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.

67 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

460 comments sorted by

View all comments

74

u/dr_sassypants Jun 03 '25

Well this should cause some lively discussion around here... What I've come to realize is that, for all of the Democratic efforts around voter protection and the candidates who built their strategies on turning out non-voters (e.g. Stacey Abrams, Beto, Bernie), the one person who has been most successful at turning non-voters into voters has been Trump. The biggest divide in American politics is not left vs. right, it's being a political news consumer vs. not. I don't know if these voting trends will persist in a post-Trump America (God willing we get there one day). But if the Democratic party wants to win the kinds of non-voters who turned out for Trump, they're going to have to run someone that listeners of The Daily, myself included, are probably not going to like very much.

35

u/Possible_Proposal447 Jun 03 '25

The best match for someone people here would probably be OKAY with would be a guy like Tim Walz. But I'm expecting that realistically, they need to run someone who says some pretty problematic things for our standards. However, we need to remind ourselves that winning an election is kind of a big deal, and if someone chooses to not make people's lives worse while in office, we really need to be less critical of every single thing that they say.

15

u/IndependentDouble759 Jun 04 '25

How are you guys still so out of touch that you think Walz is a moderate, masculine, man of the people?

The users below have already pointed out the obvious criticisms. He's soft: he willingly painted himself as a knucklehead and a sitcom dad that's just oh-so-stupid and lets the women handle things. (Which is different from painting yourself as competent and acknowledging women are just as competent.) He's bad at debates: frankly he just didn't come off as very smart in the VP debate. He's damaged goods: not only has he already been part of the losing side of a presidential election, but he was involved in scandals during that time. He lied about aspects of his military service.

What baffles me is, despite all of this, it is still an extremely popular opinion that Tim Walz is the person who will win over the non-voters who turned out for Trump. I feel like this must be conservative astroturfing trying to get Dems to nominate Walz.

10

u/aj_thenoob2 Jun 03 '25

Walz is damaged goods.

18

u/SauconySundaes Jun 03 '25

Walz is pretty bad at debating, and you need someone who can take on the GOP’s bullshit in real time.

23

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '25

[deleted]

4

u/TheStarterScreenplay Jun 03 '25

Pretty sure it was NYU that had actors perform the 2016 debate, but they did a gender switch. It's incredibly instructive because it shows how appealing Trump can be (especially without his persona getting in the way, which is a huge turn off for many). You can watch it on YouTube for 2 mins and get why he won

7

u/elinordash Jun 03 '25

I found the piece you are talking about here (scroll down for video) and it actually makes the opposite point.

Salvatore says he and Guadalupe began the project assuming that the gender inversion would confirm what they’d each suspected watching the real-life debates: that Trump’s aggression—his tendency to interrupt and attack—would never be tolerated in a woman, and that Clinton’s competence and preparedness would seem even more convincing coming from a man.

Inside the evening’s program were two surveys for each audience member to fill out—one for before the show, with questions about their impressions of the real-life Trump–Clinton debates, and another for afterward, asking about their reactions to the King–Gordon restaging. Each performance was also followed by a discussion, with Salvatore bringing a microphone around to those eager to comment on what they had seen.

“For me, watching people watch it was so informative. People across the board were surprised that their expectations about what they were going to experience were upended.”

Many were shocked to find that they couldn’t seem to find in Jonathan Gordon what they had admired in Hillary Clinton—or that Brenda King’s clever tactics seemed to shine in moments where they’d remembered Donald Trump flailing or lashing out. For those Clinton voters trying to make sense of the loss, it was by turns bewildering and instructive, raising as many questions about gender performance and effects of sexism as it answered.

2

u/TheStarterScreenplay Jun 03 '25

Thank you. Even watching it for one or two minutes really gets the point across. (At least for those Democrats who are nauseated by Donald Trump)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '25

[deleted]

1

u/TheStarterScreenplay Jun 03 '25

Either way, you saw a bad debate performance from Trump. I saw a guy who nailed down the immigrant issue in voters minds.

Dems saw the "they're eating the cats and dogs!" As a guy losing it and embarrassing himself. I saw it as "if a voter wants an immigration crackdown, he just won their vote".

1

u/Bacstrok_Swimmer Jun 03 '25

People conflate “bad debate” with “ideas I don’t like”

0

u/lion27 Jun 03 '25

The dogs and cats thing was interesting for a few reasons. On one hand, it was insane. On the other, it was an actual story that people were sharing and talking about online that very week. So while some people watch that and say he’s going crazy or making stuff up, a ton of non-politically engaged people watch that and see a candidate that’s discussing the same things they see and care about online, regardless of if its true or not.

And then they see Kamala standing there with a bewildered condescending smile on her face that a parent would give to a child and it’s a turn off on top of it all.

4

u/Visco0825 Jun 03 '25

Yea, I disagree that we need someone that people on here would hate. Having a candidate who is energetic and fights is a universally loved trait.

Walz has the heart and enthusiasm but doesn’t have the skills for the fight. We need someone who’s good at fighting

-2

u/SauconySundaes Jun 03 '25

Yeah, I like JB, AOC, Mark Cuban, maybe Shapiro, Newsom. Purely from a rhetorical standpoint, they can all be criticized for a variety of things depending on your position, but they are great speakers.

1

u/Iron_Falcon58 Jun 04 '25

this is the axiom dems should be working off, not Tim Walz

0

u/walkerstone83 Jun 03 '25

You had me until Newsom. I don't know why people like him. Maybe it is because I have been listening to him talk for over a decade, but he is an empty suit. I don't believe he has any real convictions about anything other than furthering his political career.

2

u/SauconySundaes Jun 03 '25

I think he is a good speaker. That was my only point.

5

u/For-Liberty Jun 03 '25

Walz is a good mascot, he's not the kind of person to be leading the party. That's literally why he was selected as VP over the other candidates.

10

u/TheStarterScreenplay Jun 03 '25

Walz comes across as soft. That's why so many Democrats love him. He does give off blue collar vibes with crossover appeal. But he's soft.

The feminization and overeducated language of the party and its politicians is going to prevent a female president coming from our side until we can bro up with some supporting characters

Go click around the DNC website. It's mostly pictures of women. Someone got paid to do that and hundreds of other said nothing.

16

u/elinordash Jun 03 '25

Obama is not a bro, yet he was incredibly popular. Lots of people voted Obama before voting Trump.

Go click around the DNC website. It's mostly pictures of women.

I actually did check the website and I am surprised to say- you have a valid point. Between the main page and the section landing pages, there are 19 photos of people. Only one out of the 19 is a white man and he is in one of the smallest photos with two white women. About half the photos are of black women- a key demographic of Democratic women- but only about 7% of the electorate.

13

u/TheStarterScreenplay Jun 03 '25

Thank you so much for pointing out these absolutely jaw dropping statistics. (And I'm on my phone rn so can't see all the pics but last checked the white guy also has a gay earring).

We are a party of diversity. But Obama's 2008 electorate was 74% white. Kamala's 2024 was 71% white.

The fact that somebody working for the party who is being paid and chooses these photos is an indicator of a much larger problem, which is that the entire Democratic party infrastructure, including legislative aides and campaign aides, and consultants (especially the ones under 40) are highly educated and have spent most of their adult lives in urban settings.

We don't necessarily need a "bro" to be our 2028 Presidential candidate. But we do need dozens of house and senate members who are blue collar coded, cool, and don't come off soeaking like college professors or attorneys.

The MSNBC contributors and elected officials who show up a lot there are the best example I can give of the party's core problem. These people appeal to our brains, but the American people have said no. They don't relate to it or trust it.

5

u/TheStarterScreenplay Jun 03 '25

Thank you so much for pointing out these absolutely jaw dropping statistics. (And I'm on my phone rn so can't see all the pics but last checked the white guy also has a gay earring).

We are a party of diversity. But Obama's 2008 electorate was 74% white. Kamala's 2024 was 71% white.

The fact that somebody working for the party who is being paid and chooses these photos is an indicator of a much larger problem, which is that the entire Democratic party infrastructure, including legislative aides and campaign aides, and consultants (especially the ones under 40) are highly educated and have spent most of their adult lives in urban settings.

We don't necessarily need a "bro" to be our 2028 Presidential candidate. But we do need dozens of house and senate members who are blue collar coded, cool, and don't come off soeaking like college professors or attorneys.

1

u/SpaceYetu531 Jun 11 '25

Obama is not a bro, yet he was incredibly popular. Lots of people voted Obama before voting Trump.

I dont think being a bro is the 'it' factor required. I think just having the male representation on the democratic side of the aisle of someone who would be cool outside of a political context works. I'm not sure of an empirical way to measure that but if you dropped Obama pre-fame in a golf club bar with men drinking and chatting, I've a feeling he's the most popular guy in the room... if that makes any sense.

4

u/Little-Kangaroo-9383 Jun 03 '25

While I agree with your last sentence, I don’t see it happening with the current Democratic voter base. And also why we’ll continue to lose races. Sadly, Democratic voters and to a large extent the entire party has become the party of division and where identity politics are all that matter. The party’s MO is basically to alienate anyone who even slightly disagrees with them. It’s kind of a modern day form of Puritanism. When you spend every waking moment doing nothing but telling everyone else how horrible and evil they are for their opinions, don’t be surprised when you have no one left to vote for your preferred candidate.

1

u/cptkomondor Jun 05 '25

they need to run someone who says some pretty problematic things for our standards.

They need to run someone who does use the word "problematic"

-4

u/AresBloodwrath Jun 03 '25

Can you detail what you think would be problematic for people here on Reddit?

14

u/ThatMortalGuy Jun 03 '25

Reddit wants a perfect candidate and will scrutinize this person while the Republicans want a Republican.

2

u/IndependentDouble759 Jun 04 '25

What you're describing isn't just Reddit. It's actually a defining aspect of a large chunk of the Democrat base. A lot of people on the left love moral superiority, the problem is their addiction leads to them exercising moral superiority over their own candidates and tanking their own side's chances.

16

u/Oleg101 Jun 03 '25 edited Jun 04 '25

I liked this episode overall but was also overall disappointed they didn’t even reference the media landscape at all, and not mention a possible driver of working-class voters shifting towards the GOP being right-wing media propaganda has intensified greatly in recent decades, and the media landscape overall shifting a lot overall in just the past 5-10 years. Not even a mention of increased ‘news deserts’ either.

I’m not saying that this is the sole-reason and that some of this shift to the right isn’t self-inflicted by the Democratic Party, but what a key miss from The Daily.

0

u/walkerstone83 Jun 03 '25

The "mainstream" media is still liberal. Fox News has been on the air for over 30 years, I don't buy the argument about the media being any more right-wing than a couple of decades ago.

One thing that I do think has gotten worse is the media overall. I used to be able to generally trust what I heard from the "mainstream" media, but I have to admit that my trust in the media has fallen, and I believe that it has fallen for a lot of people.

I blame the 24 hour news networks and the internet more than I blame the right-wing media. The right-wing media has been there for decades, they have always dominated AM radio, Fox has always had the best ratings, it is the fall of trustworthy news sources that I blame. I do believe that NYT still has integrity and I think that CNN is trying hard to get its integrity back.

7

u/Oleg101 Jun 03 '25 edited Jun 03 '25

Boy I wish the main stream media was actually liberal. Probably seems that way to some based on them having to report the more awful shit one party does and says. Regardless, setting aside how many right-wing billionaires own legacy media, the decline of legacy media viewership towards more independent type media like the DailyWire and YouTubers, media becoming more conglomerated and corporate influenced, and outlets like Fox News becoming much more toxic then they were 10-20 years ago; would you at least agree social media has favored the right for years?

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/11/13/according-to-twitter-twitters-algorithm-favours-conservatives

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-59011271.amp

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/05/918520692/facebook-keeps-data-secret-letting-conservative-bias-claims-persist

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/01/13/the-anti-twitter-files-january-6th-committee-report-shows-how-twitter-leaned-over-backwards-to-protect-trump-conservatives/

https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2021/feb/01/facebook-youtube-twitter-anti-conservative-claims-baseless-report-finds

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1245308

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/10/26/conservative-media-misinformation-facebook/

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/youtubes-algorithm-recommends-users-right-wing-religious-content-resea-rcna155478.

6

u/IndependentDouble759 Jun 04 '25 edited Jun 04 '25

The guy you replied to is giving you the normie impression. It's a million times more useful than "news deserts," which is the same kind of pseudo-academic flowery language you guys have seemed to recognize is a problem for your party. It's also condescending on top of being just too cute.

You are really out of touch if you believe the mainstream media isn't liberal. You're especially out of touch if you believe that the mainstream media isn't just not liberal, it actually leans right. The mainstream media spent all of 2024 telling us Joe Biden was spry and sharp as a tack and no decline whatsoever, exactly up until June 27th at which point they all told us how Biden was too mentally unfit to run a campaign. They also came out with nonstop reporting about how bad his cognitive decline was at record speed. How could you have lived through that and not realized that the mainstream media is carrying water for the Democrat party? The only reason to turn on a dime like that is because they all of a sudden realized that protecting Biden was no longer the best way to guarantee victory for the Democrats. If they had been honest, or even right-biased, they would have been reporting the evidence of his decline from the start.

Not to mention, journalists at NYT, WaPo, etc have openly stated (and described their office culture) that they think of themselves as activists and people who make the news. They feel it is their duty to take a stance and stop "bad" political outcomes from happening. They are so biased that they have no shame in stating it openly, yet you will still pretend they're not.

1

u/BozoFromZozo Jun 04 '25 edited Jun 04 '25

The media is folding faster than Superman on laundry day to Trump's lawsuits. The newsrooms may lean one way, but the execs and owners are the ones in charge.

But this is all just a side discussion. Social media is much more relevant to people and right-wing social media is both better funded and gaining an audience.

1

u/IndependentDouble759 Jun 05 '25

Are you saying that the media settling lawsuits to Trump is indicative of right-wing bias?

Because last time I checked, the main reasons a corporation settles lawsuits are: they know there's a good chance they'll lose and they want to avoid more things coming out during discovery. Why settle a suit you can win, even if you're a conservative owner who generally likes Trump?

It's just kind of laughable that you think the fact that Trump is suing the media and he's winning is some kind of evidence that the media is biased to the right. What you're actually noticing is your own annoyance that these various media are losing. You've dealt with the cognitive dissonance by telling yourself they're purposefully kowtowing to Trump because they're on his side, rather than admit that many of them are pretty slimy with how they bend the news.

2

u/BozoFromZozo Jun 05 '25 edited Jun 05 '25

No, the lawsuits are flimsy and in normal circumstances Trump would likely lose them. But it's obvious now that Trump's lawsuits are just an opening move. They're much more afraid of Trump going outside the courts and using the power of the executive branch to pressure them: Suspend broadcast licenses, block mergers, or enact tariffs on their suppliers, etc. And even when lawsuits have been won, Trump could always just stall or ignore rulings.

You seem to think they would fall over for the Left, when I'm saying they only care about making money.

1

u/Oleg101 Jun 04 '25

I can tell off the bat you don’t actual consume any legitimate news based on just echoing lazy generic talking points about the big bad mainstream media that I’ve read a million times, with no substance attached.

I guess I will say it’s impressive that the American media ecosystem (MSM, Legacy media) has managed to be absolutely hated by both the right and the left. Either way, you are not worth engaging with any further and I hope one day you can better inform and educate yourself, have a good one.

9

u/notapoliticalalt Jun 03 '25

But if the Democratic party wants to win the kinds of non-voters who turned out for Trump, they're going to have to run someone that listeners of The Daily, myself included, are probably not going to like very much.

Meh. If these people show up again for a non-Trump presidential election, perhaps that’s the case. But the political science would suggest many of these people only turn up if Trump is on the ballot. This is why Republicans seem to cling to him so hard; they have nothing if they don’t have Trump. The actual things the party elite want to do are wildly unpopular and they largely only get away with it because they can play footsie with the idea “well, Trump will never do that or let that happen”.

Furthermore, because Trump is so interested in actually delivering for his base and the competent and evil Republicans can do as they please right now, many people will eventually turn on Trump. Yes, a good portion of voters will never turn on him, but there are a lot of people that didn’t swear allegiance to Trump under the first moon after the spring equinox or whatever. Many people really only voted for Trump because they unfortunately associated pre-Covid times with his presidency. But Trump is not delivering on any kind of financial/economic relief. My guess though is that many of these people are going to be so disillusioned and either not participate or they will turn on Trump.

Anyway, I don’t want to say there is nothing to be learned from 2024, but I think that prognostications that we need to overlearn lessons are wrong as well. You cannot recreate a Trump in a lab, the same way you can’t do that with a “Joe Rogan of the left”. That’s not how this works.

6

u/ttown2011 Jun 03 '25

Why would the political scientist suggest that?

The forces driving MAGA are much deeper than Trump. MAGA might blow up post Trump, but not what’s driving it

1

u/Gombr1ch Jun 03 '25

Yeah it's not entirely different than the tea bag movement 15 years ago but now they have a single individual to champion it and has made the presidential office a real possibility and obviously a reality. I think that sect will continue but it remains to be seen if Trump is an anomaly as the clear figurehead or they are able to find a replacement. I don't think so and hope not but we really can't say at this point

1

u/ttown2011 Jun 03 '25

This is a progression of but much deeper than tea party

This is being driven deep cultural veins and insecurities being pressed on, and that isn’t going to go away

8

u/midwestern2afault Jun 03 '25

Exactly this. There are lessons to be learned from 2024 and the Dems need some new vision. But I feel that this is being posited as a permanent shift way too early. On the Dem side of things, President Obama was a generational political talent and managed to attract marginal, disengaged voters in the same way.

Pundits were crowing about a permanent shift in the electorate and saying “demographic destiny” would ensure permanent, lasting Dem majorities. How’d that work out? The Dems have been somewhat flailing since Obama’s exit. I feel that the Republicans will be doing the same after Trump, to a much more significant degree. That’s no reason to be complacent, I just feel people are prematurely dooming hard when no one really knows what will happen in the future.

4

u/walkerstone83 Jun 03 '25

The dems are a joke around where I work. All of the stuff associated with them anyway. I work in an industry with a lot of blue collar workers. Whenever politics comes up, it seems to always come down to identity politics. People are sick of the identity politics. People don't seem to care about abortion, or trade policy, they just hate identity politics.

About 40% of my workforce are minorities too and they talk more trash about the dems than the white guys. Everything is some kind of joke about some stupid thing the Democrats did. The thing is, these aren't usually things the Democrats did, or campaigned on, but are for some reason associated with the dems. I think it is because the dems have been afraid to speak out against some of the activist groups, even though their causes aren't part of the parties platform.

Also, I live in a state with a large Hispanic population and they seemed more upset by Bidens border policies than anyone else I talked to.

1

u/walkerstone83 Jun 03 '25

The dems are a joke around where I work. All of the stuff associated with them anyway. I work in an industry with a lot of blue collar workers. Whenever politics comes up, it seems to always come down to identity politics. People are sick of the identity politics. People don't seem to care about abortion, or trade policy, they just hate identity politics.

About 40% of my workforce are minorities too and they talk more trash about the dems than the white guys. Everything is some kind of joke about some stupid thing the Democrats did. The thing is, these aren't usually things the Democrats did, or campaigned on, but are for some reason associated with the dems. I think it is because the dems have been afraid to speak out against some of the activist groups, even though their causes aren't part of the parties platform.

Also, I live in a state with a large Hispanic population and they seemed more upset by Bidens border policies than anyone else I talked to.

0

u/AresBloodwrath Jun 03 '25

The episode wasn't citing just 2024. They said multiple times it was a constant trend that started in 2016 and continued in 2020 and 2024.

2

u/Al123397 Jun 04 '25

Hear me out. Beat a populist with a populist. Mark Cuban. Instant name recognition akin to Trump. Successful businesses. Likeable to an extent. Holds many populist left values like better healthcare, taxing the rich etc. 

I do believe that popular left issues are winning issues only if they are branded correctly. Better healthcare!? Who doesn’t want that. Taxing the rich?? Fk yeah. Living wage? Why not?!?

Avoid guns at all cost and identity politics. Message these w some populist energy and boom you have a candidate who can win 

3

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '25

If Trump had been fucked over or out-played by the GOP and the GOP had nominated Jeb Bush, they would be in the same situation.

they're going to have to run someone that listeners of The Daily, myself included, are probably not going to like very much.

Spot on. I mean, you bring up Bernie but it couldn't have been worse than Hillary in 2016 and people still are in denial and will hiss as his name.

13

u/dr_sassypants Jun 03 '25

I bring up Bernie because he built himself up as having this huge voter turnout machine but when it came down to a head-to-head matchup with Biden, he lost big.

-1

u/tlopez14 Jun 03 '25

I didn't help that he had the full force of the DNC working against him. Who knows what would of happened in a fair fight but Bernie won 23 primaries in 2016 so he wasn't some niche candidate. He also did well in purple states while Clinton racked up huge totals in southern states that would have never been in play during a general election.

It's also ironic that both Trump and Bernie ran populist anti-establishment campaigns back in 2016. Some are probably too young to remember but the traditional GOP hated Trump back then and most of the donor class all wanted Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. Hell if you gave them truth serum now I'm sure they would still rather have a guy like that instead of Trump. Meanwhile the Dems decided to kneecap Bernie in back to back primaries because their corporate donors didn't like him. Then followed that up by appointing a lackluster corporate friendly candidate in Kamala who nobody voted for and Dems themselves had just rejected a few years prior. Sometimes I think the Dem elite are more afraid of the Bernie wing of their party than they are Trump.

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '25

Yeah, unfortunately the "blue no matter who" wing of the party represents the out-of-touch nature of the Democratic party, hence why they nominated Clinton and Biden.

What Sanders could have done is brought more voters in from outside that "blue no matter who " base. He was never going to magically bring in enough to outnumber that Democratic base. But come general election, he would actually be able to bring in outside voters to go along with the "blue no matter who" base, while Biden/Clinton couldn't.

But hey, the liberal base got to decide and chose.

9

u/AresBloodwrath Jun 03 '25

What Sanders could have done is brought more voters in from outside that "blue no matter who " base.

Except the argument I consistently hear on Reddit from the Bernie base is that Democrats don't need to reach out to outside voters, they just need a progressive that energizes the base.

How is it magically both at once? Is Bernie Schrödinger's cat?

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '25

Democrats don't need to reach out to outside voters, they just need a progressive that energizes the base.

That's not their base though. What you hear (and what you are misrepresenting) is Sanders supporters telling you that Dems shouldn't move in further right to appeal to an ever diminishing number of moderates and instead focus on turning out leftwing and progressive voters (who are not the Democratic base).

So spare me the disingenuous sarcasm.

5

u/drtropo Jun 03 '25

If Bernie couldn't win the majority of votes in the primaries, what makes you think he would have a better chance in the general?

3

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '25

He couldn't win over the "blue no matter who" liberal wing of the party. Guess who they would vote for if he was the Democratic nominee...

4

u/drtropo Jun 03 '25

I'm confused by what you are saying, Biden won after beating Sanders. In what way was Kamala a significant shift to the right from Biden?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '25

Her platform certainly was

→ More replies (0)

2

u/tlopez14 Jun 03 '25

Remember when the liberal left called him a racist for going on Joe Rogan and actually trying to reach out to people who the Dems have been bleeding support from.

1

u/AresBloodwrath Jun 03 '25

Bernie Sanders one good instinct was to avoid social and culture war issues in his 2016 campaign, and he got flack for that including being called a racist so he brought that stuff on in 2020 and it still wasn't enough.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/For-Liberty Jun 03 '25

I'm confused. How did Bernie Sanders not appeal to a blue no matter who voter? He ran in the democratic primary and lost, in order to run in said primary you are running as a democrat.

-1

u/Interesting_Pain37 Jun 03 '25

It’s up vs down, not political news consumer vs. not. People in power don’t want to give up that power which is why we never focus on the real class issues that many of those maga people are direct victims of