It is simultaneously the case that:

1) Some Americans are struggling financially
2) The US Government should help them
3) The median American is financially better off today compared to the median American in earlier decades
4) Believing otherwise is false nostalgia
5) Even when 3 & 4, still 1 & 2

To torture the analogy - the opposing team has rewritten the rules and bought off the refs and the broadcasters, so that even if you call the right play and execute it, the ball is spotted short and nobody sees your highlights. If we want to win consistently, we need to take on the structure.

To be conservative is the natural state of humanity. Liberalism is an alien ideology that is only palatable to the masses when offering healthcare and tax fairness, and to extend the principles of equal rights and dignity to other parts of life must result in the exile of the liberal from society.

I think voters have complex internal thoughts and make decisions based on a variety of cross pressures that include their social and parasocial relationships, issue positions, and preferred leadership styles. All are relevant, but which are most relevant to swing voters?

It may be that issue positions are at the heart of the brand problem, but you have to grapple with the fact that the brand is mediated through our social media and IRL communities. Maybe costly issue signaling can break through social permissions and media channels, but it's not an easy button.

In 2024, despite the popular issues that Harris centered for her campaign, the other factors appeared to be more determinative. She couldn't overcome the Democrats dismal brand (social/para social) and they fact that people preferred Trump's leadership style. Issue triangulation can only go so far.

I think voters have complex internal thoughts and make decisions based on a variety of cross pressures that include their social and parasocial relationships, issue positions, and preferred leadership styles. All are relevant, but which are most relevant to swing voters?

Climate action can be in tension with affordability, but it doesn't have to be, and Biden was delivering on the promise of cheaper, cleaner energy and jobs. The fossil fuel industry decided to help end American democracy to kill those policies. What is the moderate position to prevent that?

I don't think the argument is "campaigning on moderate/popular policies is bad." Rather, folks are observing that despite centering the campaign on these issues, some other variable was more determinative of the outcome. If we want to win, we have to understand what that was.

This is exactly correct. Their primary goal is to lock in higher o&g demand for as long as possible.

I doubt I could say what the "Democrat's plan" is on most of these. I don't think this necessarily suggests rightward preferences. Dem's need to establish a stronger identity on these issues on their own terms rather than letting the right define them.

This is a very crazy result. Corrupt gov officials, in 2023 and 2024 as the biggest fear in life? Over personal loss? Maybe... But doesn't pass smell test.

But let’s be clear: every day, masked ICE agents are acting violently against our neighbors, illegally abducting them, holding them in cruel and inhumane conditions. Treating them as less-than-human, and not deserving due process.

Ds just need to be prepared to be on the attack on every single issue. Pick your line of attack, and it doesn't have to be the same for everyone. Make them respond to your attacks. It's working now by refusing to stop calling them fascists. The more Miller and Vance fash-off the better.

1) Keep driving his popularity into the ground. Fight on every front.
2) Let would be collaborators know that the legal and social consequences will find them, eventually.
3) Buckle up folks, it's going to take longer than we probably think it will.

It's incredible how folks on X don't notice the piss they are swimming in.

Genocides are committed by men who want to commit genocide, wars are started by men who want to start wars. Killings are done by men who want to kill. Anyone who proposes escalating violence as a first resort wants violence, and more likely than not, imagines that he’ll quite enjoy committing it.