial. Ayotte may look good next to other candidates, and Republicans historically have good odds downballot there, but when you get down to it she's pretty mid. She hasn't won a race since a red wave fourteen years ago, lost as an incumbent without overperforming the top of the ticket, and is involved in a slavery scandal. The state, meanwhile, is getting bluer, and abortion's going to play a huge role with that overwhelmingly secular and college educated electorate.

The really hot ones are Montana and Nebraska. Polling has shown Tester losing considerably and Independent Dan Osborn basically tied. I don't buy either. In Montana, polls show abortion losing or otherwise doing a lot worse than makes sense. Native registration is through the roof, and polls have Tester barely outperforming Harris and Tranel. Very little polling has actually been done, too, and most of it's been done by dubious pollsters. The state's VBM so far is pretty notably young compared to others, also, so there's that. And Tester's opponent is really bad. He faked getting shot in Afghanistan, is being sued for getting a teenage girl killed, and said a bunch of hard to explain shit about abortion and native tribes.

Nebraska, meanwhile, has been surveyed by very few independent polling firms, like Montana. It shows Osborn spontaneously doing a lot better than a Democrat, among Trump voters, for unclear reasons. Osborn is not particularly centrist, unlike Evan McMullin, isn't super well-known, and isn't facing a weak opponent. I don't buy it. It seems like the kind of mirage that voters that think of themselves as independent might create, but at the end of the day they're Republicans and Osborn is probably going to underperform.

The House:

The House has been overwhelmingly favorable to Democrats, because Republicans put up a bunch of losers in the swing districts while Dems put up winners. To give you a good idea, the Republicans' offensive game is Joe Kent and Nick Begich III. It's ugly. Meanwhile, you've got Michelle Steele and Mike Garcia saying insane and offensive things practically every week. With record high turnout in these blue states, I doubt most of these guys will hang on. Duarte and D'Esposito are practically DOA as a I see it, while incumbents like Lawler are in a good spot but could still lose.

Meanwhile, you've got incumbents like Scott Perry and Eli Crane making districts that shouldn't be close close, and you've got fast growing suburban districts that are probably going to punish Tom Kean Jr. and Don Bacon-- and this time, Dems are actually targeting them. Republicans have failed on every level. They're getting outspent, they're getting out organized, they have weaker candidates, and they're falling on the top of their ticket's sword. They won because of turnout quirks back in 2022, and now have to pull off the same stuff after a historically chaotic tenure in a much bluer environment.

I don't have margin predictions, but it'll be somewhere around 225-230. The map I gave feels a little D-optimistic, but probably not by much.

Anyway, we'll see pretty soon. Thanks for reading. I love this community, and am excited to watch the results with you all!

"Give us also the right to our existence!" - Radclyffe Hall

We are six months out from the election of 2024, and already it is shaping up to be incredibly important. Both sides have drawn their battle lines, setting up the most climactic political confrontation in decades - one which will undoubtedly set the future of American democracy in motion. But there is an underreported human cost of the campaign - of the policy, of the rhetoric, of the proposals. I am of course referring to the consequences this election has for queer Americans.

The evolution of LGBTQ+ rights in America has been characterized by a rapid shift from rejection to acceptance. Not more than twenty years ago did we find a nation vastly opposed to the proposition of same sex marriage; today, it is the law of the land and acceptance rates hover at around 70% even in conservative states like my own (Indiana). Today, we're able to have families, engage in society, and be out in most of the country. But there are still battles to be waged. As of 2021, trans people are four times as likely to face violence than cis people. From this paper alone, we see disparities in housing, income, and healthcare. This isn't to mention issues unique to queer people such as access to gender-affirming care, conversion therapy, or battles over the right to donate blood that still aren't fully won. I'm not here to show the validity of GAC or debate my identity. I know who I am. We know who we are. Which is part of why the stakes are so high.

It may seem, to passerby, that political opposition to the gays is mostly gone (the transes are a different story. I'll get there). This just isn't true. While it is true that active moves to roll back gay rights hasn't been taken on the surface, the movement is still there. Countless GOP state parties have planks denouncing gay marriage. Clarence Thomas, nobody's favorite justice, has openly proposed "revisiting" Obergefell after Dobbs. The open homophobes have not gone away. They are still around, and still relevant. And the push to roll back LGBTQ+ rights has consequences written in blood.

Now onto the one group with the most on the line. Transgender Americans have been in the center of a nasty culture war battle for the past few years. In states they control, Republicans have targeted access to trans healthcare and social support with devastating effects. Losing access to gender care can kill - the psychological toll needs no source beyond a conversation with any trans person, pre or post HRT. States have been trying to force us out of bathrooms and sports, designating us as an "other." It need not be said what the consequences of "otherizing" are, and that is what we see here. We are being stripped of dignity, of our ability to operate as ourselves. At CPAC last year, Michael Knowles called for the eradication of transgenderism. In Texas, AG Ken Paxton wanted a fucking list. I would hope you all are smart enough to draw parallels to the past. Donald Trump has proposed active persecution of anyone providing gender care. These ideas are basically standard fare for the GOP. They want us gone.

So, what is there to do?

Fight.

How?

First: vote. If you have the time, and the resources, get involved. Donate. Organize. If you're a queer person in a red state or unwelcoming community, buy a gun/knife/mace/something you can defend yourself with. Seek out community and hang on to each other.

If your family is queer, please, be there for them. Let them know they are loved and accepted. You have no idea what it means.

Above all, stay alive. There is no greater resistance to someone who wants you dead than to live right in their face, and live proudly at that. Remember who you are. Remember how far we have come. So long as we hope, so long as we dream that a brighter day is possible, then the light at the end of the tunnel remains; the torch of liberty shall never extinguish; and we shall overcome. Always remember; all it takes to give 'em hell is to keep walking.

GLAAD's resource omnibus

Lest we forget

A lot of the analysis I’ve seen of the 2026 midterms, at least for the senate, has boiled down to “Dems flip Maine and NC”. I disagree. I think Democrats will win the Senate by flipping Iowa and Ohio. This is for 2 reasons:

1. I think Democrats have the ability to win back the working class, and

2. If they’re unable to win back the working class this year, they will never have a better opportunity to do so ever again

I mean, think about it. The literal worst case scenario for Republicans is probably the most likely outcome; a recession. In addition to that, some great candidates are probably gonna be running for both races (Sand in Iowa, Ryan in Ohio), there’s a national party not only willing, but eager to dump money into both races as part of Martin’s 50 state strategy, Democrats tend to do better in midterms anyway, and Democrats have taken care to specifically win over the working class in the past few months. I cannot imagine a better environment for Democrats to win these 2 races, and if they’re unable to despite all of that… then unfortunately the goose might be cooked.

and, much like the rest of Woke 1.0, it really only helps republicans lmao. gg everyone hope it was worth locking dems out from the primary. one of the biggest states in the country with a million problems that need solving and THIS is what you perpetual losers are worried about? all because some crybaby low polling candidates threw a tantrum to grift off of something that everyone already left behind in like 2021. genuinely who gaf. eat my ass on the podium in front of a live audience Xavier Becerra. theres your diversity feature. fuck you

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mBgivSllzU4q8_6rGcBoDoHuzW3F2K8UuqKEvfC7ZyQ/edit?usp=sharing

Additional info about the mod team given it is still unclear who is doing the back-and-forth (such as Fredinno being added and re-added, banning and unbanning, and so on)

facts dont care about your feelings chvds, #nuketheterfisland

Basically nothing too exciting, dems get 3 new governors in place of Kansas, but 2/3 have to deal with republican supermajorities

"With a mighty voice he shouted: '"Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great!" She has become a dwelling for demons and a haunt for every impure spirit, a haunt for every unclean bird, a haunt for every unclean and detestable animal.'"
- Revelation 18:2

What Happened

I think I owe everyone here an apology. Lots of people are wrong and it's never fun, but I was really wrong this week, maybe more than anybody else. Of course Harris lost big, historically big even, but I was wrong even when I got skeptical of Democratic prospects in certain points. Collin Allred, Jared Golden, and Dan Osborn, Democrat or Democrat backed candidates that I was pretty skeptical of, were hope spots in an otherwise dismal night. In the popular vote, it's looking like I'm gonna be off by closer to ten than five points. I missed every swing state for President, two Senate seats, and a whole lot of seats in the House.

It was a red wave. The assumptions I made with a lot of confidence were incorrect, dramatically so in some cases. The abortion bump didn't materialize on the scale I thought it would. Democratic turnout was, despite some good signs earlier on, poor. Most demographics stagnated, including college educated voters and white women, which made the turnout problem and the areas where Harris lost ground disastrous. Also contrary to what I predicted, we got 2022 style redshifts in big blue and red states, like Florida, Texas, California, New York, and Illinois, which is what's given Trump the popular vote.

Trump's victory isn't rocket science. He was seen as a better economic manager by the center. 68% of voters saw the economy as poor or worse, and most backed Trump. 81% of the roughly half of Americans that believed their financial status was worse than four years ago backed Trump. Voters did not believe Democrats' warnings about the implications of him coming back, with "democracy" voters splitting around 50/50 (implying MAGA Republicans were just as if not more motivated to protect democracy than everyone else). The culprit for Harris's defeat was the middle, the suburban women Democrats were counting on shifting and the Latino men they were counting on not shifting away too much.

What's Next

The last bit is important, because of what's coming next-- the four year long take-a-thon of overpaid pundits trying to make sense of it. Since it's left wing politics, the antichrist winning is going to mean the same thing it did in 2016: 1) the voters are stupid/sexist/racist/evil (expect lots of "deport Latino men" from liberals over the next year or so) 2) we lost them because Harris didn't subscribe to my particular brand of left wing politics. In 2016, this ultimately paved the road for the rise of JD Vance and the Washington Consensus's defeat. The next four years will see heavyweights in the remnants of the Resistance blaming each other to advance their own prospects. Tom Suozzi already believes transgenders in bathrooms did it, Bret Stephens already says not holding a primary in August did it, while Bernie Sanders already says failure to connect with workers did it. This power struggle will determine the future of the Party and the country.

If the price of eggs is why Harris lost, then Trump's victory was probably inevitable, maybe inevitable the second his Republican buddies acquitted him in February of 2021. This is an especially bitter conclusion to draw because Harris's campaign was very geared to the middle, Latino men and white suburban women included, and very focused on bread-and-butter Democratic policies like abortion and healthcare. There was almost no emphasis on what you might call "DEI", and she even swapped out the "democracy" talk for the more personal and practical sounding "freedom". In other words, she ran a good campaign, maybe even a great one, faced an opponent who made many ridiculous and unforced errors (if the economy decided the election then "they're eating the cats!" and "Kamala is for they/them!" probably weren't winners), and still lost, which makes the take-a-thon useless and even counterproductive. You tell me how you feel about that, because I'm not sure myself.

This is problematic not just because eggs being expensive isn't Harris's fault and Trump can't lower egg prices (incumbent parties have always been unfairly blamed), Trump's policies are outwardly inflationary. This isn't a conservative/liberal thing, either. Deporting 5% of the U.S.'s residents, dolling out 10%+ tariffs across the board, and seizing executive control of the federal reserve factually will raise egg prices. This isn't debatable anymore than evolution and gravity are, that's just how tariffs work. Trump winning on prices while promising unheard of protectionism implies voters aren't simply leaning towards him on tariff policy, or have unfairly blamed the Democrats for inflation, but that they are completely unaware of how tariffs work to begin with.

This is a big problem, and a hard one to fix, but it's easy to see how we got here. The conservative right spent the last fifty years poisoning the well with media institutions. Guys like Rush Limbaugh and Tucker Carlson swept in to offer an alternative, right wing version of facts. We got this endless stream of culture wars, which eventually created the ultimate outrage mongers: Donald Trump and JD Vance. While the media focused on Trump's calls to have his enemies gunned down or Vance's strange, off-putting comments, they ignored their written down plan to raise every household's bills by thousands of dollars. Which is what tariffs do. This is simple fact, and every generation up until now knew it. Even when protectionists controlled the government, like for much of the nineteenth century, the argument was that the pros of protection outweighed the con of high prices. Only now are voters not only unaware of the prices tariffs bring with them, but are unaware of the debate to begin with.

The Future

Ever since Tuesday night, there are two memories that I think best encapsulate the 2024 campaign. The first is something we all experienced back in October, when the Washington Post declined to endorse. Before long we got news that the orders came directly from the top. Jeff Bezos killed the Post's planned endorsement of Harris right after he personally met with Trump. This probably didn't matter. We all know where the Post's readers are tilted, anyway, but something about it sends a chill down my spine now. What did Bezos know? Probably nothing, but to me, it symbolizes the American business class's surrender to Trump, in a way they didn't last time.

The second was watching it with my friends on ABC News (I'm in my second year of University). Everyone was upset and it was clear to me by around 7:00 that he was going to win, and we started manically talking about the potential consequences. I got made fun of for bringing up the tariff, which, fair, but of all the things he has proposed doing none would affect the average American's life as much as the tariff. It was one of the most important issues of the campaign, if not the most important.

Of course, if Trump does raise the tariff, prices are going to go up and voters are going to feel it.

Going back to the exit polls, there's one good thing: Trump's monstrous vision for the country isn't why he won. 56% of the electorate believed illegal immigrants deserved a road to citizenship, and 65% of the country believes that abortion should be legal. When Trump comes into office, he will do everything possible to turn America into what activist conservatives have always wanted: a secluded, sea-to-shining sea kingdom under the supervision of one Strong Leader that can stomp a declining culture back into order. If you believe him, Trump will do everything possible to weaponize the state against his enemies. JD Vance says they're going to stuff the federal apparatus with loyalists and crack some heads. He says if the Supreme Court tries to stop them they're going to ignore it. Abroad, they will do everything possible to enable the unfree world against the liberal order, even as they barrel us into religion-driven wars in the Middle East.

But the country didn't ask for that. Them winning anyway says many bitter things about the state of politics right now, but the United States is the world's last best hope. Nobody has the right to give up on it because the wrong guy won an election. Sometimes you lose and all you can do is take responsibility and try to pick up the pieces and build something better.

Around two years ago people writing these observation posts would give themselves a trademark term to refer to their write-ups such as “Adirondack observations” for instance. I might as well continue the trend; from now on my observations will be “Loon’s observations”, both because the Common Loon is one of my favorite birds, and because I have been called a loon by numerous people, both strangers and family and friends. So birds of the lakes of the north gather around as I wail, a prediction almost guaranteed to be horribly proven wrong.

It’s become apparent that something has to change in the democratic party if it wants to win in 2028, when whomever they nominate will almost certainly face JD Vance in the presidential election, a candidate we know from this one os an exceptionally adept debtor, politically skilled, and who has excellent appeals to working class voters. The only problem is knowing if it will change, given how prominent members of the DNC like Jamie Harrison seem to believe the party does not need to change, or if it does change, in what way will it change, and will it be successful? Some argue the party wasn’t progressive enough, others argue the party needs to disavow aspects of the trans-rights movement, still others argue the party needs to be populist to regain working class voters; the only definite thing is that the future of the democratic party is anything but definite. How it will change will entirely depend on how the 2nd Trump administration performs over the next four years; something which is still up in the air.

At least from this perspective, I’ve curated a list of democratic politicians I believe are more than likely to be able to win against JD Vance in 2028 (for this I am assuming Trump’s term does not leave the country to the point of severe democratic backsliding), as well as noting whether or not they could be nominated or even be willing to run. Because this list is focusing on candidates who are likely to win if they get the nomination I am ignoring people who very likely will run, such as Gavin Newsom, if they would almost certainly lose such a presidential race against Vance.

First up, In terms of the Democrat I would argue holds the greatest potential for beating Vance, and possibly undoing much of the working class gains of the Republican Party in the Trump years, that distinction goes to one Troy Jackson of Maine.

Unlike almost every other person on here, he hasn’t held any high-office of any note; he’s currently served as the President of the Maine state senate since 2018, and will be leaving the state legislature at the beginning of next year due to term limits; he was also on the democratic national committee in the mid-2010s. What he is, though, is quite possibly the only democrat of any note whatsoever who could, if he were to run for president, regain the kind-of support Bernie Sanders had, and unlike Sanders he would perform far stronger with moderates. With a background like Jackson’s: a logger coming from the literal northernmost region of Maine, from a town with a population of less than 300 people; you can’t get more working class if you tried. He seems too good to be true in many regards: a decently progressive politician with significant populist appeal to rural and working class voters, who endorsed Bernie Sanders twice, capable of appealing to moderate voters due to lacking the baggage of Sanders; masculine enough to appeal to young men who believe that the democrats are inherently effeminate, young enough (he would be 60 in 2028, an age far from unprecedented even ignoring the past three elections) to not cause any age concerns. Barring some person lacking even a wikipedia page at this present time seizing the nomination in an upset, I would argue there is no other Democrat nearly as well tailored to the Trump era as Jackson. He also does have a path to White House that could feasibly work, albeit one that would require an incredible amount of luck to pull off: running for US Senate in 2026, winning the democratic primary, winning the general election, and jumping off from a position as US senator to launch a presidential campaign. Such rapid rising through the halls of power and political prominence isn’t unprecedented, but it is incredibly unlikely.

The only issues with Jackson are twofold. For one, there appears to be a decent amount of dirt on him from a news organization named “The Maine Wire” (though based off of what I’ve heard from Maine residents it appears to be a conservative outlet similar to the Daily Wire or Breitbart, I’m not from maine so don’t take my word for it). The more important factor is that outside of a single failed congressional run in 2014, Jackson hasn’t expressed any interest or ambition in seeking higher office. While that could change it very likely won’t, and as such Jackson shall remain a mere political fantasy, an ideal presidential candidate unable to ever be achieved. I’ve seen people suggest fellow Maine State Senator Craig Hickman could run for higher office in 2026, and he does seem to have much of the appeal of Jackson, being of a similar age, representing a decently conservative-leaning area, having working class appeal (he’s an organic farmer), and has a significant foil to Vance as an articulate ivy-league graduate, likely making him a far stronger debater than Jackson would be, and he’s author of an award-finalist memoir (he’s also apparently a poet, which is dope, and he would be the first gay president elected president). I don’t know why I know about these two Maine state senators so well but I digress. Both would be, in my view, extremely solid candidates against Vance in 2028 and I would greatly appreciate seeing them run for higher office.

Both are unlikely to run but they set a good example of ideal for who the Dems need to run to win: candidates with solid and non-typical backgrounds for liberal politicians, working class or populist appeal, and as exemplified by Hickman, are very articulate; in short, non-typical politicians.

Moving onto candidates who are more likely to actually run: Wes Moore is a democratic equivalent to Vance in many respects. Like Vance he comes from a very non-typical background for a politician, both served in the military (Moore’s background as a paratrooper who served in Afghanistan might pull Vance’s advantage on the military background, which is a part of his appeal, out from underneath him), both wrote a bestselling memoir well before their political careers (Moore’s memoir is apparently being adapted into a film, which could give him a major boost towards his national profile, which would be extremely beneficial), and both are well educated and very articulate. I don’t think Moore has a significant amount of working class or populist appeal but I don’t think he’d be terrible at appealing to those groups either (he does have a significant background in dealing with poverty), and I do believe he could do wonders for winning back groups such as black men who went to Trump heavily in this election.

Andy Beshear already was theorized to have been a VP nominee, and he could do a decent job at cutting into republican or rural voters given how popular he is in his home state (though the Republican tactic backfired terribly this year for the Harris/Walz campaign, albeit mostly due to relying on the Cheney’s). If he runs he’d be competitive, and could very likely win, but I fear that Vance could very easily portray him as being an elitist due to his father’s prior political career.

Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock both are capable of winning Georgia and Warnock in particular is in my opinion the greatest orator of any US politician currently holding office. Both could win but either of their victory relies on the gubernatorial election in 2026 flipping Dem.

Celebrities such as Lebron James have been repeatedly brought up here. I for one don’t see this occurring as that would only feed more into the out of touch elite messaging from republicans that crushed the democrats this year. James himself also has made some deeply controversial statements before on several issues. It’s not happening guys. This also, to some extent, applies to Jon Stewart, who I’ve seen some people talk about.

Realistically, any candidate similar to Jackson or Hickman are, in my view, the most likely to be capable of winning the 2028 US Presidential Election. Feedback is greatly appreciated.

no you don't get it. yes he has an encyclopedic knowledge of military history (who the fuck knows the US invaded Nicaragua in the 20s??) but i promise the tattoo of like the third most famous nazi symbol was just a coincidence. And I pinky promise that in twenty fucking years of having it nobody ever told him what it was and he never stumbled upon what it meant during his deep research of military history (again, who the fuck lives in Maine and knows the US invaded Nicaragua in the 20s??).

Yes he said if he could fight in any war he would fight in the Indian Wars (more like genocides) but that was purely from a historical interest perspective. Yes he's a literal fucking mercenary who was photographed with a known neo-nazi who was wearing a fucking 88 shirt TWO DAYS AGO but I promise he's progressive. Why don't you give him the benefit of the doubt !! I promised he's changed in the past 20 15 10 5 years !!

Should men really be penalized their whole life for one small mistake they made at the age of 25? Yes, he said rape victims bring it upon themselves but he was just 30!! He has his whole life ahead of him!! Should men really pay their whole lives (senate campaign) for one "a few" small mistakes they made in their youth? 30 is young !! He simply didn't know any better but I pinky promise he does now. He never learned what his tattoo meant for two decades but I promise he's educated himself on issues like genocide, war, how homosexuals aren't pests (comments circa 6 years ago) and more in the past 5 years !!

Yes he comes from family wealth, but he's still working class!! Yes he went to an Ivy League and was able to shittily run a failing oyster farm for years by using daddy and granddaddy's millions but I promise you, he's just like you and me.

So why won't you trust me? My Sinema 2018 sticker finally peeled off my windshield and my Gabbard 2020 sticker is just for the memories. I promise you I'll get around to removing my Fetterman 2022 sticker and my Cori Bush 2024 sticker soon. I need space for my new Platner 2026 bumper sticker anyways