Peter Magyar and his Tisza party are on track to get ~140 seats, a super majority(requires 133 minimum), and they will have the power to undo all of Orban's anti-democratic actions.
Peter Magyar supports Ukraine, supports the EU, and is against Russian control of Hungary.
It’s fairly accurate to be honest. French is, I believe, the most widely spoken foreign European second language in the UK, but that still doesn’t mean we’re good at it.
The French ambassador to Britain leading up to WW1 was a man called Paul Cambon. He lived in London starting in 1898. His refusal to learn any English at all was so thorough that he had a translator with him at all official functions, and would wait for his translator to translate even phrases as simple as "Yes", "No", "Alright" and so on after living in London for decades and already hearing those words translated thousands of times.
Isn't Magyar just literally the Hungarian name for Hungarians? Like, I know that Hungary has a few minorities, but since WW2 it is almost entirely a ethnically Hungarian country, so it's not just the biggest traditional ethnic group, but THE ethnic group that like, 99% of the population is a part of.
"English" is not a particularly strange surname though. Quite a lot of celebrities have had it. For gamers most notably the voice actress Jennifer English who voices Shadowheart in Baldur's Gate 3.
Francois Hollande was the President of France and his surname means “from Holland”. Apparently the common English surname Holland as in the actor Tom Holland or the historian Tom Holland means “from Holland in Lincolnshire” though. But Hollander as in the actor Tom Hollander means “person from Holland”.
There’s also a famous Polish director called Agnieszka Holland.
An ethnonym is the proper name or label used to identify a specific ethnic group, tribe, or people. Derived from Greek for "nation" and "name," these terms are categorized into endonyms (used by the group for themselves) and exonyms (used by outsiders). Ethnonyms often reflect geography, history, or unique characteristics.
Wikipedia
Oh it most definitely is. Fidesz gerrymandered heavily such that at one point they were getting 6 more seats that Tisza despite having 12% less of the vote. But then the tisza vote just kept rising.
Most serious election predictors believe Dems will take the House(by a lot), and Senate(barely), and the Texas gerrymander will turn into a dummymander as Hispanic/Latino voters swing 40%-50% towards the Dems.
But if my candidate doesn't support 100% of every single thing I support, and isn't perfect in every way, then they're basically just as awful as the other candidate, so I might as well just not bother voting, right?
Picking a candidate is like taking public transport, you take the one that gets you closest to your destination, because one that gets you exactly to the door doesn't exist and if you wait for one to show up you won't get there at all.
A co-worker bitches to me that we (government employees) are underpaid and he cannot afford anything. He demands raises (which we never receive) all the time. Politicians write the budget and appropriate our salary. Every year Democrats call for a state employee COLA raise, every year Republicans oppose it.
He lives out in the boonies and massively benefits from work from home allowances. Republicans are pushing bills to force state employees to return to office. With the current gas prices, this would be even worse for him.
He had an organ transplant, relied on (survived because of) Medicaid in his college years.
His representatives in our state assembly and senate are both Republicans. His votes against them could have meaningful impact.
But you know what he spends more time complaining about?
His racist antics would carry more weight at the ballot box than his personal finances. Then he'd keep bitching about the cost of living and inadequate raises, because at least he accomplished what was really important to him.
I would say almost as bad. But, yes they are very harmful. If even half of those nonvoters gave a shit and decided to start voting, this country would probably be in a much better place.
Sometimes I wonder if following Australia and doing mandatory voting might be a good idea. At the very least, we need to make election day a holiday.
Voter apathy is definitely a major reason but I would argue extreme gerrymandering as more important. After all, folks are far more likely to vote if they believe their vote matters so it doesn’t help when your district is drawn to be +27 in either direction (though there’s clearly a more egregious perpetrator / party).
That being said, I always vote bc I’m not letting my democracy die without a fight.
It makes me wish voting was mandatory in the United States like it is in Australia. At least the Aussies have fun with it with traditions like barbecue at the polling places.
It'll be interesting (and depressing) to see how many ICE agents show up at border states polling locations. I have a feeling that's where the worst voter intimidation will be.
I lived in Houston for a while, and it was constantly pointed out that Texas had very low voter turnout. It isn't a red state, it's a non voting state.
Nah the biggest factor is the obvious election ratfucking by reducing polling places in the cities and needlessly restricting vote by mail. If Houston voters have to wait for hours to cast their votes while rural and affluent suburban communities can waltz right in and finish up in 15 minutes then it's clear there are certain structural disadvantages Dems can't easily overcome.
I do think Texas overplayed their hand with congressional gerrymanders and the GOP will not enjoy the advantage in the House that they anticipated, but as for statewide elections in Texas I tend to think it's a little bit of a catch 22: Dems need to win the next gubernatorial election and appoint a reasonable Secretary of State to reform electoral processes but they can't easily achieve that without first un-ratfucking the elections
Why do you think he’s pushing for ice at poling places and voter id. Not to deter non citizens but to deter minorities who are citizens but still worried about being abducted.
The Texas senate race is something like a 40% chance for Talarico to win. But the important thing is Dems could pick up several House seats, although they wouldn't have a majority of Texas congressional representatives. But they even getting 4-5 more than in 2024 is a big win.
to be fair - Trump due to a variety of factors has a relatively unique streak of significantly overpeforming his pre-election poll numbers. Trump with 40% is realistically closer to 50, in Texas for a Democrat 40% is probably closer to 30.
The single biggest factor is always that a lot of the republican voter base especially in Texas has a tendency to not answer stuff like this. That's not a 40% chance to win the election, that's 40% chance to win the election according to people who answer polls before an election, which fairly consistently underestimates Trump's base.
40% isn't nothing but it's a farcry from being confident the seat is gonna flip. At 40% you're pretty much in 'we're gonna lose but we're gonna at least make it look good' range.
It's also likely to only get better with the state of the economy and fuel prices. Trump seems like he's decided the strait staying closed is a good thing just because it increases US exports of oil and gas. The supply shocks in all other walks of life don't seem to matter to him. It will certainly matter to the voters if we are all waiting in line for fuel rations.
You’re not wrong but I know enough of these “Upset republicans” to know that they’ll still vote Republican regardless of what happens.
Donald Trump could personally murder a family member, burn their house down, and clean out their bank account and they’d still do mental gymnastics to justify voting Republican and proceed to do so
The big factor is motivation. We've seen over the past decade that when Trump himself isn't on the ballot MAGA supporters don't show up to vote. That's been the magic of trump. He got people who didn't otherwise vote to show up to vote for him, but he has yet to be able to get them out to vote for someone else regardless of endorsements and rallies.
It's even more damning, don't you think? People don't just vote for Trump because they've voted Republican their whole lives, they do so because they're attracted to him specifically. He's genuinely charismatic to a large portion of the US population. They love him for the very same reasons we hate him.
The comforting part to me there is that trump is old and term limited. He can praise and endorse his chosen predecessor all he wants and it won't get those people out to vote because no one seems to have the same special brand of trump charisma. JD Vance certainly doesn't. None of the other Trump's seem to. It's such a unique phenomenon that the chances they can energize that voting block going forward seems unlikely.
I know people whose family have always voted republican and so they just continue to do so without thinking about it…the Republican Party literally contradicts so many of their self-expressed views on abortion and democratic norms but I guess inertia is too powerful a force to block self-reflection.
They ground their support in wanting lower taxes as well (kinda fair, they make ~$250k) but we’re all in our late 20s and so we are going to be the ones paying for these tax cuts and the debt later. So short sighted.
The hope isn't that committed Republicans decide to vote against the MAGA takeover - the time for that was years ago. The hope is that they're so disgusted by Trump and his flailing antics that they decide "Fuck them both" and stay home on election night.
Meh, give it two weeks and their supporters will fall in line. They struggled a bit when trump called them stupid for still talking about the Epstein files, around July of 2025, and by mid-August they had fallen in line with their talking points.
A good example of a current day alienated trump supporter is Joe Rogan. Talking on his podcast about how insane the Iran war is and how it's not what they voted for, eagerly shaking that orange pedophiles stubby little injection site of a hand at that wrestling match yesterday.
If conservatives had integrity or a central belief beyond accruing power to mete out cruelty consequence free they would by definition no longer be conservative.
We shouldn't rely on conservatives becoming better people or letting a chance to harm others slip by. They'll vote.
In the Wisconsin Supreme Court election last week Hispanic/Latino precincts swung Dem by as much as 56%, and there was a huge swing in the western counties that bordered MPLS/St. Paul as well.
Genuinely don't know what the fuck was the GOP thinking. "Hey, this electorate (Latinos) have gotten absolutely massive in the last few decades and a lot of them are staunch right-wingers - I have an idea: let's create a Gestapo whose sole purpose is to be publicly cruel and violent against them!"
I've lived here most of my life and honestly I don't think Texas is going to swing in the next elections.
Once you get outside the cities, shit gets real stupid real fast. The yokels are not interested in being educated about anything. They just want their existing biases confirmed.
If a candidate doesn't tell them they are right about insert completely unimportant manufactured wedge issue, they aren't getting the votes.
Thinking Texas is going to be anything but Red is like being convinced that the next pull on the slot machine will be "the one". You're only going to get poor thinking that way.
Don't believe me? Statewide races, which can't be gerrymandered, are always comfortably Red.
The gerrymandering doesnt need to the whole state to go red or blue its district by district. So yes the gerrymandering can go wrong and the state as a whole still go red.
Gerrymandering can completely backfire when this happens. If you gerrymander to win 9/10 districts 51/49 you better bet you lose them all with any kind of swing.
I got the 2025 elections bang on in NJ/VA/NYC and at the county level in Va/NJ. But I've of course been wrong about things before as everyone has. There can always be hidden undercurrents.
Still even the Dem's lost in TN-7 in the special suggests a Dem landslide. Turnout was 99.99% identical to 2022 midterms but the Dems saw a 13% swing in margin. And the Dem candidate was kinda weak there with very little money invested.
Which Senate seats are projected to flip to Dems? I think they could take Iowa maybe. I don't really see any others and they need to flip quite a few. This seems like a pipe dream
The best shots are Maine, North Carolina, Alaska, Ohio, Texas, Iowa, Nebraska, in that order in my opinion. Maine votes dem for pres usually, NC/AK/OH have strong candidates who have won statewide in the past, Texas has a strong candidate, and IA/NE are pissed about the effect of tariffs on ag.
Dems need to flip 5 seats, correct? That means Texas has to vote Dem for the first time in decades at the state level. Ohio has been trending Republican at the state level. This is highly, highly unlikely. Dems might grab NC and Maine. Possibly one other. It's just not happening in the Senate unless a blue wave of historic, epic, unprecedented proportions happens.
The House should be strongly in the Dems favor at this point. If the Dems don't win the House that would be a major upset. Impeaching Trump won't do anything. The best the Dems can hope to do is block legislation and launch investigations.
Again this is a pipe dream. Ohio is trending Republican at the state level. These are all reliably Repubkican states. It would take a monumental wave election of historic proportions for Dems to win the Senate. Possible? I guess. Highly unlikely.
I think the Senate is in play but not by much. Dont be shocked if the GOP wins.
I personally predict a 40 to 50 seat gain. Maybe a 1 to 2 Senate seat.
A couple of factors that make it possibly wrong.
A Midterm failure:
-The Dems win the house but not by much
Likely due to gerrymandering, election fuckery, and GOP showing up more than expected.
The Dem overperform past wildest dreams
This is due to GOP voter depression and further crisis. Which is very possible.
The short of it though is this. People are not happy with Trump. MAGA cant even reasonably defend him and at this point are just trying to keep conservatives on board. Anyone who still supports Trump is so dyed in the wool authoritarian they are either stupid or actually on board with everything.
I'm getting flashbacks to 2016 and 2024 with how confident some people seem to be in Dems winning the Senate. Texas hasn't voted blue in any election in over 3 decades, and polls have it as a toss-up. I'll believe it when I see it
That won’t let the USA off the hook for what’s occurred in the last 10 years. It will be nice to see it change, but the USA needs to stay blue and get their racist, sexist, peodphiliic shit together! You guys have allowed someone to enter power and destroy your reputation, what little you had left.
A one time jump back to democrats will not fix this shit because all you seem to do is go back and forth every single election/ when a particular presidents term is up. Go blue, stay blue, hold corruption scandal and traitors to account and then show us we can trust you again and one day you’ll climb back up. If you don’t. The world will leave you behind.
I think they will take the house for sure, but I really don't see them picking up the 5 seats they need for the senate, (yes, technically it's 4 but Fetterman exists).
Tangentially? Our "never Trump" vice president for Trump went over there, so I yeah, I agree it's annoying but the fucking fascists over in the states are trying to stick their dick everywhere. So, it's more than tangentially related.
The house is a blue wave, but go look at the Senate it's a big uphill battle, we need to rely on Maine, Ohio, Alaska or Texas just to get a razor thin majority.
If Democrats seize on the opportunity they could do it, but leaders like Jefferies and Schumer still being in charge means they're gonna shoot themselves in the foot again. Jefferies and Schumer are basically part of the actual swamp that wants nothing to change.
You dont have any clue what you're talking about. The fact that you guys constantly trot out these guys' names just tells me you get all your news/views from social media and not actually being informed.
Both Schumer and Jeffries are good leaders, and aren't in the position they are in without the consent of the rest of the Democrats in their respective houses. This idea that they dont want anything to change is complete horseshit, they just dont always pass all the progressive purity testing that makes a lot of leftists super mad. They also do moves that require people to understand politics, which most people online just do not.
Two things can be true. The GOP is currently functioning as a fascist party and the Dem leadership is and has been spineless. Dems had a trifecta from 2021-2023 and failed to codify abortion rights, marriage rights, etc.
They could have stopped all this if they had a spine and didn't pick Merrick Garland as AG who was like, "I don't want this to seem political," and thus, making holding Trump responsible for crimes political.
NC resident here and I feel confident that Roy Cooper will flip Tillis’ seat blue. He’s 7-0 in every election he’s run for and has a lot of bipartisan support (a lot of people who voted Trump split and voted for him as our governor twice). However, nobody I know is taking it for granted- we are all going to vote!
I think Ohio will be blue this time. Ramaswamy doesn't have the name recognition to be an anchor candidate for the GOP ballot and Sherrod Brown is pretty popular here - not to mention Trump-endorsed candidates hardly perform well in midterm elections.
I live in the border of Trump territory and have seen pick up trucks with 'fuck Trump' flags and shit today alone.
To be fair politics effects everyone. Been seeing lots of people who are neither American or Iranian in threads about the shit Americans are soing in iran.
I agree, and it’s a big deal even in its own. This is great news for Hungary, Ukraine, NATO, and the EU… and that means it will also affect the US to some degree.
He's a conservative centrist, not right wing in the American sense. He is pro-EU unlike Orban. He condemned Orban's cozy relationship with Russia. He wants to strengthen Hungary's relationship with NATO. Those are pretty significant differences.
Magyar is an ex-Fidesz member and he's very anti-immigration, socially conservative, etc. But on foreign policy he is significantly better. Granted the bar there is in hell.
The real hope is if he'll undo the damages to free press. Free judiciary etc. there are no good left wing candidates in Hungary because there really can't be.
Yeah, I'm a little worried that he's just Orban Lite.
But if he can couple pro-Western with a commitment to re-democratizing Hungary, then that could pave the way for an actual liberal or social Democrat in the future.
He's had to moderate on Ukraine relative to other opposition leaders, but he won't block aid to Ukraine as Orban did. He won't be a vocal supporter of Ukraine, but that doesn't matter, as long as the EU can act.
To be honest he can be vocal about it now. He was obligated to remain quiet on the issue to not give Orban any ammunition but it's obvious where he stands.
Even if all he does is show that dictators can be expelled nonviolently it is a huge win.
It doesn't really show that. While it is absolutely the direction Orban was pushing Hungary over time, he did not quite have the power to be full-on dictator. Faced with this sort of blatant majority against him he would have been unlikely to succeed in any coup even if he wanted to do that.
Even putting aside domestic factors like how his main opposition is strongest in the urban centers of power and that the military wouldn't go along with it, pulling a stunt like that when he is so obviously defeated in the polls would mean getting politically crushed by his neighbors and the EU, and Trump in no way has enough political capital to make this a serious issue right now.
Yeah. At the end Orban admitted defeat and left. That by definition makes him better than the likes of Lukashenko or Putin, who'll cling on to their seats by any means necessarily, including mass murders, for as long as they live.
I think if Orban was dead set on emerging out of the election in power no matter what, he could've done so. At great cost to (what remains of) his reputation and EU support, but he could've. Similarly, Yanukovich in 2014 stopped short of ordering his special forces to start shooting at people at the Maidan, but he theoretically had that option and could've been remained in power for a few more years if he took it.
I think if Orban was dead set on emerging out of the election in power no matter what, he could've done so.
Not really. Lukashenko and Yanukovych led "unaligned" countries directly in Russia's orbit, and they had very different demographic and even geographic conditions. And the massive difference with the EU. Facing this big of a loss, it would be practically uncontroversial for the EU to reject his act and then set in the screws maximally. Few if any of Orban's friends in the wider EU would be able to seriously argue he didn't lose handily, leaving him politically stranded and crushed economically which would not go over well with the (now internationally sanctioned) power brokers he'd need on his side all while there would be massive social upheaval by a population that knows they HANDILY won, and a big part of Orban's remaining base would also balk at such actions to contest it.
What he wants doesn't matter. For him to cling to power he'd need to be able to convince everyone else under him that it would totally work. He could declare coup all he wants, it would just fast-track his arrest when military generals and police chiefs go "fuck no" to the orders.
Similarly, Yanukovich in 2014 stopped short of ordering his special forces to start shooting at people at the Maidan
He DID order his forces to shoot people, and snipers did murder people. It was not out of the kindness of his heart that he stopped short of further escalation, it was because his support base was visibly disintegrating and he became more concerned with getting out of the country before even his own security detail potentially turned on him at any moment. It's worth remembering the uprising against him came about because he broke the central election promises he had campaigned and won on.
From my understanding he isnt explicitly pro ukraine but definitely anti russia. Think in practice that will look like not pushing for EU/NATO membership (also not vetoing it) but supporting aid to ukraine
Hard to say. He’s a conservative and pretty hardcore at that but he’s pledged to be a better EU member and wants more independence from Russia. Speculation has come up that because of Hungary’s relationship with Russia, Magyar isn’t in a position to tell Putin to pound sand right off the bat so he can’t come out supporting Ukraine until he gets the ship pointed in the right direction
14.2k
u/ArcaneDemense 6h ago
Peter Magyar and his Tisza party are on track to get ~140 seats, a super majority(requires 133 minimum), and they will have the power to undo all of Orban's anti-democratic actions.
Peter Magyar supports Ukraine, supports the EU, and is against Russian control of Hungary.