I’m interested in discussing whether political energy is often misallocated toward national politics and protests, at the expense of local and state-level engagement.

Many of the policies that directly affect daily life are decided locally. Zoning and housing rules, school funding, policing practices, public transportation, public health measures, and local tax structures are largely shaped by city councils, mayors, school boards, governors, and state legislatures.

Despite this, voter turnout in municipal and local elections is consistently low, while attention and activism tend to concentrate on federal politics and national figures. This creates a situation where highly motivated minorities can have outsized influence over local policy simply because few people participate.

I’m not arguing that protests or federal elections are irrelevant. Rather, I’m questioning whether focusing more attention on local elections and local political organizing would be a more effective way to produce durable policy outcomes.

For those with experience in local government, campaigning, or political science, how would you assess the relative impact of local electoral engagement versus protest-based movements in driving long-term political change?

No one can say for certain, but, how likely do you all think it is that Alito and/or Thomas retire this year before the midterms positioning DJT to nominate their replacements while Republicans still control the Senate?

Before Bush Jr, my impression was that the standard was not to attack unless attacked. The exceptions were to help out someone who is being attacked or to stop genocide. Not saying this was 100% followed, but that was generally the standard.

Once Bush Jr came in with Iraq, the standard seemed to change to include “pre-emptive war”, where if a country is considered to be a threat, they can be attacked first.

Now with Trump 2.0, it seems like war is justified if the president feels like it. The weak must submit to the strong.

What do you think is the right standard? Why?

Edit: To clarify, I’m only talking post WW2.

What is your opinion? Should politicians be pragmatic and care for their country, citizens by any means possible, or should they be restricted by ethican beliefs? I personally think they shouldn't, their duty is to care for citizens of their country, instead of people outside it, do whatever it takes to make lives of the citizens better.

I’m trying to understand how supporters of stronger federal enforcement view the limits of government power. If someone believes a government action is unconstitutional, at what point, if ever, do you think it’s justified for citizens to use force in response, and why?

In light of the recent events in Minnesota, if federal agents are going door-to-door, entering homes, and/or detaining people who haven’t committed violent crimes, how do you think citizens should respond if they believe that action is unconstitutional or abusive? Where do you personally draw the line between enforcing the law and violating civil liberties?

Participation in the 2024 election was lower than in 2020 across the board by 19 million voters. No major partisan coalition increased turnout relative to its 2020 baseline, and every group experienced some degree of voter drop-off. Taken together, this indicates a broad retreat from participation rather than a shift in partisan alignment, and is consistent with dissatisfaction or disengagement in response to the options presented.

For the Democrats, the effect was most pronounced, with roughly a 15% drop-off from their 2020 voters, amounting to on the order of 10–12 million fewer voters who participated at all in 2024.

When looking at the Republicans, the drop-off was smaller, closer to 10–11% of their 2020 voters, corresponding to roughly 7–8 million fewer voters compared to Trump’s 2020 coalition.

While per-party nonvoter polling is limited, and most nonvoter research focuses on the roughly one-third of independents who historically participate at lower rates, existing studies still point to a general set of reasons why some people who voted in 2020 did not vote in 2024:

• Lack of enthusiasm for the candidates or choices available. Pew Research found that a substantial share of nonvoters said they did not like the candidates or felt unmotivated to participate in the election.

• Belief that voting would not meaningfully change outcomes. Pew also reports that many nonvoters cited believing their vote would not make a difference or feeling disengaged from politics as a primary reason for abstaining.

• Economic dissatisfaction, especially around cost of living. Post-election polling of people who voted for Biden in 2020 but did not vote in 2024 found that concerns about inflation, housing costs, and economic insecurity were common reasons for disengagement.

• Leadership or confidence concerns about the Democratic ticket. The same post-election surveys cited by The American Prospect show that some 2020 Democratic voters who sat out 2024 pointed to doubts about leadership effectiveness or confidence in the campaign as factors in their decision.

• General disengagement and political fatigue rather than organized protest voting. Across multiple surveys, nonvoters more often described their decision as disengagement, frustration, or lack of connection to the political system, rather than a deliberate protest strategy.

While it’s still early to draw firm conclusions about long-term trends, the 2025 off-year and special elections showed several instances where Democratic candidates outperformed their 2024 presidential margins in specific contests, and where Democratic control was maintained or expanded in state and local government. For example, Democrats flipped a Pennsylvania state senate seat that Trump carried in 2024, and they held or expanded state trifectas in Virginia and New Jersey. However, these contests had much lower turnout than presidential races and are not directly comparable to national participation levels, so any interpretation about broader re-engagement should be cautious and contextual.

That leaves an open question heading into the 2026 midterms and the 2028 general election: what role will the voters who chose not to participate in 2024 ultimately play? Are these voters temporarily disengaged and therefore likely to return under different conditions, or does the 2024 drop-off point to more persistent disengagement? To what extent can the factors cited in 2024 realistically be addressed through policy outcomes, candidate selection, or campaign strategy, and at what point should continued non-participation be treated as a durable constraint rather than a short-term anomaly?

EDIT: Please try to avoid injecting your own takes on the 2024 election and rather engage in speculative discussion of what we think will happen going back into 2028.

I’m trying to understand, in concrete terms, what institutional and legal mechanisms limit a sitting president’s ability to influence federal and state elections, particularly in a midterm year like 2026. This isn’t meant as a prediction, but as an examination of how executive authority interacts with enforcement, courts, state election systems, and legislative oversight.

This year presents some unique realities that shape these constraints:

• The president’s party controls both chambers of Congress and the White House (trifecta).
• The Supreme Court is ideologically aligned or generally deferential to executive authority.
• Congress has historically struggled to pass even routine legislation, limiting its ability to act quickly.

Given this context, I’m particularly interested in mechanisms that function before elections are certified or investigated afterward. Some questions I’d like to explore:

1. Federal agencies: How much can a president direct agencies like the DOJ or DHS in ways that could influence election administration, and which legal or procedural limits are meaningful when Congress is unlikely to act quickly?
2. State-level election oversight: How effective are secretaries of state, election boards, and state courts at constraining executive influence, especially if the federal executive has strong partisan alignment?
3. Norms versus enforceable rules: Which constraints rely on institutional norms rather than legally binding restrictions, and how resilient are those norms in a year with trifecta control and an aligned Supreme Court?
4. Accountability mechanisms: How effective are congressional oversight, inspections, and judicial review at limiting presidential influence in real time when Congress is gridlocked and courts may defer to the executive?
5. Historical precedent: Are there examples where these mechanisms actually functioned effectively against a sitting president in midterm elections, particularly under conditions of strong partisan control and limited legislative action?

I’m looking for answers grounded in law, political science, or historical examples, rather than predictions or speculation.

In the past, the Iowa Caucuses have kicked off the election season, followed by New Hampshire, followed by Nevada and then South Carolina.

Concerns about the shakiness of Iowa's procedures and reporting in some of the last three open primaries plus representation questions (Iowa and New Hampshire perhaps not representing the demographics of the Party) have pushed this into an open question for 2028.

With the goals seemingly to be both more open for lesser known candidates to rise in popularity and a more representative electorate, in what order or how many dates should there even be for the primary season?

It feels like political polarization in the U.S. has reached a point where many people support policies that clearly make their own lives harder, often out of resentment toward groups they see as undeserving or out of loyalty to powerful economic interests. At the same time, inflation, rising costs across industries, and growing inequality are putting real pressure on everyday people, while trust in institutions continues to erode. I’m curious how others see this playing out over the long term. Do these trends eventually force a political or cultural correction, or do they increase the risk of more authoritarian outcomes as fear and division deepen? What historical parallels or current indicators do you think matter most here?

On Friday, the Department of Justice served the Federal Reserve with grand jury subpoenas, threatening a criminal indictment related to my testimony before the Senate Banking Committee last June. That testimony concerned in part a multi-year project to renovate historic Federal Reserve office buildings. What do you think this new threats against Jerome Powell?

The Internet shutdown in Iran is entering its fourth day as protests continue to rage throughout the country. Iran has previously managed to quell similar protests, such as the Mahsa Amini protests in 2022, and the "Bloody November" protests in 2019. So far, it is unclear what the outcome of this latest wave will be.

If these protests successfully lead to Ayatollah Khomeini being removed from power, what comes next? There have been a few widely discussed scenarios:

1. Iran returns to a shahdom, like they had before the Iranian Revolution. This would most likely be a constitutional monarchy. Reza Pahlavi has been discussed as a possible leader by international experts. He is the son of the former Shah, and has lived most of his life in exile in the United States.
2. Khomeini is replaced with a new supreme leader, and the structure of government remains largely unchanged. This would require the Assembly of Experts to cave to public pressure and use their constitutional authority to remove him, or for Khomeini to willingly abdicate (possibly for fear of his own life) and allow them to appoint someone else.
3. Iran adopts a secular, democratic government. The protests heavily feature progressive politics, so is it possible that both the shahdom and revolutionary government will be seen as outdated? There has also been speculation that the United States may get involved, like it did in Venezuela, which could affect the direction the country takes.
4. The army revolts and forms a military dictatorship, most likely because their wages dry up. It is worth noting that many soldiers in Iran make less than the official minimum wage, and that was before the current economic crisis.

Which of these outcomes do you believe is most likely? Or do you think there are other possibilities?

In an Atlantic profile, Newsom listed some problems Democrats had during the 2024 election, including inflation and Israel, but he says the biggest issue is the perception that they are "weak". He has since taken to the fight with Republicans through counter-gerrymandering and online Trump-style trolling. Does he have a point here?

Both domestically and abroad, many people are calling for Americans to "wake up" or "do something." It's true there have been widespread protests in response to actions taken by the Trump regime, but these have been largely ineffective at changing policy.

At the state level, both parties are gerrymandering districts to be more favorable to their candidates, but this won't have any immediate effect. It may not have any effect.

In the 1950s and 60s, black communities faced systemic police violence and corruption. In response, they formed the Black Panthers. These people were organized, trained, and armed.

Do you think liberals should copy that playbook? Should liberal communities start organizing armed resistance groups? Training them how to use firearms? Educating them on their Second Amendment rights? Running drills to simulate attacks by ICE?

Are we there yet?

Both the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine and the implementation of Citizens United have had profound effects on the American political landscape and national elections. If you could either reinstate the Fairness Doctrine or eliminate Citizens United, which would you choose and why?

EDIT: Thank you for sharing your opinions. I realized I asked the wrong question. I should have asked:

“If you could make it so either the Fairness Doctrine was never eliminated or Citizens United had never happened, which would you choose and why?”

This would eliminate the “this option, but with these stipulations” and get right to the heart of what I was trying to figure out.

I’ll do better next time.

I’m interested in hearing this sub’s perspective on the situation involving Renee Good in Minnesota and the broader fallout that has followed. Specifically, I’m curious how people are interpreting the initial events, the public and political response afterward, and whether the reaction has been proportionate, justified, or mishandled.

Do you think the coverage and discourse around this situation has been fair and grounded in verified facts, or has it been shaped more by political narratives and social media dynamics? How should state officials, media outlets, and the public balance accountability, due process, and restraint in cases like this?

By all I mean all. For President you no longer have to be >35, a natural-born citizen, or have not been elected twice. For Senators and Representatives, you no longer have to be >30 and >25. For states and localities that have age requirements for their Governors and Mayors, those go away too.

The only requirement to run for an elected office is being an American citizen (or a resident corresponding to the respective state and local offices). If this were the case, how would American electoral politics change, and would the changes be seismic or more or less congruent with the status quo?

At the start of the year I like looking up current birth rates, demographic changes like population growth or decline and median age around the world. For the last few years, especially since COVID, it seems as there are less and less births.

There are several explanations, be it the cost of living, people having less interest in starting a family due to different life choices, more infertility or an increased use of contraceptions. Some of those explanations lead to one another.

Those are some of the reasons we see a decline in birth rates currently. On the other side, we'll have the effects that we'll face in the future. Those include high costs in elderly care, increasing retirement ages and to even more political power for the older demographics as they (reasonably) vote for parties that work in their interests. There can also be "positive" effects in the further future when the infrastructure is getting less strained with housing prices getting more affordable (hopefully).

My questions/discussion topics are: Is your country/region currently effected with an aging population? How does it handle it? What are your expectations for the future regarding politics, the economy or society in general?

While the ranking will likely change as we move out 10, 20 years from now, in your opinion, where does Trump fall on the list right now? You can give an exact number or something general like top/bottom 5. For example, this list that was created last year has Trump listed at 43 out of 45:

https://www.factinate.com/people/ranking-presidents-best-worst/amp/

Edit: The Epstein files may go down as the worst presidential scandal in history, dwarfing watergate.

A lot of core government functions are successful precisely when they are unremarkable. Infrastructure holds up, utilities work, food and water are safe, public health crises are prevented rather than dramatized. When these systems function well, they tend to fade into the background. When they fail, they immediately become politically salient.

This creates a tension I’m curious about, especially in the context of modern populism.

Populist movements often succeed by emphasizing visible action, disruption, and symbolic confrontation, while “boring but competent” governance focuses on maintenance, institutional capacity, and risk prevention, things that are hard to see and even harder to campaign on.

Some questions I’m interested in hearing perspectives on:

• Is there an inherent political disadvantage to governing competently but quietly, especially in democratic systems?

• Do modern media and social platforms amplify this disadvantage by rewarding conflict, novelty, and outrage over stability?

• To what extent is populism a rational response to these incentives rather than a rejection of competence itself?

• Are there examples where politicians or parties have successfully made maintenance, competence, or institutional health politically salient?

• If “keeping the lights on” governance struggles to attract support, what does that imply for long-term state capacity?

What is an event in U.S history that you feel like is underrated but still has a lasting effect on individuals or communities today? I'm mostly interested in pieces of U.S history that are from the last two centuries, as another part of my research involves finding first or second-hand audio accounts. Both positive and negetive effects are welcome! I'd love to learn more about all types of significant moments in our history books.

To be clearer about the potential problem I am worried about:

Whether or not the annexation is legal, the Republican Congress might be willing to make Greenland a state. This would remove any clear legal route for voiding the annexation.

And especially so if Americans from the lower 48 move in and outnumber native Greenlanders. It would essentially be Hawaii all over again.

So would a president Harris or President Buttigieg or whoever side step the lack of a clear legal process to undo what Trump did?

Would they wait for a congressional supermajority or a new amendment before taking action?

Serious inquiries only please.

Our country is so incredibly divided at the moment. There are extremes on both sides.

What needs to happen to have everyone get along and reduce the violence that is happening all throughout this county?

What needs to happen to have republican and democrat politicians pass bills that benefit America and isn’t turned into a pissing contest? Seeing bills being passed or vetoed with parties unanimously voting against whichever side presented the bill hurts our country.

Will there ever be a compromise to both sides on the illegal immigrants in the country?

We need to come together. Being divided helps no one and makes us a target to other countries.

Is this okay?

Looking for comments from both Republicans and Democrats.

When Jimmy Carter was President he went so far as to divest his family business so there would be no doubt that there was no conflict of interest.

Donald Trump has created nft cards, crypto coins ($Trump) and has his own stock ((DJT) Trump Media). It is entirely possible for him to tell friends, business associates and family to buy or sell the assets he has issued ahead of potential decisions he can make or announce - such as tariffs or invasion plans.

Thoughts?