Hardkill

Obama didn’t win more than about 9–10% of voters in the U.S. who identified as Republicans in 2008. However, his charisma was truly once-in-a-generation — strong enough that he managed to win around 20% of voters who identified as conservatives. That was an unusually high percentage for a presidential candidate from the opposite party or ideology during that era. That being said, Obama didn't run as a left-wing idealogue or as a self-described Socialist like Mamdani. In fact, Obama was eventually accused by Leftists and progressives for not being "progressive" or "liberal" enough. So, it's hard for me to believe that Mamdani would ever have as much broad appeal throughout the entire country as Obama did.

Sadly, yes. Thanks to big money and even bigger money being allowed in politics. It's also because how brainwashed too many Americans are by this horrible media environment we are in. Also, how do we get most people to trust the government to help them or that it can truly be an agency of human welfare?

Mamdani is running on standard Democratic policy?! He's running on a very socialistic platform and the most left-wing agenda compared to any other NYC mayor since LaGuardia in the 1940s, if not ever in the history of the city. Please tell me that you're trolling.

That being said, Biden turned out to be the most progressive president since LBJ in the 1960s and the most pro-union president since FDR/Truman.

That’s very true, OP. It ironically has been sorely misunderstood and/or in acknowledged by most people in the world since the dawn of mankind. Sadly, most people in the world haven’t ever been ready to believe that. Hence, improving the material needs of the general population of any society in a fair and sustainable manner is a major factor for getting through to people about this.

I sometimes wish that America wasn’t as diverse and as large of a country as it is.

Democrats today have too many morals when it comes to social issues. They need to let go of a number of their principles if they ever want to survive in the future and if they want the country survive from the authoritarian threat. At the same time, they are too corrupted by the wealthy donors to really care enough about coming up with a strong unifying messaging on economic issues. What would FDR do? What would TR do? What would William Jennings Bryan do? What would even Woodrow Wilson do? I think they would have to realize that they are going to have to turn their backs on non-whites, immigrants, women, etc. unless there is enough support from at least 3.5% of the entire population for any more social justice. They would focus exclusively on helping white men, particularly white men in every rural area of the country in a very quiet and subtle manner. They also have to show young men, especially young white men, that they have enough of a spine to lead to them for any kind of war.

Needless to say, we told you so before Trump got elected last year

We gotta take care of more of our citizens first before we can return to a more global-oriented kind of agenda.

He engaged in a kind of faux right-wing economic populism while appealing to about half the country on conservative cultural issues, including racism, xenophobia, sexism, and Christian nationalism. I hate to say it, but I feel like the Democrats may have no choice but to return to their more pro-white, pro–Judeo-Christian, more patriarchal, and more nationalist roots—albeit in a subtler way than the modern Republican Party—even though it seems unlikely the party will truly drop its support for civil rights, women’s rights, or immigration rights anytime soon.

I totally agree that they need to do that! However, I’m not sure the party elites — along with their special interests, corporate donors, “woke” activists, and out-of-touch consultant class — will allow it. Independent pundits like David Pakman and Anand Giridharadas have recently said that the Democratic Party still hasn’t had its reckoning, even though it should have happened months ago. They’re pessimistic about the party making enough changes to its messaging strategy in time for 2028 — or even 2026 — because the leadership seems so stubborn and entrenched in its current approach to communicating with voters. An arguably bigger question is: how does the Democratic Party get voters to focus on fighting oligarchy and an anarcho-capitalist dystopia when the culture war has distracted most voters — particularly low-information and low-engagement ones — to an insane degree?

However, culture-war identity politics in the 20th century was never anywhere near as bad as it has become in recent years. It wasn’t even this bad in the early 2000s—things have escalated dramatically since the 2010s. At this point, it feels like the worst it has been since the antebellum era before the Civil War. There used to be much more reasonable debate over issues, including economic ones, during the 20th century. The 1960 Nixon–JFK presidential debate is a prime example of classy, substantive discourse on both political and economic topics. In fact, the mid-1900s marked the peak of political consensus and unity in the U.S., and a time when most Americans were more deeply engaged and enthusiastic about economic issues than even social ones. The early and late 1900s were a close second.

I’ve been told to try to enjoy the next few years and not get consumed by 2028 or even 2026, but that advice sits on top of something more volatile: it’s not just worry and hopelessness anymore—it’s anger. I’m angry at how the political system picks its leaders, how power gets filtered, how reform feels like shouting into static, and yet I also feel small, exhausted, and stuck. I care so deeply that I’m emotionally frayed, and that caring turns into despair when the mechanisms meant to channel collective will feel rigged, opaque, and unresponsive. I’m in this vicious feedback loop: I get angry because things are broken, I try to engage to fix or push on them, I burn out from the mismatch between what I want and what I can actually influence, and then the hopelessness deepens—making the anger bitter instead of productive. Stepping back feels like surrendering to a system that deserves the critique, but staying in feels like bleeding out emotionally. If anyone here has navigated that triple bind—anger at systemic dysfunction, genuine care for the country, and the emotional collapse that comes from feeling powerless—what helped you redirect the anger into something sustaining instead of self-destructive? What concrete mental models, small-leverage actions, or community practices let you keep integrity without getting hollowed out?

I know that most single men in their 40s usually don’t go to bars, clubs, chaos-driven parties, or wild places like Vegas or Cancun to meet women—at least not the way younger guys do. Either they’re just not interested anymore, or they have a harder time relating to those environments, especially when most of the women there are in their late teens to 20s. So, do you still meet girls in any of those kinds of places, Leo? Or not so much anymore? I’m asking because I only have a couple of years left before I turn 40, and I know I won’t be ready—at least for another year—to fully commit to consistently cold approaching, especially in nightlife settings. I still need to focus on finishing my doctoral degree in physical therapy, figuring out how to get my own place, and getting other parts of my life in order. I don't see meeting women just through social circle ever working for me unless I get really lucky.

If only Democrats didn’t have to cater to every race/ethnicity/gender, then their messaging would be so much easier.

That’s fair to say. Progressives definitely need to step outside the bubble and learn how to appeal to a broader audience. But I’d argue their biggest weakness isn’t their ideas, it’s how they present them. I agree they shouldn’t blame centrists for everything, but it’s also true that some centrist messaging has felt outdated in a populist era. Maybe the key isn’t to ‘ditch progressivism’ but to evolve its delivery — make it more culturally relatable, less activist-niche, and more grounded in shared values. After all, Biden had to shift toward progressive populism just to energize his 2020 campaign and appeal to both moderates and progressives during his presidency. That really was not an accident. All transformational movements begin as minority positions. Civil rights, Social Security, marriage equality, etc. had all started there. The issue is how to scale up without alienating, not to abandon the ideas altogether.

I get your point. You're right that winning matters more than just being morally 'right.' And yes, a lot of progressives have fallen into the trap of being critics rather than coalition builders. But here's my question: If progressives have struck a nerve with younger voters, working-class frustration, and bold vision, but still struggle to win power, then what exactly do you think they should do differently? Should they water down their vision? Change the messenger? Shift the tone? Or just wait another decade?" Because if the only answer is “act more like centrists,” then that defeats the whole purpose of running with a bold alternative in the first place, and Democrats may never win major elections again. So what’s the actionable path forward, not just the critique?

Yeah, there are some good things that China is doing that the US is not doing and I must say that China truly has come a very long way since the late 1900s with improving its economy overall. However, if China is doing so great, then why has it still been suffering from a serious deflation crisis for over 2 years now? Why are they still suffering from a serious property sector crisis in their country? Why don't they have as much of a social safety net as America does?

So then, how do we reconcile that with the fact that progressives have been right since 2016 about Democrats not doing enough to market economic populism? In fact, why have progressives—like AOC, Sanders, and Mamdani—been much better at crafting simple, compelling, and easy-to-understand messages with a clear and bold vision than the more moderate or establishment Democrats?

So, then how did TYT progressives realize in 2016 and 2024 that Trump had a serious chance of winning the presidency during those years?

Apparently, that’s the case—especially in this day and age. Also, Democrats in general tend to be more afraid of offending anyone than Republicans—partly because the Democratic Party has always been far more diverse, and partly because Democrats often lack spine, while Republicans lack principles. It’s interesting that Cenk and Ana have repeatedly described Newsom as a soulless career politician or a corporate robot who will say anything to gain power. Yet it’s entirely possible that Newsom could be the best candidate in 2028. Progressives like them often propose impractical candidates and unrealistic solutions to the Democratic Party’s problems. They suggest that someone like Jon Stewart, Shawn Fain, or Shaun O’Brien should be the Democratic presidential nominee, but there’s never been any real indication that any of them are interested in running. Now they’re claiming that AOC has a real shot at winning the presidency—which is, frankly, ridiculous. I’m actually surprised that some more mainstream pundits like Chuck Todd and Chris Cillizza have recently said that AOC might very well win the presidency in 2028.

That's what my dad and I have been saying. I actually think a true economic depression might be the major shock our country needs to break out of this political hell for good. Such a crisis wouldn’t just jolt enough Americans out of complacency—it could also create the best opportunity for a major political realignment, one where the Democratic Party could dominate American politics and hold supermajorities in both chambers of Congress for years to come, similar to the era of FDR and the New Deal coalition.

It's not here yet; however, the labor market has now gotten much weaker with this weak July jobs report and the big revisions made to both the May and June jobs reports because of Trump's moronic tariff scheme. Now, the growing consensus amongst top independent economists is that we probably are going to have a recession by next year, more or less. So, not yet, but that will be coming soon to a theatre near you.

This prosperous age is now crashing because of Trump's damn tariff scheme and because of how much the entire system has been corrupted to such an unprecedented degree by Trump, MAGA, and the unchecked capitalist culture in our country.ch Also, rhe OBBB is going to decimate a large part of our population. Look at the historical precedent and pattern recognition — especially in how legislation shapes democracy, civil society, and power structures over time. The lesiglation will: Destroy health access for tens of millions Shred clean energy and climate investments Slash social safety nets And embolden concentrated wealth and corporate control This is not just a flawed policy, but a foundational threat to American well-being, fairness, and long-term stability. This bill may be remembered not just as a political overreach, but as a catastrophic turning point—comparable in consequence to the most damaging laws ever passed. It will go down in history as being clearly the worst piece of legislation since the Fugitive Slave act of 1850 or the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.

You know who’s a true introvert? Barack Obama—calm, thoughtful, and magnetic without ever needing to be loud. His presence proves you don’t have to perform to connect. There's no doubt that he can get any kind of play he wants. I’m not saying you have to be as exceptionally compelling as he is, but he’s definitely someone who worked hard to become socially savvy while staying rooted in that quiet center.