It's hard to follow the disperate threads of your rant here but your core argument seems to still be that a working class agenda can't win in the majority of the US, which is just wrong. And elsewhere in this thread you're associating dem soc working class politics with an abandonment of social issues, which is also just wrong.

If the rise of a cohesive left politics in this country truly worries you I wouldn't fret, I'm sure the DNC and Israel will still be generating corporatist ghouls for you to enthusiastically pull their lever, for many more years to come.

I never said anything about dropping social issues, you brought "giving up on social issues" as a separate complaint in your reply to me and I ignored it for being disingenuous bait. It's still disingenuous bait, nobody in US politics fights for social issues harder than a dem soc, because social issues are inseparable from economic issues.

Who do you think would fight harder for social issue? Kamala Harris or AOC? Karen Bass or Zohran Mamdani? Haley Stevens or Abdul El-Sayed?

You're full of shit if you think dem socs are weak on social issues.

Have you ever lived in NYC? It's not an outlier for US politics in any manner. The immigrants trend conservative, as immigrants in the US often do. There are many entire neighborhoods that are deep red enclaves (Orthodox, conservative immigrant communities, cop / firefighter communities like City Island / Seaside / Staten Island). Multiple NYC mayors have been Republicans, one of them was RUDOLF FUCKING GIULIANI. It's the beating heart of global capitalism. Mamdani came out of NYC's most progressive / leftist region of northeast Brooklyn and western Queens and would have never been elected mayor if he hadn't found a way to communicate working class values to the entire swath of US political identities.

You can repeat his success anywhere in the US if you combine his platform with a relatable local identity and a strong ground campaign. Sorry if that freaks you out, it really shouldn't.

Throughtout my life I've encountered the "X isn't Y" thought-terminating cliche anywhere I've ever tried to do any sort of activism or advocacy (When I was doing bike advocacy in NYC it was often "New York isn't Amsterdam" which was especially ironic considering that it once literally was). It's never once been a meaningful or persuasive point. Reality on the ground is always what we make it, and policy can be communicated through the right identity and strategies. New Yorkers really aren't at all that different from Americans anywhere else, the biggest differences are aesthetic.

Just follow the money.

This is literally Chuck Schumer loser propaganda, stop repeating it. All it took to get conservative Maine to abandon Republicans was to put a rustic white male face on dem soc policy (Turned out the rustic white male was a rapist, so let's maybe be careful about future rustic white male selection). Talarico is wildly and authentically popular in Texas. Working class policy can win everywhere, so long as voters can see themselves in the candidate.

Yeah no shit that's how precedent works.

Lmao what a cringe crashout. Predictably, not a single mention in this essay regarding the reason why everyone suddenly hates them. Bye Felicia.

Hope a Tesseracts fork has more trustworthy devs than this guy.

Your anecdote checks out, Wisconsinites are among the minority of Americans with no additional private sale requirements.

Your 3 day background check wait probably wasn't all because you're a non-citizen, that's a fairly typical wait time. Mine have all been less than 48 hours though, presumably cause on paper I'm a god damned boy scout.

When the organizing and fighting that that you do beyond voting finally pays off. Like back to the analogy, if a wound is all dressed and banaged and healing, you no longer have to worry about stop the bleed.

Realisticay though, for the rest of your life. Because these are very large social moves that typically happen over generations. Unless you're the next Che Guavara or something. In which case hell yeah go you.

As a 40yo drug addict with a glock I find your interpretation of the second amendment in disagreement with legal precedent and your reduction of domestic abuse to a crass and arguably classist stereotype somewhat problematic.

This is not a great analogy, blue states do sometimes pass legislation that rhymes with these types of identity-based threats to gun rights. It is sometimes prohibitively difficult to get a CHL in certain states when your chosen name doesn't match your legal name. A few years ago Oregon almost passed an act by citizen referendum that would have had police precincts be responsible for verifying that identities matched licenses, with desk cops screening people's psych histories ("Uh, their license says Samuel, male but the document says Samantha, female? Oh and what's this, they're on several medications including a mood stabilizer? Denied.'). I'm glad that OP's poster isn't pitching their hypothetical analogy as a positive, but I want to be clear for the people playing team sports with their politics that identity-based rights abuses are all bad.

But yes, that Oregon referendum did get modified to remove the potentially abusive parts. And yes, it was because Republicans and libertarian types semi-successfully challenged it in court.