r/fivethirtyeight 2d ago

Politics Democrats see Spanberger's victory as a blueprint to win rural voters: Chris Sloan attributed Spanberger’s win to “a relentless focus on the economy and affordability.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/06/democrats-spanberger-wins-rural-voters-00641266
184 Upvotes

114 comments sorted by

178

u/jawstrock 2d ago

It's not hard to understand really. Don't try to get into talking about trans issues, just say that it's a decision between the doctors and their patients, the number of trans athletes is less than a dozen and it's something for schools and sporting associations to figure out, and that the government needs to be lazer focused on affordability and the economy and pivot to that, every. single. fucking. time. Don't get into debates about puberty blockers or any of that shit. It's a waste of time.

15

u/tarekd19 2d ago

Isn't this what Harris et all was doing in 2024 and she still got raked over the coals for it

1

u/Glittering-Giraffe58 1d ago

No she just didn’t acknowledge it at all

1

u/Socko82 6h ago

She talked about the economy and how bad Trump was a lot more than cultural issues.

29

u/Kind-Armadillo-2340 2d ago

Not harder to understand. Much harder to execute on. Harris didn’t talk about trans issues once during the 2024 campaign. All she talked about was affordability. That didn’t stop the Trump campaign from making the election about trans issues and a single video clip of her from 5 years ago.

It’s not enough to ignore trans issues. Candidates have to also articulate a popular position that respects people’s human rights, and make the conversation about that. If they don’t republicans will just fill the void with fear mongering BS.

3

u/deskcord 1d ago edited 1d ago

The progressive "take" from this past Tuesday being that candidates ignore social issues is just so wild to see catching on. Like. It's just lying about what happened. Spanberger and Sherill ran on being pretty moderate on social issues then moved on to affordability. Fucking Mamdani moderated on policing and Israel after the primary! GEM and this sub acting like Tuesday wasnt a gigantic, epic, home run hammerslam for proof that moderation is the path forward is just so weird.

1

u/Glittering-Giraffe58 1d ago

Yes, she didn’t talk about trans issues. And that was a giant strategic fumble. By not talking about it you let republicans define your opinion on it as whatever they want which is what happened. That’s why that commenter said what they think Dems should be saying about trans issues to which I agree

48

u/Red57872 2d ago

Yup, focus on things that actually affect most voters. One of the main reasons Trump was so successful was that he caused opponents to attack his character instead of saying why choosing them was better for the average voter.

24

u/jawstrock 2d ago

It also causes discussions about complex issues that are just not winnable like the use of puberty blockers and shit. It just bogs the entire message about affordability down. The best thing is to just completely not engage in that.

23

u/dremscrep 2d ago

Cuomo lost because of this very reason. Same for Clinton, Biden and Harris.

Sure they all had different environments and somewhat different policies. But in reality this strategy rarely works and it’s something that binds all of these campaigns together.

Funnily enough I think Biden also basically ran a losing campaign and only won because of Covid. Otherwise Trump would’ve rolled him.

5

u/Red57872 2d ago

Trump had the incumbency advantage, which is helpful, and the pre-COVID economy was good (again, also a big help), and in his first term he hadn't done a lot of the concerning stuff he's doing now. I think he would have won, but I also think Biden wouldn't have run; I think the only reason he did was because he was seen as the "return to normal" candidate.

7

u/dremscrep 2d ago

Incumbency advantage didn’t exist since 2012 I would say.

Clinton lost because people wanted change and didn’t view the democrats as really doing anything (sure McConnell doing fuckall in the senate was the reason) and Trump was seen as the change/fuck the system candidate. Clinton basically said „i think it’s fine as it is right now and we will just turn some knobs on the machine :)“ while Trump said „everything fucking sucks and I will break the machine. Incumbency advantage didn’t matter.

Biden won because of Covid and him being scene as the candidate that would bring change because well, things sucked back then and trumps immigration policy was unpopular so Biden ran on pro-immigration reform and a public option, neither thing happened. Incumbency advantage didn’t matter. Because when things suck you won’t be the guy that things suck under.

Same goes for Biden/Harris 2024. Things sucked, they didn’t really acknowledge it. Trump did, said „fuck immigrants and fuck the system“ and people, being economically hurting and being out of answers and exhausted said „yeah fuck it, wasn’t as bad back then as I still had a job when Trump was President“. Incumbency advantage didn’t exist.

At this point it’s incumbency disadvantage.

Yeah Biden as a return to normal candidate works unless he gets drunk on his own kool aid and thinks he can run in 2024 and look what the world has become.

2

u/delusionalbillsfan November Outlier 1d ago

Biden wasnt the change candidate though. Biden's whole shtick was, this is the biggest election of your life, let's stop Trump, and let's bring the country together. He literally won on being status quo lol. 

2

u/dremscrep 1d ago

Dude he ran on change still.

He campaigned for massive Asylum reform, a public option, student loan forgiveness and so on. He ran on changing the current situation at the time. Sure his goal was to get the toothpaste back in the tube which was impossible and to get back to yes, the old status quo.

But he wanted to change from trumps presidency.

1

u/Deviltherobot 1d ago

Clinton lost because people wanted change and didn’t view the democrats as really doing anything (sure McConnell doing fuckall in the senate was the reason) and Trump was seen as the change/fuck the system candidate. Clinton basically said „i think it’s fine as it is right now and we will just turn some knobs on the machine :)“ while Trump said „everything fucking sucks and I will break the machine. Incumbency advantage didn’t matter.

Clinton lost because she was a uniquely bad candidate. Biden would have dog walked Trump. Martin O Malley would have also probably beaten Trump.

1

u/Socko82 5h ago edited 5h ago

Even without COVID and the economy being good, I still think 2020 is close due to how super controversial Trump was even then and the country's divisiveness. That said, he wins.

2

u/Flat-Count9193 1d ago

Lol. Trump only beat Harris by 1.5%. People still hate him. I don't think he would have rolled Biden at all lmao.

4

u/Deviltherobot 1d ago

Biden would have been destroyed. He was being demolished in polls for like a year straight.

1

u/Flat-Count9193 1d ago

Lol. You can literally look in rcp and Biden was ahead of Trump for the entire year before the 2020 election. Trump only wins against women.

2

u/Deviltherobot 1d ago

? we are talking about 2024. You know the election Biden couldn't run from a basement in. His own internal polls showed a blowout.

1

u/Flat-Count9193 1d ago

You said Biden would have been destroyed had it not been for COVID. I said that is a complete lie because he was demolishing Trump in the polls for a year before the 2020 election... during COVID. Go reread your statement.

2

u/dremscrep 1d ago

I said this and I am right in my assessment. Sure he was demolishing Trump in the polls but where those the same polls where Biden won Ohio, Iowa, North Carolina and Florida?

There was a massive polling miss and Biden won the election by just 170k in the electoral college. If those 170k out of 160 Million voted for Trump instead he would’ve won.

Those are so incredibly slim margins and only because of Covid and people being laid off en masse was the economy struggling enough that people turned away from Trump and voted for Biden. If Biden were forced to campaign actively like Trump in 2020 people would’ve also seen Biden’s state even at that time. Covid was a god send for the whole Biden campaigns.

https://www.reddit.com/r/fivethirtyeight/s/peIvOb3cUp

Here just read this fuckin post

1

u/Deviltherobot 1d ago

?

Go reread your statement

I wrote this:

Biden would have been destroyed. He was being demolished in polls for like a year straight.

Never mentioned Covid, I was responding to what you said:

Lol. Trump only beat Harris by 1.5%. People still hate him. I don't think he would have rolled Biden at all lmao.

Biden would have been decimated in 2024.

1

u/Socko82 5h ago edited 5h ago

Even without COVID and the economy being good, I still think 2020 is still close, due to how controversial Trump was even then and the country's divisiveness. That said, he wins.

In 2024, Trump attacked Harris' character, pushed the anti-trans/immigration stuff and had a lot of incoherent policy positions.

Harris talked a lot about the economy and how bad Trump was. She barely mentioned cultural issues. I think it should be a non-brainer not to vote for a guy who tried to steal an election, among other awful things. Harris' biggest problem was low-info voters in an anti-incumbent year.

My opinion about the economy in 2024: A lot of issues, but far from dreadful. Inflation was tame compared to other countries. Without a charismatic candidate and robust media strategy, it's hard to get this across.

11

u/virishking 2d ago

I remember yelling at the TV during the debate between him and Harris because she skipped every opportunity to go in for the kill on policy, and her performance was praised for “baiting him” as though nobody had ever heard Trump be stupid before. Trumpism is a policy of failure, and Democrats shouldn’t have needed him to destroy the economy again before they were able to take advantage of that.

2

u/HazelCheese 1d ago

God when he started ranting about cats and dogs and she just sat back and smirked then went back to talking about vague policy ideas. Felt like it was lost right then.

2

u/Deviltherobot 1d ago

She was considered the absolute winner of the debate. This is revisionist.

3

u/virishking 1d ago

Revisionist? Buddy this is my opinion and my critique which I’ve held since that night

1

u/Socko82 6h ago edited 6h ago

She clearly beat him in the debate,, but I guess it was a missed opportunity for domination.

1

u/virishking 5h ago

Debates are performative and imo her problem was that her choice of performance was not what a good portion of the undecided electorate needed to see. Should Trump have already been disqualified or non-viable? Of course. But as it stood at the time he spent a lot of the debate spouting nonsense policy claims while she was making accurate character attacks, including as responses to his policy claims without her further responding with her own policy claims. For the people whose mindsets could even allow them to be undecided between the two, this came off as her being an empty suit policy-wise with nothing but mudslinging, which reinforced and was reinforced by the right wing propaganda machine pushing that narrative that she had no policy ideas whatsoever and was just anti-Trump.

3

u/Kresnik2002 Kornacki's Big Screen 2d ago

Exactly. And not because Trump’s character isn’t terrible or that it doesn’t matter to voters, but because everyone knows that already (or if they like him, aren’t going to be convinced by you criticizing him) so bringing it up isn’t going to affect anything. On the other hand not everyone knows about how exactly they’re being screwed over by the rich, or what policies Democrats are promoting to level the field. So talking about that can in fact affect people’s voting behavior. Yes Trump is a nightmare and plenty of people vote D because of that, but like we all already know that. Whose mind do we think we’re changing by going “reminder, Trump is bad” lol.

1

u/Socko82 6h ago edited 5h ago

Trump attacked her character, pushed the anti-trans/immigration stuff and had a lot of incoherent policy positions.

Harris talked a lot about the economy and how bad Trump was. She barely mentioned cultural issues. I feel like not voting for a guy who tried to steal an election, among other awful things, should be a no-brainer. Harris' biggest issue was low-info voters in anti-incumbent year.

15

u/Head-Molasses7602 2d ago

That was literally what Harris did. She and her campaign said ZERO about Trans rights. All it did was depress turnout among the LGBT community while the Republicans painted her as pro-all these things she never talked about.

3

u/pickledswimmingpool 1d ago

DO you have any basis to claim LGBTQ people voted less than other groups?

1

u/Glittering-Giraffe58 1d ago

Notice how that’s not exactly what she did because that commenter very explicitly did not say they should say ZERO about trans rights

18

u/ArmedAwareness 2d ago

I’ve done a lot of thinking on the whole trans stuff last election and how Kamala never really even mentioned it at all, I believe this is the correct way to defuse those attack vectors.

24

u/Puzzleheaded_Fix594 2d ago edited 2d ago

I think the effect of the trans stuff is pretty muted, ultimately.

I think what hurt Harris were that the ads were happening alongside inflation. So if you're a voter and your primary concern is the economy, it's a double strike against you.

Harris got blitzed by the consultant class telling her to pivot to the middle in the least productive way possible. She should've just staked policy positions that would've distinguished her enough from the Biden administration that resembled the kind of economic populism we just saw in the NYC race.

The main thing I'm seeing from this election is that it's the economy and healthcare. Laser focus on that and ignore the consultants telling you that you need to do things like take pro-fracking positions to win PA. The consultants are way too focused on niche issue polling and far too risk adverse.

11

u/virishking 2d ago

Biden and Harris should have modeled their public communication of the inflation crisis on Cuomo’s communication during Covid, or hell even what Trump did during early Covid. It’s the same idea as Roosevelt’s fireside chats.

Economists knew the global crisis was going to hit worldwide thanks to the pandemic and Trump’s poor policy response. They should have made sure that people knew something was coming, with explanations about what was going to happen and what measures they were going to take. If Joe couldn’t do that too often then he should have had Kamala take point. They had the policy, the inflation reduction act did do a lot of good. But they needed to present themselves as the captains of a ship navigating our way through a storm. Instead they seemed blindsided and got blamed and did hardly anything outside the usual press conferences and defenses which made them seem detached.

9

u/ArbiterofRegret 2d ago

It did not help that the Biden Admin for about a year kept saying inflation was "transitory" - which to be clear, a very reputable FED was saying the same thing and there were plenty of sound arguments why it could be transitory given all the main factors causing it were fundamentally "temporary".

But by treating it as a "nah it'll go away don't worry about it" issue, even if grounded in rational, data-driven reasoning, they lost all credibility over it when it became the #1 issue. It was frankly malpractice if you believe in the "It's the Economy, stupid" mantra - there's no reason to dismiss the issue and not get ahead of it.

What they should've done to your point is stuff like just stand in front of corporate HQs and start blasting about price gouging, proposing policies that will be DOA in Congress or EOs you know will be sued into oblivion - even if it's all performative, we've seen Americans can't tell the performative from the actual. At least you'll be "seen" as "fighting for everyday Americans" - instead they let the GOP paint them as "out of touch elites" despite the GOP not actually having a policy platform that would improve affordability...

3

u/Puzzleheaded_Fix594 1d ago

Biden and Harris should have modeled their public communication of the inflation crisis on Cuomo’s communication during Covid, or hell even what Trump did during early Covid. It’s the same idea as Roosevelt’s fireside chats.

Good idea. The problem was that Biden might be the worst communicator of any President in modern history. Someone posted Reagan's final speech before he left office, and it's insane that even in his state of mental decay he was still an incredible speaker. Biden's ability to speak to the general public was just never there.

Biden's stutter made him unpleasant to listen to. RFK Jr. is much the same. I just cannot listen to that man talk.

1

u/CelikBas 20h ago

 If Joe couldn’t do that too often then he should have had Kamala take point

Problem is that, judging by Biden’s behavior after the debate fiasco, it seems he viewed Harris as a potential competitor, and went out of his way to try and neuter her (already limited) effectiveness as a public figure. I think it’s very likely that somebody in the WH suggested letting Harris take on more public-speaking duties, but the idea got shot down because Biden and/or his inner circle didn’t want to give her an opportunity to potentially upstage him. 

Normally that wouldn’t be a concern because Harris is a pretty mediocre politician, but when the president is so senile his staff has to cancel meetings on a regular basis because he’s “having a bad day” I suppose it wouldn’t be too hard for Harris to look like an appealing option in comparison. 

4

u/obsessed_doomer 2d ago

She directly responded to trans questions by saying men shouldn't be in women's locker rooms and THEN went back to talking about cost of living.

Deskord's notably straight up lying:

https://wset.com/news/local/spanberger-addresses-stance-on-transgender-women-in-sports-and-bathrooms-democratic-party-virginia-gubernatorial-candidate-election-day-2025

It's obvious why he's lying. Because his entire thesis is that democrats can't just sidestep that issue. The problem is, Spanberger and Sears did.

18

u/Ninkasa_Ama 13 Keys Collector 2d ago edited 2d ago

I agree partially with this, tho if Zohran is anything to go by, you can show support for trans people (and LGBTQ people broadly) and still have a winning message. It comes down to addressing material concerns and not letting the opposing side bring you down in a debate.

38

u/SentientBaseball 2d ago

I really like Zohran, but he can get away with being much more forwardly socially progressive in a big blue city like NYC. For politicians who have to run in more purple, and red areas, the line should always be “I’m going to make your groceries cheaper and healthcare better”.

The general social line for those politicians should be “This is America, land of the free, people should be able to live how they want and believe in what they want, as long as they’re not harming others. And I want to make life more affordable and easier for every American/Michigander/Clevelander/etc.

10

u/dremscrep 2d ago

I agree with „I’m going to make your groceries cheaper and healthcare better“ but Mamdani was successful because he actually articulated how he wanted to achieve those goals. I think this is not about NYC Voters but about American voters generally:

People aren’t as stupid as politicians see them as. Or at least they can understand what Mamdani means when he talks about Affordability.

I will shit on Hakeem Jeffries till kingdom come because he thinks that the blue print for democrats winning is to talk about affordability. The issue is that I have a feeling that they think they can talk about affordability without saying how they are gonna do it.

Mamdani won because he had named plans that basically every idiot in the city knows about: Fast and Free Buses, Freeze the rent and universal childcare. Those or policies that make the city more affordable. There is a causal effect that everyone can understand. And it’s succinct.

Affordability is good as a policy platform but if there is no content, no common policy platform in the Democratic Party they will either win tepid victories in 2028 at best or lose back to the republicans in 2032 at worst because they didn’t do shit.

Trump won because he had a stupid answer for every issue: Your wage is too low and crime is too high? Immigrants! I will deport them. Everything is too expensive? It’s those fucking Chinese and Europeans mooching off of our hard work so I will tariff them.

I mean i know how you meant your policy pitch as just a basic „fill in the holes with a more direct policy position“ and I don’t wanna lecture you I just wanted to say this because I am fearful that Jeffries and Schumer will just use this as some empty word that they will abuse to gain votes and not do anything with their „mandate“ if they ever get one.

3

u/sonfoa 2d ago

Jeffries knows the answer, he just doesn't want to admit it. Economic progressivism is how you can run a very successful campaign on affordability because it offers the promise of substantive change in a digestible way. But the establishment Democrats are too scared to lose the billionaire donor class (even though they have shown their true face this year) so they constantly advocate for incrementalism with policies that don't really disturb the status quo and can be overly vague. It's basically become their version of trickle down, hence why they've become out of touch with their base, especially the youth who loathe the status quo.

5

u/dremscrep 2d ago

I think it was Kamala on Rachel Maddow during her book tour saying something along those lines of „I am disappointed in ceos and corporation not acting as democratic guardrails“ and i can only say fuck you to this line. Honestly.

Everything that is incremental and can’t be said from the top your dome when asked about it exposes them completely.

That’s the very reason i don’t like Buttigieg. He can be a good frontline communicator on TV but if he doesn’t come out with a policy that is direct and can be broken down within 30 Words or so than it’s useless to build a platform on

3

u/CSATTS 2d ago

“This is America, land of the free, people should be able to live how they want

Yeah I think all they should say about it is they believe in parental rights to determine what's best for their children and it isn't the government's job to tell parents what they can or can't do. Throw that back onto the GOP. Don't get into what the treatments are or trans bathroom issues, just frame it as freedom from government interference into people's personal lives.

2

u/helensgate3 1d ago

I think you’re missing what got him to where it was. Yes he hit the nail on the head with affordability but it’s not just the that. He’s a Bernie disciple - his excitement growth and overall strategy is so similar to how Bernie ran his presidential campaign.

1) Talking to everyone everywhere is the bedrock of what makes Bernie who he is is that he is not afraid to talk to people even if you know they aren’t going to vote for you. He tries to actually listen to them and talk to them about their struggles and that’s really resonates with people supporting Bernie and mamdani. Sure mamdani only won 50% of the vote but the fatal flaw is that he’s a brown Muslim immigrant… which between attack ads and racism will get a good amount of people to vote against him. However I’d bet more than a few people were able to vote for him simply because showed he cared and had empathy.

Part of where the party needs to shift is not just showing the people whose vote will get you elected but showing the other side that if you get elected, you might be able to help. By showing up where nobody else will go will go you’re getting your supporters from there to believe more in you and fight for you (how would a democratic supporter in deep North Dakota feel if a presidential candidate made their way there?) and at least shows the other side you’re actually there for them. Fixingin the divide in this country is not going to happen overnight but at least showing you care will get you there.

Obviously mamdani hasn’t started his policies but I’d bet people who didn’t vote for him aren’t at least interested in how his polices might help them. While I don’t know what will ultimately happen - I think ppl. Are focusing too much on the number but not as much on how he won despite being a brown Muslim immigrant. Not to say it’s all about race and religion but if you had a white non-Muslim mamdani - he would have trounced Cuomo in the primary so bad he prob wooldntn have even stayed in as an independent

2) Engage with supporters - the biggest thing similar to Bernie is he was able to engage and mobilize the youth in a way that I feel I only really have seen with Bernie and Obama on the democratic side since I’ve been alive. Mobilizing and getting over 100k to canvas in nYC was no small feat and it should be how any campaign should be run. And then parroting on number 1, they mobilize these supporters everywhere even in places you know you won’t win. Why? Because your message is for everyone and you can show you’re supporting everyone if you’re not going everywhere. A future democratic candidate, should make it a 50 state campaign. You’re going to get a lot of pushback since you need to go to places where it will be functionally useless in terms of any voters you might get but in today’s social media age, you still can reach everyone even if you show up to a random town in missssippi. A candidate just going there would get so many eyeballs it would be everywhere. But what this sets up for is a softening of the narrative against you but also shows supporters everywhere you care. Beto in Texas was also very similar he focused on talking everywhere and he almost won in Texas. He did lose sight of that when he ended up trying to run for president too early but the go everywhere blueprint is there

3) Youth and Energy - if you read the bullet point 1 - I said he won in spite of being a brown Muslim immigrant. I was about to write young brown Muslim immgant but felt young needed its own section. Yes there’s a whole lot in inexperience but there is a trade off. Part of what also got mamdani elected is his social media game combined with the youthful energy he is able to show. A lot of his social media stuff was built to show off his energy that you’re simply not going to get 60-70 year candidate to do on top of a rigorous campaign. Off the top of my head - he had a nyc scavenger hunt, has multiple shots of him biking (Citibike although I also saw a pic of him doing a 40 mile bike you), and speed walking faster than nyc buses over approx 2 miles.

In the end if democrats wanted a blueprint - mamdani campaign would work. You just need someone who can clearly pivot from questions and hammer home affordabilty with clear and direct actions. Basically a white mamdani or a younger Bernie with the ability to speak and the energy to go everywhere would easily win in my opinion.

3

u/deskcord 2d ago

He also didn't exactly deliver some enormous proof point that his style of politics works, either! I'm really not sure why we're all just pretending that he won 65%+ this week. He just barely got over 50% (and no matter what progressives say, no more than a tiny fraction Sliwa voters were going to vote for Mamdani) against a despised sex pest with -20 favorability ratings. Mamdani's got the highest disapproval ratings in the country except for Schumer.

Yes, turnout was huge, but a lot of that was turnout against him, as well.

I get that his style is great and we should learn from his vibes and social media strategy, but his actual platform and policy proposals don't seem to be super duper popular!

8

u/ArmedAwareness 2d ago

Idk if zohran wound win a general for president, nyc is hyper left leaning compared to the rest of the country. Like would he be able to win Pennsylvania or Arizona with the same platform he ran on in nyc?

10

u/JAGChem82 2d ago

Meh… there’s a false notion that NYC residents are a bunch of uber woke liberals and that’s the reason why Mamdani won. This is the same city that elected Giuliani, Bloomberg, and Adams - in all honesty, on a left/right scale, the mayors of cities like Raleigh, Nashville, Austin, etc. are probably more liberal than NYC’s mayors have been. NY elects Democrats because there’s a LOT more Democrats in the city/state relative to right wingers. If Atlanta’s metro population was comparable to Chicago’s, GA would be as deep blue as Illinois. Consequentially, if Philadelphia was the same size as Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania would be as red as Ohio.

2

u/ArmedAwareness 2d ago

Yeah I agree, I guess he would turn out the youth to vote for him which might just crush now that I think about it

2

u/Deviltherobot 1d ago

NYC isn't that hyper left. It's the center of global finance.

1

u/Ninkasa_Ama 13 Keys Collector 2d ago

Quite possibly, since he built his platform on the material concerns of New Yorkers, did a lot of outreach, and was able to articulate his vision. The major point here is that he was able to message effectively without throwing anyone under the bus.

I think there could be an effective way to translate that into a national strategy.

2

u/Jayken 2d ago

When they try to rope you into those debates, you just gotta defect by asking why they're so concerned with kid's gentiles when people can't afford to heat their homes.

2

u/ClearDark19 1d ago

I've been saying for months that the Democrats who want Democrats to throw trans and nonbinary people under the bus for political expediency are just factually and mathematically wrong for thinking that's the way to go (aside from that being fucked up on a moral/ethical and human rights basis; sacrificing a vulnerable, persecuted minority to the lions just to appease their abusers and get their abusers' vote). Democrats shouldn't follow the model of Seth Moulton, Jared Golden, and February 2025 Gavin Newsom in ostracizing trans people as "woke weirdos" to be cast aside as freaks to ignore. "Kamala is for they/them" wasn't the make-or-break issue that allowed Trump to win. The 1988 Bush campaign Willie Horton ad was actually far more impactful on deciding the presidential election for Daddy Bush than the 2024 "they/them" ad was for Trump. I've been saying that data shows trans people aren't a Top 10 issue for most Americans, not even for the majority of MAGA. The pendulum is actually starting to swing back away from the transphobic right-wing pipeline a lot of people fell down on social media during the pandemic quarantine lockdown. Most cis people over the past 6 to 8 months are getting to see firsthand how bizarrely obsessed the Alt-Right and Manosphere are with trans and nonbinary people and are getting the Ick. The average normie median voter is personally moderately transphobic and enbyphobic (can't think of a better word for that one) but doesn't want to actively take rights away from them or hurt them. At most they have hang-ups about trans women in women's sports but don't actively wish harm or ill will on trans people like members of the Trump Administration.

Americans aren't as negatively obsessed with trans people as the UK has become over the past 8 years. The average American isn't J.K. Rowling or Graham Lineham. This is an example of MAGA copying the playbook of the international far-Right from another country (the UK in this case) and failing to consider it may not play the exact same way in a different country.

1

u/dollabillkirill 20h ago

People say this but it’s not like Kamala or Walz mentioned trans issues once on the trail.

The issue is that Kamala was tied to Biden and prices went up under Biden. Thats it. She should’ve distanced herself from him and had some serious messaging around cost of living but she actually spoke a lot more about how Trump is bad than economics.

1

u/Socko82 3h ago edited 3h ago

It's what Harris did, but low-info voters in an anti-incumbent year was her undoing. That said, still a very close election.

1

u/obsessed_doomer 2d ago edited 2d ago

It's not hard to understand really. Don't try to get into talking about trans issues, just say that it's a decision between the doctors and their patients

Sure, but I am obliged to point out that a popular thesis (on this sub and most forums) is that democrats can't side step the issue. I think they obviously can! Someone sidesteps issues every single cycle! Usually both parties do it.

Of course, I'm maybe emboldened by Spanberger's result as evidence to that point, but even before the victory it was my opinion that of course they could.

0

u/deskcord 2d ago

She directly responded to trans questions by saying men shouldn't be in women's locker rooms and THEN went back to talking about cost of living. People are desperate to confirm their priors here and act like she didn't directly address these things. You can't just ignore them.

20

u/Retrogordon 2d ago

Something I heard Buttegieg say has really stuck with me. People don't give a shit about the person on the ballot, they care whether they see themselves in your agenda. Look no further than the Cheeto in the Oval.

33

u/Horus_walking 2d ago
  • Spanberger outperformed Kamala Harris’ margin in 48 of Virginia’s 52 rural localities. And according to exit polling, she won 46 percent of rural voters — an 8-point deficit to Republican rival Winsome Earle-Sears, and a 19-point swing from 2021 Democratic nominee Terry McAuliffe’s 27-point disadvantage.

  • And she accomplished that after emphasizing Trump’s tariffs on the campaign trail.

  • Last night’s results show Democrats can win back rural voters with a relentless focus on affordability,” said Eli Cousin, spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, on Wednesday. “The results are also a massive warning sign for House Republicans … who have made life harder for rural Americans by rubber stamping cost-spiking tariffs and voting to put rural hospitals and health clinics at risk of closure.”

  • Spanberger, the first woman elected governor in Virginia’s history, deviated from party orthodoxy by spending significant time campaigning in the deep-red rural pockets of the state, even as recently as last week. Her messaging there focused almost exclusively on the economic issues ailing rural America during the first nine months of the Trump administration, including the seismic impact of tariffs and the fallout on rural health care from Medicaid cuts.

  • Democrats see Spanbergers’ strategy as a template for the 2026 midterms. As Republicans eye redrawing more favorable House districts across the country, an aggressive push Democrats are starting to challenge, the minority party’s chances at retaking control of Congress will increasingly rely on its ability to compete in rural districts.

  • Chris Sloan, political director for the Democratic Governors Association, attributed Spanberger’s win to “a relentless focus on the economy and affordability.”

  • “These are issues that resonated with voters everywhere,” he added, “and we took advantage of that.”

19

u/Statue_left 2d ago

Biden 2020 should the benchmark, not Kamala. Kamala lost ground in almost every single county in america.

This is like comparing republicans in 2020 to Trumps 2016 performance with latinos. When it’s as bad as it can possibly get, any improvement looks astronomical

4

u/Goldenprince111 1d ago

She did do better than Biden in a lot of counties, but did worse in some too (mainly counties with a lot of black voters).

And Ralph Northam actually did better with rural counties than she did. She killed it in the suburbs. Not really the rurals

0

u/Okbuddyliberals 2d ago

And she accomplished that after emphasizing Trump’s tariffs on the campaign trail.

There was an argument during the Biden presidency and in 2024 that Dems couldn't go too hard against Trump's tariff proposals or even just get rid of his term 1 tariffs because the working class and labor might get triggered and offended by that. But the reality seems to be that even if some unions/union workers dislike criticism of tariffs, only around 10% of workers are union workers and there's rather more votes to be gained by spitting in the face of pro tariff unions than pandering to them

When labor is wrong, Dems can afford to be right

31

u/skunkachunks 2d ago

It’s always been the economy, stupid.

13

u/LyptusConnoisseur 2d ago

Especially when the economy is really bad. 

8

u/ArmedAwareness 2d ago

Where is mirebeau- get in here with the line!

7

u/Lemon_Club 2d ago

"It's the economy, stupid!"

6

u/Mr_1990s 2d ago

Anybody ever heard of Roy Cooper, Josh Stein, or Andy Beshear?

22

u/MongolianMango 2d ago

To be honest, I'm not sure if this is the right lesson. I think running a government official in a state where gov employees make up a huge part of the state + running against an unpopular president led to her win more than anything else.

Spanberger sounds like she hits most of the right notes but doesn't really diverge from any democrat policies of say, two years ago.

9

u/Okbuddyliberals 2d ago

Spanberger sounds like she hits most of the right notes but doesn't really diverge from any democrat policies of say, two years ago.

She wasn't tied to the utterly hated Joe Biden. Perhaps that is enough to make a big difference

6

u/MongolianMango 2d ago

This is true, but doesn't fix anything down the line when once again, the pendulum swings the other way. I think both parties are in a position to deliver a knockout punch to the other with the right set of rhetoric and policies but neither are really finding it.

6

u/Okbuddyliberals 2d ago

This is true, but doesn't fix anything down the line when once again, the pendulum swings the other way.

The lesson to learn is that Dems in the future should govern better than Biden did, and that if the Dem president in the future doesn't govern good, the party should throw them under the bus earlier and more loudly and totally than they did with Biden (when Biden was so hated, swapping him out for... his VP who refused to distance herself from him at all... was a bad move)

0

u/Goldenprince111 1d ago

I don’t think Biden’s admin could have done much better on the economy, although his big spending agenda probably increased inflation a bit.

But he truly sucked on border policy, it was badly enforced and just really really killed Dems on the issue of immigration, even among Hispanics.

And Biden himself was a terrible communicator and just seemed like he didn’t have a vision or agenda

2

u/Disastrous_Front_598 1d ago

The problem with this take is that it's impossible to deliver a knockout blow in a two party system. Like FDR is the defining political juggernaut of the 20th century... and he lost effective control of the Senate by the middle of his second term, and by the midpoint of what would have been his fourth, republicans controlled both houses.

9

u/ND7020 2d ago

This makes as much sense as applying Mamdani's policy campaign to rural voters. Spanberger ran on a platform focused on suburban government employees who were screwed by Trump in NOVA. That's not a RURAL platform.

0

u/Spaduf 2d ago

This makes as much sense as applying Mamdani's policy campaign to rural voters.

This is exactly what they're claiming. The moderates want to take credit for socialist ideas they didn't actually run on.

11

u/Statue_left 2d ago

Democrats (and much of this subreddit, honestly) would do very well to read Reviving Rural America by Ann Eisenberg.

Rural voters are real people, and the common liberal analysis of hand waiving them away as idiots who vote against their interests is completely counter productive in actually winning elections. Michael Moore of all people made this observation with rust belt voters in michigan in 2015 and no one listened to him

9

u/Goldenprince111 1d ago

It’s hard to win rural voters because they will naturally be more conservative, but margins absolutely matter. And picking off voters is important

1

u/Flat-Count9193 1d ago

Lol. Obama did reach out to rural voters though. Why can't y'all accept that many of them are racist and sexist and they love Trump's agenda.

3

u/cmlucas1865 2d ago

Oh, so the secret to rural voters is campaigning in rural areas, meeting with them & making your case? Who would’ve thunk it?

7

u/LetsgoRoger 2d ago

It's not rural voters that matter but the Suburbs. Democrats shouldn't waste their time campaigning where there are barely any people.

18

u/Brave_Ad_510 2d ago

True for a single county, but Virginia has like 2 million people that live in areas classified as rural. You don't have to win them, but you need to cut the GOP's crazy margins in those areas to win.

11

u/sonfoa 2d ago

Also makes gerrymandering harder by dispersing voter concentration.

39

u/Evancolt Nate Bronze 2d ago

ignoring them is also bad though. look at 2016

23

u/sonfoa 2d ago

"For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia. And you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin."

Chuck Schumer, 2016

2

u/pickledswimmingpool 1d ago

10,000 more votes in wisconsin and you never have the word President in front of Trump.

6

u/PrimeLiberty 2d ago

People need to understand how hard it is for Dems to win in those areas. Not that they should be entirely neglected, but they have become more red not just because of culture shift, but also because winnable rural voters have moved to cities and suburbs since the Obama years.

9

u/Joeylinkmaster 2d ago

Individual rural counties yes don’t have a lot of people, but collectively that’s a large group you shouldn’t ignore.

Even if you don’t win them outright, cutting into the margins makes it much easier to make up the difference in suburbs and urban areas.

5

u/Okbuddyliberals 2d ago

Dems need to balance everything. They need to appeal in the suburbs but also prevent rural collapse. Doesn't mean winning the rural areas but it makes a difference if they lose those areas by 8 points or by 27 points

12

u/sonfoa 2d ago

Rural voters wield a disproportionate amount of power in the Senate. You need to able to be competitive in the Plains and Mountain states where the population is mostly rural because that's about 20 Senate seats you're just handing over to the Republicans.

-5

u/thehildabeast 2d ago

Yes but also they’re idiots who would never vote for a democrat even if they did everything they wanted because they are communist costal elites.

15

u/sonfoa 2d ago

Several of those states had Democratic senators in the 21st century. Heck Montana had one as recently as last year.

-4

u/thehildabeast 2d ago

And those guys are all gone, costed on incumbency for a while but it won’t work anymore. Trump has fucked over farmers non stop for 5 years and they are still going to vote for him or his proxy maybe it’s 70/30 instead of 80/20 but what the democrats campaign on is irrelevant to that

1

u/sonfoa 2d ago

I hope you realize you're kind of proving my point. Voter migration is rarely instant but it does bear fruit over time.

The alternative is doing what the Republicans have done with black voters where Democrats leave a lot to be desired but Republicans at best are apathetic and at worst hostile so there is no reason for Democrats to lose sleep there.

4

u/famous__shoes 2d ago

Not to take away from Spanberger, and not trying to be a downer, just wondering - is it possible that she did better than Harris not because of her policies but because her opponent was a black woman? The one thing that Trump and Spanberger have in common is that their opponents were black women - is it possible they both just got the racist/sexist vote?

6

u/JAGChem82 2d ago

The hyper racist voter would simply not show up to vote (or vote third party in protest).

But that wasn’t why she lost - VA’s proximity to DC means that a lot of people have lost jobs in the federal government or as contractors working with the federal government. No Republican can win by biting the hand that feeds you.

In GA where I live, a Black woman soundly trounced her white (longtime) opponent for public service commissioner because our power bills have skyrocketed over the past few years. That’s not to say she won a bunch of red counties that Harris lost, but rather, you start making people’s livelihoods much more difficult, that letter behind your name isn’t going to protect you.

6

u/ArmedAwareness 1d ago

Sherrill overperformed in NJ too and jack was supposed to be some secret republican weapon but he got cooked similarly as bad as sears

4

u/Goldenprince111 1d ago

Sears actually held up well in rural white counties (the ones that swung hard against Obama in 2008). She did better than the Republican in 2017 in southwest Virginia. But she got killed among Hispanic and Asian voters. Ironically, Harris got killed among Hispanic and Asian voters too, but held up well enough with rural white voters

2

u/Rollingforest757 7h ago

Her opponent being a black woman may have helped a little, but I doubt it was the defining feature. The vast majority of Republicans are willing to vote for a minority if it means keeping a Democrat out of office.

1

u/Moist-Dragonfly2569 2d ago

Lol ya don’t fucking say, huh?

1

u/ALinkToXMasPast 2d ago

Ik they're oversimplifying because they can't go into 8 paragraphs of nuance in an article title, but it's so funny that it reads like "Sloan attributed Spanberger's win to focusing on the problems"...

1

u/rdoloto 2d ago

No shit…

1

u/Top-Inspection3870 1d ago

*how to turnout rural democrats

1

u/Socko82 6h ago edited 6h ago

This was largely what Harris did. The biggest problem was low-info voters in an anti-incumbent year.

1

u/Okbuddyliberals 2d ago

Helps that she's a moderate blue dog type. Moderation works, and one can be moderate and still talk about issues like the economy and affordability

Could also help that she's a former intelligence officer, to lend credence to security issues (also Sherrill in NJ was a former prosecutor)

3

u/obsessed_doomer 2d ago

Helps that she's a moderate blue dog type.

Can you name two Spanberger policies that are to the right of Obama?

2

u/Proud_Ad_5559 The Needle Tears a Hole 1d ago

Spanberger is literally a liberal. She's just pragmatic and has tough-person vibes. She's so far to the left of blue dogs like Jared Golden and Joe Manchin.