Every election is local. Every campaign has to be won one precinct at a time. Every precinct needs their own message.

Obama won midwestern states because he campaigned there, diner by diner, eating a lot of pie, talking to farmers and small business owners about what matters to them.

He won the votes and essential monetary support of wealthy Democrats because he spoke to groups in NYC and California at expensive fundraisers about what matters to them. That's how you win.

I'm still seeing on DU echoes of the black/white, all/nothing purity voting approach that doomed Hillary Clinton's and Kamala Harris's campaigns because too many Democratic voters have disdain for anybody who isn't exactly like themselves.

It's not selling out our economic vision to court wealthy Democrats. We need their votes and their campaign funding in order to get elected and fight for what we believe in. It's not selling out our progressive ideals to court rural socially conservative Democrats. We need their votes and their networks.

Not everybody agrees with us.

We can't sit in our homes and say "this is the way it's supposed to be" and assume we'll get it. We have to make deals, negotiate, be strategy. We have to be in power to enact laws.

Too many Democrats don't understand that.

Do NOT let ANY Republican run unopposed!

Also, stop listening to political consultants and pollsters. Turn your broad mandate into a ground force for change (a lot of very amped up people right now, willing to fight for change. HARNESS that enthusiasm. Up you social media game (where are Spanish language news channels on Youtube? Where are your Vietnames/Chinese/Cuban/etc influencers? Fight fire with fire).

Thank you both for serving our country with dignity and respect. There is none of either with this administration.

I hope they continue with the No Kings protests, and they especially need one next October, just before the elections.

Last edited Fri Nov 7, 2025, 11:35 AM - Edit history (1)

I think that is a bit hyperbolic. I haven't seen anything I would call a "litmus test". But I do think that every Dem candidate should be fully committed to a set of policies/changes/progress we want to achieve for our country. There is a list floating around that looks like a very good starting point to me. I'd like to know what is on this list that any Democrat cannot strongly support.

• Overturn Citizens United
• No personal use of PAC money, even after retiring
• Codify Women's Right to Choose
• Term Limits and highest code of ethics for SCOTUS
• Get Rid of the Electoral College
• Outlaw Gerrymandering Nationwide
• Return Fairness Doctrine in Media
• Universal Healthcare for ALL
• Ban Stock Trading While in Congress
• 5 year wait before taking jobs in industries overseen/regulated when in office
• Cap Congress Salary at 1.5x Median Income of Their District
• Tax Billionaires Out of Existence
• Tax Unrealized Gains Used as Loan Collateral
• Tax Mega-Churches involved in political activity
• Raise Federal Minimum Wage to $20/hr
• Eliminate the Presidential pardon privilege

If a candidate cannot enthusiastically support practically all of these things, I wonder why they would even want to run as a Democrat. And if there are some things on this list that the majority of Dems can't strongly support, then take them off the list - for EVERYBODY. It is a simple issue of branding. You know what you are getting when you walk into a Wal*Mart, Applebee's, Apple store, NBA arena or Disney movie. People need to know what a Democrat is and what they can expect from any Democrat they vote for.

One person's "litmus test" is another person's set of core values.

Killing the filibuster and expanding the court.

Otherwise any attempt to restore democracy, protect rights and rebuild America will either die in the senate or be overturned by the current corrupt SCOTUS.

EVERY Dem nominee for the house and senate must support court expansion, and every senate candidate must support killing the filibuster to do so.

After all, what good is winning if Dems aren’t able to govern effectively?

Are you saying those progressive goals are all "litmus tests"?

Are there items on that list you think it is OK for a Dem to oppose and work against? If so, which ones?

I disagree with just about every word of this post.

Or you just don't like the idea of a party that actually stands for and fights for a set of common values and goals?

There is, sadly, a faction in the Dem Party that still clings strongly to the "I am a free agent and nobody is going to tell my how to run and vote." That has not been successful the past 50 years as we have steadily lost power. We will not regain power if the "free agent" mentality remains as it has been for several generations.

I am really curious what things on that list you can't support. They all seem pretty foundational to me.

For example Spanberger calling out Mamdani

For those who criticize Mamdani, AOC, or any of the others who aren't sufficiently Republican-lite enough, I would really like to know which of Mamdani's proposals seem out of line with where mainstream Democratic Party principles and policies should be.

Is it the assistance for public transportation?
Is it rent controls?
Is it the idea of the city investing in grocer stores in "food desert" neighborhoods?
Something else?

Where is he too far out?

I think you need to seriously consider Obama 's warning.

Another thing to cover is that the Democrats did better than expected in 2022. Then there was 2024.

Be bold. Be brave. Stand for something.

Would you have refused to support the governors elect in NJ and VA? Note that they are not as purple as some states we need to win.

I know this is scary because Dems, by and large, haven't run on bold ideas for several generations. And when people like Bernie, AOC and Mandani run on very specific proposals, those selfsame 2 generations do a collective freakout. "Oh that will never pass into law." "Oh that's too much for suburban voters." "Oh, the Republicans will call us bad names. We can't do that."

But progress is where the energy is. We can win some elections the familiar old way because Republicans always over-reach, and their policies are really, really unpopular. But the bottom line is that for most voters, the candidate that promises concrete things and shows some passion to fight for those ideas, generally wins, even if people know in their heart that the ideas are probably bad ones.

In our case, just about everything I listed is a very popular idea. It is too long. To have the brand work for all Dems, the list would have to be condensed.somewhat. I presented that list because it is full of action-oriented examples, not just empty rhetoric that says nothing and promises nothing.

So, tell me, what ideas on that list do you think are a turn-off in places like Kansas, Ohio, or South Carolina?

Overturning Citizen's United sounds wonky. It would have to be stated as getting corporate and billionaire money out of politics.

The fairness doctrine would take some education, and would have to be framed in light of today's media, but most people understand the media is a mess, and getting worse with AI.

And so on. I didn't represent this as the perfect list, only as an example of what it would look like for candidates to present real actionable ideas.

But I categorically reject the idea that people in "Red America" don't want many of the things on this list.

who endorsed Cuomo. I'm thinking, wtf dude -shaking my head in disbelief-

Thinking of a conversation yesterday with a friend who lives in NYC. She said "I held my nose and voted for Cuomo." I understand she doesn't believe Mamdani has enough experience to deliver on his vision. We shall see. But at least he has a vision and he won't be groping staff women in the hallways of City Hall.

That's all.

Please show when or where Obama endorsed Cuomo...............egad, maybe that means he'll endorse establishment candidates instead of the really good ones in favor of the national centrist dems. I did n to see that coming........and am saddened.

I have a clear memory of the words coming from Obama. Apparently I was fooled by an AI video. All the news articles I've found online do not show Obama endorsing Cuomo.

That is to say, I don't believe Obama ever said "For the NYC Mayor race, i hereby endorse _______."

Obama has been a supporter of Cuomo in the past. As politicians, they seem to have similar philosophies of hugging the center and avoid strong, progressive, leading positions on anything.

Personally, I found it at least a little concerning that after it became apparent Mamdani would win easily, Obama called (that's fine) congratulated on his campaign (that's great) and then offered his counsel (that's where I get a bit worried.) I'm worried the "counsel" Obama would offer is "Now that you are elected, play it safe. Pull back all those bold ideas and wake up every morning with the goal of burnishing your image." I think Mamdani is smart and very committed to the things he campaigned on, so I hope he politely thanked Obama for his generous offer and is moving on.

You're all over this thread and others with gloom and doom hand wringing "Democrats in disarray" crap.

I see you.

nt

I've read a number of people being accused of endorsing Cuomo who never did. As well as people who don't live in NYC who never endorsed a candidate for Mayor here being slammed for not endorsing Mamdani. I voted for Mamdani myself but too many of his supporters are now grievance shopping and trying to demonize others in the party for no reason and without facts.

Issue 1: NYC voters chose a young, energetic candidate who spent a lot of time talking with them and had the intelligence, courage, and strategic vision to promise to fight for what a lot of New Yorkers need.

Issue 2: A bunch of wannabes all have over the country decided to crash this party by whining endlessly about how Mamdani was being oppressed. Mamdani, to his credit, ignored the whining and didn't engage with it.

Despite the win the whiners continue. They should be ashamed of themselves.

a good look. And, So Not helping Anything. I would think they'd want to Help Moving Forward.

TY

What is this bullshit?!

How could you say Something So Obviously NOT true.

for shirking their constitutional duty, unleashing this hell (Big Beautiful Bill, ICE and other policies) on the country, and people regardless of party know who's responsible for the suffering. Because of that, Dems in '26 could win seats in some unexpected places, 'cause as bad as things are now, they're going to be much worse in a year.

And by the way, Dems really need to hold the line on the shutdown, as painful as it is.

obama 28, what constitution ?

Work overtime Comrades... (but take care of yourselves, too).

from Experience.

We need to win the HOUSE, how about we're going to win the HOUSE & SENATE in the midterms in
overwhelming fashion?

There's plenty of pedophile protector tRump enablers in both Houses, let's concentrate on killing the
entire reQublican party, that way we'll have a super majority and the filibuster won't get in our way.

Plus we'd have a free reign to transform this Country into a Democracy that even MAGAts would be
happy with.

where the whole House is up every 2 years!

Hell I knew that, getting tired of this brain fog that comes with my auto-immune treatment. Burnt tips of
2 fingers today smearing olive oil on a frying pan I knew was hot. Glad when this is all over.

I hear ya!