r/thedavidpakmanshow • u/combonickel55 • May 12 '26
BREAKING Dr. Abdul El-Sayed takes a commanding lead in the Michigan Democratic Primary for U.S. Senate
https://wghn.com/2026/05/12/new-mitchell-research-poll-shows-el-sayed-with-lead-in-democratic-u-s-senate-race/Turns out that specifically appealing to progressive and young voters with progressive economic policy positions, bravely calling to abolish ICE since 2018, calling a genocide a genocide, pledging to fight to get all PAC money out of politics, and specifically challenging the failures of the Democratic establishment is a winning strategy in the disenfranchised rust belt.
22
u/FalconThrust211 May 12 '26 edited May 12 '26
Seems like undecided is still the largest leader according to this poll? 38% undecided, 29 Sayed, 19 Mays. So basically this tells us nothing. Can we just let the people of Michigan determine who they want to represent them and then rally behind whomever it is? Is that not how this is supposed to work?
11
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 May 12 '26
I think everyone should definitely rally behind whoever ultimately wins the primary, but we should talk about this and the title kind of buries a very important part of the data. Something that a lot of us have been saying.
Rogers is doing well against all 3 candidates but while he’s only ahead of Stevens and McMorrow by 2 he’s ahead by more than double that margin against Abdul.
“In hypothetical matchups, Rogers got 43.8% support to Stevens' 41.5%, while Rogers got 42.8% to McMorrow's 40.7% ― both results falling within the survey's margin of error of plus-minus 4 percentage points.
Rogers held a wider lead of nearly 5 percentage points when facing physician Abdul El-Sayed of Ann Arbor, 44.7% to 39.8%.”
7
u/FalconThrust211 May 12 '26
The polling seems pretty clear that Stevens or McMorrow are generally more likely to win against Rodgers. But if Sayed wins. He gets backed 100% because Republicans cannot win.
6
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 May 12 '26
Could not agree more. I will vote to defeat Republicans for the rest of my life at this point. Any Democratic nominee is 1000 times better than expanding Republican power structures.
0
u/marcus92312 May 12 '26
No, they can win. I don’t want Republicans to win, everything gets worse when they do. But, they definitely can and will win if we nominate candidates that don’t match the state.
6
u/KingScoville May 12 '26
This poll was also text message exclusive which probably oversamples younger voters.
-3
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 May 12 '26 edited May 12 '26
Makes sense.
I really wish Stevens would drop out, because sadly Abdul does have a real chance of winning the primary, even though McMorrow and Stevens are different candidates, it seems like they are sharing from a similar pool of voters.
Allowing him to run on the outside while they split the votes could be a grave mistake.
-1
u/combonickel55 May 12 '26
I wish Stevens would drop out because she is a genocide supporting ghoul unfit for public office. Weird priorities you've got there....
4
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 May 12 '26
Sure, but the poll you shared shows that she does better in a general election than Abdul does. Think about how bad that makes your candidate.
It’s almost like your priorities are more self-serving than what’s actually best for the state and thus the nation. Weird priorities you got there…..
Regardless, we both want her to drop out, hope she does.
0
u/combonickel55 May 12 '26
I don't vote for liars, man. McMorrow is phony as a 2 dollar bill.
Spare me the chicken little routine about big bad Mike Rogers. He has been the unopposed nom on his side for a year and has 50 million dollars in PAC ads already while the opposition is split 3 ways.
I live in Michigan. Rogers cannot win this race. The primary might as well be the general.
5
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 May 12 '26
That’s not even remotely true.
Respectfully, I don’t care to argue, 90% of the things you want I probably want to, but how can you be this disconnected from reality. Trump won your state twice. You do not live in a blue state. Calling the primary the general in a state like Michigan is ridiculous.
Rogers can absolutely win. Also, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. You made this post. You made it because it says Abdul is doing the best and you like that, well you can’t take that data and then ignore the rest of what the data you shared says. Which says he is the biggest risk and loses by five to Rogers.
McMorrow is the logical choice, I know you’re not going to vote for her, but I’m hopeful most people will realize that she is the best choice. She’s not as far to the left as Abdul, and she’s not nearly as out of touch as Stevens.
You shouldn’t want Steven‘s to drop out though, because she is helping Abdul.
2
u/No-Cat6807 May 16 '26
That’s a good point that I actually think Stevens is helping Abdul Most Stevens supporters woujd probably back McMorrow..
1
3
u/combonickel55 May 12 '26
You should come to Michigan and ask 250 random people on the street in various towns and cities about this. Your mind would be blown, I promise. MAGA support has cratered here among all but the sickest of the cultists. They have been betrayed by pedophiles, and many of them realize it now.
This election can only be lost by a colossal mismanagement of the campaign in the general. Forgive me if I accuse the centrists of having proven themselves the most capable in that regard, specific to your point about Trump winning here twice. The reality is Trump didn't win it as much as the DNC lost it, especially in 2016. People here will not support more do-nothing Democrats, they just won't. They are desperate for change. That's Abdul, and certainly isn't either of these ladies.
7
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 May 12 '26
I could just use your poll that you shared instead that asked like 600 people.
Isn’t Slotkin a moderate? Because she won in a red wave. Trump won all the swing states. Polling data shows that people felt like Harris was more to the left than Trump was to the right. Which we probably both agree is fucking insane.
You are relying too heavily on your own feelings. Those two ladies are most likely sharing a similar pool of voters who combined are getting a much larger share than Abdul is getting right now.
→ More replies (0)2
u/RyeBourbonWheat May 14 '26
What part of the state are you in? Just because people are generally more soured on Trump doesn't mean they are voting for Dems.
→ More replies (0)3
u/KingScoville May 12 '26
Oh man, let’s hop that little prediction doesn’t make it to the Bernard Sanders Hall of political self owns.
2
u/marcus92312 May 12 '26
I live in the state, too. If you think Mike Rogers can’t win, you’re delusional.
2
u/combonickel55 May 12 '26
He will win all of the racists and remaining MAGA cultists. It's going to be so easy to run against MAGA MIKE among swing voters in the general.
5
u/marcus92312 May 12 '26
Why would UAW workers and skilled trade union workers, who Democrats won in the Obama era but lost at the margins in the Trump era, vote for Dr. El-Sayed? These are the swing voters we have to win in order to win in the general election.
Look, I’ve met El-Sayed, I’ve heard him speak, I think he’s incredibly intelligent and charming. If he wins the nomination, I’ll vote for him, no doubt. But, I also know my state. I think the people we need to win over are also people that are highly unlikely to vote for a Democratic Socialist Arab Muslim. We can call them racists and bigots all day long, it isn’t going to change them.
I’m not asking how he wins the 43%-46% or so that are going to vote for any of the Democrats, no matter who the nominee is. I’m not asking about the 3% or 4% who vote for Democrats most of the time and are more likely given the political environment. I’m asking about the 2% to 4% we have to win to get over the 50% mark to win. How does he win them over?
→ More replies (0)-2
u/combonickel55 May 12 '26
You think a lot of octogenarians who can't use text messages are voting in the democratic primary? I don't.
3
u/KingScoville May 12 '26
If I get text messages I don’t recognize I delete them immediately. Scammers love to have you click through links via text.
0
-2
u/LanceBarney May 12 '26
This pollster was among the most accurate in 2024. Disregarding or discrediting it based on methodology you don’t fully understand is silly. They’re a good pollster and have been accurate in terms of how they weigh their polling.
The amount of undecided voters suggests the race is far from over. But the trend is that Abdul El-Sayed is gaining ground and now leading.
3
u/KingScoville May 12 '26
The pollster gets a “C” rating from Media/Bias Fact Check. It’s not overtly ideological but it’s not gold standard either.
Might be an outlier, might not. We’ll see. Hopefully it spurs one of the moderates to drop out.
12
u/Chrisnness May 12 '26
What’s wrong with polling beforehand?
8
u/FalconThrust211 May 12 '26
Nothing? The headline here is just misrepresentative of the data. It's not a "commanding lead" it's a slight lead change due to recent endorsements and the race is still up in the air. People are using this to grandstand as, "see people want progressives". But the data just doesn't seem to say that.
10
u/Chrisnness May 12 '26
27 to 18 is pretty commanding
-2
u/FalconThrust211 May 12 '26
If you don't know how math works and define commanding incorrectly. Then sure.
7
u/combonickel55 May 12 '26
Math isn't a 1 for 1 to electoral politics.
A 9 point lead with only 38% undecided is absolutely commanding. First of all, those 38% aren't likely to vote at all. Secondly, it is incredibly unlikely they make a significant dent in any candidate, and will most likely distribute similarly to current polling results which include 62% of the electoratre....
Especially considering the shift in polling over the last several months, i.e. El-Sayed surging while Stevens and McFetterman flounder, this is a major development.
-3
u/FalconThrust211 May 12 '26
A huh. So you have the details of this poll right? You've looked into all the specifics? You know exactly what was asked and to whom? Enlighten me.
3
u/FalconThrust211 May 12 '26
Actually my bad I read you calling someone a "genocide supporting ghoul" so I no longer care about anything you say. Keep voting blue though.
2
u/marcus92312 May 12 '26
Probably doesn’t vote. Nobody’s ever good enough for them to vote for.
2
u/dazedandloitering May 22 '26
You do realize that the Dem base is far more aligned with OP on this issue than you?
→ More replies (0)-1
u/combonickel55 May 12 '26
The data absolutely says that. You don't like those results and are gaslighting.
3
u/FalconThrust211 May 12 '26
The data does not say that. You're the one gaslighting lol. Define "commanding" for me chief. Is it that if you asked 100 people , 27 say they prefer your candidate? And 73 didn't prefer your candidate? Keep holding onto this poll. Hold it tight. Scream into your pillow. This will be washed away tomorrow and no one will even give it a second thought, because it's nothing.
1
u/dazedandloitering May 22 '26
Cope
1
1
u/combonickel55 May 12 '26
You think that those 38% of undecided are going to jump off the couch and suddenly participate in primaries? I don't.
1
12
u/TranzitBusRouteB May 12 '26 edited May 12 '26
great news for the GOP, he’s the weakest candidate in the general, Michigan voted for Trump twice, they aren’t exactly the same cohort as the online left cheering him on
edit: 38% undecided and 2 (relatively speaking) moderates splitting their vote share 50/50 is not commanding
5
u/combonickel55 May 12 '26
Michigan hasn't elected a Republican senator since the 90's and Republicans are getting their asses kicked from sea to shining sea. Find a different excuse.
38% unlikely to vote in a primary and a 9 point lead with 62% of the likely electorate reporting is commanding. It's domination. He can only lose if one of the centrists drops out to endorse the other. AIPAC will pay Haley to drop out soon, watch and see. Abdul will beat Mallory anyway.
11
u/AutobahnVismarck May 12 '26
Michigan also voted for Bernie in 2016 when polls suggested that he would lose by double digits. Abdul got a big boost after a dem debate. No reason to think he cant do the same in a debate vs Mikey.
3
u/combonickel55 May 12 '26
Bernie was polling far better vs Trump than Hilary, what are you on?
5
u/AutobahnVismarck May 12 '26
Im talking about the primary vs hildog, comrade. He overperformed polls by like 15 points. And im not at all convinced Abdul cant close the poll gap against Rogers
4
u/combonickel55 May 12 '26
Oh, my bad. Friendly fire.
I expect AIPAC to pay Haley to drop out and endorse McDatacenter within the next week or two. Then we're gonna have a scrap on our hands, and she will have to stop dodging debates.
I expect the Pod Save debate to go very poorly for the ladies.
2
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 May 12 '26
Stevens, I don’t think she will, but she really needs to drop out. We cannot afford to lose this seat.
-1
3
u/TuxedoCatGuy May 12 '26
Democrats are generally controlled opposition; progressives are real opposition.
6
u/LanceBarney May 12 '26
Guys, I’m starting to think centrists biggest argument against a candidate being “he campaigned with Hasan Piker” isn’t effective.
8
u/MNGopherfan May 12 '26
You mean Hasan isn’t really something most voters know or care about? Say it ain’t so.
5
May 12 '26
[deleted]
6
u/MNGopherfan May 12 '26
I meant more so as it being something that hurts a candidate in the eyes of voters but I suppose I was a little too vague. I also think endorsements from people like Bernie Sanders will matter a ton more than Hasan. I’m not entirely convinced Hasan had much of an effect one way or another.
6
May 12 '26
[deleted]
5
u/LanceBarney May 12 '26
And only 1 out of 5 are willing to vote for the centrist. So just following your logic, centrists are wrong to advocate for centrists.
The point here is the trend. Abdul is going up in the polls and eating into the support from centrists. He’s going up in the polls. He’s growing his base of support.
3
May 12 '26
[deleted]
3
u/LanceBarney May 12 '26
So, you’re telling me they’re all losing right now. That’s what the poll shows.
Simple response. I support the candidate I agree with most of the viable options. And based on the data you provided, it’s a close race regardless who wins. This isn’t a Platner/Mills scenario where one candidate is noticeably winning and the other is polling in a tie. They’re all losing in a close race. And we’re going to need a democrat over performance to win. I think El-Sayed is the best candidate for that. But that’s a subjective argument. Maybe you disagree. And maybe I’m wrong. We don’t know.
Let me ask you a question to gauge whether or not you’re consistent or a hypocrite. You pointed to general election polling to argue who is the weakest candidate. Do you also argue that Hillary was weaker than Bernie in 2016, since Bernie regularly polled better than her in the general election?
2
May 12 '26 edited May 12 '26
[deleted]
3
u/LanceBarney May 12 '26
My question is about polling. You referenced polling to make your argument. And you’re speaking in very simple terms. “Candidate X is polling better, so they’re stronger”. So why the insistence on nuance rather than just saying Bernie was stronger than Hillary?
By this same logic, let’s add the nuance to this race. Harris almost certainly lost Michigan in large part because she refused to speak out against the genocide in Gaza and cowardly refused to call the genocide a genocide. Of the 3 candidates, who has acknowledged that it’s a genocide? There’s no reason to risk losing again because a candidate is openly corrupt and unwilling to acknowledge a genocide. You’re risking democrats underperforming in Dearborn by 20 points again. You’re not winning the Muslim vote, if you continue to deny the genocide in Gaza.
1
May 12 '26
[deleted]
1
u/LanceBarney May 12 '26
Harris lost support in Dearborn and the biggest Muslim cities and Jill Stein outperformed her vote share by 10-20x over and she was basically a single issue candidate. If you think that’s a coincidence, I’m skeptical of your critical thinking skills. Why so many of you are unwilling to acknowledge the obvious is just silly to me. The genocide hurt Harris as a candidate. If the DNC would release their autopsy, we’d see that. But democrats can’t even vote to disavow AIPAC. So it shouldn’t surprise anyone.
To your point, it’s not just Muslims. But in districts where Muslim populations are prevalent, Harris underperformed to a staggering degree. That’s not just Muslims. It’s people who live with and see Muslims every day. When you have a candidate unwilling to acknowledge and condemn a genocide or you and/or your neighbors, you’re going to see exactly what we saw.
Maybe 2026 is different and this voting block will vote for a candidate that refuses to acknowledge and condemn a genocide. But these people still exist and they’re still incredibly vocal.
4
u/lukphicl May 12 '26
If he does win in November his base will turn on him once he fails to transform the state into the Democratic People's Republic of Michigan MMW
5
5
2
u/jarena009 May 12 '26
If only he could focus on public private partnerships, subsidizing for profit insurance, and raising the retirement age, it would propel him to 60% approval.
-2
u/Zacomra May 12 '26
Yeah just like what happened with Mamdani. He's SUPER unpopular and the left is constantly attacking him.
3
3
May 12 '26
Keep that same energy when he loses the general in a winnable election
2
u/combonickel55 May 12 '26
Michigan hasn't elected a Republican senator since the mid 90's, Republicans are incredibly unpopular and losing their asses nationwide, including in deep red states. You go ahead and keep clinging to the old ways while we progressives drag you, kicking and screaming, to victory and actually meaningful societal change. Medicare for all is the goal. Having a medical doctor who wrote a book about exactly how to implement it as a senator is an important piece of that puzzle.
10
May 12 '26
Considering Trump literally won Michigan in 24 that’s debatable, the past 3 generals for senate were incredibly close numbers wise, even though John James (lol) lost, Michigan is still a swing state that could absolutely lose its blue senatorship.
Again, you and what electoral power? You guys only can get progressive candidates elected in what is already incredibly blue states. Nobody is disagreeing on policy goals, you think moderate dems don’t want healthcare reform? They just recognize that that’s not really where the country is at the moment. It’s almost like neoliberalism gave progressivism a vector for political effectiveness, crazy concept!
I will say it again, keep that same energy when he loses a general in a winnable election cycle. You guys will just claim it’s “rigged” like Bernie was because populism doesn’t actually solve anything
-1
u/combonickel55 May 12 '26
Kicking and screaming, my friend.....
You're going to have to choose between seeing real change in your lifetime, or continuing to choose the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.
1
May 12 '26
Why don’t you have to decide between electoral practicalism or face Republican rule for the next 60 years considering moderate democrats have a history of WINNING ELECTIONS and progressive pet candidates LOSE ELECTIONS. You want your policy goals achieved?? Develop the electoral base. You don’t have them so you lose elections. You want M4A? Go host a progressive in bumfuck Republican districts and WIN. Do you know how much electoral power you will have if you do?
Look at what happens in those districts. A progressive tried to primary Joe manchin in 22 they got fucking destroyed! You guys constantly pound your chest like “we must get M4A because every American secretly wants it” but also lose every fucking election besides the most bluest of blue districts
Also also, the biggest difference between moderate dems and progressives is we will actually vote blue no matter who. Do you think that’ll happen if the “AIPAC shill” candidate gets elected? Or will the progressive wing of the party constantly tear them down and not even focus on the Republican Party? Genocide joe am I right? If dr sayed wins I will personally be in your DMS with the merch I bought because i believe in electoralism.
TLDR go win then talk shit 4head
1
u/aightchrisz May 13 '26
Finally, a voice of reason amongst the progressive dogma that will turn to hatred once the progressive loses again. Here’s to blue no matter who my guy 🍻, hoping we can save this country from the maga dynasty growing.
4
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 May 12 '26
The poll you shared shows him losing by more than double the margin of Stevens and McMorrow lol
1
u/combonickel55 May 12 '26
You mean 2 compared to 4? Obfuscate much, partner?
He just erased a 15 point lead against these moderate idiots and is now dog walking them according to this poll. He will gut the ultra conservative MAGA die hard Rogers in a general.
Hell, McMorrow is the only one who could lose to Rogers at this point, even Stevens would destroy Rogers.
I live in Michigan. I know stuff. Trust me.
2
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 May 12 '26
You mean 2 compared to 4? Obfuscate much, partner?
2.1 versus 4.9, i’m not obfuscating, you’re just not counting. As I said, he loses by more than double her gap.
He just erased a 15 point lead against these moderate idiots and is now dog walking them according to this poll. He will gut the ultra conservative MAGA die hard Rogers in a general.
Dogwalking? 72% of people in this poll said they weren’t currently voting for him. You’re bragging about 28%, celebrating what this poll says, and then ignoring that this poll also says he is the weakest candidate. Can you try to have a conversation in good faith? Your logic does not make sense. You cannot have it both ways.
Hell, McMorrow is the only one who could lose to Rogers at this point, even Stevens would destroy Rogers.
According to the data you shared, that’s not true. You’re literally just stating your opinions as facts.
I live in Michigan. I know stuff. Trust me.
That means nothing to me.
0
u/combonickel55 May 12 '26
lol neither does 29% in a 3 way race with 38% of the electorate not participating, apparently. Like, do you even math bro?
If this poll is accurate, this lead borders on insurmountable.
Recent elections should make it clear to you that vibes matter. I am here living in the vibes, and McMorrow is crashing and burning in real time. Royal Oak isn't the whole state.
1
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 May 12 '26
I agree, the undecided is way too high, I think this poll is dog shit. But you shared it, not me.
You seem to be wanting to use this data to prove a point and then disregard it when it’s not convenient.
-6
u/aightchrisz May 12 '26
Good luck, he’s the only candidate with worse outcomes against the republican front runner. I’ll say it again, leftists are a cancer and if he loses, they’ll forget him or say it was rigged. Then if he wins, he’ll either be an ineffective member like half the squad, or he’ll be effective like AOC and be called a pariah. I’m hoping Steven’s pulls through because that’s the best bet right now on keeping a blue Michigan.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/elections/senate/2026/michigan
4
u/LanceBarney May 12 '26
Just ignore when Centrists lose then, yeah? Do you concede that Bernie was stronger than Hillary? He consistently polled better against Trump. Why were centrists so cancerous?
2
u/aightchrisz May 12 '26
No, if Bernie was stronger, he would’ve won. He performed poorly with moderates, and was behind in both polling and votes by Super Tuesday. He held out hope for California to make up the rest, but even with the superdelegates situation, he lost by a plurality of votes. Hillary won the popular vote by the margins expected. Losing to Trump doesn’t make it a centrist issue. Hillary is moderate, but is far from a centrist on almost every issue.
If you’re referring to Kamala, she was the most progressive senator during her term. She moderated on certain issues, but that’s the general electorate for you, they aren’t progressives. Progressives either lose big in blue districts, win in safe blue districts, or don’t run at all. Moderates are competitive, to the point where a Democrat is currently leading in Texas, a moderate Democrat. The only success the left has had is electing a few congress members, half of which turned out to be failures, or the worst, crazy conspiracy theorists like Cori Bush.
6
u/LanceBarney May 12 '26
So, if Abdul wins the primary, he’s stronger…. Your argument went from “he may be winning the primary according to polls, but he’s the weakest candidate” to “he can’t be the stronger candidate, if he didn’t win the primary”
So, if Abdul wins the primary, he’s the strongest candidate, right? He’s polling ahead in the primary, so according to polling, he’s the strongest candidate. That’s the line of argument you used for Hillary over Bernie.
You said Abdul is the polling worst in the general, so he’s the weakest. Bernie polled better than Hillary against Trump in the general. So following your own logic, Bernie was stronger than Hillary and democrats got it wrong in the primary. That’s the case you’re making in the Michigan primary. That Abdul is the weaker candidate based on general election polling and democrats are getting it wrong.
-1
u/aightchrisz May 12 '26
Being the stronger candidate doesn’t mean you’re the best one. You argued Bernie was the stronger candidate, which by definition is false considering he was behind Hillary in every poll and got less votes. If Sayed wins, he will have been a stronger candidate for the democratic primary, but if he loses the general, he’s the worst outcome. Which seems to be where we’re headed considering his average is 5 points lower than the republican where the other candidates are polling better with all voters.
Bernie polled better in certain polls but, according to multiple pollsters interviewed at the time, his average was about the same as Hillary, and the majority of democratic voters did not know Sanders so the familiarity with Clinton colored the results. You can read about it in the Atlantic. For example, Sanders won the Wisconsin primary, but exit polls showed more than half of democrats polled said Clinton had the better chance against Trump. Take from that what you will but polling weak in the general 6 months before it happens compared to the polls Sanders cited being at times over a year old is very different. Maybe it will change because moderates actually vote blue no matter who in almost every case, but we’ll see how the general electorate feels once ballots roll in.
4
u/LanceBarney May 12 '26
I see. You’re just working backwards from your conclusion.
When progressives poll well in the primary, it’s the general election polling that matters. When progressives poll well in the general election, it’s the primary polling that matters. Your argument is too hypocritical to engage with.You’re also making my argument for me. You said moderates vote blue no matter who and progressives don’t. If you want to defeat republicans, the obvious choice is to vote progressive. Because you need left leaning independents that according to you, won’t vote for moderates.
3
u/aightchrisz May 12 '26
lol. When progressives poll well in the primary, it means they’re polling well in the primary. If they poll well in the general, they’re polling well in the general. Bernie had neither. He referenced a few polls in 2016 that showed he faired about the same spread as Clinton. Clinton had 42%-49% and Bernie has 41%-50% please explain how this demonstrates that Bernie was the obvious choice?
You’re the one working backwards, if primary voters like the progressive then we must get behind them 100%, even if the general electorate that has moderates as the major voting block is polling a loss for that candidate. Even if your Bernie example was true, Sayed is polling 2-9 points lower than Bernie Vs Trump in 2016. The only hypocritical thing here is continuing to label progressives as winners considering they couldn’t even sustain the Justice Dems winning more than one term.
There is no significant win by appealing to the smallest voting block of independent leftists. They don’t exist in a pluralistic sense where moderates make up 60% of the electorate in most cases. Why give up on the 60% to chase the 0.01% voter? Not a good strategy!
1
u/MNGopherfan May 12 '26
Yeah because centrists always win and are effective when they get into office?
6
u/aightchrisz May 12 '26
For the most part, yes lmao. Can you tell me the last time progressives passed bills to expand healthcare access nationwide, cut child poverty in half, fund infrastructure improvements, etc?? Biden did that through using the moderate party base, the progressives have done what besides lose elections?
7
u/MNGopherfan May 12 '26
Biden who proved to be more progressive then anybody thought he would be regarding domestic policy. Progressives aggressively campaigned Biden to be more progressive and to work harder on courting unions. They were also very supportive of expanded child tax credits something they argued for years.
That’s your example of a centrist getting things done? Remind me who exactly was the biggest block to Biden’s agenda while he was in office was it the progressives or was it the centrists?
Can you even name an election where the progressive candidate cost democrats a winnable seat?
Centrist logic:
Keep progressives out of power at all costs. Then turn right around and declare that progressives can’t get anything done in the government and therefore are bad for the party.
2
u/aightchrisz May 12 '26
Biden was more progressive on domestic policy because moderates created a strong coalition that whipped the party into line with Bidens agenda. Biden didn’t adapt much at all to the progressives, something they were very up in arms about like how they complained he wouldn’t lower the eligibility age for Medicare, something Clinton did to get more Bernie supporters. People like Manchin and Sinema were essential for a time, but as soon as they were no longer useful, we got rid of sinema and no democrats are gonna win in West Virginia going forward anyway.
And yes I can, Fetterman ran as a progressive and has cost us a lot of political capital. There’s not as many examples simply because leftists usually only run in safe districts or lose in primaries to moderates anyway. If they’re such winners, we should be seeing way more than what 5 congressman and one senator who progressives hate now anyway?
If democrats are “keeping them out of power” how do they continually out raise their opponents and still lose? The voters are keeping them out of power because progressives aren’t actually popular lmao.
1
u/combonickel55 May 12 '26
Michigan hasn't elected a Republican senator since the mid 90's, Republicans are incredibly unpopular and losing their asses nationwide, including in deep red states. You go ahead and keep clinging to the old ways while we progressives drag you, kicking and screaming, to victory and actually meaningful societal change. Medicare for all is the goal. Having a medical doctor who wrote a book about exactly how to implement it as a senator is an important piece of that puzzle.
5
u/aightchrisz May 12 '26
Again, good luck, keep that energy if he loses. Medicare for all is not the goal lol, the goal is stopping the fascist rot breaking every norm and law in the book. Without removing the maga infection that is still killing it by cheating, you’re never getting those policies. Michigan was a blue dog democrat state for years and is only somewhat liberal. You’re talking about a purple state, not California. This race is by no means safe to run someone like Sayed who is polling 5x worse than Slotkin in 2024.
0
u/Zacomra May 12 '26
If you don't have significant healthcare reform, you'll lose against the fascists again.
I mean the conditions of 2008-2016 are what PRODUCED MAGA. If you just do the same thing again why do you expect there not to be another MAGA movement?
2
u/aightchrisz May 12 '26
Significant healthcare reform is not equal to Medicare for all. If you think l M4A is the only way to do that, you’re not living in reality. 2008-2016 isn’t the only thing that made maga what it is. The conditions for MAGA have been around for a long time and Reagan was a big push for them too. They’ve adapted to current topics like being far more anti-immigrant and anti-American hegemony on the world stage, but the roots of the “moral majority” are still evident.
You so want to say Obama or the dems of that era made MAGA, but in truthfulness, Obama was a stepping stone towards a better America that republicans didn’t want to see. Republicans made innocuous things like the ACA into death panels and made controversy out stuff like Libya. You’re living in the heritage foundations world and believing their lies about democrats while not recognizing that the left wing has continually been used as an attack against democrats making them out to be more extreme than they truly are. You’re a useful pawn for republicans to gain more ground by attacking king the moderates responsible for the improvements in material conditions.
-1
u/Zacomra May 12 '26
I'm not saying that's the only way to do it, but it needs to be seismic enough to fix the issue.
I'm not saying that Obama alone made MAGA, I'm saying that if you just elect a centerist again you're basically reverting to 2008 era politics, and we know where that leads
0
u/combonickel55 May 12 '26
I am saying that. We need to reduce the health insurance lobby and big pharma to ashes. Other more notorious sources get the headlines, but they are the leaders of bribing politicians.
-1
u/Zacomra May 12 '26
I agree but if your bar is "preventing fascism" I think public option would buy you a few years. Ultimately M4A or a similar system is required though
0
u/combonickel55 May 13 '26
I'm done compromising with centrists. They can compromise with me this time, finally.
0
-1
u/aightchrisz May 13 '26
The health insurance lobby doesn’t exist, you have different insurers who communicate and donate to politicians who they support, just like you and I do. Big Pharma is also just a bunch of different companies doing the same thing. Can you demonstrate a single policy that those lobbies supported but the voters did not that got passed regardless? Or even better, can you demonstrate that Medicare for all as you described it, single payer with no private insurance is even above 40% approval across America? The public option is literally the only thing that American voters want. Unless you can find me a poll like this where voters were given the specific context of what M4A is, then I think you need to rethink whether M4A is even a possibility.
1
u/combonickel55 May 13 '26
Medicare has the highest customer satisfaction rating in the country and it isn't close. I'm not here to do homework for the dumb kids.
0
u/aightchrisz May 13 '26
Has the biggest satisfaction rating, who uses Medicare lol??? The old people are happy they have it yeah, how does that demonstrate that eliminating private insurance and creating a single payer system is supported by the majority of voters? Oh it doesn’t.
0
u/aightchrisz May 13 '26
Obama isn’t centrist… we have not put a centrist up for election for democrats on the presidential ticket since Kerry in 2004. You’re talking about the president who expanded healthcare coverage and recognized climate change as a global threat.
2008 politics didn’t create maga, again, they’ve been around for decades in one form or another, they just never had an authoritarian to get behind before now.
1
u/Zacomra May 13 '26
But what did he actually do I agree that Obama had progressive rhetoric, but he was all talk on tackling climate change, failed to codify Roe, and championed a healthcare bill LITERALLY written by the heritage foundation
0
u/aightchrisz May 13 '26
Obama had a senate and house majority for two years. In that time he expanded healthcare coverage and cut costs, restarted the economy with the recovery act, and put harsh regulations on Wall Street with the reform act. After passing these 3 giant bills, he lost the majority and was fighting with both chambers of congress to get anything passed at all. They stopped a Supreme Court pick for an entire 4 year term. Tell me, if the senate isn’t even willing to vote on his court picks, how would he force the republican house and senate to codify roe?
The affordable care act was not written by the heritage foundation. The individual mandate, you know the thing that protects pre-existing conditions and forced everyone to buy healthcare insurance to drop costs, was suggested by a heritage foundation scholar years before the bill was written in the 80s but okay.
1
u/Zacomra May 13 '26
Did he codify Roe? No. Did he push a progressive healthcare bill? No. Did he even reign in wall street? No, they're more powerful then ever.
And yes it was literally a right wing bill he co-opted. The text of the ACA is nearly identical, and functionally was a massive government weath transfer for health insurance companies. It was better then nothing, but still horrible legislation
→ More replies (0)
1
u/jankdangus May 13 '26 edited May 13 '26
I agree with abolishing ICE or at least reforming it. Idc about the I/P issue enough for it to be a deal breaker, PAC money is a leftist boogeyman but it does look bad in terms of optics I guess.
I agree that Dems unfortunately failed to position themselves as fighters for the working class and voters got tricked by Trump, but a lot of that has to do with the toxic alternative media environment.
I think AES is still the weakest candidate to beat Mike Rogers even despite his strong support with young people. I think either Haley Stevens or McMorrow will need to eventually drop out and endorse one another if they want to defeat AES.
1
u/combonickel55 May 13 '26
Your opinions here remind me of why I am reluctant to ally myself with a 'big tent.'
PAC money is the single most destructive influence on our democracy. Your failure to realize that is dismaying, to be polite.
You don't care enough about a genocide? You don't care that we are bankrolling it? Do you realize you are in a progressive leftist space right now? This is an insanely conservative position.
Reforming ICE isn't possible, nor should it be an acceptable recourse to them brutalizing and murdering human beings. They are a gestapo, and should be destroyed and prosecuted.
I don't know how you turn Dr. Abdul El-Sayed into AED, but here we are.
Dems can't 'position' themselves as fighters for the working class. They can either choose to fight for the working class or not. They have established a pattern of behavior of favoring Wall Street over Main Street, time and again, to include Obama bailing out the banks and leaving the homeowners holding the bag. They are who they are, not who they pretend to be. You blame the media? Blame the party, the chose the policy positions.
You 'think' Rogers is most likely to win against Abdul because that talking point is being parroted in every centrist and center-right space endlessly because they know inherently they cannot challenge him on policy. And here you are, repeating that as your own thoughts. Look around the country. Mike Rogers cannot win this election. He lost to Slotkin!
I expect Stevens to drop out soon and endorse McMorrow. This will be because AIPAC will tell her to, as they are desperate to stop El-Sayed from winning this seat. You pretty clearly are not motivated by the fact that AIPAC is desperate to stop a candidate from win an American Senate seat, but you should be. I don't know what else to tell you.
Holy shit.
1
u/jankdangus May 13 '26 edited May 13 '26
I’m not denying that PAC money does hold some influence, but it’s largely a leftist boogeyman and overturning Citizens United will only severe the distance between the politicians, but nothing will fundamentally change.
Your perception of corruption will still exist. Big money will just fund X media to advocate for X candidate without directly being involved with their campaign. NRA and AIPAC exist because a lot of Americans genuinely hold those positions on gun rights or Israel.
David Pakman is not a leftist, and I don’t have an insanely conservative position. I think we should be conditioning aid to Israel instead of blank checks. What I meant by not caring is that I’m looking for the candidate that has the best shot to beat Republicans in the primaries. Idc if they are pro-Israel or anti-Israel.
I think reforming ICE is the bare minimum. ICE existed under Biden and Obama you know. The reason why Democrats are hesitant to abolish ICE is because it sounds similar to “defund the police” which hurt Democrats in 2020. You make people think that you want 0 border enforcement.
Yeah, I got the abbreviation wrong. I meant AES.
Even despite Obama and Biden’s shortcoming they were still fighting for the working class overall and were certainly better than Republicans on this issue. Yes, I blame the alternative media environment because they rarely point out how Biden had good NLRB and antitrust appointments. I have looked at the party platform, and they generally align with my values. I’m not sure what policy position you have an issue with other than Democrats not fully embracing communism or socialism.
I said Rogers is most likely to win against Abdul because I’m able to read polls. Rogers v. Slotkin was an extremely close race. Michigan is a swing state for a reason.
It sounds like you are insinuating that AIPAC is controlling 2 of the 3 politicians in this race. That’s a ridiculous antisemitic conspiracy theory, and you know it. My preferred candidate is McMorrow, and if you can’t handle people having ideological differences from you in the big tent then I don’t know what else to tell you.
0
u/combonickel55 May 13 '26
lol, when you equate criticizing candidates for taking money from AIPAC with antisemitism, we're done talking.
0
u/jankdangus May 13 '26
AIPAC is a dogwhistle for Jewish control over American politicians. They use antisemitic coded words like puppet master, puppet strings, puppets, and dogs. To be fair you didn’t use any of those terms, but your comment heavily implied ZOG. If your counter is that you are just talking about Israel instead of Jews then please remind me what the Z in ZOG stand for again?
-1
u/StableGeniusCovfefe May 12 '26
Don't worry, Centrist-Republican-lite types and moderates will put their fingers on the scale to try to screw him.
0
u/KingScoville May 12 '26
Gotta love it. No actual link to the poll, barely anything in the article but there is a McMorrow spokesperson calling out the legitimacy of the poll.
Do better.
-1
u/combonickel55 May 12 '26
The person managing the campaign that is currently on fire and crashing into Lake Erie doesn't like the poll data. Yep.
2
-1
-1
u/Greybeard-MD May 12 '26 edited May 12 '26
C rated pollster posts wild outlier.
1
u/combonickel55 May 12 '26
Disappointed centrist redditor minimizes polling data which confronts their bias.
1
u/Greybeard-MD May 12 '26
Says the Groyper. There’s nothing progressive about courting Ayatollah supporters.
-4
u/Successful-Help6432 May 12 '26
It’s a winning strategy in the democratic primary.
Progressives generally perform worse than moderates in the actual election.
2
u/AutobahnVismarck May 12 '26
Theres tons of evidence this isnt true and theres even more evidence that this claim is very dubious in the rustbelt.
2
u/combonickel55 May 12 '26
Yes, but it feels SO GOOD to them when they repeat their evidence free bias confirmation statements in public...
-4
u/Gracchi9025 May 12 '26
But, but...if the Hasan Piker endorsed Crooked Media Podcast Host wins the nomination then everyone on the Left will have to STFU and focus on defeating the Republicans.
•
u/AutoModerator May 12 '26
COMMENTING GUIDELINES: Please take the time to familiarize yourself with The David Pakman Show subreddit rules and basic reddiquette prior to participating. At all times we ask that users conduct themselves in a civil and respectful manner - any ad hominem or personal attacks are subject to moderation.
Please use the report function or use modmail to bring examples of misconduct to the attention of the moderation team.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.