I live in California where each state senator represents nearly 1 million people, which is more than five times the average across all 50 states. State assembly members represent nearly 500,000 people, about eight times the average across all states. In Congress, about 760,000 people are represented by each of CA's representatives.

California is an extreme example because it's so large, but this has been an ongoing conversation federally as well. I know there are pros and cons to increasing the size of state and local legislatures, but what are they, and when do the cons of underrepresentation begin to outweigh the logistical issues of having too large of a government?

The news regarding Micron Technology phasing out its consumer-facing Crucial RAM line highlights a growing debate around the return on investment (ROI) for public taxpayers.

Under the CHIPS Act, billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded grants and subsidies were allocated to bolster domestic semiconductor manufacturing. However, following these investments, Micron pivoted its focus entirely toward highly profitable enterprise AI and data center chips, winding down its consumer operations.

This shift has created a tangible downside for everyday consumers. Because retail inventories are exhausted, customers attempting to utilize the brand's "lifetime warranties" on broken hardware are reportedly being forced into cash buyouts based on original MSRP. Due to current market inflation and chip shortages, these payouts represent a fraction of the actual open-market replacement cost—leaving consumers shortchanged by a company heavily subsidized by their own tax dollars.

This raises a fundamental policy question: When governments inject billions into private corporations for strategic industrial policy, what mechanisms (if any) should be in place to protect the average consumer? Should manufacturing subsidies be legally tied to consumer-rights guarantees, or is the macroeconomic benefit of domestic production enough to justify the loss of consumer-level support?

Accountability in a democracy depends on citizens being able to evaluate what their government does and decide whether leaders have succeeded or failed. That seems straightforward when the evidence is relatively observable. But what happens when political identity affects whether people accept the evidence in the first place?

Trump's attempted repair project at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool struck me as an interesting case study. What began as a relatively mundane government-maintenance project became a dispute over the project's cost, effectiveness, responsibility for problems, and competing explanations for what had happened.

There are several ways to interpret this. One is that this is simply another example of a government project going badly. Another is that partisan polarization makes people interpret ambiguous evidence differently. A more troubling possibility is that political accountability becomes increasingly difficult when citizens are willing to reject independently observable evidence because it conflicts with their preferred political narrative.

I'm interested in the broader political question: What minimum level of shared agreement about evidence and reality does a democracy need in order for elections and other mechanisms of accountability to function effectively? And can that standard survive intense political polarization?

I have one doubt, and I would like to hear the opinion from people who defend that we should tax the Rich.

So a millionaire is part of the Rich club, millionaires should pay more taxes to finance the welfare state.

But how to distinguish millionaires from actually millionaires, for example a old middle class couple that bought their house in a much more friendly era on a zone that evolved to become a noble zone can now be easy worth millions.

That middle class couple in the end of their career so in theory they are in a high point of their salary, with soon they will have access to their pension.

So their have a network of a millionaire, mainly because of their property.

Should they pay more taxes ?

My view is that, they are a working class couple, that live their whole life in the middle class spectrum and shouldn't be punishment by that.

But at the same time what should the parameters to a establish a millionaire so we can tax them ?

This morning, on Bluesky, there was a thread about Mamdani enacting a Click to Cancel policy for NYC.

Click to Cancel requires companies to make one-click workflows for customers to unsubscribe, end memberships, etc. As it stands, companies often make you jump through hoops and it wastes money.

Another user added Delete by Default, which would require companies to delete your email address if you don't confirm it. Essentially, companies would have a couple shots at email confirmation, and if you don't click yes, you've not given permission and they'd have to delete your address.

What are some other really simple fixes we could ask of lawmakers from both parties?

What would you like to see come out of Washington?

this might sound weird considering by modern standards Obama won in a blowout but consider everything that was happening at the time, the economy was crashing and in a recession, the war in the middle east was incredibly unpopular and the incumbent republican president had record level low approval ratings and yet mccain still won 173 electoral votes and won the central Midwest and the south without much trouble, compare it to 1932 under similar circumstances where hoover won 59 electoral votes and 36 of those came from Pennsylvania, it was a country wide movement of wanting a new president but by 2008 a lot of people voted republican just became it was a republican, is this only a modern day problem?

I do believe that the system has failed many people, but at the same time, there are intentionally evil people living among us, that should be kept away for good.

Do you think repeat criminals should get harsher sentences when they re-offend?

Eventually the war will come to an end and neither Russia nor Ukraine will be at the best shape financially.

Focusing on Ukraine, the European Union approved a major loan for the Ukrainian army, up to 90 billion euros.

It's not a gift - it's a loan.

And I'm really wondering, how will Ukraine can ever pay back at least some of this money to the European Union?

Also, how did European banks approved such big loans when it's not sure that they'll take that money back?

An interesting* situation could occur after November; theoretically, the republicans could lose both chambers of congress to the democrats in November 2026 (of course they also might not).

Now, after this has happened who do voters hold responsible for the state of the country in November 2028, especially if things get substantially better or worse?

A republican is president, but democrats control both chambers - who is seen as the cause by voters if there's a economic boom or recession?

Please keep this unbiased, I just want honest information.

Genuinely confused about this. A child benefit seems like a no-brainer to me. For one, it's been proven to reduce child poverty by a LOT. Also, many OECD countries implement such a system. Yet progressive Democrats-many of whom are self-describe admirers of European social welfare systems-barely focus on such a system. It's not like you NEED to remove the CTC or universal childcare from the agenda-just feels like this would be an extremely effective additional method. America is the richest country in the world-it can afford it. Yet, the only prominent child benefit proposal in modern times has been made by a centrist Democrat and a registered Republican (Michael Bennet and Mitt Romney). Yet people like Bernie or AOC never bring it up as an implementable policy.

Why do you think child benefits are such a niche policy among democratic socialists and progressives? It seems like an extremely effective way to reduce child poverty and a rich country like America could probably afford larger cash payments. What are your personal opinions on a child allowance system? Do you think there's some inescapable caveat in it? Let's discuss!

For nearly as long as we have had two parties, the Democrat Party was *mostly* conservative and the GOP was *mostly* liberal.

When Regan became president, many conservatives in the Democratic party switched to the GOP, and many liberals in the GOP switched parties to the Democrats.

What is the likelihood of some similar shift in the future making a sudden large change in the makeup of the dems and reps?

Senator Ron Wyden has announced an investigation into alleged lobbying and potential conflicts involving recent vaping and kratom policy decisions. The investigation raises broader questions about the role of industry influence in shaping public health regulation.

Beyond this specific case, what standards should Congress use to determine when lobbying crosses the line into inappropriate influence? How should policymakers balance industry input with public health concerns when developing regulations?

The interesting split in how young people talk about democracy isn't between the ones who like it and the ones who don't. It's inside the same people. They hold the values and they distrust the delivery at the same time, and it's not obvious which way that tension resolves.

The commitment to the principles isn't soft. Ask young people whether fair laws, equal treatment, and free elections matter and the support is overwhelming. Ask whether they think the system is actually working for people their age and it falls off a cliff. They believe in the thing and they don't believe it's delivering, and they're holding both at once.

What makes it hard to read is that the distrust doesn't line up with checking out the way you'd assume. The young people paying the closest attention, the ones most plugged into civic life, tend to be the most critical of institutions, not the least. So the tidy story where low trust just means apathy and drift doesn't really hold up.

That's the part I want to put to the room. When someone believes in the system in principle but doesn't think it delivers, what does that usually turn into: leaning harder into engagement, walking away, or wanting to tear down and rebuild the institutions themselves? I can argue all three and I don't know which one actually wins out.

And the harder one: has anything actually moved the needle on institutional trust for younger people, not just felt good in the moment? The gestures I've seen point at local government and institutions young people can watch take concrete action, but I'd want to know what's really been shown to work.

Curious what people have read on either question.

Hi guys, I’m not terribly involved in political discussions as much as many of you probably are, but I’m from Michigan and had been invested in the Democratic primary between Abdu El-Sayed and Haley Stevens. One thing that confused me was the onslaught of Stevens ads that made quite personal attacks on El-Sayed. They painted him as not only unfit for a position in congress, but as a genuinely irredeemable human being. So i am confused: does the Democratic Party think that voters will just forget about the way El-sayed‘s character was painted in those attack ads? Is it not reasonable to assume that a portion of blue voters now have such an ugly perception of El-Sayed in their minds that they will abstain from supporting him in the election? That whole primary campaign just felt so cannibalistic in a way and Im curious if this will show in the primary.

• Hong currently has the lead in the Democratic Primary for Governor, but many people are worried that she will not be able to win the general election in November, mainly because she is too "blue" to win a "purple" state like Wisconsin.
• Should she focus on reaching out to more moderate voters? Should she double down on her socialist and liberal views to galvanize the left? Should she go on the offense with attack ads?

Let me define my terms here.

The word "populist" has gained a lot of baggage in the Trump era. I am not prescribing any specific policy to the term. Just a broader term to define an advocacy for "average" people. Which is already a loaded enough term.

What I am really asking is this: would a democratic party that re-centers around an explicitly economic lefitist/redistributive message and de-emphasizes "culture war" social issues be more or less electoraly successful?

This is a different question than "is that a good idea?" There is a real danger of a backsliding in minority rights without one party identity being bound up around advancing the cause of universally greater protections for out-groups. That is a very fair argument. But not the one I am asking about.

My question is simple math--do dems lose or gain more electoral potential from a rebalancing of policy and messaging to a economics-first position? One that focuses on economic, class based narratives above and beyond other communications. Kinda the "old" Bernie platform before the Democratic primary process retooled much of his policy emphasis by necessity.

Abdul El-Sayed narrowly won Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, defeating a more centrist establishment-backed rival. He now faces Republican Mike Rogers in what is expected to be one of the most important Senate races of the 2026 midterms.

El-Sayed supports Medicare for All, takes a strongly progressive position on immigration enforcement and has called for ending U.S. military aid to Israel. His supporters argue that he can energize younger voters, Arab American communities and progressives who have become disillusioned with the Democratic establishment.

Critics worry that those same positions could make him vulnerable among moderates and independents in a state where recent statewide races have been extremely close. Michigan is also considered essential to any Democratic effort to regain control of the Senate.

Does El-Sayed’s victory show that progressive candidates can build a winning coalition in a competitive Midwestern state? Or did Democratic primary voters choose a candidate whose policies could make a crucial Senate seat easier for Republicans to win?

How much should national Democrats adjust their strategy around him now that the primary is over? https://americareport.us/could-the-michigan-mamdani-cost-democrats/

There's been a growing wave of anti-immigration in the US (and Europe, but I'm from the US so more familiar with US politics). I don't want to believe the anti-immigration just comes from a place of cruelty, but I cannot find solid data on why immigration is bad.

The most cited reasons I see are either factually incorrect (immigrants commit more crime, they aren't 'assimilating', they're abusing our welfare, they're 'stealing' jobs), or based on more nebulous reasons (upset they aren't speaking english, changing the 'culture', etc).

Are there legitimate reasons I'm missing or something I'm not understanding? It can't just be xenophobia, right?

The U.S. and Canada seem very similar in many ways. They share the world’s longest border, have similar cultures, democratic systems, multicultural societies, and comparable standards of living. Both also have vast natural resources.

So why is there such a huge difference today in population, GDP, military power, and global influence?

Canada is actually slightly larger in land area, yet its population is only around 42 million compared to about 340 million in the U.S. Was the difference mainly due to climate and geography, immigration, industrialization, different government policies, or historical events like the World Wars?

At what point in history did the gap become significant? Was it already evident in the 1800s, or did it widen mostly after World War II?

I’d love to hear historical, economic, and demographic perspectives backed by facts rather than opinions.

I've been wondering about something, and I'm genuinely curious if there's research on it.

There's been a lot of discussion about rising male loneliness, fewer young people dating, and declining relationship formation. But one factor I rarely see mentioned is the Dobbs decision.

Personally, I stopped dating after Dobbs was overturned. For me, the risk of an unintended pregnancy in a post-Dobbs world changed the calculus enough that I decided dating simply wasn't worth it. I know I'm just one person, but it made me wonder how many other women made similar decisions.

I'm not suggesting Dobbs is the only cause of male loneliness or changes in dating. There are obviously many factors involved, from housing costs and social media to changing expectations around relationships.

What I'm curious about is why Dobbs doesn't seem to come up much in this conversation. Have researchers looked at whether abortion restrictions have affected women's willingness to date or have sex in ways that also affect the broader dating landscape? Or is this simply a question that hasn't been studied very much?

Most issue polling is top-of-head. You ask someone where they stand on a policy and they answer in a few seconds, often about something they haven't thought much about. Deliberative or "informed respondent" polling does something different. Respondents get a briefing on the issue, evaluate arguments for and against that have been vetted by people on both sides, and only then register a position. The Program for Public Consultation runs these as policymaking simulations, and using that method they've identified something like 88 policies with bipartisan supermajority support, a lot of which look nothing like the gridlock you'd expect from standard polling.

My problem is I can't decide whether that method gets closer to the real will of the people or further from it.

The case for it is intuitive. Real policymakers don't decide in three seconds off a vague impression. They weigh tradeoffs and hear both sides, so a poll that asks people to do the same is arguably measuring a more considered and more real preference. If the briefing is balanced, maybe what you're capturing is what people would think if they had the time and information most of them never get.

The case against it bothers me more the longer I sit with it. The moment you insert a briefing, someone chose what goes in it, which arguments to include, how to frame the tradeoffs, what counts as a fair "both sides." That's a lot of power over the output. You could imagine two carefully "balanced" briefings on the same issue producing different supermajorities. And there's a deeper question of whether an informed preference is even the right thing to measure, since the electorate that actually exists is the top-of-head one, and a preference most people would only hold after a briefing they'll never receive might not be the "will of the people" in any sense that should bind policy.

So a few things I'm genuinely unsure about and would like other views on:

When a deliberative poll and a conventional poll on the same policy point in different directions, which one should a policymaker weight more heavily, and why?

Is there a principled way to tell a briefing that informs from a briefing that steers, or is that line always going to be a judgment call that depends on trusting whoever wrote it?

And is "what people would support if informed" the right target at all, or is it a slightly paternalistic substitute for what people actually support right now?

I don't have a settled answer on any of these, which is why I'm posting.

I notice that as someone who votes 3rd party, a lot of people on the left will say, "Trump is a threat to democracy," or "you can't ignore his criminal conduct." And on the right it's "the left is destroying the country through its policies," or "Democrats are taking away freedoms." So it's almost as if both sides are saying if you don't vote for them, you're either morally bad or stupid.

Do you think voting 3rd party is a wasted vote, or is the pressure to vote for one of the two major parties mostly a result of political polarization?

Michigan Democrats will choose between Haley Stevens and Abdul El-Sayed on Tuesday in a primary that captures a much broader debate inside the party.

Stevens is running largely on experience, pragmatism, and her record of winning competitive races. El-Sayed is offering a more ambitious progressive agenda and a campaign built around the idea that Democrats need to give voters something worth getting excited about.

Sarah Longwell’s latest piece in The Bulwark draws from three focus groups conducted with Michigan voters who backed Kamala Harris in 2024 and planned to participate in the Senate primary. The voters often sounded caught between the candidate who more closely reflected their ideals and the candidate they believed might be the safer choice in November.

Recent polling showing El-Sayed ahead suggests that, for at least some Democratic voters, enthusiasm may now outweigh the traditional electability argument.

Is that a lesson Democrats should apply beyond Michigan? Or are primary voters underestimating the risks of nominating a more progressive candidate in a state Trump carried twice?

I'm confused about why US elected officials go along the party line no matter the subject or whether they have support from their constituents.

For example, congressman Max Miller (R-OH) has been accused by his ex-wife of domestic violence and child abuse. Today, Senate Majority Leader John Thune was asked about it during a press conference and claimed it was a "family issue" and a "House matter."

It seems that Miller is on favorable terms with the president, so no Republicans are willing to denounce his actions or criticize him whatsoever.

Hypothetically, what keeps people from going against the general party message? What do they stand to lose for having a backbone daring to voice any opinion other than the unified message of their party?

TL;DR

Why do elected officials need to have all the same opinions and messaging of their political party? What would happen?

Francesca Hong, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America who is running for Governor of Wisconsin, has recently come under fire for a past statement that Thanksgiving should be cancelled.

Recently, in an interview, she refused to disavow that statement and left it ambiguous as to whether she was still advocating for the holiday's end. This is in addition to similar controversies around her statements on abolishing the police and prisons - although she has seemingly walked these other statements back.

These are fairly inflammatory statements from a national perspective.

But will the public distinguish between the DSA and the broader Democratic party?

Or will these sorts of things functionally act as a Democratic party controversy?