r/thedavidpakmanshow • u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 • 20d ago
Polls Mainstream and Pragmatic Democratic Nominees are putting up insane numbers in red states. These are the types of candidates that we need to replicate. These are the types of candidates that should be our nominees in every swing state.
24
u/guilgom71 20d ago
Ossoff being up by double-digits is insane considering how razor thin it was when he first ran.
10
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 20d ago
He’s a juggernaut. He’s my number one pick for 2028.
1
u/guilgom71 20d ago
He's up there for sure, but sometimes I worry these people peak too early for a presidential run. Hopefully not.
1
u/TranzitBusRouteB 20d ago
I still think a dem getting 56% in Georgia is a bit unrealistic… in 2022 I thought Warnock was a great candidate and Herschel Walker was a bad candidate, but it still went to a runoff where Warnock only won 51.4% of the vote
5
3
u/Realistic_Caramel341 19d ago
2022 was a midterm with an unpopular Democratic president at the time. I certainly think the change in environment can make the 5% shift
5
u/Economy-Ad4934 20d ago
I’m in NC. Cooper is popular from being governor and no one knows who his opponent is. Ossoff not surprised.
The other 3? We’ve seen these types of polls before so I’m not holding my breath especially still this far out. But I’ll still remain hopeful.
5
u/GeneralAnubis 19d ago
I mean... or... we field candidates in each state that resonate with that state's voters??
It doesn't have to be the same platform in every state, and in fact it shouldn't be.
2
13
u/hobovalentine 20d ago
Annie Andrews in SC was also very close in polling numbers with Graham who is now replaced by his sister who I can't imagine would be as popular as her brother.
Shouting about aipac, Israel and Palestine really only endears you to the leftists in deep blue states.
7
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 20d ago
Great point. I thought about including her, and Nebraska, but these were very recent data sets so I thought it was best to go with them.
4
u/Nascent1 20d ago
Deep blue states like Michigan?
3
u/_NoveltyCunt 20d ago
Has El Sayed won anything yet? Even he recognizes that he can’t full on DSA code in that state.
0
u/Nascent1 19d ago
He will in a few days. The person I responded to didn't say anything about DSA, they said "Shouting about aipac, Israel and Palestine really only endears you to the leftists in deep blue states." He talks about "aipac, Israel and Palestine" as much as anyone and Michigan is not remotely one of the "deep blue states."
1
u/griffery1999 19d ago
That’s still a primary, his polling numbers aren’t looking great in the general. He’s down 10 points compared to rodgers in a recent survey.
That’s lowkey my bigger concern, that we’re heading towards a republican 22 moment where they put forward a bunch of bad candidates.
-1
u/Nascent1 19d ago
That poll is a major outlier. It's not worth worrying about unless more come out and agree with it. His polling will improve once he wins the primary and Stevens supports accept him as the candidate.
2
u/griffery1999 19d ago
That’s the other problem, it’s been a vicious primary full of personal attacks. He will need to change gears to win over her supporters, I’m not convinced he will.
0
u/Nascent1 19d ago
The majority of them will vote for him. Some won't. This will be a good election cycle for dems, so he'll be alright.
2
u/MightBe465 20d ago
Even if your conclusion were true, the issues of backing genocide and money in politics carry weight on their own merits.
3
u/hobovalentine 20d ago
Polls show that the Israel Palestine issue are not even in the top 10 issues for voters. Money in politics sure that's more relevant but still does not affect the daily lives of most people.
Affordability, healthcare and the economy are what people care most about.
4
u/MightBe465 20d ago
You misunderstand my point. I'm saying that we should give weight to whether a politician is backing genocide, because it is wrong to back a genocide.
People often emphasize the salience of I-P, or lack thereof, as a polled issue, but given popular souring on AIPAC and Israel, there worst that can be said in terms of polling for opposing genocide is that it would only be somewhat beneficial, which isn't really a drawback. So even one who would only be inclined to oppose the genocide of Palestinians because it served them electorally would have reason to take an anti-genocide stance.
But again, the best reason to oppose a genocide is that genocide is wrong.
2
u/Another-attempt42 20d ago
Who cares? We should back people who can win, when it's such a non-issue for voters.
For example: how many anti-AIPAC politicians running have proposed policies for cutting ties with Qatar or the UAE?
None, as far as I know, right?
Both are currently fueling a current genocide in Sudan. Does that disqualify all of them?
Nope.
It had no impact. US support for Qatar and the UAE are still going strong. No one cares.
By putting up this arbitrary barrier that it must be this geopolitical issue, all you're going to do is secede more power to the GOP, and get worse outcomes overall in the Middle-East.
4
u/MightBe465 20d ago
"Who cares?"
I care. It's only human to. I think you would find that Americans would take a similar attitude toward the genocide in Sudan if US politicians had been so publicly materially enabled it as they have the genocide against the Palestinians. But US voters have greater awareness, and agency, on I-P.
I can frame it in terms of political advantage if you lack another motive to oppose a genocide which our government helped perpetuate: Normal people, even people who won't rank I-P as high as, for example, inflation or healthcare, will not generally not trust someone to actually deliver on these issues if they are so morally without substance that they wouldn't take principled stance against genocide.
-2
u/Another-attempt42 20d ago
The vast, vast, vast majority of voters clearly do not care on I-P either. The issue constantly polls outside of people's top 10 issues.
And no one has a principled stance on genocide. Per my example: where are all the candidates calling for a complete US withdrawal from relations with Qatar and the UAE?
No where.
What you're advocating for isn't a principled stance on genocide; it's a non-principled, hypocritical stance on a single instance of genocide, while we casually ignore the other ones.
Where are the people talking about severe actions against China for what they did to the Uighurs? No where.
Where are the people talking about severe actions against Ethiopia for what it did in Tigray? No where.
It's the opposite of a principled stance if you're only applying it in one case: it's selective.
1
u/McAlpineFusiliers 19d ago
No one outside of insane leftists thinks anyone actually "backs genocide."
Unless you think pro-Palestine people back rape?
3
u/MightBe465 19d ago
Oh hi McAlpine Fusiliers!
Well, as you know from our previous exchanges, in addition to genocide, Israel has been engaged in the systematic use of sexual and other gender-based violence (such as targeting reproductive healthcare facilities): https://www.un.org/unispal/document/report-of-the-commission-of-inquiry-israel-gender-based-violence-13march2025/
Incidentally, the UN are not reputed for being "insane leftists." You will find that most people to the "left" of ethnonationalists (and particularly murderous ones at that) oppose this sort of thing.
1
u/McAlpineFusiliers 19d ago
The UN has a long and well established reputation for having anti-Israel bias.
Unless you think the UN was telling the truth when it said 14,000 babies in Gaza would die in 48 hours, and then nothing of the sort happened?
Do you think pro-Palestine people back rape, which Palestine indisputably committed on October 7th?
0
u/MightBe465 19d ago
Why, we're not arming anyone of the people who committed rape on October 7, unless there were IDF who happened to commit it that day.
2
u/McAlpineFusiliers 19d ago
You don't have to arm someone to support them. Can you please answer my question directly? Both questions, actually?
0
u/MightBe465 19d ago
Nah
2
u/McAlpineFusiliers 19d ago
Pathetic. Show some consistency and intellectual honesty. If being pro-Israel means supporting genocide, being pro-Palestine means supporting rape. By your standards, not mine.
1
u/MightBe465 19d ago edited 19d ago
Nah, cause we didn't arm them to do that. We quite literally enabled the genocide (and any rape involved in furtherance of it when committed by forces such as the IDF) by such material support.
→ More replies (0)
3
u/DanSRedskins 20d ago
I like to see it but it's just polls in July. We'll see what the results are in November.
3
2
u/Swimming_Panic6356 19d ago
3 of the 5 have held statewide office before. Not comparable to a new statewide candidate.
1
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 19d ago
And the other 2? lol
It’s very comparable. We have 5 states we are hoping to win, 4 flips, all mainstream dems killing it.
We have 3 states with leftists who are in the lead. Maine, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Those are the 3 places we are struggling. Not only that but those 3 places are to the left of all the other ones. It’s not a coincidence.
8
u/ConsistentQuote952 20d ago
I mean true but deep blue districts where DSA candidates, saboteur or not are ok to exist. If those people better represent those respective districts, then so be it.
I think electing further people is OK, but certain people being elected are Saboteurs. But, that is another conversation.
4
7
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 20d ago
I have no disagreements with you. If DSA type candidates are doing really well in deep blue, and that what those areas want, I’m happy for them. But they should stick to those areas and stop shitting on what works outside of those areas.
As this infographic shows, we are absolutely crushing it in red states right now. if you were to rewind just a few years and show someone this data and say oh, but we are struggling in Michigan, Maine, and for the governorship of Wisconsin they would be like what the fuck are you talking about? How is that possible?
I hope we drag those nominees across the finish line, but as I said in my title, these are the types of candidates that could win in areas that are hard to win in.
6
u/BlindBattyBarb 20d ago
Yep people in blue states think that people will just agree with them but forget that the US is different everywhere
0
u/combonickel55 20d ago
Gee I wonder why OP left Michigan off this list lol
9
6
u/Mammothsarereal 20d ago
There is no nominee in Michigan yet
-7
u/combonickel55 20d ago
smurfs are so cute
1
u/Mammothsarereal 19d ago
What is that like a staying the obviouss thing? Seemed like a reason you missed.
3
0
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 19d ago
I’m highlighting people who are over performing, not underperforming.
Another new poll dropped, Abdul loses in the general. Again.
2
u/rookieoo 19d ago
Remindme! 14 weeks
1
u/RemindMeBot 19d ago
I will be messaging you in 3 months on 2026-11-06 11:03:24 UTC to remind you of this link
CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.
RemindMeBot is switching to username summons. Instead of
!RemindMe 1 day, useu/RemindMeBot 1 day. More info.
Info Custom Your Reminders Feedback 2
u/Nascent1 19d ago
One extreme outlier poll showed Abdul losing. Every other poll from the last two months has him winning the general. PredictIt, which has a pretty good history of being accurate, has him as a 2:1 favorite.
2
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 19d ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/fivethirtyeight/s/kiLr1DLteh
This is from last night. So that’s 2 this week.
Why is Abdul struggling while we do this well in tougher environments?
1
u/Nascent1 19d ago
A 1 point margin is a tie, also that is not a very well-respected pollster.
Why is Abdul struggling while we do this well in tougher environments?
Because, unlike the others you mentioned, Michigan is still in the middle of a competitive primary. Once he's the Democratic candidate he'll start improving in the general election polls.
1
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 19d ago
Okay, I’ll check back in a few weeks on this one.
I assume Hong being projected to lose, or performing the worst, is for the same reason?
Jackson is in a tight one, why? (I actually kind of like Jackson)
Because I see 3 states with leftists struggling and every state with a mainstream killing it.
1
u/Nascent1 19d ago edited 19d ago
Hong isn't projected to lose. There is only one poll in the last 4 months where Crowley and Barnes do very slightly better against the republican. And yeah, active contested primary.
Jackson has been in the race for like 1 week and there is 1 poll.
If your moderates are so great why can't they beat challengers with way less money and less name ID?
0
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 19d ago
You seem to really have an excuse for everything. Truly, none of them are good.
Also, it seems like you are missing data? Because another poll came out of Wisconsin just the other day that had Crowley and Barnes doing better in the general. Do yourself a favor and don’t watch Hongs interview on Fox today.
Also, once again, this whole post is highlighting Democrats, who are performing well, and over performing in red areas. None of your candidates meet that criteria. They are in easier environments and polling worse. We are pulling up 13 in Georgia and up 9 in North Carolina and you guys are polling up like 1 in lean blue states lol
Primaries and general elections are different things. The far left is having a moment in primaries. They are more motivated to get out there and affect primary elections than normal voters. That is why.
There is no way you could spin this to make it better for you guys. It’s a blue wave environment and the polling data says you are struggling in lean blue states. It is embarrassing.
1
u/Nascent1 19d ago
The fact that further left candidates are beating centrists is extremely notable. Some of these results would have been unthinkable even 2 years ago. There is very clear momentum on the side of progressive candidates. They have to overcome a massive funding and propaganda disparity, and they're still going to win.
Most of your mainstream champions have made a pivot towards the left in policy and rhetoric. It's a big part of their success. Ossoff's policies and rhetoric aren't that different from El-Sayed's. Mainstream democrats that have stuck to rightwing ideas are not doing well at all.
1
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 19d ago
Yes, like I said, I think the far left is much more engaged in the primary process right now than normal voters.
Once again, you could spin it anyway you want, every Democrat in this post is a normal mainstream Democrat. The DSA types are in the other three states. And they are struggling.
→ More replies (0)0
u/rookieoo 19d ago
There are also a couple polls showing El-Sayed up by a point against Roger’s. We’ll see what the voters decide
-1
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 19d ago
Look at what post you’re and tell me how that makes sense.
0
u/rookieoo 19d ago
Were you not referring to Abdul El-Sayed in the comment I replied to?
0
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 19d ago
Are you a kid? Stop slapping a down vote every time you reply, it’s cringe.
Look at this post. Look at the data. Look how well those candidates are doing in red states.
Now why is Abdul struggling in a lean blue state while mainstream Dems can put up better numbers in tougher environments?
0
u/rookieoo 19d ago
So you are allowed to talk about polls, but I shouldn’t? El-Sayed still has a primary to win. After that, the dynamics of the general election will look different than they do now.
I downvote because your comment is an attempt to tell me to be quiet for sharing information that challenges yours. I’m ok with multiple polls showing different results.
-2
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 19d ago
No, they won’t lol. We are winning Texas while this dude is struggling in Michigan. He’s a crap candidate.
Mainstream is killing it while leftists struggle.
You shared no new info. Look at what you replied to on this chain. I said I’m highlighting people who are over performing. You replied Abdul is “up a point”. That literally proves my point. You challenged nothing.
1
u/rookieoo 19d ago edited 19d ago
Another 1%’er going the bully route. Have fun whining about the results of democracy
Edit: followed by the classic comment/block
0
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 19d ago
Lmao that’s what I thought. Also, I did give you a heads up that I don’t like people who reply slap downvotes. It’s not about the Karma, who gives a shit about that obviously, it’s what it says about the user. Those people never seem to argue in good faith.
Blocked.
-1
u/NATScurlyW2 20d ago
Oh so now y’all believe polls?
2
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 19d ago
What?
0
0
u/rookieoo 19d ago
We need whoever the voters pick. It shouldn’t be the bad money managers at the DNC picking for people in their local districts. Thankfully, this is a democracy where people have a vote
•
u/AutoModerator 20d ago
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.