I'm not asking that like, "How could anyone vote for him? He's a bigot and a moron," but like, what did he do that got him so many votes? He not only won the swing states and the electoral vote but also the popular vote. The last time this happened was two decades ago, yet polls show that Kamala has majority support?

The Republicans not only have POTUS but also majorities in Congress and SCOTUS; how did they get such a surge of support? It can't only be the economy, right?

Edit: I mean, what political strategy did he use? Who were his opponents and allies that helped and hampered his campaign?

https://www.economist.com/interactive/us-2024-election/trump-harris-polls

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-wins-arizona-sweeping-all-seven-battleground-states-edison-research-says-2024-11-10/

https://www.axios.com/2024/11/06/trump-popular-vote-republican-candidates

https://www.barrons.com/articles/trump-harris-economy-inflation-jobs-c1d411b1

https://nysba.org/6-to-3-the-impact-of-the-supreme-courts-conservative-super-majority/?srsltid=AfmBOoqDgfpumKV8jUT9pMZzM-N3rIVTzRzy0U0l_fdkwLPSzD5I1lnh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/119th_United_States_Congress

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is an Executive Order from President Obama that went into effect in 2012.

Do you believe that President 47 (Trump) would revoke it and go after them to deport them?

Not quite the grasp they used to have, but still. Many places have almost completely dominance by one party or the other, with only the tiny minority of votes cast for the opposition party, hardly any seats, if any, held by them, and with most of the attention drawn nationally and statewide, you can in a good number of places win by literally deciding to just show up to the county clerk's office and deciding to file papers to run given how few people notice or care about them, and thousands of races go uncontested.

Only a few important people might be needed to make the decisions go a certain way, maybe a strongly influential local pastor, a well liked sheriff or mayor, etc, who might not face credible opposition after many terms, some even after decades of governance. They can embezzle money, direct things to those allied with them, and operate somewhat like a fiefdom. In Sark in the Channel Islands, a literal fiefdom existed until 2008.

How much influence do they still have and what might be done about it?

At the federal level, all congress people, cabinet members, and VPs have unlimited terms. Supreme Court judges are appointed for life.

Less than a dozen states have lifetime gubernatorial term limits. Only 17 states place any terms whatsoever on legislative positions, and most of them are not lifetime.

This is the reason the average age of elected officials is much higher than most of the US population. It makes it much harder for non-career politicians coming from real-world backgrounds such as military, science, and business to break into the political arena without major endorsements and ties to that world already.

Does this stagnation hurt our chances at progress and representation for the average citizen? Do you support stricter term limits across the board? How could we ever achieve this when many of the few term limits states have voted for over the years have been overturned by the very people meant to be removed by it?

Something that seems odd to me now that I think about it, why are non-nuclear powers such as Iran and it's proxy militias relatively undeterred in directly launching strikes against a (not so secretly) nuclear armed Israel. It seems all parties involved have an understanding that Israel will not consider utilizing it's nukes as a response, so these weapons are not acting as much of a deterrent in this regard.

I find this a bit ironic compared to the situation in Ukraine over a similar period, where nuclear armed NATO countries have to be dragged kicking and screaming just to approve of western weapons use by Ukrainian forces, for fear of nuclear escalation by Russia in a conflict they are not even directly engaged in.

Why is there this disparity in nuclear deterrents in these conflicts, with nukes seemingly acting as less of a deterrent to countries that do not have these weapons? Would the possession of nukes by Iran lead to a more careful policy of engagement between the two countries, for fear of nuclear escalation?

While both would make the US more democratic as a whole, which do you think would have a more lasting positive impact? Especially considering how both the SC and the EC were originally intended to preserve the state of American democracy, and now only seems to undermine it.

This past election cycle there were four GOP candidates for senate that lost despite Trump winning their state: Sam Brown (NV), Eric Hovde (WI), Mike Rogers (MI), and Kari Lake (AZ). I guess I can sort of understand why Kari Lake lost in AZ since she pretty much solely campaigned on election denialism (even Trump largely gave that up over time, I didn’t hear him mention it a ton in the last month or two of the campaign), but the other 3 don’t make a ton of sense to me. I heard that the NRSC really didn’t invest much resources into WI and MI (but apparently they had no problem raising money for the most unelectable candidate that’s ever run in AZ), but Sam Brown losing NV to Rosen still has me confused as she’s pretty unpopular, Brown wasn’t as MAGA heavy as some of the other GOP candidates in other races were, and NV swung pretty heavily for Trump. What went wrong for these guys, in your opinion?

This is something I've noticed, especially in regards to modern politics. In general, a lot of people that I know blame solely Kamala for loosing and the Democratic Party for being out of touch or too socially liberal, therefore they deserved to lose. However, these same people are generally completely apathetic or even hateful of the Bush-era Republicans. They are either apathetic to Kerry or even sympathetic to him, lamenting his loss in the face of a mob psychosis in America. Same applies to Humphrey, Carter, Dukakis, and Gore, yet no one acts as if the Democratic party of that era was also incompetent or "too far left"

Many of these same individuals look back at Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Korea with disdain. Yet, those same people are also baying for the blood of Mexican civilians in a war against cartels.

Why is it we are able to look at the past with such gold-tinted glasses for one side, but then treat them with disdain when we see them in the present, ignoring all the repetitive mistakes that keep making more and more problems into the future?

Since 2008, North Carolina has been considered a swing state. However, apart from the 2008 election (a blue wave year), Democrats have not won a statewide federal election in the state (Presidential or Senatorial).

•	2008: Barack Obama (D) narrowly defeated John McCain (R) by 0.32 points, while Kay Hagan (D) comfortably beat Elizabeth Dole (R) by 8.37 points.
•	2010: Richard Burr (R) easily defeated Elaine Marshall (D) by 11.76 points.
•	2012: Mitt Romney (R) defeated Barack Obama (D) by 2.04 points.
•	2014: Thom Tillis (R) narrowly beat Kay Hagan (D) by 1.56 points.
•	2016: Donald Trump (R) defeated Hillary Clinton (D) by 3.66 points, while Richard Burr (R) defeated Deborah Ross (D) by 5.69 points.
•	2020: Donald Trump (R) defeated Joe Biden (D) by 1.34 points, while Thom Tillis (R) narrowly beat Cal Cunningham (D) by 1.75 points.
•	2022: Ted Budd (R) defeated Cheri Beasley (D) by 3.23 points.
•	2024: Donald Trump (R) defeated Kamala Harris (D) by 3.21 points.

Despite being labeled a swing state, North Carolina consistently remains in the Republican column, often narrowly, in statewide federal elections. This trend persists regardless of who wins the presidency.

In contrast, other states have shown greater political shifts. For example: • Georgia: Trump won by 5.09 points in 2016, but Biden flipped the state in 2020, carrying it by 0.23 points. • Pennsylvania: Biden won the state in 2020 by 1.17 points, but it flipped back to Trump in 2024, with him winning by 1.70 points.

Why does North Carolina remain so resistant to Democratic victories in federal elections? Is there any realistic chance in the near future for Democrats to win the state in a Presidential or Senatorial election?

I notice that some pre-election and exit polls showed that, while not in the majority, Trump did get some support from younger (age 18-29) women. Trump has become widely known for his misogynistic views, and I have seen much of the social activist opposition against him (such as women's marches) been done by millennial and gen Z women. Going by this, it would give an impression that support for Trump among them would be in the single digits. But it is not in the single digits in many cases, and in fact has grown compared to support for him in 2016 and 2020 among young women. Just to take a couple of anecdotes, I came across a couple of early 20s Connecticut-based female influencers (who also spend a lot of time in NYC, and thus not living in red states) who openly displayed MAGA messages in their Instagram, and also shared some of Trump's rhetoric regarding immigration.

I am aware of the trends that caused millennial and gen Z voters male to shift towards supporting Trump, but I am not familiar with what caused young female voters to shift. What are some big reasons for some millennial and gen Z women to vote for Trump, despite his sexism, and buck the trend of young female voters being predominantly liberal?

Link to major new article discussing it:

• https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/abortions-rose-roe-overturned-why-rcna181094

A big point here is that in 2021, the FDA eliminated the requirement to dispense Mifepristone (the abortion pill) in person. This has helped groups of medical providers find ways to prescribe and ship abortion pills around the country from places where they’re still legal. Shield laws, enacted in some of the most pro-choice states in America following Roe's overturn which guarantee providers immunity for prescribing pills to patients in states where abortion is now banned, have also been helpful here.

Another dynamic at play is that abortion is now protected in 32 states by new laws, courts ruling that access is protected by their state's constitution and citizen-initiated Constitutional Amendments & ballot referendums where they haven't (although not every state allows this). Another two states protect abortion through the First Trimester, by when 90% of all abortions occur. And a lot of these laws and new Constitutional Amendments in particular are going farther in their protections than existed in the final years of Roe, plugging a lot of the coverage and access gaps that Republicans had managed to exploit particularly when it came to women of color and people of low incomes.

Overall, these factors meant that in 2023, a year after Roe v. Wade was overturned, over 1,000,000 abortions took place nationwide, the highest total in a decade.

What are your thoughts on this? And what does it say about the anti-abortion movement? The pro-life side fought for 50 years to overturn Roe, they fought for generations to concentrate power in the hands of the states specifically, hoping to ban it in half the country they controlled and drastically reduce the amount of abortions (to start with). However, overturning Roe did not reduce abortions on its own, and in various traditionally Republican states from Montana to Kansas to Missouri to Ohio to Arizona, they've watched voters go on their own and codify access to a level stronger than Roe into their state constitutions. In other conservative states like Alaska, Utah, Wyoming and North Dakota, they've lost in courts that said their constitutions protect it too. And they've pretty much exhausted other states where they could try to ban it, while the pro-choice side still has several left where they could bring ballot measures to override existing bans. Attacking abortion has also become a big political loser, with Donald Trump forced to go out of his way to say he'd veto national restrictions and leave it at the hands of these courts and ballot measures at the state level. And previously viewed "common ground" and "compromise" 15-week bans for example have lost decisively in competitive states like Arizona and Virginia over the past year. Considering that virtually every developed country has already defeated their conservatives trying to ban abortion, does the anti-abortion wing still have a path to victory or major restrictions in the US?

Trump recently announced a new blanket tariff of 25% on all Canadian and Mexican goods and a 10% blanket tariff on all Chinese goods. Trump’s goal for the Chinese tariff is to incentivize the Chinese government to help prevent the flow of illegal drugs and to bring outsourced jobs back to the U.S., specifically in manufacturing, and his goal for the Canadian and Mexican tariffs is to incentivize their governments to better secure their borders, reduce the flow of drugs, and bring outsourced jobs back into the U.S.

According to Pew Research, Mexican illegal immigration has fallen since 2007, while illegal immigration from other countries has increased over the last four years. Many illegal immigrants crossing the southern border are fleeing from third-world countries in Central and South America, such as El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Venezuela. Will imposing tariffs on Mexico have a significant impact on illegal immigration? Do you think these tariffs will accomplish Trump’s goals? What industries could be impacted by these tariffs? Could these tariffs spark a trade war?

Why do you think Trump is taxing Canadian imports when illegal immigration to the U.S. from Canada is far less severe than illegal immigration from the Mexican border? For those of you who support Trump’s latest tariff proposals, why do you support them, and what positive impacts do you think they will have? For those who oppose Trump’s latest tariff proposals, why do you oppose them, and what negative impacts do you think they will have? What U.S. intervention alternatives, other than higher tariffs, could help improve the crime and poverty issues in Central and South America?

Pew Research Center citation

Netanyahu looked finished after October 7 and at the beginning of the War. Everyone thought he was going home. He also looked tired physically and It seemed that he lost a lot of his traditional confidence. But a year and a month later, Netanyahu now looks stronger than ever. He successfully dragged the war, received multiple standing ovations at the Congress, etc.

Bibi used his fight with the Democrats to turn the Israeli public against Biden and rally them around him, his Republican friends won in a landslide, Netanyahu got the congress at his side, and he is mocking foreign leaders and humiliating them (his public fight with Macron).

The successful killings of Nasrallah and Sinwar helped to improve Bibi's image, attacks on him from Democrats rallied the Israeli public around Bibi, and many of Trump's appointees are not only Pro-Israel but also longtime personal supporters of Netanyahu. Mike Walz and Marco Rubio, for example, are big fans of Netanyahu, Mike Huckabee, the future ambassador to Israel, is more Pro-Netanyahu then Israelis themselves. Ben-Gvir and Smotrich are no longer attempting to challenge him. The ICC's arrest warrants helped to further increase Bibi's support in Israel, and after Trump enters Office the Senate will probably sanction the ICC. Would it be correct to say that Bibi is stronger than ever?

I’m talking logistically here. If a third party was to form in 2025 and plan to run candidates in the 2026 midterms then what would that look like? Would there even be enough time? Let’s say that progressive democrats switch to this party so they would have maybe 4+ seats in the house going into 2026.

The civilian leadership of the military placed in this role by the Constitution of the United States. If this leadership give orders to the military that violates the Constitution, the laws governing the military, federal, and/or state laws what happens?

From my understanding military personnel are required to not follow illegal orders and to bring the orders to the attention of those higher in the chain of command. However, the highest person in the chain of command is giving the illegal orders.

President issues order X.

Joint Chief refuses to obey orders X as it is illegal.

President orders Joint Chief to be relieved and court martialed.

Is the order to relieve the Joint Chief illegal as it is made to allow order X to be given to the next in command?

If it is illegal and most/all subsequent commands from the President are made to further order X and therefore illegal does the Joint Chief have a right or responsibility to act to prevent more illegal orders from being given and possibly carried out?

Given the elections earlier this month, it's not entirely clear if the electorate wants wars as policy.

By WAR, I'm referring to either direct or indirect (proxy) military action.

Recent examples include the Middle East conflict, Israel/USA vs. Palestine/Lebanon/Syria/Iran

Also, the European conflict, involving Ukraine/NATO/USA vs. Russia

In the near future, an Asian conflict, involving Taiwan/NATO/USA vs. China

In essence, are Americans OK supporting continued wars as part of our policy?

I know that in 19th century some of the states had elections done by shouting the candidate names. No secret ballot, no ballot at all.

At some point we decided to go away from that and I do know all the main arguments. Buying votes, voters intimidation and social pressure.

What do you think, is secret ballot 100% a good thing? If so, why generally secrecy, especially in government, is considered a bad thing, but in this case, it's a good thing. Why this contradiction?
Do you think for some cases public voting would be preferential?

I have an idea as to what the answer is, but I’m curious to know other people’s thoughts. My hunch is that the tourism/theme park industry has something to do with it and a lot of people in that industry may be more left-leaning. Does this make sense?

One not-so-much discussed campaign Trump promised last month was to end double taxation for US citizens living abroad.

For those unaware, the US is one of a handful of countries in the world, and the only country in the developed world, that taxes based on citizenship, no matter where they live.

For over 7 million US citizens living abroad, it's less paying the tax itself, but more filing a US tax return in addition to that of their home country and adding complexity. Due to how the current taxation system works, if you make under $120,000 a year abroad, you're excluded from paying any tax in the US, still need to file a tax return. There is also a tax credit system where you only pay the difference between the tax amount you pay in the US and your host country (but you can't do both the exclusion and credit options).

Changing the taxation system to a residency-based one has been expressed by both sides of the political spectrum over the years, and studies have shown it to be tax revenue-neutral.

Now that Trump is president-elect, how can his administration realistically switch the US to a residency-based taxation system?

Edit: How far should Trump go in making it making it easier for US citizens living abroad? Should he eliminate the requirement for US citizens to report their foreign assets to the IRS every year (FBAR)?

Should he eliminate FATCA, requiring foreign financial institutions to report US citizens and permanent residents to the US for taxation purposes?

Ask any US person who's lived abroad and has tried to open a bank account. Most will tell you they've had some trouble or out right refusal by the bank due to FATCA. It was the Obama administration that pushed for and signed it into law...

Edit 1: It's interesting to see the division in support-opposition in the comments are dependent on if you've lived abroad and have had to deal with filing FBAR and their tax return, dealing with FACTA, etc.

It's a very common misconception that it's solely wealthy people and "expats" that makeup most US citizens living abroad.

Especially since the US has unrestricted citizenship by birthright (via the 14th Amendment), there are hundreds of thousands of cases where children born of parents who've either immigrated or were here temporarily (vacation, work, study, etc) who've automatically obtained US citizenship. For the rest of their life, even if they never enter the US again, they have to deal with the hassle of filing yearly tax returns, filing FBAR, dealing with financial institutions refusing them due to not wanting to deal with FACTA, etc. And since they were born in the US, it will show on their other passport their place of birth, thus automatically showing they're a US citizen and can't ignore it.

One example, a child is born to Mexican parents who've immigrated to the US and has both Mexican and US citizenship. A few years later, they return to Mexico and the child grows up there. Upon moving out of the home after graduation, they want to open a bank account. Many financial institutions will give him hassle or outright reject them due to FACTA requirements. But they're lucky and finds a bank that's willing to deal with the hassle of interacting with the IRS.

A few years later, the person has been working. The IRS will demand why have they not only not filed a yearly US tax return, but especially why didn't they file the annual FBAR? After much more hassle and back and forth, the IRS is lenient and will have a minimal penalty since the person genuinely didn't know about the annual FBAR and tax return filing requirements. But next time they won't be so nice.

Frustrated with the situation and why they have to pay the US taxes when they're not even in the country, the next year they decide to renounce their US citizenship, much to the dismay of their parents and family. They're stubborn and don't want to deal with this for the rest of their life, despite the opportunities the US would have for them, so they go to the US consulate and applies to renounce their US citizenship. However, the filing fee is $2,350 just to get the process started. On top of that, the IRS and Department of Treasury demand they pay one more set of taxes for the year up to date so there's no "outstanding balance", otherwise it won't be approved.

You might think, this is such a niche example. But there are similar cases for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dual citizens living outside the US. In Mexico alone, in 2017 there were almost 900,000 Mexicans that were born in the US.

It's one of those issues you don't think about much, if at all, and likely have some misconceptions until you experience it personally. Then the more you research and/or deal with it, the more byzantine, absurd, and out of touch the whole system is.

It's obvious to anyone with eyes that the US voter base is extremely polarized, and has become increasingly moreso since the 2016 presidential election.

The bulk of discourse seems to generally focus on highlighting differences between different demographics (left/right, white/black, men/women, etc).

There were about 150M voters who turned out this past election, where is the common ground for the majority of these voters?

Where do the cosmopolitan transwoman living in New York City and the blue collar white "family man" living in rural Texas see eye to eye?

What sort of platform, rhetoric, and candidate could a major political party run on in the midterms and in 2028 that has the best chance of uniting these two seemingly polar opposite Americans?

This is an attempt to inject some slightly more positive dialogue into the discourse in this forum. How do we as a nation do better at championing unity without resorting to a more toxic version of nationalism?

Kamala Harris losing is going to be the first thing Democrats analyze and debate on, if their platform is working. That seems to be a situation with too many factors to gain meaningful insight. Instead should Democrats look at the seemingly anti-Progressive election results in California as their baseline in re-strategizing themselves?

California saw the successful recall of Oakland Mayor Shang Thao and Alameda County DA Pamela Price. Both seen as having Progressive platforms. LA County DA Gascon lost his re-election bid and was also a Progressive DA. And 2 years ago progressive SF DA Chelsea Boudin was recalled.

On the Proposition side, there were many Proposition victories I think can be considered non-Progressive.

• Banning prison labor failed (Prop 6)
• Harsher crime penalties passed easily (Prop 36)
• Rent control failed (Prop 33)
• Increasing minimum wage failed (Prop 32)
• Prop 34 is generally accepted as an attack against the AIDS Healthcare Foundation who opponents see as Progressive political machine acting outside its mandate. This passed.

Taking this at face value, it seems there is still tolerance for Democrat politicians but the progressiveness has gone too far out of sync with the average voter. Would researching into why Californians voted the way they did help Democrats re-position more than analyzing Kamala Harris lost?

I’ve seen some very dire takes on the likelihood that the GOP could completely dismantle the Department of Education. And then I’ve seen some people say it’s not possible to do this given what would be needed to pass such a measure. Obviously they can do damage to it by weakening it structurally, but outright dismantling it seems to be a tougher task.

What are your takes on how this would play out?

It seems like right now, federal income taxes are collected and then distributed to states for transportation projects, health care, education, disability, food stamps, etc.

If that largely goes away, and each state is responsible for setting their own levels of taxation and that money is spent within the state that collects it, what does that look like for states?

Does the gap between high-service and low-service states widen?

Do people continue to self-sort where they live?

Which states are the winners, and which are the losers?

Where do wealthy people move to?

Where do homeless people move to?

Where do millennial families wanting to buy a house go?

Basically, if everything is left to the states, what happens?

Second term curse is basically when a president faces more challenges in his second term compared to the first.

Examples include - Watergate for Nixon, Vietnam War for LBJ, Wilson's health deteriorating

So which two term president had the worst second term curse and who was affected by it the least? And follow up to that - do you think Trump will suffer the same fate?

Donald Trump has posted he will immediately poise a 25% Tariff on all Mexican and Canadian imports. (Also, an additional 10% tariff on China.) Until “their crime and drugs” stop coming across the border.

How badly will this affect Americans? The countries Trump in targeting? Will this have any bearing for the 2026 & 2028 elections?

Hello, first time posting here, and I hope that this one fits within the subreddit. Just to be clear, I intend to ask this in good faith and maybe see something I'm not seeing.

But I've been seeing around American politics, in particular to some Republicans and the rather contrary vision they seem to hold when it comes to certain military matters.

Some Republicans for example seem to be rather adverse to Ukraine aid, on how it's just a big waste of money on part of American taxpayers or a concern that such aid might escalate into the US being dragged to a shooting war against Russia.

However, a few of these same Republicans (DeSantis, Ramaswamy, Nikki Haley to name a few) are also the kind to take militaristic stances against the cartels in Mexico, where it's bound to cost some American troops to get killed in action and will probably cost the US a lot more of money.

From what I see, the fight against the cartels through military means seem to be in-line with an 'America First' objective of fixing the fentanyl crisis that is said to claim the lives of over 100,000 Americans anually.

So, why the adverse of aiding Ukraine due to escalation or financial concerns, but also are willing to support military action against the cartels in Mexico, where there's a potential of it being much more costlier and one that will definitely get American troops killed or potentially worsen the border crisis?

With the recent vote in the senate regarding offensive arms sales to Israel, it made me think about how in 2008 supporting the Iraq war was seen as a major issue in the Dem primary. Which ended up being something that hurt Hillary Clinton and helped Barack Obama. Given how unpopular Israel and the War is for such a large portion of the Democratic Electorate, could this be a major issue for voters who are anti-war and view what is going on, and will likely continue with both Trump and Netanyahu in power, as a genocide/atrocity? Will support for Israel and support from AIPAC be seen as toxic to enough voters to make a significant difference?

Harris won Virginia in 2024, but Virginia was not always a blue state. In 2000 and 2004, Bush carried it by 8%. Obama carried it by 6% and 4%. Clinton carried it by 5%, Biden carried it by 10%, and Harris carried it by 5%. Notably, the number of voters who voted for Trump increased in the last two elections. In addition, in the 2021 gubernatorial election, Republican Glenn Youngkin defeated Democrat Terry McAuliffe by 64k votes, or 2% of the vote. Republican Bob McDonnell also served as governor of Virginia from 2010 to 2014. I watched election night on November 5, and there were concerns that Trump might actually win Virginia until around 11PM or midnight, when Harris took the lead. Until 2016, Virginia tended to vote for the winner, but in 2016 and 2024 voted for the losing candidate. Pundits like to speculate about Florida or Texas turning blue, but, if anything, as this election has shown, it is blue states that are at risk of turning red. This begs the question: Could Virginia turn purple and become a competitive state within the next few election cycles?

Background: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the United States House of Representatives for the state of New York. She belongs to the Democratic Party. She was first elected during the 2018 midterms and has handily won reelection in 2020, 2022 and 2024. She serves on The Committee of Oversight and Reform, which is the main investigative committee in the House. In January 2023, she was selected as the Vice Ranking Member — the #2 spot for Democrats on the committee. She also serves as a first-time member on The Committee on Natural Resources and as Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. Since her first election, she has become one of the most high-profile Democrats in the House. She is considered a left-wing Democrat. She is 35 years old.

Chuck Schumer is a member of the United States Senate, the senior senator from New York, and the current Majority Leader and Chair of the Senate Democratic Caucus. He was first elected to the Senate in the 1998 midterms, and has won reelection four times. Prior to that, he was a member of the House of Representatives for the state of New York, first elected in 1980. Schumer has served on numerous committees and other official functions in both the House and the Senate. He is 74 years old.

It is widely agreed that Schumer cannot be primaried, due to his popularity and political longevity. Prospective contenders will have to wait until he leaves office. Schumer does not plan to retire at the moment. New York has been a blue state for decades. Whoever the Democratic candidate is, is expected to be elected. Therefore, the real contest will be the Democratic primary, not the election. Schumer ascended to the Senate from the House. If he chooses to retire when his term is up, in 2028, AOC will then have 10 years of experience in the House and be 39, which would make her a good contender to succeed him. However, questions remain about her ability to widen her appeal from New York's 14th Congressional District to the entire state. Roughly 64% of the state's population lives in the New York City metropolitan area and 40% in New York City alone. New York City Democrats are more progressive than upstate Democrats, who tend to be moderates.

Does Rep. Ocasio-Cortez stand a chance of winning the Democratic primary to designate Schumer's successor when he retires?

While Barack Obama hasn't held any elected office since his second Presidential term ended in 2017, he still remains a popular and highly influential figure, especially within the Democratic Party. But what exactly *is* his role in the Democratic Party?

I asked a few Republicans I know this question and they said something along the lines of "Biden's term is just Obama's third term", or "Obama is pulling the strings from behind the scenes." They didn't provide any specific evidence to back up this claim, but they each individually had similar answers.

I asked Democrats as well and their opinions were far more varied. "Obama is who Democrats should model themselves after", "Obama was good, but too moderate. Especially nowadays with momentum building in the direction of the more progressive Bidenomics or a return to Keynesianism", "Still one of the most influential figures in the Democratic Party."

What do you all think?