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.
Who was behind the desperately needed, just passed housing bill which does an array of good things and won with overwhelming bipartisan support? Yeah — it was the Senate's #1 progressive, Elizabeth Warren age 77. I'm sure one of the young "progressive" firebrands will claim it doesn't do ENOUGH but they don't understand the real world. I dare them to accomplish as much as Liz Warren.
I'm older than Elizabeth Warren and hoped she would be president. She's smart-smart and "street smart". I want to see leaders of all adult (physical and emotional) ages. I want to see a lot more inclusion of younger people. Our set (the ones paying attention anyway) can claim more experience, but the young can also bring enthusiasm and fresh perspectives, and out to get a say in the would we will leave to them.
As for the DNC, I'm a voting-life long Democrat, but I find the DNC to be too remote for a "Democratic" party. I know it's no easy job, but I think there are insufficiently explored opportunities for outreach. It's way old new now, but illustrates what I'm talking about:
"CNN’s Jake Tapper posed precisely this question to Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, an ally of Hillary Clinton who co-chaired her former presidential; campaign, in a Feb. 11 interview. She responded with shockingly blunt honesty.
“What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it’s all rigged?” Tapper asked the DNC chair.
“Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists,” Wasserman Schultz calmly explained.
Tapper did not press her on her response. “I’m not sure that that answer would satisfy an anxious young voter, but let’s move on,” he said, and dropped the issue just when it was getting hot."
Democracies are easy targets for those who who like things "neat" because it's a matter of "herding cats", but if we join together on what is foundational, properly "unalienable", we have the freedom, even a necessity for liberty and resilience, to differ on details; Solidarity.
You misunderstand the purpose of the DNC whose main focus is on presidential elections. They also have a training arm and support State Democratic Parties. There are separate organizations for electing state Dems (DLCC), US House Dems (DCCC), US Senate Dems (DSCC), and State Governor Dems (DGCC).
Exactly. Virtually everyone who screams about the evil DNC has no idea what it does. I think this all stems from Bernie using it as an all-purpose villain in 2016.
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.
I don't know what quote you're referring to but he can SAY anything. That doesn't make it true. And no object facts point to Musk "stealing" any state by anything other than spending money.
We human beings all have a dual interactive nature which is on the one hand uniquely individual, private, and experiential and on the other, social, resonant, mutual. Our US founding documents reflect this in referencing rights and duties for both all individuals and pertaining to our whole society. My Ozzie shepherd is a social animal, as are we. She follows us everywhere. Many regard solitary confinement as a form of torture. Our solo private side is inextricable from our interactive interdependence, and even a hermit is a product of a society; yet I think that in our own minds, we can frame our own role too narrowly; "either/or" opposed to "both/and". I believe that problems occur when we frame ourselves narcissisticly, as the only being that really matters, and also too narrowly socially, as in a narrow, repressive society; the one hand in hand with the other. Human rights exist when we agree to recognize, observe, and defend rights for one another. "Liberty" without both diversity and social responsibility is a fallacious and dangerous product of unintegrated doublethink.
Power observably tends to corrupt, so we break it into shares via the vote, and with it dispense shares of responsibility for social outcomes. Government of the people, by the people, for the people is ultimately DIY, even in a republic. How could it be otherwise? If we are careless with the use of our vote, society stands to suffer, especially those already least empowered by other means. Voting can be an adult calculation as to which of two or more partially or even substantially unsatisfying choices will gain or preserve the most virtue; and in the last presidential election, that could not have been starker. Not for a moment to stop the quest for the best choices available on an ongoing basis, but on voting day it's one choice or another. A symbolic "protest vote" or abstention is a narcissistic conceit in major races in which other will be impacted besides one's self. My sense is that wisdom involves not only one's best guess about what is true, but also about what most matters. It is in all of our interests to choose wisely.
Not in 2024, except by the media. In 2016, we were robbed legally by the electoral college because Hillary won VOTERS in a relative landslide — almost 3 million votes.
"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.
Thank you and you're right. And in the Democratic party, if someone is accused of a crime, we oust him and not put him on a pedestal as the Republicans have done with Donald Trump!
As I read excellent editorial of Jenn, I am puzzled by the fact that in Tx Mr. Talarico and Mr. Paxton are tied at 47 and Mr, Trump has 37% of voter support that is a lot. I wonder why? I realize a fundamental trait of many voters in terms of misogyny and xenophobia.
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..."
“If you can’t admire Joe Biden as a person, you’ve got a problem. He’s the nicest person I’ve ever met in politics. As good a man as God ever created.”
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.
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.
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.).
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.
Your assertion that Americans won't vote for a woman president is not strongly supported by the evidence. Gallop has been polling the question since the mid-1930s when only 33% said they would vote for a woman president. That number has risen steadily over the decades to over 90% in 2024. Still, it is a hard question to poll, and different polling methods show 16% of respondents are not comfortable with the idea of a female president. The question of media reporting also affects people's perception of candidates and could explain away some reluctance to vote for a woman president. But a "plain and simple" explanation, it is not.
What people say in response to a survey does not always comport with their actual opinions or behavior. Ask if they have negative opinions of people based on color or ethnicity and you will get a sanitized response, when we have sadly seen that far too many actually base many of their actions, including voting, on their very real prejudices. So yes, lots of folks just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for a black woman president in 2024, no matter how much they tell you it was about the economy.
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?
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.
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.
Not suicide, but could turn out to be far more far reaching than that, why not eliminate everyone that can’t give you something or doesn’t look like you…sick
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.
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?
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.
I agree. And I often wonder if Hillary Clinton had been elected whether that would have been more of a disaster for the Democrats because of how difficult it would have been for her to accomplish anything
That is a lasting concern. If Democrats do take over one or both houses of Congress, they will be held accountable. With a Republican still in the presidency, passing legislation will be meaningless with the WH veto.
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.)
I'm not familiar at all with the details of Michigan, particularly the upper Peninsula, but you speak from personal experience and knowledge.
A lot of people don't seem to understand that NYC is vastly different from the rest of the country. I'd say this as a person who was born and lived in NYC for 50 years. There's a helluva difference.
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.
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.
I agree with this. The Berniebros hate the democrats but want to have the organization for their campaigns. Not much we can do about that…can’t keep Bernie from registering as a democrat to run and then unregistering after his losses. There isn’t much difference, if any, from those who label themselves as “progressives” and those who don’t. The smarter, younger leaders, like Ossoff and AOC (neither of whom rushed to endorse Platner) are avoiding the labeling and offering uniting themes behind civil rights and economic justice.
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.
Who was behind the desperately needed, just passed housing bill which does an array of good things and won with overwhelming bipartisan support? Yeah — it was the Senate's #1 progressive, Elizabeth Warren age 77. I'm sure one of the young "progressive" firebrands will claim it doesn't do ENOUGH but they don't understand the real world. I dare them to accomplish as much as Liz Warren.
I'm older than Elizabeth Warren and hoped she would be president. She's smart-smart and "street smart". I want to see leaders of all adult (physical and emotional) ages. I want to see a lot more inclusion of younger people. Our set (the ones paying attention anyway) can claim more experience, but the young can also bring enthusiasm and fresh perspectives, and out to get a say in the would we will leave to them.
As for the DNC, I'm a voting-life long Democrat, but I find the DNC to be too remote for a "Democratic" party. I know it's no easy job, but I think there are insufficiently explored opportunities for outreach. It's way old new now, but illustrates what I'm talking about:
"CNN’s Jake Tapper posed precisely this question to Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, an ally of Hillary Clinton who co-chaired her former presidential; campaign, in a Feb. 11 interview. She responded with shockingly blunt honesty.
“What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it’s all rigged?” Tapper asked the DNC chair.
“Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists,” Wasserman Schultz calmly explained.
Tapper did not press her on her response. “I’m not sure that that answer would satisfy an anxious young voter, but let’s move on,” he said, and dropped the issue just when it was getting hot."
https://www.salon.com/2016/02/13/un_democratic_party_dnc_chair_says_superdelegates_ensure_elites_dont_have_to_run_against_grassroots_activists/
Democracies are easy targets for those who who like things "neat" because it's a matter of "herding cats", but if we join together on what is foundational, properly "unalienable", we have the freedom, even a necessity for liberty and resilience, to differ on details; Solidarity.
Not to mention Diane Feinstein, whose decline lives in memory while her decades of major accomplishments have faded away.
You misunderstand the purpose of the DNC whose main focus is on presidential elections. They also have a training arm and support State Democratic Parties. There are separate organizations for electing state Dems (DLCC), US House Dems (DCCC), US Senate Dems (DSCC), and State Governor Dems (DGCC).
Exactly. Virtually everyone who screams about the evil DNC has no idea what it does. I think this all stems from Bernie using it as an all-purpose villain in 2016.
That is one reason I focus my "election season" efforts on postcard writing that specifically targets get out the vote.
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?
Musk did not steal Pennsylvania or any other state (I usually see Wisconsin attached to such claims.)
He admitted it.
I don't know what quote you're referring to but he can SAY anything. That doesn't make it true. And no object facts point to Musk "stealing" any state by anything other than spending money.
Not turning up is the BIG problem. 6-8 million Dems didn't show up for Kamala knowing full well where Trump would bring us.
We human beings all have a dual interactive nature which is on the one hand uniquely individual, private, and experiential and on the other, social, resonant, mutual. Our US founding documents reflect this in referencing rights and duties for both all individuals and pertaining to our whole society. My Ozzie shepherd is a social animal, as are we. She follows us everywhere. Many regard solitary confinement as a form of torture. Our solo private side is inextricable from our interactive interdependence, and even a hermit is a product of a society; yet I think that in our own minds, we can frame our own role too narrowly; "either/or" opposed to "both/and". I believe that problems occur when we frame ourselves narcissisticly, as the only being that really matters, and also too narrowly socially, as in a narrow, repressive society; the one hand in hand with the other. Human rights exist when we agree to recognize, observe, and defend rights for one another. "Liberty" without both diversity and social responsibility is a fallacious and dangerous product of unintegrated doublethink.
Power observably tends to corrupt, so we break it into shares via the vote, and with it dispense shares of responsibility for social outcomes. Government of the people, by the people, for the people is ultimately DIY, even in a republic. How could it be otherwise? If we are careless with the use of our vote, society stands to suffer, especially those already least empowered by other means. Voting can be an adult calculation as to which of two or more partially or even substantially unsatisfying choices will gain or preserve the most virtue; and in the last presidential election, that could not have been starker. Not for a moment to stop the quest for the best choices available on an ongoing basis, but on voting day it's one choice or another. A symbolic "protest vote" or abstention is a narcissistic conceit in major races in which other will be impacted besides one's self. My sense is that wisdom involves not only one's best guess about what is true, but also about what most matters. It is in all of our interests to choose wisely.
This is so sad, especially in retrospect.
The reason we lose elections is FRAUD.
We wuz robbed in 2024. Maybe in 2016.
Not in 2024, except by the media. In 2016, we were robbed legally by the electoral college because Hillary won VOTERS in a relative landslide — almost 3 million votes.
"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.
Amen to that. The moment we become "more like Republicans," there will be no more need for a multi-party system.
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.
Thank you and you're right. And in the Democratic party, if someone is accused of a crime, we oust him and not put him on a pedestal as the Republicans have done with Donald Trump!
As I read excellent editorial of Jenn, I am puzzled by the fact that in Tx Mr. Talarico and Mr. Paxton are tied at 47 and Mr, Trump has 37% of voter support that is a lot. I wonder why? I realize a fundamental trait of many voters in terms of misogyny and xenophobia.
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…
“If you can’t admire Joe Biden as a person, you’ve got a problem. He’s the nicest person I’ve ever met in politics. As good a man as God ever created.”
Said by none other than Lindsey Graham.
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!
Doing that this afternoon.
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.
Agreed. There is not one single strategy. We should pick the best and run with them.
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.).
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.
Your assertion that Americans won't vote for a woman president is not strongly supported by the evidence. Gallop has been polling the question since the mid-1930s when only 33% said they would vote for a woman president. That number has risen steadily over the decades to over 90% in 2024. Still, it is a hard question to poll, and different polling methods show 16% of respondents are not comfortable with the idea of a female president. The question of media reporting also affects people's perception of candidates and could explain away some reluctance to vote for a woman president. But a "plain and simple" explanation, it is not.
What people say in response to a survey does not always comport with their actual opinions or behavior. Ask if they have negative opinions of people based on color or ethnicity and you will get a sanitized response, when we have sadly seen that far too many actually base many of their actions, including voting, on their very real prejudices. So yes, lots of folks just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for a black woman president in 2024, no matter how much they tell you it was about the economy.
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?
I never said it was a laughing matter that children are going to bed hungry. But I don’t think that all depends on the price of eggs.
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.
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.
Not suicide, but could turn out to be far more far reaching than that, why not eliminate everyone that can’t give you something or doesn’t look like you…sick
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:(
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?
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.
I agree. And I often wonder if Hillary Clinton had been elected whether that would have been more of a disaster for the Democrats because of how difficult it would have been for her to accomplish anything
That is a lasting concern. If Democrats do take over one or both houses of Congress, they will be held accountable. With a Republican still in the presidency, passing legislation will be meaningless with the WH veto.
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.)
I'm not familiar at all with the details of Michigan, particularly the upper Peninsula, but you speak from personal experience and knowledge.
A lot of people don't seem to understand that NYC is vastly different from the rest of the country. I'd say this as a person who was born and lived in NYC for 50 years. There's a helluva difference.
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.
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.
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.
I agree with this. The Berniebros hate the democrats but want to have the organization for their campaigns. Not much we can do about that…can’t keep Bernie from registering as a democrat to run and then unregistering after his losses. There isn’t much difference, if any, from those who label themselves as “progressives” and those who don’t. The smarter, younger leaders, like Ossoff and AOC (neither of whom rushed to endorse Platner) are avoiding the labeling and offering uniting themes behind civil rights and economic justice.
As it should be!