u/Outrageous-Jelly8777

One of the things I've noticed about Ezra Klein is that he'll interview people many of his audience strongly disagrees with. He also doesn't spend the entire conversation trying to dunk on them or fact check every sentence in real time. He mostly lets them explain how they see the world and trusts his audience to think critically about what they're hearing. Some of these guests have been called Nazis or accused of holding extremist views, but Klein still seems to believe there's value in understanding how they think.

It got me wondering who the equivalent is on the right.

I honestly can't think of a major conservative- leaning figure who would sit down for a long, serious conversation with someone like Zohran Mamdani or Darializa Avila Chevalier. Instead, it feels like the dominant approach from Trump and much of right wing media is to call them communists, traitors, or some other label and move on.

It does feel like there's a real difference here. Ezra's whole project seems to be built around the idea that if you want to understand politics, you first have to understand how other people arrived at their beliefs. Even if you think they're completely wrong, it's still worth hearing them out.

If there really isn't a conservative equivalent with similar influence, what does that say about where we are politically? Is there something about today's conservative media ecosystem that doesn't reward curiosity about ideological opponents? Doesn't that mean that any left leaning policies are inherently at a disadvantage in the free market of ideas?

As someone center left, I believe the right's focus on culture-war issues, election denialism claims, abortion restrictions, inflation, ICE tactics and Iran, has significantly hurt conservatives, especially in North America. It seems to have energized liberal and moderate voters while making it easier for opponents to portray the right as out of touch with mainstream public opinion.

For example, despite returning to office after winning the popular vote, Donald Trump's approval ratings have plummeted, remained in a similar range to where Joe Biden's were during much of his presidency. To me, that suggests many of the issues conservatives have emphasized haven't translated into broader public support and may have alienated many voters who voted for them in '24.

I'm curious to know what you all think.

I'm tired of seeing this same type of post spammed on this subreddit every 5 business days.

Women are attracted to men taller than themselves. This has been true across most societies. Pick up a damn sociology or evolutionary psychology book if you want to know why. Read The Evolution of Desire by David Buss if you're actually interested instead of asking the same question for the hundredth time.

If the "why do women like tall guys" post continue, I encourage women to spam "why do men like younger women".

Here's a guy who finished 4th in the 2020 South Carolina primary, got appointed Secretary of Transportation after dropping out as basically a consolation prize from Biden, has a pretty narrow base of rabid supporters, and somehow acts like he's entitled to be president because a bunch of consultants keep telling him he "sounds smart."

He reminds me a lot of Hillary Clinton in 2016, a candidate who seemed to think having the right résumé and all the right policy ideas automatically meant voters would rally behind her. The problem is that most people don't vote based on who sounds the smartest. They vote for people they connect with.

Like Harris, Buttigieg also seems to get far more hype from party insiders, donors, and the media than from actual voters. He's undeniably intelligent and articulate, but he comes across as overly rehearsed and technocratic. He just doesn't have the warmth, charisma, or broad appeal needed to build a winning national coalition.

Being good at cable news interviews isn't the same thing as inspiring people to vote for you.

Just a small dating tip: a lot of guys overthink how to break the touch barrier on a date.

One easy, natural moment is when you’re leaving the restaurant or coffee shop. Let her walk out first, and lightly guide her with a hand on the small of her back as you head toward the door.

It’s subtle, respectful, and usually feels more natural than trying to force physical contact earlier in the date.

Unpopular opinion: if your dates constantly give one word responses, put in no effort, and act like talking to you is a chore, they're probably out of your league.

I see people complain about this all the time and blame modern dating, but most of the time the answer is pretty obvious. People make an effort for people they actually want. If someone is genuinely excited about you, you usually won't have to carry every conversation, double text constantly, or wonder whether they're interested.

A lot of people are trying to date the most attractive person they can get a match with rather than the most attractive person who is genuinely interested in them. The result is ending up stuck in conversations where the other person is giving the bare minimum because they see you as an option, not a priority.

Harsh as it sounds, if this keeps happening to you, the problem may not be that everyone is low effort. It may be that you're consistently pursuing people who don't see you as being on their level of desirability. Mutual interest usually creates mutual effort.

I've seen this argument on Reddit constantly that Dems need to "move to the center on social issues". What does that mean exactly? Ban abortion, ban gay marriage?

People are really missing the point of why so many Black people are outraged. Why is it that in these situations, the Black person is painted as the aggressor. In the Zimmerman and Chow case, the two Black kids were painted as the "aggressors", while the non-Blacks were the innocent previous victims.

If the races were reversed, you bet they would have painted the Black twins as wild animalistic threats who deserved to be killed by the innocent kid feared for his life. Empathy isn't extended to Black kids especially in these self-defense cases.

Dems are constantly told they need to distance themselves from trans issues and other social causes to appear 'normal' to moderates and independents, but the same standard never seems to apply to Republicans. There are only two clearly pro-choice GOP members of Congress despite 60–70% of the public supporting legal abortion. Brian Kemp signed a near-total abortion ban in Georgia and is still routinely described as a 'moderate.' Why are Republicans given a pass for views that are well outside public opinion when Democrats are expected to moderate theirs?

I've been wondering whether the affirmative action ruling will have any lasting impact on electoral politics. A lot of the discussion has focused on college admissions, but I'm more interested in whether it could affect voting behavior and party coalitions over the long run.

The issue seems tied to broader debates about race, meritocracy, and equality that already divide the two parties. Because of that, I could see it influencing how some groups view Democrats and Republicans, particularly younger voters, college-educated voters, Asian Americans, and Black voters. At the same time, admissions policy isn't exactly a top issue for most voters, so maybe its direct impact on elections ends up being fairly limited.

I'm curious what everyone else thinks. Could this ruling become part of a larger political realignment, or is it more likely to remain a symbolic culture war issue that gets talked about a lot without significantly changing electoral outcomes? When people look back 20 or 30 years from now, will this be seen as an important turning point in American politics or just one factor among many larger trends?

There's been dozens possible hundreds of articles on young men voting trends and how each party should court young men, but I don't see the same attention to Gen Z women. Even when Roe was overturned, there was barely a peep about young women voters.