Imagine looking at this polling and saying, but we should still move way from this
Do you really think any of that will make a dent in the senate or Supreme Court in the next ten years ? Give all your money to the Dems so they can run ads on that stuff and see how much power you get in dc and how many democrats remain.
Too bad democrats are becoming an endangered species. I wonder what policies the socialist party of America wants, because soon enough, they’ll have more power and influence than democrats.
The way you paint it makes it seem like Democrats will never win again unless they just become Republican.
Regarding Senate ( and by extension SCOTUS ) not sure where the optimism would be looking at 2026/28 maps. Then 2030 census, ten electoral votes/house seats moving from blue states to the south. That’s the context. Not sure about never, but these political maps make 2020 seem like a lifetime ago.
It won’t be a 10 seat flip like you’re suggesting.
These are electoral votes as well, leaving mostly CA & NY for the south. Go ahead and fantasize those aren’t mostly votes going to the Rs. That fantasy is your constitutional right.
You keep talking like the 2024 election was a massive blow out. It wasn’t. It was close. A few great ideals that can swing some undecideds, or activation of those who stayed home with a candidate that is well liked, and it’s a different ballgame. Sorry I’m not as pessimistic as you are.
You keep talking like the 2024 election was a massive blow out. It wasn’t. It was close. A few great ideals that can swing some undecideds, or activation of those who stayed home with a candidate that is well liked, and it’s a different ballgame. Sorry I’m not as pessimistic as you are.
After arguing forcefully that he is a convict, a rapist, an insurrectionist…he won by two million votes and every swing state.
What is most problematic is he swung a couple solid blue states in his direction like NY by ten points from 2020. That is not insignificant.
I am guessing that you did not realize your graph earlier is very telling. It can easily be interpreted as moderates getting alienated by the party and no longer identifying as democrats. So what is left? A smaller more liberal party that fantasizes the country will vote for stuff like that. Yes it’s not all bad… they should win the house next year, but they’ll need to identify with larger numbers of moderates more often to win the more important senate back in the forceable future, not more voters on the far left
You keep talking like the 2024 election was a massive blow out. It wasn’t. It was close. A few great ideals that can swing some undecideds, or activation of those who stayed home with a candidate that is well liked, and it’s a different ballgame. Sorry I’m not as pessimistic as you are.
After arguing forcefully that he is a convict, a rapist, an insurrectionist…he won by two million votes and every swing state.
What is most problematic is he swung a couple solid blue states in his direction like NY by ten points from 2020. That is not insignificant.
I am guessing that you did not realize your graph earlier is very telling. It can easily be interpreted as moderates getting alienated by the party and no longer identifying as democrats. So what is left? A smaller more liberal party that fantasizes the country will vote for stuff like that. Yes it’s not all bad… they should win the house next year, but they’ll need to identify with larger numbers of moderates more often to win the more important senate back in the forceable future, not more voters on the far left
It doesn’t change the fact that he is a sexual predator and a conman yeah too bad half this nation loves themselves criminals to lead the nation
You keep talking like the 2024 election was a massive blow out. It wasn’t. It was close. A few great ideals that can swing some undecideds, or activation of those who stayed home with a candidate that is well liked, and it’s a different ballgame. Sorry I’m not as pessimistic as you are.
After arguing forcefully that he is a convict, a rapist, an insurrectionist…he won by two million votes and every swing state.
What is most problematic is he swung a couple solid blue states in his direction like NY by ten points from 2020. That is not insignificant.
I am guessing that you did not realize your graph earlier is very telling. It can easily be interpreted as moderates getting alienated by the party and no longer identifying as democrats. So what is left? A smaller more liberal party that fantasizes the country will vote for stuff like that. Yes it’s not all bad… they should win the house next year, but they’ll need to identify with larger numbers of moderates more often to win the more important senate back in the forceable future, not more voters on the far left
No they just need to sell some policies that are popular with Americans. Trump won because Americans felt they weren’t winning with Biden and Harris and he was the only other option.
Again Shecky, context is important. She is being investigated by the Feds as political retribution for brining cases against Donald Trump. The State is backing its AG as it should.
heard similar recently on the bulwark I think a couple weeks ago.
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more
The Politics of Getting Laid and Preachy Females It’s Not About “Getting Laid.” It’s About Getting Ahead. Olivia Julianna and Harry Sisson May 13
READ IN APP
*This post was written by Olivia Julianna, edited by Harry Sisson*
It’s no secret that young men have been turning away from the Democratic Party—and pundits, commentators, politicians, and young men with platforms have all offered their takes on why. Well, add us to the mix.
The short answer? They’re not turning away from Democrats because of “preachy women” or because they’re not getting laid. Those are surface-level excuses—comfortable talking points that help men avoid deeper, more vulnerable, and ultimately more productive conversations.
We can preach all day long that voters should vote based on compassion for others, but the reality is that people vote selfishly. What is best for them? Their families? Their futures. If we pretend we're in any other reality we will continue to lose not just men, but all voters across the board.
Across race and age, the top three issues for young men were inflation and the cost of living, immigration and the border, and jobs and the economy.
In politics, we talk often about the lived realities of women—how abortion bans, healthcare access, beauty standards, and social media impact their lives. But we rarely extend that same level of curiosity or compassion to young men in our messaging.
Take abortion, for example.
When Democrats talk to young men about abortion, it’s usually framed around protecting the women in their lives—emphasizing their role as caretakers, defenders, or allies. But what’s almost never acknowledged is the economic and life-altering impact that an unplanned pregnancy can have on young men themselves.
If a young couple becomes pregnant unexpectedly, the woman may not be ready—maybe she’s in college, working toward a future she isn’t ready to interrupt.
But the same applies to young men. One moment you’re a college kid hooking up with your girlfriend or a one-night stand after bar-hopping, and the next, you’re facing the reality of becoming a father—expected to provide not just for yourself, but for a family you weren’t prepared for, didn’t plan, and may not have wanted at that point in your life. You go from laying the groundwork for your future to being the foundation for someone else—before you've even had the chance to pour your own concrete. It doesn’t mean that the struggle of women comes second, it means the two co-exist.
From a young age, society conditions men with expectations just like it does for women. While women are shaped around appearance, submission, and “wifely” duties, men are told their worth lies in how well they can provide.
They’re expected to get a high-paying job, dress well, stay fit, be a good husband and father, climb the social ladder, buy the house, pay the bills, build generational wealth. Hustle. Grind. Don’t stop.
You are the provider. You are the man. It’s a system built on a dichotomy: women are objectified and exploited, while men are cast as the ones in control.
But here’s the catch—it all rests on the assumption that men have power.
And if you can’t be a provider—financially, emotionally, or physically—what power do you really have?
Upgrade to paid Yes, people can point to male privilege or the patriarchy. You can note that men hold most elected offices or lead Fortune 500 companies. That there are no laws dictating what men can or can’t do with their bodies. But that doesn’t change the fact that the kind of comfort, success, and mobility we associate with male power simply isn’t available to all men. Even though they’ve been told it is.
The same young men who vote Republican because they care about jobs or the economy don’t understand that they’re voting for the very people who created the economic systems that are breaking them. They don’t see Donald Trump blocking a federal minimum wage increase or giving tax cuts to the ultra-wealthy—they see a businessman surrounded by wealth and power.
They see the man they’ve been told since birth they should become. And let’s be clear— successful and powerful men exist in the Democratic party too. And young Trump-supporting men are receptive to them.
Take Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s recent appearance on Flagrant, a podcast hosted by Trump-supporting comedian Andrew Schulz. Buttigieg talked about his vision for America—good-paying jobs, the ability to provide for your family, to live a healthy, happy, balanced life. He shared his experience adopting children with his husband and becoming a parent. And Schulz and his co-hosts weren’t just listening—they were engaged. Because those are the goals and dreams they have, too.
Democrats don’t need to “moderate” or help young men get laid to earn their vote—we just need to treat them with empathy and tell them the truth.
Send Secretary Pete Buttigieg to Flagrant to talk about parenting. Put Governor Wes Moore on fitness podcasts to share his workout routine and lessons from military service. Have Governor JB Pritzker break down generational wealth on business shows. Let Senator Ruben Gallego speak at a rodeo about culture, masculinity, and pride of place.
Show young men that the Democratic Party isn’t just full of people who talk about their values—but leaders who live them. Leaders who’ve built the kind of lives these voters want—and who are fighting to make those lives possible for everyone.
Republicans have successfully courted young male voters by making the conditions for success impossible—and then giving them someone else to blame. They’ve created a trap: either admit you’re failing to become the man you were told to be, or believe it’s someone else’s fault.
If you’re a young man who went to college, works full-time, hustles every day, and still can’t get ahead—whether you’re doing back-breaking labor in the oil field, working sunup to sundown as a construction worker, or getting yelled at in a call center—are you really going to believe you’re the problem?
Blaming others may not be the right choice, but it’s the easy one—and it’s the one many young men are making. That’s why immigration ranks so high among their political concerns. Not because they inherently fear immigrants, but because they’ve been convinced that their lack of success stems from competition, not from the policies keeping them stuck.
'ABSURD': Democratic strategist blames 'preachy females' for Dems' polling problems So when people like James Carville or David Hogg reduce this crisis to not getting laid or women being too preachy, they fall into the same trap as Donald Trump. They shift blame instead of offering truth—and more importantly, solutions.
It is not the Democratic Party’s job to get young men laid, nor is it our job to ask women to be less outraged about the world we live in.
Our job is to give both young men and women the opportunity to succeed—to build real, sustainable lives for themselves.
Our job is to help them reach their version of the American Dream—not to rely on empty messaging rooted in the same hollow masculinity that got us into this mess in the first place.
I would strongly encourage those in the Democratic Party making assumptions about how young men think or operate to visit a frat house, an oil rig, or a comida—and actually talk to the young men who make up America. I have. And that’s why, despite being a so-called “preachy female” myself, I’m able to connect with them beyond asking for their vote.
A New Perspective is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Upgrade to paid
A guest post by Harry Sisson 22 | Democrat | @harryjsisson (1 million+) on Tik Tok | Email: inquiries@harryjsisson.net Subscribe to Harry If you believe in bold, truth-telling political commentary that cuts through the noise, consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Meh. I think it's simpler than what he wrote. Trump was effective at using podcasts and other new medium to reach young men and appeal to their machismo. Democrats don't do that naturally. And these young men only heard one voice, the Rogan's and others day after day with the macho message and pro-Trump talking points.
Never mind the shorter than a gnat’s attention span and inability to critically think about the differences between the parties platforms and legislative agendas. Much easier to listen to the bros riffing than read and understand what the policies do and how they impact you and those around you.
Litter Boxes in classrooms and pets being eaten are scary things.
Never mind the shorter than a gnat’s attention span and inability to critically think about the differences between the parties platforms and legislative agendas. Much easier to listen to the bros riffing than read and understand what the policies do and how they impact you and those around you.
Litter Boxes in classrooms and pets being eaten are scary things.
I was in Aruba last week. We have a condo/timeshare there.
Last year was our first year visiting and we ran into the couple staying in the unit below us at the pool. We're mid 50s they are late 60s. It only took a few minutes for them to say something pro trump and I let them know that I didn't care for him and thought he was a shitty president the first time.
Fast forward to last week...ran into them again in the pool but I don't think they remembered that conversation from last year. They didn't really say much about trump but in that 20 minute conversation (one that started off about dogs, places around us to eat, etc.) they brought up that covid was a hoax, ivermectin is a cure for the hoax, chemtrails, litterboxes in classrooms (the guy actually said "this happened in the schools by us" which is total bullshit.
Very nice people otherwise but they pulled out every stupid subject in the book in just a few minutes.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
heard similar recently on the bulwark I think a couple weeks ago.
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more
The Politics of Getting Laid and Preachy Females It’s Not About “Getting Laid.” It’s About Getting Ahead. Olivia Julianna and Harry Sisson May 13
READ IN APP
*This post was written by Olivia Julianna, edited by Harry Sisson*
It’s no secret that young men have been turning away from the Democratic Party—and pundits, commentators, politicians, and young men with platforms have all offered their takes on why. Well, add us to the mix.
The short answer? They’re not turning away from Democrats because of “preachy women” or because they’re not getting laid. Those are surface-level excuses—comfortable talking points that help men avoid deeper, more vulnerable, and ultimately more productive conversations.
We can preach all day long that voters should vote based on compassion for others, but the reality is that people vote selfishly. What is best for them? Their families? Their futures. If we pretend we're in any other reality we will continue to lose not just men, but all voters across the board.
Across race and age, the top three issues for young men were inflation and the cost of living, immigration and the border, and jobs and the economy.
In politics, we talk often about the lived realities of women—how abortion bans, healthcare access, beauty standards, and social media impact their lives. But we rarely extend that same level of curiosity or compassion to young men in our messaging.
Take abortion, for example.
When Democrats talk to young men about abortion, it’s usually framed around protecting the women in their lives—emphasizing their role as caretakers, defenders, or allies. But what’s almost never acknowledged is the economic and life-altering impact that an unplanned pregnancy can have on young men themselves.
If a young couple becomes pregnant unexpectedly, the woman may not be ready—maybe she’s in college, working toward a future she isn’t ready to interrupt.
But the same applies to young men. One moment you’re a college kid hooking up with your girlfriend or a one-night stand after bar-hopping, and the next, you’re facing the reality of becoming a father—expected to provide not just for yourself, but for a family you weren’t prepared for, didn’t plan, and may not have wanted at that point in your life. You go from laying the groundwork for your future to being the foundation for someone else—before you've even had the chance to pour your own concrete. It doesn’t mean that the struggle of women comes second, it means the two co-exist.
From a young age, society conditions men with expectations just like it does for women. While women are shaped around appearance, submission, and “wifely” duties, men are told their worth lies in how well they can provide.
They’re expected to get a high-paying job, dress well, stay fit, be a good husband and father, climb the social ladder, buy the house, pay the bills, build generational wealth. Hustle. Grind. Don’t stop.
You are the provider. You are the man. It’s a system built on a dichotomy: women are objectified and exploited, while men are cast as the ones in control.
But here’s the catch—it all rests on the assumption that men have power.
And if you can’t be a provider—financially, emotionally, or physically—what power do you really have?
Upgrade to paid Yes, people can point to male privilege or the patriarchy. You can note that men hold most elected offices or lead Fortune 500 companies. That there are no laws dictating what men can or can’t do with their bodies. But that doesn’t change the fact that the kind of comfort, success, and mobility we associate with male power simply isn’t available to all men. Even though they’ve been told it is.
The same young men who vote Republican because they care about jobs or the economy don’t understand that they’re voting for the very people who created the economic systems that are breaking them. They don’t see Donald Trump blocking a federal minimum wage increase or giving tax cuts to the ultra-wealthy—they see a businessman surrounded by wealth and power.
They see the man they’ve been told since birth they should become. And let’s be clear— successful and powerful men exist in the Democratic party too. And young Trump-supporting men are receptive to them.
Take Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s recent appearance on Flagrant, a podcast hosted by Trump-supporting comedian Andrew Schulz. Buttigieg talked about his vision for America—good-paying jobs, the ability to provide for your family, to live a healthy, happy, balanced life. He shared his experience adopting children with his husband and becoming a parent. And Schulz and his co-hosts weren’t just listening—they were engaged. Because those are the goals and dreams they have, too.
Democrats don’t need to “moderate” or help young men get laid to earn their vote—we just need to treat them with empathy and tell them the truth.
Send Secretary Pete Buttigieg to Flagrant to talk about parenting. Put Governor Wes Moore on fitness podcasts to share his workout routine and lessons from military service. Have Governor JB Pritzker break down generational wealth on business shows. Let Senator Ruben Gallego speak at a rodeo about culture, masculinity, and pride of place.
Show young men that the Democratic Party isn’t just full of people who talk about their values—but leaders who live them. Leaders who’ve built the kind of lives these voters want—and who are fighting to make those lives possible for everyone.
Republicans have successfully courted young male voters by making the conditions for success impossible—and then giving them someone else to blame. They’ve created a trap: either admit you’re failing to become the man you were told to be, or believe it’s someone else’s fault.
If you’re a young man who went to college, works full-time, hustles every day, and still can’t get ahead—whether you’re doing back-breaking labor in the oil field, working sunup to sundown as a construction worker, or getting yelled at in a call center—are you really going to believe you’re the problem?
Blaming others may not be the right choice, but it’s the easy one—and it’s the one many young men are making. That’s why immigration ranks so high among their political concerns. Not because they inherently fear immigrants, but because they’ve been convinced that their lack of success stems from competition, not from the policies keeping them stuck.
'ABSURD': Democratic strategist blames 'preachy females' for Dems' polling problems So when people like James Carville or David Hogg reduce this crisis to not getting laid or women being too preachy, they fall into the same trap as Donald Trump. They shift blame instead of offering truth—and more importantly, solutions.
It is not the Democratic Party’s job to get young men laid, nor is it our job to ask women to be less outraged about the world we live in.
Our job is to give both young men and women the opportunity to succeed—to build real, sustainable lives for themselves.
Our job is to help them reach their version of the American Dream—not to rely on empty messaging rooted in the same hollow masculinity that got us into this mess in the first place.
I would strongly encourage those in the Democratic Party making assumptions about how young men think or operate to visit a frat house, an oil rig, or a comida—and actually talk to the young men who make up America. I have. And that’s why, despite being a so-called “preachy female” myself, I’m able to connect with them beyond asking for their vote.
A New Perspective is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Upgrade to paid
A guest post by Harry Sisson 22 | Democrat | @harryjsisson (1 million+) on Tik Tok | Email: inquiries@harryjsisson.net Subscribe to Harry If you believe in bold, truth-telling political commentary that cuts through the noise, consider becoming a paid subscriber.
The majority of young white men are not going to relate to the types solutions to the cultural things that have become big with Dems the last few years …like lgbt rights or dei.
No matter how you spin in, democrats are too tired to figure this out for themselves. They need to figure out how to help those in need without giving handouts.
heard similar recently on the bulwark I think a couple weeks ago.
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more
The Politics of Getting Laid and Preachy Females It’s Not About “Getting Laid.” It’s About Getting Ahead. Olivia Julianna and Harry Sisson May 13
READ IN APP
*This post was written by Olivia Julianna, edited by Harry Sisson*
It’s no secret that young men have been turning away from the Democratic Party—and pundits, commentators, politicians, and young men with platforms have all offered their takes on why. Well, add us to the mix.
The short answer? They’re not turning away from Democrats because of “preachy women” or because they’re not getting laid. Those are surface-level excuses—comfortable talking points that help men avoid deeper, more vulnerable, and ultimately more productive conversations.
We can preach all day long that voters should vote based on compassion for others, but the reality is that people vote selfishly. What is best for them? Their families? Their futures. If we pretend we're in any other reality we will continue to lose not just men, but all voters across the board.
Across race and age, the top three issues for young men were inflation and the cost of living, immigration and the border, and jobs and the economy.
In politics, we talk often about the lived realities of women—how abortion bans, healthcare access, beauty standards, and social media impact their lives. But we rarely extend that same level of curiosity or compassion to young men in our messaging.
Take abortion, for example.
When Democrats talk to young men about abortion, it’s usually framed around protecting the women in their lives—emphasizing their role as caretakers, defenders, or allies. But what’s almost never acknowledged is the economic and life-altering impact that an unplanned pregnancy can have on young men themselves.
If a young couple becomes pregnant unexpectedly, the woman may not be ready—maybe she’s in college, working toward a future she isn’t ready to interrupt.
But the same applies to young men. One moment you’re a college kid hooking up with your girlfriend or a one-night stand after bar-hopping, and the next, you’re facing the reality of becoming a father—expected to provide not just for yourself, but for a family you weren’t prepared for, didn’t plan, and may not have wanted at that point in your life. You go from laying the groundwork for your future to being the foundation for someone else—before you've even had the chance to pour your own concrete. It doesn’t mean that the struggle of women comes second, it means the two co-exist.
From a young age, society conditions men with expectations just like it does for women. While women are shaped around appearance, submission, and “wifely” duties, men are told their worth lies in how well they can provide.
They’re expected to get a high-paying job, dress well, stay fit, be a good husband and father, climb the social ladder, buy the house, pay the bills, build generational wealth. Hustle. Grind. Don’t stop.
You are the provider. You are the man. It’s a system built on a dichotomy: women are objectified and exploited, while men are cast as the ones in control.
But here’s the catch—it all rests on the assumption that men have power.
And if you can’t be a provider—financially, emotionally, or physically—what power do you really have?
Upgrade to paid Yes, people can point to male privilege or the patriarchy. You can note that men hold most elected offices or lead Fortune 500 companies. That there are no laws dictating what men can or can’t do with their bodies. But that doesn’t change the fact that the kind of comfort, success, and mobility we associate with male power simply isn’t available to all men. Even though they’ve been told it is.
The same young men who vote Republican because they care about jobs or the economy don’t understand that they’re voting for the very people who created the economic systems that are breaking them. They don’t see Donald Trump blocking a federal minimum wage increase or giving tax cuts to the ultra-wealthy—they see a businessman surrounded by wealth and power.
They see the man they’ve been told since birth they should become. And let’s be clear— successful and powerful men exist in the Democratic party too. And young Trump-supporting men are receptive to them.
Take Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s recent appearance on Flagrant, a podcast hosted by Trump-supporting comedian Andrew Schulz. Buttigieg talked about his vision for America—good-paying jobs, the ability to provide for your family, to live a healthy, happy, balanced life. He shared his experience adopting children with his husband and becoming a parent. And Schulz and his co-hosts weren’t just listening—they were engaged. Because those are the goals and dreams they have, too.
Democrats don’t need to “moderate” or help young men get laid to earn their vote—we just need to treat them with empathy and tell them the truth.
Send Secretary Pete Buttigieg to Flagrant to talk about parenting. Put Governor Wes Moore on fitness podcasts to share his workout routine and lessons from military service. Have Governor JB Pritzker break down generational wealth on business shows. Let Senator Ruben Gallego speak at a rodeo about culture, masculinity, and pride of place.
Show young men that the Democratic Party isn’t just full of people who talk about their values—but leaders who live them. Leaders who’ve built the kind of lives these voters want—and who are fighting to make those lives possible for everyone.
Republicans have successfully courted young male voters by making the conditions for success impossible—and then giving them someone else to blame. They’ve created a trap: either admit you’re failing to become the man you were told to be, or believe it’s someone else’s fault.
If you’re a young man who went to college, works full-time, hustles every day, and still can’t get ahead—whether you’re doing back-breaking labor in the oil field, working sunup to sundown as a construction worker, or getting yelled at in a call center—are you really going to believe you’re the problem?
Blaming others may not be the right choice, but it’s the easy one—and it’s the one many young men are making. That’s why immigration ranks so high among their political concerns. Not because they inherently fear immigrants, but because they’ve been convinced that their lack of success stems from competition, not from the policies keeping them stuck.
'ABSURD': Democratic strategist blames 'preachy females' for Dems' polling problems So when people like James Carville or David Hogg reduce this crisis to not getting laid or women being too preachy, they fall into the same trap as Donald Trump. They shift blame instead of offering truth—and more importantly, solutions.
It is not the Democratic Party’s job to get young men laid, nor is it our job to ask women to be less outraged about the world we live in.
Our job is to give both young men and women the opportunity to succeed—to build real, sustainable lives for themselves.
Our job is to help them reach their version of the American Dream—not to rely on empty messaging rooted in the same hollow masculinity that got us into this mess in the first place.
I would strongly encourage those in the Democratic Party making assumptions about how young men think or operate to visit a frat house, an oil rig, or a comida—and actually talk to the young men who make up America. I have. And that’s why, despite being a so-called “preachy female” myself, I’m able to connect with them beyond asking for their vote.
A New Perspective is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Upgrade to paid
A guest post by Harry Sisson 22 | Democrat | @harryjsisson (1 million+) on Tik Tok | Email: inquiries@harryjsisson.net Subscribe to Harry If you believe in bold, truth-telling political commentary that cuts through the noise, consider becoming a paid subscriber.
The majority of young white men are not going to relate to the types solutions to the cultural things that have become big with Dems the last few years …like lgbt rights or dei.
No matter how you spin in, democrats are too tired to figure this out for themselves. They need to figure out how to help those in need without giving handouts.
how about the government handouts to musk and the other billionaires then?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
We can try to balance that out with a little truth? This Hawkey dude must be a democrat?
Don’t none of them stand up against their party? It’s not like they lied about trumps competency and covered it up and took away our right to vote? Too tired to care?
Polls show Democrats down in the dumps at their lowest approval level in decades, but we Republicans are having an identity crisis of our own, and you can see it in the tug of war over President Trump’s “one big, beautiful bill.” The nub of the conflict: Will Republicans be a majority party of working people, or a permanent minority speaking only for the C suite?
Mr. Trump has promised working-class tax cuts and protection for working-class social insurance, such as Medicaid. But now a noisy contingent of corporatist Republicans — call it the party’s Wall Street wing — is urging Congress to ignore all that and get back to the old-time religion: corporate giveaways, preferences for capital and deep cuts to social insurance.
This wing of the party wants Republicans to build our big, beautiful bill around slashing health insurance for the working poor. But that argument is both morally wrong and politically suicidal.
Let’s begin with the facts of the matter. Medicaid is a federal program that provides health care to low-income Americans in partnership with state governments. Today it serves over 70 million Americans, including well over one million residents of Missouri, the state I represent.
As for Missouri, it is one of 40 Medicaid expansion states — because our voters wanted it that way. In 2020, the same year Mr. Trump carried the Missouri popular vote by a decisive margin, voters mandated that the state expand Medicaid coverage to working-class individuals unable to afford health care elsewhere. Voters went so far as to inscribe that expansion in our state constitution. Now some 21 percent of Missourians benefit from Medicaid or CHIP, the companion insurance program for lower-income children. And many of our rural hospitals and health providers depend on the funding from these programs to keep their doors open.
All of which means this: If Congress cuts funding for Medicaid benefits, Missouri workers and their children will lose their health care. And hospitals will close. It’s that simple. And that pattern will replicate in states across the country.
One of my constituents, a married mother of five, contacted me to explain why Medicaid is vital to her 8-year-old daughter, who depends on a feeding tube to survive. Formula, pump rentals, feeding extensions and other treatments cost $1,500 a month; prescriptions nearly double that cost. These expenses aren’t covered by private insurance. The mother wrote to me, “Without Medicaid, we would lose everything — our home, our vehicles, and eventually, our daughter.”
Congress should be doing everything possible to aid these working families, to make their health care better and more affordable. We should cap prescription drug costs, as I have recently proposed. We should give every family in America with children a hefty tax cut. What we should not do is eliminate their health care.
Mr. Trump himself has been crystal clear on this point. Since taking office he has repeatedly rejected calls for Medicaid benefit cuts. Just the other week, he said, “We are doing absolutely nothing to hurt Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. Nothing at all.”
And for good reason. The president understands who his voters are. Recent polling shows that 64 percent of Republicans hold a favorable view of Medicaid. About one in six have personally been on the program. Meanwhile, more than 80 percent of Americans oppose significant cuts to Medicaid and over half — half — have a personal or family connection to the Medicaid program.
It’s safe to say the Trump coalition was not pulling the lever for Medicaid cuts in November. Mike Johnson, the House speaker, finally woke up to this fact last week, when he withdrew his support from one of the most aggressive reductions to Medicaid on the table. But many of my House and Senate colleagues keep pushing for substantial cuts, and the House will begin to hash out its differences in negotiations this week.
My colleagues have cited the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, which has been pushing that line for months, including in a recent editorial that inveighed against my opposition to Medicaid benefit cuts. But following The Journal’s prescriptions would represent the end of any chance of us becoming a working-class party.
Republicans need to open their eyes: Our voters support social insurance programs. More than that, our voters depend on those programs. And there’s a reason for this that Republicans would do well to ponder. Our economy is increasingly unfriendly to working people and their families.
For the better part of 50 years, working wages have been flat in real terms. Working people cannot afford to get married when they want to, have the number of children they want to or raise those children as they would like. These days, they can barely afford to put a roof over their kids’ heads, to say nothing of health care.
Both Democrats and Republicans share the blame for this state of affairs, which is one big reason Mr. Trump got elected. He promised to shake up the status quo. Republicans in Congress should pay attention. Our voters not only want us to protect the social insurance they need to get by; they also want us to fight for a better life — for a better economy with the kinds of jobs and wages that allow working people to get married and start families, to buy homes and have a stake in their towns and neighborhoods.
That’s the promise of American life. If Republicans want to be a working-class party — if we want to be a majority party — we must ignore calls to cut Medicaid and start delivering on America’s promise for America’s working people.
We can try to balance that out with a little truth? This Hawkey dude must be a democrat?
Don’t none of them stand up against their party? It’s not like they lied about trumps competency and covered it up and took away our right to vote? Too tired to care?
Polls show Democrats down in the dumps at their lowest approval level in decades, but we Republicans are having an identity crisis of our own, and you can see it in the tug of war over President Trump’s “one big, beautiful bill.” The nub of the conflict: Will Republicans be a majority party of working people, or a permanent minority speaking only for the C suite?
Mr. Trump has promised working-class tax cuts and protection for working-class social insurance, such as Medicaid. But now a noisy contingent of corporatist Republicans — call it the party’s Wall Street wing — is urging Congress to ignore all that and get back to the old-time religion: corporate giveaways, preferences for capital and deep cuts to social insurance.
This wing of the party wants Republicans to build our big, beautiful bill around slashing health insurance for the working poor. But that argument is both morally wrong and politically suicidal.
Let’s begin with the facts of the matter. Medicaid is a federal program that provides health care to low-income Americans in partnership with state governments. Today it serves over 70 million Americans, including well over one million residents of Missouri, the state I represent.
As for Missouri, it is one of 40 Medicaid expansion states — because our voters wanted it that way. In 2020, the same year Mr. Trump carried the Missouri popular vote by a decisive margin, voters mandated that the state expand Medicaid coverage to working-class individuals unable to afford health care elsewhere. Voters went so far as to inscribe that expansion in our state constitution. Now some 21 percent of Missourians benefit from Medicaid or CHIP, the companion insurance program for lower-income children. And many of our rural hospitals and health providers depend on the funding from these programs to keep their doors open.
All of which means this: If Congress cuts funding for Medicaid benefits, Missouri workers and their children will lose their health care. And hospitals will close. It’s that simple. And that pattern will replicate in states across the country.
One of my constituents, a married mother of five, contacted me to explain why Medicaid is vital to her 8-year-old daughter, who depends on a feeding tube to survive. Formula, pump rentals, feeding extensions and other treatments cost $1,500 a month; prescriptions nearly double that cost. These expenses aren’t covered by private insurance. The mother wrote to me, “Without Medicaid, we would lose everything — our home, our vehicles, and eventually, our daughter.”
Congress should be doing everything possible to aid these working families, to make their health care better and more affordable. We should cap prescription drug costs, as I have recently proposed. We should give every family in America with children a hefty tax cut. What we should not do is eliminate their health care.
Mr. Trump himself has been crystal clear on this point. Since taking office he has repeatedly rejected calls for Medicaid benefit cuts. Just the other week, he said, “We are doing absolutely nothing to hurt Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. Nothing at all.”
And for good reason. The president understands who his voters are. Recent polling shows that 64 percent of Republicans hold a favorable view of Medicaid. About one in six have personally been on the program. Meanwhile, more than 80 percent of Americans oppose significant cuts to Medicaid and over half — half — have a personal or family connection to the Medicaid program.
It’s safe to say the Trump coalition was not pulling the lever for Medicaid cuts in November. Mike Johnson, the House speaker, finally woke up to this fact last week, when he withdrew his support from one of the most aggressive reductions to Medicaid on the table. But many of my House and Senate colleagues keep pushing for substantial cuts, and the House will begin to hash out its differences in negotiations this week.
My colleagues have cited the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, which has been pushing that line for months, including in a recent editorial that inveighed against my opposition to Medicaid benefit cuts. But following The Journal’s prescriptions would represent the end of any chance of us becoming a working-class party.
Republicans need to open their eyes: Our voters support social insurance programs. More than that, our voters depend on those programs. And there’s a reason for this that Republicans would do well to ponder. Our economy is increasingly unfriendly to working people and their families.
For the better part of 50 years, working wages have been flat in real terms. Working people cannot afford to get married when they want to, have the number of children they want to or raise those children as they would like. These days, they can barely afford to put a roof over their kids’ heads, to say nothing of health care.
Both Democrats and Republicans share the blame for this state of affairs, which is one big reason Mr. Trump got elected. He promised to shake up the status quo. Republicans in Congress should pay attention. Our voters not only want us to protect the social insurance they need to get by; they also want us to fight for a better life — for a better economy with the kinds of jobs and wages that allow working people to get married and start families, to buy homes and have a stake in their towns and neighborhoods.
That’s the promise of American life. If Republicans want to be a working-class party — if we want to be a majority party — we must ignore calls to cut Medicaid and start delivering on America’s promise for America’s working people.
Nobody took away anyone’s “right to vote.” Drama much?
Now, compare what Senator Hee Hawley says with Brandon’s initiatives and dem legislative proposals. Dems can’t fix stupid voting against their interests.
We can try to balance that out with a little truth? This Hawkey dude must be a democrat?
Don’t none of them stand up against their party? It’s not like they lied about trumps competency and covered it up and took away our right to vote? Too tired to care?
Polls show Democrats down in the dumps at their lowest approval level in decades, but we Republicans are having an identity crisis of our own, and you can see it in the tug of war over President Trump’s “one big, beautiful bill.” The nub of the conflict: Will Republicans be a majority party of working people, or a permanent minority speaking only for the C suite?
Mr. Trump has promised working-class tax cuts and protection for working-class social insurance, such as Medicaid. But now a noisy contingent of corporatist Republicans — call it the party’s Wall Street wing — is urging Congress to ignore all that and get back to the old-time religion: corporate giveaways, preferences for capital and deep cuts to social insurance.
This wing of the party wants Republicans to build our big, beautiful bill around slashing health insurance for the working poor. But that argument is both morally wrong and politically suicidal.
Let’s begin with the facts of the matter. Medicaid is a federal program that provides health care to low-income Americans in partnership with state governments. Today it serves over 70 million Americans, including well over one million residents of Missouri, the state I represent.
As for Missouri, it is one of 40 Medicaid expansion states — because our voters wanted it that way. In 2020, the same year Mr. Trump carried the Missouri popular vote by a decisive margin, voters mandated that the state expand Medicaid coverage to working-class individuals unable to afford health care elsewhere. Voters went so far as to inscribe that expansion in our state constitution. Now some 21 percent of Missourians benefit from Medicaid or CHIP, the companion insurance program for lower-income children. And many of our rural hospitals and health providers depend on the funding from these programs to keep their doors open.
All of which means this: If Congress cuts funding for Medicaid benefits, Missouri workers and their children will lose their health care. And hospitals will close. It’s that simple. And that pattern will replicate in states across the country.
One of my constituents, a married mother of five, contacted me to explain why Medicaid is vital to her 8-year-old daughter, who depends on a feeding tube to survive. Formula, pump rentals, feeding extensions and other treatments cost $1,500 a month; prescriptions nearly double that cost. These expenses aren’t covered by private insurance. The mother wrote to me, “Without Medicaid, we would lose everything — our home, our vehicles, and eventually, our daughter.”
Congress should be doing everything possible to aid these working families, to make their health care better and more affordable. We should cap prescription drug costs, as I have recently proposed. We should give every family in America with children a hefty tax cut. What we should not do is eliminate their health care.
Mr. Trump himself has been crystal clear on this point. Since taking office he has repeatedly rejected calls for Medicaid benefit cuts. Just the other week, he said, “We are doing absolutely nothing to hurt Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. Nothing at all.”
And for good reason. The president understands who his voters are. Recent polling shows that 64 percent of Republicans hold a favorable view of Medicaid. About one in six have personally been on the program. Meanwhile, more than 80 percent of Americans oppose significant cuts to Medicaid and over half — half — have a personal or family connection to the Medicaid program.
It’s safe to say the Trump coalition was not pulling the lever for Medicaid cuts in November. Mike Johnson, the House speaker, finally woke up to this fact last week, when he withdrew his support from one of the most aggressive reductions to Medicaid on the table. But many of my House and Senate colleagues keep pushing for substantial cuts, and the House will begin to hash out its differences in negotiations this week.
My colleagues have cited the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, which has been pushing that line for months, including in a recent editorial that inveighed against my opposition to Medicaid benefit cuts. But following The Journal’s prescriptions would represent the end of any chance of us becoming a working-class party.
Republicans need to open their eyes: Our voters support social insurance programs. More than that, our voters depend on those programs. And there’s a reason for this that Republicans would do well to ponder. Our economy is increasingly unfriendly to working people and their families.
For the better part of 50 years, working wages have been flat in real terms. Working people cannot afford to get married when they want to, have the number of children they want to or raise those children as they would like. These days, they can barely afford to put a roof over their kids’ heads, to say nothing of health care.
Both Democrats and Republicans share the blame for this state of affairs, which is one big reason Mr. Trump got elected. He promised to shake up the status quo. Republicans in Congress should pay attention. Our voters not only want us to protect the social insurance they need to get by; they also want us to fight for a better life — for a better economy with the kinds of jobs and wages that allow working people to get married and start families, to buy homes and have a stake in their towns and neighborhoods.
That’s the promise of American life. If Republicans want to be a working-class party — if we want to be a majority party — we must ignore calls to cut Medicaid and start delivering on America’s promise for America’s working people.
Nobody took away anyone’s “right to vote.” Drama much?
Now, compare what Senator Hee Hawley says with Brandon’s initiatives and dem legislative proposals. Dems can’t fix stupid voting against their interests.
Yeah, you got to vote for the democratic nomination? Truth much?
We can try to balance that out with a little truth? This Hawkey dude must be a democrat?
Don’t none of them stand up against their party? It’s not like they lied about trumps competency and covered it up and took away our right to vote? Too tired to care?
Polls show Democrats down in the dumps at their lowest approval level in decades, but we Republicans are having an identity crisis of our own, and you can see it in the tug of war over President Trump’s “one big, beautiful bill.” The nub of the conflict: Will Republicans be a majority party of working people, or a permanent minority speaking only for the C suite?
Mr. Trump has promised working-class tax cuts and protection for working-class social insurance, such as Medicaid. But now a noisy contingent of corporatist Republicans — call it the party’s Wall Street wing — is urging Congress to ignore all that and get back to the old-time religion: corporate giveaways, preferences for capital and deep cuts to social insurance.
This wing of the party wants Republicans to build our big, beautiful bill around slashing health insurance for the working poor. But that argument is both morally wrong and politically suicidal.
Let’s begin with the facts of the matter. Medicaid is a federal program that provides health care to low-income Americans in partnership with state governments. Today it serves over 70 million Americans, including well over one million residents of Missouri, the state I represent.
As for Missouri, it is one of 40 Medicaid expansion states — because our voters wanted it that way. In 2020, the same year Mr. Trump carried the Missouri popular vote by a decisive margin, voters mandated that the state expand Medicaid coverage to working-class individuals unable to afford health care elsewhere. Voters went so far as to inscribe that expansion in our state constitution. Now some 21 percent of Missourians benefit from Medicaid or CHIP, the companion insurance program for lower-income children. And many of our rural hospitals and health providers depend on the funding from these programs to keep their doors open.
All of which means this: If Congress cuts funding for Medicaid benefits, Missouri workers and their children will lose their health care. And hospitals will close. It’s that simple. And that pattern will replicate in states across the country.
One of my constituents, a married mother of five, contacted me to explain why Medicaid is vital to her 8-year-old daughter, who depends on a feeding tube to survive. Formula, pump rentals, feeding extensions and other treatments cost $1,500 a month; prescriptions nearly double that cost. These expenses aren’t covered by private insurance. The mother wrote to me, “Without Medicaid, we would lose everything — our home, our vehicles, and eventually, our daughter.”
Congress should be doing everything possible to aid these working families, to make their health care better and more affordable. We should cap prescription drug costs, as I have recently proposed. We should give every family in America with children a hefty tax cut. What we should not do is eliminate their health care.
Mr. Trump himself has been crystal clear on this point. Since taking office he has repeatedly rejected calls for Medicaid benefit cuts. Just the other week, he said, “We are doing absolutely nothing to hurt Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. Nothing at all.”
And for good reason. The president understands who his voters are. Recent polling shows that 64 percent of Republicans hold a favorable view of Medicaid. About one in six have personally been on the program. Meanwhile, more than 80 percent of Americans oppose significant cuts to Medicaid and over half — half — have a personal or family connection to the Medicaid program.
It’s safe to say the Trump coalition was not pulling the lever for Medicaid cuts in November. Mike Johnson, the House speaker, finally woke up to this fact last week, when he withdrew his support from one of the most aggressive reductions to Medicaid on the table. But many of my House and Senate colleagues keep pushing for substantial cuts, and the House will begin to hash out its differences in negotiations this week.
My colleagues have cited the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, which has been pushing that line for months, including in a recent editorial that inveighed against my opposition to Medicaid benefit cuts. But following The Journal’s prescriptions would represent the end of any chance of us becoming a working-class party.
Republicans need to open their eyes: Our voters support social insurance programs. More than that, our voters depend on those programs. And there’s a reason for this that Republicans would do well to ponder. Our economy is increasingly unfriendly to working people and their families.
For the better part of 50 years, working wages have been flat in real terms. Working people cannot afford to get married when they want to, have the number of children they want to or raise those children as they would like. These days, they can barely afford to put a roof over their kids’ heads, to say nothing of health care.
Both Democrats and Republicans share the blame for this state of affairs, which is one big reason Mr. Trump got elected. He promised to shake up the status quo. Republicans in Congress should pay attention. Our voters not only want us to protect the social insurance they need to get by; they also want us to fight for a better life — for a better economy with the kinds of jobs and wages that allow working people to get married and start families, to buy homes and have a stake in their towns and neighborhoods.
That’s the promise of American life. If Republicans want to be a working-class party — if we want to be a majority party — we must ignore calls to cut Medicaid and start delivering on America’s promise for America’s working people.
Nobody took away anyone’s “right to vote.” Drama much?
Now, compare what Senator Hee Hawley says with Brandon’s initiatives and dem legislative proposals. Dems can’t fix stupid voting against their interests.
Yeah, you got to vote for the democratic nomination? Truth much?
We can try to balance that out with a little truth? This Hawkey dude must be a democrat?
Don’t none of them stand up against their party? It’s not like they lied about trumps competency and covered it up and took away our right to vote? Too tired to care?
Polls show Democrats down in the dumps at their lowest approval level in decades, but we Republicans are having an identity crisis of our own, and you can see it in the tug of war over President Trump’s “one big, beautiful bill.” The nub of the conflict: Will Republicans be a majority party of working people, or a permanent minority speaking only for the C suite?
Mr. Trump has promised working-class tax cuts and protection for working-class social insurance, such as Medicaid. But now a noisy contingent of corporatist Republicans — call it the party’s Wall Street wing — is urging Congress to ignore all that and get back to the old-time religion: corporate giveaways, preferences for capital and deep cuts to social insurance.
This wing of the party wants Republicans to build our big, beautiful bill around slashing health insurance for the working poor. But that argument is both morally wrong and politically suicidal.
Let’s begin with the facts of the matter. Medicaid is a federal program that provides health care to low-income Americans in partnership with state governments. Today it serves over 70 million Americans, including well over one million residents of Missouri, the state I represent.
As for Missouri, it is one of 40 Medicaid expansion states — because our voters wanted it that way. In 2020, the same year Mr. Trump carried the Missouri popular vote by a decisive margin, voters mandated that the state expand Medicaid coverage to working-class individuals unable to afford health care elsewhere. Voters went so far as to inscribe that expansion in our state constitution. Now some 21 percent of Missourians benefit from Medicaid or CHIP, the companion insurance program for lower-income children. And many of our rural hospitals and health providers depend on the funding from these programs to keep their doors open.
All of which means this: If Congress cuts funding for Medicaid benefits, Missouri workers and their children will lose their health care. And hospitals will close. It’s that simple. And that pattern will replicate in states across the country.
One of my constituents, a married mother of five, contacted me to explain why Medicaid is vital to her 8-year-old daughter, who depends on a feeding tube to survive. Formula, pump rentals, feeding extensions and other treatments cost $1,500 a month; prescriptions nearly double that cost. These expenses aren’t covered by private insurance. The mother wrote to me, “Without Medicaid, we would lose everything — our home, our vehicles, and eventually, our daughter.”
Congress should be doing everything possible to aid these working families, to make their health care better and more affordable. We should cap prescription drug costs, as I have recently proposed. We should give every family in America with children a hefty tax cut. What we should not do is eliminate their health care.
Mr. Trump himself has been crystal clear on this point. Since taking office he has repeatedly rejected calls for Medicaid benefit cuts. Just the other week, he said, “We are doing absolutely nothing to hurt Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. Nothing at all.”
And for good reason. The president understands who his voters are. Recent polling shows that 64 percent of Republicans hold a favorable view of Medicaid. About one in six have personally been on the program. Meanwhile, more than 80 percent of Americans oppose significant cuts to Medicaid and over half — half — have a personal or family connection to the Medicaid program.
It’s safe to say the Trump coalition was not pulling the lever for Medicaid cuts in November. Mike Johnson, the House speaker, finally woke up to this fact last week, when he withdrew his support from one of the most aggressive reductions to Medicaid on the table. But many of my House and Senate colleagues keep pushing for substantial cuts, and the House will begin to hash out its differences in negotiations this week.
My colleagues have cited the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, which has been pushing that line for months, including in a recent editorial that inveighed against my opposition to Medicaid benefit cuts. But following The Journal’s prescriptions would represent the end of any chance of us becoming a working-class party.
Republicans need to open their eyes: Our voters support social insurance programs. More than that, our voters depend on those programs. And there’s a reason for this that Republicans would do well to ponder. Our economy is increasingly unfriendly to working people and their families.
For the better part of 50 years, working wages have been flat in real terms. Working people cannot afford to get married when they want to, have the number of children they want to or raise those children as they would like. These days, they can barely afford to put a roof over their kids’ heads, to say nothing of health care.
Both Democrats and Republicans share the blame for this state of affairs, which is one big reason Mr. Trump got elected. He promised to shake up the status quo. Republicans in Congress should pay attention. Our voters not only want us to protect the social insurance they need to get by; they also want us to fight for a better life — for a better economy with the kinds of jobs and wages that allow working people to get married and start families, to buy homes and have a stake in their towns and neighborhoods.
That’s the promise of American life. If Republicans want to be a working-class party — if we want to be a majority party — we must ignore calls to cut Medicaid and start delivering on America’s promise for America’s working people.
Nobody took away anyone’s “right to vote.” Drama much?
Now, compare what Senator Hee Hawley says with Brandon’s initiatives and dem legislative proposals. Dems can’t fix stupid voting against their interests.
Yeah, you got to vote for the democratic nomination? Truth much?
Voting in a primary is a more recent invention.
True, but how does that absolve the Dems from the crap they tried to pull?
for a party crying about dishonesty, democracy, and immoral conduct, the fact that no one in the party seems to care is daunting. We are maga.
What’s a worse action than nominating someone incompetent and covering it up? And all the other stuff they did. Shooting someone on fifth avenue maybe? The literal purpose of the party is to nominate the most competent candidate and to not hand your opponent legitimacy.
We can try to balance that out with a little truth? This Hawkey dude must be a democrat?
Don’t none of them stand up against their party? It’s not like they lied about trumps competency and covered it up and took away our right to vote? Too tired to care?
Polls show Democrats down in the dumps at their lowest approval level in decades, but we Republicans are having an identity crisis of our own, and you can see it in the tug of war over President Trump’s “one big, beautiful bill.” The nub of the conflict: Will Republicans be a majority party of working people, or a permanent minority speaking only for the C suite?
Mr. Trump has promised working-class tax cuts and protection for working-class social insurance, such as Medicaid. But now a noisy contingent of corporatist Republicans — call it the party’s Wall Street wing — is urging Congress to ignore all that and get back to the old-time religion: corporate giveaways, preferences for capital and deep cuts to social insurance.
This wing of the party wants Republicans to build our big, beautiful bill around slashing health insurance for the working poor. But that argument is both morally wrong and politically suicidal.
Let’s begin with the facts of the matter. Medicaid is a federal program that provides health care to low-income Americans in partnership with state governments. Today it serves over 70 million Americans, including well over one million residents of Missouri, the state I represent.
As for Missouri, it is one of 40 Medicaid expansion states — because our voters wanted it that way. In 2020, the same year Mr. Trump carried the Missouri popular vote by a decisive margin, voters mandated that the state expand Medicaid coverage to working-class individuals unable to afford health care elsewhere. Voters went so far as to inscribe that expansion in our state constitution. Now some 21 percent of Missourians benefit from Medicaid or CHIP, the companion insurance program for lower-income children. And many of our rural hospitals and health providers depend on the funding from these programs to keep their doors open.
All of which means this: If Congress cuts funding for Medicaid benefits, Missouri workers and their children will lose their health care. And hospitals will close. It’s that simple. And that pattern will replicate in states across the country.
One of my constituents, a married mother of five, contacted me to explain why Medicaid is vital to her 8-year-old daughter, who depends on a feeding tube to survive. Formula, pump rentals, feeding extensions and other treatments cost $1,500 a month; prescriptions nearly double that cost. These expenses aren’t covered by private insurance. The mother wrote to me, “Without Medicaid, we would lose everything — our home, our vehicles, and eventually, our daughter.”
Congress should be doing everything possible to aid these working families, to make their health care better and more affordable. We should cap prescription drug costs, as I have recently proposed. We should give every family in America with children a hefty tax cut. What we should not do is eliminate their health care.
Mr. Trump himself has been crystal clear on this point. Since taking office he has repeatedly rejected calls for Medicaid benefit cuts. Just the other week, he said, “We are doing absolutely nothing to hurt Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. Nothing at all.”
And for good reason. The president understands who his voters are. Recent polling shows that 64 percent of Republicans hold a favorable view of Medicaid. About one in six have personally been on the program. Meanwhile, more than 80 percent of Americans oppose significant cuts to Medicaid and over half — half — have a personal or family connection to the Medicaid program.
It’s safe to say the Trump coalition was not pulling the lever for Medicaid cuts in November. Mike Johnson, the House speaker, finally woke up to this fact last week, when he withdrew his support from one of the most aggressive reductions to Medicaid on the table. But many of my House and Senate colleagues keep pushing for substantial cuts, and the House will begin to hash out its differences in negotiations this week.
My colleagues have cited the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, which has been pushing that line for months, including in a recent editorial that inveighed against my opposition to Medicaid benefit cuts. But following The Journal’s prescriptions would represent the end of any chance of us becoming a working-class party.
Republicans need to open their eyes: Our voters support social insurance programs. More than that, our voters depend on those programs. And there’s a reason for this that Republicans would do well to ponder. Our economy is increasingly unfriendly to working people and their families.
For the better part of 50 years, working wages have been flat in real terms. Working people cannot afford to get married when they want to, have the number of children they want to or raise those children as they would like. These days, they can barely afford to put a roof over their kids’ heads, to say nothing of health care.
Both Democrats and Republicans share the blame for this state of affairs, which is one big reason Mr. Trump got elected. He promised to shake up the status quo. Republicans in Congress should pay attention. Our voters not only want us to protect the social insurance they need to get by; they also want us to fight for a better life — for a better economy with the kinds of jobs and wages that allow working people to get married and start families, to buy homes and have a stake in their towns and neighborhoods.
That’s the promise of American life. If Republicans want to be a working-class party — if we want to be a majority party — we must ignore calls to cut Medicaid and start delivering on America’s promise for America’s working people.
Nobody took away anyone’s “right to vote.” Drama much?
Now, compare what Senator Hee Hawley says with Brandon’s initiatives and dem legislative proposals. Dems can’t fix stupid voting against their interests.
Yeah, you got to vote for the democratic nomination? Truth much?
Voting in a primary is a more recent invention.
True, but how does that absolve the Dems from the crap they tried to pull?
for a party crying about dishonesty, democracy, and immoral conduct, the fact that no one in the party seems to care is daunting. We are maga.
What’s a worse action than nominating someone incompetent and covering it up? And all the other stuff they did. Shooting someone on fifth avenue maybe? The literal purpose of the party is to nominate the most competent candidate and to not hand your opponent legitimacy.
I can’t always tell if you’re looking for accuracy or for dramatics. It also seems like you’re just pulling randomly to make these broad conclusions. “No one seems to care” etc.
I don't like the way the Dems select their nominations but there's no protected right to democratize how a party does that.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin 2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley
If you thought it was a disaster not voting for a candidate to head the ticket 4.5 months before an election and a month before the convention, imagine how it was gonna go if we did. It DEFINITELY would have looked like we had our shit together and could sell it to the nation.
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/52124-how-big-are-the-democratic-and-republican-party-tents
I am guessing that you did not realize your graph earlier is very telling. It can easily be interpreted as moderates getting alienated by the party and no longer identifying as democrats. So what is left? A smaller more liberal party that fantasizes the country will vote for stuff like that. Yes it’s not all bad… they should win the house next year, but they’ll need to identify with larger numbers of moderates more often to win the more important senate back in the forceable future, not more voters on the far left
Its a SLAP-esque lawsuit of the highest degree
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more
The Politics of Getting Laid and Preachy Females
It’s Not About “Getting Laid.” It’s About Getting Ahead.
Olivia Julianna and Harry Sisson
May 13
READ IN APP
*This post was written by Olivia Julianna, edited by Harry Sisson*
It’s no secret that young men have been turning away from the Democratic Party—and pundits, commentators, politicians, and young men with platforms have all offered their takes on why. Well, add us to the mix.
The short answer? They’re not turning away from Democrats because of “preachy women” or because they’re not getting laid. Those are surface-level excuses—comfortable talking points that help men avoid deeper, more vulnerable, and ultimately more productive conversations.
We can preach all day long that voters should vote based on compassion for others, but the reality is that people vote selfishly. What is best for them? Their families? Their futures. If we pretend we're in any other reality we will continue to lose not just men, but all voters across the board.
Across race and age, the top three issues for young men were inflation and the cost of living, immigration and the border, and jobs and the economy.
In politics, we talk often about the lived realities of women—how abortion bans, healthcare access, beauty standards, and social media impact their lives. But we rarely extend that same level of curiosity or compassion to young men in our messaging.
Take abortion, for example.
When Democrats talk to young men about abortion, it’s usually framed around protecting the women in their lives—emphasizing their role as caretakers, defenders, or allies. But what’s almost never acknowledged is the economic and life-altering impact that an unplanned pregnancy can have on young men themselves.
If a young couple becomes pregnant unexpectedly, the woman may not be ready—maybe she’s in college, working toward a future she isn’t ready to interrupt.
But the same applies to young men. One moment you’re a college kid hooking up with your girlfriend or a one-night stand after bar-hopping, and the next, you’re facing the reality of becoming a father—expected to provide not just for yourself, but for a family you weren’t prepared for, didn’t plan, and may not have wanted at that point in your life. You go from laying the groundwork for your future to being the foundation for someone else—before you've even had the chance to pour your own concrete. It doesn’t mean that the struggle of women comes second, it means the two co-exist.
From a young age, society conditions men with expectations just like it does for women. While women are shaped around appearance, submission, and “wifely” duties, men are told their worth lies in how well they can provide.
They’re expected to get a high-paying job, dress well, stay fit, be a good husband and father, climb the social ladder, buy the house, pay the bills, build generational wealth. Hustle. Grind. Don’t stop.
You are the provider. You are the man.
It’s a system built on a dichotomy: women are objectified and exploited, while men are cast as the ones in control.
But here’s the catch—it all rests on the assumption that men have power.
And if you can’t be a provider—financially, emotionally, or physically—what power do you really have?
Upgrade to paid
Yes, people can point to male privilege or the patriarchy. You can note that men hold most elected offices or lead Fortune 500 companies. That there are no laws dictating what men can or can’t do with their bodies. But that doesn’t change the fact that the kind of comfort, success, and mobility we associate with male power simply isn’t available to all men. Even though they’ve been told it is.
The same young men who vote Republican because they care about jobs or the economy don’t understand that they’re voting for the very people who created the economic systems that are breaking them. They don’t see Donald Trump blocking a federal minimum wage increase or giving tax cuts to the ultra-wealthy—they see a businessman surrounded by wealth and power.
They see the man they’ve been told since birth they should become.
And let’s be clear— successful and powerful men exist in the Democratic party too. And young Trump-supporting men are receptive to them.
Take Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s recent appearance on Flagrant, a podcast hosted by Trump-supporting comedian Andrew Schulz. Buttigieg talked about his vision for America—good-paying jobs, the ability to provide for your family, to live a healthy, happy, balanced life. He shared his experience adopting children with his husband and becoming a parent. And Schulz and his co-hosts weren’t just listening—they were engaged. Because those are the goals and dreams they have, too.
Democrats don’t need to “moderate” or help young men get laid to earn their vote—we just need to treat them with empathy and tell them the truth.
Send Secretary Pete Buttigieg to Flagrant to talk about parenting. Put Governor Wes Moore on fitness podcasts to share his workout routine and lessons from military service. Have Governor JB Pritzker break down generational wealth on business shows. Let Senator Ruben Gallego speak at a rodeo about culture, masculinity, and pride of place.
Show young men that the Democratic Party isn’t just full of people who talk about their values—but leaders who live them. Leaders who’ve built the kind of lives these voters want—and who are fighting to make those lives possible for everyone.
Republicans have successfully courted young male voters by making the conditions for success impossible—and then giving them someone else to blame. They’ve created a trap: either admit you’re failing to become the man you were told to be, or believe it’s someone else’s fault.
If you’re a young man who went to college, works full-time, hustles every day, and still can’t get ahead—whether you’re doing back-breaking labor in the oil field, working sunup to sundown as a construction worker, or getting yelled at in a call center—are you really going to believe you’re the problem?
Blaming others may not be the right choice, but it’s the easy one—and it’s the one many young men are making. That’s why immigration ranks so high among their political concerns. Not because they inherently fear immigrants, but because they’ve been convinced that their lack of success stems from competition, not from the policies keeping them stuck.
'ABSURD': Democratic strategist blames 'preachy females' for Dems' polling problems
So when people like James Carville or David Hogg reduce this crisis to not getting laid or women being too preachy, they fall into the same trap as Donald Trump. They shift blame instead of offering truth—and more importantly, solutions.
It is not the Democratic Party’s job to get young men laid, nor is it our job to ask women to be less outraged about the world we live in.
Our job is to give both young men and women the opportunity to succeed—to build real, sustainable lives for themselves.
Our job is to help them reach their version of the American Dream—not to rely on empty messaging rooted in the same hollow masculinity that got us into this mess in the first place.
I would strongly encourage those in the Democratic Party making assumptions about how young men think or operate to visit a frat house, an oil rig, or a comida—and actually talk to the young men who make up America. I have. And that’s why, despite being a so-called “preachy female” myself, I’m able to connect with them beyond asking for their vote.
A New Perspective is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Upgrade to paid
A guest post by
Harry Sisson
22 | Democrat | @harryjsisson (1 million+) on Tik Tok | Email: inquiries@harryjsisson.net
Subscribe to Harry
If you believe in bold, truth-telling political commentary that cuts through the noise, consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Upgrade to paid
Like
Comment
Restack
© 2025 Olivia Julianna
548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104
Unsubscribe
Start writing
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
read the article I posted in the fed, capitalism thread
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Litter Boxes in classrooms and pets being eaten are scary things.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Last year was our first year visiting and we ran into the couple staying in the unit below us at the pool. We're mid 50s they are late 60s. It only took a few minutes for them to say something pro trump and I let them know that I didn't care for him and thought he was a shitty president the first time.
Fast forward to last week...ran into them again in the pool but I don't think they remembered that conversation from last year. They didn't really say much about trump but in that 20 minute conversation (one that started off about dogs, places around us to eat, etc.) they brought up that covid was a hoax, ivermectin is a cure for the hoax, chemtrails, litterboxes in classrooms (the guy actually said "this happened in the schools by us" which is total bullshit.
Very nice people otherwise but they pulled out every stupid subject in the book in just a few minutes.
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
No matter how you spin in, democrats are too tired to figure this out for themselves. They need to figure out how to help those in need without giving handouts.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
….
Monday, May 12, 2025
By U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) | May 12, 2025 | The New York Times
Polls show Democrats down in the dumps at their lowest approval level in decades, but we Republicans are having an identity crisis of our own, and you can see it in the tug of war over President Trump’s “one big, beautiful bill.” The nub of the conflict: Will Republicans be a majority party of working people, or a permanent minority speaking only for the C suite?
Mr. Trump has promised working-class tax cuts and protection for working-class social insurance, such as Medicaid. But now a noisy contingent of corporatist Republicans — call it the party’s Wall Street wing — is urging Congress to ignore all that and get back to the old-time religion: corporate giveaways, preferences for capital and deep cuts to social insurance.
This wing of the party wants Republicans to build our big, beautiful bill around slashing health insurance for the working poor. But that argument is both morally wrong and politically suicidal.
Let’s begin with the facts of the matter. Medicaid is a federal program that provides health care to low-income Americans in partnership with state governments. Today it serves over 70 million Americans, including well over one million residents of Missouri, the state I represent.
As for Missouri, it is one of 40 Medicaid expansion states — because our voters wanted it that way. In 2020, the same year Mr. Trump carried the Missouri popular vote by a decisive margin, voters mandated that the state expand Medicaid coverage to working-class individuals unable to afford health care elsewhere. Voters went so far as to inscribe that expansion in our state constitution. Now some 21 percent of Missourians benefit from Medicaid or CHIP, the companion insurance program for lower-income children. And many of our rural hospitals and health providers depend on the funding from these programs to keep their doors open.
All of which means this: If Congress cuts funding for Medicaid benefits, Missouri workers and their children will lose their health care. And hospitals will close. It’s that simple. And that pattern will replicate in states across the country.
One of my constituents, a married mother of five, contacted me to explain why Medicaid is vital to her 8-year-old daughter, who depends on a feeding tube to survive. Formula, pump rentals, feeding extensions and other treatments cost $1,500 a month; prescriptions nearly double that cost. These expenses aren’t covered by private insurance. The mother wrote to me, “Without Medicaid, we would lose everything — our home, our vehicles, and eventually, our daughter.”
Congress should be doing everything possible to aid these working families, to make their health care better and more affordable. We should cap prescription drug costs, as I have recently proposed. We should give every family in America with children a hefty tax cut. What we should not do is eliminate their health care.
Mr. Trump himself has been crystal clear on this point. Since taking office he has repeatedly rejected calls for Medicaid benefit cuts. Just the other week, he said, “We are doing absolutely nothing to hurt Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. Nothing at all.”
And for good reason. The president understands who his voters are. Recent polling shows that 64 percent of Republicans hold a favorable view of Medicaid. About one in six have personally been on the program. Meanwhile, more than 80 percent of Americans oppose significant cuts to Medicaid and over half — half — have a personal or family connection to the Medicaid program.
It’s safe to say the Trump coalition was not pulling the lever for Medicaid cuts in November. Mike Johnson, the House speaker, finally woke up to this fact last week, when he withdrew his support from one of the most aggressive reductions to Medicaid on the table. But many of my House and Senate colleagues keep pushing for substantial cuts, and the House will begin to hash out its differences in negotiations this week.
My colleagues have cited the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, which has been pushing that line for months, including in a recent editorial that inveighed against my opposition to Medicaid benefit cuts. But following The Journal’s prescriptions would represent the end of any chance of us becoming a working-class party.
Republicans need to open their eyes: Our voters support social insurance programs. More than that, our voters depend on those programs. And there’s a reason for this that Republicans would do well to ponder. Our economy is increasingly unfriendly to working people and their families.
For the better part of 50 years, working wages have been flat in real terms. Working people cannot afford to get married when they want to, have the number of children they want to or raise those children as they would like. These days, they can barely afford to put a roof over their kids’ heads, to say nothing of health care.
Both Democrats and Republicans share the blame for this state of affairs, which is one big reason Mr. Trump got elected. He promised to shake up the status quo. Republicans in Congress should pay attention. Our voters not only want us to protect the social insurance they need to get by; they also want us to fight for a better life — for a better economy with the kinds of jobs and wages that allow working people to get married and start families, to buy homes and have a stake in their towns and neighborhoods.
That’s the promise of American life. If Republicans want to be a working-class party — if we want to be a majority party — we must ignore calls to cut Medicaid and start delivering on America’s promise for America’s working people.
Read Senator Hawley’s full op-ed here.
Now, compare what Senator Hee Hawley says with Brandon’s initiatives and dem legislative proposals. Dems can’t fix stupid voting against their interests.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
for a party crying about dishonesty, democracy, and immoral conduct, the fact that no one in the party seems to care is daunting. We are maga.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley