Personally, these polls mean nothing unless you are putting them against a candidate who is their competition. Its like the approval level for policies. Yeah, its a good selling point but does it change a vote. I would love to see a poll that says if a particular candidate did not vote for this particular policy would you vote for their competition and that would include crossing party lines. That to me is worthwhile poll because the current poll is more like "Do you like Coke or Pepsi" If you were only offered one or the other would you just get it or not get it at all. Most people would just get Coke if it was the only thing on the menu or Pepsi. All the GOP need to do is say we have a plan which would be enough for their constituents to be fine. Isn't that what happen with healthcare.

Polls are good at marketing to say "See, America likes this" but what they do not show is the willingness of the American voter to vote based on those polls. Does it motivate people who do not vote to vote or do those people believe just because they like something that is all it takes to make it happen. Its shows a naïve thinking to the political process.

In regards to the Women's March, I haven't really seen anything personally indicating that this is a partisan shift. Most people's mind's weren't suddenly changed, they just got more vocal about their beliefs. This was reflected in the voting trends showing that women haven't really moved as a demographic group one way or the other since the 2016 election. Biden's results with women were unremarkable.

People tend to get really loud after elections, which shouldn't really be surprising. An election is release of a year of political tension, and when that release doesn't favor you, there is a lot of energy left in the system that often desires somewhere else to go. That doesn't mean that what we are seeing is a partisan shift post election, just the manifestation of stored energy. Mid-terms are often an expression of that same energy. Rubber-banding during midterms is excessively common because the opposing party has a lot of left over energy when they lose which drives engagement during midterms. Again, I would argue that this isn't really a partisan shift, because this does tend to be temporary, as demonstrated by the fact that almost every president loses seats during the midterms regardless of party. 

That is to say, I don't necessarily disagree with your point that there are shifts which occur post-election, I just don't believe those immediate shifts can really be extrapolated into long term trends, or assumed to be larger demographic trends, especially without voting data to support it. 

Hue.

Nina Turner lost to mainstream democrat Shontel Brown :)

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/03/shontel-brown-beats-nina-turner-in-key-ohio-primary-502365

Nina Turner had a massive edge from the beginning but her negative attacks against mainstream democrats didn't work.

Sad day for me anyway, less likely that M4A, and strong Climate Crisis policies will be enacted now, you get what you vote for :/ 

She wasn't really even close.  She is trying to blame PAC money but the real blame should go directly to herself.  She gave way to much fuel for her competition and the mainstream Dems.  Her ambivalence for the current Dems should have stayed in her heart as she works to get into a seat.  She played an angle in a mostly moderate Dem area and it did not pay off at all.

I didn't wanna say anything before because I kinda like Rab's angsty spirit, but yeah, I've found it easy to see why Shontel Brown won this contest. Though Brown was called the "establishment" candidate in this race, I feel that that descriptor is, in certain spiritual senses, a bit misleading. It makes it sound as though she had some kind of starting advantage here when, in reality, Nina Turner was the national celebrity figure in this race, whereas Brown, the victor, was just some local city council member who up until last month was known only in her district.

Nina Turner was a co-chair of Bernie Sanders' 2020 presidential campaign, the head of his Our Revolution activist group, and a former Majority Whip in the Ohio state senate for six years. She (Turner) enjoyed celebrity endorsements of her own, including those of Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and the Justice Democrats, to name a few, and despite her claims to have been defeated by big money from "special interests", in reality enjoyed a huge campaign fundraising advantage. Turner indeed enjoyed lots of support. Most of it, however, was in California, not, you know, Ohio where she was running.

A month ago, Turner concurrently enjoyed a 40-point lead over Brown. My point being that this race was clearly her's to lose from the outset, not Brown's to win. That's why I say that the characterization of Shontel Brown as an "establishment" candidate up against a populist underdog in Nina Turner feels a bit misleading in a certain sense. Brown did NOT enjoy any kind of starting advantage. Furthermore, the threat of a Republican victory in the district was non-existent and as such pragmatism was an argument the Brown-aligned forces couldn't rely on like they often do in other elections. And yet Brown won anyway.

There were technically a few differences between the economic positions that Shontel Brown and Nina Turner ran on (such as whether all tuition at public colleges and universities should be abolished or "just" all of it for the 90% of the population making under $125,000 a year for example), but frankly the Brown campaign did not contest these issues, thus making it evident that Turner's principled stances on economic policy were, unsurprisingly, popular in her district. But Turner was also the defund-the-police candidate in this race (pretend you're surprised), has refused to answer questions like whether the U.S. should impose economic sanctions on Israel (not the settlements, mind you, Israel as a whole, period), and declined to endorse either Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden for president even after their successful nominations in 2016 and 2020 respectively. Some of these stances place Turner to the left of Bernie Sanders and AOC, both of whom, for example, supported the Biden campaign following his nomination (as did I). It fits in with the caricature of this type of person that Turner is also a college professor specializing in social studies on the side. These are the real reasons why she lost.

I just think the progressive movement really could stand to get outside of its little online bubble a little more often these days and listen more to what ordinary working people actually want and don't rather than determining a list of positions to stake out based on what's popular on college campuses and certain corners of the internet and then fabricating ways in which all of them are supposedly broadly popular. You know? Be less elitist. Isn't that the very thing and attitude you lament so much and aspire to fight against?

How much of Mike Lindell do you think is just crazy, how much is just grift?

Good Lord.

Another look, or point of view on this situation 

According to other people looking into this, Corporate/Est money did back Brown (Even the Israelis organisation DMFI donated heavily against Turner), and the Peoples money did back Turner

Pro Turner/Anti Brown $904k (source: Dem Action PAC)

Pro Brown/Anti Turner $2.7M (source: Dem Action PAC)

In the end the Hillary/Corp Dems status quo was maintained, resulting in governance policies less likely to be progressive going forward 

The bitter pill to swallow for progressives is that Democrat Primary voters tend to like the Democratic party. Hello Somebody just had to learn that the hard way.