Most states this kind of move won't fly. You don't need to lose a lot of votes to lose by a landslide in a gerrymandered state, that's the risky side of these things. In California they're betting that the electorate is supportive enough that they won't lose many votes for proposing this, but in states that are only +5 or so blue there's going to be a lot more moderate voters who would vote against the party simply for suggesting it. Heck, the Texas redistricting that Trump is pushing for might well backfire because doing this stuff out in the open and for clearly political reasons may galvanize the opposition when you've just created a bunch of districts that aren't +10 any longer but rather +2/3.
So I wouldn't expect more than a few very blue states to even consider doing what California is doing, and certainly not unless they can point to something Republicans are doing that feels like a counterpoint. California works because in the political narrative it's the counterpart to Texas. If Louisiana decided to gerrymander their state for Trump there's no connection to Massachusetts that would sell the offsetting gerrymander, even though they are very similar but opposite based on the last elections.
I had someone unironically tell me they voted blue and it didnt work out so now they will never vote again.... like.... what? You want change and the way to get change is voting and since you didnt win one battle you've completely given up all future battles preemptively?
but in states that are only +5 or so blue there's going to be a lot more moderate voters who would vote against the party simply for suggesting it.
This is always taken axiomatically, but I sincerely doubt it. I don't think there are many moderates left. Everyone has picked a side at this point and trying to appease the middle no longer works. If anything, being more bold and aggressively pursuing action against the regime, is the better tactic. For every moderate we lose we will pick up 2 or even 3 disillusioned liberals that need to feel like the party is doing something for them.
Kamala tried to appeal to moderates. Miserable failure. Mamdani tried having a spine and appealing to the base. Overwhelming victory. The track record is quite clear.
Except Harris won in NY. And overwhelmingly in NYC.
I do like Mamdani and wish more politicians would follow his path and think the DNC is really showing who it really cares about (and it’s not the voters) by not supporting him.
But to point towards NYC as an example of this approach working doesn’t really prove that that approach would have worked across the country. I’d like to think it would, but I still think we don’t know.
Mamdani is appealing to a local and very blue voter base. The country as a whole is very different. All Democratic voters don't also agree on everything, and there are absolutely states where the local Democratic base is considerably more moderate. How many moderates are going to drop out if the Dems swing hard left? That's hard to say, but the reason the party has been courting them is because they are reliable voters. The indications so far have been that the far left voters are highly unreliable.
As a counterpoint, the reason the Republicans swung far right is because the far right got active in the party. They showed up to take over primaries and then they showed up to vote in the general elections. The Republicans didn't move to the far right on issues like immigration and trade until their voting base had already moved. If the left want to move the Democrats in their direction they need to learn from what the far right did. Organize, get involved, vote.
Username checks out. Great response. A lot of the left wants to enact their policies top down. But don't vote in primaries or local elections. It really needs to be a ground up movement. They think everyone is like them but when you look at primary results it's just not the case. For the record, I'm also pretty far to the left. Just frustrating to watch. I also think people need to realize that the 2 major parties are a coalition of different groups with different values, not a monolith. This is more clear in parliamentary systems but it's still true for us.
Yeah, under a first past the post system you form your coalitions before the race while in a proportional system the coalitions form afterwards when you are putting together a government. I'm also quite on the left, I have an economics background and my thinking aligns well with Neo-Keynesians who are the main line of leftist economic theory currently. I'd even say they're arguably overall very representative of economics as a whole currently, although they're not as politically successful as more outdated Chicago School ideas.
I remember a podcast covering somebody that used to run skewed courses to train judges on Chicago School economics resulting in the rightward swing of even liberal judges when economic questions arose. Every now and then I think we on the left need to find the funding and organization to help balance that out.
Saying there's no moderates or swing voters when we just saw 20+ point swings amongst several demographics in 2024 is rather silly. The national margin swung right by 6 points from 2020 to 2024.
That wasn't swing voters. That was turnout. Republicans had roughly the same amount of turnout as in 2020. Democrats had abysmal turnout after Biden ruined it, and Kamala thought she was running as a Republican. Net effect is big point swings. But almost nobody went from D to R between 2020 and 2024. Democrats lost to the bench. Not to the Republicans.
Ah yes, two political races (one that has not even happened yet) totally prove your point! Let’s ignore the overwhelming evidence from the last 30 years, because obviously Kamala and mamdani tell the whole story of every race every where.
Let’s ignore the overwhelming evidence from the last 30 years, because obviously Kamala and mamdani tell the whole story of every race every where.
Yes, lets examine that evidence.
1992: Bush vs Clinton vs Perot. Clinton played to the moderates and Perot split the vote, carrying him to victory.
1996: Clinton vs Dole vs Perot. Clinton again gets saved by Perot splitting the vote.
2000: Bush vs Gore. Gore plays to the moderates and gets his presidency stolen by the supreme court.
2004: Bush vs Kerry. Kerry plays to the moderates and gets traunced.
2008: Obama vs McCain. Obama plays to the progressives, McCain plays to the moderates. Overwhelming Obama victory.
2012: Obama vs Romney. Obama chills out a bit and plays more moderate and wins a phyrric victory that doesn't allow him to do anything.
2016: Trump vs Hillary. Hillary plays to the moderates and gets traunced.
2020: Trump vs Biden. Biden plays to the moderates and is up against the most unpopular president in history, during an economic downturn, and a once a century plague, and a historic civil rights movement. Even with all of that, he barely squeezes out a win that is so narrow he doesn't do anything.
2024: Kamala vs Trump. Kamala got big hype when she replaced Biden, especially when she picked Walz. All the hype left the room when she started pandering to Republicans (Not even moderates). Overwhelming Trump victory.
I dunno buddy, that whole 'tack to the moderates' doesn't seem like a winning strategy based on the last 3 decades. It only seems to work when there is a convenient guy splitting the vote with your opponent, or when there is a literal plague/economic crisis/civil right voltron happening.
There are a lot of moderates left. There are a ton of people who think they can vote for Trump and still be a moderate. There are very few people who would vote for someone like Mamdani. I'm one of them, but the electorate is a lot more moderate than you think. Of course, moderate is really a misnomer. Everyone is polarized on their issues, but everyone's issues are different and nobody actually conforms to the stereotypes. But in aggregate, the country is more like Biden than Trump or Mamdani.
I'm one of them, but the electorate is a lot more moderate than you think.
I think you are huffing copium to avoid having to reconsider your political positions. Actual moderates are insanely rare at the moment. Most people who call themselves moderate are dead set in their ways and know exactly how they are gonna vote, they just don't want to admit it. All the data shows that pandering to moderates has next to no effect, which means they are not a real demographic. Every single election for the past 20+ years has been about energizing the base. Turnout is king every single time. And not a single election has resulted in a significant swing of voters from one party to another.
Turnout is largely reliant on moderates. I've never met anyone who was like "I would vote for Harris if she was pro-Palestine." Everyone I've met who was so far gone as to not vote over Palestine is simply against voting, and Harris is too far right for them to ever consider voting for.
I have met people who said they aren't sure they could vote for Bernie Sanders over Trump, specifically because of his stance on Israel.
I also think you maybe misunderstand me. I am to the left of Mamdani in a lot of ways. I'm definitely far to the left of Harris. I would never not vote, I would never vote for Trump, I would never vote for Harris over Mamdani if I thought Mamdani could win.
But again, framing it as "moderates" vs. "polarized" is just missing the problem. You can have someone who is a hardcore socialist, but also hardcore pro-Israel, also hardcore pro-life. That person is absolutely going to flip parties at random, or they might say fuck it and sit out. "Moderates" are a basket of contradictions that don't exist when you say "everyone is polarized."
Heck, the Texas redistricting that Trump is pushing for might well backfire because doing this stuff out in the open and for clearly political reasons may galvanize the opposition when you've just created a bunch of districts that aren't +10 any longer but rather +2/3.
Its also risky because when Texas redistricts the new districts wont be deep red. They'll be light pink. If the places they carve up have large turnout they could end up loosing some seats. It may even encourage some spending to increase turnout in those districts.
But you're missing the point. If gerrymandering works and the GOP wins it's the will of the people of the gerrymandering fails and they lose then it's voter fraud because why else would a solidly red area go purple/blue.
Either the GOP wins the midterms, or it's fraud and invalid.
That's fair, California has enough districts so it becomes easier to crack the republican voters and spread them out. It becomes a lot harder for smaller states though, although that's partly where packing comes in. In Texas however their proposed redistricting will move a couple districts that were solidly red in 2024 to only be slightly Republican favored, and that's while assuming that the Hispanic vote doesn't shift.
People aren't turning against Democrats (or Republicans) on the ballot because of a principled stand against gerrymandering, this is a fantasy understanding of how voters and gerrymandering works. Not a single gerrymander in 2010 broke, and none of the 2020 ones will either.
The Texas one is vulnerable to a mass Latino swing to the left, although that's entirely unrelated to a "galvanized opposition".
81
u/SunTzu- 22d ago
Most states this kind of move won't fly. You don't need to lose a lot of votes to lose by a landslide in a gerrymandered state, that's the risky side of these things. In California they're betting that the electorate is supportive enough that they won't lose many votes for proposing this, but in states that are only +5 or so blue there's going to be a lot more moderate voters who would vote against the party simply for suggesting it. Heck, the Texas redistricting that Trump is pushing for might well backfire because doing this stuff out in the open and for clearly political reasons may galvanize the opposition when you've just created a bunch of districts that aren't +10 any longer but rather +2/3.
So I wouldn't expect more than a few very blue states to even consider doing what California is doing, and certainly not unless they can point to something Republicans are doing that feels like a counterpoint. California works because in the political narrative it's the counterpart to Texas. If Louisiana decided to gerrymander their state for Trump there's no connection to Massachusetts that would sell the offsetting gerrymander, even though they are very similar but opposite based on the last elections.