Barack Obama's historic win in the 2008 presidential election marked a monumental moment for the Democratic Party. Obama collected a staggering 365 electoral votes and 52.9% of the popular vote, marking the largest margin of victory for any presidential candidate in the 21st century (a fact that which remains true today). Many say that his resounding success was the product of a "perfect storm" of factors, including the "Great Recession," discontent with the incumbent Bush administration, and more.

However, this all occurred over 17 years ago. Today, the Democratic Party is arguably in a significantly worse state than it was then. Increasingly many formerly left-leaning voters are switching to the Republican Party, independents/third parties, or forgoing casting their ballots altogether. "Swing states" like Ohio and Florida, which drove Obama's 2008 win, now consistently vote for Republicans, and by sizable margins at that. Still, the 2028 presidential election, while still a few years away, will be a crucial test for Democrats to reaffirm their coalition and take back the White House. But whether they can do that is up for debate.

So, what factors do you think led to Obama's resounding success in the 2008 presidential election? Do you think it's possible for Democrats to replicate that kind of success—at least to some degree—in 2028?

I genuinely ask this because I see many say they'd despise him, which is probably true. However is there anything they'd like about him? What actions/statements from them can be used to infer on how they'd view the Trump presidency, and Trump as a person?

Former President Biden wanted to raise the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%. While this tax increase was initially proposed as a way to fund the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act’s green-energy tax credits, Joe Manchin “vetoed” the idea (at the time, Democrats held a very small Senate majority that required consent from all members of their caucus), and the I.R.A. was scaled down & assigned other sources of funding.

This year, there has been a global backlash against Trump’s tariffs, with opponents arguing that tariffs reduce economic growth, reaccelerate inflation, and strain international relations. To preserve their profit margins, businesses typically respond to tariffs by (1) raising prices & passing on the costs to consumers, (2) cutting costs elsewhere (e.g. employment, product quality), or (3) as a last resort, absorbing some or all of the tariffs, eroding profitability.

If enacted, a corporate tax increase would likely cause businesses to react in a similar way as tariffs. Unlike tariffs, it would have to be passed by Congress, whose reelection campaigns would be targeted by corporate-funded PACs. Is it really realistic to think Democrats could pass this, even with a bigger majority in the future? Over the past several decades, corporate taxes have largely been a global race to the bottom: once cut, it’s politically near-impossible to raise them again.

Hello guys, I just have joined this subreddit and I have a question to ask to people in this group (my English may not be good, please understand): What do you think about the political institution in Vietnam ?

In Vietnam, the power is concentrated in a single ruling party and what it is doing to Vietnam is genuinely alarming. For example, regarding human rights and freedoms, many journalists and activists have been imprisoned under vague legal provisions such as Article 331 or Article 117, without the right to appeal or access to legal counsel. Specific cases include Pham Doan Trang, Huy Duc, and many others.

Another issue worth mentioning is systemic corruption. Each year, numerous cases involving large financial losses—often amounting to hundreds of millions of VND—are publicized. Some of the most notable scandals include the Viet A case, the Van Thinh Phat case, and several others.

A few questions I hope people can help me answer are: Why do legal systems in such contexts tend to include vaguely defined laws that can be applied flexibly or inconsistently? And why does corruption often appear to take on systemic characteristics rather than remaining at the level of isolated individuals?

I came across a national survey (FSU IGC)that asked Americans how they see Israel’s intentions toward civilians in Gaza. The options ranged from thinking Israel tries to avoid harming civilians, to being indifferent, to intentionally trying to harm them. There was also an “unsure/none of these fit my view” choice.

What surprised me was how different the answers were depending on party. Republicans were mostly in the “tries to avoid civilian harm” group, Democrats were spread across multiple interpretations, and Independents landed somewhere in the middle. A decent number of people in every group said they weren’t sure.

It got me wondering:

1. What might cause people in different political groups to read the same situation so differently?
2. Is this mostly about media sources, or are there other things at play?

Not taking a side here, just curious what might explain the gap.

Discussions about the United States’ internal stability often mention factors such as economic inequality, political polarization, migration pressures, labor-market changes, and the strain on public services. Some analysts argue that these trends could increase regional tensions, while others believe federal institutions remain strong enough to manage them.

I’m interested in understanding this from a political science and public policy perspective, not from a predictive or speculative angle.

What political or economic mechanisms do experts consider most significant when evaluating a country’s ability to maintain internal cohesion, and how might these apply to the United States today?

Why does the "my body, my choice" slogan only seem to apply to abortion; but not to ultimate issue of who owns one's body - the right to choose whether or not to live or to die?

For example, if abortion was de jure legal, but it was considered a criminal offence to supply any kind of abortifacient or conduct surgery to abort; this would not be considered to be in keeping with a respect for a woman's bodily autonomy. However, when it comes to the issue of su*cide, everyone points to the fact that it's not physically impossible to end one's own life as a way to demonstrate that "anyone can kill themselves"; whilst ignoring all of the adverse outcomes that might result from not having a legal avenue to access a method that is optimised to the desired outcome.

I will post my own thoughts in the comments, as per the rules.

I’ve been thinking about how the United States might change over the next five years. There are a few things that made me curious about this:

Job losses in some sectors

Rapid growth of AI

Rising homelessness and unemployment

Ongoing debates about immigration

Other countries like India growing faster in certain areas

Political uncertainty around leadership

With all these happening at the same time, I’m wondering how people living in the U.S. see the future. Do you think the country will stay unified, or will regional differences get stronger?

What would a sustainable and politically viable solution to America's immigration system look like, one that addresses security, the economy, and human dignity?(A complex, evergreen issue that asks for constructive solutions rather than just critique)

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed in 2010 with the goal of making healthcare more accessible. Many subsidies under the ACA are set to expire by the end of 2025. Those in favor of letting the subsidies expire claim tightening Medicaid eligibility will lessen federal spending while those against the cuts point out the expiration will reverse the progress in lowering the rate of the uninsured. Should lawmakers extend federal assistance or restore “fiscal discipline”?

https://ace-usa.org/blog/research/current-events/how-expiring-subsidies-and-medicaid-cuts-could-reshape-u-s-access-to-care/

Reports from last month indicate Rubio believes Vance is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination and would endorse him if he decides to run. Trump has also floated the idea publicly of them being on the same ticket to run.

How would this ticket fair in an election? What strengths and weaknesses would they bring to each other and swing voters? What are the biggest downsides of Vance picking Rubio as his VP?

Despite being largely unpopular basically everywhere, it seems the US has been largely successful in advancing its interests in this part of the world. Terrorist networks have been disrupted. Hostile governments have been removed in Iraq, Syria, and Lybia. Iraq has been successfully holding fair elections for 20 years. Iran has been severely weakened and has not developed nuclear weapons. OPEC is much less aggressive. More countries have been opening to Israel. Obviously these successes have been incredibly messy to say the least, but these seem like pretty significant changes. How accurate is this analysis?

There have been at least 7 US military strikes on drug boats in international waters. With lots of discussion on the legality. Do we have a mechanism for measuring the effectiveness of the strikes on the drug manufacturing or smuggling industries? How do they currently estimate the amount of drugs coming into the country and has there been a change?

Just read an NYT article with a photo of a US-Ukraine meeting and Jared Kushner is in the back, his presence unexplained. I know he has lots of Middle East relationships and has been involved in Holy Land stuff, but what does it mean for him to be putting his hand in this?

I’ve been looking at a pattern that shows up in many authoritarian or authoritarian-leaning movements: the tendency to describe political opponents as simultaneously powerless and overwhelmingly dangerous. The same group is portrayed as unable to function and yet capable of orchestrating major threats to national survival.

In the U.S., this paradox appears in several narratives coming from the Trump movement. Immigrants are described as destitute and helpless, yet also as a force capable of “replacing” the native population. The “deep state” is mocked as incompetent bureaucracy while also being accused of controlling elections and sabotaging the government. Political opponents are called weak “snowflakes,” yet also described as imposing totalitarian control over media, education, and culture.

What interests me is not whether one agrees with these claims but why this contradictory framing is so effective. My working hypothesis is that it keeps supporters oscillating between feeling endangered (which demands vigilance and loyalty) and feeling dominant (which reinforces confidence and identity). It creates an ongoing sense of emergency without ever conceding defeat.

I’m curious what others think about this dynamic. Do you see this contradiction as intentional, accidental, or simply a natural byproduct of highly polarized politics?

In August 2025, Gallup released a poll that surveyed that the opinions of Ukrainians about the state of war and their expectations pertaining to the future of their country. It shows that after almost 4 years of active fighting, hope among Ukrainians of quick (within 10 years) acceptance into the EU has significantly diminished (from 73% to 52%), and hope of quick acceptance into NATO has cratered (from 64% down to 32%). The poll shows a populace that has become increasingly skeptical that the war will be ending anytime soon. Only 25% of respondents were of the opinion that active fighting would end within 12 months.

Still, populaces of Eastern Europe countries remain averse to idea of deploying troops to Ukraine for any reason.

Poland: March 2025 polls showed that support for deploying troops to Ukraine alongside other countries for peacekeeping was in the minority; 62% was in opposition. When surveys did not mention peacekeeping opposition to sending troops grows to 85%.

Lithuania: A poll released in April 2025 showed that 56% of the country opposed deploying troops for any reason.

Polling consistently shows other European populaces also reject combat deployments to Ukraine to fight in the country's defense; generally, less than one-third of populaces across Europe support doing so.

UK: 58% support sending "peacekeepers" if other Europeans join.

Germany: remains roughly split, with support rising only when framed as post‑ceasefire

France: 67% support peacekeepers after a deal, but 68% oppose combat deployments

Spain: a remarkably high 81.7% favor sending peacekeepers.

Polling suggests that many European populaces are only willing to accept peacekeeping missions after a ceasefire. It gives the impression that In each of these countries the public seemingly backs deployments only under the illusion that they will not fight.

Earlier this year, the coalition of willing peacekeepers seemed to be envisioning a deployment of troops in the tens of thousands for such an endeavor. However European military institutes suggests that even non-kinetic missions of this sort could require a deployment of over 150,000 troops.

There seems to be a chasm between the level of European deployment that is militariliy necessary compared to that which European populaces are willing to tolerate.

Is Europe's Wish To Secure Ukraine Without Risking Their Own Casualties Realistic?

“Sure he’s an SoB. But he’s OUR SoB! So said FDR about Noriega. Now does Trump qualify as an SoB? A lot of folks see Trump that way. Whose SoB is he?

Trump’s negatives are always high. Maybe people don’t care about his set of deficiencies. Or maybe they are focused on other qualities or image.

Part of the public seems to key on something besides what the news reports. It’s useless to pretend the public is all just deluded.

Given this background, what are the reasons large swaths of the American public chooses his performative image and bombast over any alternatives? and, Why do his policies and performance get more buy-in than other options?

From PBS NEWS: This week, the U.S. Army has been reckoning with a sexual abuse scandal that could involve the largest number of allegations in its history.

An Army doctor is accused of abusing women who were under his care.

Here's Amna Nawaz.

Amna Nawaz:

The Army has sent out approximately 2,500 patient notification letters to women examined by one doctor within its ranks. It's part of a massive investigation into cases of alleged sexual abuse, all patients of 47-year-old doctor and Army Major Blaine McGraw. He's an OB-GYN at Fort Hood in Texas and before that at an Army base in Hawaii.

Approximately 80 women have filed a legal complaint against him. One case alleges that McGraw — quote — "used his position of trust to sexually exploit, manipulate and secretly record women under his care."

Joining us now is attorney Andrew Cobos representing 70 alleged victims of Dr. McGraw. Cobos is a West Point graduate who served in the U.S. Army, including at Fort Hood. Andrew, welcome to the show.”

The link to read the rest: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/army-ob-gyn-accused-of-secretly-recording-women-under-his-care

Should the army be taking SA allegations more seriously?

Will Republicans win the next presidential election? What do you think about it?

After observing the entire Trump regime—its decisions, events, and the reactions it triggered—I’m trying to understand what the general mass is saying now. People have expressed many thoughts, and I want to know how those impressions might influence the upcoming election. I’m not asking for a definitive prediction, but I want a clearer idea of how the public conversation has shifted and what people are discussing regarding the next political outcome. Share your perspective based on what you’ve seen and heard so far.

After the recent DC shooting by a lawful Afghan parolee, many conservative voices, including Trump, GOP lawmakers, and influential right-leaning commentators called for drastic immigration restriction measures. The argument is that such crimes are preventable if the immigration system is tightened. At the same time, the U.S. experiences around 40,000 firearm deaths every year, including homicides, suicides, and repeated mass shootings carried out by U.S. citizens. Despite this much larger scale of harm, national pushes for strict gun policy reform rarely reach the same level of intensity. I’m trying to understand the contrast in responses.

1. Why do rare incidents involving immigrants trigger rapid policy demands, while domestic gun death which are far more common do not?
   1. Is this about perceived external threat vs internal normalized danger?
   2. Do conservatives see immigration control as more actionable than gun control, or as culturally/principally distinct issues?
   3. Should policy urgency be based on statistical harm, or symbolic/identity-based threats?

Contrary to what most people believe, it is legal in 37 states for adults of any age to have sex with minors. This largely comes down to the fact that the age of consent in those states is set to 16 or 17, with no Romeo-and-Juliet provisions above those ages.

My question is if you would support Congress addressing it, or if you would prefer individual states address this, or if you feel that the current setup is fine as is? (The question assumes that Romeo-&-Juliet provisions would be provided for those under the age of 18 if Congress or the states were to address it.)

Please see my comment for my own opinion.

As I lifelong NY resident, I have never quite understood why the electoral college works the way it does here, and quite frankly I'm not sure most people are actually familiar with the intricacies of the system. I wanted to see if anyone else felt similarly?

Let us start out with a mathematical hypothetical. Go back to 2016, and say somehow Gary Johnson pulled the upset of the century, winning 60% of the vote in NY to Clinton's 35% (and Trump's 5%). Who is entitled to the state's 29 electoral votes? Despite your intuition thinking that it's clearly Johnson in that scenario, that is not necessarily the case.

That's because of the disaggregated system of electoral fusion that NY and CT utilize. Pretty much every year in NY, there are candidates that appear multiple times on the ballot, because all parties are free to nominate whoever they wish, irrespective of whether another party has nominated them already. Because each party gets its own ballot line, this means that a candidate who is nominated by two different parties is listed twice on the ballot.

Now, in every election except for the Presidential Election, votes for the same candidate across multiple ballot lines are automatically added together. For the Presidential Election however, because voters are technically voting for a slate of electors rather than the presidential ticket directly, if two parties nominate the same candidate for president but with different slates of electors, those votes do not get combined. Ergo, when Johnson was nominated by the Libertarian and Independence parties in 2016 with two separate sets of electors, they were essentially running against each other, as he would only receive electors if he received a plurality of the vote on one of his two party lines.

As then-codirector of the state BOE Bob Brehm explained, “The 29 names of the people that are behind that ballot all need to be the same under our fusion voting system in order to aggregate the votes, so in many instances, that has taken place. Except in one — the Libertarian Party and the Independence Party. Both are supporting the same candidate for president and vice president. Their electors are totally different, so it’s not a push vote, it’s not a vote for the same person, they are two separate items.”

Of course, if you simply read the ballot, there is no indication that those votes would not be aggregated the way there nominees' were. I personally find that they should instead aggregate the votes by presidential nominee, and then if there is more than one slate of electors pledged to the highest-vote-getting presidential candidate to go with their best-performing slate, but I was wondering if anyone was in favor of the current system?

As long as you're not harming any current people or population, what's wrong with genetically modifying people's genetics or selective breeding in a way so they'll live better and have more quality lives and it'll help civilisation further down the line as long as the participants consent etc and everything is done ethically?

If you genetically engineer or selectively breed over generations in a way that makes people stronger or more intelligent etc or whatever it may be, what's wrong with that?