Left-leaning challengers in the Rust belt are throwing chaos into a divided party struggling to rebuild after Trump’s win
From Detroit to Pennsylvania to Buffalo, New York, and here in Ohio, insurgent, progressive Democrats are defeating their long-established colleagues in dozens of school board, city council and mayoral races, throwing the already-divided national party into chaos, even as polls indicate it stands to potentially benefit at next year’s midterm elections due to the Trump administration’s divisive policies.
In Lancaster, Pennsylvania, one of seven swing states whose voters in recent years have decided the country’s presidential election, 37-year-old Jaime Arroyo was elected mayor on 4 November, becoming the first Latino mayor in the city’s 295-year history. In La Crosse, Wisconsin, another swing state, Shaundel Washington-Spivey, the city’s first Black and out gay mayor, beat a fellow Democratic party candidate with extensive local government experience last April.
Candidates such as Turner-Sloss, Arroyo and Washington-Spivey are campaigning on combating rising housing costs and providing better public transit infrastructure at a time when affordability issues and federal government policies are driving many working families into crisis.
Well, if incumbent Dems don’t do their job and perform as a working opposition, its the peoples’ right to find some who actually represent the voters.
this phrasing is biased in a scare-mongering way
no, it’s not a monster driving fear into a few true Democrats
it’s Democrats with integrity resuming course against oligarch traitors who don’t belong in politics after sabotage to the american people time and time again
this is a long time coming and we applaud
This article more commentates on where The Guardian stands on this. It’s pretty obvious they are an establishment Democratic party supporter much like virtually every “liberal” media outlet in existence.
“Some democrats aren’t asshole politicians finally. Here’s 17 reasons why that’s bad” - some shit rag in NY probably
I think most democrats have been voting for democrats while wishing they were more left. Voting for democrats hasn’t been about liking the candidates. It’s been more about disliking the opposing candidates.
It’s been more about disliking the opposing candidates.
This describes GOP/right-wing politics too. Nobody has the representation they actually want., before or after any election. It’s a mess.
This was indeed me for the last 20ish years. STAR voting or similar now, plz (and an end to gerrymandering)
One side was hammering on about terrorising minorities for years.
So yeah, if its a bad choice to avoid literal death threats from the government, a bad choice is better than death.
if its a bad choice to avoid literal death threats from the government, a bad choice is better than death.
What this sentiment always ignored, is there’s no reason it has to be a “bad choice” and shitty candidates aren’t good enough to consistently win.
Fucking wild people are still saying that in 2025 though
Imagine being equally as bad as the death threat party without also making death threats
Perhaps US can finally get what it deserves, a true left.
If a Republican gets replaced then the outcome is left. If a Democrat gets replaced, few if any things change.
The important thing is not to split the vote.
The GOP got where it is today by repeatedly replacing establishment Republicans with more conservative republicans, until ‘right wing nutjob’ became the baseline. I no longer believe that replacing Republicans with corporate democrats will make things change. Slow the bleeding, maybe, but not change. Replacing corporate Democrats with progressives is the only way we’re going to move the needle now.
Every Republican is in the RNC. They didnt run Independents against themselves like progressives are doing.
Ah, yes, “left” like Chuck Schumer.
Let’s pursue that line of thought a little further. If Chuck Schumer were replaced last election, what would have changed? The 7 Dems and 1 Ind who voted to reopen the government, which did not include Schumer, would likely still have done so, but what if they hadn’t? The government would have stayed closed. The ACA tax credits would still have expired. Peoples insurance rates would still be going up.
What “real change” do you think would have happened?
Schumer and any other dem is still better than any Republican, and with even a simple majority so much suffering would be completely avoided. Wanting better dems is fine but what we need is less Republicans.
If Chuck Schumer were replaced last election, what would have changed?
We’d have had one fewer senator organizing the Dem capitulation caucus. We’d have also had one fewer senator capitulating to Trump in March. Maybe, just maybe, someone willing to fucking do anything about Trump would’ve been in office. Also if he was replaced in, say, 2019 there would have been one fewer pro-genocide reactionary voting to give Israel everything it wants.
and with even a simple majority so much suffering would be completely avoided.
*Delayed. It would’ve been delayed, just as it was in 2020, because that’s the thing: Democrats don’t fucking do anything. Their favorite excuse is the filibuster, but they can just get rid of it. It’s literally that simple. Whether this is incompetence or malice (though it’s obviously the latter), the Democratic establishment needs to go before anything resembling progress can happen. You’ll never get fewer Republicans if their competition is Joe “nothing will fundamentally change” Biden or Kamala “most lethal army in the world” Harris. Trump is the result of 50 years of Democrats gargling corporate balls is Trump, and you’ll never get rid of Trump if you don’t do something about the corporate balls.
We might not have 1 less capitulating to Trump, we might have another Republican.
DNC have had 48 or often less seats for over 10 years. They talk about getting rid of the filibuster but doing so would just give Republicans the same free reign that they have currently.
The last time the DNC had a real majority, not even a supermajority, was the most productive congress in decades. Dems have spent decades taxing corporations and limiting their ability to influence politics and they get no credit for that endless uphill battle.
Whenever Dems relax the rules, like when they made a simple majority required for Cabinet Picks under Obama, it ended up backfiring, such as getting used by Republicans to put oil barons in charge of foreign policy, private school executives in charge of the Department of Education, Coal Lobbyists in charge of the EPA, and Pete fucking Hegseth in charge of DoD.
Dems dont have a magic bullet for all your problems, we need to vote into power a substantial majority or even a supermajority.
DNC have had 48 or often less seats for over 10 years.
And is that because they’re terrible at winning or because they don’t want to win? Take your pick. Either way they need to go.
The last time the DNC had a real majority, not even a supermajority, was the most productive congress in decades.
And they used that opportunity to pass checks notes Romneycare. So productive.
Dems have spent decades taxing corporations and limiting their ability to influence politics and they get no credit for that endless uphill battle.
If they’ve spent decades fighting that “battle” and this is the result, maybe they’re not actually fighting at all.
If you don’t think they want to pass what they introduce: call their bluff and promote them and vote for them.
If you do think they want to pass what they introduce: call their bluff and promote them and vote for them.
If you want Republicans to win: insult the DNC
progressive Democrats
That’s a contradiction
Really? Bernie Sanders, AOC, or Illhan Omar aren’t a historical representation of progressive Democrats?
Bernie is an independent, he just caucuses with Democrats
Do they call for dismantling the nuclear arsenal and banning all carbon fuels (the two biggest existential threats to all life on earth)?
I’m talking about progressives, not center-left.
That’s always been the left’s weakness: not knowing when a battle not yet taken constitutes a fundamental undermining of the claim about progressiveness. Some battles are going to have to be saved for a future generation. Let’s focus on securing the winnable battles today: universal health-insurance (Luigi wouldn’t be a folk hero today if it were what we had) and decarbonization (that took a huuuge leap in the last few years with how accessible solar power is now). The grandkids can work on de-nucularization.
What? Why not both?
Stop thinking like a Democrat. If you move to the right, you’ll loose the vote. Be a proud progressive, and people will be ecstatic to vote for you
Okay? Here’s what it actually is. Nuclear missiles have defensive uses that make them still useful, and it’ll probably take a while longer for us to decide how to maintain their utility while also ending the threat of a nuclear apocalypse.
How do nuclear warheads have life-saving utility beyond being a doomsday device? Well, we probably need to launch a nuclear missile to bomb asteroid 2024 YR4 within the next few years to push it off course so it doesn’t hit the moon, which would throw up a bunch of big debris that would fall to Earth and kill a bunch of people. Maybe not planet-killing debris, but city-killing probably.
Yes, actually, the vast majority of nuclear disarmament to date was done under Obama and by a series of treaties promising protection to countries who disarm (treaties which then get ignored by Republicans).
Biden and Obama, and democrat simple majority, also made the biggest investments to date into renewables and EVs.
Don’t spread misinformation.
Biden and Obama both supported the continued burning of fossil fuels and keeping the nuclear arsenal.
EVs and reducing the nukes is not a solution. We need a progressive who will end it. Now.
We can talk all day about ideal scenarios but at the end of the day you have two options: a decent person or a Republican, and if decent people don’t unite under one name on the ballot you will have a Republican.
There is not nor will there ever be a solution where the USA and only the USA disarms the entire nuclear arsenal. Thats just begging for the Apocalypse to start. We know Russia and China are restrained by nukes, emboldened by the lack thereof, we tested this theory in Ukraine.
You are the problem
So, it’s all or nothing? Don’t take any victories unless you’re guarunteed to take every victory?
BlueMAGA flavored “progressives”. How wonderful LMBO
Wtf is lmbo
It’s when you walk under a low bar without dragging or using your hands.
Maybe a typo of lmao? Sometimes different languages have different keyboard layouts.
