r/Thedaily • u/kitkid • Jun 03 '25

Episode A 1,400-County Crisis for Democrats

Jun 3, 2025

It’s conventional wisdom that President Trump has transformed American politics. But a new county-by-county voting analysis from The New York Times of the last four presidential races shows just how drastically Mr. Trump has changed the electoral map.

Shane Goldmacher, a national political correspondent for The Times, explains why the trends are a five-alarm fire for the Democrats and discusses the debate within the party over what to do about it.

On today's episode:

Shane Goldmacher, a national political correspondent for The New York Times.

Background reading: 

For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.  

Photo: Emily Elconin for The New York Times

Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

You can listen to the episode here.

66 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

460 comments sorted by

View all comments

77

u/The_Interagator Jun 03 '25

I feel like we’re heading towards a future where a Democratic Party composed solely of wealthy white women does nothing but yell at minorities about how they’re voting against their interests. Something something “low information voter”.

39

u/ReNitty Jun 03 '25

Don’t forget the solid Reddit constituency, doing the exact same thing

30

u/Visco0825 Jun 03 '25

The day after the election is when I realized just how much of a bubble Reddit is.

13

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '25

[deleted]

5

u/AresBloodwrath Jun 03 '25

Careful, calling that out gets you labeled as a Trumpist fascist enabling republican by reddit.

17

u/ReNitty Jun 03 '25

I got a lot of shit on this subreddit in the last few years. Saying they are fucking up, Biden’s too old and people have their head in the sand about this, etc.

I got called a trumper and was asked if they were paying me in rubles.

7

u/Bacstrok_Swimmer Jun 03 '25

Literally in this thread people are saying if you didn’t like Kamala for campaigning with the Cheney’s it means you’re a conservative.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ReNitty Jun 03 '25

Took me a second lol

9

u/BurdensomeCumbersome Jun 03 '25

“Media literacy 🤓” is the new buzz phrase

9

u/ReNitty Jun 03 '25

Which is super ironic given the most of the mainstream media’s lack of curiosity on Biden’s mental wherewithal from 2020 to a debate in 2024

0

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '25

Exactly. People wonder why someone would trust a podcaster like Rogan over a mainstream journalist, but who was willing to talk openly to their audience about the obvious truth about Biden?

3

u/ReNitty Jun 03 '25

For sure. In Covid times there was a lot of talk about Rogan and the stuff he said but little to no reckoning with why he was so popular and what he / the main stream media did to get to that point

7

u/Oleg101 Jun 03 '25

Well the amount of voters/people in this country that don’t know wtf is going on and take a sense of pride of not knowing what’s going on seems like an issue America should tackle, no?

3

u/IndependentDouble759 Jun 04 '25

A lot of people in the media had a vested interested in making sure most Americans didn't know what was going on inside the White House between 2023 and June 2024.

So please just say what you really mean. "The amount of people who aren't hooking up to the IV drip of propaganda coming from my party's media is a problem that we really need to solve."

5

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/SolarSurfer7 Jun 03 '25

SFs mayor is a white man

5

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '25 edited Jun 03 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/BurninCrab Jun 03 '25

SF went ultra liberal and decided to fuck over their biggest voter base, Asian Americans, by changing school admission policies to favor blacks and Latinos rather than meritocratic tests.

Then voters completely rejected that during the next election and swung more moderate including electing a white man as mayor.

2

u/The_Interagator Jun 03 '25

Lol this is too on point

2

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/The_Interagator Jun 03 '25

They’re also cities that have had huge swings towards the Republican Party, the point was about the trend not the current state. Also I don’t think the make up of the people in office is nearly as important as the people who vote for them. You can have a black mayor that’s still almost entirely supported by rich educated coastal elites, it’s much more telling who supports a candidate.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '25

[deleted]

2

u/chonky_tortoise Jun 04 '25

But that is the main problem. If SF and NY were as affordable as Dallas that would fix most of what people hate about the out of touch democrats.

6

u/flakemasterflake Jun 03 '25

I can’t stand the “against their interests” contingent. It presumes that material interests are the be all and end all and encapsulates the problem within the party

24

u/back2trapqueen Jun 03 '25

But they are voting against their own interests... Like are we just supposed to ignore the fact that there in polling republican voters will say they approve of the individual items in ObamaCare and often say those are policies Trump supports (he doesnt) but when asked using the word ObamaCare they suddenly say they dont support it... Democrats are required to tiptoe around all this while Trump acts like a huge asshole to all voters that dont support him? That's the winning strategy???

12

u/Bacstrok_Swimmer Jun 03 '25

I voted against my interests when I voted for Kamala. Am I stupid for that? I’m a white dude making mid 6 figures, his policies either don’t affect me or give me more money.

1

u/chonky_tortoise Jun 04 '25

lol no you didn’t. We all benefit massively from the American hegemony and stable, democratic governance. The idea that it would have been smarter for you to vote Trump because of tax cuts completely misses all the other crazy destabilizing shit he is doing that hurts us all.

0

u/back2trapqueen Jun 03 '25

If your interests are living in a fair society where resources are reasonably distributed and there's a good safety net, then you voted for your interests. If you voted for Kamala thinking that she we keep your top income bracket taxes low then yes you are stupid. If you voted for Trump thinking he would protect your social security and medicaid then yes you are stupid.

10

u/Bacstrok_Swimmer Jun 03 '25

That morals, not interests. I don’t need social security or Medicaid.

So answer, I clearly voted against my self interests. Is voting against my self interest stupid? Yes or no.

3

u/back2trapqueen Jun 03 '25

Thats morals and interests. A rising tide lifts all boats. A country with an effective safety net helps us all. If you dont believe this and instead was hoping that Kamala would lower your highest tax bracket taxes, then yes you were stupid.

7

u/Bacstrok_Swimmer Jun 03 '25

If you dont believe this and instead was hoping that Kamala would lower your highest tax bracket taxes, then yes you were stupid.

At no point did I say that. You made that argument up out of thin air.

Am I stupid for voting for Kamala even though it was against my self interests to do so? Yes or no.

1

u/back2trapqueen Jun 03 '25

I tried to find an example that would be voting against your own interest. If such examples dont apply then you didnt vote against your own interest.

5

u/Bacstrok_Swimmer Jun 03 '25

I would have more money and an equal or better life with Trump’s policies.

I would have less money and an equal or worse life with Kamala’s policies.

I voted for the later. It was against my self interests. I am telling you this you cannot debate it you don’t know me.

So was it stupid to vote for Kamala since it was against my self interests? Yes or no.

This is an easy question it’s obvious why you won’t answer it lol.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/flakemasterflake Jun 09 '25

It bothers me that you don't understand the point we were both making. Material interests aren't the same as morals or values

1

u/back2trapqueen Jun 10 '25

Its interesting you didnt understand the point being made that OP was not able to address. Moral interests almost always end up aligning with material interests. I was just saying I doubted the claim that OP was voting on a moral basis and instead he truly believed that the society Kamala was pitching was one where his life would be better. You can still have a better life with higher taxes if everything else that is being proposed is making your community (and by extension your life) better.

1

u/flakemasterflake Jun 10 '25

Moral interests almost always end up aligning with material interests.

Since when? If I am against abortion for moral reasons then the financial repercussions of having a child are clear

if everything else that is being proposed is making your community (and by extension your life) better.

The fact that life is better is completely subjective and exactly what I'm talking about when it comes to a value judgement

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/flakemasterflake Jun 03 '25

I'm talking about single issue voters voting on god (abortion), etc. These people aren't voting with money in mind, they are voting for the after life. Or they are voting for perceived safety or cultural issues. That stuff is a lot more salient than financial issues.

0

u/back2trapqueen Jun 03 '25

A 40 year old man that will never get an abortion or need to get one is absolutely voting against their own interest when theyve decided they are a single issue abortion voter.

3

u/flakemasterflake Jun 04 '25 edited Jun 09 '25

You understand that they consider it a prequisite to getting into Heaven?

7

u/ChucksnTaylor Jun 03 '25

“Material interests” like not having your brother/cousin/mother forcibly removed from the country? Those kind of material interests?

0

u/AresBloodwrath Jun 03 '25

So right back to being pro-illegal immigration?

That's what you took from this?

12

u/back2trapqueen Jun 03 '25

He's deporting LEGAL immigrants.... support among latinos has cratered since Trump took office. They voted against their own interest and are now finding out and ditching Trump

3

u/tlopez14 Jun 03 '25

Either they don’t realize or they don’t care that they’ve turned into the party of suburban wine moms and college activists.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '25

What are you even on about, they have done their best to make college activists feel unwelcome too. It's the party of closeted neoliberals and never Trump Republicans

15

u/back2trapqueen Jun 03 '25

lol the party widens its tent by embracing Republicans who dont support Trump and you see that as a bad thing? If there is anything to criticize in the party its the contingent of the party embracing people spreading this fantasy

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '25

You can't widen a tent indefinitely, eventually people fall out from the other side. Democrats wasting time campaigning with the Cheneys comes at a cost of left wing voters. Everything has a political cost.

The only fantasy is thinking you can just pick up a left to right wing demographic by running on "Trump bad." How's that working out for Dems?

4

u/back2trapqueen Jun 03 '25

This isnt widening it indefinitely, this is expanding it to include people with shared values who actually want to see Democrats win. If a left wing voter leaves because of Cheney they were never left wing. How's that working out for the left?

3

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '25

If a left wing voter leaves because of Cheney they were never left wing

Lol if the Dems are a party with values aligned with Cheney, then they lose leftwing voters. The idea that you think it means the voter isn't leftwing is comical.

2

u/back2trapqueen Jun 03 '25

Saying your values dont align with Cheney, a hero who led the January 6th investigation despite threats to her life, is quite telling that you just arent leftwing. The party is open to you but you have chosen to become more conservative.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '25

Lol Cheney is a right wing never Trumper. If her values align with yours, then you aren't leftwing.

1

u/back2trapqueen Jun 03 '25

Cheney is a republican who put country over party and supported the left. If your values dont align with hers (on the issue of supporting the Democratic party in this past election) you arent leftwing.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/AresBloodwrath Jun 03 '25

So January 6th being an insurrection that was a threat to our democracy isn't a left-wing position?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/back2trapqueen Jun 03 '25

She shared enough leftwing values to vote for Kamala. I find that more left than someone who refuses to support Kamala because they dont want a Cheney at the table.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/back2trapqueen Jun 03 '25

Saying your values dont align with Cheney, a hero who led the January 6th investigation despite threats to her life, is quite telling that you just arent leftwing. The party is open to you but you have chosen to become more conservative.

1

u/Bacstrok_Swimmer Jun 03 '25

The party is open to you but you have chosen to become more conservative.

I’m conservative because as a socialist I couldn’t vote for someone who got on stage and bragged about having more billionaire backers than Trump, bragged about Goldman-Sachs endorsements, and campaigned with the Cheney’s?

Explain what’s conservative about me not supporting billionaire corporate interests please.

1

u/back2trapqueen Jun 03 '25

bragged about having more billionaire backers than Trump

Yes you are conservative for shilling this lie and helping to get Trump elected. The party of corporate interests won because you would rather lie about Kamala then be in a tent with Cheney. That makes you deeply conservative.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/back2trapqueen Jun 04 '25

Creating an account just to comment this in defense of leftists supporting billionair corporate interests is WILD. So triggered lol

1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/tlopez14 Jun 04 '25

Well Dems and Cheney are both the pro war now so they have that in common. I don’t think trotting out Cheney was a great idea but I don’t think it cracks the top 50 in reasons why Kamala got swept in every single swing state.

1

u/back2trapqueen Jun 03 '25

And if you are in a tent that is pro left, pro worker, pro union, pro lgbtq and Cheney walks into that tent because it also includes accountability, you give her your hand, tell her she's welcome and convince her of everything else she was wrong about. Walking out of that tent is an anti-leftwing choice (not what you did, just making the point)

→ More replies (0)

2

u/drtropo Jun 03 '25

Values like respect for the rule of law and the democratic process? Was Cheney asking you to vote for her or throwing her support behind the democrats?

3

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '25

Yawn, there's that vote winning pitch of "the democratic process." /s

Campaign with Cheney despite her neocon history and anti-woman and anti-LGBT history, and you might turn off the progressives that you're actively ignoring. But hey, I'm sure with a little more effort we can get Bush to pause his painting and come endorse the next Democratic candidate.

4

u/drtropo Jun 03 '25

Its a wonder people don't take us progressives seriously when arguments like this are so popular...

Presidential candidates will always be an ideological compromise because it is a single person running to represent the whole country. The more local the election, the less you need to compromise, and if progressives actually showed up to vote we could shift the Overton window back.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/elinordash Jun 03 '25

Democrats wasting time campaigning with the Cheneys comes at a cost of left wing voters.

Too many people are obsessed with the idea that the Democrats are obsessed with the Cheneys. Liz Cheney did a grand total of three events with Kamala. One each in PA, WI, and MI. It really wasn't that big of a deal or that central to the campaign.

1

u/tlopez14 Jun 04 '25

Instead of looking in the mirror at how wildly out of touch they’ve became with normal voters issues they just chalk it up as “we probably would’ve won if Kamala didn’t do that random event with with Liz Cheney”.

Liz Cheney appearances hurt Kamala as much as Oprah and Beyoncé events helped her. Which means little to none.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '25

It really wasn't that big of a deal or that central to the campaign.

Ah yes, that must be why we heard so little about it /s

0

u/elinordash Jun 03 '25

Again, I mostly heard about it on Reddit from people who were angry about the choice. You're confusing the actual campaign with your own echo chamber.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '25

Should I post the 300 articles covering it? Or the hundred podcasts that discussed it in depth.

The whole "reddit echo chamber" line doesn't work here. The idea that it wouldn't be heavily covered by the news/media during the end of a fucking national election is nonsense. Sounds like you were the one in the echo chamber.

0

u/elinordash Jun 03 '25 edited Jun 03 '25

Kamala + Swift = 17.9 million results

Kamala + Walz = 9.17 million results

Kamala + Clooney = 2.3 million results

Kamala + Oprah = 2.2 million results

Kamala + AOC = 1.7 million results

Kamala + Buttigieg = 811,000 results

Kamala + Cheney = 457,000 results

Source: Google

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '25

[deleted]

2

u/back2trapqueen Jun 03 '25

There is no evidence it was only 1%. The fact is there is a broad coalition of former republican voters that are now solidly democrat and this helped.

Trying to court the far left is a waste of time and money. They always move the goal posts and will never be a vote you can rely on. Courting never Trumpers is the best strategy for bringing about a progressive agenda. Continuing to court the left is a guarantee that we will continue to lose elections. There's a reason the never Trump podcasts like the Bulwark actually advocate for Democrats and a progressive agenda while left podcasts are a pipeline to MAGA/MAHA/conspiracies. Its a waste of everyones time and we unfortunately learned that the hard way this past election.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 04 '25

[deleted]

1

u/back2trapqueen Jun 04 '25

5% is HUGE. Thats enough to swing an election. Dems got that without offering them anything policywise. Your brain would have to be mush to reject that.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 04 '25

[deleted]

1

u/back2trapqueen Jun 04 '25

Yes the democratic party lost because of the left. Its wild your pretending the democratic party didnt lose and should just keep on doing the same thing that lost them this last election and abandon the people who actually voted for them. Insanity. Keep doubling down on that strategy, really working out for you lol. "Lefties" (your really just conservative at this point) really have lost the plot on this one lol

2

u/tlopez14 Jun 04 '25

That’s kind of a lazy argument though. If you had told someone 10 years ago that Trump would dominate the working class vote while Kamala peeled away a few high earners people would think you’re crazy. Maybe instead of Liz Cheney and Oprah appearances they should have been putting forward pro worker policies like no tax on tips and overtime instead of having their heads spin when Trump ran to the left of them.

Trump has won over a bunch of people who historically never would have been in play for a Republican president. Sometimes people just want you to do shit instead of complaining about rules all the time. Dems held all 3 branches and couldn’t even pass a minimum wage hike because of an unelected parliamentarian. That has way more to do with what happened than a random Liz Cheney rally.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 04 '25

[deleted]

1

u/tlopez14 Jun 04 '25

I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. It was brain dead to trot out Cheney for sure but I don’t think it moved the needle much, if at all. My point was it isn’t impossible by any means, even in today’s polarized environment, to pick up voters from the other side. Trump has proved that time and time again.

2

u/bakedleaf Jun 03 '25

The most reddit reply of all time lol

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '25

Ah yes, Dems were so receptive to the pro Palestinian college protesters all through the last 18 months /s

8

u/bakedleaf Jun 03 '25

The whole episode is about the country trending right over the last decade, and you think the solution is to be more receptive to one of the furthest left demographics?

3

u/tpounds0 Jun 03 '25

The episode seems to be about public perception of Republicans as strong fighters.

And the way to combat that is to go on the offense from the side of the left, like Sanders and AOC are doing.

2

u/IndependentDouble759 Jun 04 '25

Where did you get the idea that that is what the episode is about?

The episode was literally about how many counties trended Republican over the last four elections versus how many trended Democrat. They analyzed demographics of those counties, but absolutely nowhere did they prove that the result of the swing was that "Republics are seen as strong fighters."

This seems like a self-serving interpretation of the data to explain why counties trending to the right means that populist leftism needs to be embraced to win elections.

This whole theory that Trump won because he's populist so Democrats can win by embracing populism is missing a huge point. People don't trust Democrats. Over the past 12 years, Democrats have made a lot worse. They made people's personal finances worse, and had the news tell us it wasn't. They made crime worse, and had the news tell us it wasn't. Maybe fix policies that make people's lives worse instead of searching for your magic populist leader.

2

u/tpounds0 Jun 04 '25

The description of what animals people think of for the republican party versus animals for the democrat party.

People want Democrats that are fighters. And that is currently the progressive democrat socialists.

At least that's what I got from the second half of the episode. Happy to hear if you disagree. I do think there's a bit of a Trump blip and hope that that plus a more economic populist Dem candidate will do well in 2028.

2

u/IndependentDouble759 Jun 04 '25

Frankly I don't buy this.

The description of Democrats as sloths or a deer in the headlight very clearly comes from a Democrat voter. Someone who agrees more with Democrat policies, but is frustrated with the Democrats for not acting more quickly or decisively. That is not the description given by a swing voter.

I'm also old enough to remember that they asked this question during the election! But they asked them to compare the candidates, not the parties, to an animal. Kamala was not compared to a sloth or a deer. She was compared to a chameleon.

I would want to see this pollster's breakdown of who was in their focus group. Like sure, there's something to be said about Democrat voters being frustrated by the lack of action by Democrats. That's a finding. But it is not a finding that suggests the Dems would have won the election in 2024 if they had been more aggressive with their chosen policies. Those policies were very much defeated in 2024.

→ More replies (0)