What's in the Polling Water in the Midwest?

When Abdul El-Sayed won the Democratic nomination for Michigan Senate in a nail-biter, there was some talk about this actually being a disappointing outcome for the insurgent left given late polling that suggested El-Sayed running away with the race. This struck me as basically centrist cope -- one doesn't get to claim a moral victory of losing more narrowly than expected when you outspent your appointment by approximately seven trillion dollars -- but it did race significant questions about what went wrong for the pollsters.

Tonight, David Crowley narrowly upset Democratic Socialist Francisca Hong to win the nomination for Governor of Wisconsin in another race where late polling had given the progressive a commanding lead. In contrast to the Michigan race, I think this really does reflect poorly on Hong, as for an "outsider" candidate she couldn't have asked for more a glide path to the nomination watching her field of competitors implode around her (Crowley actually dropped out of the race a month ago before jumping back in, which is wild).

(Meanwhile, in Minnesota, Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan easily won the Senate nomination over Rep. Angie Craig in another progressive/moderate showdown, though this felt more expected.)

So we now have two major midwestern Democratic primary races that were defined by huge polling misses, both in the form of vast overstatements of the strength of the lefty candidate. The big question is what does this mean for November? Does this suggest an electorate that is more conservative than polls are letting on? Or is it actually just showing that there are more "normie libs" whose voices are being drowned out? More than the results, that's the question that's going to keep me up at night.

It's Not ALWAYS a Conspiracy

In a rematch of their 2024 contest, Democratic Rep. Wesley Bell prevailed over former Rep. Cori Bush, whom Bell ousted in his own primary challenge last cycle. While Bell won the 2024 race by approximately 5 points, he's expanded his lead to over 20 this time around.

But I actually want to flag a tertiary point. When looking for a news report on the race and its outcome, I happened to click on the NBC article (for no other reason than it was near the top of the Google results). The story interviews two voters, both of whom supported Bush. Which I found a bit odd, given that Bush, you know, lost (and lost by a wide margin). The broader copy, to my ears, also seemed to center Bush's "theory of the case" (if you will) regarding Bell being "bought" and Israel being the critical issue.

If I were a different sort of person, I'd spin out quite the tale about this -- of media bias and journalistic narratives and a clear ideological agenda keyed against politicians like Bell and in favor of those like Bush. But my actual point is the exact opposite: there is no conspiracy here. Is it probably better practice for NBC to interview voters who support the winning candidate when reporting on said candidate winning their race? Yeah, I think so. But these things happen, and they happen to candidates from all across the political spectrum, and so plucking out one discrete instance of it and saying "See! See! They really are all out to get us!" is not actually a valid move -- whether it's on behalf of a Bell-sort or on behalf of a Bush-sort.

In any event, congratulations to Wesley Bell, Abdul El-Sayed, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, William Lawrence, Jeremy Moss, and all the Democrats who secured their nominations tonight. Let's get out there and win some seats!

Say That I Do, Not That I Say

The other day, I put up a skeet complaining about the faction of progressive commentators who were mad at Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear for not just declaring Mitch McConnell dead and calling a special election to replace him. Their complaints generally took on the theme of aggrievement at Democrats who don't "fight" and a concurrent demand that Beshear "do something" rather than just sit around and vegetate while another Republican lie goes unchallenged. Why don't Democrats ever play hardball?

The problem with this hue and cry, I pointed out, is that it completely misreads what the "hardball" play is. As long as Mitch McConnell is missing, he can't cast votes -- functionally losing the GOP one sorely needed seat. If he dies (or we just decide he's dead), and Beshear calls a special election to replace him, that special election will be won by a Republican who can cast votes, giving the Senate GOP its seat back. Calling a special election helps Republicans. Keeping McConnell's seat in purgatory indefinitely helps Democrats. The hardball move isn't for Beshear to just unilaterally declare Mitch McConnell dead; the hardball move is for Beshear to say he'll do nothing until he sees a long form death certificate and then disconnect his phone.

Nonetheless, the amount of traction the "do something" calls against Beshear has gotten is worrisome. For starters, we shouldn't look past the fact that it is at best conspiracy theory adjacent (it is extremely unlikely that McConnell is secretly dead and that fact is being hidden by nefarious GOP operative -- if for no other reason than, again, his death would be good for the GOP as against the alternative of him lingering but incapable of casting votes). But beyond that, it is the apex of a certain type of brainrot which is so mad at supposedly sclerotic Democratic leadership that it fetishizes the appearance of "doing something" above all else. This is itself a gateway to fascism -- a feature of which Umberto Eco identified 30 years ago as including the cult of action for action’s sake. (“Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”) -- but even if it wasn't, it's just stupidity wrapped in an angry self-righteous shell. It's a large part of what gave us Graham Platner, and what made Platner immune to so many normally career-ended scandals until he finally wasn't -- all could be forgiven because "at least he's a fighter."

This is the problem. Too much of our political energy is being channeled exclusively through the lens of "doing something", where that marks out the sole criteria for goodness or badness, in a way that leads to counterproductive or just bizarre contortions. To give a different example, earlier today Nexus issued a statement defending New York City major Zohran Mamdani from allegations of antisemitism leveled by ADL chieftain Jonathan Greenblatt. Someone on BlueSky, while purporting to "applaud" Nexus for calling Greenblatt out, found the statement to be woefully insufficient. The "absence of action is deafening," he wrote. Nexus' "commitment to fight antisemitism rests on what you do, not just what you say/post."

So what is it that Nexus should have "done", as opposed to just "said"? They should have issued a "call for [Greenblatt's] removal from leadership."

Now, maybe that's a good thing for them to do, maybe not. But I could not help but point out that "calling" for Greenblatt's removal is ... a call. It is words. Again, that doesn't make it pointless -- Nexus doesn't sit on the ADL's board, so they can't actually "do" anything. The point is, though, that if there is a divide between "what you say" and "what you do", this falls pretty decisively on the "say" side of the line. And I flag this here because it seems pretty clear that this was an example of someone for whom "doing" is inherently good and "saying" is inherently inadequate, and so they just instinctively decided that their own preferred tactical intervention had to be a "do" even though it was exactly as much of a "say" as the statement whose inaction was so deafening.

To be clear, I'm not urging a return to cautious moderation. Much the opposite, I think Democrats need to be bold, and when they take back power, they need to exercise it. Recall my wishlist for the first week of the next Democratic administration:

By the end of the first week, I'd want to a complete pro-democracy package (including DC statehood) on the president's desk. I want to see prominent Republicans and ICE leaders who've committed crimes frog-marched in handcuffs. I want the corporate executives who approved "settlements" for Trump's frivolous lawsuits indicted for bribery. I want to see public resources and opportunities expressly redirected away from companies and firms who caved to Trump, and towards those who showed backbone, to show that there are penalties to being a quisling. I want the DOJ to announce an anti-corruption task force geared at identifying all the money stolen from the American taxpayer by the Trump family and clawing back as much of it as possible, and I want them to name and shame the Supreme Court as among the primary obstacles to providing accountability for their crimes. I want to uncover the corrupt insiders who bet on the lives of American servicemembers and have their identities blasted across every newspaper in America in advance of their trials. Do it all, do it fast, weather the storm, then consolidate your position.

These are, I hope one would agree, pretty "fight-y" in character. And importantly, I'd defend all of them on the merits of being good policy, not just as short-term political expediency but in terms of long-term political health. Critically, they are not good just because they give a powerful aura of fighting and acting. And by the same token, while many of these good things can be announced quickly, a lot of them to be fully operationalized do require a lot of the "boring" work of planning and organizing and thinking and researching in order to actually accomplish what they set out to do. Doing that sort of thing isn't backsliding, it's part of making action work.

It is absolutely true that a political movement, to be worthwhile, has to do some things. We're not a philosophy club; the point is to translate some ideals into practice. But the thirst for action needs to be tempered -- it cannot be its own justification. When we let ourselves indulge action for actions sake (again, even leaving aside the pipeline to fascism risk), we will continually bash our heads into easily avoidable walls and be mad at those not running full speed along side us. That's what we're seeing with the attacks on Beshear, that's what we saw for too long from those demanding everyone hop aboard the Platner train, and that will ultimately rip the party and the movement to shreds.

DMFI Yields To Rahm-Bo

As you may have heard, former Chicago Mayor (and Obama White House Chief of Staff) Rahm Emanuel went to Israel and delivered a tough love address: lambasting "Greater Israel" and calling for an array of sanctions on Israeli politicians, businesses, and other figures who support violence against Palestinians or illegal West Bank settlements.

To me, this matters only in terms of "which way the wind blows". Despite often seeing Rahm's name next to the words "2028 presidential candidate", I don't see any universe where he's viable in the Democratic primary. Nonetheless, it's clear that Rahm views taking a stance like this as crucial to having any future in Democratic politics (which is not to say he doesn't believe what he's saying -- I'm actually very confident he does -- only that it matches up with his raw political calculation). And, whatever one thinks about Rahm in general, it is absolutely a good thing that someone who still holds certain cachet in certain circles is talking like this. Rightly or wrongly, when he speaks in these terms, it koshers certain discourses and positions in a way that a generic replacement Democrat couldn't do.

And in similarly meteorological-but-not-practical data, I was very intrigued to see that Democratic Majority for Israel issued a statement praising Emanuel's speech. Again, that matters not because I see DMFI as an especially relevant or influential institution (it's in fact been impressively inept throughout its existence), but because Emanuel's jeremiad was of the sort one would have expected DMFI to be appalled by (Sanctions? On Israel? Heavens to Murgatroyd!). And a few years ago, had a speech like this been given, I bet they would have expressed apoplexy -- but then, a few years ago, Rahm Emanuel would not have delivered this speech. The significance here, I think, is that DMFI can no longer hold the line on unblinking support for Israel in Democratic Party politics in a world where even folks like Rahm Emanuel are challenging it. DMFI may be dim, but they're not so dim as to think that they could retain any practical relevancy as Democrats in a universe where they're trying to throw Rahm Emanuel out of the tent.

Party On

I don't have much to say about the latest Graham Platner allegations. Of course he should drop out. Of course he's being extra-selfish in trying to extort concessions from the state party in exchange for dropping out (Rep .Sean Casten brings the heat).

"I'm not taking no for an answer until you let me impose my will on this process" is a hell of a hill for Platner to die on.

— Sean Casten (@seancasten.bsky.social) July 7, 2026 at 6:19 PM

Of course there were plenty of red flags before the latest one, though I'll continue to assert that Platner's Nazi tattoo was unfortunately part of what attracted people to him and that we need to reflect on what that means. Everyone's got their I-told-you-so on this, and it will surprise no one that mine is "when you pick candidates based solely on an aesthetic of 'I'm a fighter and I hate the establishment' and nothing else, bad things happen." And of course, right now everyone is running away from Platner and acting like it was only other people who supported him. Victory has a thousand fathers and defeat is an orphan, after all.

But perhaps related to that last point: the particular iteration of buck-passing that's getting my ire up the most comes from those who somehow blame "the Party" for not waylaying Platner in the first place. How could the Democrats not found a better candidate than Platner (where Mills doesn't count as "better" because she reminds us of our mom or something)? Platner was clearly and unambiguously a vanguard of the anti-establishment wing of the party, but it's still really the establishment's fault for not stopping us.

This drives me nuts. We have endured years upon years of conspiratorial sour grapes whining about "the Party establishment" supposedly "rigging" primary elections in favor of its preferred candidates. But now, in a situation where there can be no question that "the establishment" took its hands off the rudder and let the process play out (not that I concede they were "rigging" other races), we get a novel round of whining that they didn't interfere enough?

Spare me. Or better yet, learn a lesson. The folks in "the establishment" -- however you define that -- are by no means perfect. But they are in fact not just a bunch of fat cat idiots cashing checks to dole out plum candidate nominations to their buddies and nepo babies. They in fact perform a valuable service vetting people, and head off potential disasters ahead of time. The purpose isn't to ensure only "smoothgroined" androids get a shot. The purpose is to ensure that a guy with Nazi tattoos and a history of sexual predation doesn't storm to a swing seat nomination because a bunch of podcasters think his beard is manly in all the right ways.

Politics is a job, and not an easy one. It is not the case that any idiot with a working class affect who yells in the right tone can win an election, and it's even less of the case that said idiot will be an effective legislator. The vetting process exists for a reason. Dismiss it at your peril.

The Shock Has Passed, the Awe is Gone

One of the Trump administration's earliest and most vicious power abuses was its attempt to sabotage law firms who it viewed as tied to Trump's adversaries, targeting the firms with outrageous and draconian restrictions on everything from their ability to meet with federal agencies to their license to enter federal buildings. It was an existential threat to these firms' businesses if allowed to go through, and some firms, famously, caved in. 

But others fought, and won injunctions against the administration's unlawful retaliation. And today, the report is that the Trump administration is quietly dropping its appeal of those rulings. It is a victory for rule of law, and for the law firms that understood the actual demands of the moment beyond the most transient instinct for self-preservation.

The timeline of events here is instructive, offering hope and, I'd argue, a lesson. From their first week back in power, the Trump administration came out storming with a cavalcade of some of the most radical attacks on the American constitutional order that have been seen in my lifetime. It was shocking, and people and institutions were shocked. They'd never witnessed anything like this. Many were still reeling from an election they weren't expecting to lose. They didn't know how to respond. And the Trump administration exploited that shock and that awe to spend months just running over the institutional guardrails that should have existed to keep them in check. The law firm submissions were part of that story, but it was much larger than that. Media companies, universities, even the Democratic leadership was left floundering at best, trying to negotiate a panicked surrender at worst.

But now the tide is turning. Once again, the dropped initiative against the law firms is just one part of a larger story. The initial blitzkrieg is grinding to a halt. A dazed opposition has regained its footing. Resistance is mounting. Even the Supreme Court maybe is starting to recognize, just a little bit, that its constitutional role is not to act as the highest rubber stamp in the land. The shock has passed, the awe is gone. People are fighting back, and they are winning. And while nobody should expect the Trump administration to just slink away quietly (even if that's what they did do in this appeal), at the very least it's no longer a romp. They're in for a fight now, and it's a fight we can and will win.

This is not an exculpation of those who turned tail and ran. It is a praise of those who remained steadfast -- a few law firms, sure, but far more importantly ordinary American citizens in places like Minneapolis and Chicago and Portland who planted their feet and said no. Their continued faith and grit is what allowed others to rally and reestablish themselves. They are heroes. May their names ever be sung in our victory speeches.

That's the hope. Here's the lesson. The Trump administration's goals are evil. But the strategy -- of coming out the gates storming, front-loading as much aggressive policy content as possible, as fast as possible -- was a sound one. It worked. Yes, it bred backlash -- eventually. But much of the damage "accomplishments" they wrought is already well-entrenched. The lesson here is Machiavelli's, and I flagged it when the Supreme Court did something similar in loading up its most extreme right-wing agenda all at once in 2022.

[I]f you feel compelled to take certain actions that you know are unpopular, or will engender backlash -- do them all, do them early, and do them all at once.

Do not try to spread them out. Do not feel the need to pull back on some to balance the others. Do not hem and haw with baby steps. Do everything you want to do early, and immediately. The backlash will come, but the backlash won't be materially different between one outrageous thing and ten outrageous things. Spreading them out just creates new moments of fresh anger. Purported sops won't make people forgive in the moment.... Get them all out of the way in one fell swoop.

This was a lesson I argued Democrats should internalize, though it was already too late for them in 2022.

Democrats needed to do big things. Those things would be controversial. Talking them out indefinitely in a bid for a compromise that would never occur only would bleed resources (ask Barack Obama how that went with the ACA). Better to slam them through at the start. Voting rights, anti-gerrymandering, DC statehood, BBB, protecting abortion rights. Yeah, these things would be controversial. They wouldn't be any less controversial if they're spread out in drips and drabs. Do them all, do them together, weather the storm, and then spend the rest of your time consolidating your position. 

That would still be my basic advice if Democrats retake the Oval Office in 2028. By the end of the first week, I'd want to a complete pro-democracy package (including DC statehood) on the president's desk. I want to see prominent Republicans and ICE leaders who've committed crimes frog-marched in handcuffs. I want the corporate executives who approved "settlements" for Trump's frivolous lawsuits indicted for bribery. I want to see public resources and opportunities expressly redirected away from companies and firms who caved to Trump, and towards those who showed backbone, to show that there are penalties to being a quisling. I want the DOJ to announce an anti-corruption task force geared at identifying all the money stolen from the American taxpayer by the Trump family and clawing back as much of it as possible, and I want them to name and shame the Supreme Court as among the primary obstacles to providing accountability for their crimes. I want to uncover the corrupt insiders who bet on the lives of American servicemembers and have their identities blasted across every newspaper in America in advance of their trials. Do it all, do it fast, weather the storm, then consolidate your position.

Does the backlash to Trumpism discredit this strategy? I don't think so. For starters, a Democrat administration hopefully would not have the same proportion of incompetent and corrupt lickspittles undermining its progress at every turn -- it's not clear to me that the same level of backlash would emerge. Indeed, I suspect Trump's hyper-aggression was initially popular in a political climate where many people just have an inchoate desire to see some inchoate powerful "them" receive comeuppance. That instinct can be harnessed by Democrats, but, you know, without resort to random street kidnappings.

But even if there is a real backlash, again -- the brute truth is that Trump "accomplished" a lot in his shock and awe period. Those accomplishments are vicious and evil and destructive, but they're going to prove more terribly durable than they have any right to be. Democrats, too, should try to entrench big victories, even if it does generate adverse political winds. Those winds will come regardless -- that's how politics work. You might as well try to accomplish what you can -- and there's a lot that needs accomplishing.

UPDATE: Now Trump's lawyers are trying to undo their motion to dismiss. This does not undermine my assessment that the Trump war machine is sputtering to a halt.

The Totenkopf is Part of Platner's Appeal

A new poll out of the University of New Hampshire has Graham Platner opening up a giant lead over Gov. Janet Mills (64/25) in the Democratic primary to challenge Maine Senator Susan Collins. Platner also leads Collins by a greater margin than does Mills.

It's a startling show of resiliency from a man whose campaign seemed DOA once it was revealed he had gotten a big ol' Nazi tattoo on his chest. And lest we think that was some sort of one-off, just today Platner boosted the message of a prominent neo-Nazi radio host when the latter identified war with Iran as "the only thing Republicans and Democrats have both given a standing ovation for" (Platner added "As always, there’s one thing that brings Republican and Democratic politicians together: sending other people’s children to die in stupid wars in the Middle East.").

As the possibility of a Platner victory, post-Totenkopf, is sinking in, we're starting to see more folks from what we might call the intelligentsia of the "insurgent" wing of the Democratic Party trying to raise the alarm on him. The line I'm hearing most often is that Platner will become "another Fetterman" -- a politician initially promoted by the populist wing of the party, whose appeal traded significantly on coding as a manly-man to Democrats desperate to shed their elitist, East Coast, alternative, intellectual, left-wing (...) image, who became one of the Democrats most likely to cross party lines and back conservative initiatives. 

It's an ironic charge, given that one of Fetterman's chief sins to this clique is that he is among the few diehard Bibi-or-bust Democrats remaining, and Platner is a loud and harsh critic of Israel. To the extent the allegation is that Platner will turn out to be an AIPAC darling, I'm dubious. But if the claim is more broadly that Platner is highly liable to align with conservative populists at the expense of Democratic priorities, it's quite plausible -- and, it must be said, quite compatible with retaining his loud and harsh anti-Israel politics. His fate is not to become Irving Kristol, but to become Tucker Carlson.

As this last-ditch rally against Platner develops, though, I've been thinking about the old "the party decides" line that people thought until too far late in the day would stop Trump from being nominated in 2016. In this case, though, "the party" I have in mind is not the organizational Democratic Party, but rather the aforementioned insurgent intelligentsia that's trying to claw back support for Platner from what is largely their own rank-and-file. They've relentlessly promoted a vision of Democratic politics that is almost entirely front-loaded into a particular aesthetic of being a "fighter", and now they've found it's spiraled out of their control. And in particular, one thing I think they still haven't wrapped their heads around is the real possibility that Platner's antisemitic associations are a selling point for him. They're not something he's had to overcome, they're part of why -- in the context of this particular "I'm a fighter, I'm tackling the powerful, I'm beholden to nobody" aesthetic -- Platner is as popular as he is.

Amanda Marcotte, for instance, uses the fact of Platner's success-notwithstanding-Nazi-ties to complain not about the Democratic branches backing Platner, but of the Democratic establishment that has aligned with Mills. "It really says a lot about how the Democratic establishment is failing to meet the moment that Platner is a contender.... Running Mills was political malpractice." The implication, here, is that Platner is only succeeding because Democrats thirsting for a true "fighter" didn't have another option other than a geriatric old biddy; they're so desperate that they'll even back the Nazi-adjacent dude if the alternatives are so poor. 

Problem #1 with this argument is that Platner was not the only alternative to Mills in the race; Marcotte's account doesn't explain why Platner specifically became the popular alternative. Problem #2 is that while Mills is certainly old, there's no evidence that she doesn't take the positions or adversarial attitude towards Republicans that we supposedly want -- her only actual sin is her age, the other problems are just imputed to her by virtue of her date of birth. Platner's ascendence is directly related to this conflation, where a "vibe" of being "fighter-ly" matters more than one's actual record, beliefs, or policies. Can we really be surprised when Platner's support is not dinged by complaints relating to his record, beliefs, and or policies? Folks are reaping what they've sown here.

Much like with conservatives and Trumpism circa 2016, it's clear that there is a substantial cadre of political professionals who thought -- quite sincerely -- that they could play with currents of populist rage but also keep them under control, in part because they assumed that of course people didn't really want overt nativism or White supremacy or antisemitism or what have you. And the problem is, it turns out that a lot of people wanted exactly that. The "party" tried to hit the brakes, and nothing happened. It was a complete misjudgment of where the center of gravity was, alongside a complete misjudgment of how intolerable pure rancid bigotry would be.

We have gone through a long, long period of certain people ranting about the DNC rigging primaries and all incumbents are bought and paid for by special interests and every Democratic leader is a spineless weasel shrinking violet ... etc., etc., onward to infinity. A lot of the "smarter" people who indulged in that rhetoric didn't mean it literally. It was a tool to harness popular rage, which they would deploy with scalpel-like precision to knock out the sclerotic old guard to be replaced by better (but still savvy) operators like themselves. The problem is that when that rhetoric sinks in far enough, it never gets deployed with scalpel-like precision. It can't. It metastasizes quickly and uncontrollably, and any effort to restrain it flops as it is perceived as yet another instance of the Big Bad "Them" trying to assert control over and squelch the true voice of the people.

And at the risk of spiking the football, of course antisemitism would be at the center of this. A central component of antisemitism is how it places Jews, in the public imagination, as the paradigm-case of the small elite class of riggers and cheaters who pull puppet-strings behind the scenes. In this light, Platner being perceived as antisemitic Jewish accentuates, rather than undermines, his appeal as someone who will fearlessly take on ... the elitist class of riggers and cheaters pulling puppet-strings behind the scenes. Couple that with the other central feature of epistemic antisemitism -- this simmering fury that there's so much that "they" won't let you say, that you're Not Allowed To Say, that we all know are true and are secretly thinking but Your Life Will Be Over if you say it -- and there is a frankly orgasmic pleasure in letting that cauldron boil over and pour out all the thoughts they've been suppressing for years that they now feel license to say. That's what we're seeing now, more than anything: an outright ecstasy amongst people who finally, finally, feel free to not care what Jews think when they think about Jews. Maybe that's why we seem to have gone from zero to ninety so fast. Once again, cf. Trump: the reason why Trump's overt bigotry didn't seem to hurt him the polls is that a lot of people wanted more than anything else to be able to say all of those horrible things, things that they'd been told and believed would destroy their lives and careers and marriages and future if they ever said out loud, and for it to be okay. When Trump said it and it didn't spike his political career, the freedom he promised -- the freedom not to care what "they" think -- was absolutely intoxicating.

Again, I absolutely believe that many of the "smart" people who promoted this sort of approach didn't mean for this to happen, and thought quite earnestly that of course they (they personally and they-the-voters) would not conflate "elitist class of cheaters" with "Jews". Nonetheless: that's exactly what happened. They misjudged the center of gravity dramatically. They underestimated the appeal of antisemitism, which they were sure was good and well-buried, and only being dredged up now as a tired refrain of a baiters and hustlers who had no other refrain to offer. They were wrong. The "hustlers" were right. And the "smart" people, once again, found they can't stop the train.

That's why I'm very pessimistic about arresting the currently accelerating antisemitic trends, particularly in a context where progressive politics are moving towards an aesthetic populism questing for whoever can provide an outlet for our seething, incandescent rage. It's not even that the rage isn't understandable -- of course it is -- but when it swallows up every other political instinct it necessarily leads to bad places (a downward spiral I'm familiar with in part because of how I've seen it afflict elements of the Jewish community dealing with Jewish anger). 

It's very clear, as Adam Serwer wrote today, that too many people (including left-identified people) are looking for an excuse "to indulge in the transgressive pleasure of public bigotry as a little treat." Platner's Nazi affiliations are exactly that sort of transgressive treat, and until we understand that they are part of his appeal for regular voters -- not Tiki-torch neo-Nazis, but ordinary Americans -- we're not going to wrap our heads around the scope of the actual problem.

Two Queens

New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani and Donald Trump met today, and it went ... well? For all of Trump's prior bloviating about Mamdani being a communist, he seemed quite taken with Mamdani's charisma and was pretty much all praise during the meeting.

Obviously, there is an angle on this that goes "can you imagine if Hakeem Jeffries ....!?!" Trump is (as Mamdani described him on the campaign trail) a despot and an autocrat. If pretty much any other Democrat did an Oval Office meeting with Trump and made nice-y nice, the left would have gone ballistic.

For my part, I take the opposite lesson. One does, indeed, have to recognize that Trump is a despot and an autocrat. Yet even holding that recognition, that doesn't mean the right play is always the one that most performs "resistance". There is space for maneuvering, and we should recognize that savvy actors sometimes have maneuver. Of course, that does not mean that any "maneuver" is always savvy, and sometimes one does need to dig in one's heels. But it is a good thing to give good Democrats some latitude on this -- we don't truly know what the best strategy is going to be.

So no, one does not have to go full Ryan Grim and decide that actually Trump has now revealed himself as a champion of the working class. That remains as gullible as all get out.

But one also does not have to view Mamdani as some sort of traitor for taking this meeting. The true moral here is to not treat the mere fact of a meeting like this as sufficient evidence on its own that a Democratic politician is a traitor.

Don't Rank Cuomo, and Other Less Important Thoughts

The Democratic primary for the NYC mayoral race is today. The front-runner has been former Governor Andrew Cuomo, but he's facing a stiff challenge from a surging Zohran Mamdani, who's aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America.

I don't live in New York, obviously. But I've been casually following the race, and I do have some thoughts.

1) Don't rank Cuomo. That's the mantra of nearly all the progressives in the race, and it is correct. It's not just that Cuomo is a sex pest (though, dayenu). He was also an awful governor who actively sabotaged Democratic prospects in New York in order to promote his own presidential ambitions -- and yet was so manifestly incompetent he ended up wrecking his presidential ambitions too! Personally mendacious, hostile to his own party, and piss-poor political instincts? No. Get this guy out of here. And honestly, "don't rank Cuomo" is, far and away, the most important thought.

2) David endorses Lander. Not that it matters, but if I had a vote in New York I'd probably rank Brad Lander first. I always liked him. And with ranked choice voting, I could do it without worrying that I was tossing my vote away and/or involuntarily supporting Cuomo.

3) The NYT's cowardly Cuomo quasi-endorsement is nauseating. The NYT recently said it would stop issuing endorsements in local races (why?). But that makes this editorial, where it twisted itself in knots to not-expressly-say it is endorsing Cuomo while effectively endorsing Cuomo because Mamdani is just too lefty and scary, the most spineless thing I've seen in opinion journalism since everything the Washington Post has done over the past 8 months.

4) I'd rank Mamdani. But... I think there is a lot to like about Mamdani. He's clearly better than Cuomo (see #1, above). And I don't think he's antisemitic. But people are allowed to not like his evasive defense of the phrase "globalize the intifada". His response to that question is a reasonable source of criticism, and he can take those lumps.

5) It's not cheating when they don't roll over. On that note, one of the single most annoying habits of the Bernie/DSA wing of the left is how they act as if it's cheating when more centrist candidates don't just roll over and let them win. "The DNC conspired to defeat Bernie Sanders and coronate Joe Biden" -- no it didn't. Biden ran a campaign and beat Sanders, fair and square. That's how democracy works. In any given race, I hope my preferred candidate or faction wins, but I don't expect the opponent to not try (see also: Democrats are responsible for MAGAism because Barack Obama inexcusably refused to just concede the 2012 race to Mitt Romney). We're already seeing similar moaning about how "the Democratic establishment" apparently moved heaven and earth to anoint Cuomo and defeat Mamdani. Again, I think Cuomo is scum, and there are absolutely things he's done in his campaign which aren't kosher. But yes, the left-wing of the Democratic Party is going to have to actually win races where their opponents show up -- it's not going to have things handed to them. Grow up. 

6) If Mamdani does win, he should get a chance to govern. That's the perquisite of winning, and he deserves a fair shot. And I'm still curious how DSA domestic policies will play out if implemented (though I still wish we had gotten a test-run a bit further from spotlight in Buffalo). That said, the fact that he won't have a perfectly pliant city council and agreeable municipal bureaucracy putting his policies on a glide path is not sabotage, it's city politics. Much like having to actually win an election against an opposition that's actively campaigning, one is not being sabotaged when one faces the same basic set of obstacles and frictions that are inherent features of local governance in a large city with diverse stakeholders

What Will Be the Democratic Party's Anti-Incumbent Keyes Number?

Way back in 2005 (20 years ago(!)) the blogosphere discovered the "Crazification Factor" of 27% -- the baseline percentage of Americans who will take an action for reasons that defy any rational explanation whatsoever. The background came in a discussion of President George W. Bush's cratering approval numbers, and a query as to how low they might go, and it's still fun to read to this day:

John: Hey, Bush is now at 37% approval. I feel much less like Kevin McCarthy screaming in traffic. But I wonder what his base is --

Tyrone: 27%.

John: ... you said that immediately, and with some authority.

Tyrone: Obama vs. Alan Keyes. Keyes was from out of state, so you can eliminate any established political base; both candidates were black, so you can factor out racism; and Keyes was plainly, obviously, completely crazy. Batshit crazy. Head-trauma crazy. But 27% of the population of Illinois voted for him. They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever ahead of rational judgement. Hell, even like 5% of Democrats voted for him. That's crazy behaviour. I think you have to assume a 27% Crazification Factor in any population.

For this reason, the "Crazification Factor" is also known as the "Keyes Number". And though undoubtedly the product of significant cherry-picking, it was fun in the years that followed to find other crazy propositions that clustered around 27% support.

I was thinking about this nugget of blogger history upon reading about an announced primary challenge against incumbent Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) by progressive influencer Kat Abughazaleh. The announced basis for the challenge is general discontent with Democratic leadership and the "gerontocracy" not being aggressive enough in fighting the Trump administration. But the problem is that nobody -- not even Abughazaleh -- can point to any problems on that front for Schakowsky, specifically. Abughazaleh herself agrees that Schakowsky has been a good Democrat!

Beyond that, Abughazaleh has never held elected office, has no significant political experience, is from out-of-state (she voted in DC last election), and doesn't live in Schakowsky's district. In terms of traditional bases of support, Abughazaleh has literally nothing going for her other than "I am not a long-standing incumbent Democrat."

To be clear, I'm not saying one would have to be crazy to vote for Abughazaleh. Rather, what made the Keyes Factor notable was that the Keyes/Obama race helpfully isolated out every possible reason one might vote for a candidate aside from "I'm attracted to the crazy." Likewise, I'm pointing out that if Abughazaleh does end up facing off against Schakowsky (and the latter hasn't decided if she's seeking reelection), any support the latter gets will be purely, 100% attributable to people voting entirely on the basis of generalized anti-incumbent/anti-established Democrat rage, untethered either to any particular vices of the incumbent or any particular virtues of the challenger. It will, in other words, provide a useful baseline for seeing how powerful this sentiment is amongst the Democratic electorate, because it is a race that is uniquely free of other confounding variables. 

This race will not be like George Latimer beating Jamaal Bowman (an especially well-established challenger taking out a somewhat wounded incumbent, with clear ideological differences), or AOC beating Joe Crowley (a uniquely talented challenger ousting an incumbent asleep at the wheel). Here, the only impetus that might push a voter to pick Abughazaleh over Schakowsky is "Schakowsky is an old, long-tenured incumbent, and I don't like that." That's clearly a sentiment that has no small amount of force amongst Democrats right now -- but is it enough to actually win a race?

I don't think it is. My guess, assuming a head-to-head matchup between Schakowsky and Abughazaleh? I think the latter will end up pulling around 27%. We'll see if I'm right.

UPDATE: Erik Loomis writes a post on this race that I think pretty well encapsulates the dynamic I'm describing above. He opens by admitting he has no quarrel with Schakowsky or her performance in Congress; she has been a solid Democrat. Nonetheless, he finds Abughazaleh appealing because of grievances towards other Democrats that -- with the single exception of "she's old" -- he admits don't apply to Schakowsky.

This offers me a good opportunity to restate my general views on primaries:

(1) I will freely admit I default to being more "pro-incumbent" than a lot of my peers. This is because I view politics as a job and I think one gets better at it with experience (this is also why I oppose term limits). I am deeply skeptical of the populist "we just need some common-sense wisdom from outsiders in order to get things done in Washington" take. I also think primaries-for-the-sake-of-primaries are needlessly fratricidal and shunt energy that should be used to fight Republicans into D-on-D violence. Consequently, for me the burden of persuasion is always on the challenger to justify their primary challenge.

(2) That said, there are lots of good reasons that can justify a primary challenge! A substantially different ideological vision? Absolutely. Proof that the incumbent has gotten too cozy with Republicans and is selling out party priorities? Definitely (hello IDC!). Political heresies that can't be justified by the demographics of the district (fair or not, we have to give more leeway to Joe Manchin than to Dan Lipinski)? 100%. A serious scandal? Obviously. Indeed, where there is a good reason for antipathy towards a specific incumbent, then I think a primary challenge is the right way to push the party in a more positive direction. Nobody is entitled to keep their seat in absence of good performance.

(3) But there does need to be a real reason. "The incumbent is old", without that manifesting in terms of incapacity or unwillingness to "fight", is not a reason. "I feel I deserve to be a bigger deal" is also not a reason (looking at you, Joe Kennedy). "It's time for new blood" is also not, on its own, a real reason.

(4) And finally, I think it is actually bad to challenge incumbents who have objectively good records. We want our politicians to be properly incentivized vis-a-vis good performance. When they misbehave, we should put a little fear into them (and a serious primary challenge is a great way to do that). But the corollary is that when they do well, they should be rewarded with political security. Do badly, get primaried; do well, keep your seat. But if doing the right thing doesn't yield electoral rewards, then the material incentive structure for politicians to do good things frays considerably, and we have to start relying on less reliable and more idiosyncratic mechanisms to get our representatives to vote in the appropriate fashion.

What's the Point of a Senate Minority Leader?

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) had an interesting thread trying to explain the logic of why Chuck Schumer and several other Senate Democrats voted in favor of cloture on the GOP spending bill and averted a government shutdown. Whitehouse voted against cloture, but his object is to explain why some of his colleagues went the other way in good faith (i.e., not just because they're spineless capitulators). The short version is that a shutdown gives Trump greater power to accelerate the program closures and evisceration of disfavored government entities, and would even give him a veneer of legality that isn't present now. For Whitehouse, that risk is outweighed by the need to plant one's feet and take a stand now -- crystallizing the crisis the Trump administration has created and clearly fighting back against it -- but Whitehouse doesn't think it's impossible for someone in good faith to think the other way.

The Whitehouse thread is obviously meant to be a counterbalance to the growing anger being directed at Schumer from the Democratic base, who see him as an ineffectual leader incapable of mounting the resistance necessary against the Trump administration. How fair is the latter charge? To some extent, I think it depends on whether you think the role of the Senate Minority Leader is outward or inward facing.

If the role is outward facing, then Chuck Schumer's job is to be an exponent of the Democratic Party's message to the public, galvanizing the base and convincing others to rally against the Trump regime. Arguably, with Democrats out of the White House, he and Hakeem Jefferies are the two most powerful Democrats in the country and de facto co-leaders. People look to them to see what the alternative to Trump would be.

It is hard, I think, to dispute that if that is the job of the Senate Minority Leader, then Chuck Schumer has been bad at it. He has not been an effective messenger for the Democratic Party. He does not inspire the base. Nobody in the public looks to him for leadership.

However, there's a solid case to be made that the job of the Senate Minority Leader is not supposed to be outward facing. We are not a parliamentary system; the legislative head of the opposition party is not the prime minister waiting in the wings. When you think of the next generation of Democratic Party leaders -- the potential presidential candidates -- Chuck Schumer is not on that list, nor has he indicated any interest in being on that list. The folks who we should be looking at in terms of outward, public-facing Democratic messaging are folks like Tim Walz, Josh Shapiro, AOC -- people we can imagine running a presidential campaign. The role of Senate Minority Leader is inward-facing -- it is about governing a legislative caucus and figuring out how to orient that caucus towards a cohesive and effective legislative strategy.

Under this telling of the Schumer's role, I think the report card has to be considered more mixed. I am astounded by how many people had unreasonably high expectations of what Schumer could accomplish with a zero-seat majority anchored by at least two extremely mercurial actors; I think objectively speaking he did an incredible job. In his last stint in the minority, there likewise were simply absurd expectations over what he could plausibly accomplish (people thinking he just "let" the Senate confirm Brett Kavanaugh, for instance). And particularly in an inward-facing role, there's a solid case that part of Schumer's job is to take bullets for the rest of his caucus -- doing tactically necessary but unpopular things so that the public-facing leaders can keep a clean record. Even if Schumer is right about the relative demerits of letting the government shutdown, it was clear that any ambitious Democrat who acceded to the cloture vote has probably kneecapped their future prospects. In that case, Schumer's job is to take the righteous fire from the base so that other Democrats -- ones who are viable presidential contenders or who are outward-facing messengers -- remain pure. The willingness to do that, more than anything, is as far as I can tell the reason why Schumer has retained the support of his caucus even in the face of widespread external discontent.

All that said, it is entirely plausible to believe that right now Schumer hasn't figured out a good legislative strategy for his caucus either -- that he's failing in the inward-facing role. Some of that debate also returns us to Whitehouse's description of the split in the caucus  -- is now the time to plant one's feet and do pitched battle; or is it still better to try to maneuver for position? This, I think, is a more reasonable way of framing the current divide amongst Democrats that is sometimes presented as "fighters" versus "appeasers"; but I say that with a lot of sympathy towards team "fight". After all, saying one "has a plan", delaying action yet again to "maneuver" into a better position -- these can rapidly simply become excuses for inaction and quiescence. Once you cut away the paranoid underbrush where Schumer is deliberately selling out his party because he's closet-MAGA, this is far and away the strongest argument against Schumer as Senate Minority Leader from the inward-facing perspective -- that he's making serious tactical misjudgments by an unwillingness to commit to a pitched battle when Democrats need to show they're standing firm.

Where do I land on this? As alluded to above, Schumer has caught to my mind unreasonable fire for a long time; I've been far more forgiving of him in his leadership role than many of my peers. But one of my lodestone political beliefs (this was my take on the vice presidential nomination too) is that nobody "deserves" a role like Senate Minority Leader. There's no fairness here, no deserts. Maybe it's silly for people to look at the Senate Minority Leader as an outward facing role, but it seems like they are, and in that capacity Schumer has completely lost the trust of the base and doesn't have any particular cachet with "moderates" or "independents" to make up for it. And on the inward-facing side, again, even painting Schumer's strategy in the best light and giving him the benefit of the doubt, I'm inclined to credit Whitehouse's belief that Democrats needed to pick this fight and do it clearly. Perhaps that's me having blinders on and just desperately wanting someone to punch back at Trump; Schumer almost certainly would say I'm not looking at the long game. But my strong instinct is that Democrats need to  be punchier, and Schumer is not fitting the bill.

Who would fit that bill -- and do so, importantly, while filling the less visible inward-facing needs of caucus wrangling and legislative strategizing -- isn't totally clear to me. Nominations welcome.

Can One Man Really Stop the Senate?

As Donald Trump's disastrous march through America's legal institutions continues unabated, progressives are desperately looking for something -- anything -- that can stem the tide. One possibility folks have seized upon is Senate obstructionism. The line goes that even a single Senator can do a ton of things to throw sand in the gears -- objecting to unanimous consent, slowing down hearings, delaying votes -- that can extract real costs on the MAGA agenda and provide Democrats with some negotiating leverage. So far, no Senator has taken this approach, and that in turn is a source of considerable frustration to progressive partisans who feel that Democrats have been rolling over without a fight.

But for me, the fact that no Senator has done this raises a different question: If this strategy was so effective, wouldn't someone have done it by now?

There are 47 Democratic (or Democratic-aligned) Senators in Congress right now. And as a collective, I absolutely believe there are plenty of plausible explanations for why they're hesitant to adopt the defiant, resistant pose so many of us are thirsting for. If you told me that (too) many still harbor a gut desire for "bipartisanship" and "working across party lines", I'd believe you. If you told me that (too) many remain attached to Senate norms of civility and comity, I'd believe you. If you told me that Chuck Schumer has attempted to unify the caucus around a strategy that, for whatever reason, doesn't include maximal obstructionism, I'd believe you.

But if it's really true that just one Senator has in his or her power the ability to grind Congress' gears to a halt, is it really possible that not one of the forty-seven would try it? There wouldn't be a single defector?

Do you really think Bernie Sanders is afraid to rattle cages? Do you really believe that Adam Schiff has in the past few weeks become enamored by venerable Senate traditions? Do you really imagine that Tammy Baldwin is inclined to cower before any and all Chuck Schumer diktats (do you really believe Chuck Schumer is that good at keeping his entire caucus in absolute ramrod lockstep)?

It just doesn't seem plausible to me. Someone would have defected by now. In fact, even if this strategy was considerably less effective than it's cracked up to be, or even if you think Senate Democrats are all fat cat posers who don't actually care about resisting Trump at all, you'd still think someone would have tried it simply to be a clout-chaser. The fact that nobody has done it suggests that either it is a lot less effective than people think, or there are a lot more (and more serious) hidden costs to it than people recognize.

I won't claim to be an expert on Senate procedure, and reading about the various machinations around blue slips and unanimous consent and holds makes my head spin. So it's entirely possible I'm missing something here. But whatever I'm missing has to explain not why "Senate Democrats", collectively, aren't adopting an obstructionist strategy; it has to explain why every single individual Senate Democrat has so far refrained from using their power as a one-Senator army to bring things to a halt. And I just don't see what that explanation is, aside from this alleged silver bullet not actually being one.

Say the Magic Words

The current flap on Bluesky comes from an interview with Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz, specifically the following passage:

But I think this question of language goes pretty deep. And it goes to not just being careful not to say things that are egregiously weird sounding, but it’s also the way we interact with advocacy groups. I remember saying I was for a cessation of hostilities in Israel and Palestine. And people said why don’t you say ceasefire? I’m thinking, that’s literally the same thing. I remember saying I was for a big, bold climate bill. And someone said why don’t you say Green New Deal? And this idea that there are magic words that we must be forced to say defines progressivism and political courage by essentially saying whatever a bunch of activists want us to say, as opposed to doing the thing. And I think that there are a bunch of people who see what we’re doing as performative, for that exact reason. But it’s also just alienating. This magic words thing has to go away.

He's getting dunked on for this, specifically by people mocking the notion that "ceasefire" is an example of "egregiously weird" language.

I'm actually going to come to Schatz's defense here, though, because I think he's being misunderstood, and I don't think he's saying that the word "ceasefire" is an example of "egregiously weird" language (which it obviously isn't). Rather, Schatz is saying that there is a different, additional problem on top of the use of weird terms -- the problem where (some) activists insist that if you don't use the exact term they use, you're an enemy, even if substantively you're supporting the same things.

This is what the "ceasefire" example is all about. Schatz calls for a "cessation of hostilities". Some activists get mad at him because it doesn't use the particular word "ceasefire". And Schatz's point is that's a really dumb thing to get mad about, when he supports the same basic substance contained in the word "ceasefire", just expressed in slightly different language. It would also, I think, be dumb for someone who supported "cessation of hostilities" to get mad at someone else who is calling for a "ceasefire", and to insist that they should say "cessation of hostilities" instead. They're saying the same thing, so who cares about minor differences in phraseology! It's sort of the opposite of the "egregiously weird" critique -- here the words really don't (or shouldn't) matter, but people act as if they're everything and the policy content is nothing. If you don't utter the magic words, it doesn't matter if you're in agreement on the actual substantive policy question. That sort of behavior is Schatz suggests, reflective of persons who think it's more important to "perform" being better than others (which they demonstrate by use of the "magic words", and by contrasting themselves with those who don't) than it is about people looking to build power. It is toxic, and it is self-destructive.

To be sure, the fact that this criticism is in many ways the opposite of the "weird language" criticism suggests that we're going to encounter line-drawing problems. Sometimes the use of different words meaning the same thing is immaterial, and we should ignore it; other times certain words are deemed to be outright "weird" or alienating and we should tamp down on them. Which is which? The example Schatz offers in the previous paragraph, of saying "center" (as in "I’m going to center the needs of the working class."), strikes me as thin gruel -- is that really that weird or esoteric? "Latinx" is another popular one Schatz suggests, and maybe it's more clearly on the esoteric side of the line; but again, one could easily say "I use 'Latino', you use 'Latinx', but we're clearly talking about the same damn thing so why pitch a fit over the exact language being used?"

Nonetheless, the underlying point is reasonable enough. When it comes to language, and different words that express the same or similar ideas, we should ask ourselves what are the actual stakes of using term X vs. Y. Sometimes, there's a real difference -- either because the underlying idea really is manifestly different, or because one set of words really is alienating or esoteric or aimed only at a rarefied elite. But most of the time, it really doesn't matter that much, and we shouldn't treat it as mattering that much -- certainly, not so much as to generate a moralized critique. "Green New Deal" might or might not be good message discipline, but if you want a big bold climate bill, and a politician supports a big bold climate bill, don't act like they don't actually support a big bold climate bill if the only basis for your skepticism is that they don't say the magic words "Green New Deal." And likewise with "ceasefire" -- there's nothing wrong with the word "ceasefire", and I don't take Schatz to be saying otherwise, but what he is saying is that if someone supports the underlying position of a "ceasefire" but for whatever reason uses slightly different language to express his view, maybe take the W rather than declare that it doesn't count unless he uses the magic word.

This Is Your Grandpa's Democratic Party(?)

"Democrats abandoned ordinary Americans."

It's not true. But it's stuck, like a craw in the mouth of the American voter (and the American pundit). And the big question amongst Democratic strategists is how to dislodge it.

My latest idea, in my ongoing quest to become the Democratic Party's Francis Coppola, is to explicitly run with a narrative that says "yes, this is your Grandfather's Democratic Party" -- directly tying oneself to JFK and the New Deal and the civil rights era and that whole period where (supposedly) the Democratic Party was the party of ordinary Americans. Cut to lines about:

• Defending labor unions.
• Bringing back honest, well-paying jobs that can support your family.
• Taking on the billionaires robbing our democracy.
• Protecting civil rights.
• Restoring a women's right to choose.

All intercut with images of modern workers interspersed with older imagery (the March on Selma, men on girders building skyscrapers, etc.) that evokes the good old days.

What's the point of the ad? Basically, it's to create a permission structure for people who have -- for whatever reason -- internalized the narrative of "the party left me" to tell themselves things have changed again. They're not voting for the modern Democratic Party that Fox News has created for them in their minds over the past few years (latte-sipping coastal elites blah blah blah), they're voting for the mythologized Democratic Party of yesteryear that the Fox News caricature is tacitly juxtaposed against -- the party of the New Deal and of JFK, the party that was a working-class party, the party that built things and fought for everyday Americans.

"Mythologized" is important. Obviously, in reality the Democratic Party of that era (or any era) was not some clarion beacon of the worker's voice; nor was it some uncomplicated bastion of civil rights and women's rights advocacy. I know that, you know that. I also know that "ordinary Americans" is a loaded term, that the past wasn't actually that great for a whole lot of people, and so on.

But we're not writing a history paper here, we're dealing with a mood, and that mood is not especially connected to historical reality. How many times have you heard someone say that the current Democratic Party "just keeps moving to the right" (when it is beyond obvious that the Biden administration is the most progressive Democratic administration in my lifetime)? Objectively, it is impossible to defend the notion that the Democratic Party leadership is more conservative now than it was during the Clinton administration. In reality, making a show of affirming people who think "well, back then Democrats were fighting for me" is worth playing a bit of make-believe. Nostalgia is a hell of a drug, and just the gesture of "this is a change in a direction that makes you feel fuzzy" can have an outsized impact. The past wasn't actually that great, and modern changes are good actually. But if you can make people feel as if the things we're pulling for now are simply a restoration of the hazy memories they have when things were inchoately "better" (or "less complicated" or "less divided" or whatever), you're in a very good position.

I'm not saying the idea is perfect. In particular, even as a subversion of the "not your grandpa's ..." frame, the tagline still is a rough one at a time when many people are aggrieved at the "gerontocracy" in American politics. So workshop the hell out of this. I'm not prideful about it. But I think there's something here. The great insight of the contemporary conservative movement is in how they manage to fuse their present-day reactionary values as if there were simply a restoration of the greatness of the founders (I read one constitutional commentator describe originalism as "ventriloquizing the present through the past"). Democrats can do it too -- and as the Republican Party falls deeper and deeper into the grip of billionaire oligarchs and weird paranoid extremists, there's an opening here we can and should exploit.

Saturation Ad Air War

One aspect of political culture I very strongly believe in is that most voters' knowledge of political affairs is primarily one of ambiance. They don't know much in the way of facts (what is the inflation rate, has crime gone up or down). They know a "mood". They feel that things are getting better, or worse. They hear a lot that America basically has open borders, or they hear a lot that abortion rights are going away. The connection to reality is pretty well unimportant (we definitely don't have open borders; abortion rights really are under threat). It's the sensation, the steady drumbeat of narrative, that moves them.

To that end, I've long thought that a good progressive billionaire project would be to continually air issue ads that are not tied to a given political race or even an election, but are just part of the backdrop every time one turns on the news or watches Monday Night Football. The goal of these ads should be to make certain hopes, fears, and moods simply part of our backdrop -- something "we heard somewhere." It should not cast itself as expressly political -- an effort to elect this or that politician. In fact, "issue ads" is probably the wrong moniker. It shouldn't present itself as political at all. It should be simply a story, told over and over again, until it seeps into the national subconscious.

What sorts of ads do I have in mind? I pitched one about abortion a few years ago. I had another idea for one about trans and gender non-binary issues:

A family is at home in classic suburbia: mom, dad, and a gender non-conforming adolescent kid. The scene is utterly mundane and ordinary, but with a touch of danger lurking in the background. Mom is cooking, but beside her one can see a newspaper headline announcing the latest right-wing attack on trans kids. Dad is telling a dad joke to the kid (who rolls their eyes), the TV news on mute in the background but the subtitles have a talking head calling families who provided gender-affirming care to their children sexual predators who should be thrown in jail.

Interspersed with each shot, we have a quick cut of heavily armed police massing outside the house. Right as everyone is getting ready for dinner, the door is battered open and the scene goes black. All we hear is the police demanding everyone on the ground, then demanding the child come with them as the family screams frantically. The last we hear is the kid pleading to their parents "don't let them take me!" 

What's the point of the ad? To put people (and particularly suburban parents -- political hell hath no fury like a suburban schoolparent scorned) in a mindset where families are in danger. Maybe their family. Maybe their neighbor's family. There's no lie here -- these are the stakes, and families are in danger. But the point is to prime them with that sensation in advance, so that it's what they immediately think of whenever the Trump administration announces policies that will be all about threatening families.

The ad is just an idea (and nobody wants my advertising ideas). And not all the ads need to be negative, necessarily (though as the opposition party, that's probably going to be the bulk of it). But the broader point is that liberals need to do everything they can to just saturate their narratives into the American bloodstream, not as part of a discrete political campaign, but simply as a background feature of what the world is right now. We can't wait for election season, and we certainly can't wait for an increasingly infirm legacy media to the job for us. These stories should be mainlined into every American home, by any and every medium available, and should start right now.

Fictional Character Ideological Turing Test

If you're a Democrat, which fictional television character do you think most "embodies" contemporary Republicans? And if you're a Republican, which television character do you think Democrats would pick to answer the above question?

(Then do it vice versa -- what character do Republicans think embodies Democrats, and what character do Democrats think Republicans would pick to embody Democrats?).

I'm weirdly obsessed with thinking about this thought exercise. Unfortunately, I think it isn't really doable, if for no other reason than it presupposes a shared media culture that doesn't really exist, and in particular in my head it involves everyone sharing my particular Peak TV cast of potential characters, which definitely doesn't exist.

But nonetheless, the concept is interesting to me. Under conditions of negative polarization, I think we can assume that the selected character would be one who embodies the perceived vices of the "other side". And so one thing we'd be measuring is to what degree people have a handle on what the "other side" perceives as their most salient and emblematic vice.

For example, I've written that for me the character that most embodies the contemporary MAGA right is Jerry from Rick & Morty. But I doubt that most Republicans would guess that Jerry would be my pick. I'd guess that they'd guess I'd choose someone like Homer Simpson ("they think we're oafish idiots"), or Boss Hogg ("they think we're racists"). I don't think they think that I think (boy, that's a mouthful) that their emblematic vice is whiny entitlement and crippling beta male insecurity, which is crystallized into the character of Jerry Smith.

Who do I think Republicans would choose to embody Democrats? I'm thinking one of the characters from Lena Dunham's "Girls" (again, bracketing the fact that most Republicans have never seen that show -- and in fact, I haven't seen it either -- the point is to identify an archetype). I think they think of us as self-obsessed and self-absorbed, performatively "woke" (but massively hypocritical about it), and generally unproductive leeches who wouldn't know a "real job" if it chafed our uncalloused, manicured hands. But maybe I'm wrong, and their emblematic Democrat is epitomized by a completely different set of vices! And again, it would be interesting to learn the mismatch.

Anyway, as I said, it's an exercise that -- even just as a thought experiment -- I've always found fun to ponder. And I'm curious at people's thought processes here -- so feel free to play in the comments (i.e., if you're a Democrat say which character most embodies Republicans, and also give guesses as to which character you think Republicans would choose to embody Democrats as well as which character you imagine Republicans would guess Democrats think embodies Republicans)!

What If Echo Chambers Work?

A few days after the election, I remember seeing a Washington Post column that said something like "You can't win an election if you're going to shun or denigrate half the electorate." And I remember wishing I could ask the author, in all earnestness: Why not?

After all, hadn't we just seen someone win an election while shunning and denigrating half the electorate? Clearly it's possible! The Post's hypothesis had been decisively falsified less than a week before!

This came up again today with the ongoing "echo chamber" discourse about BlueSky, paired against the fact that Republicans did in fact manage to win an election while generating an almost entirely cloistered epistemic bubble for themselves. The belief that echo chambers are antipathic to good electoral strategy is a comforting belief for people of a certain political persuasion (myself included!), but it just seems not to be true.

So the real question, and I think harder question, for Democrats is -- what if echo chambers work? What if one can win an election by constructing an epistemic fortress and just mainlining as many conspiracy theories and wild accusations about the other sides as humanly (or AI-ing-ly) possible?

It's a harder question because, at least for someone like me, this would be a very sad reality to come to grips with. I very fervently don't think democracy should be about scratching your way to the thinnest possible plurality and then steamrolling the other side. If you asked me what I would hope to happen to MAGA Republicans in rural Idaho or whatever after a Kamala Harris win, I'd have answered "I hope they get good healthcare, decent jobs, and well-funded schools." I have no desire to unleash recriminations upon "enemies", and I hate the idea of politics as a lawless bloodsport where all is fair if it wins you an election.

But maybe people like me are naive, and the lesson that has to be learned from 2024 (and 2016) is that brutal, no quarter, snarling attacks are an electorally winning play, and that for Democrats to win they need to harness their inner demonization machine and find some people to vilify. Of course, one could respond to this by saying that even if such a strategy is electorally superior at the margins, it's just plain wrong. That's always a valid response, and one might notice that it's the same response given to arguments that Democrats need to throw trans persons under the bus for electoral wins. There, of course, the retort is "well, enjoy feeling morally pure as you lose the Senate for the next decade" -- it's of course fascinating that the Post would never apply a similar retort to those who demand foreswearing scorched-earth electoral tactics against the GOP ("have fun patting yourselves on the back for your moral purity!"). It goes to show which moral commitments are truly seen as sacrosanct by the mainstream media, and which aren't.

But if we leave the moral objection aside, there remains one circle I cannot quite square. I've never been one to think, contra some narratives, that Democrats have just preemptively surrendered at every turn (e.g., as far as I know I'm the only person who thinks Chuck Schumer has done a pretty good job keeping a very thin majority dependent on some very unreliable actors relatively unified over the course of his tenure). Nonetheless, I am, with great reluctance, coming to believe that Democrats cannot win elections solely by taking the high road and demonstrating sober commitment to good governance and rule of law, when pitted against the emotional fever-dream populist pitch that characterizes the modern GOP. Again -- this is not a conclusion I'm happy to accede to. There probably are some people whose every instinct is to destroy the opposition at all costs and have to be persuaded to stay within the lines; but as noted above that's not me. My sensibilities are extremely wedded towards sober technocracy and good governance, and I reflexively recoil at the sort of hardball, "crush the enemy" tactics we're talking about here.

But here's my problem: if over the short term I think Democrats need to compete with the GOP on the level of back-alley brawl politics, over the long term I think that a politics that takes that form is inherently slanted towards the right. We will never be able to out-hate the GOP. We'll never be better than them at conjuring up some shadowy enemy to put people into a frenzy. There are absolutely ways to pitch distrust towards established institutions and a belief that "They" are out to get "Us" in a left-ish manner, but ultimately those narratives are going to benefit the right more (and we're already seeing how that pipeline flows from left-to-right in the form of folks like RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard). So even if I may believe that my fighting faith of good governance liberalism just isn't winning elections, I'm also very concerned that the punchier left-wing populist alternatives will generate a political environment that is even more systematically slanted towards the right. Conspiratorial populism is home turf advantage for the right -- if that's the field we're playing on, we're always going to be starting from behind.

As I said, I don't have a way to square this circle. I'm not a political strategist, and I'm trying to avoid the temptation of "just agree with me and of course we'll win elections." But it's something I'm feeling very glum about.

Read an Iowa-Selzer and You'll Feel Better Fast!

A few days ago, the watchword of the pollster-watchers was "herding". Polls adjust based on underlying assumptions (models) of the electorate, and these assumptions can sharply shift the reported results. Many have hypothesized that the pollsters, feeling burned by underestimating Trump's support in 2016 and 2020, are now overcorrecting to show a tight race so they don't look foolish in the event that we have our third straight tight race.

To this possibility, a lot of responses online took the form of "report the data you cowards!" If the data was showing Harris with a larger than "expected" lead (say, because she's cleaning up amongst women still furious about the fall of Roe), then don't hide from your own conclusions -- report them!

And then, right as that call of "don't be a coward" was cresting, the extremely highly regarded Selzer poll in Iowa put Harris over Trump by three in a state virtually nobody had in play. And that, in turn, generated a wave of "now I'm not saying I expect Harris to win Iowa, but ...."

Turns out, we're all cowards too.

No pollster is perfect, but Selzer's reputation for accuracy is well-earned. As you can see, in the last seven statewide Iowa races, Selzer's biggest miss was 5 points (2018 Governor), and more often she nails it to within a point or two.

So I'll add my voice to the chorus, but basically to echo Scott Lemieux: I'm also not going to venture a prediction that Harris wins Iowa, but even Iowa being closer than expected (say, Trump +2 rather than his 8-9 point margin from the last two elections -- this would equate to Selzer's largest recent "miss") augurs very, very well for Democrats across the country (and in contested House races in Iowa, for that matter).