Thom Tillis will not run for reelection in 2026

[superrific]

Honestly think Trump has been screwing poor Americans' grandkids. I don't think poor Americans are really feeling many issues with Trump policies. The tax breaks for rich people have been paid for with debt and poor people haven't really lost many services. There is some grumbling about wealth inequality but it doesn't seem to stick to a billionaire president for some reason. Maybe because Democrats haven't done a particularly good job of addressing it either.

All the that may change if the Medicaid cuts come through, but I suspect Congress will fix it when rural hospitals threaten to close like they did last time. The covid response definitely affected a lot of people but I think a lot of poor people give Trump a pass because either they blame Fauci for the shut down or they actually appreciate that Trump came through with the covid vaccine pretty quickly. No idea how people can both praise him for the parts of the covid response they like and not blame him for the parts of the covid response they didn't like even though he was in charge.

I just can't think of anything that poor people care about that Trump has made worse for them. I mean I can think of lots of things but I can't think of anything that they would attribute to Trump.

Congress ain't fixing shit. Have you seen Congress?

Poor people haven't lost many services? You should probably talk to more poor people.

 

[05C40]

Lols. Good luck in the campaign minisoldier.

I'm thinking about changing my registration just so I can vote for minisoldier in the primary.

 

[heelinhell]

Agree, and this is why Pubs have been strategically undermining education in red America for 40+ years now. If you don't have access to information and critical thinking skills, you'll never be able to put the pieces together.

Agree 100%

The anti-educational crusade by GOPers has been a strategy to keep their base ignorant and receptive to misinformation and disinformation.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

MAGA was making noise about not turning out for Tillis. GOP assumes a Trump lackey nominee will fix that problem. I think it will help but not sure about whether it will drive up MAGA turnout enough or not without Trump himself on the ballot … could Lara Trump fix THAT issue for them?

Of course we're living in wildly uncertain times, but based on evidence so far (2018 and special elections under Trump) I personally doubt that Lara simply having "Trump" as her last name will help her nearly as much as if Donald himself was running. I doubt they're going to get a higher turnout just because Tillis isn't on the ballot, or a "true" MAGA is on the ballot. And any candidate even more to the right of Tillis, including Lara Trump, risks alienating even more voters than Tillis would, like Mark Robinson or the crazy GOP Public Schools Superintendent candidate did last year. At any rate we'll find who exactly is running soon enough.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

The only way for Trump to lose support among rural Americans is for urban Americans to start fawning all over him. His ascendance is and always has been "us vs them" and they don't care how bad the outcome is for rural America so long as it also hurts urban America.

+100%. A huge amount of rural animosity towards Democrats is based on resentment and envy and jealously. Rural MAGAs know very well how prosperous and booming urban blue areas and college towns in their states are compared to their own rural areas, and they yearn to bring "those people" down several pegs. It's the old story: instead of working to build their communities up and make them a better place to live, they just stew in their resentment and want to bring blue urban areas and universities and college towns down to where they are. I've said this before, but an underrated part of Trumpism is that it's a class war of working-class whites versus the upper middle class professional classes. As long as they can see those people hurting - like all of the DOGE firings for instance, then they are happy.

 

[rodoheel]

I just can't think of anything that poor people care about that Trump has made worse for them. I mean I can think of lots of things but I can't think of anything that they would attribute to Trump.

I mean, yeah, this is exactly the point. I don't know what it would take for working class Trump voters to actually attribute any of their issues (or the failure to solve them) to Trump. Most of them right now probably believe that the debt is falling and that new tariffs are pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into the coffers, because that's what Trump says is happening 9and his sycophants and media allies are repeating).

trump's economic vision has always been completely incoherent, but that hasn't stopped his supporters from lapping it up. In fact it seems like the incoherence is almost a selling point of the whole thing.

 

[Icky Mettle]

Of course we're living in wildly uncertain times, but based on evidence so far (2018 and special elections under Trump) I personally doubt that Lara simply having "Trump" as her last name will help her nearly as much as if Donald himself was running. I doubt they're going to get a higher turnout just because Tillis isn't on the ballot, or a "true" MAGA is on the ballot. And any candidate even more to the right of Tillis, including Lara Trump, risks alienating even more voters than Tillis would, like Mark Robinson or the crazy GOP Public Schools Superintendent candidate did last year. At any rate we'll find who exactly is running soon enough.

I know there are a number of variables, but Ted Budd is more to the right of Tillis, or at least fully embraced MAGAism.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

I mean, yeah, this is exactly the point. I don't know what it would take for working class Trump voters to actually attribute any of their issues (or the failure to solve them) to Trump. Most of them right now probably believe that the debt is falling and that new tariffs are pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into the coffers, because that's what Trump says is happening 9and his sycophants and media allies are repeating).

trump's economic vision has always been completely incoherent, but that hasn't stopped his supporters from lapping it up. In fact it seems like the incoherence is almost a selling point of the whole thing.

I think they know the debt is being added to but I think a lot of them don't care. Which isn't all that different from the last 50 years or so. Probably longer And maybe that's why. Both parties have been screaming the sky is falling about the debt when they weren't in power for five decades and nothing happens. It will eventually and somebody's going to be caught holding the bag, but trying to lower the deficit with tax increases or service cuts just hasn't been a winning political strategy.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

There’s a kernel of truth in what you’re both saying, but I think it risks missing the deeper dynamic we’ve discussed before.

If we reduce rural political behavior to pure resentment or envy, we write off millions of people as irredeemable, and we reinforce the very “us vs. them” divide that fuels Trump’s appeal.

Yes, rural communities see how wealth and opportunity are concentrated in urban and university-centered areas. But it’s not just jealousy, it’s a real sense of loss, exclusion, and being looked down on.

These places were once economically central, culturally respected, and politically courted. Now they’re told they’re backward, unproductive, and in the way. That produces anger but also a hunger for meaning, dignity, and recognition.

That’s not a dead end. It’s a political opening. You want to undercut Trumpism? Don’t lean into the culture war. Build something better. Speak to people’s material conditions, their desire to be heard, their need to belong to something that gives them purpose. It’s harder than writing them off, but it’s also the only way forward.

It's beyond a "kernel", and the truth is that these areas have always resented the larger urban areas in their states. The issue is that as their economic prospects have declined and our society as a whole has included more progressive values and lifestyles these places have become more vocal and even deeper red, certainly since Trump's first election since 2016.

And I didn't say we should write them off, I was simply pointing out the dynamic that rural Trumpism isn't just based on racial or homophobic bigotries, but economic ones as well. And the self-destructive, self-defeating political behavior of these people has been around a good deal longer than Trumpism, as I've seen it my whole life. I fully agree that Democrats need to work to win back these voters, but at this point I'm pessimistic as to whether they can be won back, as their loyalty to Trump is beyond belief, as I have personally seen and heard many times over the past nine years. I'm sure you will say that we have to try and I agree, but I'm not hopeful that many, if any, can be turned. Nonetheless, I'm all for giving it a go.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

I know there are a number of variables, but Ted Budd is more to the right of Tillis, or at least fully embraced MAGAism.

And he was running against a much weaker Democratic opponent than Cooper would be, and in a more favorable campaign season - in 2022 Republicans could (and did) run against Biden, but now they'll have to defend Trump. If Cooper decides not to run that will certainly change any calculations, but I don't think that Tillis dropping out of the race is the big win that Republicans think it will be.

 

[rodoheel]

There’s a kernel of truth in what you’re both saying, but I think it risks missing the deeper dynamic we’ve discussed before.

If we reduce rural political behavior to pure resentment or envy, we write off millions of people as irredeemable, and we reinforce the very “us vs. them” divide that fuels Trump’s appeal.

Yes, rural communities see how wealth and opportunity are concentrated in urban and university-centered areas. But it’s not just jealousy, it’s a real sense of loss, exclusion, and being looked down on.

These places were once economically central, culturally respected, and politically courted. Now they’re told they’re backward, unproductive, and in the way. That produces anger but also a hunger for meaning, dignity, and recognition.

That’s not a dead end. It’s a political opening. You want to undercut Trumpism? Don’t lean into the culture war. Build something better. Speak to people’s material conditions, their desire to be heard, their need to belong to something that gives them purpose. It’s harder than writing them off, but it’s also the only way forward.

I agree with you about the problems with the us vs. them dynamic, but at some point any genuine message to rural and small communities has to account for the truth:

• Well-paying jobs in the agricultural sector are going to continue to fall, not rise, due to automation and competition
• We are never again going to have the volume of well-paying manufacturing jobs we did in the 50s-80s, due to automation and competition
• You cannot force everyone else in the country to want to live the lifestyle you did 30, 40, or 50 years ago, so many rural areas are going to continue to bleed population without modernization/reform that make those places look very different than they did when people were growing up while making them more attractive to younger people

The messaging rural Americans have most frequently responded to is messaging that lies to them about one or all of those three things. They want to be told that they can have 1950s jobs at 1950s wages and that we can just flick a switch and return good employers and jobs to these communities. In reality the way forward is with robust education and training for modern industries and careers, combined with New Deal-esque public works projects to build a better country for us all . But they don't want that. They have consistently rejected and voted against that. I know you are confident in there being a lane to craft working-class messaging that speaks to working-class Americans about a better future, but rural Americans with their love of "rugged individualism" have been consistently resistant to things like green energy, social safety net programs, socialized health care, or anything that could possibly be framed as for the collective good rather than individual free choice.

I will also add that there absolutely has always been a level of snootiness from urban/educated people towards "backward" rural communities. That dynamic has been around about as long as the USA has, and it isn't a uniquely American dynamic. But speaking on behalf of educated and urban Americans, I am really tired of being told (not by you, to be clear) that this urban/rural divide is mostly, if not entirely, the fault of urban, educated Americans and that we are the ones who bear most, if not all, if the burden to fix it. When in fact there is just as much ignorance among rural communities about the lives, careers, and communities of urban, educated Americans as the other way around. Trump's populist messaging for the last decade for the last decade has consistently featured as an element that cities are marxist hellscapes of hedonism and vice and the people who live there are corrupt, unpatriotic, unamerican, and flat-out enemies of America, and his rural supporters have lapped up every bit of that. A lot of that can be attributed to the fire hose of media misinformation that we talk about all the time, but at some point rural Americans are responsible for their own prejudices and ignorance. How do we fix that?

 

[Mulberry Heel]

I understand the pessimism, but if we agree we need to win these voters back, then we have to stop treating them like dumb rubes, even in private. That attitude shows up in our policies, our messaging, and the kinds of candidates we back. Voters feel it.

Trumpism feeds on feeling looked down on. If we want to break that cycle, we can’t keep reinforcing it. That starts with changing our posture, not just our talking points.

Given human nature, you're not going to convince many people who are terrified of MAGAs and who have lost their jobs and so on to stop lashing out at the people who are supporting their suffering and oppression by voting for Republicans. I don't think that is plausible. I see what you're saying, but as long as these rural MAGAs are calling Democrats names and threatening them and doing the things they're doing I don't think it's very realistic to expect Democrats and liberals to just turn the other cheek. Liberal voters feel things too, especially right now. And I can tell you that these people have always felt looked down on for at least as long as I've been alive - many of these rural areas have never gotten a huge amount of attention.

I mean, I agree with you about working to get back to the grassroots and go into rural counties and meet these people and try to win some of them back, and I agree that Democratic politicians and leaders should avoid that kind of talk, but if you really expect average Democratic voters to turn the other cheek and ignore insults and behavior from the other side I just don't see it happening and I think you're going to be disappointed, because what you're asking doesn't fit our current social media culture or human nature. I have no intention of getting into a long debate about this because it is a straightforward argument, and I see what you're saying perfectly, but I don't see the Democratic base in this environment not calling it like they see it regarding rural voters and Trump.

 

[superrific]

Now they’re told they’re backward, unproductive, and in the way.

By far the majority of this comes from the GOP. See, e.g., "fraud, waste and abuse."

 

[superrific]

I'm all for continuing to try to communicate but we need to address what is really driving these folks. There is just no evidence that talking to them about jobs and prosperity will move them. We already had Trump 1.0. What happened to employment or wages in rural NC? They didn't budge. And yet. . .

You cannot try to communicate with rural America without understanding that they are driven by racism and hostility toward LGBTQ. It's really astounding that you're still talking as if that doesn't matter given what we've already seen. What do they cheer? ICE brutality, anti-trans laws and an end to DEI. By far that's where their energy comes from.

Sure, they will turn to Dems in a crisis, like in 08 and probably in 26. But how to get them on board long term?

Now you've said before that we only need to recruit a few of them to flip some of our close battleground states. True. So how do we reach the persuadable ones? How do we identify them? Again, most of the population in Southern rural areas have demonstrated repeatedly that they issues they care about, in order, are: 1) racism; 2) anti-LGBTQ; 3) racism; 4) anti-LGBTQ; etc. They don't care about democracy. They apparently don't care about who delivers them the services they need -- here I'm not only talking about job training and the like, but also things like FEMA and emergency aid.

So while that isn't true of everyone, how do we identify the ones who we can reach. It ain't the ones who talk a good game, that's for sure.

 

[rodoheel]

Yes, rural America has changed, and no, we’re not going back to 1950s manufacturing or agricultural jobs. That doesn’t mean the only option is a future of population decline, job loss, and crumbling towns. We’ve already seen that the government can create jobs, subsidize industries, and rebuild communities when it chooses to. It did it with the TVA. It did it with wartime manufacturing.

If rural voters aren’t responding to liberal proposals for “training” or “green energy,” maybe it’s because those proposals feel like thin gruel: abstract, impersonal, and detached from any serious vision of rebuilding what’s been lost. That’s just classic disillusionment. You say they’ve rejected social programs. I’d argue they’ve rejected Democrats offering them through consultant-driven ads and vague slogans, not institutions rooted in their communities.

You’re right that prejudice runs both ways. I’ve seen the anti-urban rhetoric too. But here’s the difference: rural Americans aren’t the ones with the cultural power. We still hold far more institutional power. Educated urban liberals shape the language, staffing, and agenda of the Democratic Party and adjacent institutions. That means we do set the tone. And when that tone is exhausted, patronizing, or self-congratulatory, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. People hear it. And they turn elsewhere.

You asked: how do we fix that? My answer: show up. Speak plainly. Build trust. And start by dropping the posture that says “we tried, but they just don’t get it.”

The TVA and wartime manufacturing were 70+ years ago. (And "wartime manufacturing" wasn't exactly voluntary.) They are hardly examples that in 2025, rural voters will respond to a platform of democratic socialism, no matter how you want to package it. it's one thing to be hopeful that the Democratic Party can do better among working class voters overall (the majority of them like in urban/suburban areas). That's something you and I generally agree with; we agree that recent Dem messaging has been bad, and probably on some, but not all of the things that should be done to fix it. But if you think something like the TVA - the government employing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, to build massive public works projects - would poll well today among rural Americans, I think you're delusional.

With respect to the argument about cultural power: you've very well described why rural voters respond so well to culture war messaging; they see themselves as having lost control of American culture and they will respond to anyone who tells them they can take it back. But we also have to recognize that this perception does not necessarily match reality, in large part because rural Americans exercise political power that is far disproportionate to their share of the population. Their interests are already overrepresented and catered to, and because of that (among other reasons) the cultural power has already started to shift back in their direction.

Again, I don't disagree with you about messaging and tone when it comes to the Democratic Party and its "McKinesyfied" way of trying to craft messaging that usually results in overly manufactured, watered-down polispeak. I think, though, that focus future Democrat messaging on winning back rural Americans specifically would be a mistake. Dem messaging should focus on the fact that we're all in this together and all need to move forward together to create a better, more sustainable, and more durable country and world (messaging that, as I said, many rural voters are usually not going to respond well to). What it does not need to do is pander to small-town misperceptions about the dangers of cities and education and globalism. Even if that type of stuff is exactly the message that rural voters tend to respond to.

 

[superrific]

The TVA and wartime manufacturing were 70+ years ago. (And "wartime manufacturing" wasn't exactly voluntary.) They are hardly examples that in 2025, rural voters will respond to a platform of democratic socialism

Paine just doesn't incorporate racism into his analysis, and this is the result. Not only was the TVA 90 years ago, it was during a time when the Dems and the segregationists were one and the same.

It would be convenient if it wasn't the case. But there's no getting around the fact that several Southern states voted for Wallace in 68. Nixon won NC but Wallace finished second. The Dem came in last.

There's no getting around the fact that the political map of the US has barely changed since the Civil War. The identities of the parties changes, but overall southern states have been voting for whomever wears their disdain for minorities, and black people in particular, for 150 years. The South was solid in 1860, in 1932, 1968 and most elections since 1992.

 

[superrific]

Rodo, I’m going to be blunt here because I think your post reveals the exact mindset that’s kneecapped liberal strategy for decades.

Democrats won’t win back rural America until they actually want to. Not abstractly. Not with vibes. But with respect, investment, and a willingness to lead, even when it’s uncomfortable.

The GOP never offers those things either. So why are they such heavy GOP leans?

Plus, investment . . . look at the IRA. Look at all the jobs that were being created under Biden. Trump is rolling it all back. We'll see how they vote next year, but the Dems were offering exactly what you say the rural folks want. And the rural folks said, fuck off and die, they/them.

I mean, I keep going back to that battery plant in Michigan. The state government fought hard to cobble together an attractive package for the factory construction. Then the locals killed it because "Chinese communist party." That's a revealed preference. At least in Upper Michigan, they don't care about jobs. Not really. Not as much as they care about hate.

 

[rodoheel]

If someone’s rude to you at a cookout, you don’t get to turn that into a worldview where entire communities are beyond redemption. You don’t get to sneer at millions of people because a few bruised your ego. Politics isn’t therapy. It’s not about getting your values affirmed, it’s about building the kind of power that can change lives.

Now turn this around and direct it at MAGA people, instead of liberals. That's the whole point . You're directing this at liberals as if that's the whole problem, or at least the biggest problem. When in fact it's the entire MAGA movement is based on grievance. The entire MAGA movement is based sneering at millions (billions) of people because their feelings got hurt. It's about getting back at the people who they think treated them poorly or got things they should have gotten instead. The point Mulberry is making isn't that he hates MAGA people (though he might at this point), it's that MAGA people hate him (and/or hate anyone who isn't like them).

I'm not saying everyone who voted for Trump is like that. I'm not even saying that most people who voted for Trump are like that. Many voters barely follow politics and don't think about their electoral choices much beyond "I don't like my own situation right now, so I'll vote for the opposition." But grievance is absolutely, positively, indisputably the motivating force behind MAGA and Trump. Trump is grievance in human form. That's the reason tens of millions of people, including many rural Americans, see a lying,, thin-skinned, egotistical, scamming, ivy League-educated, Manhattan billionaire as an avatar for themselves: because he seethes with grievance at the same "elite" political and cultural institutions they do. He literally launched his own political career because he was mad that Obama made fun of him at the WH correspondent's dinner. His whole current platform is based on transparently using the political power of the government to punish his political and cultural enemies. And you're here telling us that the problem is that liberals are too thin-skinned?

I won't dispute that Dems contributed by Trump's rise by first scoffing at him and not taking him seriously and then failing to come up with a compelling vision to combat Trump's grievance politics. But it is just bizarre to me that you think certain subsets of the Democratic coalition are too focused on grievance when there is a giant grievance-fueled political machine

 

[superrific]

This is flatly false and insulting. I’ve repeatedly acknowledged how racism and cultural resentment shape American politics. What I don’t do is treat racism as a totalizing explanation that erases class, geography, or institutional failure.

Acknowledgement is not the same as incorporation. Yes, you acknowledge (as you must). But when you say that the Dems should get back to the New Deal rhetoric and policy, you are simply not taking account of the most important fact: they didn't have to choose between economic justice and subjugating black people. When the choice was presented to them, they very clearly chose preservation of white supremacy over everything else. That has been true for a very long time now.

And when you say, let's go promise them a TVA -- they don't want that anymore. They associate that with socialism, which they associate with the civil rights movement. Again, their material interests play second fiddle to their racial animus. Until you account for that in your prescriptions, they aren't going to be good ideas.

Find a way to target the good ones and I'll be on board. We've talked about religion as a possible avenue. Maybe we need to be in some churches more than we are -- but we have to choose carefully, because a lot of churches are not going to be fertile ground at all. In fact, there's more likely to be physical violence than conversions. Otherwise? I'm not from a rural area. My wife and her family are, but I met my wife relatively recently. For most of my life, I did not have much exposure to rural folks. So I don't know how to message and I don't pretend to. I just don't think beating around the bush when their main issues are cultural is going to be much help.

Look at someone like HY2012. He says he likes Dems at the state level but not the federal level. Gee, why do you think that is? He's never been able to explain it, because he's not willing to say the quiet part out loud. Which is a good choice on his part, I think. But it's why we aren't going to be able to reach him.

 

[superrific]

Now turn this around and direct it at MAGA people, instead of liberals. That's the whole point . You're directing this at liberals as if that's the whole problem, or at least the biggest problem. When in fact it's the entire MAGA movement is based on grievance. The entire MAGA movement is based sneering at millions (billions) of people because their feelings got hurt. It's about getting back at the people who they think treated them poorly or got things they should have gotten instead. The point Mulberry is making isn't that he hates MAGA people (though he might at this point), it's that MAGA people hate him (and/or hate anyone who isn't like them).

I'm not saying everyone who voted for Trump is like that. I'm not even saying that most people who voted for Trump are like that. Many voters barely follow politics and don't think about their electoral choices much beyond "I don't like my own situation right now, so I'll vote for the opposition." But grievance is absolutely, positively, indisputably the motivating force behind MAGA and Trump. Trump is grievance in human form. That's the reason tens of millions of people, including many rural Americans, see a lying,, thin-skinned, egotistical, scamming, ivy League-educated, Manhattan billionaire as an avatar for themselves: because he seethes with grievance at the same "elite" political and cultural institutions they do. He literally launched his own political career because he was mad that Obama made fun of him at the WH correspondent's dinner. His whole current platform is based on transparently using the political power of the government to punish his political and cultural enemies. And you're here telling us that the problem is that liberals are too thin-skinned?

I won't dispute that Dems contributed by Trump's rise by first scoffing at him and not taking him seriously and then failing to come up with a compelling vision to combat Trump's grievance politics. But it is just bizarre to me that you think certain subsets of the Democratic coalition are too focused on grievance when there is a giant grievance-fueled political machine

1. Leftists always blame Dems for everything. You know that. It's been that way since the 1960s, but especially since the 1990s.
2. In Paine's defense, he might very well be saying the same thing about urban areas if he was trying to drum up support for the GOP. He's right that it does no good to complain about rural voters being rude to us. So they think we're rude; we think they are rude; and the result is that they don't vote for the same people we do. That's the dynamic he wants to change. We all want to change.

The problem is that finding a way to communicate to the persuadables. For all you deride consultants, if it was my decision, I'd be out doing focus groups to try to understand what people would care about it if we sold it the right way, and how to sell it. "We're all in this together" is a message that has been fully repudiated by MAGA.