Republicans will just have to find a way to get Donald Trump on the ballot again.

tequila4kapp said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I have been thinking about this for a while and watching Graham Platner's rise and fall underscores what I think is the core challenge.

At the heart the MAGA project is about White Christian Nationalism. I really do NOT want to use that term pejoratively but it encompasses the central issue of a reactionist attack against 4 big trends in the first quarter of the 21st century

1) Global populations being much more mobile (aka immigration waves),
2) Global populations being less Christian (a shrinking demographic compared to the other great monothestic religions of the world and increasing agnostic viewsin the west),
3) People being much more relativist in their moral thinking about issues such as sexuality and personal morality (gay marriage and trends toward legalization of drugs).
4) Globalization of trade and the death of distance putting an every increasing number of people into the jungle of the global economy.

BI OT is taken up with ENDLESS discussions about these topics and their subtopics but if one where going to describe MAGA how the movement is a reaction to these four trends feels like a very good starting point. I think also that these 4 trends are "indisputable" facts on the ground. And I explicitly framed them in a morally neutral way.

So if I had a political movement around reversing those 4 trends I got a platform to communicate. I don't necessarily need to be internally logical (I don't think Trump and Maga are) - but I can easily point to one of those 4 things individually and say "bad".

Now dumb politics is fighting your opponent on their turf. So the democrats do NOT need to say they are FOR those four things. But what we have, near as I can tell, is a party who is mostly about defending (and modestly expanding) the core structure of the new deal. Better SS. Better Medicare. Decreasing the cost of Student loans. Maybe some modest expansion of the R&D system in the US. These are not the stuff of passionate voter engagement.

When the democrats DO go big (see AOC, Bernie or Planter) they lack a coherent narrative. We ARE living in a true new Gilded Age but (at least 2 date) no one has constructed a narrative that helps connect that concentration of wealth to diminished economic prospects. I can vilify the great robber barons who were squeezing the grange or killing union organizers. It is hard to point out how Zuck or Bazos are hurting ordinary people (I think they are but it is a really hard narrative in the 21st century to spell out quickly).

It is I think why I am in a down mood today. The four forces laid out above are NOT changing. In a real sense MAGA are the political luddites of the 21st century. But railing against them makes for good voter mobilization. The left needs something similar to emotionally connect.

PS. And a ton of BI'ers are guilty of this. Good politics for MAGA is railing against these four things and then universally saying "And the democracts (in other words 50+ million people) are universally FOR it. Thus "We are for strong borders and the rule of law and (all) democrats are one worlders that would do away with citizenship and let every Mexican national come into the US to work at any wage they wanted." "MAGA believes that there is good in Christianity and (all) Democrats believe in paganism and want us all to follow shiria law")

---

Your 4 criteria are not "indisputable" facts. Not even close.

The heart of MAGA is not White Christian Nationalism. This could be laughable but for it kind of being sad to continuously see how profoundly people do not understand Trump and MAGA (it is sad because the fact they are continuously wrong means they continuously employ incorrect tactics to defeat him).

Short version:
* MAGA moves the Republican party left in certain ways for certain policies (economic protectionism, Dove-ish foreign policy) while simultaneously appealing to core traditional Republican values (Border = law and order) and also simultaneously asserting that government's role is to take care of Americans first, which is of course correct.
* Democrats response is to move left and bash Trump. In doing so they completely and totally miss the mark. But one very simple example: if D's could credibly argue the border should be controlled and illegals should be removed in large numbers but the removals should be done with more humanity and carefulness to avoid mistakes they would win the immigration issue. Instead it is more "Trump is a Nazi," lawsuits, photo ops with wife beaters in central American prisons, etc. D's repeat this mistake over and over and over on nearly every issue: cede the center while appealing to their donor base by bashing Trump. S T U P I D.

Trump is an asshat. People on the left can only understand his existence as the byproduct of evil (white nationalism, etc). Normal people in the center and right - the ones who get him elected - trend toward liking the "correctness" of his issues (or at least his policy objectives) more than they dislike him as a person. And yes, there are others - drain the swamp types that tend to like Trump as a disruptor, and bad people with extremist views (I do not call these people 'far right'...they are lunatics, not the end of a political spectrum)

EDIT: you are also incorrect when you assert that D's lack a cohesive narrative when they go big. AOC, Bernie and Planter are Socialists. You can't go much bigger than that. And that proves my point...the party just moves further left. For an alternative perspective on the rise of AOC, Mandami (and by extension Planter) and the state of the D party see today's article in Reason.

---

Sure they are.

1) Immigration We clearly have seen since the collapse of Syria that immigrant populations is tremendously more mobile than ever before. There is likely both push and pull impacts and it is roiling essentially every middle and higher income countries politics.

2) Christianity. You can not make sense of the Charlie cook stuff or the Peter Theil stuff or the focus on LGQBT stuff or the politics in a ton of Western Europe countries without referencing decline in church attendance, rise of agnosticism and atheism.; A core Trump message for YEARS (decades?) has been the lefts "War on Christmas) and efforts to carve out "religious freedoms" at the court. There is some group of voters that are motivated to support trump because of their belief that we are in "the end times" and some of the actions (like moving the embassy to Jerusalem) was explicitly designed to apeal to this.

3) The increasing rise of moral relativism in respect to sexuality. Remember it was only 2 decades ago when same sex marriage was seen as far far left. It is main stream. There are voters in the Maga Coalition which resist.

4) Globalization of Trade (and I should have added globalization of services). The past 30 years have seen "the death of distance". That trend continues to accelerate and impact workers in "the West". 20 years ago no one would have considered having software support and development in india. Far too difficult to manage and integrate. Now it is SOP. Ditto complicated supply chains for tangibles, which have been routine.

Again, these feel like 4 indisputable "mega trends" impacting really the entire globe. MAGA feels like a response.

WHat i mean by lack of a cohesive narrative is that Bernie and AOC haven't yet moved to a full throated, "Kill the rich" narrative. They are close but "Pay their fair share" so the government can spend more doesn't connect in a narrative that is compelling enough (IMHO) to provide the emotional connection to get disconnected voters to the polls. They are close. But haven't yet gone really full "socialist" like you would see on the European left really in the interwar years (that it isn't that they are rich but that the oligarchs have amassed so much power and wealth to arrogently wield it as kings. Time for them to give $$ up or to the Yardems with them)

Finally....populism. I am not sure we have an economic agenda from MAGA that is populist. It is absolutely anti-globalization and perhaps that bleeds. But trump isn't talking about redistribution. He isn't talking about a chicken in every pot or 40 acres an a mule or debt relief - some of the standard populist messages of America's past. I am willing to be proven wrong here but I think it is the PRESS equating working class support with populism because they look through a marxist lense and equate all things with economics. I think MAGAs support from those without a college education is rooted far more in the reaction against the 4 mega trends than some affinity with a left wing platform by Maga. But I am willing to be wrong here so please show me some populist examples (acknowledging that Hartley from Missouri has been trying to do this but I don't see a ton of support)

PS. I DO think there is a neo-isolationist strain which is appealing. I think a lot of BIers who support or at least are MAGA adjacent are deeply tire of forever wars and had to deal much more directly with my early gen Xers with the consequences of those. But I also think most american voters don't focus on international affairs that much and barely know where countries in the world are. What seems to move them is being anti-war after the initial rally round the flag. I guess where I would conceed is the long American tradition of moving away from the global stage when it is chaotic.....and perhaps that is move enough of the coalition to be significant.

bearister said:

---

"Democrats delivered a resounding rebuke to President Trump in all five of yesterday's most-watched races rewarding candidates who attacked high prices and Trump, Axios' Holly Otterbein and Alex Thompson write.

It wasn't just that Democrats won top races in Virginia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, California and New York City. That was predicted. But in race after race, the margins of victory including double-digit wins in the Virginia and New Jersey governor's races were wider than expected.
County after county moved blue.

"The Democratic Party is back," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) declared."
Axios

"America gave Donald Trump a bloody nose," David Smith, The Guardian.

In a Truth Social post, Trump rejected blame: "'TRUMP WASN'T ON THE BALLOT, AND SHUTDOWN* WERE THE TWO REASONS THAT REPUBLICANS LOST ELECTIONS TONIGHT,'

*I guess even Trump acknowledges that the voters didn't buy the Republican bullsh@it that the shutdown was the Democrats' fault. Trump is going to beat on Mike Johnson like a dirty carpet.

---

My opinions:
- People are over-reading things. Mamdani beat two of the worst D politicians in recent memory - one who literally killed people in nursing homes and another that is a criminal who got away with his criminality by making a deal with the D's most hated politician ever to enable an issue (Immigration) that NYC voters disagree with. Yes, the margins were bigger than expected elsewhere but this was still Blue State Ws by D's. Yawn. Re the margins being bigger...
- The shutdown IS the D's fault. But they played this beautifully from a political perspective.
- Immigration...in left leaning states there is very likely a significant push back against R's because of this.
- Trump has a similar dynamic as Obama...very successful when they are on the ticket but their party gets kicked in the nuts when they are not on the ballot.

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

bearister said:

---

"Democrats delivered a resounding rebuke to President Trump in all five of yesterday's most-watched races rewarding candidates who attacked high prices and Trump, Axios' Holly Otterbein and Alex Thompson write.

It wasn't just that Democrats won top races in Virginia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, California and New York City. That was predicted. But in race after race, the margins of victory including double-digit wins in the Virginia and New Jersey governor's races were wider than expected.
County after county moved blue.

"The Democratic Party is back," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) declared."
Axios

"America gave Donald Trump a bloody nose," David Smith, The Guardian.

In a Truth Social post, Trump rejected blame: "'TRUMP WASN'T ON THE BALLOT, AND SHUTDOWN* WERE THE TWO REASONS THAT REPUBLICANS LOST ELECTIONS TONIGHT,'

*I guess even Trump acknowledges that the voters didn't buy the Republican bullsh@it that the shutdown was the Democrats' fault. Trump is going to beat on Mike Johnson like a dirty carpet.

---

My opinions:
- People are over-reading things. Mamdani beat two of the worst D politicians in recent memory - one who literally killed people in nursing homes and another that is a criminal who got away with his criminality by making a deal with the D's most hated politician ever to enable an issue (Immigration) that NYC voters disagree with. Yes, the margins were bigger than expected elsewhere but this was still Blue State Ws by D's. Yawn. Re the margins being bigger...
- The shutdown IS the D's fault. But they played this beautifully from a political perspective.
- Immigration...in left leaning states there is very likely a significant push back against R's because of this.
- Trump has a similar dynamic as Obama...very successful when they are on the ticket but their party gets kicked in the nuts when they are not on the ballot.

---

I'm also going to say that the DOGE cuts and government shutdown definitely did not play well in Virginia, a state with a lot of federal workers.

---

True but NJ was supposed to be close and a potential R win. Nobody was predicting a double digit win for Sherrill. It's just that Trump's vision is widely hated. It only works when he is out of office and unaccountable and can just lie all the time without having to deal with reality.

The nursing home crowd is old enough to have lived through numerous examples of Socialism not working so Mamdani can't con them

Young women are the story of tonight.

81% for Mamdani in NYC
80% for Sherrill in NJ
78% for Spanberger in VA
per NBC's exit polls.

— Rachel Janfaza (@racheljanfaza) November 5, 2025

Lopsided voting among young women in the NJ and VA elections too.

Anarchistbear said:

---

Cuomo's strengths were older voters- richer and Jewish in Manhattan and maga Staten Island.

---

Except for Soros and family. There's always one or two.

Socialist, Communist, Marxist - all just lazy red meat shorthand for unimaginative Republicans and their easily confused rank and file.

Dems use Nazi and Fascist in similar fashion, but often hit the mark because there are many more fascist Republicans than socialist Democrats.

Muckieeye said:

---

Socialist, Communist, Marxist - all just lazy red meat shorthand for unimaginative Republicans and their easily confused rank and file.

Dems use Nazi and Fascist in similar fashion, but often hit the mark because there are many more fascist Republicans than socialist Democrats.

---

Maybe out in the public but not so much in here with Cal alums.

The Communist Manifest is @175 years old. To the best of my knowledge a fully Communist society - the one that is Stateless - has never been achieved. Communism is a theoretical fantasy.

Socialism - controlling the means of production - has never worked. Yes, China, but we get into some arguments about what CTMOP means. That looks a lot more like a Capitalist economy with Communist state control, not a classless society controlling the means of production (and they moved to this system because the Socialist/Communist economy they previously had failed). The places that try actual socialism fail for very basic reasons related to the fundamentals of human nature and economics.

Some countries have tried to reduce class differences under the name of Socialism but that has really been much more akin to wealth redistribution to pay for social programs instead of Socialism, proper.

Just like there being "original woke" and "pejorative woke", there are two "socialisms":

The first one is like Marx and Communism and all that jazz. The second one is "democratic socialism" like in left-leaning European countries, where people pay higher taxes and the government, in turn, provides more cradle-to-grave benefits (health care, free college, etc.). Even a Commie like Mamdani calls himself a democratic socialist.

Big C said:

---

Just like there being "original woke" and "pejorative woke", there are two "socialisms":

The first one is like Marx and Communism and all that jazz. The second one is "democratic socialism" like in left-leaning European countries, where people pay higher taxes and the government, in turn, provides more cradle-to-grave benefits (health care, free college, etc.). Even a Commie like Mamdani calls himself a democratic socialist.

---

I see Democratic Socialism as capitalism with a bit more socialist flavoring.

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

Just like there being "original woke" and "pejorative woke", there are two "socialisms":

The first one is like Marx and Communism and all that jazz. The second one is "democratic socialism" like in left-leaning European countries, where people pay higher taxes and the government, in turn, provides more cradle-to-grave benefits (health care, free college, etc.). Even a Commie like Mamdani calls himself a democratic socialist.

---

I see Democratic Socialism as capitalism with a bit more socialist flavoring.

---

We can tell, since you capitalized it and I didn't.

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

Just like there being "original woke" and "pejorative woke", there are two "socialisms":

The first one is like Marx and Communism and all that jazz. The second one is "democratic socialism" like in left-leaning European countries, where people pay higher taxes and the government, in turn, provides more cradle-to-grave benefits (health care, free college, etc.). Even a Commie like Mamdani calls himself a democratic socialist.

---

I see Democratic Socialism as capitalism with a bit more socialist flavoring.

---

Here is their official platform: https://platform.dsausa.org/economy/

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

Just like there being "original woke" and "pejorative woke", there are two "socialisms":

The first one is like Marx and Communism and all that jazz. The second one is "democratic socialism" like in left-leaning European countries, where people pay higher taxes and the government, in turn, provides more cradle-to-grave benefits (health care, free college, etc.). Even a Commie like Mamdani calls himself a democratic socialist.

---

I see Democratic Socialism as capitalism with a bit more socialist flavoring.

---

Here is their official platform: https://platform.dsausa.org/economy/

---

Yeah, all of these planks basically assume there is a capitalist undergirding for their desired programs. You can't have unions unless there are capitalist bosses to negotiate with!

Unions exist today in Cuba and China, and existed in the USSR.

I get what you are saying. I guess I'm saying the DS platform is so heavily invested in class warfare and state control that a) they are either intentionally playing a linguistics game; b) being political and 'not going there' just yet; or c) Slippery Slope.

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

Just like there being "original woke" and "pejorative woke", there are two "socialisms":

The first one is like Marx and Communism and all that jazz. The second one is "democratic socialism" like in left-leaning European countries, where people pay higher taxes and the government, in turn, provides more cradle-to-grave benefits (health care, free college, etc.). Even a Commie like Mamdani calls himself a democratic socialist.

---

I see Democratic Socialism as capitalism with a bit more socialist flavoring.

---

I am not sure it is even that. Near as I can tell it is New Deal policies with more progressive taxation to pay for it. I am not seeing the kind of full throated socialism that was, for example, called for by Eugene Debs who argued for collective ownership of the means of production. I really think those that throw around the term "socialism" (both on the left and on the right) in contemporary politics don't have a clue. In the 21st century I think that means running Amazon or Meta as a public utility or, at the very least, a heavily regulated monopoly. There is a lot of me that would relish the thought of Zuck and Dr. Evil reading that press release.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs
https://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5725/#:~:text=So%20long%20as%20the%20nation's,status%20of%20all%20these%20parties.

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

Just like there being "original woke" and "pejorative woke", there are two "socialisms":

The first one is like Marx and Communism and all that jazz. The second one is "democratic socialism" like in left-leaning European countries, where people pay higher taxes and the government, in turn, provides more cradle-to-grave benefits (health care, free college, etc.). Even a Commie like Mamdani calls himself a democratic socialist.

---

I see Democratic Socialism as capitalism with a bit more socialist flavoring.

---

Here is their official platform: https://platform.dsausa.org/economy/

---

That is NOT socialism!!! (or at least in American history)

It is Debs calling for nationalizing the rail roads (and some factories) to combat how they are used to exploit labor.

I hate the poor state of the American education system because As the late great senator from Texas once sorta said.

"I have known socialists. I have worked with socialists. AOC...you are no socialist"

Cold warrior Harry Truman was a socialist

socaltownie said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

There are no communists, socialists or fascists in contemporary US politics. Just shades of the usual suspects

This isn't a bad starting point.

---

https://www.britannica.com/place/Italy/The-Fascist-era

There are a ton of great books about this. I would argue that there are important differences between National socialism under Hilter and then Franco/Italian dictatorships.

---

thanks. imo the absolute best one can say about demon T is (fingers crossed) his life style doesn't predict living to a ripe old age # fingers crossed

socaltownie said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

There are no communists, socialists or fascists in contemporary US politics. Just shades of the usual suspects.

---

You won't like hearing this but Trump is pretty close to a fascist if how we define that is how that emerged in Spain and Italy in the 1920s. Variations (obviously) but the marriage of nationalism, corporate power, the demonization of organized labor/competing centers of power have some strong parallels. The anti-clerical component (which was pretty central in the early years) is not there and, to date, there is no development of a militarized wing that exists outside the powers of the state to the extent to which was seen then.

Perhaps the right thing is that Trump has fascist tendencies but that there remain important checks and norms that would make the emergence of such a movement in the US difficult.

This isn';t a bad starting point.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Italy/The-Fascist-era

There are a ton of great books about this. I would argue that there are important differences between National socialism under Hilter and then Franco/Italian dictatorships.

---

Trump proved he is a fascist on Jan 6. Some of us knew it before. You don't have to be a dictator to be a fascist. Hitler was a fascist when he was standing on tables in beer halls. A fascist is a business friendly wannabe autocrat who scapegoats. That's Trump and his supporters.

??? How is facism confined to europe?

socaltownie said:

---

??? How is facism confined to europe?

---

I guess the European Jews were part of Europe's uniculture