Why Are So Many Democratic Politicians So Far Out of Touch? - New York Times

[jc456]

For some reason you have this obsession about something you appear to know very little about. You are insane.

No, you’re factually mentally ill

 

[Stann]

No, you’re factually mentally ill

Believe what you wish. Hope it serves you well. I am.not going to waste any more time on you. This leads nowhere.

 

[Mashmont]

From the New York Times, not Fox News. Even they realize that the democrat party is not in touch with ordinary Americans. From the article:


In January 2025, when the U.S. House took up legislation to bar trans women’s participation on women’s sports teams, all but two Democratic representatives — Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez — voted against the bill.
When the Senate took up a similar proposal three days ago, every Democrat present voted against it.
Why don’t more Democrats explicitly moderate their stands on transgender rights, immigration and other issues? Those who maintain far-out positions are well to the left of the electorate and its emblematic median voter. The trans issue clearly weakened Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign, leaving her open to devastating pro-Trump ads.
In the case of one of the most disputed rights claimed by some parts of the transgender activist community — transgender women’s participation on women’s sports teams — Democrats have clear liberal grounds to challenge that claim, by asserting that they are protecting a woman’s right from unfair competition.
But this phenomenon — drifting far from the median voter — is hardly limited to the left. There are many factors behind the reluctance of both Democrats and Republicans to shift to the center.

For one thing, donors, especially the growing legions of small donors, prefer more extreme candidates. Adding additional pressure, what have come to be known as “the groups” — advocacy organizations on the left and the right — demand fealty to policies that are sometimes politically costly; they threaten to support primary challengers to run against those who defy their authority. On a psychological level, Democrats and liberals are morally committed to protecting marginalized groups from harm and defending racial and sexual minorities.
Before exploring these pressures, let’s go to the dominant political fact of life working against moderation, which is that there are decisive majorities in both the House and the Senate that have no interest in abandoning more extreme stands. Many Democrats and Republicans won their seats with the promise to fight the partisan opposition until hell freezes over.
The combination of partisan gerrymandering, the deepening of affective polarization — smoldering hatred of partisan adversaries — and the steadily growing number of safe seats has created a calculus encouraging, nurturing and fostering political positioning far to the left or right of the median voter.

The key piece of evidence: Of the 435 House districts, The Cook Political Report identifies 36 as competitive, broken down as 17 tossups, 15 leaning Democratic and four leaning Republican. Adding the eight likely Democratic and 17 likely Republican districts, which are much less likely to be competitive, brings the total to 61, or a measly 14 percent of all 435 members.
In this one-seventh of House districts that are at least somewhat competitive, there is a real payoff on Election Day for a candidate to moderate more extreme stands.

That is decidedly not the case in the remaining 86 percent of House districts — 374 of them, 189 solid Democratic and 185 solid Republican — that are not competitive, with the winner chosen in the primary and the general election a formality.
Candidates in these safe districts are under no pressure to moderate in order to win a general election, and primary voters are free to vote ideologically instead of strategically.
Senate races are less preordained, but still a majority are foregone conclusions, partywise: Nine to 11 states are considered battlegrounds, or “purple,” while 39 to 41, depending on who is doing the analysis, fall into the solid red or blue camp.
For a decisive majority of House members and a slightly less commanding majority of senators, then, the cost of adopting more extreme and intensely partisan stands drops close to zero, with a payoff in added voters in ideologically driven primaries.
What this comes down to is that in the calculations of incumbents in safe districts, adopting the hard-nosed position leaves no ideological space for challengers in the primaries.

In fact, among polarized primary electorates in these districts, the successful nominee is very likely to be naturally comfortable positioning himself or herself at the further end of the political spectrum, deeply hostile to the opposition party, opposed in principle to compromise.

https://archive.is/a9ef0#selection-519.0-519.59

One characteristic of Marxism is it doesn't care what voters think.

 

[Stann]

From the New York Times, not Fox News. Even they realize that the democrat party is not in touch with ordinary Americans. From the article:


In January 2025, when the U.S. House took up legislation to bar trans women’s participation on women’s sports teams, all but two Democratic representatives — Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez — voted against the bill.
When the Senate took up a similar proposal three days ago, every Democrat present voted against it.
Why don’t more Democrats explicitly moderate their stands on transgender rights, immigration and other issues? Those who maintain far-out positions are well to the left of the electorate and its emblematic median voter. The trans issue clearly weakened Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign, leaving her open to devastating pro-Trump ads.
In the case of one of the most disputed rights claimed by some parts of the transgender activist community — transgender women’s participation on women’s sports teams — Democrats have clear liberal grounds to challenge that claim, by asserting that they are protecting a woman’s right from unfair competition.
But this phenomenon — drifting far from the median voter — is hardly limited to the left. There are many factors behind the reluctance of both Democrats and Republicans to shift to the center.

For one thing, donors, especially the growing legions of small donors, prefer more extreme candidates. Adding additional pressure, what have come to be known as “the groups” — advocacy organizations on the left and the right — demand fealty to policies that are sometimes politically costly; they threaten to support primary challengers to run against those who defy their authority. On a psychological level, Democrats and liberals are morally committed to protecting marginalized groups from harm and defending racial and sexual minorities.
Before exploring these pressures, let’s go to the dominant political fact of life working against moderation, which is that there are decisive majorities in both the House and the Senate that have no interest in abandoning more extreme stands. Many Democrats and Republicans won their seats with the promise to fight the partisan opposition until hell freezes over.
The combination of partisan gerrymandering, the deepening of affective polarization — smoldering hatred of partisan adversaries — and the steadily growing number of safe seats has created a calculus encouraging, nurturing and fostering political positioning far to the left or right of the median voter.

The key piece of evidence: Of the 435 House districts, The Cook Political Report identifies 36 as competitive, broken down as 17 tossups, 15 leaning Democratic and four leaning Republican. Adding the eight likely Democratic and 17 likely Republican districts, which are much less likely to be competitive, brings the total to 61, or a measly 14 percent of all 435 members.
In this one-seventh of House districts that are at least somewhat competitive, there is a real payoff on Election Day for a candidate to moderate more extreme stands.

That is decidedly not the case in the remaining 86 percent of House districts — 374 of them, 189 solid Democratic and 185 solid Republican — that are not competitive, with the winner chosen in the primary and the general election a formality.
Candidates in these safe districts are under no pressure to moderate in order to win a general election, and primary voters are free to vote ideologically instead of strategically.
Senate races are less preordained, but still a majority are foregone conclusions, partywise: Nine to 11 states are considered battlegrounds, or “purple,” while 39 to 41, depending on who is doing the analysis, fall into the solid red or blue camp.
For a decisive majority of House members and a slightly less commanding majority of senators, then, the cost of adopting more extreme and intensely partisan stands drops close to zero, with a payoff in added voters in ideologically driven primaries.
What this comes down to is that in the calculations of incumbents in safe districts, adopting the hard-nosed position leaves no ideological space for challengers in the primaries.

In fact, among polarized primary electorates in these districts, the successful nominee is very likely to be naturally comfortable positioning himself or herself at the further end of the political spectrum, deeply hostile to the opposition party, opposed in principle to compromise.

https://archive.is/a9ef0#selection-519.0-519.59

And that was the case , not any more. The record speaks for itself.They are offering real solutions for America and not pie in the sky schemes that most can't access like trump is doing.

 

[hadit]

Republicans have been losing every special election this year, and you guys ae trying to tell us how Democrats should be worried.

You should be worried that you are out of touch because Orange Man Bad won't last much longer and you won't have anything to run on.

 

[Hollie]

They are no longer men , with hormone therapy they often match female strength, muscle mass and performance levels.Laws banning them from competition are discriminatory. Better to set parameters or guidelines to allow them to compete with the cisgender women. If they qualify then there is no problem. If the don't it's just too bad. Let those compete who don't qualify compete with the boys. And that is unfortunate because even more hatred and ignorance is waiting for them there , just like the ignorant laws against them. Men have a problem with the s wayore than women ever will. Must be a lot of men who are insecure about their sexual identity and feel.threatened by of all.timgs transgendered women.

Was that an admission that you are no longer a man?

 

[Hollie]

Republicans have been losing every special election this year, and you guys ae trying to tell us how Democrats should be worried.

White homo liberals posing as blacks have a problem with their lies and falsehoods.

 

[Hollie]

And you believe that men who undergo years of psychological preparation , hormone therapy and finally extensive surgery to live a life as the opposite sex as they feel they were meant to are still men
Face it before their surgeries most were sorry excises for a man
You should be able to relate to that.

It’s a dangerous thing that you homo’s believe that drugs and mutilating surgeries change your gender.

 

[Hollie]

That is the process. They become transgendered women.what would you label them as ? Nevermind , you already think they are men. They are no longer that.

That’s the nonsense you believe that there is a means for drugs and mutilating surgeries to change one’s gender. You only change appearances.

 

[ColonelAngus]

They are in touch. They are corrupt. If you do not believe exactly as they do, you are a BAD PERSON who should be cast out into the corn field. It is a facade so they can get money and power.

 

[Stann]

You should be worried that you are out of touch because Orange Man Bad won't last much longer and you won't have anything to run on.

Orange man was always bad , a poor businessman and a sad , misguided leader. Trial and error is not the way one runs a competent government.

 

[Dante]

They aren't. They've been winning. It's all media narratives meant to sell. Voters have been going with Democrats, no matter what polls suggest their "popularity" is. Popularity?​

next

A Democratic Electrician Nabs a State Senate Seat in Republican Florida

With Brian Nathan’s victory certified, Democrats won two of three state legislative races in this month’s special elections, all in Republican-leaning districts.

David W. Chen

By David W. Chen
March 30, 2026Updated 4:45 p.m. ET

Democrats on Monday officially claimed a second upset in Florida’s recent special elections when The Associated Press declared an electrical workers union leader to be the winner of a tight state senate contest in reliably Republican West Tampa.

Brian Nathan, a Navy veteran and member of a new cadre of working class Democrats, will join Emily Gregory, a small-business owner with a public-health background, as upstart Democrats in Tallahassee. Ms. Gregory on Tuesday won a state house district in Palm Beach that includes President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago seaside mansion.

The upsets supplied the latest electoral boost to a party that suffered setbacks in 2024 in Washington, D.C., and in state capitols across the country but is staging a comeback.

Mr. Nathan, 45, is one of many blue-collar Democrats and anti-Republican independents vying for U.S. House and Senate seats, as well as state legislative posts. Those include Bob Brooks, a retired firefighter, and Brian Poindexter, a union ironworker, who are running for House seats in Pennsylvania and Ohio; Graham Platner, an oysterman, and Dan Osborn, an industrial electrician, running for the Senate in Maine and Nebraska; and Sam Forstag, a smokejumper and union leader, who is vying for the Democratic nomination for a House seat in Montana.

and.....................................................

Democrat wins Florida state seat containing Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate

Emily Gregory’s projected victory comes in a legislative district which a Republican candidate won by 19 percentage points in 2024.

www.bbc.com

 

[Stann]

That’s the nonsense you believe that there is a means for drugs and mutilating surgeries to change one’s gender. You only change appearances.

Even simple plastic surgery changes the mind set of a individual. This is much more than that , it changes one's entire perspective of themselves. And that's all that matters. What you or I think of it really doesn't matter. And politicians passing bigoted laws against any group of people should be a thing of our sad past.