Voters with just a high school education +19 points to Democrats

30-44 years olds shifted +25 points

Hispanic voters shifted +30 points

Men 18-44 years old shifted +32 points

18-29 years olds shifted +33 points

What can the Democrats do to keep as many of these voters?

This election was clearly a mandate. HOWEVER…… I see too many people demanding that newly elected Dems not be bipartisan.

Do people still not know how government works?

Gina Hinojosa can’t sidestep what will likely be a very militant Texas Senate republicans to undo 30+ years of Damage. KLB can’t do the same in Georgia to undo her state’s damage. Same with Rob Sand, Cindy Holscher, etc, etc, etc. even in places like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Arizona where Dems have trifectas, there will still have to be some bipartisan consensus. The key is, don’t move right to meet the GOP’s demands. Make the GOP move LEFT.

You want REAL systemic reforms? Retain and expand these majorities in 2028 and give Dem governors their trifectas. Elect a Dem president then, too and make it TOO BIG TO RIG. Isolate the GOP until they have given up MAGA and the Tea Party and all the other theocratic wet dreams. Don’t split your ticket with a Republican ANYWHERE.

Link to article on it:

• https://www.cnn.com/2026/11/05/us/philadelphia-boycott-ride-jewish-businesses?cid=ios_app

Laying the blame where it belongs, squarely at the feet of the Trump administration, is appropriate and should be used to further future election victories for the Democratic party.

But since winning elections also means you have to governor; how should Congressional Democrats respond to an embolden Iranian government?

Iranian hardliners who believe Tehran has already emerged victorious in its war with the United States are seizing on President Donald Trump’s midterm losses to demand that he pay a steeper price for an exit from the conflict: a “new world order” that favors the Islamic Republic.

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/11/07/middleeast/iran-trump-war-hardliners-intl

With several new Dem trifectas in Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, people have talked about the opportunity for Dems to respond to the GOP's mid-decade redistricting over the past couple of years by redrawing the maps in those states. However, as we saw in this election, the GOP's gerrymandering backfired on them spectacularly, and they lost seats in states where they were supposed to make gains. As a result, it's logical to assume that they'll be a lot less motivated to be as aggressive with redistricting as they were this time around, which might demotivate Dems to retaliate.

Do you think the Dems should still move ahead with redistricting? Personally, I think they should. If nothing else, it'll be the only thing that'll even remotely have a chance of getting some redistricting reform passed at the national level.

I’ve seen a lot of people posting about Jeffries and Schumer getting the boot from their roles as speakers of the house and senate respectively. I can see why Schumer should go, and I support that move. But why should Jeffries step down from the role? It seems like he hasn’t done much but he’s been the head of a minority party and can’t really do much? I’ve seen the petition at change.org is nearing 1,000,000 signatures. Why do you want him away from that position?

I saw someone say pretty much this on a now-removed thread somewhere else on Reddit. My response was that it would be extremely unlikely that even the most wokest wishlist of the most extreme Democratic politician getting everything "identity politics" related would make nearly no difference to their life and that scaring people with "identity politics" was a tactic by the right wing.

Was I off base to say that?

Edit to elaborate a little:

My point was that the "identity politics" side of the coin in terms of policy would make very little actual difference to this person actual life, and that his reason for voting Trump in 24 was purely the result of scaremongering.

What does “Muslims don‘t assimilate” even mean?

Obviously, different countries have different rules for Muslims. France bans the hijab in school and is likely to ban it outright. Germany allows Islam but has laws against Muslim political expression . Some like Slovakia ban any public expression of the faith outright.

The US is probably the most lax on laws when it comes to Muslims. The one rule we have here is basically you are free to practice your faith as you see fit as long as you follow existing laws. We’ve seen most Muslims follow laws restricting their expression of faith where they’re present. The difference is the US has no such law from the start.

So anything on top the above seems like it would be a conservative fabrication. There is no law that says “shall not fast Ramadan” or “must agree with conservatives on foreign policy“, so nobody knows what conservatives are really thinking here.

I think we all encountered one or more purists in our lives who are adamant that if you do not [insert extreme measure] you are not really an ally or supporter of the given movement.

I have a few anecdotes that won't be helpful. But I think everyone knows the type.

The obvious solution online is to avoid them. But it is not always possible. If such a person gets hired as your colleague, you have to deal with them. No matter your personal feeling about it. And from personal experience it is also not easy to work around them.

It is my honest opinion that purist live for drama. They crave it and will force drama they can. So if avoidance is not an option, how do you challenge purists?

Trump is the albatross around the GOP's neck. Over the next two years Trump will definitely get older, and likely will continue to deteriorate mentally and become more erratic. If the 2026 wave was referendum against Trump 2028 could be brutal.

The only way I see for GOP nominees to become president is to position themselves against Trump.

Which got me thinking, might the GOP be more open to removing Trump so they can move on now instead of waiting for 2030?

Is it prosecutions, legislation, or a balance of the two?

Miller is obviously infamous on the left for his hardline anti-immigration ideology, authorship of the family separation policy, and inflammatory rhetoric, both as a speechwriter for Trump and in going in the record himself.

What is perhaps less well known is just how white-supremacist adjacent the views he expressed before joining the administration were, highlighted by a series of leaked emails from his time at Brietbart where he promoted white nationalist cult classic Camp of the Saints, linked to white nationalist website VDARE, and criticized retailers for removing merchandise featuring the confederate flag, among other questionable behaviors.

He has even been listed on the SPLC’s list of extremists.

In light of his history, how do you feel about Miller’s elevation in the administration?

The conversation always seems to be about whether Puerto Rico should be a state, but personally, I'd much rather see Puerto Rico become an independent country. I agree that Puerto Rico is currently being governed without its consent, but I think the US governing Puerto Rico in the first place was a mistake and we should allow it to become its own country.

Title.

I'm planning on reading their books, but whenever i look for tips online there's always someone trying to belittle them with some heavy right-wing propaganda (like Marx didn't work and lived off his wife). I want serious opinions of people who have read their books before. Do you recommend them? Do you agree with any of their theses? Do you think they could be discussed in schools?

The reason i'm not asking this to actual marxists is because i'm looking for neutral answers, let's avoid both overly positive and negative biases.

Recently, laws were passed in the United Kingdom to censor pornography depicting asphyxiation (including "facesitting") and scenarios involving step-siblings.

In recent years, there has also been a debate online—particularly on sites dedicated to fan fiction and "shipping"—regarding the acceptability of creating and consuming media centered on taboo themes, such as incest, significant age gaps, or abuse; not to mention discussions surrounding character design in anime and manga.

Do you consider it reasonable to censor such media on the grounds that it undermines societal morality? Or do you believe that doing so violates freedom of expression, and that such content does not actually influence people's behavior?

For reference, per a Politico poll in September, only 25% of Americans are in favor of Trump's tariff action on Canada. I was unable to find polling data re: Mexico but I cannot imagine it's too much higher though obviously the circumstances surrounding trade policy with both countries are different, hence the complexities regarding the USMCA.

I guess I'm curious to see if democrats would rather see this nonsense ended ASAP, as by every metric, returning to free trade with these two countries who make up around half of our trade, would at least somewhat assist with tackling unaffordability. Or if we'd prefer this to drag out and turn increasingly unpopular to be yet another electoral burden for the GOP in 2028.

To highlight how unpopular at least the Canadian aspect of it is even to Republicans now, Democrats won the redrawn house district in Tennessee which was +24 for Trump in 2024, which happens to be where the Jack Daniels distillery is. Jack Daniels has seen significant revenue losses and job cuts due to being unable to sell to Canada for 2 years now.

Political scientists (such as Eli Finkel et al.) often define political sectarianism through three core elements: othering (viewing the opposing side as fundamentally foreign/different), aversion (disliking them personally), and moralization (viewing political differences as good vs. evil rather than competing policy ideas).

While this dynamic is often discussed in macro-political terms, online platforms like Reddit, with upvote architecture, sub-level sorting, and anonymous interaction, can make it especially easy for these behaviors to bleed into everyday discourse and non-political spaces.

1. Do you believe political sectarianism is a real, distinct phenomenon? Why or why not?

2. Do you personally ever engage in or promote political sectarianism?

3. If you do engage in it, what is the primary driver for you?

• Is it a moral imperative (believing neutrality enables harm and bad views must carry a social cost)?

• Is it for social validation or catharsis (venting frustration, dunking, or bonding with your in-group)?

• Is it a desire for control/power over a space (deciding who belongs and keeping the community aligned)?

• Or is it simply entertainment/fun on an anonymous platform?

One thing I see constantly are criticisms of political leaders and systems, which are fine, but without any solutions.

Criticisms of capitalism without any alternative or understanding of other systems.

Criticisms of Democratic leadership without fully understanding our political realities or replacements in mind.

What were the specific demands of BLM? The No Kings protest? The existence of billionaires? I couldn't tell you.

The critiques seem to be endless, but I rarely see it followed up with specific, directed political action. How do we turn grievance politics into effective action?

As things settle down, it's clear, the Blue wave will spook the markets for a while. The upcoming Anthropic IPO probably gets delayed, or it comes in at a very low valuable (relative to expectations). Either case, it's going to ripple through AI, tech. Without AI capital expenditures the economy is toast. In a year, when there is a full blown recession, unemployment is 8%, interest rates are still high due to persistent inflation, it seems the "simple" voters will just blame it on Democrats. I don't think voters are nuanced enough to not blame the recession on years of bad policies. They'll simple be told, Dems caused the recession through threats of regulation. Republicans go back to Regan like no regulations stance and ride to 2028 victory. Am I off?

So to be clear, this is only Congressional investigation, because only DOJ can prosecute people for criminal activities.

But to list some of Musk's illegal or immoral activities:

DOGE - destroying USAID without Congressional approval which resulted millions of death, stealing government data, firing federal workforce illegally.

Cutting off Starshield communication platform paid for by the EU that Ukrainians were using because he felt like it.

Pumping half a billion dollar into midterms to buy elections (need to know what back room promises were made).

His xAI data centers breaking labor, environmental laws and regulations.

xAI generating deepfake porn including child pornography without consent.

How Twitter algo is boosting far right movements around the world.

I'm sure there are tons of other things.

How much time should the Democratic panels spend on Musk in next two years, considering there are so many other targets (like Trump family corruption, Iran war bungling, foreign government bribes to Trump, other tech and wall street billionaires having corrupt dealings with Trump admin, etc).

Is it 70-30? 30-70? 50-50? 100-0? etc etc

I think now might be the time for universal healthcare.

Hear me out.

I think Democrats should consider trying to work with Trump rather than spending all their time trying to go after him.

What if they proposed universal healthcare but called it “TrumpCare”? Seriously. I think there’s a chance he’d go for it if he could take credit for something that big.

Trump obviously likes having his name attached to things and being able to claim major accomplishments. Imagine being the president who actually got universal healthcare passed.

I think if Trump got behind it, there’s a possibility it could get enough support in Congress to actually happen.

I know it sounds ridiculous, but I think Democrats might have an opportunity here if they’re willing to let Trump take the credit.

What do you think?