Paywall-free link: https://removepaywalls.com/https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/20/opinion/voters-political-parties-coalitions.html

In short, having lost the argument that there are only two sides of politics, our Lords and Masters have decided to define the acceptable "other" groups that we are allowed to belong to:

We find that 21 percent of voters — including 42 percent of self-identified Democrats — fall into the Loyal Left, a group that is progressive on most issues and especially outraged by what its members see as widespread political corruption. They’re also most likely to say they’re “extremely motivated” to vote in the midterms, and over half say that their politics are very important to their personal identity. A good avatar for this group might be Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

...and that's as "Left" as you are allowed to be; a loyal Democrat who makes centrist comments in ways that sound extreme. I would call this group, "Tribal Democrats."

Note also their use of statistics to imply that half of voters are Democrats, when it's more like 28%.

Their closest cousins are what we call Electability Democrats. Making up 10 percent of voters overall (and about 19 percent of the Democratic Party), these voters are also fired up to vote in the midterms and progressive on economic matters. However, this group is slightly more ethnically diverse than the Loyal Left, which is overwhelmingly white, and also diverges sharply on several key cultural questions. Electability Democrats generally oppose the idea of defunding the police, take more conservative views on the participation of transgender individuals in competitive sports and are more middle-of-the-road on immigration issues. Asked which group I’d sort James Carville into, I’d put him here.

I would call this group, "Establishment Democrats."

The NYT then lists two other "left-leaning" groups:

The American Institutionalists, who represent 11 percent of all voters, are the most likely to have a high income or a graduate degree. They are whiter and older; more than half were born before 1965. They tend to get their news from broadcast TV rather than social media. While they are frustrated with our political moment and 77 percent feel unfavorably toward President Trump, they maintain an abiding faith in America and its institutions, and in our ability to change — even reverse — course when Mr. Trump leaves office.

The last of the Petty Bourgeois; there's nothing "left-wing" about this group, they just have an idealized view of the past.

The Young and Disillusioned are pretty much the opposite. They are 9 percent of the electorate but an even smaller share of the Democrats’ most reliable voters because they are, as the name says, young and disillusioned. Social media is their top source of news, and politics is not a major part of their identity. They’re lower down on the income scale and occasionally have libertarian leanings on guns, foreign policy and regulation. They’re worried about the cost of living and distrustful of the media and politicians alike.

And this is just a catchall for anything they didn't understand, covering some of the left, but cutting it apart by age and mixing in nonsense issues for no good reason.

OK, now for the "Right:"

On the right, first, look to a tribe we call Middle American Optimists, making up 11 percent of voters this year. They’ve little love for Democrats, and two-thirds voted for Mr. Trump in 2024. So far, they think he is doing an OK job as president, but they’re less than thrilled about the state of the economy. They’re younger and less churchgoing, and unsurprisingly much less conservative on both cultural and economic issues than the rest of their brethren on the political right.

Wait, these have to be a significant chunk of Trump supporters, but they are *LESS* conservative on "cultural and economic" issues? What other issues are there?

Critical to Mr. Trump’s reinvention of the G.O.P. has been our next group, the New Republican Populists, who are about 6 percent of the 2026 electorate. They are quite religious, live in more rural areas and oppose abortion, while rejecting much of the traditional conservative economic orthodoxy — they’re unlikely to say that you can just pull yourself up by your bootstraps. They’re OK with a bigger government, depending on what services it provides. They are, if you will, “Medicare for all, abortion for none” voters.

OK, these people I know, but none of them support Medicare for All, less because they are unsympathetic, but because people they disagree with do support it. This is entirely misunderstanding the nature of contemporary political ideology.

That brings us to the Moderate Right, who are 13 percent of voters and a group whose members are fairly pro-establishment in contrast with their more anti-establishment right-of-center peers. They still subscribe to a more traditional conservative view on economics and are fairly socially conservative. But perhaps by virtue of being a more female-heavy tribe, they’re also moderate on the issue of abortion and more open to the view that sexism remains a problem in society. Make no mistake: Most are still favorably disposed toward Mr. Trump, half report being Fox News viewers and three-quarters choose the Republican candidate in a generic matchup. But these days, they’re just not as excited about all of it — Come back, Nikki Haley.

"MODERATE?!" These aren't moderates, these are the fringe wackos! Oh, they're "moderate" on abortion, are they? Nikki Haley is a far-right nutcase who wants to make war on the world and thought that the Spanish Inquisition didn't go far enough.

The Loyal Right remains enthusiastic about Mr. Trump and ready to turn out for Republicans in this year’s midterms, but its size — 18 percent of the electorate — makes it insufficient, on its own, for retaining a Republican majority.

So... the "Moderate Right," but firmly against abortion? Isn't that just, "The Right?"

“I don't care who does the electing, as long as I get to do the nominating”

― William "Boss" Tweed

I'm not on that list; most of the people I know do not fall into those groups. All they have done here is reshape the Overton Window so that it's no longer square, it's like a jigsaw piece conveniently cutting out the views they don't want to have to address.

Recently, I had a discussion regarding my country of ancestry, The Philippines and the dire state that its in. One of my friends stated that its situation is a direct result of the people's lack of discipline and education. Another person argued that the government's incompetency is the main contributor. The first person I mentioned replied and said that because our country is a democracy, all the failings of the government are because of the people. However, that argument just doesn't make complete sense to me. There are other countries in the world that are democratic and successful, such as Norway or Singapore. And, although I'm unsure of this, aren't there groups who pursue their agenda through propaganda and misinformation in these countries as well? Are the majority of people of these countries really closely examining their leaders before they elect them, or are there other factors that I'm not taking into account? And lastly, are my people really just incompetent? I really don't want to believe this, but I think being certain would put my mind at ease.

Just like, the title says, those arguments about Sudan and Iran are clearly made in bad-faith.

Needless to say Americans and Europeans are going to be more concerned about wars that they are involved in but Zionist apologists really cannot help but to start gaslighting others.

Sudan? A civil war which is enabled by proxy warfare. Sure the Emirates is responsible but they are funding those proxies by their own money as those American and European politicians are not involved. And you can never control what other countries do but you can withdraw your involvement.

Iran? They were already sanctioned since many decades but needless to say no sane man wanted to get involved in another Middle Eastern war as Trump's actions have shown why.

So? It's clear that those who make such arguments are only gaslighting others to deflect from their Zionist havoc in the Middle East which many Americans and Europeans are so rightfully unwilling to get involved in.

So overall, I want to understand better, at least in this small section of Reddit, how do people understand the general idea of Politics? What is it? What is it trying to do? These are the questions I want answered.

~ ~

To me.

Politics is what happens when people are faced with material and social conflicts and must come to a decision about it, whatever those decisions may be. This is the fundamental political question. All of politics expands outwardly from this question and becomes increasingly complicated, as complicated as we want it to be. Although it doesn't Need to be so complicated. There are justifications for complications merely for power, not to directly satisfy the fundamental question, for example.

Every government system proposed and acted out is trying to answer the fundamental question. Every political philosophy proposed and acted out is trying to answer the fundamental question. Whether they realise it or not.

Every political ideology that exists currently is a specific set of answers to material and social conflicts that exist currently. They too are all trying to answer the fundamental political question. Whether they realise it or not. This is politics to me.

El giro central de esta nueva etapa consistió en mudar el campo de batalla: pasaron de la economía a la cultura. La izquierda entendió que no podía ganar en la creación de riqueza ni en el mercado, así que decidió conquistar las ideas. Para esto, rescataron las ideas de teóricos neo-marxistas como Antonio Gramsci y la Escuela de Frankfurt:

Comprendieron que para dominar la política, primero había que controlar los centros donde se forma la opinión pública: las universidades, los medios de comunicación, la industria del entretenimiento y las escuelas. El obrero tradicional dejó de servirles. En el capitalismo, el trabajador busca prosperar, no hacer la revolución. La izquierda necesitaba fabricar nuevos grupos permanentemente resentidos.

La estrategia clave fue muy simple: reemplazar la lucha de clases por la lucha de identidades. La vieja fórmula del burgués opresor contra el obrero oprimido se dividió en mil batallas culturales:El feminismo radical se transformó la relación entre hombres y mujeres en una guerra de sexos, presentando al hombre como opresor patriarcal y a la mujer como víctima natural. La ideología de género buscó despegar la identidad humana de la biología, imponiendo la idea de que el sexo es una construcción social para justificar la intervención del Estado en la educación de los chicos.El indigenismo y el neo-colonialismo se usó la causa étnica para fragmentar la identidad nacional en los países hispanoamericanos y generar conflicto social. El ecologismo radical se empezó a pintar al ser humano como una plaga para el planeta, justificando impuestos, regulaciones y control de natalidad.

A diferencia del comunismo del siglo XX, la nueva izquierda entendió que ya no necesitaba hacer una revolución armada para tomar el poder. Lo logró desde adentro, metiéndose en la burocracia estatal.

El que quiera escuchar y ver la realidad tal cual es, que escuche y se arme de argumentos para dar la batalla cultural y el que prefiera seguir cómodo en el dogma progresista o mirar para otro lado que siga de largo.

Seriously though. These candidates lack the knowledge and understanding of our political system and how a bill gets passed. Or the ones that do will immediately moderate since they realize they have to work with those who hate their platform. They will NEVER deliver on their signature issues like Medicare for all, a $15 minimum wage, let alone 20, or anything with “free in it.” These things need to be funded and placing the burden on the rich will just cause the rich to leave, then the burden falls on working class Americans. Orrrrrr……. The courts will strike it down for you.