Politics ‘What Are You Doing?!’ CNN’s Enten Warns Democrats Are In Trouble Ahead of the Midterms

[SlyPokerDog]

CNN’s data guru Harry Enten warned Democrats on Monday that they’re in definite trouble with American voters ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Anchor Kate Bolduan asked Enten about a new poll showing “that most Americans still trust Republicans over Democrats on some major issues.”

“You know, Donald Trump being underwater, Democrats and, ‘Oh, this guarantees us we’re going to fly high in the midterms!'” Enten said in a mocking voice. “Let me tell you, this guarantees you nothing! Nothing! Because at this particular point, the Democrats are the New Orleans Saints of political parties.”

Enten continued with his magic wall of statistics:

Who leads on the economy? Republicans by seven. Immigration? Republicans by 13. How about crime? A big issue for Donald Trump and the Republicans. Look at that, lead by 22 points! So the bottom line is, at this particular point, the ball may be on the ground, but the Democrats have not picked up the ball and running with it. If anything, at this particular point, it’s the Republicans who are running with the ball on the top issues, the economy, immigration and crime.
…

Let’s compare it back to 2022. I think this kind of gives away the game right here, okay? The GOP is more trusted than the Dems on the economy. It was 12 points in 2022. Slight, slight decline in that lead, but still seven points. How about immigration? It was Republicans by three back in 2022. Look at this! The Republican lead has actually gone up by 10 points. What are you doing Democrats?! My goodness gracious.

And on crime the Republicans were up by 13 and now they’re up by 22. The lead again expanding by nearly double digits. So whatever Democrats are doing it ain’t working.
​

Enten said that even if voters don’t particularly like what Donald Trump is doing, “they ain’t necessarily liking what Democrats are doing, and it ain’t just a referendum on one party.”

Enten concluded that Democrats just aren’t able to beat Republicans at this point in time.

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/w...mocrats-are-in-trouble-ahead-of-the-midterms/

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Dems either have to move more to the right, like Bill Clinton did when he was President, or move more to the left towards Bernie. However, where they are now, and their biggest point is that Trump is bad, is not going to work.

 

[Phatguysrule]

CNN’s data guru Harry Enten warned Democrats on Monday that they’re in definite trouble with American voters ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Anchor Kate Bolduan asked Enten about a new poll showing “that most Americans still trust Republicans over Democrats on some major issues.”

“You know, Donald Trump being underwater, Democrats and, ‘Oh, this guarantees us we’re going to fly high in the midterms!'” Enten said in a mocking voice. “Let me tell you, this guarantees you nothing! Nothing! Because at this particular point, the Democrats are the New Orleans Saints of political parties.”

Enten continued with his magic wall of statistics:

Who leads on the economy? Republicans by seven. Immigration? Republicans by 13. How about crime? A big issue for Donald Trump and the Republicans. Look at that, lead by 22 points! So the bottom line is, at this particular point, the ball may be on the ground, but the Democrats have not picked up the ball and running with it. If anything, at this particular point, it’s the Republicans who are running with the ball on the top issues, the economy, immigration and crime.
…

Let’s compare it back to 2022. I think this kind of gives away the game right here, okay? The GOP is more trusted than the Dems on the economy. It was 12 points in 2022. Slight, slight decline in that lead, but still seven points. How about immigration? It was Republicans by three back in 2022. Look at this! The Republican lead has actually gone up by 10 points. What are you doing Democrats?! My goodness gracious.

And on crime the Republicans were up by 13 and now they’re up by 22. The lead again expanding by nearly double digits. So whatever Democrats are doing it ain’t working.
​

Enten said that even if voters don’t particularly like what Donald Trump is doing, “they ain’t necessarily liking what Democrats are doing, and it ain’t just a referendum on one party.”

Enten concluded that Democrats just aren’t able to beat Republicans at this point in time.

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/w...mocrats-are-in-trouble-ahead-of-the-midterms/

Hmm... I guess same ol' Corporate Dem BS doesn't work anymore. It really never did. They shot themselves in the foot.

Idiots gave up blue collar workers and unions with their anti-man, anti-gun culture war bullshit.

If they had simply kept focusing on what Bernie told them to they would be so much better off (and it would have naturally addressed the macho, gun, and culture concerns).

But there are no large dollar donations for supporting the American people over lobbyists...

Obama won on the idea of change. He didn't deliver, though natural momentum carried some policy through (Obamacare, gay marriage) despite lack of consistent support from Obama and Dems (Obama was originally not for gay marriage, and he gave up the public option without really fighting). But he didn't miss the mark by enough to cost himself a second term.

Hillary tried to double down on the misses by getting closer to big dollar lobbies and ignoring pretty much everything people care about ... Genius.

Kamala, Mayor Pete, and Elizabeth Warren all rode Bernie's coattails to big support by supporting actual progressive policies only to sell out to corporate lobbies in the end and stabbed Bernie and the people in the back by gifting Biden their support and the nomination.

Well, it worked out well financially and politicaly for them in the short term at least... But obvious underhanded bullshit doesn't gain you the support of the people. You just become a part of the problem to be pointed at by the even more under handed guy funded by the same large dollar lobbyists you supported over Bernie.

Fucking imbeciles.

 

[barfo]

Assembling a winning coalition is so incredibly simple. You just have to do exactly what each voter thinks is the right and obvious thing to do.

Luckily it is a small country and everyone agrees on most everything.

barfo

 

[crandc]

But Republicans will be running on Trump and the big ugly bill.

 

[julius]

Every time I hear a Democrat (in office) say that the midterms are going to go their way, I laugh...and then cry a little.

They're too wish washy, but more importantly, this country (and a large portion of the voters) is fucking idiotic, gullible and if breathing wasn't something that is done automatically, would die.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Assembling a winning coalition is so incredibly simple. You just have to do exactly what each voter thinks is the right and obvious thing to do.

Luckily it is a small country and everyone agrees on most everything.

barfo

Or focus on the few things the vast majority think we should do which could do the most good, and stop trying to divide people.

Universal healthcare, universal education, improved social safety net and employee rights.

Educate people on the facts regarding immigration.

It's really not that difficult to understand.

 

[Phatguysrule]

But Republicans will be running on Trump and the big ugly bill.

As will the Democrats... Trump fear is pretty much all they've been able to run on since Obama...

 

[barfo]

Or focus on the few things the vast majority think we should do which could do the most good, and stop trying to divide people.

Universal healthcare, universal education, improved social safety net and employee rights.

Educate people on the facts regarding immigration.

It's really not that difficult to understand.

It's not difficult to understand, it's difficult to do.
You can't make (or propose to make) big changes without either (a) being a dictator, or (b) explaining how you are going to get from here to there.
And once you explain how you plan to get there, a whole lot of people are going to disagree with various different parts of your plan.
Some will disagree for economic reasons, some for ideological reasons, some because they are just fucking stupid.
And those people are going to fight you / not vote for you.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

It's not difficult to understand, it's difficult to do.
You can't make (or propose to make) big changes without either (a) being a dictator, or (b) explaining how you are going to get from here to there.
And once you explain how you plan to get there, a whole lot of people are going to disagree with various different parts of your plan.
Some will disagree for economic reasons, some for ideological reasons, some because they are just fucking stupid.
And those people are going to fight you / not vote for you.

barfo

Those aren't reasons not to advocate for popular policy. Democrats don't even advocate for this policy. Leadership actually argues against these popular ideas.

90% of Democrats and 63% of Independents believe that the US government should guarantee health care for all Americans. 62% of Americans, regardless of party.

Yet Democrat leadership and the DNC aligns with that 10% of Democrats.

 

[julius]

Those aren't reasons not to advocate for popular policy. Democrats don't even advocate for this policy. Leadership actually argues against these popular ideas.

90% of Democrats and 63% of Independents believe that the US government should guarantee health care for all Americans. 62% of Americans, regardless of party.

Yet Democrat leadership and the DNC aligns with that 10% of Democrats.

The DNC and the "leaders" of the party align with their donors. Nothing more. They don't want to piss off their gravy train.

 

[Phatguysrule]

The DNC and the "leaders" of the party align with their donors. Nothing more. They don't want to piss off their gravy train.

Exactly. Then they wonder why they lose.

They are pushing policy most of their base doesn't support (because it's policy created by the lobbyists who are funded by the elite) while ignoring the policy the vast majority of their base and a strong majority of independents actually want.

Actually do the things your base want and do everything possible not to take anything away from your be base and they are more likely to support you.

 

[barfo]

Those aren't reasons not to advocate for popular policy.
90% of Democrats and 63% of Independents believe that the US government should guarantee health care for all Americans. 62% of Americans, regardless of party.

But if you start asking *how* the government should do that, you'll immediately lose all the people who think taxes are necessarily a bad thing, which sadly is a fuck-ton of people.
And you'll lose all the people who make money off the current system and either fear they'll lose income and/or just don't want their lives to change. Also a large number of people.
And you'll lose some people who want universal healthcare but have their own ideas about how it should be implemented.
Some subset of those people will turn out to be vociferous opponents of any specific plan you propose, even if they like the general concept.

I agree that's absolutely not a reason to not advocate for the policy.
But advocating for that policy is just not a magic bullet that automatically gets you elected. See, e.g. Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, or even Jill Stein.
And yes, the system is corrupt, cheating, money, unfair, corporate, conspiracy, etc.
But you have to go to war with the political system you have, not the political system you might want or wish to have at a later time.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

But if you start asking *how* the government should do that, you'll immediately lose all the people who think taxes are necessarily a bad thing, which sadly is a fuck-ton of people.

Not a lot of the people who want universal healthcare are opposed to paying for it with taxes.

And you'll lose all the people who make money off the current system and either fear they'll lose income and/or just don't want their lives to change. Also a large number of people.

That's about a million people (from what I'm finding). Offer each of them $50k tax free, government jobs, and free training and placement if a job can't be found that they like.

Even if all 1 million are opposed this is not an insurmountable number.

And you'll lose some people who want universal healthcare but have their own ideas about how it should be implemented.
Some subset of those people will turn out to be vociferous opponents of any specific plan you propose, even if they like the general concept.

Nothing changes except you no longer have a premium, copay, or deductible. You can now go to any licensed healthcare provider, including all of the providers you were already going to.

Welcome to Medicare For All. All the benefits of our current system, except more options if you want them and no out of pocket costs.

I agree that's absolutely not a reason to not advocate for the policy.
But advocating for that policy is just not a magic bullet that automatically gets you elected. See, e.g. Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, or even Jill Stein.
And yes, the system is corrupt, cheating, money, unfair, corporate, conspiracy, etc.
But you have to go to war with the political system you have, not the political system you might want or wish to have at a later time.

barfo

Bernie was kneecapped by the party. So Democrats didn't show up.

Just like when Hillary, Bill, and the party proposed their reform (blow job for insurance companies) which also resulted in the Dems staying home in 94.

I'm advocating for the party to stop shooting itself in the proverbial dick (to wake up and understand that those big dollar donors want Dems to fail).

 

[barfo]

Not a lot of the people who want universal healthcare are opposed to paying for it with taxes.

That's about a million people (from what I'm finding). Offer each of them $50k tax free, government jobs, and free training and placement if a job can't be found that they like.

Even if all 1 million are opposed this is not an insurmountable number.

Nothing changes except you no longer have a premium, copay, or deductible. You can now go to any licensed healthcare provider, including all of the providers you were already going to.

Welcome to Medicare For All. All the benefits of our current system, except more options if you want them and no out of pocket costs.

Bernie was kneecapped by the party. So Democrats didn't show up.

Just like when Hillary, Bill, and the party proposed their reform (blow job for insurance companies) which also resulted in the Dems staying home in 94.

I'm advocating for the party to stop shooting itself in the proverbial dick (to wake up and understand that those big dollar donors want Dems to fail).

Ok. And I'm advocating for facing up to the reality that politics is complicated and there are a lot of different interests, including big dollar donors, other politicians, single-issue voters, media, etc. etc.
Sure, it would be nice if billionaires got only 1 vote, and corporations got zero votes. But that's not really the way it works right now, so anyone who is going change that needs to first get elected under the current system.
The party kneecapped Bernie? Not getting kneecapped is part of the job description. It shouldn't be, but it is, and Bernie certainly knew, or should have known that.
What politician are you seeing that can do a better job of selling M4A than Bernie?

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

Ok. And I'm advocating for facing up to the reality that politics is complicated and there are a lot of different interests, including big dollar donors, other politicians, single-issue voters, media, etc. etc.
Sure, it would be nice if billionaires got only 1 vote, and corporations got zero votes. But that's not really the way it works right now, so anyone who is going change that needs to first get elected under the current system.
The party kneecapped Bernie? Not getting kneecapped is part of the job description. It shouldn't be, but it is, and Bernie certainly knew, or should have known that.
What politician are you seeing that can do a better job of selling M4A than Bernie?

barfo

The party will have to change or it will die. That's just math.

*Edit* I'm just advocating that they change in a way that will help them survive.

 

[barfo]

The party will have to change or it will die. That's just math.

We're all gonna die. That's just Joni Ernst math.

Part of our disagreement is about the party dying. I don't think it will die.

I think it is already dead. It's mostly just a label, not an organization.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

We're all gonna die. That's just Joni Ernst math.

Part of our disagreement is about the party dying. I don't think it will die.

I think it is already dead. It's mostly just a label, not an organization.

barfo

Solid point. I hope you're wrong. Or at least, I hope that whatever replaces the Dems understands that in order to oppose the Republicans (who are legitimately all in on money over people), you will need all of the people you can get. And you can't get them if you're accepting money from the same lobbyists as the Republicans.

You can win of you have the people. Bernie would have won in 2016 if the party weren't fighting him. And the Democratic party would be much healthier for it today.

 

[barfo]

Solid point. I hope you're wrong. Or at least, I hope that whatever replaces the Dems understands that in order to oppose the Republicans (who are legitimately all in on money over people), you will need all of the people you can get. And you can't get them if you're accepting money from the same lobbyists as the Republicans.

You can win of you have the people. Bernie would have won in 2016 if the party weren't fighting him. And the Democratic party would be much healthier for it today.

I would have won in 2016 if I'd run and if I had a long record of public service and if I was a great public speaker and more handsome and charming and I had no skeletons in my closet and I was a great fundraiser and a tireless campaigner and had popular policy ideas and lots of friends in high places and I'd done everything right and not made any big mistakes and wasn't, you know, a degenerate old drunken pirate.

At least, I'd like to think so.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

I would have won in 2016 if I'd run and if I had a long record of public service and if I was a great public speaker and more handsome and charming and I had no skeletons in my closet and I was a great fundraiser and a tireless campaigner and had popular policy ideas and lots of friends in high places and I'd done everything right and not made any big mistakes and wasn't, you know, a degenerate old drunken pirate.

At least, I'd like to think so.

barfo

Bernie had all of that. The only problem was the party. We got Trump in 2016 because the Dems were too shitty to get enough votes.

Guess how we got Trump again? Was it because more Republicans voted for him? No. Fewer of those people voted for him.

A ton of people who typically vote Dem didn't vote Dem. A lot of them actually voted for Trump (they wanted change that bad). So Trump received a roughly similar number of votes in this win as he received in his loss.

All the other stuff you said doesn't matter. We had all of that. The problem was none of that. The problem was the Dem party not motivating voters.

 

[barfo]

Bernie had all of that. The only problem was the party. We got Trump in 2016 because the Dems were too shitty to get enough votes.

Guess how we got Trump again? Was it because more Republicans voted for him? No. Fewer of those people voted for him.

A ton of people who typically vote Dem didn't vote Dem. A lot of them actually voted for Trump (they wanted change that bad). So Trump received a roughly similar number of votes in this win as he received in his loss.

All the other stuff you said doesn't matter. We had all of that. The problem was none of that. The problem was the Dem party not motivating voters.

Yeah, that's nonsense. Parties don't win or lose presidential elections, candidates win or lose elections.

Nobody thought "gee, I really like Hillary/Kamala, but I don't like the democratic party so I'm going to vote for Trump".

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Bruce Springsteen Rips Democrats: “We’re Desperately in Need of an Effective Alternative Party”

 

[Phatguysrule]

Yeah, that's nonsense. Parties don't win or lose presidential elections, candidates win or lose elections.

Nobody thought "gee, I really like Hillary/Kamala, but I don't like the democratic party so I'm going to vote for Trump".

barfo

It's not nonsense. It's right there in the numbers.

The party prevented the actual best candidate with the best policy from winning by using its connections underhandedly (or completely denied the opportunity for a primary altogether), thereby giving the people candidates they didn't care about (or straight up didn't like) who were pushing policies nobody was excited about.

It is absolutely the Democratic party (including Joe Biden, as the leader of the Dem party) blocking quality candidates. 100%

There are plenty of quality candidates who would wipe the floor with the Republicans if they came with legitimately popular policy backed by data.

 

[barfo]

It's not nonsense. It's right there in the numbers.

The party prevented the actual best candidate with the best policy from winning by using its connections underhandedly (or completely denied the opportunity for a primary altogether), thereby giving the people candidates they didn't care about (or straight up didn't like) who were pushing policies nobody was excited about.

Bernie got fewer votes than Hillary. That's just math.

Anything else is just whining. Bernie would have gotten the nomination if he'd gotten more (delegate) votes. Hillary would have won the general if she'd gotten more (electoral) votes. Trump would have won in 2020 if the election wasn't rigged, er, I mean, if he'd gotten more electoral votes. It's a bummer, but not a conspiracy, when the preferred candidate fails to win.

It is absolutely the Democratic party (including Joe Biden, as the leader of the Dem party) blocking quality candidates. 100%

There are plenty of quality candidates who would wipe the floor with the Republicans if they came with legitimately popular policy backed by data.

Then why don't they? Nothing is preventing them from running on whatever platform they feel is appropriate.
And if you say 'the party is preventing them', I think that's BS. The party has zero power to prevent someone from running, or to prevent them from saying whatever they want.
The party, after all, is just a large bunch of individual people, and they all have free will. There is no all-powerful CEO of the party who can control votes, platforms, or much of anything else. It's all just politics and turtles, all the way down.

The truth, as I see it, is a lot more pedestrian.
Candidates believe that taking positions in favor of radical change is a way to lose votes - being incremental and middle of the road is the accepted wisdom on how to win elections.
That might actually change now, given the wreckage of the country currently going on, and the success in the other party of a candidate who promised to burn everything down - but that has been the rule for the past several decades, and that's the main reason candidates haven't done what you want, and also why candidates who do do what you want haven't won.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

Bernie got fewer votes than Hillary. That's just math.

Anything else is just whining. Bernie would have gotten the nomination if he'd gotten more (delegate) votes. Hillary would have won the general if she'd gotten more (electoral) votes. Trump would have won in 2020 if the election wasn't rigged, er, I mean, if he'd gotten more electoral votes. It's a bummer, but not a conspiracy, when the preferred candidate fails to win.



Then why don't they? Nothing is preventing them from running on whatever platform they feel is appropriate.
And if you say 'the party is preventing them', I think that's BS. The party has zero power to prevent someone from running, or to prevent them from saying whatever they want.
The party, after all, is just a large bunch of individual people, and they all have free will. There is no all-powerful CEO of the party who can control votes, platforms, or much of anything else. It's all just politics and turtles, all the way down.

The truth, as I see it, is a lot more pedestrian.
Candidates believe that taking positions in favor of radical change is a way to lose votes - being incremental and middle of the road is the accepted wisdom on how to win elections.
That might actually change now, given the wreckage of the country currently going on, and the success in the other party of a candidate who promised to burn everything down - but that has been the rule for the past several decades, and that's the main reason candidates haven't done what you want, and also why candidates who do do what you want haven't won.

barfo

 

[barfo]

The latest orders from DNC HQ have arrived!

"DNC Chair Ken Martin says recent special election results show Democrats are on the right track for 2026, and tells detractors to "stop bitching" and help the party's efforts."

Clearly, Democrats will obey the party boss, as they must, and no bitching will be heard henceforth.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

Bernie got fewer votes than Hillary. That's just math.

Anything else is just whining. Bernie would have gotten the nomination if he'd gotten more (delegate) votes. Hillary would have won the general if she'd gotten more (electoral) votes. Trump would have won in 2020 if the election wasn't rigged, er, I mean, if he'd gotten more electoral votes. It's a bummer, but not a conspiracy, when the preferred candidate fails to win.



Then why don't they? Nothing is preventing them from running on whatever platform they feel is appropriate.
And if you say 'the party is preventing them', I think that's BS. The party has zero power to prevent someone from running, or to prevent them from saying whatever they want.
The party, after all, is just a large bunch of individual people, and they all have free will. There is no all-powerful CEO of the party who can control votes, platforms, or much of anything else. It's all just politics and turtles, all the way down.

The truth, as I see it, is a lot more pedestrian.
Candidates believe that taking positions in favor of radical change is a way to lose votes - being incremental and middle of the road is the accepted wisdom on how to win elections.
That might actually change now, given the wreckage of the country currently going on, and the success in the other party of a candidate who promised to burn everything down - but that has been the rule for the past several decades, and that's the main reason candidates haven't done what you want, and also why candidates who do do what you want haven't won.

barfo

That must be how Trump keeps winning I guess... He's "middle of the road"...

 

[barfo]

That must be how Trump keeps winning I guess... He's "middle of the road"...

I think I might have addressed that point.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

I think I might have addressed that point.

barfo

Trump wouldn't have won as a Democrat. The DNC has rigged it so that another "Obama situation" can't happen.

Only those who toe the party line are permitted to win (otherwise they are sabotaged from within the party).

I'm advocating for that to change (or at least for the party to change it's line). I've been advocating for that for a long time. I've been advocating for less "middle of the road" politics for a long time as well.

 

[barfo]

Trump wouldn't have won as a Democrat.

Well, yeah, and that's a very good thing. Do you disagree?

The DNC has rigged it so that another "Obama situation" can't happen.

What was/is the "Obama situation"?

Only those who toe the party line are permitted to win (otherwise they are sabotaged from within the party).

You make simple politics sound so nefarious. Yes, different people have different preferences about candidates.
And some people have more power than others. Some people are more persuasive than others. Some people have more money than others. Some people get to sleep with supermodels.
All of that is 'unfair' in some sense, but it's also reality.

I'm advocating for that to change (or at least for the party to change it's line). I've been advocating for that for a long time.

Yep.

I've been advocating for less "middle of the road" politics for a long time as well.

And I have no objection to that, if it creates a winning non-fascist coalition.
I'm not advocating for middle-of-the-road-ness, I'm just saying that our system of politics has historically encouraged it.
Maybe that era is now over, we'll see.

barfo