DC based democratic strategists in my experience have almost NO KNOWLEDGE or connection to what is going on at the grass roots in middle America. Clueless, uncaring, deep in the DC trap on going along with status quo. Following this thinking will only lead the US further down the fascist path.
yes. well said. they all have each others backs and will never stand up and be counted as being 'of the people, for the people'....they all are just ensuring the can continue to make money by talking as if they know what they are talking about....and combined with the 'pollsters' they continue to prove they are a complete waste of time...
Idk why you think that. They have been holding the budget hostage until they eliminate more funding for ICE and Border Patrol (these guys killed Pretti). Even though the government has shut down. They finally reached a temporary agreement in the Senate to fund everything but ICE but it was sent it to congress and Trump's little bitch Mikey Johnson refused to consider it. And then called for a two week recess. So there we are.
I agree with you, RL! The cynicism I see from so many people rubs me the wrong way. It is lazy thinking when one forms sweeping opinions and applies them to an entire class of people. I see it over and over again.
and there we are (a lot of us) out on the streets protesting, and there the politicians are in their ivory towers counting their wealth.....the fact that politicians do a few things right does not excuse them their overarching action of protecting themselves first and foremost
Problem is, the only one on Mike’s list who meets that criterion is AOC. Personally I’d love to see her run and win, but of that list she’s also the one who would be attacked most mercilessly by both the Republicans and “mainstream” Democrats.
Agreed. Plus I think misogyny is incredibly prevalent in America - otherwise how could Trump get elected twice, beating a woman both times? I’m not sure what kind of Democrat woman would be “acceptable” especially to white voters, the majority of which preferred the most disgusting and corrupt man to ever run for president.
She wasn't as close to "scraping by" as her bio makes out, although she wasn't wealthy. But she's desperately unqualified at this point. Maybe when she's 50, we can revisit that, depending on what she DOES and not SAYS. I get that some people on our side are smitten with the idea of a pretty young president, but she really needs a track record of accomplishments.
That might be true, but DC based Republican strategists have even less connection or sensitivity to the daily life of most Americans. But maybe we need to face the fact that what is going on in the grass roots in middle America is frightening in its prejudice and hostility to democracy. There was a clear choice in '24, and too many Americans didn't care and stayed home or chose to vote for autocracy. That is the fault of the voters...and non-voters.
There was way too much knee-jerk acceptance in the media of the idea that Trump won because of "economy insecurity," even though Hillary not only actually won VOTERS (which is why the analysis of her win/loss needs to be reconsidered: the electoral college is not a sentient being that can respond to campaign messages), she also won voters making less than $50,000. A leader in our local construction trades union talked to our Democratic women's group in January 2017 and told us that some of his members who make six figures voted for Trump because of what he called "soft racism." It wasn't that they disliked Black people, they just didn't want to have to compete with them. I guess in a way that's economic insecurity: wanting to keep your advantage despite being mediocre just because you're a white male.
I live in the middle of the country. There are a lot of good people but also a lot of people who don’t understand government at all. Just voting based on their prejudices and their perception of who is “on their side”.
There are a lot of voters of all political persuasions who unfortunately vote on whims, on one passing thing they heard (or misheard) about a candidate.
I disagree. That's tarring with a broad brush. Sure, some are out of touch. Nothing gets me to delete an email faster than seeing James Carville's name on it. But plenty of them have lots of connection to "grassroots middle America" which isn't exactly a monolith anyway. This "damn all of them" thinking will help lead us further down the fascist path. WE need to be more discriminating.
Thank you - I totally agree with your title, your argument, and your short list.
However I also really admire and support KY Gov Andy Beshear. And he is everything you say we don't need right now! Excited to see what happens - above all we sure do need a wide open competitive process - that will be thrilling!!
Yeah, I thought that came across pretty clearly, Mike. And I'm very impressed with how you spent the morning after Election Day 2024. May we all rise to the standard of reflection that you set. It can only improve the effectiveness of our actions, possibly more than anything else.
I see easily a half dozen or more excellent, serious candidates and I'm not ruling out any of them at this stage, just the "cosmetic" candidates who haven't developed the leadership skills yet. But any governor doing a serious job of paying attention to his people's needs is a good choice for me. I'm sure my real governor is being ruled out by some people for being too fat, but whatever. (I live in Ohio but I am FROM Chicago and I will never not be FROM Chicago.)
I appreciate this argument but I refuse to blame the Democratic party and its leaders for the failures of the American people. No rationally thinking person could have seen the two options for president in '24 and voted for Trump or stayed home. Anyone who did that failed the country. Democracy is not about perfect choices; it's about pragmatic choices. The electorate had time and opportunity to listen and think in '24; too many refused. Until we face the tremendous civic, social, and intellectual decay in our culture, we will continue to degrade as a democratic republic. The problem starts at the root, not at the top.
I’m sympathetic to this, but I think it’s far too extreme. There are rational people who refuse to vote at all (I have a close friend like this, and it drives me absolutely out of my mind), and there are even rational people who voted for Trump. I believe that the extent to which these people are to blame for their voting decisions varies from not at all to almost entirely, but is usually in between, and the extent to which any given voter is to blame must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
I have a close friend who was like this. He thought every politician was garbage; we had to agree to stay out of it because I'm passionate about voting and educating yourself about the differences between politicians. But things happened including Trump's disastrous second term, the disappearance of Biden whom he didn't like, his divorce and his new girlfriend with whom he spends a lot of time in Chicago and she is very progressive. You go, Kelly!
Sen. Mark Kelly: It's not that we need a straight white guy, hero, military veteran to win. But it certainly wouldn't hurt. And I have not seen him betray Democratic principles at any time. His integrity is unquestionable, which I think is critical, plus, Arizona is a must-win swing state. He's also very smart, which may not be much of a bonus, though, in US national politics.
If a straight white guy happens to be the one who is able to connect with Americans in an authentic way, then so be it. It's not bad to run a straight white guy, the point is that it's not necessary.
What about Chris Murphy since you seem to be thinking on the younger end? Unlike AOC and Buttigieg, he's really well qualified. I do like Ossoff, but I like the idea of a governor because they have already been executives and administrators and know the role.
AOC is clearly different because she is backed by a well thought out strategy with spreadsheets and facts.
what the hell do the others have???? just talk talk talk.
pete is particularly boring with his middle of the road approach to everything...no definite strategy other than 'talk'....but it is nice that he is getting around (tho prolly just talking to a few staged dem meeting attendees)... like all politicians he wants to be surrounded by ppl who 'agree' with and approve of his approach.... he's one of those who has NEVER responded to any email or letter i send.
pritzker is only fired up since ivestapo deployed to chicago. where was he before. how 'establishment' is he?
has osoff condemned israeli fascism? has he really stood up for the palestinians against israeli war cimes? nope. he ain't anything different from the standard boring dem politician who will never rock the sinking boat of useless and out of touch dems... IMHO 😱😊
half your home was seized and given to a refugee family from some war-torn area of the world.
no payment or compensation to you - even though you are the legal owner and occupier of your home for mannnny generations.
the refugees are not prepared to pay you or respect you and your rights. and they start taking possession of more rooms in your house and even more of your yard…
you gonna turn around and say ‘ok’ or like anyone else (especially americans) you fight them legally and physically?
well…the house belonged to palestinian arab muslims for generations, and YOU have the audacity to say they have no right to keep fighting to get their home back. the owners of the house are to blame for not accepting the refugee squatters?
no american would put up with that…but you think palestinians should? sounds like bigotted racism eh?
seriously….. you are full of it and. totally uneducated in terms of the history of the region….
Stop projecting and read what I actually wrote. I said NOTHING about settlers stealing property from non-Jewish residents. You want to blame Israel for everything. My comment is that Palestinians haven't engaged when they could have.
And how many years now has Mr. Abbas' 4 year term in charge of the PLO lasted? Maybe you need to re-examine some things from an unbiased perspective.
au contraire. if engaging with israeli officials by looking down the barrel of a gun is what anyone calls negotiations, then those are the people with the bias. if you did some homework you will see that israel keeps annexing palestinian land - and won’t negotiate on giving any of it back…so how the hell does anyone negotiate with israel when it is all on israel’s terms?
we don’t agree to disagree….we have zero intellectual commonality on the subject.
AOC is clearly different because of spreadsheets? I don't even know that means. Her well-thought-out strategy (thought out by Saikat Chakrabarti, maybe he lose his primary) was beating a complacent veteran in an ultra-low primary turnout and then coast as long as she wants because the district is overwhelmingly blue, like mine. That's not material for a presidential run, as her lack of tangible accomplishments in the House is not. If she had Lauren Underwood's or Joe Neguse's record, she might be viable.
Mike, I applaud your willingness to look at yourself and face the hard truths. You've done a great service to democracy.
But I fear you aren't factoring in a HUGE part of the puzzle as to why Dems had such a hard time: the media. For the vast majority of Americans, their only sources of information come from TV news and social media. And in most of the country, outside the big metro areas, the TV news is owned by right-wing companies like Sinclair. And obviously, Meta and X are owned by oligarchs Zuckerberg and Musk. Add in the traditional pro-status-quo, both-sides journalism that has even the big news media by the short hairs, and you begin to see why so many people appear to be living in an alternate reality. Foreigners who come here (back when that was a normal thing to do, anyway) are shocked at how propagandized Americans are.
We have to bring back something like the Fairness Doctrine, expanded to cover cable. We have to break up the big tech and media monopolies, and put in place public versions of social media, just like we did for radio and TV.
But in the short term, the Dems have to first recognize the reality of our current media landscape, and take a page from the GOP's playbook, by supporting good leftist content creators and going on the offensive with our messaging, instead of always playing defense and letting the GOP set the narrative.
A-fuckin'-men. Our worst enemy is the media. As a journalist, this is what I look at all the time, and I've seen mountains of evidence at how they stack the deck against Democrats with wildly different standards. I referenced above how they went nuts on Hillary for her "deplorables" remark, wringing their hands at how condescending it sounded and how she needed to be meekly respectful to ALL voters. The same media was nearly silent when Trump was demonizing Democrats and even suggesting they deserved to be dead. Even his comments mocking veterans and dismissing John McCain because he "doesn't like people who were captured" were treated with an amused shrug. I don't know how many times I've said "Just imagine how the media would've responded if a Democrat said that."
I do see more and more people I know get off "mainstream" media and subscribe to alternative sources, but the problem is how to we bring more disengage people along in such a fractured media landscape. I don't know the answer to this.
I have said this many times before, but I guess I can say it again.
1/3 of this country is morally, spiritually, politically, psychologically, sociologically, educationally, and intellectually bankrupt. 1/3 of this country could see a clear choice in 2016 and 2020 and 2024.’
And 1/3 of this country really just doesn’t give a shit, quite possibly because they are as bankrupt as the one third that voted for Trump. But these are the people that need to be reached.
What do I want as a senior citizen and gay man? Someone who can see that my rights, my family, my faith (nonexistent), freedom, and assets are every bit as important and as valuable as anyone else’s. Because if a candidate cannot see that, then he cannot see all kinds of other things that are staring him right in the face. This is what I have been saying for years. It’s a very simple test, right along with the idea that if you think billionaires need more money, you are part of the reason why billionaires can convince other people why they need more money.
Personally, I don’t think the country is ready for a gay man or woman to be president. At the same time, I absolutely believe that Pete would be a fabulous kind candidate. He’s intelligent, well spoken, can see the real point underneath all of the bullshit, and is everything that I would like to see in a presidential candidate. But I also know that he understands my concerns as a gay man, and would probably agree with a lot of of it.
I have to say that I am very disappointed with the Democratic Party, but I also have to say that I am beyond disgusted with the Republican Party and what they have become for the last 50 years, ever since Anita Bryant raised her Well coiffed reptilian snout above the Florida swamp in 1977. And when I keep seeing the red states continue to elect the governments that have kept them at the bottom of every single measure of social well-being possible, I wonder how much hope there is for this country. I was just reading something this morning on this very subject. I think it was Florida. 40 years of Republican leadership, and they are still blaming Biden for the idiocy of their government.
This is what we need to overcome. I think Democrats really need to start speaking the absolute truth about everything, not trying to sugarcoat anything, not distracting attention from issues that they don’t particularly want to talk about.
I still think the only reasons for the Democrat loss in 2024 (assuming Musk didn't mess with the voting systems in the swing states) are misogyny and racism. Anyone who believed Trump's crap about fixing inflation and ending the Ukraine/Russia war was frankly an IDIOT. They probably say that's the reason simply to avoid saying there's no way in hell they'll ever vote for a Biracial woman to be president. Instead, they picked A CONVICTED FELON WHITE MALE, 78 YEARS OLD, WITH CLEAR MENTAL AND SEVERE PERSONALITY PROBLEMS. A man who LED the insurrection on 1/6/21! The message to women, and especially non-White women, is loud and clear: We're not even preferable to a scummy, lifelong criminal White male!
Musk did not interfere with the election. He had no means to do so; he was just prattling as he tends to. I wish people who say this would stop and think about how that lends credibility to Trump's claim that the 2020 election was stolen by fraud. If one side can do it, the other can, right? In fact, neither election was "stolen" by election fraud.
"Let AOC compete. Let Gretchen Whitmer compete. Let Pete Buttigieg compete. Let Josh Shapiro and JB Pritzker compete. Let them make their case to the American people and let them decide."
Unfortunately, Jasmine Crockett has very dark skin. I look at and listen to someone as brilliant as congressman Joe Neguse and think what a great president he would be in ten years and then think it will never happen because he is so dark. I notice that WE seldom mention these candidates on our A lists, so maybe we need to work on ourselves.
She IS dark, but that's not what people remember her for. She is also beautiful, that always helps but that isn't what people remember her for, either. Neguse I never heard of, but I'll check him out. PS I'm mostly white myself.
I think she is beautiful too, but there're a lot of people, even on our side, who subliminally equate beauty with reading as white. Neguse is one of those tireless, super-smart people who is always hitting a bullseyes when he speaks in Congress or grills one of Trump's cronies.And he is constantly out in his sprawling district attending meetings and going those "Congressman on the corner" things which I don't know if I would do after what happened to Gabby Giffords—and Colorado is big gun country.
I totally agree with you Mike; in fact, that very thinking is a BIG part of why the Democrats will lose. By the end of the convention in 2025, I was already thinking of Kamala as the president. But then I saw a very different Kamala on the campaign trail than at the convention. it seemed the “adults in the room” got to her! There’s no doubt that, even with a highly shortened campaign period, she could have won—IF those old-thinking, embracing the 40-year-old strategies, “white guys” just stepped back. We’re in a very different time that requires a very different strategy—and they just don’t get it.
If you have not been repeatedly surprised by how sexist and racist U.S. voters are, starting in November 2016, then you've been living under a rock for a decade.
Talk to people. You're clearly not doing that enough.
What do you get for pretending the danger's not real?
There's not just the matter of a candidate catching fire with the good guys, but also the not-so-small matter of finding a candidate that doesn't antagonize the baddies into coming out to vote too.
Spite and retribution are powerful motivators.
"I am your retribution." ~ Donald Trump
"I can't even afford to be seen talking with you." ~ Sen. Coburn to Obama
I see what you’re saying. The vast majority of voters want us to fight fire with fire but we also need to be a big tent and not exclude voters. So it’s a balance, in that sense I agree.
What we need to do is collectively pick one person, by means of a primary, and then EVERY DEMOCRAT get behind that choice, even if it wasn't the one you wanted. VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO. This may well be MOOT if we don't have a free and fair midterm, or if we lose the midterm. So let's work on THAT, first.
I wish I could feel confident that every Democrat would support the winner of the primary. I still think about the ones who rejected Harris because of a single issue. Then there are those who reject the "two-party system" and will only vote for a third-party candidate. They can't see the forest through the trees. They gave us Trump.
DC based democratic strategists in my experience have almost NO KNOWLEDGE or connection to what is going on at the grass roots in middle America. Clueless, uncaring, deep in the DC trap on going along with status quo. Following this thinking will only lead the US further down the fascist path.
A lot of them are actually really good IMHO, I just think there's lazy reductive thinking that sinks in quickly and this is reflective of that
So are you saying they do have the knowledge but they just don't care?
yes. well said. they all have each others backs and will never stand up and be counted as being 'of the people, for the people'....they all are just ensuring the can continue to make money by talking as if they know what they are talking about....and combined with the 'pollsters' they continue to prove they are a complete waste of time...
Idk why you think that. They have been holding the budget hostage until they eliminate more funding for ICE and Border Patrol (these guys killed Pretti). Even though the government has shut down. They finally reached a temporary agreement in the Senate to fund everything but ICE but it was sent it to congress and Trump's little bitch Mikey Johnson refused to consider it. And then called for a two week recess. So there we are.
I agree with you, RL! The cynicism I see from so many people rubs me the wrong way. It is lazy thinking when one forms sweeping opinions and applies them to an entire class of people. I see it over and over again.
I know, they need to look into whats really going on.
and there we are (a lot of us) out on the streets protesting, and there the politicians are in their ivory towers counting their wealth.....the fact that politicians do a few things right does not excuse them their overarching action of protecting themselves first and foremost
lazy = useless.
stop supporting ur fellow useless 'strategists'...
Much of America is barely scraping by and unless you’ve experienced that or been close to people who have, you’re probably going to sound fake.
Agreed
Problem is, the only one on Mike’s list who meets that criterion is AOC. Personally I’d love to see her run and win, but of that list she’s also the one who would be attacked most mercilessly by both the Republicans and “mainstream” Democrats.
Agreed. Plus I think misogyny is incredibly prevalent in America - otherwise how could Trump get elected twice, beating a woman both times? I’m not sure what kind of Democrat woman would be “acceptable” especially to white voters, the majority of which preferred the most disgusting and corrupt man to ever run for president.
Well said.
You mean the Dems who voted in 20 but not 24?
She wasn't as close to "scraping by" as her bio makes out, although she wasn't wealthy. But she's desperately unqualified at this point. Maybe when she's 50, we can revisit that, depending on what she DOES and not SAYS. I get that some people on our side are smitten with the idea of a pretty young president, but she really needs a track record of accomplishments.
That might be true, but DC based Republican strategists have even less connection or sensitivity to the daily life of most Americans. But maybe we need to face the fact that what is going on in the grass roots in middle America is frightening in its prejudice and hostility to democracy. There was a clear choice in '24, and too many Americans didn't care and stayed home or chose to vote for autocracy. That is the fault of the voters...and non-voters.
There was way too much knee-jerk acceptance in the media of the idea that Trump won because of "economy insecurity," even though Hillary not only actually won VOTERS (which is why the analysis of her win/loss needs to be reconsidered: the electoral college is not a sentient being that can respond to campaign messages), she also won voters making less than $50,000. A leader in our local construction trades union talked to our Democratic women's group in January 2017 and told us that some of his members who make six figures voted for Trump because of what he called "soft racism." It wasn't that they disliked Black people, they just didn't want to have to compete with them. I guess in a way that's economic insecurity: wanting to keep your advantage despite being mediocre just because you're a white male.
I live in the middle of the country. There are a lot of good people but also a lot of people who don’t understand government at all. Just voting based on their prejudices and their perception of who is “on their side”.
There are a lot of voters of all political persuasions who unfortunately vote on whims, on one passing thing they heard (or misheard) about a candidate.
I disagree. That's tarring with a broad brush. Sure, some are out of touch. Nothing gets me to delete an email faster than seeing James Carville's name on it. But plenty of them have lots of connection to "grassroots middle America" which isn't exactly a monolith anyway. This "damn all of them" thinking will help lead us further down the fascist path. WE need to be more discriminating.
love ur response.... we are fellow travellers 😊
Thank you - I totally agree with your title, your argument, and your short list.
However I also really admire and support KY Gov Andy Beshear. And he is everything you say we don't need right now! Excited to see what happens - above all we sure do need a wide open competitive process - that will be thrilling!!
I am not saying it won't or shouldn't be a white guy
I am just saying we shouldn't reject candidates who aren't
Yeah, I thought that came across pretty clearly, Mike. And I'm very impressed with how you spent the morning after Election Day 2024. May we all rise to the standard of reflection that you set. It can only improve the effectiveness of our actions, possibly more than anything else.
I understand - we don't want to get trapped by the tired old horrible broken down clueless Democrat machine. So right. Thank you!
I see easily a half dozen or more excellent, serious candidates and I'm not ruling out any of them at this stage, just the "cosmetic" candidates who haven't developed the leadership skills yet. But any governor doing a serious job of paying attention to his people's needs is a good choice for me. I'm sure my real governor is being ruled out by some people for being too fat, but whatever. (I live in Ohio but I am FROM Chicago and I will never not be FROM Chicago.)
I appreciate this argument but I refuse to blame the Democratic party and its leaders for the failures of the American people. No rationally thinking person could have seen the two options for president in '24 and voted for Trump or stayed home. Anyone who did that failed the country. Democracy is not about perfect choices; it's about pragmatic choices. The electorate had time and opportunity to listen and think in '24; too many refused. Until we face the tremendous civic, social, and intellectual decay in our culture, we will continue to degrade as a democratic republic. The problem starts at the root, not at the top.
I’m sympathetic to this, but I think it’s far too extreme. There are rational people who refuse to vote at all (I have a close friend like this, and it drives me absolutely out of my mind), and there are even rational people who voted for Trump. I believe that the extent to which these people are to blame for their voting decisions varies from not at all to almost entirely, but is usually in between, and the extent to which any given voter is to blame must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
I have a close friend who was like this. He thought every politician was garbage; we had to agree to stay out of it because I'm passionate about voting and educating yourself about the differences between politicians. But things happened including Trump's disastrous second term, the disappearance of Biden whom he didn't like, his divorce and his new girlfriend with whom he spends a lot of time in Chicago and she is very progressive. You go, Kelly!
Sen. Mark Kelly: It's not that we need a straight white guy, hero, military veteran to win. But it certainly wouldn't hurt. And I have not seen him betray Democratic principles at any time. His integrity is unquestionable, which I think is critical, plus, Arizona is a must-win swing state. He's also very smart, which may not be much of a bonus, though, in US national politics.
This sounds a lot like consultant thinking.
Mike, do you think Rep. Raskin would consider running? Or is he better off as USAG?
No idea but I like Raskin a lot
I had the same thought!
Mike, as it’s really not that far off, who do you see as a good presidential candidate(s) and why?
I think we have a lot of really good candidates and I am excited to see them duke it out
I am probably most excited about Pete, Pritzker, AOC, Ossoff. They're doing and saying interesting stuff IMHO.
Ossoff especially has impressed me lately.
Yes! His speeches have really rocked me. That is the type of voice we need right now.
I wish we'd look past rockin' speeches and look more deeply at accomplishments and abilities.
Straight white guy!
If a straight white guy happens to be the one who is able to connect with Americans in an authentic way, then so be it. It's not bad to run a straight white guy, the point is that it's not necessary.
All things being equal the straight white guy has a better chance of winning. Unless the candidate in question is an Obama level talent.
Sure, but refusing to take even small risks is how we got into this situation in the first place.
Yes so maybe a minority candidate who takes some risks? That could work. Both Hillary and Kamala were risk averse.
What about Chris Murphy since you seem to be thinking on the younger end? Unlike AOC and Buttigieg, he's really well qualified. I do like Ossoff, but I like the idea of a governor because they have already been executives and administrators and know the role.
AOC is clearly different because she is backed by a well thought out strategy with spreadsheets and facts.
what the hell do the others have???? just talk talk talk.
pete is particularly boring with his middle of the road approach to everything...no definite strategy other than 'talk'....but it is nice that he is getting around (tho prolly just talking to a few staged dem meeting attendees)... like all politicians he wants to be surrounded by ppl who 'agree' with and approve of his approach.... he's one of those who has NEVER responded to any email or letter i send.
pritzker is only fired up since ivestapo deployed to chicago. where was he before. how 'establishment' is he?
has osoff condemned israeli fascism? has he really stood up for the palestinians against israeli war cimes? nope. he ain't anything different from the standard boring dem politician who will never rock the sinking boat of useless and out of touch dems... IMHO 😱😊
Your Palestinians have had numerous chances to make peace since 1948. They've always blown it. It can't all be hung on Israel.
I'm trying to figure out what this is a response to.
so here's the thing…. imagine if…
half your home was seized and given to a refugee family from some war-torn area of the world.
no payment or compensation to you - even though you are the legal owner and occupier of your home for mannnny generations.
the refugees are not prepared to pay you or respect you and your rights. and they start taking possession of more rooms in your house and even more of your yard…
you gonna turn around and say ‘ok’ or like anyone else (especially americans) you fight them legally and physically?
well…the house belonged to palestinian arab muslims for generations, and YOU have the audacity to say they have no right to keep fighting to get their home back. the owners of the house are to blame for not accepting the refugee squatters?
no american would put up with that…but you think palestinians should? sounds like bigotted racism eh?
seriously….. you are full of it and. totally uneducated in terms of the history of the region….
Stop projecting and read what I actually wrote. I said NOTHING about settlers stealing property from non-Jewish residents. You want to blame Israel for everything. My comment is that Palestinians haven't engaged when they could have.
And how many years now has Mr. Abbas' 4 year term in charge of the PLO lasted? Maybe you need to re-examine some things from an unbiased perspective.
au contraire. if engaging with israeli officials by looking down the barrel of a gun is what anyone calls negotiations, then those are the people with the bias. if you did some homework you will see that israel keeps annexing palestinian land - and won’t negotiate on giving any of it back…so how the hell does anyone negotiate with israel when it is all on israel’s terms?
we don’t agree to disagree….we have zero intellectual commonality on the subject.
the end.
AOC is clearly different because of spreadsheets? I don't even know that means. Her well-thought-out strategy (thought out by Saikat Chakrabarti, maybe he lose his primary) was beating a complacent veteran in an ultra-low primary turnout and then coast as long as she wants because the district is overwhelmingly blue, like mine. That's not material for a presidential run, as her lack of tangible accomplishments in the House is not. If she had Lauren Underwood's or Joe Neguse's record, she might be viable.
we can agree to disagree :)
Mike, I applaud your willingness to look at yourself and face the hard truths. You've done a great service to democracy.
But I fear you aren't factoring in a HUGE part of the puzzle as to why Dems had such a hard time: the media. For the vast majority of Americans, their only sources of information come from TV news and social media. And in most of the country, outside the big metro areas, the TV news is owned by right-wing companies like Sinclair. And obviously, Meta and X are owned by oligarchs Zuckerberg and Musk. Add in the traditional pro-status-quo, both-sides journalism that has even the big news media by the short hairs, and you begin to see why so many people appear to be living in an alternate reality. Foreigners who come here (back when that was a normal thing to do, anyway) are shocked at how propagandized Americans are.
We have to bring back something like the Fairness Doctrine, expanded to cover cable. We have to break up the big tech and media monopolies, and put in place public versions of social media, just like we did for radio and TV.
But in the short term, the Dems have to first recognize the reality of our current media landscape, and take a page from the GOP's playbook, by supporting good leftist content creators and going on the offensive with our messaging, instead of always playing defense and letting the GOP set the narrative.
A-fuckin'-men. Our worst enemy is the media. As a journalist, this is what I look at all the time, and I've seen mountains of evidence at how they stack the deck against Democrats with wildly different standards. I referenced above how they went nuts on Hillary for her "deplorables" remark, wringing their hands at how condescending it sounded and how she needed to be meekly respectful to ALL voters. The same media was nearly silent when Trump was demonizing Democrats and even suggesting they deserved to be dead. Even his comments mocking veterans and dismissing John McCain because he "doesn't like people who were captured" were treated with an amused shrug. I don't know how many times I've said "Just imagine how the media would've responded if a Democrat said that."
I do see more and more people I know get off "mainstream" media and subscribe to alternative sources, but the problem is how to we bring more disengage people along in such a fractured media landscape. I don't know the answer to this.
I have said this many times before, but I guess I can say it again.
1/3 of this country is morally, spiritually, politically, psychologically, sociologically, educationally, and intellectually bankrupt. 1/3 of this country could see a clear choice in 2016 and 2020 and 2024.’
And 1/3 of this country really just doesn’t give a shit, quite possibly because they are as bankrupt as the one third that voted for Trump. But these are the people that need to be reached.
What do I want as a senior citizen and gay man? Someone who can see that my rights, my family, my faith (nonexistent), freedom, and assets are every bit as important and as valuable as anyone else’s. Because if a candidate cannot see that, then he cannot see all kinds of other things that are staring him right in the face. This is what I have been saying for years. It’s a very simple test, right along with the idea that if you think billionaires need more money, you are part of the reason why billionaires can convince other people why they need more money.
Personally, I don’t think the country is ready for a gay man or woman to be president. At the same time, I absolutely believe that Pete would be a fabulous kind candidate. He’s intelligent, well spoken, can see the real point underneath all of the bullshit, and is everything that I would like to see in a presidential candidate. But I also know that he understands my concerns as a gay man, and would probably agree with a lot of of it.
I have to say that I am very disappointed with the Democratic Party, but I also have to say that I am beyond disgusted with the Republican Party and what they have become for the last 50 years, ever since Anita Bryant raised her Well coiffed reptilian snout above the Florida swamp in 1977. And when I keep seeing the red states continue to elect the governments that have kept them at the bottom of every single measure of social well-being possible, I wonder how much hope there is for this country. I was just reading something this morning on this very subject. I think it was Florida. 40 years of Republican leadership, and they are still blaming Biden for the idiocy of their government.
This is what we need to overcome. I think Democrats really need to start speaking the absolute truth about everything, not trying to sugarcoat anything, not distracting attention from issues that they don’t particularly want to talk about.
What a hateful old witch Anita Bryant was!
She was. She was also a total hypocrite and a bearer of false witness.
Was she ever! Yuck.
I still think the only reasons for the Democrat loss in 2024 (assuming Musk didn't mess with the voting systems in the swing states) are misogyny and racism. Anyone who believed Trump's crap about fixing inflation and ending the Ukraine/Russia war was frankly an IDIOT. They probably say that's the reason simply to avoid saying there's no way in hell they'll ever vote for a Biracial woman to be president. Instead, they picked A CONVICTED FELON WHITE MALE, 78 YEARS OLD, WITH CLEAR MENTAL AND SEVERE PERSONALITY PROBLEMS. A man who LED the insurrection on 1/6/21! The message to women, and especially non-White women, is loud and clear: We're not even preferable to a scummy, lifelong criminal White male!
Musk did not mess with voting systems. He had no ability to do that and systems are not mess-withable.
Is anyone investigating the Elon Musk election interference angle to the Harris loss?
Thank you!
Plus all those Russian bomb threats at polling places.
And all those ballot dropboxes that got set on fire.
What? One ballot drop box? And wasn't it in a state Democrats won? Like Oregon or Washington State?
Musk did not interfere with the election. He had no means to do so; he was just prattling as he tends to. I wish people who say this would stop and think about how that lends credibility to Trump's claim that the 2020 election was stolen by fraud. If one side can do it, the other can, right? In fact, neither election was "stolen" by election fraud.
"Let AOC compete. Let Gretchen Whitmer compete. Let Pete Buttigieg compete. Let Josh Shapiro and JB Pritzker compete. Let them make their case to the American people and let them decide."
You left out Jasmine Crockett.
Unfortunately, Jasmine Crockett has very dark skin. I look at and listen to someone as brilliant as congressman Joe Neguse and think what a great president he would be in ten years and then think it will never happen because he is so dark. I notice that WE seldom mention these candidates on our A lists, so maybe we need to work on ourselves.
She IS dark, but that's not what people remember her for. She is also beautiful, that always helps but that isn't what people remember her for, either. Neguse I never heard of, but I'll check him out. PS I'm mostly white myself.
I think she is beautiful too, but there're a lot of people, even on our side, who subliminally equate beauty with reading as white. Neguse is one of those tireless, super-smart people who is always hitting a bullseyes when he speaks in Congress or grills one of Trump's cronies.And he is constantly out in his sprawling district attending meetings and going those "Congressman on the corner" things which I don't know if I would do after what happened to Gabby Giffords—and Colorado is big gun country.
Thank you, Anastasia. May the angels watch over Neguse.
Yes!! Bring on a messy, massive primary. Let the voters decide after hearing from the candidates who speaks to or for them.
I totally agree with you Mike; in fact, that very thinking is a BIG part of why the Democrats will lose. By the end of the convention in 2025, I was already thinking of Kamala as the president. But then I saw a very different Kamala on the campaign trail than at the convention. it seemed the “adults in the room” got to her! There’s no doubt that, even with a highly shortened campaign period, she could have won—IF those old-thinking, embracing the 40-year-old strategies, “white guys” just stepped back. We’re in a very different time that requires a very different strategy—and they just don’t get it.
Is that a luxury we can afford?
If you have not been repeatedly surprised by how sexist and racist U.S. voters are, starting in November 2016, then you've been living under a rock for a decade.
Talk to people. You're clearly not doing that enough.
What do you get for pretending the danger's not real?
How many times do we have to make this mistake?
I agree we need to see what candidate catches fire and not presuppose what “type” of candidate will.
There's not just the matter of a candidate catching fire with the good guys, but also the not-so-small matter of finding a candidate that doesn't antagonize the baddies into coming out to vote too.
Spite and retribution are powerful motivators.
"I am your retribution." ~ Donald Trump
"I can't even afford to be seen talking with you." ~ Sen. Coburn to Obama
I see what you’re saying. The vast majority of voters want us to fight fire with fire but we also need to be a big tent and not exclude voters. So it’s a balance, in that sense I agree.
What we need to do is collectively pick one person, by means of a primary, and then EVERY DEMOCRAT get behind that choice, even if it wasn't the one you wanted. VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO. This may well be MOOT if we don't have a free and fair midterm, or if we lose the midterm. So let's work on THAT, first.
I wish I could feel confident that every Democrat would support the winner of the primary. I still think about the ones who rejected Harris because of a single issue. Then there are those who reject the "two-party system" and will only vote for a third-party candidate. They can't see the forest through the trees. They gave us Trump.