Non-stories You Can Ignore

Two invented storylines can safely be disregarded.

In the 125-day run-up to the midterm elections, there’s been an overabundance of legacy sanewashing and mindless hot takes that have nothing to do with real voters or with the serious demands of constructing a winning, pro-democracy coalition. So cut yourself a break, and absolve yourself of the temptation to dwell on two of the least enlightening and most annoying non-issues of the moment:

Socialists under the bed (in Manhattan; someplace): Last year, as New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani burst on the scene, juiced turnout, and comfortably won the race with a message that resonated well beyond New York City, a smattering of angst-ridden establishment Democrats, egged on by their billionaire donors, freaked out. They imagined Mamdani would somehow generate ill will toward the party, which already suffers from a good deal of ill will in swing-seat races.

How dare “socialists” win with a broadly appealing message and engage a whole generation of new voters just as the national party was revving up for the midterms! Republicans — who would never have dreamt up a pretext to discredit progressives — will now get to paint the entire party as a bunch of commies!

Instead, throughout 2026, Democrats enjoyed record turnout, overperformed in scores of special elections, put into play Senate seats in red America, and drove Donald Trump’s approval numbers into the ground. They are (still) the prohibitive favorites to win the House. Those socialists sure made life miserable for Democrats, right?

Not embarrassed by their prior freakout, centrist hysterics are at it again in the wake of two socialist primary elections in safe, deep blue Manhattan districts. The ancient James Carville, who hasn’t run an election in decades, renounced the lefties. Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) and a batch of self-identified moderates (whose names likely will not ring a bell outside their districts or the consultants’ offices they paid to help orchestrate this) wrote an outraged but vapid declaration announcing they were capitalists (good for them!), anti-crime, and for secure borders (is anyone not?). Heavy on platitudes and light on any actual policy ideas, the letter puzzled political players who wondered why the authors had bothered and why they were so disturbed about candidates with alternative views running far from their districts. (Interestingly, many of the signatories are allegedly associated with dark money groups pushing toxic AI and AIPAC proposals that have turned off voters nationwide.)

Democratic operatives who have created a brand attacking progressives insisted these wild-eyed New Yorkers’ ideas “won’t fly in places like Georgia or other, more moderate parts of the U.S.” (Where they are not running.) How two socialists’ elections give Republicans “a very potent weapon to fire at” moderates in middle America defies logic. Mamdani’s victories did not impede moderate Democrats’ gubernatorial wins in Virginia or New Jersey nor hinder Democrats from wrenching a slew of issues, including immigration, away from MAGA extremists.

Centrists’ paranoia actually reveals an acute lack of political judgement. Mamdani’s reminded them:

We’ve delivered free child care for two-year-olds for the first time in New York City history. We’ve delivered tens of millions of dollars back to tenants who were taken advantage of by bad landlords. We’ve delivered 165,000 potholes being paved. And we’ve done all of these things while also delivering the lowest recorded crime in our city’s history. That’s what it looks like to have democratic socialism.

It’s no wonder people with lackluster views freaked out when other Democrats came up with compelling ideas for governance.

What explains this bizarre impulse to attack other successful elements in the party, as the party is attempting to forge the broadest pro-democracy coalition in modern political history? Well, raising money from easily unnerved billionaire Democrats is always a motive for sending irate open letters. But this is another self-own from insular establishment figures who consistently fail to read the political moment, heap scorn on grassroots organizing, and find solace in consultants willing to tell them excessive boldness is their greatest worry.

On this, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) nailed it: “Right now the biggest threat to this country is not a handful of House candidates in New York, it is the president of the United States who is trying to destroy American democracy.”

So, do yourself a favor: Skip reaction pieces from political has-beens who haven’t run — let alone won — elections in decades. Ignore “centrist Democrats worry” pieces (they are always worried) and feel free to roll your eyes at every mention of how “New York results create new Democratic rift.”

Who is Trump’s favorite?

We’ve also seen an unfortunate steady stream of legacy media stories concerning the decaying lame-duck president, who spends endless time fretting about his successor. He supposedly is squeamish (as are many of us) about passing the baton to Vice President JD Vance in 2028.

Trump supposedly peppers advisers and allies about their views on Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Do they prefer a socially awkward, Pope-lecturing, anti-immigrant-venom-spewing envoy to European fascists who went from Iran war objector to Iran war apologist? Or are they more inclined to line up behind the Secretary of State, who plays second fiddle to Jared Kusher and Steve Witkoff (and their mound of conflicts of interest and self-enrichment schemes), justifies the most disastrous Middle East War since the last one he supported, has helped throw Ukraine under the bus (no thanks to him, Ukraine has miraculously turned the tide against Russia), insists that ending USAID did not kill any kids (an egregious lie even for the Trump crowd), and presides over the crackup of NATO and the decline of U.S. international leadership?

Such a tough choice.

Trump’s obsessive interest in a primary fight over a year away does not make this a real or meaningful story. But legacy media remains determined — in the midst of our acute democratic crisis — to chase after every horse-race political process it can concoct.

Even for endemically frivolous, billionaire-owned political media, this story fails to pass the straight face test for several reasons:

1.) If Trump’s presidency continues to implode, no one associated with the administration is going to have any appeal;

2.) Vance is a particularly unlikeable bully and one of the least respected vice presidents in memory, so he may not run or be beyond presidential rescue from his intensely unpopular boss;

3.) Trump notoriously follows the MAGA crowd (as he did in Texas by hoisting himself on the Ken Paxton bandwagon days before the runoff), so it’s possible Trump won’t be the one making the call.

Such coverage really isn’t about who will get the 2028 nod or who Trump will pick, but rather is more evidence that the mentally and emotionally decrepit president is trying desperately to remain relevant and appear in command. Sadly, the accounts also reflect the incessant dumbing down and ongoing gamification of political media coverage. As with “socialists under the bed” catastrophizing, feel free to bypass this entire genre of political noncoverage.