Thank you for writing this article. Your perspective helped me frame my own. I was having trouble coming to terms with some of the past posts and positions of some of these progressive left wing candidates. I feel more focused now as a result of your article, and that focus will be as you suggest. “What I care about is, are they going to improve people’s lives in the next few years? Are they committed to solving the problems people face now?” And hopefully, we won’t be betrayed as we’ve been by the likes of Fetterman and several others.
Trump has shown us one thing. If we can afford the Big Beautiful Bill then we can afford to repeal it and provide Healthcare, Childcare and Education for all. Affordable housing is a need the market refuses to provide. Incentives to build the housing existed before Reagan overhauled the tax code in 1984. They were warned and they created a bandaid. Its not enough. We can afford to take care of everyone and the establishment Democratic Party just looks out of touch as do the Republicans. They have left no alternative to their demise.
Reagan ALSO legalized stock buybacks (back then considered to be market manipulation by pumping stock price), cut the corporate tax rate and reduced the individual highest marginal tax rate, creating a drought in revenue that helped the rich avoid taxes but harmed the rest of America in the process.
We have a trillionaire, nearly a thousand billionaires, and over 10,000 centi-millionaires ($100M+) currently: to say that "America can't afford to ensure healthcare so its citizens can be productive and healthy, provide good schools so we can compete as a nation on the global market, provide safety nets for our oldest, poorest, sickest and youngest, and ensure our veterans don't come home to homelessness and neglect" is BEYOND ridiculous.
Budgets indicate priorities: so Epstein Ballroom, Reflecting Pool grift, $40B to Argentina, impounded legislated funds, and bigger tax cuts to those with the most are clearly our national priority under the Republican cult's "leadership."
Among the multiple outrages of this regime is all the money being spent on nothing that anyone but Trump cares about. We could solve so many problems with the money going to war, a hideous arch, the reflecting pool, the gold-plating of statues, etc. Yet the GOP candidate for Senate in Montana has an ad talking about he's going to Washington to cut out wasteful spending. I'm sure Trump's ludicrous "beautification" project isn't what he means.
Paul, very incisive and smart piece. I hope these so-called moderates take the time to read it. We are currently in a crisis situation, and do not have time to hurl ad hominem attacks against popular Democrats, who are going to be representing our party in the fall. They are popular for a reason, and the so-called moderate should take heed of this fact on the ground.
If you take a look at the actual policy positions of each of the candidates, there are only shades of difference and emphasis. Why is advocating for Medicare for all a so-called radical position at this point in time in our history? That is patently ridiculous. Anyway keep up the good writing. I do appreciate it.
“The good news for moderates is that the vast majority of leftist Democrats actually want to govern. This is where the easy analogy many are making to the Tea Party breaks down.
“The Tea Partiers who got elected after Barack Obama took office did attack their party’s establishment in the same way the leftists are now, but once in office, they just wanted to wreak havoc — grind Congress to a halt, shut down the government, throw sand in every gear they could find.”
Indeed.
Further, I would argue that the Dems’ closest analog for the Tea Partiers—the ones throwing sand in the gears of real progress for the last few decades—are not the pragmatic leftists like AOC, Jayapal, or Mamdani but rather:
• corporate centrists like Kirsten Sinema, Joe Manchin, and Joe Lieberman;
• “pro-life” (anti-women’s-rights) centrists like Bart Stupak and Joe Pitts; and
• the alarming number of culture-war centrists willing to cast aside trans people, Black people, immigrants, and other vulnerable groups to (not) win the votes of bigots. For example, the eight House Democrats who in May 2026 voted for the mandatory outing of trans kids in H.R. 2616 The Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act.
She lied to voters like Fetterman did, as I understand it. Don't get down on yourself over it. If your choices were between Sinema and a Republican, you picked the right choice regardless of how awful she may have turned out to be.
Democratic socialists can also point to significant achievements in Mayor Mamdani's New York. And despite some initial grumbling, wealthy New Yorkers have not fled from the horror of having to pay higher taxes. Maybe it's occurred to them that if people can afford the basic necessities like food and housing they are less likely to sleep and panhandle on the street.
And people with good jobs spend more. They buy houses and cars, take vacations, send their kids to college, all of which are currently not doable for many people. And why not spend money on health care instead of wars? Why is so much money being spent by the Trump regime on things that we don't even benefit from? Trump seems to think there's a wallet he can reach into that has no bottom. He wants miliary spending, not health care, and he has said so publicly. He thinks the word "groceries" is somehow quaint and charming.
The right is gonna label the entire Democratic party radical any way. Heck they even labeled Joe Biden as a crazy leftist. Might as well take the big swings now while Republicans are literally toxic.
Thank you. I am so tired of purity politics. No candidate is going to be perfect in everyone's eyes. Obviously we don't condone outrageous behavior (looking at you, Platner), but we *do* need to take note of the obvious support that DSA and DSA-adjacent candidates are receiving. As you say: do we want Democrats to win, or are we going to go down in a mire of whining about supposed too-progressive perspectives?
Purity politics will ensure we go nowhere and get nothing done except a very great deal of bickering. Rebecca Solnit's observation applies here: "A vote is not a valentine -- you aren't confessing your love for a candidate. It's a chess move for the world you want to live in."
I do not want to live in a world of timidity, thinly veiled corporatism, Schumeresque "go along to get along," and unblinking acquiescence to a 40-year-old (or more) perception of the status quo while corrupt racists, religious zealots, and oligarchs manipulate and plunder our entire society.
I do want to live in a world in which prosperity is fostered and broadly shared, compassion is a virtue, education is valued and promoted, and the vulnerable are protected. There are many ways to make that happen. All of them require bold leadership, fresh energy, the willingness to bring new ideas and new approaches to bear, and the openness to other collaborative approaches. The point is to achieve discernible, measurable, meaningful results that actually improve people's lives on a broad scale.
Moderates: Lead, follow, or get out of the way. But don't just keep doing what you've been doing. It hasn't worked, and it won't work once we rid ourselves of the fascists and oligarchs. If all you're going to do is more of the same, please GTFOOTW.
I always say that if you are looking for "purity" to follow, you should choose religion instead of politics so you can get behind a flawless messiah.
But if you want someone to VOTE how YOU would vote, find someone who HAS (as a State lawmaker) and vote for them, rather than failing to vote because nobody is up to your standards.
Republicans voted for a 34-count convicted fraudster/adjudicated rapist/serial liar/proven bigot/sex pest --and insurrectionist, in direct violation of our Constitution!-- so we are worried about if our candidate said something we disagree with once sometime in the past when the very fabric of democracy is being threatened by a cult with NO remorse about violating our Constitution and ensuring that only "the right people" are allowed to vote?!?
Let's prioritize keeping America AMERICAN by actually following the "employee handbook" in our Constitution, and let's get RID of those who oppose it.
NY City mayor Ed Koch once said, "If you agree with me on 9 out of 12 issues, vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues, see a psychiatrist."
As Adam points out in this article, there are many centrist Democrats who are "issuing dark warnings about their party’s left turn" (to quote from the article).
The point I'm making is that the *voters* are saying what they want, and the centrists need to pay attention and stop panicking.
It's bullshit when you split hairs by saying "DSA" whatever that stands for. It's simple - stop doing that. One party, one set of candidates. No more futzing around when it's obvious what voters have been saying. Problem is, the Democrats don't listen.
I am always disturbed by how the rhetoric of reactionary moderates against the left is consistently indistinguishable from rightwing attacks on all Democrats. It’s almost as though the moderates are more aligned with the right than with the left. Carville’s a perfect example. He whines that he wants a divorce from a party that supports some leftwing ideas that he constantly bashes, but he is literally married to a rightwinger.
A great and relevant article,Paul.🤗 The American paranoia with socialism is almost ridiculous. Socialism is (easily put) a wish for the well being of all citizens. So many people in US struggle today, and having affordable prices, access to healthcare, parental leave is just common sense. Being a Norwegian I have grown up in a Labour/Socialist environment, and we can be proud of having achieved a good policy to help people. Yes, Norway is a smaller country, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be an example. Our wealth fund is managed with care so we always have funds available when situation asks for it. The Dems really need to pull their socks up and make sure they take either the House or the Senate or both. That is more important than anything else now.
May you all be well, greetings from the other side of the pond.🥰
My husband and I were in Norway a few years ago. We took an Uber to a place we wanted to visit and had a nice chat with the driver. He actually makes a living as an Uber driver and takes many long vacations. He doesn't have to worry about health insurance. That lifestyle, simply put, is impossible in the U.S. for an Uber driver.
"The good news for moderates is that the vast majority of leftist Democrats actually want to govern. This is where the easy analogy many are making to the Tea Party breaks down."
Indeed, voting RED is voting for continued autocratic RULE, not GOVERNING (making government serve the people).
For almost 2 years we have been ruled by a demented old man who is totally preoccupied with revenge for not being re-elected in 2020. Trump's behavior screams that he wants to tear down the entire government - our services, laws, economy, military, education, science - everything. He has alienated every global ally. Even our NYSE economy, which thrills billionaires, is likely just a bubble that will explode and take us all down with it. If we wait until 2028, it seems likely that Trump's revenge will end life in America as we have come to know it.
Michigan and Wisconsin are not Deep Blue like NYC. They are swing states with a lot of right-leaning independents and open primaries. DSA candidates have not won in swing districts or light red districts, only in Deep Blue districts. If I were a Republican, I would be rubbing my hands together in glee. They are probably organizing to send Republicans to the polls to vote for the candidate that's easiest to beat, namely the one that they can tar as a communist with the help of a compliant media.
To be clear, I am not a 'centrist, neoliberal, AIPAC-lover'. I am a pragmatic left-wing voter who is frankly horrified at the attacks by the DSA-backed candidates on the Democratic Party while using its infrastructure and resources. Bernie Sanders has indeed sabotaged the party, calling primaries 'rigged' because he couldn't accept the math: he lost to Clinton and Biden by nearly 4 million votes. He was defeated by the base of the party-Black and Jewish voters-and since then, the DSA, which is made up of 80% college-educated white members-has sought to minimize their voices in the party.
Progressives in Congress are more interested in railing on the soapboxes than doing the hard work of legislating. Compare any of the Squad to, for example Lauren Underwood, who has worked hard to pass meaningful legislation. Meanwhile, a certain congresswoman from Michigan spearheaded the Uncommitted movement and did not urge Arab-American voters to support Harris. Sorry, Paul, it's the DSA that has to decide whether they want to unify with the Democratic Party, or destroy it.
Trying to pick candidates on the criteria of "fox won't call them unhinged socialist commies" is pointless. They'll call ANYONE that.
To be clear, I'm no Bernie fan, and agree that he really fucked us when he called the 2016 primary rigged against him. And I have a lot of problems with the "class only, race never" wing of the progressive movement, but the current democratic party can't be described as anything but a failure. It lost to dubya and trump twice each. If they want to blame anyone for this, they need to look in a mirror.
Harris sprinted to the right on her campaign on the advice of the same consultants that lost the election to trump. She was out on tour with Liz fucking Cheney for God's sake. That was a middle finger to the actual democratic base, and it was done to try and win Republican voters that would never have voted for a Democrat no matter what.
The DSA doesn't have a stellar record, but neither does the current democratic party. Its seen as so weak and ineffectual that people are desperate enough to try anything else.
Also everything I said applies to the WI governor’s race as well. It’s good for leftists to run in very blue areas; we desperately need new ideas in the party, and they can win those elections and then have a chance to show they can govern effectively. Running far leftists in purple areas OTOH is political idiocy IMHO.
Precisely! All politics is local, as they say. Why vote for someone who doesn't reflect your views? Leave those centrists for the red areas where they can possibly win.
Nice exercise in mostly missing the point, at least for people like me. I’m not at all worried that the leftists will govern effectively; I live near Seattle and am familiar with Jaypal, and AOC is the quintessential example of a leftist that’s a good legislator and a good Democrat (though I’m appalled at her recent cozying up to MAHA and hope she cuts that out). What people like me are worried about is we’re throwing away must-win elections, particularly in MI. I’m no expert on MI politics, but I just don’t see any pathway to victory for someone as leftist as AES in a purple to light-blue state. Stevens has been a bad candidate, and the progression of this race, similar to ME, to my mind shows the idiocy of much of the Dem establishment. They needed to recognize the threat from AES, coalesce behind McMorrow, and push Stevens to drop out. As far as I’m aware none of that happened, and now MI is about to nominate someone who will probably be creamed in the general. I’m expecting a lot of recriminations when this is over, but I think they’ll be about electability, not about coalition governing.
Oh I have my problems with them, don't get me wrong. Anyone who sits out or votes third party needs a sharp kick in the dick.
But you can't blame losing to trump AND dubya bush twice each on Bernie bros. You can't blame the mass house/Senate/local losses on the progressive wing either.
I don't have any confidence in current democratic leadership. They've proven to be next to useless for the entirety of Trump's terms. If we keep running their playbook, we're not going to get better results.
My take on it is simple: Republicans have had FULL CONTROL over everything for nearly 2 years; and we now are in another Mideast forever war, have LESS focus on futurizing our energy economy, have FEWER allies and trading partners, have AMERICANS being killed in the streets by unaccountable Gestapo, watch kids get measles ("eradicated" years ago here), and see the looming healthcare crisis...ALL of this while the (R) cult has contorted to ensure that the TrumP Extended Crime Family gets anything they want at taxpayer expense AND has no culpability for crimes they commit.
THIS is Republican America: opposed to our Constitution and values, with election interference and lawlessness as a FEATURE, not a bug.
We must ALL vote to end the Republicans' assault on democracy (both HERE and abroad), and ensure that OUR government to whom we MUST pay taxes is using those tax dollars for MOST Americans, rather than as a personal gift/grift/graft basket to impound (Nixon's ghost is jealous) or simply outright steal.
VOTE IN NOVEMBER: in 13 weeks, we can either say we did all we could to help America continue, or stand idly and watch it fall to the fascist oligarchs who have bought the Republican crime cult. It's OUR nation and OUR choice.
Outstanding article. You nailed it. The Democrats rock-bottom polling is because they are perceived as an ineffective opposition party. If candidates to their left are winning, doesn’t that mean that that is what the people want? Isn’t that the definition of democracy?
Thank you for writing this article. Your perspective helped me frame my own. I was having trouble coming to terms with some of the past posts and positions of some of these progressive left wing candidates. I feel more focused now as a result of your article, and that focus will be as you suggest. “What I care about is, are they going to improve people’s lives in the next few years? Are they committed to solving the problems people face now?” And hopefully, we won’t be betrayed as we’ve been by the likes of Fetterman and several others.
What took you so long?
Trump has shown us one thing. If we can afford the Big Beautiful Bill then we can afford to repeal it and provide Healthcare, Childcare and Education for all. Affordable housing is a need the market refuses to provide. Incentives to build the housing existed before Reagan overhauled the tax code in 1984. They were warned and they created a bandaid. Its not enough. We can afford to take care of everyone and the establishment Democratic Party just looks out of touch as do the Republicans. They have left no alternative to their demise.
Reagan ALSO legalized stock buybacks (back then considered to be market manipulation by pumping stock price), cut the corporate tax rate and reduced the individual highest marginal tax rate, creating a drought in revenue that helped the rich avoid taxes but harmed the rest of America in the process.
We have a trillionaire, nearly a thousand billionaires, and over 10,000 centi-millionaires ($100M+) currently: to say that "America can't afford to ensure healthcare so its citizens can be productive and healthy, provide good schools so we can compete as a nation on the global market, provide safety nets for our oldest, poorest, sickest and youngest, and ensure our veterans don't come home to homelessness and neglect" is BEYOND ridiculous.
Budgets indicate priorities: so Epstein Ballroom, Reflecting Pool grift, $40B to Argentina, impounded legislated funds, and bigger tax cuts to those with the most are clearly our national priority under the Republican cult's "leadership."
Among the multiple outrages of this regime is all the money being spent on nothing that anyone but Trump cares about. We could solve so many problems with the money going to war, a hideous arch, the reflecting pool, the gold-plating of statues, etc. Yet the GOP candidate for Senate in Montana has an ad talking about he's going to Washington to cut out wasteful spending. I'm sure Trump's ludicrous "beautification" project isn't what he means.
Paul, very incisive and smart piece. I hope these so-called moderates take the time to read it. We are currently in a crisis situation, and do not have time to hurl ad hominem attacks against popular Democrats, who are going to be representing our party in the fall. They are popular for a reason, and the so-called moderate should take heed of this fact on the ground.
If you take a look at the actual policy positions of each of the candidates, there are only shades of difference and emphasis. Why is advocating for Medicare for all a so-called radical position at this point in time in our history? That is patently ridiculous. Anyway keep up the good writing. I do appreciate it.
“The good news for moderates is that the vast majority of leftist Democrats actually want to govern. This is where the easy analogy many are making to the Tea Party breaks down.
“The Tea Partiers who got elected after Barack Obama took office did attack their party’s establishment in the same way the leftists are now, but once in office, they just wanted to wreak havoc — grind Congress to a halt, shut down the government, throw sand in every gear they could find.”
Indeed.
Further, I would argue that the Dems’ closest analog for the Tea Partiers—the ones throwing sand in the gears of real progress for the last few decades—are not the pragmatic leftists like AOC, Jayapal, or Mamdani but rather:
• corporate centrists like Kirsten Sinema, Joe Manchin, and Joe Lieberman;
• “pro-life” (anti-women’s-rights) centrists like Bart Stupak and Joe Pitts; and
• the alarming number of culture-war centrists willing to cast aside trans people, Black people, immigrants, and other vulnerable groups to (not) win the votes of bigots. For example, the eight House Democrats who in May 2026 voted for the mandatory outing of trans kids in H.R. 2616 The Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act.
I for on sure do regret my vote for Kirsten Sinema!
She lied to voters like Fetterman did, as I understand it. Don't get down on yourself over it. If your choices were between Sinema and a Republican, you picked the right choice regardless of how awful she may have turned out to be.
Democratic socialists can also point to significant achievements in Mayor Mamdani's New York. And despite some initial grumbling, wealthy New Yorkers have not fled from the horror of having to pay higher taxes. Maybe it's occurred to them that if people can afford the basic necessities like food and housing they are less likely to sleep and panhandle on the street.
And people with good jobs spend more. They buy houses and cars, take vacations, send their kids to college, all of which are currently not doable for many people. And why not spend money on health care instead of wars? Why is so much money being spent by the Trump regime on things that we don't even benefit from? Trump seems to think there's a wallet he can reach into that has no bottom. He wants miliary spending, not health care, and he has said so publicly. He thinks the word "groceries" is somehow quaint and charming.
The right is gonna label the entire Democratic party radical any way. Heck they even labeled Joe Biden as a crazy leftist. Might as well take the big swings now while Republicans are literally toxic.
I don't think the "leftist" and "communist" labels are going to stick.
Thank you. I am so tired of purity politics. No candidate is going to be perfect in everyone's eyes. Obviously we don't condone outrageous behavior (looking at you, Platner), but we *do* need to take note of the obvious support that DSA and DSA-adjacent candidates are receiving. As you say: do we want Democrats to win, or are we going to go down in a mire of whining about supposed too-progressive perspectives?
Purity politics = losing politics.
Purity politics will ensure we go nowhere and get nothing done except a very great deal of bickering. Rebecca Solnit's observation applies here: "A vote is not a valentine -- you aren't confessing your love for a candidate. It's a chess move for the world you want to live in."
I do not want to live in a world of timidity, thinly veiled corporatism, Schumeresque "go along to get along," and unblinking acquiescence to a 40-year-old (or more) perception of the status quo while corrupt racists, religious zealots, and oligarchs manipulate and plunder our entire society.
I do want to live in a world in which prosperity is fostered and broadly shared, compassion is a virtue, education is valued and promoted, and the vulnerable are protected. There are many ways to make that happen. All of them require bold leadership, fresh energy, the willingness to bring new ideas and new approaches to bear, and the openness to other collaborative approaches. The point is to achieve discernible, measurable, meaningful results that actually improve people's lives on a broad scale.
Moderates: Lead, follow, or get out of the way. But don't just keep doing what you've been doing. It hasn't worked, and it won't work once we rid ourselves of the fascists and oligarchs. If all you're going to do is more of the same, please GTFOOTW.
I *love* Solnit's point in that quote. Thank you.
There's that old saying about doing the same thing and expecting different results...
I always say that if you are looking for "purity" to follow, you should choose religion instead of politics so you can get behind a flawless messiah.
But if you want someone to VOTE how YOU would vote, find someone who HAS (as a State lawmaker) and vote for them, rather than failing to vote because nobody is up to your standards.
Republicans voted for a 34-count convicted fraudster/adjudicated rapist/serial liar/proven bigot/sex pest --and insurrectionist, in direct violation of our Constitution!-- so we are worried about if our candidate said something we disagree with once sometime in the past when the very fabric of democracy is being threatened by a cult with NO remorse about violating our Constitution and ensuring that only "the right people" are allowed to vote?!?
Let's prioritize keeping America AMERICAN by actually following the "employee handbook" in our Constitution, and let's get RID of those who oppose it.
"Employee handbook" - love it.
NY City mayor Ed Koch once said, "If you agree with me on 9 out of 12 issues, vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues, see a psychiatrist."
Right.
"but we *do* need to take note of the obvious support that DSA and DSA-adjacent candidates are receiving. "
Bullshit. Just what is your complaint?
As Adam points out in this article, there are many centrist Democrats who are "issuing dark warnings about their party’s left turn" (to quote from the article).
The point I'm making is that the *voters* are saying what they want, and the centrists need to pay attention and stop panicking.
I'm not sure why you're saying that's "bullshit."
It's bullshit when you split hairs by saying "DSA" whatever that stands for. It's simple - stop doing that. One party, one set of candidates. No more futzing around when it's obvious what voters have been saying. Problem is, the Democrats don't listen.
DSA = Democratic Socialists of America.
Zohran Mamdani, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, to name a few.
I agree that we need to focus on what Democrat voters are saying. That was precisely my point.
Democratic, not Democrat.
Forgive me; you are correct, that was a typo.
I'm pretty sure you know what I mean, though.
I am always disturbed by how the rhetoric of reactionary moderates against the left is consistently indistinguishable from rightwing attacks on all Democrats. It’s almost as though the moderates are more aligned with the right than with the left. Carville’s a perfect example. He whines that he wants a divorce from a party that supports some leftwing ideas that he constantly bashes, but he is literally married to a rightwinger.
A great and relevant article,Paul.🤗 The American paranoia with socialism is almost ridiculous. Socialism is (easily put) a wish for the well being of all citizens. So many people in US struggle today, and having affordable prices, access to healthcare, parental leave is just common sense. Being a Norwegian I have grown up in a Labour/Socialist environment, and we can be proud of having achieved a good policy to help people. Yes, Norway is a smaller country, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be an example. Our wealth fund is managed with care so we always have funds available when situation asks for it. The Dems really need to pull their socks up and make sure they take either the House or the Senate or both. That is more important than anything else now.
May you all be well, greetings from the other side of the pond.🥰
My husband and I were in Norway a few years ago. We took an Uber to a place we wanted to visit and had a nice chat with the driver. He actually makes a living as an Uber driver and takes many long vacations. He doesn't have to worry about health insurance. That lifestyle, simply put, is impossible in the U.S. for an Uber driver.
Or anybody else.
"The good news for moderates is that the vast majority of leftist Democrats actually want to govern. This is where the easy analogy many are making to the Tea Party breaks down."
Indeed, voting RED is voting for continued autocratic RULE, not GOVERNING (making government serve the people).
For almost 2 years we have been ruled by a demented old man who is totally preoccupied with revenge for not being re-elected in 2020. Trump's behavior screams that he wants to tear down the entire government - our services, laws, economy, military, education, science - everything. He has alienated every global ally. Even our NYSE economy, which thrills billionaires, is likely just a bubble that will explode and take us all down with it. If we wait until 2028, it seems likely that Trump's revenge will end life in America as we have come to know it.
Michigan and Wisconsin are not Deep Blue like NYC. They are swing states with a lot of right-leaning independents and open primaries. DSA candidates have not won in swing districts or light red districts, only in Deep Blue districts. If I were a Republican, I would be rubbing my hands together in glee. They are probably organizing to send Republicans to the polls to vote for the candidate that's easiest to beat, namely the one that they can tar as a communist with the help of a compliant media.
To be clear, I am not a 'centrist, neoliberal, AIPAC-lover'. I am a pragmatic left-wing voter who is frankly horrified at the attacks by the DSA-backed candidates on the Democratic Party while using its infrastructure and resources. Bernie Sanders has indeed sabotaged the party, calling primaries 'rigged' because he couldn't accept the math: he lost to Clinton and Biden by nearly 4 million votes. He was defeated by the base of the party-Black and Jewish voters-and since then, the DSA, which is made up of 80% college-educated white members-has sought to minimize their voices in the party.
Progressives in Congress are more interested in railing on the soapboxes than doing the hard work of legislating. Compare any of the Squad to, for example Lauren Underwood, who has worked hard to pass meaningful legislation. Meanwhile, a certain congresswoman from Michigan spearheaded the Uncommitted movement and did not urge Arab-American voters to support Harris. Sorry, Paul, it's the DSA that has to decide whether they want to unify with the Democratic Party, or destroy it.
Trying to pick candidates on the criteria of "fox won't call them unhinged socialist commies" is pointless. They'll call ANYONE that.
To be clear, I'm no Bernie fan, and agree that he really fucked us when he called the 2016 primary rigged against him. And I have a lot of problems with the "class only, race never" wing of the progressive movement, but the current democratic party can't be described as anything but a failure. It lost to dubya and trump twice each. If they want to blame anyone for this, they need to look in a mirror.
Harris sprinted to the right on her campaign on the advice of the same consultants that lost the election to trump. She was out on tour with Liz fucking Cheney for God's sake. That was a middle finger to the actual democratic base, and it was done to try and win Republican voters that would never have voted for a Democrat no matter what.
The DSA doesn't have a stellar record, but neither does the current democratic party. Its seen as so weak and ineffectual that people are desperate enough to try anything else.
Also everything I said applies to the WI governor’s race as well. It’s good for leftists to run in very blue areas; we desperately need new ideas in the party, and they can win those elections and then have a chance to show they can govern effectively. Running far leftists in purple areas OTOH is political idiocy IMHO.
Precisely! All politics is local, as they say. Why vote for someone who doesn't reflect your views? Leave those centrists for the red areas where they can possibly win.
Nice exercise in mostly missing the point, at least for people like me. I’m not at all worried that the leftists will govern effectively; I live near Seattle and am familiar with Jaypal, and AOC is the quintessential example of a leftist that’s a good legislator and a good Democrat (though I’m appalled at her recent cozying up to MAHA and hope she cuts that out). What people like me are worried about is we’re throwing away must-win elections, particularly in MI. I’m no expert on MI politics, but I just don’t see any pathway to victory for someone as leftist as AES in a purple to light-blue state. Stevens has been a bad candidate, and the progression of this race, similar to ME, to my mind shows the idiocy of much of the Dem establishment. They needed to recognize the threat from AES, coalesce behind McMorrow, and push Stevens to drop out. As far as I’m aware none of that happened, and now MI is about to nominate someone who will probably be creamed in the general. I’m expecting a lot of recriminations when this is over, but I think they’ll be about electability, not about coalition governing.
If centrists and moderates had the secret sauce to winning elections how did they lose the entire government to Republicans?
The Bernie bros sat out the election or voted third party?
Oh I have my problems with them, don't get me wrong. Anyone who sits out or votes third party needs a sharp kick in the dick.
But you can't blame losing to trump AND dubya bush twice each on Bernie bros. You can't blame the mass house/Senate/local losses on the progressive wing either.
I don't have any confidence in current democratic leadership. They've proven to be next to useless for the entirety of Trump's terms. If we keep running their playbook, we're not going to get better results.
Let's hope "centrist" stodgy Dems get over themselves. The Party is showing signs of new life. They should be pleased, like most parents.
My take on it is simple: Republicans have had FULL CONTROL over everything for nearly 2 years; and we now are in another Mideast forever war, have LESS focus on futurizing our energy economy, have FEWER allies and trading partners, have AMERICANS being killed in the streets by unaccountable Gestapo, watch kids get measles ("eradicated" years ago here), and see the looming healthcare crisis...ALL of this while the (R) cult has contorted to ensure that the TrumP Extended Crime Family gets anything they want at taxpayer expense AND has no culpability for crimes they commit.
THIS is Republican America: opposed to our Constitution and values, with election interference and lawlessness as a FEATURE, not a bug.
We must ALL vote to end the Republicans' assault on democracy (both HERE and abroad), and ensure that OUR government to whom we MUST pay taxes is using those tax dollars for MOST Americans, rather than as a personal gift/grift/graft basket to impound (Nixon's ghost is jealous) or simply outright steal.
VOTE IN NOVEMBER: in 13 weeks, we can either say we did all we could to help America continue, or stand idly and watch it fall to the fascist oligarchs who have bought the Republican crime cult. It's OUR nation and OUR choice.
Outstanding article. You nailed it. The Democrats rock-bottom polling is because they are perceived as an ineffective opposition party. If candidates to their left are winning, doesn’t that mean that that is what the people want? Isn’t that the definition of democracy?