I’ve been thinking about a strategic question in Democratic politics.
Do Democratic leaders believe they can keep winning elections primarily by running against Trump and Republicans or does governing eventually have to justify itself?
Negative partisanship works. Fear is a powerful mobilizer and modern politics runs heavily on it. But it has usually functioned as a supplement to performance rather than a substitute for it. Voters will accept anxiety about the alternative for quite a while. They don’t accept unsatisfying daily experience forever.
State government is where the wheel hits the road.
In states where one party governs consistently politics isn’t a message it’s a condition. People experience housing costs, taxes, schools, disorder, services, and whether ordinary transactions of daily life are easy or difficult. They may disagree about causes but they don’t experience them as abstractions.
At the moment many of the states most durably governed by Democrats are showing visible strain: budget stress, high living costs, or residents relocating elsewhere. Every state has problems but these are places where Democrats unmistakably own the outcomes.
That creates a real strategic test. A national campaign built around stopping the opposition can win elections. The question is how long it can outrun accumulated experience.
So the coming elections may tell us something broader than who voters like or dislike.
Are they still primarily voting to prevent the other party from governing?
Or are they beginning to judge the places where one party already does?
If the latter starts to dominate, then politics shifts back toward results — and fear stops being enough.
Staes with highest percentage people leaving our out west. excluding California. Otherwise I would partially agree with you. The D states generally have higher taxes but better public services. Many fewer without health insurance. The R states have lower taxes and worse services. Fewer insured. It’s all about trade offs so I guess people will decide which they prefer.
INDICATOR BLUE STATES RED STATES
Life Expectancy Vastly Better Lower
Health Insurance Coverage Vastly Better Higher Uninsured Rates
Infant Mortality Vastly Better Higher Rates
Household Food Insecurity Vastly Better Higher Rates
Adult Obesity Vastly Better Higher Rates
Hypertension Mortality Vastly Better Higher Rates
STDs (Chlamydia/Gonorrhea) Clearly Better Higher Rates
It is HARD to get people to change their political tribe. One exception is around young people coming of age during good or bad governance. For me and much of Gen X, that was the Carter/Reagan years. We lean Republican. For Millennials, their coming of age was during the Clinton and W Bush years. They vote more Democratic.
The other exception is around major events that affect people’s lives in a significant way. The example here is the Great Depression. It can also happen to individuals on a local level. The best example I have seen of this is Matt van Swol in Western NC. When Helene hit the region with massive devastation, the Democrats handled it badly. The suffering in the region with government inaction moved him from a progressive liberal to a conservative.
I suspect the brand loyalty of younger cohorts may be attenuated because they’ve never experienced a period of good governance that they can recall.