The Democratic Party is a reasonable representation of democracy in action; lots of opinions, lots of interest groups, lots of disagreements, all in the open. We should celebrate this not rip each other apart.
I agree--but I think the problems lie in a hardening on all sides that brooks no objection or discussion. This has been a trend for a very long time and it is why Dems lose elections they should win. The DNC has one stance and they don't like that others within the "big tent" have different views. Moreover, Dems have a tendency to shoot themselves in the face by failing to turn up for important elections. The largest voting bloc in 2024 was actually people who did not vote at all. Even 10% of those non-voters in swing states would have pushed Harris over the line.
Another thing we need to stop doing is blaming the amorphous villain "the DNC" for everything. The DNC has very specific functions that don't extend to masterminding or supporting every race in the country.
I think the media has a lot to do with why people don't turn out. One is that they are misinformed; the other is that they are NOT informed. How can you make a reasoned decision in a presidential race in which the country's biggest paper, The NY Times, which sets the agenda for the entire media landscape, ran more front-page articles about "her emails" in the six days before the 2016 election than it ran about ALL POLICY ISSUES COMBINED in the previous 69 days. So if you really cared about a candidate's position or record on, say, health care, you'd have to work to unearth the information while getting bombarded with something something emails. I saw the impact of this in very blue inner city areas I canvassed in 2016 and voters told me that of course they would never vote for Trump but they just didn't like Hillary. And when I asked why the answer was almost inevitably "I keep hearing about her emails." Turnout in that area is historically very low.
And when someone criticizes the "old people" in Congress, particularly Nancy Pelosi, I remind them that the affordable care act would never, never, never have happened without her.
Sounds like more compulsive handwringing. Do you have actual evidence of these trends as trends? For instance, yes, better Dem turnout would have given Harris the win, but there was little issue with such turnout in 2020. Also, turnout has been tremendous in special and off-year election since then. One (very weird) election does not constitute a trend let alone some sort of pathology.
"Republicans’ utter lack of self-reflection, dissent, or remorse for their backing of serial miscreants and their refusal to break ranks on disastrous policies — e.g., unleashing murderous, rogue ICE shock troops; enabling a disastrous Iran war; taking healthcare coverage away from millions — or challenge Donald Trump’s reign of corruption earn a shrug from corporate media."
Exactly.
The problem in our country today is that so many lazy voters let Republicans define Democrats, instead of forcing them to look in the mirror.
Fascist authoritarianism is far worse than Democratic Socialism or (especially) Social Democracy.
The people want a change, and are not buying what the kleptocracy is selling, because what they are actually selling is our constitution and our democracy.
Thank you so much for defending the Democrats. I think they are doing a great job. I am very tired of reading nonsense like the NYT editorial, when the Trump administration is a fountain of corruption and only getting worse by the day.
I am a South Carolinian who has been really surprised at the number of people who have defended Graham's actions. A great majority of those totally sidestep his political objectives and his ongoing warmongering on behalf of Israel. The great majority of them talk about him like a good buddy who would stand by you and argue with you but still have a great lunch with you. Every time he or his staff sent me a letter in response to objections I held as a voter and constituent to his positions, it had the tone of "now there little lady..."
Robert, I think it’s impossible for me to respond in 2 words, but I will try: Respect Human Rights (oops, that’s 3!). Okay, if I must…Human Rights! Can I keep the exclamation point?
It's a big tent until people like James Carville, former Democratic strategist, says Congress should refuse to seat the legitimate winner of a NY race. A big tent until he (and he is not alone!) laments the fact that progressives are winning, saying they should form their own party. With two-thirds of Democrats frustrated with the party, and progressives winning handily with Democrats in progressive precincts, Carville (and there are many like him) is way out of line. We know what the winning strategy is: Affordability, affordability, affordability. Let moderates win in moderate precincts and let progressives win in progressive precincts, but enough with the cleavers.
Thank you for the clarification. I think when you look at Mamdani's win in NYC and Spanberger's win in Virginia last year, one a progressive, one centrist--in differing regions of the country--yet both running on affordability, it seems to me affordability is a key strategy.
No argument. Especially with “a”. But I could compare Mamdani and Péter Magyar in Hungary, issues different, but relentless positive campaigning village by village borough by borough was key in both wins.
Well written, and don’t let anyone say this disparages Graham after his death and he can’t defend himself. Everything stated is factual and part of the record. It would be nice if his legacy could be showered with justifiable praise, but that would be a perversion of history.
An important argument to read and understand. Yes, there is anger about some of the “Democratic Party” activities, but I’ve always said that on the ground, the Democrats do fine because they are listening to people.
That's debatable, I'm sorry to say. We lost '24 because too many Americans feel that Democrats do not listen to them. One thing about the Biden admin that used to annoy me no end was his almost constant bragging that the economy was doing great! Yeah, sure, the numbers were positive... if you were an investor. Most Americans are not and for most Americans the economy was far from great. It's easy to say we listen, but one can hear yet not be listening (As a musician I know this only too well.).
Well America was doing great after time, after Covid. It was doing better than most of the rest of the world. If you look at the statistics, or read Paul Krugman. But everybody was still mad about Covid, and everybody was still mad about the price of eggs for goodness sakes. And the chickens were dying of bird flu, and had nothing to do with the economy.
All of which is true and irrelevant. I say these points are irrelevant because it doesn't matter if the US is doing better than the rest of the world if a large majority of Americans can't experience it. To shrug this off is to admit that the party is not listening. Although I take issue with the comment about the price of eggs. When you have children going to bed hungry (as many do in the US) the price of eggs is no laughing matter and the fact that it has become a running joke is horrible and tone deaf. Is it any wonder why so many don't trust either party?
We lost in 2024 because too many people couldn't bring themselves to vote for a woman, plain and simple. There were lots of excuses - Biden never should have run, there was no primary vote to make Harris the candidate and my personal favorite, she's just not the right candidate, as if there was ever a perfect one, especially in the face of such a deeply flawed excuse for a human on the other side of the aisle. So the folks using the excuses either voted for the felon-in-chief or didn't vote at all. Additionally, that the dumpster won ALL 7 swing states should make everyone question the veracity of the results.
Excellent analysis as usual Jennifer Rubin. Looks like the American people are seeing through the rot and destruction of this regime. To the polls, even if they are surrounded by ICE, we must be strong and unafraid if we are to get rid of this filth.
I happened to be listening to an NBC reporter extoll the virtues of Lindsey Graham and I heard a bunch of lies - either that or dementia has taken a toll on my 77 year old brain. I do recall the reporter stating "...this is a devastating loss...." Wow! Whose loss would that be? I feel sick that legacy media has come to this.
I don't think dementia has taken its toll on you but possibly on the NBC reporter. What a short memory the reporter must have and I can't think of one good thing to say about Graham that he actually stuck with.
I want to believe you, but in truth the established Democratic Party is either gutless, naive, or in the grasp of big money donors -- MAGA lite, if you will. In Michigan, both of the two Democratic senators have endorsed AIPAC queen Haley Stevens over a true progressive, Abdul El-Sayed. The reason? They don't want to jeopardize "winning" by endorsing a progressive and, worse yet, a Muslim, athough his history is as middle American as you can get. Born in Michigan to professionals, graduated at the top of his class at Michigan, earned his medical degree, and presided successfully over health care programs in the state's largest city and county. Stevens? She voted for a resolution praising the brave men and women of ICE and is on record as saying that the slaughter of tens of thousands of Palestinians is a small price to pay to keep open the flow of AIPAC campaign funds. Meanwhile, both Slotkin and Peters voted to confirm Krist Noem because, in Peters' words, she "promised" to be bi-partisan. If this is what Democratic winning looks like, I'm already tired of winning.
Stevens supports a two-state solution for both Israel and Palestine and has absolutely no love for Benjamin Netanyahu. When you throw around goofy terms like "AIPAC Queen" it shows me (an outsider, given) that you prefer dealing in stereotypes, rather than points. Stevens is a five-time member of Congress, which also gives her legislative expertise sorely needed right now. And Senator Gary Peters has just endorsed her.
Honestly, what does this firing quad mentality get you at the end of the day?
Exactly. The minute I see someone make "the opponent is supported by AIPAC" their main issue, the more I'm suspicious of the candidate they support. Americans have many other things on their plates, and we need to advance policies in those areas, not shut out people because "AIPAC! AIPAC!"
When asked to comment on the mass slaughter of Palestinians, rather than condemn the deaths, Stevens said, "I stand with Israel." She is an willing recipient of AIPAC largesse. Peters endorsed her? He also endorsed Kristi Noem. Nuff said.
Peters didn't "endorse" Kristi Noem, he voted for her nomination as did plenty of other Democrats. Remember the vote for Rubio as S.o.S? I thought they should have refused to vote for any of Trump's nominees, both in committee and in the full Senate, but that's not how that body works.
You are stretching to find a distinction between "endorse" and "voting for her nomination." Go back and read his justificaiton. He said she was well qualified and was satisfied when she said she would be bi-partisan in her duties. If he's that easily fooled by Trumpsters, he's too naive to be a senator. That fact that "plenty of other Democrats" voted for her only proves my point. If you like MAGA, you'll love the MAGA-lite enablers among "mainstream" Dems. They promise their stand up to him ... some day.
Well, it's moot now because he's no longer our Senator, but when he was, he was a decent one providing a reliable Democratic vote which is more than you can say for some.
Let me ask you this: Is it more important to get A Democrat elected rather than a Republican or to get the right kind of Democrat elected, perhaps enabling a Republican's election?
Will MI - which voted to elect Trump twice - vote for "a true progressive"? They didn't vote for him the last time he was in a primary, and they didn't vote for Bernie either in any primary. Have times changed?
I have no idea. I live in the UP - MagaLand. (I was going to vote for McMorrow and don't understand why she wasn't more popular.)
Abdul was pretty young when he ran for governor, and that's when one of the Republican candidates said that he was a terrorist and Muslims shouldn't be allowed to run, much less be elected. You are wrong about the past: Bernie narrowly defeated Hillary in the 2016 primary. The state's past has bleak moments, such as supporting George Wallace in a presidential primary. Will they vote for a "true progressive?" Fair question. But they won't get the chance if big money and traditional Dems successfully block him in the primary. My question: If Haley Stevens runs against Mike Rogers, will anyone be able to spot a difference? They both bow to whoever comes up with the biggest bucks.
If you can't spot the different between Haley Stevens and Mike Rogers, you probably shouldn't be voting, and you've just demonstrated the credibility of what Jennifer has written.
Of course, there's a difference. If Rogers gets elected he will be just another Trump toady. He was all for the Gordie Howe Bridge, for instance, until Trump wasn't.
Stevens' policy positions are more nuanced; El-Sayed's "big three' are nothing but slogans, unlikely to be turned into policy in any meaningful way. There is nothing "gutless" or "naive" about how you can advance things that benefit ordinary people in a climate where Republicans aggressively block them. it's lovely to shout "Medicare for All" (a weird misnomer anyway) but we are in a climate where even the smaller, painfully negotiated benefits of the Affordable Care Act are being destroyed.
And one thing "progressive" Democrats are doing wrong is to judge every candidate primarily by where they stand on supporting Palestine. This is the flip side of AIPAC and just as odious as AIPAC.
You have written the most concise, brutally honest, hard-hitting summary of the current state of politics in America. Most of what is left of the Republican Party is for shit. The Democrats alone are doing their best to defend our democracy, and are full of capable candidates who fearlessly care about our future. And mass media news is nothing but milquetoast corporate, or billionaire bullshit. And Lindsey Graham was a conniving, lying, cowardly supporter of the current fascist Trump-MAGA administration who literally hate our country. Amen.
It's not so much that Democrats are doing something right, it's that Republicans are doing so many things so horribly wrong. Voters have no choice but to elect Democrats. The sheer destruction, corruption and economic harm that the Dear Leader and his henchmen have foisted on us in the end is more than even many MAGAts can stomach. In effect, the Republican party followed a madman over a cliff and committed suicide.
The first person who makes you angry often controls what you think about. The first person who calms you helps you decide what to think.
Why are we all so angry at each other? Republicans against the Democrats. Who’s benefiting?
One good hint would be to follow the money! I suggest you consider the plutocrats (ultra rich). While we’re falling behind the plutocrats and corporations are getting tax breaks, no bid contracts and dumping millions into campaigns. These campaigns are fostering hatred between the parties. This hatred keeps us from seeing what they are doing and keeps us from working together to solve problems.
In the meantime another Plutocrat, Trump and his gang of happy idiots, are also converting our democracy into an authoritarian government (Nazi Germany was authoritarian).
Lets stop being the pawns in this game of greed and power and unite as citizens to protect our country!
It takes a little work learning how to talk to angry people. Just google “how to talk to angry people” for some tips. We’ll all feel better and be happier for it.
To dismiss anger at the establishment as "farsical" is to commit the same mistake Hillary and the party made in 2016. When corporate dems consistently ignore the will of the people on policy, appoint trump cabinet members, and keep trump's government open, the people have good reason to be enraged. The responsibility of a political party is to win elections through following the will of the people, not by condescending to them and insisting they don't know as much as the party.
While there are several arguments against your assessment, the only one that matters is that there is exactly one way -- and only one way -- to stop MAGA. Elect democrats in November. Any activities not focused on that are counterproductive. After Dems are in control, we can indulge the luxury of improving the Democratic Party.
I posted this perspective from Rick Wilson yesterday. I think it lays out what we need to do.
To rid us the foul and malevolent fools running our country, listen to Rick Wilson, who for many years was a Republican operative: “For the love of God, stop trying to shame the Republican Party into decency. I watched this party from the inside for thirty years. There is no bottom, there is no invisible line of conscience, and there is no cavalry of Serious Republicans waiting for permission to do the right thing. The ones with even marginally functioning consciences already left. What remains is an apparatus that responds to exactly two stimuli: power and fear of losing it. Every hour spent crafting the perfect appeal to their better angels is an hour donated to the opposition. They are not going to be shamed. They can only be beaten. Here’s the strategic core, and it’s the oldest rule in the book: cheating operations work on the margins. They flip close races. They exploit recounts, certification fights, faithless officials, and friendly courts. What they cannot do, what no operation in American history has ever managed to do, is steal a landslide. A three-point race in Wisconsin can be litigated, delayed, “investigated,” and strangled in a certification meeting. An eight-point race cannot. The math of the steal collapses when the margin exceeds the degree of MAGA fuckery. … You have the numbers. You have the law. And you have about ninety days.”
I agree that defeating maga is the top priority. My argument is that the democratic party has failed in doing so for ten years now and it's not hard to see why. Improving our party is not a luxury;it is a necessity in order to win.
The term "corporate Democrats" needs to be retired. It's meaningless, and used just to dismiss people we don't care for, often based on image. How many people, for instance, know that Chuck Schumer has a more progressive voting record than Bernie Sanders (it's very close among the most progressive Democrats but Schumer is #10 and Bernie is #13.) We need to stop being swept away by image; that's how we got Platner.
The Democratic Party is a reasonable representation of democracy in action; lots of opinions, lots of interest groups, lots of disagreements, all in the open. We should celebrate this not rip each other apart.
I agree--but I think the problems lie in a hardening on all sides that brooks no objection or discussion. This has been a trend for a very long time and it is why Dems lose elections they should win. The DNC has one stance and they don't like that others within the "big tent" have different views. Moreover, Dems have a tendency to shoot themselves in the face by failing to turn up for important elections. The largest voting bloc in 2024 was actually people who did not vote at all. Even 10% of those non-voters in swing states would have pushed Harris over the line.
Another thing we need to stop doing is blaming the amorphous villain "the DNC" for everything. The DNC has very specific functions that don't extend to masterminding or supporting every race in the country.
I think the media has a lot to do with why people don't turn out. One is that they are misinformed; the other is that they are NOT informed. How can you make a reasoned decision in a presidential race in which the country's biggest paper, The NY Times, which sets the agenda for the entire media landscape, ran more front-page articles about "her emails" in the six days before the 2016 election than it ran about ALL POLICY ISSUES COMBINED in the previous 69 days. So if you really cared about a candidate's position or record on, say, health care, you'd have to work to unearth the information while getting bombarded with something something emails. I saw the impact of this in very blue inner city areas I canvassed in 2016 and voters told me that of course they would never vote for Trump but they just didn't like Hillary. And when I asked why the answer was almost inevitably "I keep hearing about her emails." Turnout in that area is historically very low.
And when someone criticizes the "old people" in Congress, particularly Nancy Pelosi, I remind them that the affordable care act would never, never, never have happened without her.
Sounds like more compulsive handwringing. Do you have actual evidence of these trends as trends? For instance, yes, better Dem turnout would have given Harris the win, but there was little issue with such turnout in 2020. Also, turnout has been tremendous in special and off-year election since then. One (very weird) election does not constitute a trend let alone some sort of pathology.
No MSM or Contrarian coverage of Ashley St Clair.
Did Trump admit Musk stole Pennsylvania in 2024?
That is one reason I focus my "election season" efforts on postcard writing that specifically targets get out the vote.
This is so sad, especially in retrospect.
The reason we lose elections is FRAUD.
We wuz robbed in 2024. Maybe in 2016.
Amen to that. The moment we become "more like Republicans," there will be no more need for a multi-party system.
"Republicans’ utter lack of self-reflection, dissent, or remorse for their backing of serial miscreants and their refusal to break ranks on disastrous policies — e.g., unleashing murderous, rogue ICE shock troops; enabling a disastrous Iran war; taking healthcare coverage away from millions — or challenge Donald Trump’s reign of corruption earn a shrug from corporate media."
Exactly.
The problem in our country today is that so many lazy voters let Republicans define Democrats, instead of forcing them to look in the mirror.
Fascist authoritarianism is far worse than Democratic Socialism or (especially) Social Democracy.
The people want a change, and are not buying what the kleptocracy is selling, because what they are actually selling is our constitution and our democracy.
Thank you so much for defending the Democrats. I think they are doing a great job. I am very tired of reading nonsense like the NYT editorial, when the Trump administration is a fountain of corruption and only getting worse by the day.
No Republican who hasn't condemned Trump and demanded his resignation should let Platner's name escape their lips.
Republicans' main strategy is deflection.
Thanks for saying what needed to be said about Lindsey Graham and for highlighting the stark contrast between Republicans and Democrats.
I am a South Carolinian who has been really surprised at the number of people who have defended Graham's actions. A great majority of those totally sidestep his political objectives and his ongoing warmongering on behalf of Israel. The great majority of them talk about him like a good buddy who would stand by you and argue with you but still have a great lunch with you. Every time he or his staff sent me a letter in response to objections I held as a voter and constituent to his positions, it had the tone of "now there little lady..."
I liked Joe Biden's tribute where he said he personally liked Lindsey Graham but was at odds with his positions.
You can always expect Joe to react with class. Boy do I miss those days…
Big tent. That’s all. Two words. Big tent.
Robert, I think it’s impossible for me to respond in 2 words, but I will try: Respect Human Rights (oops, that’s 3!). Okay, if I must…Human Rights! Can I keep the exclamation point?
Yes, women's reproductive rights have long been a nonnegotiable issue for me, and the minute I see racism or xenophobia I bristle too.
No argument.
It's a big tent until people like James Carville, former Democratic strategist, says Congress should refuse to seat the legitimate winner of a NY race. A big tent until he (and he is not alone!) laments the fact that progressives are winning, saying they should form their own party. With two-thirds of Democrats frustrated with the party, and progressives winning handily with Democrats in progressive precincts, Carville (and there are many like him) is way out of line. We know what the winning strategy is: Affordability, affordability, affordability. Let moderates win in moderate precincts and let progressives win in progressive precincts, but enough with the cleavers.
My comment was prescription not description. No one knows what the winning strategy is.
Thank you for the clarification. I think when you look at Mamdani's win in NYC and Spanberger's win in Virginia last year, one a progressive, one centrist--in differing regions of the country--yet both running on affordability, it seems to me affordability is a key strategy.
No argument. Especially with “a”. But I could compare Mamdani and Péter Magyar in Hungary, issues different, but relentless positive campaigning village by village borough by borough was key in both wins.
Well written, and don’t let anyone say this disparages Graham after his death and he can’t defend himself. Everything stated is factual and part of the record. It would be nice if his legacy could be showered with justifiable praise, but that would be a perversion of history.
Read the last sentence over and over. We the People hold the cards IF WE VOTE!
Write postcards!
An important argument to read and understand. Yes, there is anger about some of the “Democratic Party” activities, but I’ve always said that on the ground, the Democrats do fine because they are listening to people.
That's debatable, I'm sorry to say. We lost '24 because too many Americans feel that Democrats do not listen to them. One thing about the Biden admin that used to annoy me no end was his almost constant bragging that the economy was doing great! Yeah, sure, the numbers were positive... if you were an investor. Most Americans are not and for most Americans the economy was far from great. It's easy to say we listen, but one can hear yet not be listening (As a musician I know this only too well.).
Well America was doing great after time, after Covid. It was doing better than most of the rest of the world. If you look at the statistics, or read Paul Krugman. But everybody was still mad about Covid, and everybody was still mad about the price of eggs for goodness sakes. And the chickens were dying of bird flu, and had nothing to do with the economy.
Sadly, we have an uneducated and undiscerning electorate. That goes for supporters of both Republicans and Democrats.
All of which is true and irrelevant. I say these points are irrelevant because it doesn't matter if the US is doing better than the rest of the world if a large majority of Americans can't experience it. To shrug this off is to admit that the party is not listening. Although I take issue with the comment about the price of eggs. When you have children going to bed hungry (as many do in the US) the price of eggs is no laughing matter and the fact that it has become a running joke is horrible and tone deaf. Is it any wonder why so many don't trust either party?
We lost in 2024 because too many people couldn't bring themselves to vote for a woman, plain and simple. There were lots of excuses - Biden never should have run, there was no primary vote to make Harris the candidate and my personal favorite, she's just not the right candidate, as if there was ever a perfect one, especially in the face of such a deeply flawed excuse for a human on the other side of the aisle. So the folks using the excuses either voted for the felon-in-chief or didn't vote at all. Additionally, that the dumpster won ALL 7 swing states should make everyone question the veracity of the results.
Excellent analysis as usual Jennifer Rubin. Looks like the American people are seeing through the rot and destruction of this regime. To the polls, even if they are surrounded by ICE, we must be strong and unafraid if we are to get rid of this filth.
I happened to be listening to an NBC reporter extoll the virtues of Lindsey Graham and I heard a bunch of lies - either that or dementia has taken a toll on my 77 year old brain. I do recall the reporter stating "...this is a devastating loss...." Wow! Whose loss would that be? I feel sick that legacy media has come to this.
I don't think dementia has taken its toll on you but possibly on the NBC reporter. What a short memory the reporter must have and I can't think of one good thing to say about Graham that he actually stuck with.
I want to believe you, but in truth the established Democratic Party is either gutless, naive, or in the grasp of big money donors -- MAGA lite, if you will. In Michigan, both of the two Democratic senators have endorsed AIPAC queen Haley Stevens over a true progressive, Abdul El-Sayed. The reason? They don't want to jeopardize "winning" by endorsing a progressive and, worse yet, a Muslim, athough his history is as middle American as you can get. Born in Michigan to professionals, graduated at the top of his class at Michigan, earned his medical degree, and presided successfully over health care programs in the state's largest city and county. Stevens? She voted for a resolution praising the brave men and women of ICE and is on record as saying that the slaughter of tens of thousands of Palestinians is a small price to pay to keep open the flow of AIPAC campaign funds. Meanwhile, both Slotkin and Peters voted to confirm Krist Noem because, in Peters' words, she "promised" to be bi-partisan. If this is what Democratic winning looks like, I'm already tired of winning.
Stevens supports a two-state solution for both Israel and Palestine and has absolutely no love for Benjamin Netanyahu. When you throw around goofy terms like "AIPAC Queen" it shows me (an outsider, given) that you prefer dealing in stereotypes, rather than points. Stevens is a five-time member of Congress, which also gives her legislative expertise sorely needed right now. And Senator Gary Peters has just endorsed her.
Honestly, what does this firing quad mentality get you at the end of the day?
Exactly. The minute I see someone make "the opponent is supported by AIPAC" their main issue, the more I'm suspicious of the candidate they support. Americans have many other things on their plates, and we need to advance policies in those areas, not shut out people because "AIPAC! AIPAC!"
When asked to comment on the mass slaughter of Palestinians, rather than condemn the deaths, Stevens said, "I stand with Israel." She is an willing recipient of AIPAC largesse. Peters endorsed her? He also endorsed Kristi Noem. Nuff said.
Peters didn't "endorse" Kristi Noem, he voted for her nomination as did plenty of other Democrats. Remember the vote for Rubio as S.o.S? I thought they should have refused to vote for any of Trump's nominees, both in committee and in the full Senate, but that's not how that body works.
You are stretching to find a distinction between "endorse" and "voting for her nomination." Go back and read his justificaiton. He said she was well qualified and was satisfied when she said she would be bi-partisan in her duties. If he's that easily fooled by Trumpsters, he's too naive to be a senator. That fact that "plenty of other Democrats" voted for her only proves my point. If you like MAGA, you'll love the MAGA-lite enablers among "mainstream" Dems. They promise their stand up to him ... some day.
Once again -- what does this purer-than-the-driven-snow response get you at the end of the day?
Well, it's moot now because he's no longer our Senator, but when he was, he was a decent one providing a reliable Democratic vote which is more than you can say for some.
Let me ask you this: Is it more important to get A Democrat elected rather than a Republican or to get the right kind of Democrat elected, perhaps enabling a Republican's election?
Will MI - which voted to elect Trump twice - vote for "a true progressive"? They didn't vote for him the last time he was in a primary, and they didn't vote for Bernie either in any primary. Have times changed?
I have no idea. I live in the UP - MagaLand. (I was going to vote for McMorrow and don't understand why she wasn't more popular.)
Abdul was pretty young when he ran for governor, and that's when one of the Republican candidates said that he was a terrorist and Muslims shouldn't be allowed to run, much less be elected. You are wrong about the past: Bernie narrowly defeated Hillary in the 2016 primary. The state's past has bleak moments, such as supporting George Wallace in a presidential primary. Will they vote for a "true progressive?" Fair question. But they won't get the chance if big money and traditional Dems successfully block him in the primary. My question: If Haley Stevens runs against Mike Rogers, will anyone be able to spot a difference? They both bow to whoever comes up with the biggest bucks.
If you can't spot the different between Haley Stevens and Mike Rogers, you probably shouldn't be voting, and you've just demonstrated the credibility of what Jennifer has written.
Of course, there's a difference. If Rogers gets elected he will be just another Trump toady. He was all for the Gordie Howe Bridge, for instance, until Trump wasn't.
Stevens' policy positions are more nuanced; El-Sayed's "big three' are nothing but slogans, unlikely to be turned into policy in any meaningful way. There is nothing "gutless" or "naive" about how you can advance things that benefit ordinary people in a climate where Republicans aggressively block them. it's lovely to shout "Medicare for All" (a weird misnomer anyway) but we are in a climate where even the smaller, painfully negotiated benefits of the Affordable Care Act are being destroyed.
And one thing "progressive" Democrats are doing wrong is to judge every candidate primarily by where they stand on supporting Palestine. This is the flip side of AIPAC and just as odious as AIPAC.
Ms. Rubin-
You have written the most concise, brutally honest, hard-hitting summary of the current state of politics in America. Most of what is left of the Republican Party is for shit. The Democrats alone are doing their best to defend our democracy, and are full of capable candidates who fearlessly care about our future. And mass media news is nothing but milquetoast corporate, or billionaire bullshit. And Lindsey Graham was a conniving, lying, cowardly supporter of the current fascist Trump-MAGA administration who literally hate our country. Amen.
It's not so much that Democrats are doing something right, it's that Republicans are doing so many things so horribly wrong. Voters have no choice but to elect Democrats. The sheer destruction, corruption and economic harm that the Dear Leader and his henchmen have foisted on us in the end is more than even many MAGAts can stomach. In effect, the Republican party followed a madman over a cliff and committed suicide.
If we’re fighting
who’s winning?
Who’s in charge of your brain when you’re angry?
Hint: It ain’t you.
Here’s a saying to keep in mind.
The first person who makes you angry often controls what you think about. The first person who calms you helps you decide what to think.
Why are we all so angry at each other? Republicans against the Democrats. Who’s benefiting?
One good hint would be to follow the money! I suggest you consider the plutocrats (ultra rich). While we’re falling behind the plutocrats and corporations are getting tax breaks, no bid contracts and dumping millions into campaigns. These campaigns are fostering hatred between the parties. This hatred keeps us from seeing what they are doing and keeps us from working together to solve problems.
In the meantime another Plutocrat, Trump and his gang of happy idiots, are also converting our democracy into an authoritarian government (Nazi Germany was authoritarian).
Lets stop being the pawns in this game of greed and power and unite as citizens to protect our country!
It takes a little work learning how to talk to angry people. Just google “how to talk to angry people” for some tips. We’ll all feel better and be happier for it.
Bravo!! I am actively trying to not respond to people who have ‘gone to the dark side’…they are bought.
It would be preferable to try to defuse the anger of course but that may not be an option:(
To dismiss anger at the establishment as "farsical" is to commit the same mistake Hillary and the party made in 2016. When corporate dems consistently ignore the will of the people on policy, appoint trump cabinet members, and keep trump's government open, the people have good reason to be enraged. The responsibility of a political party is to win elections through following the will of the people, not by condescending to them and insisting they don't know as much as the party.
While there are several arguments against your assessment, the only one that matters is that there is exactly one way -- and only one way -- to stop MAGA. Elect democrats in November. Any activities not focused on that are counterproductive. After Dems are in control, we can indulge the luxury of improving the Democratic Party.
I posted this perspective from Rick Wilson yesterday. I think it lays out what we need to do.
To rid us the foul and malevolent fools running our country, listen to Rick Wilson, who for many years was a Republican operative: “For the love of God, stop trying to shame the Republican Party into decency. I watched this party from the inside for thirty years. There is no bottom, there is no invisible line of conscience, and there is no cavalry of Serious Republicans waiting for permission to do the right thing. The ones with even marginally functioning consciences already left. What remains is an apparatus that responds to exactly two stimuli: power and fear of losing it. Every hour spent crafting the perfect appeal to their better angels is an hour donated to the opposition. They are not going to be shamed. They can only be beaten. Here’s the strategic core, and it’s the oldest rule in the book: cheating operations work on the margins. They flip close races. They exploit recounts, certification fights, faithless officials, and friendly courts. What they cannot do, what no operation in American history has ever managed to do, is steal a landslide. A three-point race in Wisconsin can be litigated, delayed, “investigated,” and strangled in a certification meeting. An eight-point race cannot. The math of the steal collapses when the margin exceeds the degree of MAGA fuckery. … You have the numbers. You have the law. And you have about ninety days.”
I agree that defeating maga is the top priority. My argument is that the democratic party has failed in doing so for ten years now and it's not hard to see why. Improving our party is not a luxury;it is a necessity in order to win.
10 years? Aren't you forgetting Biden was elected President and had, for a time, a narrow majority in Congress?
The term "corporate Democrats" needs to be retired. It's meaningless, and used just to dismiss people we don't care for, often based on image. How many people, for instance, know that Chuck Schumer has a more progressive voting record than Bernie Sanders (it's very close among the most progressive Democrats but Schumer is #10 and Bernie is #13.) We need to stop being swept away by image; that's how we got Platner.
Brava, Jen. No one gives me hope and brightens my day like you!
Rumor has it Graham died from a sudden attack of conscience. It was most certainly brief, but devastating.
Maybe he finally admitted to himself that Trump is a garbage person and he died of shock.