Thom Tillis will not run for reelection in 2026

[mpaer]

I know this
The Comie in NYC spouted free buses , day care and stricter rent control
It resonated , at least in NY

 

[Paine]

This is badly mischaracterizing what I said (or at least what I meant). I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it's because I explained my point poorly.

Never once have I said that we shouldn't give rural communities "a message about rebuilding what’s been lost." What I have said is that the message we give can't be that what we're going to rebuild is going to look like what was lost. Because it would be a lie to say otherwise. Telling people that coal jobs will come back is a lie. Telling people that we are going to manufacture Iphones entirely in America - or that doing so would create lots of wonderful manufacturing jobs - is a lie. Telling people that we can build an economy in today's world where we have both cheap goods and high-paying manufacturing jobs is a lie. Those are the lies that have won the hearts and minds of rural voters for the last two decades. There is and should be a path forward for rural America. But it will not look like 1950s America. That is not "liberal parochialism" speaking. That is reality. The challenge is to craft a message that gives rural voters a vision of the future that doesn't look like the past - and to have them choose that over the lies they will get from the other side that they can have a future that looks like the past. And what I definitely do not think Democrats should do is run on a message that essentially promises to benefit rural Americans - who are, of course, a small minority of the people who live in this country - at the expense of everyone else. That is what I'm saying: Democrats' message to the nation cannot be focused on rural Americans. It has to be a vision that appeals to everyone. I'm hopeful that such a message can win some number of "persuadable" rural Americans, even if that isn't a very large number of people. But if there is a choice to be made about whether to tailor that message most precisely to rural Americans versus the urban and suburban working class, then the choice has to be the latter, every time , because there are simply way more of the latter, and a huge percentage of the former who are not going to respond well to any message about "universalism" or "solidarity" no matter how it is crafted. Again, reality.

Nor have I said that people "don't count." I will happily advocate for policies that benefit working-class rural Americans, even if it's at my personal expense. I think my share of the tax burden should go up while their share should go down. I want them to be able to go to college (not just four-year universities, but community colleges and trade schools and whatever kind of other school they want to go to) for free or reduced cost, without taking on debt or with the potential for such debt to be forgiven. I want them to have thriving, functioning rural hospitals where they can get health care for free or close to it whenever they need it. I want robust public works projects that put people to work and benefit everyone. (In case this isn't clear, I'd be ecstatic about a modern version of the TVA to revitalize America's aging infrastructure; my point is not that we shouldn't advocate for such things, but instead that rural Americans won't vote for them.) I want regulations and policies that allow their local businesses a fighting chance to compete against corporate behemoths.

I'm not asking for everyone to make the same assumptions as me; what I want is for everyone (including rural Americans) to stop relying on assumptions that are largely unfounded when it comes to people who live different lives in different places than they do. Something that I happen to think rural Americans are as guilty of as - or likely more guilty of than - anyone else, based on my personal experience. My position is not that rural people don't count; it's that they shouldn't count for more than everyone else, which (politically, at least) is the current situation we have, and is the vision that the right has sold to them and that they've voted for. Democrats should craft messaging that communicates to rural voters that they're as good and important as any city dweller or liberal arts college graduate. But Republicans haven't won by telling them they're as good as any city dweller or college graduate; they have told rural voters that they're better than those people. That's what they have voted for. That's what, in my opinion, Dems can't and shouldn't tell them.

What I critiqued was the implication running through your post, not just one sentence.

When you say Democrats shouldn’t focus their message on rural Americans because it might come at the “expense of everyone else,” that’s not universalism. That’s triage politics. It assumes scarcity and reinforces the idea that rural needs are outside the circle of solidarity, not inside it.

You say we can’t promise to rebuild what was lost, and I agree we shouldn’t peddle false nostalgia. That’s what I’ve said in several posts up this point. I’m not saying bring back 1950s coal jobs. What I am saying is that we can invest in public works, rural healthcare, education, and infrastructure in a way that builds trust and creates opportunity. The TVA succeeded because it met people’s needs in a time of institutional collapse. That model still has lessons for today.

You also say rural voters “won’t vote for it.” But that’s not a reason to give up. That’s a challenge to organize better. And if we concede that challenge, if we decide not to even try because these voters aren’t “persuadable,” then yes, we’re writing them off, whether we say so directly or not.

As for this line: “Republicans haven’t won by telling them they’re as good as any city dweller or college graduate; they have told rural voters that they’re better than those people.”—I think that gets it backward. Trumpism taps into the fear that elites already see them as worse. That’s the wound being exploited. You don’t counter that by reinforcing the same hierarchy from the other side. You counter it by rejecting the whole idea that one set of people is inherently more deserving than another. That’s what real solidarity looks like.

I agree that rural voters shouldn’t count more than anyone else. But they also shouldn’t count less. If we want to build durable political power, we can’t keep approaching this from a posture of resentment. That’s the attitude that runs through many liberal arguments. And it shows.

 

[Paine]

I know this
The Comie in NYC spouted free buses , day care and stricter rent control
It resonated , at least in NY

Exactly. Mamdani didn’t run on nostalgia, he ran on basic needs: rent, buses, childcare. Real stuff that makes people’s lives easier. And it resonated.

Will his exact formula work everywhere? No. But the principle does: meet people where they are, organize around what they need, and, for the love of God, stop talking down to them.

 

[superrific]

That’s a challenge to organize better.

I guess there's at least one thing that I've been trying to communicate but haven't done very well: not everyone is young. Meaning that you're up for a good challenge. You're chomping for a fight. That's good.

Older folks, by contrast, are tired. We've fought and lost. That doesn't mean that we're indifferent or lazy or unwilling to fight more. It just means we aren't going to have the same enthusiasm. So that helps explain our reactions here. Maybe I can put it this way: you have so much energy you don't really need to conserve it. We have less energy, and maybe we're not wild about the idea of walking around rural towns talking to folks who maybe could never in a million years be persuaded. It seems like a waste of scarce time

Now, we could pay you to do it for us. I don't think that's a bad idea, but it would make you a . . . consultant. Your head might explode.

 

[Paine]

Now, we could pay you to do it for us. I don't think that's a bad idea, but it would make you a . . . consultant. Your head might explode.

Sure, cut the check. Let’s be honest: the Democrats who write checks don’t want to hear what I’d say once I got the mic. That’s the real problem, isn’t it?

 

[superrific]

Sure, cut the check. But let’s be honest: the Democrats who write checks don’t want to hear what I’d say once I got the mic. That’s the real problem, isn’t it?

I don't know. I think you underestimate those people. I spent quite a lot of time around big money when I was working at white shoe law firms in New York. Even the NYC Jones Day office had majority liberals, I'd say. These rich liberals are often quite conscientious and go with principle instead of mere self-interest. I'm not so naive to think that their principles are unrelated to their self-interest, but I do think that they aren't necessarily determined by it. That is to say, a lot of the rich Dem donors are more interested in centrism because they want to win, not necessarily because they fear the left.

And maybe that's a wrong judgment -- it's what we've been talking about in various forms all year. And of course, the judgment doesn't exist in a vacuum. I just think that there's considerably more tolerance of and engagement with stronger ideologies than you give credit. The basis, as relevant here, is lots of shallow interactions. It's entirely possible that their real political opinions varied somewhat from those they broadcast. I'd be surprised if it was all or even primarily theater.

 

[Paine]

I don't know. I think you underestimate those people. I spent quite a lot of time around big money when I was working at white shoe law firms in New York. Even the NYC Jones Day office had majority liberals, I'd say. These rich liberals are often quite conscientious and go with principle instead of mere self-interest. I'm not so naive to think that their principles are unrelated to their self-interest, but I do think that they aren't necessarily determined by it. That is to say, a lot of the rich Dem donors are more interested in centrism because they want to win, not necessarily because they fear the left.

And maybe that's a wrong judgment -- it's what we've been talking about in various forms all year. And of course, the judgment doesn't exist in a vacuum. I just think that there's considerably more tolerance of and engagement with stronger ideologies than you give credit. The basis, as relevant here, is lots of shallow interactions. It's entirely possible that their real political opinions varied somewhat from those they broadcast. I'd be surprised if it was all or even primarily theater.

Idk man. These same Democratic donors are working overtime to discredit and destroy the Democratic nominee for NYC mayor. Doesn’t scream ‘tolerance of strong ideology’ to me.

 

[superrific]

Idk man. These same Democratic donors are working overtime to discredit and destroy the Democratic nominee for NYC mayor. Doesn’t scream ‘tolerance of strong ideology’ to me.

Well, there are a lot of overlapping issues there. Israel/Gaza plays a big role. Most of the donor types I was referring to are Jewish.

Obviously we're not going to draw conclusions based on a small and biased sample. I just thought I'd share that experience.

 

[mpaer]

Exactly. Mamdani didn’t run on nostalgia, he ran on basic needs: rent, buses, childcare. Real stuff that makes people’s lives easier. And it resonated.

Will his exact formula work everywhere? No. But the principle does: meet people where they are, organize around what they need, and, for the love of God, stop talking down to them.

Hopefully there is some relatively unknown Gov (Cooper, Beshars, whoever) that can speak plain and simple and old school Democrat stuff
I will add-it COULD be Roy won't run for Senate (hope not) because he has his eyes on something bigger...........

 

[wmheel1287]

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

You dismiss the TVA and wartime mobilization as ancient history. But those aren’t nostalgia plays, they’re precedents. They’re proof that the federal government can dramatically reshape regional economies and working-class life when it chooses to. If we did it before, we can do it again. The barrier isn’t that rural voters are allergic to investment. The barrier is that no one has credibly offered it in a generation, and when someone does, they get called “delusional.”

The irony is, you admit that rural voters respond to culture war messages that offer meaning, pride, and belonging. Then in the same breath, you write them off for responding to the only people willing to speak to them like they matter. If that’s not a failure of imagination and leadership, I don’t know what is.

As for the notion that rural America has “disproportionate political power” so we don’t need to organize them? That’s a dodge. Their structural power is exactly why we need to win some of them back. You don’t get to say “they matter too much already” and then shrug when we lose the Senate again.

You close by saying, basically: yes, rural voters might respond to a message about rebuilding what’s been lost, but we shouldn’t give it to them, because that would be “pandering.” That’s not universalism. That’s liberal parochialism. You want to talk about solidarity, but only on your terms. And if people don’t share your assumptions about cities, education, and globalization? Well then, they don’t count.

What you’re calling “misperceptions” are, for many people, lived experiences of institutional betrayal, by both parties and by the systems they were told to trust. It’s not that they fear cities; they resent being told their hometowns don’t matter. It’s not that they hate education; they’re skeptical of a credentialing system that demands debt and relocation just to get ahead. And when they hear “globalism,” they’re not thinking about an abstract economic model, they’re thinking about the factory that left and never came back.

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.

I dont respect rural America. I dont value the opinions of rural Americans. And i dont have any wish to get to a place where I change myself yet again to create that respect or value.

And I say that as someone who grew up in the most rural of places imaginable, lived in the shadow of Jim Crow's massive influence decades after it was abolished, and have more of a "country" ethos than 75% of people who currently reside in rural America.

I didn't come to this conclusion lightly. It has taken literal decades of being viewed as evil, arrogant, and stupid by the very people I worked the hardest to help.

If politics is building a coalition with those people, then I don't want a political coalition.

That might make me all those things that those folks accused me of being for all those years, but I'm jusy being real.

If liberalism relies on those who have been staunchly engaged in the fight for the last 30+ years making peace somehow with rural America, then liberalism is dead on arrival.

That isn't pessimism. That's the God's honest truth.

 

[mpaer]

I dont respect rural America. I dont value the opinions of rural Americans. And i dont have any wish to get to a place where I change myself yet again to create that respect or value.

And I say that as someone who grew up in the most rural of places imaginable, lived in the shadow of Jim Crow's massive influence decades after it was abolished, and have more of a "country" ethos than 75% of people who currently reside in rural America.

I didn't come to this conclusion lightly. It has taken literal decades of being viewed as evil, arrogant, and stupid by the very people I worked the hardest to help.

If politics is building a coalition with those people, then I don't want a political coalition.

That might make me all those things that those folks accused me of being for all those years, but I'm jusy being real.

If liberalism relies on those who have been staunchly engaged in the fight for the last 30+ years making peace somehow with rural America, then liberalism is dead on arrival.

That isn't pessimism. That's the God's honest truth.

As usual you speak from the heart so to speak. Thanks. I am also enough of a sap to hope one day the little ones in rural America don't have a shit govt that works against them ( like orangeturd) .And that requires , I think , some coalition with them types

 

[rodoheel]

What I critiqued was the implication running through your post, not just one sentence.

When you say Democrats shouldn’t focus their message on rural Americans because it might come at the “expense of everyone else,” that’s not universalism. That’s triage politics. It assumes scarcity and reinforces the idea that rural needs are outside the circle of solidarity, not inside it.

You say we can’t promise to rebuild what was lost, and I agree we shouldn’t peddle false nostalgia. That’s what I’ve said in several posts up this point. I’m not saying bring back 1950s coal jobs. What I am saying is that we can invest in public works, rural healthcare, education, and infrastructure in a way that builds trust and creates opportunity. The TVA succeeded because it met people’s needs in a time of institutional collapse. That model still has lessons for today.

You also say rural voters “won’t vote for it.” But that’s not a reason to give up. That’s a challenge to organize better. And if we concede that challenge, if we decide not to even try because these voters aren’t “persuadable,” then yes, we’re writing them off, whether we say so directly or not.

As for this line: “Republicans haven’t won by telling them they’re as good as any city dweller or college graduate; they have told rural voters that they’re better than those people.”—I think that gets it backward. Trumpism taps into the fear that elites already see them as worse. That’s the wound being exploited. You don’t counter that by reinforcing the same hierarchy from the other side. You counter it by rejecting the whole idea that one set of people is inherently more deserving than another. That’s what real solidarity looks like.

I agree that rural voters shouldn’t count more than anyone else. But they also shouldn’t count less. If we want to build durable political power, we can’t keep approaching this from a posture of resentment. That’s the attitude that runs through many liberal arguments. And it shows.

Democrats shouldn't focus their message on rural Americans specifically because they should focus their message on everyone. You say you want a more universalist message but disagree with that proposition? I'm not saying we can't craft a message that appeals to as many people as possible, or that we shouldn't at least try to do that. I'm saying that if it proves impossible to craft a message that appeals to everyone across all demographics and constituencies (which I think it will - "big tent" has always been an issue for Dems) then prioritizing rural voters over much larger and more winnable voting blocks would be a mistake. Do you seriously disagree with that? That's not triage; that's just being realistic. I appreciate your idealism but even if you think there is a perfect message that will result in a populist Dem landslide across all demographics in the current political environment (I'm skeptical) you still have to have a Plan B. Like, if turns out that rural Americans don't react well to messaging about Medicare for All, robust union protections, universal free lunch, and cheap/free college for everyone, do you think we should cut those things from the platform to appease them? I don't.

Not to mention, organizing takes resources. Resources are finite. Every election cycle there has to be a conscious decision about where and how to allocate those resources. Again, that's not triage; that's a necessary strategic consideration. If someone makes the decision that $500 is better spent trying to turn five votes in the suburbs versus one vote in rural Wyoming, that isn't a lack of vision or drive, that is simply an understandable choice.

I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say with this paragraph:

As for this line: “Republicans haven’t won by telling them they’re as good as any city dweller or college graduate; they have told rural voters that they’re better than those people.”—I think that gets it backward. Trumpism taps into the fear that elites already see them as worse. That’s the wound being exploited. You don’t counter that by reinforcing the same hierarchy from the other side. You counter it by rejecting the whole idea that one set of people is inherently more deserving than another. That’s what real solidarity looks like.

I agree that Trumpism "taps into the fear that elites already see [rural Americans] as worse," but the specific way Trumpism taps into that fear is to "exploit the wound" by "reinforcing the same hierarchy from the other side" - i.e., telling rural Americans (and really working class Americans more broadly) that they are better than those college-educated, city-dwelling "elites." I'm not advocating that Dems do that in reverse - I am saying that is what Trumpism does. And that Trumpism has been successful in doing that. The counter-messaging from Dems shouldn't be "yeah, you ARE better than those college-educated, city-dwelling elites." It has to be some version "you, me, and those college-educated, city-dwelling elites are all in this together; we all are Americans who largely want the same things; and we can all win together with a vision for a better future for all." What you don't seem to be acknowledging is that it is far from a foregone conclusion that a message like that will win over rural Americans when the other side is still stoking economic and cultural grievance and selling a vision of a return to 1950s America.

As for this part:

I agree that rural voters shouldn’t count more than anyone else. But they also shouldn’t count less. If we want to build durable political power, we can’t keep approaching this from a posture of resentment. That’s the attitude that runs through many liberal arguments. And it shows.

I'm starting to wonder if you even really read my posts, versus just skimming them for "vibes," because "rural voters shouldn't count more than anyone else, they should count the same" is basically verbatim what I said. Nowhere have I advocated that liberals approach "rural voters from a posture of resentment"; precisely the opposite. The question is how to win over rural voters who have already been captured by a movement that runs on grievance and resentment. Those are the things they have responded to. My point is simply that it is very odd for you to critique liberals for supposedly losing elections because they "approaching this from a posture of resentment" when the far bigger issue is that conservatives have continued to win elections by doing just that. Most liberals are simply trying to grapple with why the politics of grievance and resentment are so powerful, not use them themselves. I won't deny that some liberal conversations give off a vibe of "if they fell for that, it must be because they're irredeemable deplorables" (which I agree is not the right thing to be saying!) but candidly you come off as writing off liberals every bit as much as you accuse them of writing off rural and/or working-class voters.

 

[rodoheel]

Idk man. These same Democratic donors are working overtime to discredit and destroy the Democratic nominee for NYC mayor. Doesn’t scream ‘tolerance of strong ideology’ to me.

You mean like how some progressives worked overtime to discredit and destroy the Democratic nominee for president? Is there honestly any difference in those things besides whose side you're on?

 

[Paine]

I dont respect rural America. I dont value the opinions of rural Americans. And i dont have any wish to get to a place where I change myself yet again to create that respect or value.

And I say that as someone who grew up in the most rural of places imaginable, lived in the shadow of Jim Crow's massive influence decades after it was abolished, and have more of a "country" ethos than 75% of people who currently reside in rural America.

I didn't come to this conclusion lightly. It has taken literal decades of being viewed as evil, arrogant, and stupid by the very people I worked the hardest to help.

If politics is building a coalition with those people, then I don't want a political coalition.

That might make me all those things that those folks accused me of being for all those years, but I'm jusy being real.

If liberalism relies on those who have been staunchly engaged in the fight for the last 30+ years making peace somehow with rural America, then liberalism is dead on arrival.

That isn't pessimism. That's the God's honest truth.

I want to offer a different frame, not to argue, but to reflect something back.

You say: “If politics is building a coalition with those people, then I don’t want a political coalition.”

But politics is coalition. That’s all it ever is and all it ever has been. Not agreement, not affection: coalition. If we, as liberals or leftists or whatever banner we organize under, define ourselves by who we’ll never work with again out of pain or principle, we’re not strategizing. We’re grieving. I get that impulse, I’ve felt it too, but it’s not a path to power. It’s a kind of resignation.

I think part of what makes this conversation so hard is that you and I are coming at it from different emotional timelines. You’re writing from decades of trying and hurting. I’m writing from a place of possibility; maybe naïveté, maybe hunger, maybe both. But I come from this same rural world, and I know it’s more complex than either of us can reduce in a single post. There are bigots. There are heroes. There’s ignorance and there’s quiet grace. And there are people who don’t know they’re allowed to hope for more until someone shows up and helps them imagine it.

You say you’re done. That may be fair. But I’m not. And I think there are more people like me than you might think, especially younger ones. We’re not asking you to fake respect you don’t feel. But we are asking older liberals to stop gatekeeping strategy based on emotional wounds. Because if we let grief become our compass, we’ll lose more than just rural voters.

I want to win, and that means finding ways to organize across lines that feel impossible—without illusions, but with purpose.

 

[rodoheel]

Sure, cut the check. Let’s be honest: the Democrats who write checks don’t want to hear what I’d say once I got the mic. That’s the real problem, isn’t it?

Who's making assumptions about people now?

In any event, sometimes when you say things like it honestly comes off as sounding like you think the Democratic donor class is more of an enemy than MAGA. Do you really think Dems would be better off telling every large political donor in the country to pound sand and take their money elsewhere? You have (rightly) criticized Dems in other places for not being willing to fight dirty against conservatives in a number of ways. In a post-Citizens United world, do you really think it's a good strategy to push all the big money to the other side of the aisle?

 

[Paine]

Democrats shouldn't focus their message on rural Americans specifically because they should focus their message on everyone. You say you want a more universalist message but disagree with that proposition? I'm not saying we can't craft a message that appeals to as many people as possible, or that we shouldn't at least try to do that. I'm saying that if it proves impossible to craft a message that appeals to everyone across all demographics and constituencies (which I think it will - "big tent" has always been an issue for Dems) then prioritizing rural voters over much larger and more winnable voting blocks would be a mistake. Do you seriously disagree with that? That's not triage; that's just being realistic. I appreciate your idealism but even if you think there is a perfect message that will result in a populist Dem landslide across all demographics in the current political environment (I'm skeptical) you still have to have a Plan B. Like, if turns out that rural Americans don't react well to messaging about Medicare for All, robust union protections, universal free lunch, and cheap/free college for everyone, do you think we should cut those things from the platform to appease them? I don't.

Not to mention, organizing takes resources. Resources are finite. Every election cycle there has to be a conscious decision about where and how to allocate those resources. Again, that's not triage; that's a necessary strategic consideration. If someone makes the decision that $500 is better spent trying to turn five votes in the suburbs versus one vote in rural Wyoming, that isn't a lack of vision or drive, that is simply an understandable choice.

I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say with this paragraph:

As for this line: “Republicans haven’t won by telling them they’re as good as any city dweller or college graduate; they have told rural voters that they’re better than those people.”—I think that gets it backward. Trumpism taps into the fear that elites already see them as worse. That’s the wound being exploited. You don’t counter that by reinforcing the same hierarchy from the other side. You counter it by rejecting the whole idea that one set of people is inherently more deserving than another. That’s what real solidarity looks like.

I agree that Trumpism "taps into the fear that elites already see [rural Americans] as worse," but the specific way Trumpism taps into that fear is to "exploit the wound" by "reinforcing the same hierarchy from the other side" - i.e., telling rural Americans (and really working class Americans more broadly) that they are better than those college-educated, city-dwelling "elites." I'm not advocating that Dems do that in reverse - I am saying that is what Trumpism does. And that Trumpism has been successful in doing that. The counter-messaging from Dems shouldn't be "yeah, you ARE better than those college-educated, city-dwelling elites." It has to be some version "you, me, and those college-educated, city-dwelling elites are all in this together; we all are Americans who largely want the same things; and we can all win together with a vision for a better future for all." What you don't seem to be acknowledging is that it is far from a foregone conclusion that a message like that will win over rural Americans when the other side is still stoking economic and cultural grievance and selling a vision of a return to 1950s America.

As for this part:

I agree that rural voters shouldn’t count more than anyone else. But they also shouldn’t count less. If we want to build durable political power, we can’t keep approaching this from a posture of resentment. That’s the attitude that runs through many liberal arguments. And it shows.

I'm starting to wonder if you even really read my posts, versus just skimming them for "vibes," because "rural voters shouldn't count more than anyone else, they should count the same" is basically verbatim what I said. Nowhere have I advocated that liberals approach "rural voters from a posture of resentment"; precisely the opposite. The question is how to win over rural voters who have already been captured by a movement that runs on grievance and resentment. Those are the things they have responded to. My point is simply that it is very odd for you to critique liberals for supposedly losing elections because they "approaching this from a posture of resentment" when the far bigger issue is that conservatives have continued to win elections by doing just that. Most liberals are simply trying to grapple with why the politics of grievance and resentment are so powerful, not use them themselves. I won't deny that some liberal conversations give off a vibe of "if they fell for that, it must be because they're irredeemable deplorables" (which I agree is not the right thing to be saying!) but candidly you come off as writing off liberals every bit as much as you accuse them of writing off rural and/or working-class voters.

It feels like we’re both talking past each other. I think part of that is the length of these posts. Another part is responding to several posts of mine all at once. That being said, I’ve read your posts closely, and I think you’re missing the core of my argument and the strategic implications.

You say Democrats shouldn’t focus messaging on rural Americans specifically because they should focus on everyone. But in practice, “universalist” messaging from liberals rarely feels universal. It’s shaped by the worldview of educated professionals, tailored to people who already vote blue. And when someone suggests messaging that starts in rural America, not instead of others, but as a way to bring a fractured part of the country into the fold, the reflex is to call it “pandering,” “nostalgia,” or “unrealistic.”

I’ve never said we should tailor everything to rural voters or cut Medicare for All to appease them. I’ve said: if we want to build durable power, we need some of them in the coalition. Not because they “deserve” it more but because structurally, their votes are overrepresented in the Senate, and emotionally, their sense of being discarded has made them susceptible to reaction. You can’t ignore it if you actually want to govern.

On the messaging point: no, I don’t think we should tell rural voters they’re “better” than urban professionals. But I also don’t think we should echo the implicit liberal attitude that they’re dumber, meaner, or more backward, even if we don’t say it aloud. Trumpism exploits the fear that elites see them that way. That fear didn’t come from nowhere.

You can’t beat resentment with a sermon about how we all want the same things. You beat it by showing up, organizing, listening, and delivering something tangible. That’s not idealism. That’s the hard, unglamorous work of politics.

And as for your last point: I don’t write off liberals. I’m not sure how you could possibly think that when I engage seriously with them post after post. I argue with them because I don’t want them to keep losing. But the posture of resignation, the shrugging at loss, the assumption that rural folks just won’t respond, the idea that it’s not worth trying; that’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. And it’s one I’ve watched cost Democrats election after election in places I know personally.

Critique is not rejection. I’m challenging the reflexes, narratives, and institutional habits that keep us losing. If liberals are serious about winning back power and building a durable majority, that requires self-reflection not self-defense. I want better from our coalition because I actually believe we can reach more people than we’re currently trying to.

 

[Paine]

You mean like how some progressives worked overtime to discredit and destroy the Democratic nominee for president? Is there honestly any difference in those things besides whose side you're on?

Come on, Rodo. You’re really comparing grassroots frustration with Hillary in 2016 to what’s happening right now: a coordinated campaign by Democratic electeds, media figures, and donors to discredit a nominee who just won an election in the country’s biggest city?

 

[Paine]

Who's making assumptions about people now?

In any event, sometimes when you say things like it honestly comes off as sounding like you think the Democratic donor class is more of an enemy than MAGA. Do you really think Dems would be better off telling every large political donor in the country to pound sand and take their money elsewhere? You have (rightly) criticized Dems in other places for not being willing to fight dirty against conservatives in a number of ways. In a post-Citizens United world, do you really think it's a good strategy to push all the big money to the other side of the aisle?

What assumptions am I making, exactly? The proof is in the pudding. When a socialist wins a Democratic primary in the biggest city in the country, donor-class liberals don’t say, “Interesting, let’s learn from what worked.” They go scorched earth. They fund opposition groups, run hit pieces, and signal to every other ambitious candidate that there’s a ceiling on how far you can go if you cross certain lines.

I’m not saying “tell every donor to pound sand.” I’m saying the current donor class already has enormous power over what gets said, who gets heard, and which strategies are considered “viable.” And that power isn’t neutral. It shapes the entire ecosystem: from messaging, to candidate recruitment, to what issues get dropped when the polls look scary.

You brought up Citizens United. Great. That ruling locked in a structural disadvantage for working people. So yeah, I think we need to build a party, or a movement, that doesn’t treat donor comfort as the precondition for truth-telling. Otherwise we’re fighting with one hand tied behind our back.

I don’t think the Democratic donor class is more of an enemy than MAGA. But I do think they’re an obstacle to building the kind of coalition that could actually beat MAGA on working-class terms.

 

[rodoheel]

Come on, Rodo. You’re really comparing grassroots frustration with Hillary in 2016 to what’s happening right now: a coordinated campaign by Democratic electeds, media figures, and donors to discredit a nominee who just won an election in the country’s biggest city?

I’m actually comparing it to how some progressives acted toward Biden/Harris, in the 2024 election. Not anything from the 2016 election. And that 2024 effort could very much also be described as a “coordinated campaign.”

Your posts often come off as treating both “liberals” and the “donor class” as a monolith, and this post is an example. There is not some universal “donor class” hostile to progressive interests. Whichever Dem donors are hostile to Mamdani, and spending money to discredit him, I am confident it’s a tiny fraction. Just like it was a small but vocal group of progressives openly campaigning against Harris. But beyond that, I suspect that there are people in the “donor class” who legitimately believe that having a self-identified socialist as the public face of our largest city is not a good thing for Dems at the national level. Some of those people may just be cynically opposing progressive interests, but not all of them are. They simply disagree about what the right national strategy/message is for Dems.

That last part is worth remembering given that what we are talking about in this thread is more of a debate over strategy/approach/messaging than substantive policy. Based on our numerous conversations I’m confident we agree on policy something like 80-90% of the time, we just disagree about how to get there.

 

[Paine]

I’m actually comparing it to how some progressives acted toward Biden/Harris, in the 2024 election. Not anything from the 2016 election. And that 2024 effort could very much also be described as a “coordinated campaign.”

Your posts often come off as treating both “liberals” and the “donor class” as a monolith, and this post is an example. There is not some universal “donor class” hostile to progressive interests. Whichever Dem donors are hostile to Mamdani, and spending money to discredit him, I am confident it’s a tiny fraction. Just like it was a small but vocal group of progressives openly campaigning against Harris. But beyond that, I suspect that there are people in the “donor class” who legitimately believe that having a self-identified socialist as the public face of our largest city is not a good thing for Dems at the national level. Some of those people may just be cynically opposing progressive interests, but not all of them are. They simply disagree about what the right national strategy/message is for Dems.

That last part is worth remembering given that what we are talking about in this thread is more of a debate over strategy/approach/messaging than substantive policy. Based on our numerous conversations I’m confident we agree on policy something like 80-90% of the time, we just disagree about how to get there.

I’m not saying every liberal or every donor is the same. I’m making a structural argument: that the people who drive Democratic messaging (elected officials, consultants, major donors, and party-aligned media) tend to come from the same class and institutional backgrounds, and they set the parameters for what’s considered “reasonable.” That’s not a moral claim about individual liberals or some monolithic cabal. It’s a critique of how power operates in the party.

When I talk about “the donor class,” I don’t mean every person who writes a check. I mean the layer of wealthy, connected actors who shape strategy by deciding which messages get amplified, which candidates get funded, and which issues get treated as liabilities. That layer overwhelmingly leans toward technocratic centrism and recoils from left populism even when left populists are winning.

So when I see Democratic officials and major outlets scrambling to distance themselves from a mayoral nominee who ran and won on a platform of rent relief and public goods, I’m not making assumptions. I’m looking at how power behaves.

You say it’s just disagreement over strategy, not values. But strategy doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Messaging reflects who a party sees as its base, who it’s trying to win over, and who it’s willing to alienate. That’s why this debate matters. Not because I think “liberals are bad,” but because I think the people driving the bus are more interested in managing discontent than organizing around it.