The mainstream media are all in on the Socialist Menace story line. Saw one this morning titled "The Socialist Guillotine is Coming for the Democratic Party." Evidently, a couple of primaries in Manhattan are comparable to1789 Paris.
We need to spread the word about the difference between Socialism and Democratic Socialism, and to remind America that healthy debate and peaceful change is still possible -- no matter what magaloids may believe.
We are a democratic socialist country already. Social Security, Medicare, public schools, public universities, public parks, public transportation, public utilities (along with regulated private ones), public streets. What we don't have that we could really use is single payer health care or a public option.
I agree, the Democratic Socialists are really successors to the New Deal and Great Society but they're not "socialists" in the conventional sense of calling for government to own the means of production.
That said, they reflect a frustrating problem I've seen in the Left for a long time now. The right wing is masterful at "putting a wolf in sheep's clothing". By that they put forth some nauseating proposals but give then benign, soothing names. Witness Reagan's dubbing an offensive missile the "peacekeeper". And the name of Don the Con's bill making it harder to vote (I'm blanking on the name but it starts with an 'S' and spells a fairly benign word.
In contrast, the Left takes sheep and dresses them up to be wolves. Take "defund the police". Only the wildest-eyed radical would support zeroing-out the police budget, which, unless police were willing to work for free and equipment repaired itself, would mean eliminating police entirely. Instead, a term "re-imagine policing", or even "reform policing" etc, is not only a more accurate description of what needs to happen, it's a lot less threatening. Heck, the word "socialist" is offputting to a lot of Americans-- the don't help themselves by using language that not only is inaccurate, but turns people off.
So my beef is that the Left picks verbiage that revs up their base, but alienates a lot of people who would otherwise be persuadable.
It's also interesting to me that many of the young, idealistic people who worked on FDR's new deal said in later books and interviews that they recognized they were saving capitalism from itself!
Agree totally. Words matter. And the right-wing has been determining what words are used for decades. We need to do better.
We need to stop calling them "conservative." They're not. They are radical anarcho-fascists. We need to hang that around their necks. We need to make Nick Fuentes and Stephen Miller the face of the Republican Party.
We need to give James Carville a gold watch and a rocking chair.
Most of all, we need to tell the circular firing squad we always seem to summon to stand down.
Several Republicans in Congress (including Maryland's lone GOP congresscritter) have backed a bill to repeal the 17th Amendment that created direct election of US Senators by popular vote. Reactionary hardly begins to describe these people.
"Defund the police" targeting the Democratic Party as a whole, was entirely the media carrying water for the Republicans, as they are doing again with this socialist panic.
"Defund the police" originated with some members - who hated both political parties, not incidentally - of the BLM, and iirc, it was ONLY adopted by Cora Bush, Missouri Congresswoman (who subsequently lost her election). Yet, there was Biden, and other Democrats, having to say over and over that the slogan had nothing to do with them; they didn't believe in it; never said it. Over and over.
Hear hear! While at it, it's time to recognize that the 'mainstream' (legacy) media has been corporatized, click-and-profit focused, and biased to their own, and Trump's agenda. Much of responsible journalism has been silenced.
The MSM and Corporate Democrats want to maintain their power and the status quo. That most assuredly is not what we need right now. We have to send Democratic voices to Congress in the biggest numbers in years. Our job is to get them together so they can shutdown the tRump corruption machine. We are not going to be making new laws until after 2028, because tRump or his successor will veto anything they get passed… For now, let’s learn cold the difference between communism, socialism, fascism, and social democracy. And then we can have a heart-to-heart about all the misinformation they are being fed.
We also need to stop using the smear "corporate" Democrats. I'm a little salty about this right now because it was used effectively against Diana Degette, who is one of the most progressive members of the House.
Democrats are out for blood right now - they want scrappy candidates. I wasn't watching that race, so I don't know why they went for the younger candidate.
And remind America to pay attention to what those who are proud to call themselves Democratic Socialists are accomplishing. Jen Rubin calls attention to this, via Mamdani:
“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.”
I saw a comment on the Contrarian saying, I can’t stand the ideology of Democratic Socialists. I say, Look beyond how they’re being typecast and ask what they are accomplishing. I see good things happening in my community because of their work.
Democratic Socialists have been winning elections in my Chicago neighborhood for the past seven years, beating mainstream democrats backed by the party powerful. They know how to turn out the vote, and it’s not through mass mailing of flyers and negative messaging. They’ve earned their way to leadership roles by representing and fighting for the concerns of people living in the community. Impressively, they collaborate with each other across levels of government, knowing this increases their organizational power. Most, if not all of them, are Latino. Trump’s first term spurred them to run for office and organize. With each election, they win another elected office—local, county, start, federal. Please don’t think this movement is coming from New York City (the east coast bias). It’s been influencing Chicago politics since before Mamdani.
To me it is an open question about how this kind of political effort will fair, say, in southern Illinois. Even in Illinois, in the current political climate, impulses to defund initiatives that support diversity, for example in education, get too much attention/respect.
The media loves "hair on fire" stories, especially "Democrats in disarray." (They worship that storyline.) But each is different. While I'm absolutely livid about Melat Kiros lying her way into defeating one of the most progressive members of Congress, Diana Degette, who helped lead Trump's impeachment and is ranked more progressive than all members of "The Squad," and Darializa Avila Chevalier is likely to disgrace herself much as Cori Bush did, other "socialist" wins are much less alarming. New York's Brad Lander is deeply experienced and highly credible and was my first choice for NYC mayor. He is likely to be very effective in Congress.
At the risk of stating the obvious, Democratic socialists are not going to run in moderate or swing districts, so they can't hurt the chances of victory there. Their positions are popular, and Trump is going to call Democrats "Godless communists" no matter who runs - in fact, he just did. We could reasonably ask how someone with no detectable religious beliefs or values can claim that James Talarico, a Presbyterian seminary student, is Godless, but that is how Trump rolls.
The danger -- and their strategy -- is to convince moderates that the godless communists have taken over the party. That's been the plan all along. Face it -- AOC is famous in large part because Fox and the rest of the echo chamber have been hard at work, making her the face of the Party.
What Jennifer Rubin seems to be attempting to point out is that it's time to stop listening to the chaff thrown out by those who are trying to appear relevant. It does take some application of critical thinking.
Unfortunately, she's preaching to the choir. Voters whose critical thinking seems to go on long vacations don't read these substacks. They repeatedly succumb to right wing efforts to instill cognitive dissonance.
I am not totally sure that your position holds. Just as a few Republicans are breaking away from the cult, a few are reading the Substacks and paying no attention to the MSM. We need to attract fence-sitters and Independents.
She is only the 25th most progressive member of Congress. Why don't they go after Becca Balint or Adelina Grijalva, two of the six women tied for #1? (Interestingly, 10 of the 11 most progressive members are women, and the amazing Maxwell Frost, the sole man in the top 10 (which includes 11 people due to ties), does not get enough credit, especially when people are whining about how the olds should step aside. Max is 29! (The top ten actually represent a nice age spread, with two who are 71, two in their 30s and the rest all in their 40s and 50s).
Is my state of MI, moderate or swing? I would say so, since we voted to help elect Trump twice. We have Abdul El Sayed, a Muslim, running for Gary Peter's Senate seat. He is not calling himself a Democratic Socialist, but he has been endorsed by nearly everyone who does.
He was just also endorsed by National Indivisible after a poll they sent out to members - Which one do you want us to endorse? El Sayed, or corporate sell-out, AIPAC supported Haley Stevens? As IF there is only a binary choice!
That pissed me off, because I want Mallory McMorrow, who I think is plenty progressive and more electable - in Michigan.
"But legacy media remains determined — in the midst of our acute democratic crisis — to chase after every horse-race political process it can concoct."
Truer words were never spoken, and definitely apply to the moribund Washington Post.
But take heart, Ms. Rubin. The vast majority of Post readers who still stick around regularly denounce their sophomoric editorial views and barely-concealed libertarian screeds that emanate from the greedy self-interest of Bezos and his billionaire buds.
It's embarrassing, and we do not let it pass uncensured.
Once again you have nailed it. I particularly like that you punctured Carville's balloon. The man has absolutely nothing of use to contribute to any political discussion. He is a has-been on steroids.
Me too. His name on an email earns an instant delete, along with "bad news," "not the email we wanted to send," "We're not going to sugarcoat this," and "please don't delete." I have a list of headers like that that I despise.
Thank you for speaking my mind. I would add 3) Skip legacy media horse race polls. The election is months away, and many of us are trying to enjoy our summer before paying attention. The takeaway from the polls is that Rs in office are deeply unpopular so if we work hard to get out the vote, we will take the Senate, along with the House.
Yes indeed Jen. But I have long observed that the Dem machine would rather eat their young than rock their comfortable fat-ass boat. I remember 1968. Same thing happened. And we wound up with Tricky Dick
The 1968 election was especially strange because it had a strong third-party candidate (George Wallace) who carried several states in the Deep South. Without him, Hubert Humphrey would have won. And yes, Tricky Dick was totally crooked.
Not exactly. Even if all Wallace's votes went to Humphrey, he still would've been short— but close. Still there were other factors that might have given him the win if Wallace weren't in the race. RFK's assassination was another factor that threw everything off the rails.
I remember 1968 too and I'm not sure what you're saying. That was an incredibly unique year with a president dropping out at the last minute over an unpopular war, a leading candidate assassinated and an openly racist independent scarfing up nearly 4 dozen electoral votes. I don't see any lessons there for today.
Absolutely correct Jen, no way a Democratic Socialist will run in Alabama or the South or any moderate state. If they win in New York. Great. If we can get any Democrat to win in the South that still helps it’s a matter of them all working together for the common good. I hope they can make progress where it’s needed. MSM is stoking fear.
Not with the Democratic Socialist label, but how do you explain, for instance, Senators Warnock and Ossoff in Georgia, or candidates like Justin Pearson in Tennessee and (former senator) Doug Jones in Alabama? They're progressive, economically and politically. Too many "moderates" and "centrists" pull out the "common good" rhetoric at election time, then it's same old same-old once they get elected. Which, given how much $$$ is needed to get elected, is not all that surprising. It's also worth noting that racism is thriving in the South -- look at what's happening in Louisiana, and don't get me started about Texas. Republicans know that suppressing the Black vote is crucial to their electoral fortunes.
Pearson hasn't won yet outside a deep blue district. Jones won statewide due to a uniquely corrupt opponent. With the huge, flourishing Black economy in the Atlantic area, Georgia is unique in the south.
Totally agree. I am already tired of seeing headlines of Josh Shapiro having profound differences of opinion with one of the NYC primary winners. As a Pennsylvanian I am only interested in what Josh Shapiro is doing to ensure that he continues to serve his constituents well and stomp his ignorant MAGA competitor in November. Frankly, I'm sure that most voters in other states could care less what the Pennsylvania Governor thinks about a potential US House Representative that would not be representing PA.
The GOP convention in Texas and Trump campaigning for the midterms is far more of an issue that Republicans should be sweating over. This is something that will not be good for the GOP since it will continually remind voters what and who they don't like.
I'd like to see some new laws regarding just how dishonest media can be before it gets shut down. It's a virus and it should be dealt with like a virus. Fox News is a public health emergency. Seriously.
About 2028: The Republican Party had no qualified presidential candidates in 2016. If that's changed at all, it's for the worse.
About the socialist freakout: The U.S. has a long history of opposition to capitalist excess. It also has a long history of freaking out about "socialism." The crucial achievement of the New Deal was that it brought run-amok capitalism (which had just crashed the world economy) under control. (This is why Big Capital hated FDR.) The U.S. prospered in the following decades. (OK, World War II helped, especially the fact that the U.S., unlike Europe, Japan, and Southeast Asia, wasn't devastated by it.) Then along came Reagan, who used racism (etc.) to sell "the masses" on run-amok capitalism, and Republican presidents packed the Supreme Court with the "justices" who decided Citizens United. We were struggling to recover under Obama and Biden, but we're backsliding in a big way now.
Trump II has exposed for all to see what run-amok capitalism leads to. Compared to our counterparts in parliamentary democracies, USians are abysmally ignorant about economics. Do voters who claim to have voted for Trump because of "inflation" know what causes inflation? I suspect not. I suspect the big appeal was the racist "America First" rhetoric, and that's why around 35% of the electorate still approves of him.
Is it any surprise that rank-and-file Democratic voters have turned their backs on the billionaire donor class? These "influencers" may bellow all they want about being snubbed, but their way doesn't serve or help the average voter, and the voters have figured it out. As a result, their focus has changed. This is part of the purported large tent of the party. We tried one way and it has primarily only benefitted a minority - wealthy and noisy.
As for Trump attempting to remain relevant, the sun is setting faster the more spectacular his blunders and bluster become. Becoming more wealthy at the expense of domestic and international emolument violations still shows that (according to The Guardian today) he still can't buy respect or love. Fear isn't it. Anyone he puts up for a 2028 presidential candidate will be tainted.
Timid Dems with tepid policies and sketchy financial backing are the reason voters have a low opinion of the party as a whole. Most people look at the party and see a group that's too weak to deal with a corrupt, autocratic president because they're too afraid the people damaging our country will call them names; too afraid to take on the Epstein class because those are the people propping up their campaigns, too.
The platform Zohran Mamdani ran on NYC isn't wildly different from the ones Mikey Sherrill and Abigail Spanberger ran on in NJ and VA. It's not a world apart from the one Jon Ossoff is running on in GA. Or James Talarico in TX. Or Roy Cooper here in NC. Affordability, accountability, tackling public corruption, centering average Americans not billionaires. Different candidates, who land on different parts of the Dem spectrum, all have the same clear-eyed view of the country, its problems, and who they really represent. It seems that candidates who are unabashed in promoting the interests of average Americans while taking on the blatant, lavish corruption of the Trump regime are doing pretty well with voters. While the timid, tepid class write 'strongly worded' pearl clutching articles. I know who I'd vote for.
Love this and totally agree!! Let's keep our eyes on what's really at stake!! Thank you!
The mainstream media are all in on the Socialist Menace story line. Saw one this morning titled "The Socialist Guillotine is Coming for the Democratic Party." Evidently, a couple of primaries in Manhattan are comparable to1789 Paris.
We need to spread the word about the difference between Socialism and Democratic Socialism, and to remind America that healthy debate and peaceful change is still possible -- no matter what magaloids may believe.
We are a democratic socialist country already. Social Security, Medicare, public schools, public universities, public parks, public transportation, public utilities (along with regulated private ones), public streets. What we don't have that we could really use is single payer health care or a public option.
I can remember when Slippery Dick said "We are all Keynesians."
I agree, the Democratic Socialists are really successors to the New Deal and Great Society but they're not "socialists" in the conventional sense of calling for government to own the means of production.
That said, they reflect a frustrating problem I've seen in the Left for a long time now. The right wing is masterful at "putting a wolf in sheep's clothing". By that they put forth some nauseating proposals but give then benign, soothing names. Witness Reagan's dubbing an offensive missile the "peacekeeper". And the name of Don the Con's bill making it harder to vote (I'm blanking on the name but it starts with an 'S' and spells a fairly benign word.
In contrast, the Left takes sheep and dresses them up to be wolves. Take "defund the police". Only the wildest-eyed radical would support zeroing-out the police budget, which, unless police were willing to work for free and equipment repaired itself, would mean eliminating police entirely. Instead, a term "re-imagine policing", or even "reform policing" etc, is not only a more accurate description of what needs to happen, it's a lot less threatening. Heck, the word "socialist" is offputting to a lot of Americans-- the don't help themselves by using language that not only is inaccurate, but turns people off.
So my beef is that the Left picks verbiage that revs up their base, but alienates a lot of people who would otherwise be persuadable.
It's also interesting to me that many of the young, idealistic people who worked on FDR's new deal said in later books and interviews that they recognized they were saving capitalism from itself!
Agree totally. Words matter. And the right-wing has been determining what words are used for decades. We need to do better.
We need to stop calling them "conservative." They're not. They are radical anarcho-fascists. We need to hang that around their necks. We need to make Nick Fuentes and Stephen Miller the face of the Republican Party.
We need to give James Carville a gold watch and a rocking chair.
Most of all, we need to tell the circular firing squad we always seem to summon to stand down.
Several Republicans in Congress (including Maryland's lone GOP congresscritter) have backed a bill to repeal the 17th Amendment that created direct election of US Senators by popular vote. Reactionary hardly begins to describe these people.
We all need to learn the history of why the 17th amendment was passed: rampant, excessive corruption.
Ah, just as we're enduring today. Just think, it could be worse.
Please don't say that.
Amen, brother.
Nothing gets me to delete an email faster than seeing James Carville's name on it.
Carville has always been a centrist. He married a conservative and he's lost touch with current politics
I remember when they were pushing the "look at the cute conservative/liberal couple" narrative. I always thought it was gross.
Thr medua just loved that story, didn't they?
Clinton was a moderate, corporate Democrat.
Obama was basically a centrist,but the media acted as if both men were Che Guevara
"Defund the police" targeting the Democratic Party as a whole, was entirely the media carrying water for the Republicans, as they are doing again with this socialist panic.
"Defund the police" originated with some members - who hated both political parties, not incidentally - of the BLM, and iirc, it was ONLY adopted by Cora Bush, Missouri Congresswoman (who subsequently lost her election). Yet, there was Biden, and other Democrats, having to say over and over that the slogan had nothing to do with them; they didn't believe in it; never said it. Over and over.
🎯🎯🎯🎯
The media ran with a sound bite said by a very small group of extremists.
Legacy media is run by and for thr oligarchs.
You hit the nail in the head, thank you!
Hear hear! While at it, it's time to recognize that the 'mainstream' (legacy) media has been corporatized, click-and-profit focused, and biased to their own, and Trump's agenda. Much of responsible journalism has been silenced.
They will never give up worshipping their "Democrats in disarray" storyline and will turn over the furniture to find it.
Read Paul Krugman's substack today.
Yes, exactly!
The MSM and Corporate Democrats want to maintain their power and the status quo. That most assuredly is not what we need right now. We have to send Democratic voices to Congress in the biggest numbers in years. Our job is to get them together so they can shutdown the tRump corruption machine. We are not going to be making new laws until after 2028, because tRump or his successor will veto anything they get passed… For now, let’s learn cold the difference between communism, socialism, fascism, and social democracy. And then we can have a heart-to-heart about all the misinformation they are being fed.
We also need to stop using the smear "corporate" Democrats. I'm a little salty about this right now because it was used effectively against Diana Degette, who is one of the most progressive members of the House.
Democrats are out for blood right now - they want scrappy candidates. I wasn't watching that race, so I don't know why they went for the younger candidate.
Probably youth, plus a lot of generic smear — "corporate," "AIAPC AIPAC squawk squawk"
And remind America to pay attention to what those who are proud to call themselves Democratic Socialists are accomplishing. Jen Rubin calls attention to this, via Mamdani:
“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.”
I saw a comment on the Contrarian saying, I can’t stand the ideology of Democratic Socialists. I say, Look beyond how they’re being typecast and ask what they are accomplishing. I see good things happening in my community because of their work.
Democratic Socialists have been winning elections in my Chicago neighborhood for the past seven years, beating mainstream democrats backed by the party powerful. They know how to turn out the vote, and it’s not through mass mailing of flyers and negative messaging. They’ve earned their way to leadership roles by representing and fighting for the concerns of people living in the community. Impressively, they collaborate with each other across levels of government, knowing this increases their organizational power. Most, if not all of them, are Latino. Trump’s first term spurred them to run for office and organize. With each election, they win another elected office—local, county, start, federal. Please don’t think this movement is coming from New York City (the east coast bias). It’s been influencing Chicago politics since before Mamdani.
To me it is an open question about how this kind of political effort will fair, say, in southern Illinois. Even in Illinois, in the current political climate, impulses to defund initiatives that support diversity, for example in education, get too much attention/respect.
The media loves "hair on fire" stories, especially "Democrats in disarray." (They worship that storyline.) But each is different. While I'm absolutely livid about Melat Kiros lying her way into defeating one of the most progressive members of Congress, Diana Degette, who helped lead Trump's impeachment and is ranked more progressive than all members of "The Squad," and Darializa Avila Chevalier is likely to disgrace herself much as Cori Bush did, other "socialist" wins are much less alarming. New York's Brad Lander is deeply experienced and highly credible and was my first choice for NYC mayor. He is likely to be very effective in Congress.
like magaloids, good one !
At the risk of stating the obvious, Democratic socialists are not going to run in moderate or swing districts, so they can't hurt the chances of victory there. Their positions are popular, and Trump is going to call Democrats "Godless communists" no matter who runs - in fact, he just did. We could reasonably ask how someone with no detectable religious beliefs or values can claim that James Talarico, a Presbyterian seminary student, is Godless, but that is how Trump rolls.
The danger -- and their strategy -- is to convince moderates that the godless communists have taken over the party. That's been the plan all along. Face it -- AOC is famous in large part because Fox and the rest of the echo chamber have been hard at work, making her the face of the Party.
What Jennifer Rubin seems to be attempting to point out is that it's time to stop listening to the chaff thrown out by those who are trying to appear relevant. It does take some application of critical thinking.
Unfortunately, she's preaching to the choir. Voters whose critical thinking seems to go on long vacations don't read these substacks. They repeatedly succumb to right wing efforts to instill cognitive dissonance.
I am not totally sure that your position holds. Just as a few Republicans are breaking away from the cult, a few are reading the Substacks and paying no attention to the MSM. We need to attract fence-sitters and Independents.
We can agree there.
She is only the 25th most progressive member of Congress. Why don't they go after Becca Balint or Adelina Grijalva, two of the six women tied for #1? (Interestingly, 10 of the 11 most progressive members are women, and the amazing Maxwell Frost, the sole man in the top 10 (which includes 11 people due to ties), does not get enough credit, especially when people are whining about how the olds should step aside. Max is 29! (The top ten actually represent a nice age spread, with two who are 71, two in their 30s and the rest all in their 40s and 50s).
I rather like her. She's intelligent and articulate. I don't agree with her on everything. That shouldn't be a problem.
It works here in Baghdad By the Sea.
All politics is (and are) local.
Is my state of MI, moderate or swing? I would say so, since we voted to help elect Trump twice. We have Abdul El Sayed, a Muslim, running for Gary Peter's Senate seat. He is not calling himself a Democratic Socialist, but he has been endorsed by nearly everyone who does.
He was just also endorsed by National Indivisible after a poll they sent out to members - Which one do you want us to endorse? El Sayed, or corporate sell-out, AIPAC supported Haley Stevens? As IF there is only a binary choice!
That pissed me off, because I want Mallory McMorrow, who I think is plenty progressive and more electable - in Michigan.
Oneof your best columns ever
Seems to me Democratic Socialists could re-label themselves "Old-fashioned Democrats." That's what their values align with.
"But legacy media remains determined — in the midst of our acute democratic crisis — to chase after every horse-race political process it can concoct."
Truer words were never spoken, and definitely apply to the moribund Washington Post.
But take heart, Ms. Rubin. The vast majority of Post readers who still stick around regularly denounce their sophomoric editorial views and barely-concealed libertarian screeds that emanate from the greedy self-interest of Bezos and his billionaire buds.
It's embarrassing, and we do not let it pass uncensured.
Absolutely. The Washington Post's first pass at "ranking the 2028 candidates" in February included Kristi Noem among the "second tier." Whoops!
Once again you have nailed it. I particularly like that you punctured Carville's balloon. The man has absolutely nothing of use to contribute to any political discussion. He is a has-been on steroids.
I deep-six every fundraising appeal that has Carville's name or mug on it, even though some of them come from candidates I might otherwise support.
Me too. His name on an email earns an instant delete, along with "bad news," "not the email we wanted to send," "We're not going to sugarcoat this," and "please don't delete." I have a list of headers like that that I despise.
Thank you for speaking my mind. I would add 3) Skip legacy media horse race polls. The election is months away, and many of us are trying to enjoy our summer before paying attention. The takeaway from the polls is that Rs in office are deeply unpopular so if we work hard to get out the vote, we will take the Senate, along with the House.
Yes indeed Jen. But I have long observed that the Dem machine would rather eat their young than rock their comfortable fat-ass boat. I remember 1968. Same thing happened. And we wound up with Tricky Dick
I am told by high-ranking government officials that Tricky Dick wasn't so bad. /s
The 1968 election was especially strange because it had a strong third-party candidate (George Wallace) who carried several states in the Deep South. Without him, Hubert Humphrey would have won. And yes, Tricky Dick was totally crooked.
Not exactly. Even if all Wallace's votes went to Humphrey, he still would've been short— but close. Still there were other factors that might have given him the win if Wallace weren't in the race. RFK's assassination was another factor that threw everything off the rails.
I remember 1968 too and I'm not sure what you're saying. That was an incredibly unique year with a president dropping out at the last minute over an unpopular war, a leading candidate assassinated and an openly racist independent scarfing up nearly 4 dozen electoral votes. I don't see any lessons there for today.
Absolutely correct Jen, no way a Democratic Socialist will run in Alabama or the South or any moderate state. If they win in New York. Great. If we can get any Democrat to win in the South that still helps it’s a matter of them all working together for the common good. I hope they can make progress where it’s needed. MSM is stoking fear.
Not with the Democratic Socialist label, but how do you explain, for instance, Senators Warnock and Ossoff in Georgia, or candidates like Justin Pearson in Tennessee and (former senator) Doug Jones in Alabama? They're progressive, economically and politically. Too many "moderates" and "centrists" pull out the "common good" rhetoric at election time, then it's same old same-old once they get elected. Which, given how much $$$ is needed to get elected, is not all that surprising. It's also worth noting that racism is thriving in the South -- look at what's happening in Louisiana, and don't get me started about Texas. Republicans know that suppressing the Black vote is crucial to their electoral fortunes.
Pearson hasn't won yet outside a deep blue district. Jones won statewide due to a uniquely corrupt opponent. With the huge, flourishing Black economy in the Atlantic area, Georgia is unique in the south.
Totally agree. I am already tired of seeing headlines of Josh Shapiro having profound differences of opinion with one of the NYC primary winners. As a Pennsylvanian I am only interested in what Josh Shapiro is doing to ensure that he continues to serve his constituents well and stomp his ignorant MAGA competitor in November. Frankly, I'm sure that most voters in other states could care less what the Pennsylvania Governor thinks about a potential US House Representative that would not be representing PA.
The GOP convention in Texas and Trump campaigning for the midterms is far more of an issue that Republicans should be sweating over. This is something that will not be good for the GOP since it will continually remind voters what and who they don't like.
Amen! Also, I have always loathed Carville. I block him and comes right back only to be deleted unread.
I don't get why candidates think having Carville sending an email on their behalf is a big score. I too delete the sight of his name.
I'd like to see some new laws regarding just how dishonest media can be before it gets shut down. It's a virus and it should be dealt with like a virus. Fox News is a public health emergency. Seriously.
About 2028: The Republican Party had no qualified presidential candidates in 2016. If that's changed at all, it's for the worse.
About the socialist freakout: The U.S. has a long history of opposition to capitalist excess. It also has a long history of freaking out about "socialism." The crucial achievement of the New Deal was that it brought run-amok capitalism (which had just crashed the world economy) under control. (This is why Big Capital hated FDR.) The U.S. prospered in the following decades. (OK, World War II helped, especially the fact that the U.S., unlike Europe, Japan, and Southeast Asia, wasn't devastated by it.) Then along came Reagan, who used racism (etc.) to sell "the masses" on run-amok capitalism, and Republican presidents packed the Supreme Court with the "justices" who decided Citizens United. We were struggling to recover under Obama and Biden, but we're backsliding in a big way now.
Trump II has exposed for all to see what run-amok capitalism leads to. Compared to our counterparts in parliamentary democracies, USians are abysmally ignorant about economics. Do voters who claim to have voted for Trump because of "inflation" know what causes inflation? I suspect not. I suspect the big appeal was the racist "America First" rhetoric, and that's why around 35% of the electorate still approves of him.
Is it any surprise that rank-and-file Democratic voters have turned their backs on the billionaire donor class? These "influencers" may bellow all they want about being snubbed, but their way doesn't serve or help the average voter, and the voters have figured it out. As a result, their focus has changed. This is part of the purported large tent of the party. We tried one way and it has primarily only benefitted a minority - wealthy and noisy.
As for Trump attempting to remain relevant, the sun is setting faster the more spectacular his blunders and bluster become. Becoming more wealthy at the expense of domestic and international emolument violations still shows that (according to The Guardian today) he still can't buy respect or love. Fear isn't it. Anyone he puts up for a 2028 presidential candidate will be tainted.
Timid Dems with tepid policies and sketchy financial backing are the reason voters have a low opinion of the party as a whole. Most people look at the party and see a group that's too weak to deal with a corrupt, autocratic president because they're too afraid the people damaging our country will call them names; too afraid to take on the Epstein class because those are the people propping up their campaigns, too.
The platform Zohran Mamdani ran on NYC isn't wildly different from the ones Mikey Sherrill and Abigail Spanberger ran on in NJ and VA. It's not a world apart from the one Jon Ossoff is running on in GA. Or James Talarico in TX. Or Roy Cooper here in NC. Affordability, accountability, tackling public corruption, centering average Americans not billionaires. Different candidates, who land on different parts of the Dem spectrum, all have the same clear-eyed view of the country, its problems, and who they really represent. It seems that candidates who are unabashed in promoting the interests of average Americans while taking on the blatant, lavish corruption of the Trump regime are doing pretty well with voters. While the timid, tepid class write 'strongly worded' pearl clutching articles. I know who I'd vote for.