Did y’all know that FDR talked about a Second Bill of Rights in a SOTU address? (I didn’t, and thanks to the Contrarian). “In his address, Roosevelt suggested that the nation had come to recognise and should now implement a "second bill of rights". Roosevelt argued that the "political rights" guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had "proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness". His remedy was to declare an "economic bill of rights" to guarantee these specific rights:
* Employment (right to work)[notes 1]
* An adequate income for food, shelter, and recreation
When I first registered to vote half a century ago, as a Democrat, the list above reflects the party I thought I was joining. What I found instead was something else, and I wasn't happy. I left and went third party for decades. That went nowhere. A good faith effort turned into a spoiler situation hijacked by creepy people. I rejoined the Democratic Party to vote for Bernie in the primary. It was odd that he was an independent because he reflected the party of FDR IMO more than anyone.
I promise, if the Democrats put that FDR list in action, the grateful voters will return us to office again and again -- as long as we are also fierce about preventing corruption. It is time to put "greed is good" in the dustbin of grotesque ideas. No, greed is bad. Generosity is good. A generous society is a happy society as long as the generosity extends to everyone. This is the moral issue that belongs in the political realm, (not these right-wing freaks obsession with other people's sex lives that they for some reason call "morality.")
This predates MAGA. This toxic society is of long standing. Here's a song from 20 years ago, that captures the worldview that brought us here better than anything I've ever heard
One of my neighbors has a sign up: “Make Lying Wrong Again!” I like the use of more colloquial language to get through to people. Decency could make a comeback.
Hi Simon and friends - I love that montage of headshots of our candidates, Simon. The face of a new and improved Democratic Party in the United States. Thanks for bringing us all the interviews, which have really been delightful to watch.
Simon's weekly call recap yesterday and discussion about liberty made me think of this excellent NYT op-ed from 3 years back about the end of Roe and the hypocrisy of the republican "pro life" stance. French outlines how republicans aren't even libertarian, they instead are libertines, where libertinism “says my desires are more important than your rights…which means that libertines are terrible ambassadors for any cause that requires self-sacrifice," as he says.
Trump himself embodies libertinism while rejecting the values of self-sacrifice and the development of character, which were once traditional conservative values meant to preserve the status quo. Instead, libertinism is “happy to inflict its will on others if it achieves what it wants," as the article says. For French, the Covid pandemic revealed the hypocrisy of the Republican Party’s libertine turn, demanding that women exercise self-control, while insisting on total freedom for themselves. As he notes in the article,
"I don’t think the pro-life movement has fully reckoned with the political and cultural fallout from the libertine right-wing response to the Covid pandemic. Here was a movement that was loudly telling women that they had to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, with all the physical transformations, risks and financial uncertainties that come with pregnancy and childbirth, at the same time that millions of its members were also loudly refusing the minor inconveniences of masking and the low risks of vaccination."
All republicanism is these days is, "I get to do what I want, when I want, and you can't do anything about it...and if you hold me accountable, I'm being unfairly restricted."
Simon, you have 10 (10!) requests for donations! It used to be a simple 1 or 2. I would like to ask you again to simplify your lists by combining groups (like Senators Fund) or something like that. Iowa is already in the Expanding the Map group. Add Ohio to that group. 10 separate donations is too many asks and is too confusing. The KISS principle has shown to be the most effective in soliciting donations. 10 choices for anything (like salsa?) is overwhelming. :-)
Mark, a few comments: 1) the playing field is bigger now, both in comparison to 2024 and now that many primaries have ended. There are more choices and opportunities so we will also have more here. 2) I am in the process of overhauling the recommendations. Some will contract, some will expand. 3) Not true that we ever had 1 or 2 options to give. In 2024 in the general we had many options to give, at least 7, perhaps more. Anyway I hear you on simplicity and look for changes in the coming days......
Just read Simon's reply, and another perspective is more choices give us the opportunity to give in specific or broader ways; like say, Platner's senate fund vs the expanded fund that includes Maine. Given some folks' trepidation about Platner, the expanded fund is a good way to backdoor donations. And we're not expected to give to every request. But simple is good, so looking forward to seeing Simon changes!
I cancelled my $10 recurring to Turek, but then put $15 recurring to "Winning Iowa". Postcarding. Looking forward to the Elias and Richardson discussions. I've been donating monthly to Democracy Docket for years now.
The "Winning Iowa" fund seems like money well spent. It goes toward building up the Iowa state party, Josh Turek for the Senate, the incredibly talented Rob Sand for governor, and three competitive Congressional races--all in a State with about 3.2 million people.
Agreed! I'm in Iowa (IA-01 -- Bohannan!). I donate to "Winning Iowa" and some extra to Turek and Bohannan individually. My postcards for Iowa voters finally arrived from Postcards to Swing States yesterday, and I will dive into them this evening. (I've been writing small batches of postcards for other campaigns while waiting for the Iowa ones.)
I’m hopeful that this support for Iowa candidates —who are so rightfully gaining attention across the country in the races for Governor (yay, Rob Sand!), senate (awesome Josh Turek!) and House (Go, Bohannon, Trone Garriott, and James!) — will also spill over and help Nate Willems in his Attorney General race.
Boy, do we need an honest Attorney General to replace the despicable maggot, Brenna Bird. The only thing saving her from being the worst AG in the 50 states is Ken Paxton.
A word about the candidates in NY who Mamdami supported and who won over good, moderate Democrats already in Congress and who have been fighting the good fight against the regime. I think it’s a mistake for the Democratic Party to make the Big Tent so expensive that we allow candidates with extreme views, not reflective of Democratic Party views, to run as Democrats. They aren’t. I think they’re using the Democratic Party label but will hurt the Party in the end. It appears the incumbents lost because they chose to support Israel ( they could separate support of the country from supporting Bibi’s government, but that made no difference).
While Mamdami is a very attractive politician, I think it’s a mistake to allow people who hold too many positions that are at odds with those of the Democratic Party to run as Democrats. They aren’t. If they win on their own, calling themselves whatever they want, and then wish to caucus with the Democrats once in Congress, that can be decided separately. Republicans already falsely call all Democrats “ Communists” and “ Socialists,” so it doesn’t help to have people in the Party who are in fact more closely aligned in their thinking with those views. They are taking advantage of the Party label without truly being Democrats and I believe are hurting the Party brand in the process. We should not allow it.
Clara thanks for this thoughtful post on a tough subject. I think we are going to have to talk through all of this together, keeping a few things in mind: 1) The DSA see themselves as opponents to the Democratic Party, not a reform movement within it. Bernie for example remains an independent, outside the Party. 2) The issue that has come up in my mind is both extreme views *and* the lack of vetting of DSA backed candidates. If they want to become bigger players they are going to have to do a much better job at vetting their candidates.
As I said the other night we should welcome this discussion inside the family, not run from it.
My question - and admittedly, I haven't done much reading on this - is why they see themselves as opposition as opposed to reformers and/or allies. Opposition is not going to enact change in the current environment, IMHO. It's like they're trying to reinvent the wheel without reading any history whatsoever.
rachel bitecofer argues the dsa does not even understand what socialism is, and i agree with her. they should be calling themselves social democrats or something, because merely advocating for public services and healthcare is not socialism. we need to have a discussion about what socialism is and is not. there are a hard core group of leftist dems who think we lose because we are not far left enough; that centrists can't win, and yet mike sherrill and abigail spanberger are centrists who won big. my son works for the state, and trust me, sherrill is no leftist. she's already got a problem with too many environmental regulations. red tape is a legit topic for discussion in nj, but it is not something you'd expect from a dem when it comes to the environment. my son works in wetlands, and those regs have real applications and affect real people and wildlife, even if the scotus does not know what a wetland is.
Thanks, I'll have to do some reading on the history of the social dems in the US, although being a poli sci major, I am well familiar with what socialism is, lol. Bitecofer is always excellent.
Simon, I agree with this wholeheartedly and also with Clara’ sentiment wholeheartedly, especially as a Jewish Democrat who lands somewhere in between Left of Center and Progressive on the spectrum. I support Israel’ right to exist and always will cuz I’m not a nihilist. Believing Israel and its people don’t have the right to exist is inarguably Antisemitic. Believing Gaza and its people don’t have the right to exist is inarguably Islamophobic. I just don’t understand how hard it is for too many in the more progressive wing of the party to say that. This should be easy messaging to harness.
I really respect AOC and don’t feel she’s Antisemitic and have a strong feeling she was very much turned off by Chevalier’s past comments. However, she still took up for Chevalier and advised we give her a chance which I personally found disappointing. Building a political coalition I hope this community knows, doesn’t mean alienate moderates cuz they’re not progressive enough or alienate progressives cuz they’re not moderate enough. It means embrace all on the spectrum who are READY for this fight and made for this time!
AOC is a progressive who’s ready for this fight and made for this time. Shapiro, is a moderate who is equally ready for this fight and made for this time. That’s where the coalition lies. When many criticize Schumer, in my view, it’s far less criticism over his support for Israel than it is over whether or not he’s made for this time. He’s long had successes and has done a great deal for the party over the years. But is he made for this modern time? Not cuz he’s ’old.’ Whitehouse is older yet he’s very much in sync with the modern landscape of what we’re up against.
That all said, what we can do and can alienate in spite of this overarching theory…is the crazy!!! Any of us defending Chevalier after knowing she celebrated…Hamas…is like trying to defend MTG after knowing she espoused shameful Antisemitic conspiracy theories about Jewish space lasers. The GOP has far too long been afraid to call out their own (least for the right reasons). We cannot afford to fall into the same trap in my view and while i understand Chevalier is only one district in NYC contrast to what we’re putting out there in Iowa, GA, AK, etc., letting her rhetoric fester without a coalescing of sensible pushback I fear could pose a severe risk for us in upcoming elections.
While I don’t fully agree with the following tagline, it’s not completely outrageous just the same when I recently saw/read an article that stated, “One party is ousting Antisemites while the other is electing them.” Again, a bit more nuanced than that cuz MAGA in and of itself is quite Antisemitic I might add. But let us look no further than some of our party’s most popular, prominent, and promising figures. Shapiro, Ossoff, both Jewish! Newsom, Kelly, Pete, very friendly with the Jewish community. Harris, married to a Jewish man. All of these figures are Pro Israel the nation and its people/Pro Gaza and its people while also equally Anti Bibi and Anti Hamas/Jihadism. In other words, normalcy!
I’m just dumbfounded at how the party hasn’t seemingly found the succinct method of executing this message. It should be very easy to compartmentalize. The vast majority has to know that Chevalier, Hasan Piker, or a Mamdani figure will not be our next nominee nor have a chance of winning. That’s a reality check but one that shouldn’t be discouraging because the other names I’ve mentioned above and more, are beyond promising for leading us into the future and whom are ALL ‘dialed in.’
It’s partially why I’m concerned about our ability to hold onto MI. I’m not saying El-Sayed isn’t a strong candidate (even though I much prefer McMorrow who too, is progressive like him). But the open and seemingly unabashed paling around with Hasan Piker (who’s made numerous Antisemitic and incendiary remarks) in the swingiest of swing states, might just be enough to sway the state away from him and to Mike Rogers God forbid. It’s all a deeper discussion I understand we have to have as a family. My concern is that if these issues aren’t constructively confronted sooner than later, we may succumb to generating a ‘Left Wing MAGA movement’ that regresses us rather than progresses us.
On a far lighter note, I’ve been celebrating 250 in Baltimore by the Harbor this weekend, watching the ships and the air show with the ie Angels. Remarkable, and far more unifying than what we’ve seen in DC from this regime, which unfortunately, it is. I know I’m often verbose and I apologize when overdoing it , sincerely I do. I know I need to self edit. I’m just very passionate and share the same overarching goals this community does, often trying hard to keep my hope and typically innate cautious optimism alive often in the face of such adversity. Just praying it’s more adversity from our opposition than from within. Thank you for taking the time to read through if you do, for leading us in this community and through this fight ✌️. I know in my gut we will prevail when all said and done. But I also try to advise when I can…forewarned is always forearmed 🙏💕.
I was disappointed last night when I saw clips of AOC saying Chevalier was young, talented, intelligent, etc. I am further disappointed in her comments warning those who are not happy about Chevalier's win. Sorry, AOC, I am not buying it. Just bc someone is young, talented, intelligent and won an election, doesn't mean they are good for the country or are not a bigot.
And I see AOC as someone who is/can be good for the country. She knows better. That’s why if she runs for President, she needs to wait til 2032. Gives her more time to further season herself. She needs to be in the senate first.
piker is the gift that keeps on giving to the right; he is also an armenian holocaust denier, as is his uncle cenk. rutgers, producing piker, o'keefe, and mario batali.....come on nj, we can do better....
Thanks as always Simon. I just made contributions across the board for many of these candidates. I’ve made some cuts to my fun projects and decided to move some of that money into higher contributions for our hardworking candidates. I’m not going to leave a penny on the table.
I've been going to some of the Progressive sites I follow on YouTube this morning where the DSA crowd is getting a bit too giddy over the results last Tuesday, equating the "establishment wing" with the GOP. I'm reposting comments I made there, adjusting my comments to the different audience.
"The difference between Republicans and Establishment Dems is FACISM. We must win the midterms for the Democratic Party to stop Trump and begin investigations on the adminstration criminals to set the stage for real consequences after Dems take control of the government in 2029.
Seating majorities in both houses in a peaceful transfer of power is job one for all pro-democracy activists and MUST be the focus now. THEN we can continue to push against the establishment wing of the blue team. IF we get out over our skiis too early fighting among ourselves and the FASCIST GOP wins this Fall, then we are all F*CKED.
FIrst things first. Progressives and DSA has made important strides this Primary season. In the General Election you go with the team you have and get behind ALL of them to halt the flow of Fascism.. The larger the Blue Tsunami in November, the harder it is for Maga and Trump to cheat and create a sh*tshow between November and January when the new Congress takes power."
We all need to recognize that every foreign government with sophisticated influence operations are going to be doing everything they can to foment a civil war between DSAers and the establishment party. Here's a statement from our ODNI in 2024 about how Iran amplified the Gaza protests in 2024:
"We have observed actors tied to Iran’s government posing as activists online, seeking to encourage protests, and even providing financial support to protesters."
i suspect russia had a role in the protests too; the former soviet union hated the state of israel, once it allied itself with the united states. the entire construct of israel as a colonial european power is from the soviets, designed to curry favor with the independence movements during the cold war. there's an excellent piece in the atlantic about the whole issue.
i for one am sick of the trope that dems have to go to the middle to win. i think this is a repub set up every single time. we are a diverse party under a big tent. there are many types of dems. but it is not true, and i dont think it ever has been true, that we dems must always go to the middle. and right now, people want fighters who will do something about trumpism, the economy, health care, corruption, etc. they do not want middle of the road pablum speaking (schumer & jeffries) poll tested consultant language. they want fire in the belly, hair is on fire representatives. when you are in the middle, people think you are republican lite. and that is how we lose elections. we are vastly different than repubs and and that is our message: we are not republicans. and we dont need a circular firing squad against progressives, liberals, DSA, etc. we are all dems! dont give the repubs a wedge issue of dem hating dem. not necessary under a big tent!
I agree with you. I'm not saying we have to go to the middle to win, I'm saying we need to embrace the big tent and support ALL candidates to fill as many seats as we can. The moderate wing supporting the progressives and vice versa.
In our relentless 24/7/365 neverending election cycles (driven by media and money) the presidential cycle will begin immediately after this one, and i expect we will be wrestling this topic in earnest between the array of candidates.
i think the repub party is finished. history. they have been captured by oligarchs, corporations & trumpism. they do not govern, no policies, no legislation, nothing for everyday americans ever. they do lie, try to steal elections, suppress voting, etc. and they do have tons of money from oligarchs, big tech, etc. and positive media coverage from MSM. but they dont have the people anymore. the curtain has come down on the clown show. and the corruption is choking them. its just $$$$ vs votes. we got this!
With respect, the DSA are not Democrats; Bernie is an Independent who ran as a Democrat to get the funding and exposure. He then went back to being an Independent. Chevalier is not someone I could ever vote for unless she did an honest 180. I would just leave my vote blank. I don't live in NY so it's a moot point anyway.
As far as a circular firing squad, sadly, I agree but tell that to the DSA members who are constantly trashing the Democrats and unless I missed it, don't seem to have the same passion for going after republicans.
I say all this with utmost respect for your opinion. I just disagree with some of it.
I am personally more on the progressive end of the spectrum in my views, but I want to respectfully say one thing regarding everything you said. I think every district and state is unique, and we need to let candidates who are from those places with a good feel for who their voter constituency is....the people that they can cobble together into a winning coalition....decide the tone and ideological stance they take. It will be values aligned with the broad Democratic and pro-democracy project, but it won't always be lock step on particular policies and issues.
On occasion we end up with someone who is disappointingly and unnecessarily conservative when they absolutely don't need to be....Joe Lieberman was such a case. Those folks can and should be subject to primary challenges for sure, but by and large, great candidates know their states and districts very well and know what is required to win and govern effectively there....we should respect that enough to give them the flexibility to do that.
And one last thing...as a progressive voter myself, I understand the frustration with Schumer & Jeffries...some of it I think is pretty legit, and they have had to evolve this year in a number of ways to better manage the coalition....but a lot of it has been cheap shots based on vibes and disinformation being touted by people inside our own information ecosystem who benefit personally from a weak Democratic Party. They tend to be folks who either 1) have never actually managed a winning political campaign before so they have no actual experience on the ground where you learn the truth, or 2) have only EVER operated as campaign consultants in safe blue districts, and safe blue states, which means that their expertise is in defeating Democrats, not Republicans. When you only work in safe blue areas, the Primary Election is the ballgame, and there's an entire wing of our consultant class and information influencers who make their entire living by attacking other Democrats. That's fine...I welcome their work because it helps keep the party honest to its values in places where we don't need to moderate in order to be competitive....but a lot of them have found that they can make a lot of money and build a nice following by pretending that they know how to beat Republicans, when in fact, they have spent ZERO time in their careers doing so.
And right now, as much as I appreciate their value to the Democratic Party and pro-democracy projects, what I care more than ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT....is beating Republicans and flipping the majorities everywhere that we can...in the House, the Senate, State Leg Chambers, Governorships, Mayoralties, City Councils, County Commissions, School Boards, Water District Boards, Boards of Regents for Public Universities, Secretaries of State and State Attorneys General, and any and every judicial seat in every state that is settled through elections.....we need to beat REPUBLICANS and flip majorities. And frankly, I don't like being misled by influencers in my own political coalition actively trying to detract from that effort by making their following believe that ousting Democratic incumbents that would have won easily in November and replacing them with different incumbents who will also win easily is somehow doing more for our democracy in this moment of crisis than actually flipping Republican seats, and pretending like the same model that was used to defeat a Dem incumbent in an all Democratic primary in June will for sure flip a seat currently held by a republican in Iowa in november with Ds, Rs, and Independents voting, in a district with 7% more Republican registered voters than Democrats.
So, sorry for the long reply, but I really mean this with no disrespect, and much more agreement with you than it might appear (I'm for Medicare for All, Paid Family Leave, Paid Childcare, a Wealth Tax on Billionaires, a "moon-shot" level effort to curb and adapt to climate change (basically making fossil fuels go extinct), and a HARD-ASSED LINE with Bibi over his war crimes and reckless use of force against millions of innocent people....especially for denying and or delaying aid...it's a crisis of epic proportion and our party has done a terrible job of condemning it outright and learning how to effectively voice our support for the people of Israel, but not the inhumane and unforgivable actions by their current leader....I'm with you across the board. But, considering the level of vitriol that has been foisted toward "the establishment", "the leadership", "the moderates", etc. this year from the activist class....I think your comment about respecting every part of the coalition runs down both sides of the street. I WANT my views to be more represented and respected in our elected officials, but if someone who knows how to flip a seat blue in Iowa, or Ohio, or Arizona, or Texas, or Florida, or Kansas, or Mississippi, or Alaska and they will give the Democratic Party control of Congress and control of the floor and agenda of the US House and or US Senate, but don't feel like they can give my beliefs their full support, and just partial support....I want them to do what it takes to win, and I want to thank them for helping us put out this fire.
I hope this came across with the level of respect and admiration for your views and passion that I intended. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and thanks for caring so much about the people of the United States....we'll get through this together.
people do seem to want a fighter; and that doesn't have to be a dsa candidate; people like mayor pete because he goes on fox and tears them a new one; pete is not a dsa leftist; he's a pretty moderate dem. but he can fight. pritzker too.
These four paragraphs very clearly explain why people are voting out some Democratic incumbents:
"... I’m focused principally on DSA and DSA-aligned factional Democrats here because they’re having a moment. But the liberal establishment still runs the Democratic Party and their theory is, if anything, worse.
In the mainline, you’ll see influential figures who decline to endorse nominees to their left, or even threaten to leave the party when primary voters make choices they don’t like.
You see a strategic approach to building power and checking Trump that begins and ends with winning elections and padding margins. Winning is obviously the predicate of all political power building—but it is also table stakes. And in the establishment, the approach is rote and reductive: It’s to support primary candidates who poll best head-to-head against Republicans, which typically means throwing support to the most moderate, most change-averse candidate in every primary field.
But to what end? When a party selects for wallflowers, the ambition for reform of any kind—procedural or substantive—will be shallow. It will build a big majority that makes peace with the post-Trump status quo; that hopes people can be hypnotized—with antiseptic policy ideas and promises of normalcy—into treating Trump-era wreckage as a new baseline. ..."
Many Democrats are tired of Democrats winning and then not much happening to reform our system. They want real reform so that average people are in charge of the government, not billionaires, not corporate CEOs, not politicians. They want a government truly of the people, by the people, and for the people -- not one that says, "well we can't do that because the existing laws or rich, powerful people or religious customs from 15th century puritans say we can't." They want fighters who will change society so it is actually responsive to them.
I thought you’d enjoy reading this essay about how Thomas Jefferson understood the pursuit of happiness . It resonates your thoughts on the integrity , love of country and service to the common good that you’ve been emphasizing.
Thanks so much Simon for replying to my comment. I love Hopium Chronicles and value your insights each day. I hope the leaders of the Democratic Party discuss their policy for allowing people to run as Democrats if their views differ substantially from those of the Party. The two candidates who won in NY appear to fit that description. It can be dismissed as it’s just in NY, or it’s just a few, but I think that would be unwise. It appears to be happening in some of our major cities and it would be good to have a policy before it can get out of hand. Even in a parliamentary system, candidates run under a Party heading that most fits their ideology and then can choose to join a coalition government if needed. The Democratic Party should not allow itself to be used as a vehicle to gain power when, in truth, the candidate does not uphold much of what our Party stands for.
The NY races were elevated bc Mamdani endorsed the candidates. I am not saying it would not have made news, but the fact that Mamdani stood with Chevalier, smiling, obviously thrilled that she won, had the MSM (and republicans) practically giddy - and despite what her supporters believe, not in a good way. Just my opinion. I don't know anything about the other candidate. I probably should look her up but honestly, I don't know if I can take it.
So. This generalization about how Establishment Democrats represent the elite and DSA-backed candidates support the working class. How do you suppose this sounds in, say, the third Congressional district in Wisconsin? Here Rebecca Cooke, from an actual working-class background, is running against a hard-cord MAGA lunatic. Cooke grew up on a dairy farm, and while she's done a number of things in her adult life, she's recently been working as a waitress. She's sharp, articulate, and she knows her district. She's not running as a progressive or a socialist, but she is running to reform the system for the working people she would represent. She fits her district. She is exactly the kind of candidate who needs to get elected if the pro-democracy movement is to regain power.
The same could be said of Mary Peltola. Would she represent the working people of Alaska in the Senate? I should say so. Fish. Family. Freedom. This fits Alaska. She fits Alaska. She's the kind of candidate we need if we're to strip MAGA of power.
I agree. I think there's quite a bit of generalization going on here. There is a big difference between "fitting the district" and being "centrist" or "establishment." And between DSA and Progressive/Liberal. I think we would do well to think carefully about these distinctions as we hash this out.
I wonder if you saw this interview today with Alissa Ellman, who just won a Dem primary in her NYS district, a former public servant and military (and cancer survivor).
What interested me about the interview was a point at which Jacob asks her the usual question being hurled at every candidate now. Along the lines of: what, if anything, can she apply to her campaign from the DSA wins in NYC?
Rather than using some social lubricant to avoid making the interviewer feel awkward, she just said, "My district is Red, and DSA stuff won't work here."
Hey Guys! You know what I'm noticing so much more than ever before?? The confidence people left of center are feeling at expressing their opinions out in the open in places like Nebraska. This is something that goes back way further than Trump. People like Rush Limbaugh and other loud arrogant jackasses in the right wing bullshit machine spent years convincing their audiences that people like us are immoral, unpatriotic, weak, and stupid, and that it was their job to go out into the world and "spread the good word" of conservatism to everyone as though it was an accepted fact that it was superior in every way. As a result, everyone who disagreed got quieter, and started making rhetorical compromises and concessions that they absolutely didn't believe in just to try to "get along", and of course...when you give one of those blowholes and inch, they try to grab a mile. It created a culture here that I used to call, "Republican until proven guilty"....and I HATED it.
And then it got WAYYYYYY out of whack after 9/11 when they really supercharged their weaponization of "patriotism" and support for the military (because apparently all that matters in showing your support for the troops is blindly supporting the wars they are sent to, waving flags, putting magnets and bumper stickers on your car, and chanting USA, USA, USA at sporting events.....actually funding the VA and purchasing the best possible kevlar vests for them to go into combat with weren't priorities at the time).
Well....those blowholes still exist and always will, but they are a bit bewildered because the malevolence, venality, and staggering incompetence of the modern Republican Party is finally so thoroughly on display, that it can't be denied any longer, and those of us who stayed quiet for so long in order to be polite and not make waves aren't quiet anymore.
When they shoot off their bullshit on Facebook or to a group of friends at coffee, the person with the actual facts, is saying, "No...that's blatantly false, and ridiculously incomplete." And then lays out the actual truth. Now, I don't have any illusions that this is going to change the true believers minds....but one of the reasons I was drawn to Simon's work and got into Hopium from the ground floor is because he was talking about how we had allowed the information environment to get badly imbalanced with the Republicans' arguments, and maybe more importantly, their lies being much louder in our overall discourse than the counterarguments and truth. And as a result, it was disproportionately impacting low political information voters because the signal that broke through to them, however small it was, was tilted to the right due to the shear weight and volume of their presence in the debate.
They still have, and have made worse in the last two years, their structural advantage in the various media platforms....but their incompetence, corruption, and clear distain for ordinary Americans simply can no longer be hidden, and left leaning citizens who never engaged in voicing their opinions to groups of friends or acquaintances where they thought there might be social consequences, no longer care and are saying exactly what they think...and guess what....social consequences are happening for the MAGA people....they're the ones everyone wishes would just shut up and not bring politics into everything. They're the ones who are looking like fools and buffoons. And they are all having a real "sad" about it and whining like they always do, feeling victimized because "people hate me for my politics".....as if they haven't been doing that to everyone else for decades.
I don't mean to take delight in this....in fact I don't. But, there needs to be social consequences for supporting this shit....these people need to feel like they're on the fringe for believing it and supporting it....NOT in the mainstream. That's part of how it will be contained in the future. I'm here for it, and I'm not putting up with that kind of ignorant bullshit being spewed in my presence any longer. Loud and proud my friends....let's send them all a statement in a few months!!
SubStack is so confusing!!
Where is the new "Listen" button?
The button is definitely easier to find than the arrow, but shouldn't it be there on every post?
I can see the listen triangle clearly and it works fine on my cellphone, but I don't see it on my PC. This might help. https://support.substack.com/hc/en-us/articles/7265753724692-How-do-I-listen-to-a-Substack-post
Did y’all know that FDR talked about a Second Bill of Rights in a SOTU address? (I didn’t, and thanks to the Contrarian). “In his address, Roosevelt suggested that the nation had come to recognise and should now implement a "second bill of rights". Roosevelt argued that the "political rights" guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had "proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness". His remedy was to declare an "economic bill of rights" to guarantee these specific rights:
* Employment (right to work)[notes 1]
* An adequate income for food, shelter, and recreation
* Farmers' rights to a fair income
* Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
* Decent housing
* Adequate medical care
* Social security
* Education
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights
When I first registered to vote half a century ago, as a Democrat, the list above reflects the party I thought I was joining. What I found instead was something else, and I wasn't happy. I left and went third party for decades. That went nowhere. A good faith effort turned into a spoiler situation hijacked by creepy people. I rejoined the Democratic Party to vote for Bernie in the primary. It was odd that he was an independent because he reflected the party of FDR IMO more than anyone.
I promise, if the Democrats put that FDR list in action, the grateful voters will return us to office again and again -- as long as we are also fierce about preventing corruption. It is time to put "greed is good" in the dustbin of grotesque ideas. No, greed is bad. Generosity is good. A generous society is a happy society as long as the generosity extends to everyone. This is the moral issue that belongs in the political realm, (not these right-wing freaks obsession with other people's sex lives that they for some reason call "morality.")
This predates MAGA. This toxic society is of long standing. Here's a song from 20 years ago, that captures the worldview that brought us here better than anything I've ever heard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL_7SnuZ2IA
One of my neighbors has a sign up: “Make Lying Wrong Again!” I like the use of more colloquial language to get through to people. Decency could make a comeback.
god bless fdr! our best ever president!
forgot about this. thanks for the heads up.
Hi Simon and friends - I love that montage of headshots of our candidates, Simon. The face of a new and improved Democratic Party in the United States. Thanks for bringing us all the interviews, which have really been delightful to watch.
Please include Central and Pacific Time in your announcements and automatic calendar posts.
Simon's weekly call recap yesterday and discussion about liberty made me think of this excellent NYT op-ed from 3 years back about the end of Roe and the hypocrisy of the republican "pro life" stance. French outlines how republicans aren't even libertarian, they instead are libertines, where libertinism “says my desires are more important than your rights…which means that libertines are terrible ambassadors for any cause that requires self-sacrifice," as he says.
Trump himself embodies libertinism while rejecting the values of self-sacrifice and the development of character, which were once traditional conservative values meant to preserve the status quo. Instead, libertinism is “happy to inflict its will on others if it achieves what it wants," as the article says. For French, the Covid pandemic revealed the hypocrisy of the Republican Party’s libertine turn, demanding that women exercise self-control, while insisting on total freedom for themselves. As he notes in the article,
"I don’t think the pro-life movement has fully reckoned with the political and cultural fallout from the libertine right-wing response to the Covid pandemic. Here was a movement that was loudly telling women that they had to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, with all the physical transformations, risks and financial uncertainties that come with pregnancy and childbirth, at the same time that millions of its members were also loudly refusing the minor inconveniences of masking and the low risks of vaccination."
All republicanism is these days is, "I get to do what I want, when I want, and you can't do anything about it...and if you hold me accountable, I'm being unfairly restricted."
https://archive.ph/XEBnH
Simon, you have 10 (10!) requests for donations! It used to be a simple 1 or 2. I would like to ask you again to simplify your lists by combining groups (like Senators Fund) or something like that. Iowa is already in the Expanding the Map group. Add Ohio to that group. 10 separate donations is too many asks and is too confusing. The KISS principle has shown to be the most effective in soliciting donations. 10 choices for anything (like salsa?) is overwhelming. :-)
Mark, a few comments: 1) the playing field is bigger now, both in comparison to 2024 and now that many primaries have ended. There are more choices and opportunities so we will also have more here. 2) I am in the process of overhauling the recommendations. Some will contract, some will expand. 3) Not true that we ever had 1 or 2 options to give. In 2024 in the general we had many options to give, at least 7, perhaps more. Anyway I hear you on simplicity and look for changes in the coming days......
Just read Simon's reply, and another perspective is more choices give us the opportunity to give in specific or broader ways; like say, Platner's senate fund vs the expanded fund that includes Maine. Given some folks' trepidation about Platner, the expanded fund is a good way to backdoor donations. And we're not expected to give to every request. But simple is good, so looking forward to seeing Simon changes!
I cancelled my $10 recurring to Turek, but then put $15 recurring to "Winning Iowa". Postcarding. Looking forward to the Elias and Richardson discussions. I've been donating monthly to Democracy Docket for years now.
The "Winning Iowa" fund seems like money well spent. It goes toward building up the Iowa state party, Josh Turek for the Senate, the incredibly talented Rob Sand for governor, and three competitive Congressional races--all in a State with about 3.2 million people.
Agreed! I'm in Iowa (IA-01 -- Bohannan!). I donate to "Winning Iowa" and some extra to Turek and Bohannan individually. My postcards for Iowa voters finally arrived from Postcards to Swing States yesterday, and I will dive into them this evening. (I've been writing small batches of postcards for other campaigns while waiting for the Iowa ones.)
I’m hopeful that this support for Iowa candidates —who are so rightfully gaining attention across the country in the races for Governor (yay, Rob Sand!), senate (awesome Josh Turek!) and House (Go, Bohannon, Trone Garriott, and James!) — will also spill over and help Nate Willems in his Attorney General race.
https://www.natewillems.com/#meet
Boy, do we need an honest Attorney General to replace the despicable maggot, Brenna Bird. The only thing saving her from being the worst AG in the 50 states is Ken Paxton.
Omigosh, yes! We MUST get rid of Brenna Bird!
A word about the candidates in NY who Mamdami supported and who won over good, moderate Democrats already in Congress and who have been fighting the good fight against the regime. I think it’s a mistake for the Democratic Party to make the Big Tent so expensive that we allow candidates with extreme views, not reflective of Democratic Party views, to run as Democrats. They aren’t. I think they’re using the Democratic Party label but will hurt the Party in the end. It appears the incumbents lost because they chose to support Israel ( they could separate support of the country from supporting Bibi’s government, but that made no difference).
While Mamdami is a very attractive politician, I think it’s a mistake to allow people who hold too many positions that are at odds with those of the Democratic Party to run as Democrats. They aren’t. If they win on their own, calling themselves whatever they want, and then wish to caucus with the Democrats once in Congress, that can be decided separately. Republicans already falsely call all Democrats “ Communists” and “ Socialists,” so it doesn’t help to have people in the Party who are in fact more closely aligned in their thinking with those views. They are taking advantage of the Party label without truly being Democrats and I believe are hurting the Party brand in the process. We should not allow it.
Clara thanks for this thoughtful post on a tough subject. I think we are going to have to talk through all of this together, keeping a few things in mind: 1) The DSA see themselves as opponents to the Democratic Party, not a reform movement within it. Bernie for example remains an independent, outside the Party. 2) The issue that has come up in my mind is both extreme views *and* the lack of vetting of DSA backed candidates. If they want to become bigger players they are going to have to do a much better job at vetting their candidates.
As I said the other night we should welcome this discussion inside the family, not run from it.
My question - and admittedly, I haven't done much reading on this - is why they see themselves as opposition as opposed to reformers and/or allies. Opposition is not going to enact change in the current environment, IMHO. It's like they're trying to reinvent the wheel without reading any history whatsoever.
rachel bitecofer argues the dsa does not even understand what socialism is, and i agree with her. they should be calling themselves social democrats or something, because merely advocating for public services and healthcare is not socialism. we need to have a discussion about what socialism is and is not. there are a hard core group of leftist dems who think we lose because we are not far left enough; that centrists can't win, and yet mike sherrill and abigail spanberger are centrists who won big. my son works for the state, and trust me, sherrill is no leftist. she's already got a problem with too many environmental regulations. red tape is a legit topic for discussion in nj, but it is not something you'd expect from a dem when it comes to the environment. my son works in wetlands, and those regs have real applications and affect real people and wildlife, even if the scotus does not know what a wetland is.
Thanks, I'll have to do some reading on the history of the social dems in the US, although being a poli sci major, I am well familiar with what socialism is, lol. Bitecofer is always excellent.
Simon, I agree with this wholeheartedly and also with Clara’ sentiment wholeheartedly, especially as a Jewish Democrat who lands somewhere in between Left of Center and Progressive on the spectrum. I support Israel’ right to exist and always will cuz I’m not a nihilist. Believing Israel and its people don’t have the right to exist is inarguably Antisemitic. Believing Gaza and its people don’t have the right to exist is inarguably Islamophobic. I just don’t understand how hard it is for too many in the more progressive wing of the party to say that. This should be easy messaging to harness.
I really respect AOC and don’t feel she’s Antisemitic and have a strong feeling she was very much turned off by Chevalier’s past comments. However, she still took up for Chevalier and advised we give her a chance which I personally found disappointing. Building a political coalition I hope this community knows, doesn’t mean alienate moderates cuz they’re not progressive enough or alienate progressives cuz they’re not moderate enough. It means embrace all on the spectrum who are READY for this fight and made for this time!
AOC is a progressive who’s ready for this fight and made for this time. Shapiro, is a moderate who is equally ready for this fight and made for this time. That’s where the coalition lies. When many criticize Schumer, in my view, it’s far less criticism over his support for Israel than it is over whether or not he’s made for this time. He’s long had successes and has done a great deal for the party over the years. But is he made for this modern time? Not cuz he’s ’old.’ Whitehouse is older yet he’s very much in sync with the modern landscape of what we’re up against.
That all said, what we can do and can alienate in spite of this overarching theory…is the crazy!!! Any of us defending Chevalier after knowing she celebrated…Hamas…is like trying to defend MTG after knowing she espoused shameful Antisemitic conspiracy theories about Jewish space lasers. The GOP has far too long been afraid to call out their own (least for the right reasons). We cannot afford to fall into the same trap in my view and while i understand Chevalier is only one district in NYC contrast to what we’re putting out there in Iowa, GA, AK, etc., letting her rhetoric fester without a coalescing of sensible pushback I fear could pose a severe risk for us in upcoming elections.
While I don’t fully agree with the following tagline, it’s not completely outrageous just the same when I recently saw/read an article that stated, “One party is ousting Antisemites while the other is electing them.” Again, a bit more nuanced than that cuz MAGA in and of itself is quite Antisemitic I might add. But let us look no further than some of our party’s most popular, prominent, and promising figures. Shapiro, Ossoff, both Jewish! Newsom, Kelly, Pete, very friendly with the Jewish community. Harris, married to a Jewish man. All of these figures are Pro Israel the nation and its people/Pro Gaza and its people while also equally Anti Bibi and Anti Hamas/Jihadism. In other words, normalcy!
I’m just dumbfounded at how the party hasn’t seemingly found the succinct method of executing this message. It should be very easy to compartmentalize. The vast majority has to know that Chevalier, Hasan Piker, or a Mamdani figure will not be our next nominee nor have a chance of winning. That’s a reality check but one that shouldn’t be discouraging because the other names I’ve mentioned above and more, are beyond promising for leading us into the future and whom are ALL ‘dialed in.’
It’s partially why I’m concerned about our ability to hold onto MI. I’m not saying El-Sayed isn’t a strong candidate (even though I much prefer McMorrow who too, is progressive like him). But the open and seemingly unabashed paling around with Hasan Piker (who’s made numerous Antisemitic and incendiary remarks) in the swingiest of swing states, might just be enough to sway the state away from him and to Mike Rogers God forbid. It’s all a deeper discussion I understand we have to have as a family. My concern is that if these issues aren’t constructively confronted sooner than later, we may succumb to generating a ‘Left Wing MAGA movement’ that regresses us rather than progresses us.
On a far lighter note, I’ve been celebrating 250 in Baltimore by the Harbor this weekend, watching the ships and the air show with the ie Angels. Remarkable, and far more unifying than what we’ve seen in DC from this regime, which unfortunately, it is. I know I’m often verbose and I apologize when overdoing it , sincerely I do. I know I need to self edit. I’m just very passionate and share the same overarching goals this community does, often trying hard to keep my hope and typically innate cautious optimism alive often in the face of such adversity. Just praying it’s more adversity from our opposition than from within. Thank you for taking the time to read through if you do, for leading us in this community and through this fight ✌️. I know in my gut we will prevail when all said and done. But I also try to advise when I can…forewarned is always forearmed 🙏💕.
I was disappointed last night when I saw clips of AOC saying Chevalier was young, talented, intelligent, etc. I am further disappointed in her comments warning those who are not happy about Chevalier's win. Sorry, AOC, I am not buying it. Just bc someone is young, talented, intelligent and won an election, doesn't mean they are good for the country or are not a bigot.
And I see AOC as someone who is/can be good for the country. She knows better. That’s why if she runs for President, she needs to wait til 2032. Gives her more time to further season herself. She needs to be in the senate first.
piker is the gift that keeps on giving to the right; he is also an armenian holocaust denier, as is his uncle cenk. rutgers, producing piker, o'keefe, and mario batali.....come on nj, we can do better....
I Will do a couple of Hopium things today, then onto my own work. Have a good Saturday everyone.
Thanks as always Simon. I just made contributions across the board for many of these candidates. I’ve made some cuts to my fun projects and decided to move some of that money into higher contributions for our hardworking candidates. I’m not going to leave a penny on the table.
I've been going to some of the Progressive sites I follow on YouTube this morning where the DSA crowd is getting a bit too giddy over the results last Tuesday, equating the "establishment wing" with the GOP. I'm reposting comments I made there, adjusting my comments to the different audience.
"The difference between Republicans and Establishment Dems is FACISM. We must win the midterms for the Democratic Party to stop Trump and begin investigations on the adminstration criminals to set the stage for real consequences after Dems take control of the government in 2029.
Seating majorities in both houses in a peaceful transfer of power is job one for all pro-democracy activists and MUST be the focus now. THEN we can continue to push against the establishment wing of the blue team. IF we get out over our skiis too early fighting among ourselves and the FASCIST GOP wins this Fall, then we are all F*CKED.
FIrst things first. Progressives and DSA has made important strides this Primary season. In the General Election you go with the team you have and get behind ALL of them to halt the flow of Fascism.. The larger the Blue Tsunami in November, the harder it is for Maga and Trump to cheat and create a sh*tshow between November and January when the new Congress takes power."
We all need to recognize that every foreign government with sophisticated influence operations are going to be doing everything they can to foment a civil war between DSAers and the establishment party. Here's a statement from our ODNI in 2024 about how Iran amplified the Gaza protests in 2024:
"We have observed actors tied to Iran’s government posing as activists online, seeking to encourage protests, and even providing financial support to protesters."
https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/press-releases-2024/3842-statement-from-director-of-national-intelligence-avril-haines-on-recent-iranian-influence-efforts
very important, similar to Russia in 2016. Thanks for this.
i suspect russia had a role in the protests too; the former soviet union hated the state of israel, once it allied itself with the united states. the entire construct of israel as a colonial european power is from the soviets, designed to curry favor with the independence movements during the cold war. there's an excellent piece in the atlantic about the whole issue.
thanks, I'll look for it.
Article in the WSJ today about the Dems “civil war”
i for one am sick of the trope that dems have to go to the middle to win. i think this is a repub set up every single time. we are a diverse party under a big tent. there are many types of dems. but it is not true, and i dont think it ever has been true, that we dems must always go to the middle. and right now, people want fighters who will do something about trumpism, the economy, health care, corruption, etc. they do not want middle of the road pablum speaking (schumer & jeffries) poll tested consultant language. they want fire in the belly, hair is on fire representatives. when you are in the middle, people think you are republican lite. and that is how we lose elections. we are vastly different than repubs and and that is our message: we are not republicans. and we dont need a circular firing squad against progressives, liberals, DSA, etc. we are all dems! dont give the repubs a wedge issue of dem hating dem. not necessary under a big tent!
I agree with you. I'm not saying we have to go to the middle to win, I'm saying we need to embrace the big tent and support ALL candidates to fill as many seats as we can. The moderate wing supporting the progressives and vice versa.
In our relentless 24/7/365 neverending election cycles (driven by media and money) the presidential cycle will begin immediately after this one, and i expect we will be wrestling this topic in earnest between the array of candidates.
Until then, first things first.
i think the repub party is finished. history. they have been captured by oligarchs, corporations & trumpism. they do not govern, no policies, no legislation, nothing for everyday americans ever. they do lie, try to steal elections, suppress voting, etc. and they do have tons of money from oligarchs, big tech, etc. and positive media coverage from MSM. but they dont have the people anymore. the curtain has come down on the clown show. and the corruption is choking them. its just $$$$ vs votes. we got this!
With respect, the DSA are not Democrats; Bernie is an Independent who ran as a Democrat to get the funding and exposure. He then went back to being an Independent. Chevalier is not someone I could ever vote for unless she did an honest 180. I would just leave my vote blank. I don't live in NY so it's a moot point anyway.
As far as a circular firing squad, sadly, I agree but tell that to the DSA members who are constantly trashing the Democrats and unless I missed it, don't seem to have the same passion for going after republicans.
I say all this with utmost respect for your opinion. I just disagree with some of it.
I am personally more on the progressive end of the spectrum in my views, but I want to respectfully say one thing regarding everything you said. I think every district and state is unique, and we need to let candidates who are from those places with a good feel for who their voter constituency is....the people that they can cobble together into a winning coalition....decide the tone and ideological stance they take. It will be values aligned with the broad Democratic and pro-democracy project, but it won't always be lock step on particular policies and issues.
On occasion we end up with someone who is disappointingly and unnecessarily conservative when they absolutely don't need to be....Joe Lieberman was such a case. Those folks can and should be subject to primary challenges for sure, but by and large, great candidates know their states and districts very well and know what is required to win and govern effectively there....we should respect that enough to give them the flexibility to do that.
And one last thing...as a progressive voter myself, I understand the frustration with Schumer & Jeffries...some of it I think is pretty legit, and they have had to evolve this year in a number of ways to better manage the coalition....but a lot of it has been cheap shots based on vibes and disinformation being touted by people inside our own information ecosystem who benefit personally from a weak Democratic Party. They tend to be folks who either 1) have never actually managed a winning political campaign before so they have no actual experience on the ground where you learn the truth, or 2) have only EVER operated as campaign consultants in safe blue districts, and safe blue states, which means that their expertise is in defeating Democrats, not Republicans. When you only work in safe blue areas, the Primary Election is the ballgame, and there's an entire wing of our consultant class and information influencers who make their entire living by attacking other Democrats. That's fine...I welcome their work because it helps keep the party honest to its values in places where we don't need to moderate in order to be competitive....but a lot of them have found that they can make a lot of money and build a nice following by pretending that they know how to beat Republicans, when in fact, they have spent ZERO time in their careers doing so.
And right now, as much as I appreciate their value to the Democratic Party and pro-democracy projects, what I care more than ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT....is beating Republicans and flipping the majorities everywhere that we can...in the House, the Senate, State Leg Chambers, Governorships, Mayoralties, City Councils, County Commissions, School Boards, Water District Boards, Boards of Regents for Public Universities, Secretaries of State and State Attorneys General, and any and every judicial seat in every state that is settled through elections.....we need to beat REPUBLICANS and flip majorities. And frankly, I don't like being misled by influencers in my own political coalition actively trying to detract from that effort by making their following believe that ousting Democratic incumbents that would have won easily in November and replacing them with different incumbents who will also win easily is somehow doing more for our democracy in this moment of crisis than actually flipping Republican seats, and pretending like the same model that was used to defeat a Dem incumbent in an all Democratic primary in June will for sure flip a seat currently held by a republican in Iowa in november with Ds, Rs, and Independents voting, in a district with 7% more Republican registered voters than Democrats.
So, sorry for the long reply, but I really mean this with no disrespect, and much more agreement with you than it might appear (I'm for Medicare for All, Paid Family Leave, Paid Childcare, a Wealth Tax on Billionaires, a "moon-shot" level effort to curb and adapt to climate change (basically making fossil fuels go extinct), and a HARD-ASSED LINE with Bibi over his war crimes and reckless use of force against millions of innocent people....especially for denying and or delaying aid...it's a crisis of epic proportion and our party has done a terrible job of condemning it outright and learning how to effectively voice our support for the people of Israel, but not the inhumane and unforgivable actions by their current leader....I'm with you across the board. But, considering the level of vitriol that has been foisted toward "the establishment", "the leadership", "the moderates", etc. this year from the activist class....I think your comment about respecting every part of the coalition runs down both sides of the street. I WANT my views to be more represented and respected in our elected officials, but if someone who knows how to flip a seat blue in Iowa, or Ohio, or Arizona, or Texas, or Florida, or Kansas, or Mississippi, or Alaska and they will give the Democratic Party control of Congress and control of the floor and agenda of the US House and or US Senate, but don't feel like they can give my beliefs their full support, and just partial support....I want them to do what it takes to win, and I want to thank them for helping us put out this fire.
I hope this came across with the level of respect and admiration for your views and passion that I intended. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and thanks for caring so much about the people of the United States....we'll get through this together.
people do seem to want a fighter; and that doesn't have to be a dsa candidate; people like mayor pete because he goes on fox and tears them a new one; pete is not a dsa leftist; he's a pretty moderate dem. but he can fight. pritzker too.
I think this op-ed by Brian Beutler is very smart and insightful: "In Search Of A Shared Theory Of Power"
https://www.offmessage.net/p/shared-theory-of-power-zohran-mamdani-bernie-sanders-hakeem-jeffries-darializa-avila-chevalier-newyork-donald-trump-gavin-newsom-gerrymandering-beto-orourke-pete-buttigieg-supreme-court-
These four paragraphs very clearly explain why people are voting out some Democratic incumbents:
"... I’m focused principally on DSA and DSA-aligned factional Democrats here because they’re having a moment. But the liberal establishment still runs the Democratic Party and their theory is, if anything, worse.
In the mainline, you’ll see influential figures who decline to endorse nominees to their left, or even threaten to leave the party when primary voters make choices they don’t like.
You see a strategic approach to building power and checking Trump that begins and ends with winning elections and padding margins. Winning is obviously the predicate of all political power building—but it is also table stakes. And in the establishment, the approach is rote and reductive: It’s to support primary candidates who poll best head-to-head against Republicans, which typically means throwing support to the most moderate, most change-averse candidate in every primary field.
But to what end? When a party selects for wallflowers, the ambition for reform of any kind—procedural or substantive—will be shallow. It will build a big majority that makes peace with the post-Trump status quo; that hopes people can be hypnotized—with antiseptic policy ideas and promises of normalcy—into treating Trump-era wreckage as a new baseline. ..."
Many Democrats are tired of Democrats winning and then not much happening to reform our system. They want real reform so that average people are in charge of the government, not billionaires, not corporate CEOs, not politicians. They want a government truly of the people, by the people, and for the people -- not one that says, "well we can't do that because the existing laws or rich, powerful people or religious customs from 15th century puritans say we can't." They want fighters who will change society so it is actually responsive to them.
https://news.wm.edu/2026/06/22/what-jefferson-really-meant-by-the-pursuit-of-happiness/
Simon and friends,
I thought you’d enjoy reading this essay about how Thomas Jefferson understood the pursuit of happiness . It resonates your thoughts on the integrity , love of country and service to the common good that you’ve been emphasizing.
It’s great. Thank you!
Thanks so much Simon for replying to my comment. I love Hopium Chronicles and value your insights each day. I hope the leaders of the Democratic Party discuss their policy for allowing people to run as Democrats if their views differ substantially from those of the Party. The two candidates who won in NY appear to fit that description. It can be dismissed as it’s just in NY, or it’s just a few, but I think that would be unwise. It appears to be happening in some of our major cities and it would be good to have a policy before it can get out of hand. Even in a parliamentary system, candidates run under a Party heading that most fits their ideology and then can choose to join a coalition government if needed. The Democratic Party should not allow itself to be used as a vehicle to gain power when, in truth, the candidate does not uphold much of what our Party stands for.
Fully agree with both you and Simon.
The NY races were elevated bc Mamdani endorsed the candidates. I am not saying it would not have made news, but the fact that Mamdani stood with Chevalier, smiling, obviously thrilled that she won, had the MSM (and republicans) practically giddy - and despite what her supporters believe, not in a good way. Just my opinion. I don't know anything about the other candidate. I probably should look her up but honestly, I don't know if I can take it.
So. This generalization about how Establishment Democrats represent the elite and DSA-backed candidates support the working class. How do you suppose this sounds in, say, the third Congressional district in Wisconsin? Here Rebecca Cooke, from an actual working-class background, is running against a hard-cord MAGA lunatic. Cooke grew up on a dairy farm, and while she's done a number of things in her adult life, she's recently been working as a waitress. She's sharp, articulate, and she knows her district. She's not running as a progressive or a socialist, but she is running to reform the system for the working people she would represent. She fits her district. She is exactly the kind of candidate who needs to get elected if the pro-democracy movement is to regain power.
The same could be said of Mary Peltola. Would she represent the working people of Alaska in the Senate? I should say so. Fish. Family. Freedom. This fits Alaska. She fits Alaska. She's the kind of candidate we need if we're to strip MAGA of power.
I agree. I think there's quite a bit of generalization going on here. There is a big difference between "fitting the district" and being "centrist" or "establishment." And between DSA and Progressive/Liberal. I think we would do well to think carefully about these distinctions as we hash this out.
I wonder if you saw this interview today with Alissa Ellman, who just won a Dem primary in her NYS district, a former public servant and military (and cancer survivor).
What interested me about the interview was a point at which Jacob asks her the usual question being hurled at every candidate now. Along the lines of: what, if anything, can she apply to her campaign from the DSA wins in NYC?
Rather than using some social lubricant to avoid making the interviewer feel awkward, she just said, "My district is Red, and DSA stuff won't work here."
https://youtu.be/gMRHeCBJpik?si=bE_VZRXgsRC6JIOM
Did not. I like it. :)
Hey Guys! You know what I'm noticing so much more than ever before?? The confidence people left of center are feeling at expressing their opinions out in the open in places like Nebraska. This is something that goes back way further than Trump. People like Rush Limbaugh and other loud arrogant jackasses in the right wing bullshit machine spent years convincing their audiences that people like us are immoral, unpatriotic, weak, and stupid, and that it was their job to go out into the world and "spread the good word" of conservatism to everyone as though it was an accepted fact that it was superior in every way. As a result, everyone who disagreed got quieter, and started making rhetorical compromises and concessions that they absolutely didn't believe in just to try to "get along", and of course...when you give one of those blowholes and inch, they try to grab a mile. It created a culture here that I used to call, "Republican until proven guilty"....and I HATED it.
And then it got WAYYYYYY out of whack after 9/11 when they really supercharged their weaponization of "patriotism" and support for the military (because apparently all that matters in showing your support for the troops is blindly supporting the wars they are sent to, waving flags, putting magnets and bumper stickers on your car, and chanting USA, USA, USA at sporting events.....actually funding the VA and purchasing the best possible kevlar vests for them to go into combat with weren't priorities at the time).
Well....those blowholes still exist and always will, but they are a bit bewildered because the malevolence, venality, and staggering incompetence of the modern Republican Party is finally so thoroughly on display, that it can't be denied any longer, and those of us who stayed quiet for so long in order to be polite and not make waves aren't quiet anymore.
When they shoot off their bullshit on Facebook or to a group of friends at coffee, the person with the actual facts, is saying, "No...that's blatantly false, and ridiculously incomplete." And then lays out the actual truth. Now, I don't have any illusions that this is going to change the true believers minds....but one of the reasons I was drawn to Simon's work and got into Hopium from the ground floor is because he was talking about how we had allowed the information environment to get badly imbalanced with the Republicans' arguments, and maybe more importantly, their lies being much louder in our overall discourse than the counterarguments and truth. And as a result, it was disproportionately impacting low political information voters because the signal that broke through to them, however small it was, was tilted to the right due to the shear weight and volume of their presence in the debate.
They still have, and have made worse in the last two years, their structural advantage in the various media platforms....but their incompetence, corruption, and clear distain for ordinary Americans simply can no longer be hidden, and left leaning citizens who never engaged in voicing their opinions to groups of friends or acquaintances where they thought there might be social consequences, no longer care and are saying exactly what they think...and guess what....social consequences are happening for the MAGA people....they're the ones everyone wishes would just shut up and not bring politics into everything. They're the ones who are looking like fools and buffoons. And they are all having a real "sad" about it and whining like they always do, feeling victimized because "people hate me for my politics".....as if they haven't been doing that to everyone else for decades.
I don't mean to take delight in this....in fact I don't. But, there needs to be social consequences for supporting this shit....these people need to feel like they're on the fringe for believing it and supporting it....NOT in the mainstream. That's part of how it will be contained in the future. I'm here for it, and I'm not putting up with that kind of ignorant bullshit being spewed in my presence any longer. Loud and proud my friends....let's send them all a statement in a few months!!