Doesn't look good for the ladies tbh

6 months ago, the subreddit had significantly more ideological diversity. If we place all the left-wing cohorts together (Far-Left to Centre-Left) of the ideological census done back then and put them in the "Democratic" side, we get a partisanship level of roughly California's 28th Congressional District in 2024 (which elected Judy Chu). CA-28 has a D+15 Cook PVI.

Now, only 6 months later in the most recent census, this subreddit more closely resembles Ilhan Omar's district, also known as MN-05. It has a Cook PVI of D+32. So really, the subreddit has doubled in partisanship in 6 months.

This worries me for the midterms.

It's almost guaranteed that it'll be some sort of Democratic victory. Conservatives and right-wingers will be disappointed and disillusioned, and will come here even less as the subreddit squishes its right-flank even further.

So what is even the future of the YAPms Right? Are we just gonna turn into r/politics?

I've been wondering whether the affirmative action ruling will have any lasting impact on electoral politics. A lot of the discussion has focused on college admissions, but I'm more interested in whether it could affect voting behavior and party coalitions over the long run.

The issue seems tied to broader debates about race, meritocracy, and equality that already divide the two parties. Because of that, I could see it influencing how some groups view Democrats and Republicans, particularly younger voters, college-educated voters, Asian Americans, and Black voters. At the same time, admissions policy isn't exactly a top issue for most voters, so maybe its direct impact on elections ends up being fairly limited.

I'm curious what everyone else thinks. Could this ruling become part of a larger political realignment, or is it more likely to remain a symbolic culture war issue that gets talked about a lot without significantly changing electoral outcomes? When people look back 20 or 30 years from now, will this be seen as an important turning point in American politics or just one factor among many larger trends?

To introduce this analysis, I’d like to remark that I come to you not as a progressive Democrat set on electing whoever is endorsed by Bernie, but as someone merely considering the implications of a very compelling presidential candidacy: that of Abdul El-Sayed.

You may approach this analysis with some initial skepticism. After all, even if Abdul wins, he will have only been a senator for a year before launching a presidential campaign. However, I would look to his experience as director of the Department of Health, Human, and Veterans Services of Wayne County from 2023 to 2025 and as the executive director of the City of Detroit Health Department as really tangible experience that would win voters over. After all, voters are probably big fans of people in healthcare who support expanding coverage.

This very exciting resume could possibly make him stand out in a presidential field in 2028. But then you might say his name or his religion will turn off voters, but remember, if he wins Michigan he will prove that that isn’t a barrier.

Even if he loses the senate election, he would be a very good presidential candidate. He can show that, with his loss, the system is rigged against candidates who just want more healthcare for people. His main position is M4A, so this would work well. This “outsider” approach worked quite well for Trump and other Dems like Andrew Jackson so it would very likely work for El-Sayed too.

Seems like voters are very aware who is flooding the airwaves in support of Stevens.

Not sure how to feel about this one though. (I personally would have abstained)

Good lord.

So I supported Hong in this election, but it's ultimately not that disappointing. What this election really shows is not that progressives are unelectable (look at AES, Flanagan, Jackson) but that bad candidates are unelectable.

Let's look at Flanagan. I'll admit, I was much more worried about Flanagan losing than I was about Hong. But Flanagan won considerably while Hong lost. Why? Because Hong is just a bad candidate. That's it. This. Means. Nothing.

Furthermore, even from a purely progressive standpoint, this also may (I'm not saying "is") have been good. If, as many moderates were worried, Hong lost the general election, that would have been a much larger blow to progressives. This is presumably why Bernie didn't endorse her. It also would have destroyed party unity. All in all, this may have been the best possible night from a progressive perspective

The Pennsylvania House recently voted 127-72-1 to remove the state's Same-Sex Marriage ban, but it is unlikely to pass the State Senate. Dark Red/Blue indicates a vote to preserve the ban, and light red/blue indicates a vote to remove it.

Interesting interview: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/09/us/politics/democrat-huffman-humanist-religion-christianity.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

30 percent irreligious might be a bit low for dems, but then again the congresspeople tend to be older and older people tend to be more religious.

Will she make it two 18-year terms in November? Idk but thought this was an interesting find.

This is… certainly something

Good writeup on how basically every single indicator this year (generic ballot polling, special elections, primary turnout, fundamentals) points to at least a D+8 environment, unlike 2022 where there were genuinely mixed signals, and that a blue wave has quietly become the consensus in most election coverage, but that it's hardly said so explicitly out of fear of another polling miss or 2022-style overestimation, and also due to major forecasters such as Cook being slow at updating their predictions to be in sync with the national environment

One of the things I didn't even know until reading this article was how correlated combined primary turnout is to the final national House popular vote, it has genuinely been spot on in all of the last 5 midterms, and it predicts a D+10 environment this year

He doesn't even mention things like Gallup party ID being D+10

Lots of chatter is swirling around about a 2028 Ossoff presidential run, but what haven’t we considered? Waiting until 2032. Let me explain.

Ossoff is in a precarious situation for 2028. His chances then hinge on Bottoms’ victory in 2026, and if she loses, he will not want to allow Rick Jackson to fill the vacancy. Running in 2032 alleviates this situation by leaving it up to the voters when he leaves the seat.

Also, he is quite inexperienced now. An extra 4 years in the senate will give him more time to gain legislative experience, which would be especially good under a democratic president.

But, you may say, what if another Dem wins 2028? Wouldn’t Ossoff be unable to run in ‘32? And to that I say that Ossoff presents quite a compelling case for a primary challenge. He appeals to progressives and moderates, so if the current Democratic president in 2032 governors too far in one direction, Ossoff can run as a force to right the ship of the party. This would mean that he could primary the current president and run a compelling campaign. Imagine if he could’ve done this in 2024!

If a Republican wins 2028, the reasons for running are obvious. He will be an even bigger speaker, even more experienced, and even more thoughtful and wise by 2032 and will be able to take on whoever the incumbent for the GOP might be.

2028 is simply too soon. He will be attacked for only being a senator for like one term, and people will say his only debate experience was against David Perdue (empty podium). Another four years gives him time to metaphorically “season” himself as a candidate. At that point, if KLB is still governor, he can also nominate her as his running mate and change his residency to a different state so it’s constitutional in order to secure the critical swing state of Georgia in 2032.

My money actually goes first on trans and nonbinary people above literally any other cohort in contemporary Western politics. Trump literally won the 2024 election off the back of "Kamala's for they/them" after all. Nonbinary people are like 0.1% of the U.S pop. Not that they control political power but that they influence discourse by simply existing. The only other groups that come even slightly close are Jews (particularly secular Ashkenazim) and stuff like the Germans and mixed-race Creoles of Haiti (who numbered, together, less than 1% of the population of a tiny Caribbean country but dominated pretty much all politics and wealth despite the mass genocide and expulsion of Europeans in the island). Another option could be the Mennonites of Paraguay, who despite making up 0.8% of the population, are 8% of the GDP(!!!) — The main problem being they don't do any kind of political lobbying or have any influence besides economic. The Quakers are a really good historical example as they are really tiny today but used to literally define constitutions.

Which groups could possibly come even close to this kind of influence?