There’s also something about seeing a young hopeful (almost naive) politician having his genuine convictions disciplined under the responsibility of governing (Obama/Mamdani) that makes people more sympathetic to policy shifts than seeing party hacks (Hilary/Biden/Harris/Newsom) try to flip flop to gain power.
Sure but I’d still distinguish charisma from likability. Both Mamdani and Newsom are charismatic, but Newsom can project a kind of slick, overly polished energy, whereas Mamdani is simply easy to like.
Theres a distinct quality of earnestness that is separate from charisma that makes one extend the kind of grace of viewing shifting policy stances charitably. Just yesterday, Mamdani, who is 34 years old, was trying to navigate in his press conference how to address an attempted Islamist terrorist attack in the middle of an anti-Islam rally outside HIS house and it was not quite “charming”, but it felt human watching him struggle. He looked genuinely flustered in a way that was unusual for him and you could see him trying to figure out how to handle it in real time. There is a distinct kind of young man learning on the job quality that makes people who aren’t his fierce ideological adversaries a little more forgiving.
I never saw Hillary Clinton as much of a flipper. Her low favorables were driven by a heady mixture of: perception of corruption, unwillingness to suffer fools gladly, misogyny, and dislike (on the left) of her hawkishness.
And she really *was* to Bernie's left on immigration and gun control. Sanders was a traditionalist, pro-union immigration skeptic, as well as someone who realized large numbers of his constituents were gun owers.
I blame Bernie for Trump eking out a win in 2016. I will never forgive him for his petulance and calling for a contested convention when he lost by a landslide.
I blame Bernie for knuckling under to the podium-stealers and hecklers. It was bad leadership and created a permission structure for bad behavior.
One of the little-known aspects of prewar Japan is that the military had a shitty cultural quirk where junior officers could basically commit violent mutinies and then get away with it by claiming they felt compelled to take action in defense of the emperor. It helped drag the country into wars it wasn’t ready for, and also undermined the chain of command and various other power centers in a country that was actively being contested between those centers.
A similar thing happened starting with Bernie. His refusal to stand up to the activists paved the way for a shitty mutiny that we’re only just now starting to see peter out.
C'mon. She was one of the most famous women in the world in 2000. She didn't need whatever nonsense "connections and leverage" related to a rabbi and a Puerto Rican terrorist you're talking about. Come to think of it, your comment is an excellent example of what I'm trying to illustrate.
I must say I hate them and much prefer the cynics. No one I despise more than people who think they can solve things with pithy slogans and "good" intentions.
I think people just don't like it when someone visibly hungers to be President. (I think, by the way, it is bad that people feel this way. We should encourage ambition!)
Mamdani was pretty ambitious and really wanted to be mayor. IMO it’s more that if you are an ideologue, it makes it appear that you want to become president/mayor because you want to implement your agenda, however one feels about the merits of the agenda. If you aren’t an ideologue, it’s easier to ascribe your ambition to personal career advancement as opposed to advancing an ideological project (like Bernie/Mamdani).
Great post, Matt. AOC is not the solution but at least she aims to put forth a vision (perhaps incomplete) for the future of the country. I see Newsom as a Hillary 2016, wanting the presidency so bad he'll bend and twist in every manner to look as appealing to every Democratic faction but lacking any actual ideals.
I'm quite certain that Beshear will run in '28 but folks seem to be sleeping on him right now. I see him having quite possibly the largest net of appeal across most 2028 hopefuls and being a successful two term governor in KY is no slouch. He also has a Talarico earnestness that I think could play very well among conservatives in red states. He's about as moderate as one could want without being too overtly ideological (by default given where he lives) and articulates his policy wins in clear ways. I would say this is what makes the horse race so fun but the stakes are too chillingly high over the next couple years.
I don’t get the Beshear hype. He’s only governor because his father was a popular governor of Kentucky. That is not replicable in a presidential campaign and he’s not very charismatic.
"He’s only governor because his father was a popular governor of Kentucky."
That can't be the only reason. It's the kind of thing that probably gave him a big leg-up early on in terms of name recognition, but sasn't he won reelection?
I'm skeptical how salient Israel will be in the in '28 primary. I know it is THE litmus test on the left, but it never cracks top 10 in issue priority polling.
I think TACO should be retired as an insult. I'm tired of him NOT chickening out. Illegal and unwise actions to capture Maduro, start a war with Iran, unilaterally and illegally apply tariffs on the entire world with extra tariffs on anyone who insults.
The current supreme leader’s wife and parents were just killed in the war. The rest of the leadership are, unlike in Venezuela, ideologues. The Iranian government has the ability to project power through foreign terrorist organizations and could reconstitute their domestic drone and ballistic missile programs relatively quickly after an end to immediate hostilities. At this point, if we don’t conduct regime change, we will not see the end of retaliation for years to come.
Oh I have no idea about the specifics of gas prices. I'm talking generalities: more and longer war means higher oil prices, and sinking numbers for the GOP. Stopping the war presumably does the opposite. But he's done himself and the GOP brand damage either way, I reckon, because there doesn't seem to be a revolution brewing in Iran, and if the regime survives, it's going to be hard to dodge the "LOSER" label.
It's a low-priority issue for general election voters, but I'm guessing it's a much higher-priority issue for Democratic primary voters and (especially) the influencers and tastemakers whom Democratic primary voters listen to.
It's also pretty obvious that the optimal strategy on Israel to win a Democratic primary at this point is pretty much the Bernie Sanders/Mamdani/AOC line of calling it a genocide, saying Bibi is a war criminal, pledging no more aid, criticizing AIPAC and the pro-Israel lobby. Now that Biden's out of office, registered Democrats (particularly older ones) have become much more opposed to the war in Gaza because doing so no longer codes as breaking with "their" president. See here: https://www.economist.com/briefing/2025/09/18/america-is-falling-out-of-love-with-israel. The same dynamic happened with the Vietnam war and LBJ, as detailed in Chapter 9 of this book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_and_Origins_of_Mass_Opinion.
That’s poison for the general though. I think you have to hope a “not my business” America first peace ticket vaguely in support of a two state solution but promising much less involvement is enough.
Zionists don’t care about gas prices. If this keeps up, they will become a rather unpopular minority. The reasons for supporting Israel are too gossamer for normies to embrace any real sacrifice to maintain israeli nuclear hegemony.
Also possible that Tucker Carlson- or someone like him- gets into the Republican primary bashing the war and claiming it’s only for Israel’s benefit with huge costs to America.
Nor do the popular vote and cross-tabs from the general election suggest Israel is all that salient. There was lots of angry screaming to the effect that Genocide Joe's policies were going to sink Harris, but I've seen pretty much zero evidence of this.
I'm happy to be corrected, but she didn't lose because of defections from the left.
I hope pro Palestinian politicians will deploy “Zionists don’t care about gas prices.” That sort of attack will work better than hand ringing about human rights.
I agree. I think even if Israel isn't central to the median voter by 2028 it's the perfect issue to wedge the Democratic coalition and it's a debate that goes toxic fast, meaning it will get a lot of attention and generate bad feelings all around. I dxpect bad faith actors (chuds like Jill Stein and Musk type algorithm manipulators) to amplify the issue in the 2028 Democratic primary.
I’m still mad all the reporting on this initially was “anti Muslim extremists try to blow up mayor”. Surprise surprise it was the islamists throwing bombs around.
Because the two sides present in numbers were the goat-walkers and the omnicause leftoids and very few people expected a bomb-throwing 18-year-old ISIS sympathizer as the wild card.
What’s fun is “support for Palestine” and “support for Israel” are both very unpopular positions. But politicians will be asked about it anyway!
I think the Iran war, unless it works out great, opens a lane here though. “I support Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. But they need to stop expanding settlements and return to the negotiating table for a two state solution instead of dragging America into their wars with Iran. As president will do everything I can to facilitate peace and support our allies but I am going to be putting American interests not Israeli interests first in foreign affairs”.
Maybe they will, but no matter what you say some people are going to be super pissed. Classic wedge issue. I think two state solution is the least controversial of the controversial options, especially coupled with signaling that you are going to draw down support and involvement and untether our foreign policy from “whatever Bibi wants”.
Kind of tangential but I am really tired of the “Israel’s right to exist” language. No state has a right to exist. Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia didn’t have a right to exist and now they don’t. As a nation if you have enough strength to hold yourself together from internal and external threats you will continue to exist. If you don’t you won’t. It really is that simple. Israel is probably going to be around for a while. The question is what kind of relationship do we want to have with it.
Yes. It will be a race to the bottom, someone will actually propose eliminating the country in the debates, and whoever gets elected will have made some insane promise to treat Israel like cancer - and it will all amount to nothing, exactly as Biden’s promises to make Saudi Arabia a “pariah state” did.
Think about Trump's cabinet at the moment. They are all getting theirs while the getting is good. I imagine a lot of AIPAC is looking at the current moment like that.
I think that there's an impregnable position on Israel for any candidate smart enough to take it:
-- non-cooperation and non-support of Netanyahu and the Israeli Far Right;
-- insistence that any Israeli government return to support of a two-state solution and removal of all obstacles, including settlements in the Occupied Territories, that make a two-state solution non-viable;
-- unquestioned support for the legitimacy of the State of Israel in domestic politics and international forums;
-- absolute rejection of anti-Semitism in all its forms and guises.
Of course there has been, and there's a technical term for that push: it's called "a lie". "Live not by lies" is as good advice for political life as it is for moral life.
OK, to take another hypothetical, #3 and #1, so let's say the far right does what they want and does kick out the Palestinians from another big chunk of the west bank or Gaza. Maybe there will also again be tens of thousands of unfortunate deaths as well.
Then can someone in America say Israel, the state, is illegitimate? Maybe it wasn't before, but it has become so through their own elected leaders and actions?
The politics on this are not as easy as the 4 points suggest. (They aren't bad points, but I am thinking of the practicalities of it)
I didn't say that the position I suggested was "easy", I said that it was "impregnable", by which I meant "very difficult to attack effectively", because it's legally, morally, and ethically coherent, and outlines a path of action that's I think is executable, legal, and politically smart.
With respect to this particular question, of course individuals can "say" what they want -- it's a free country. The real question, I think, is what does the Government of the United States DO? My answer is, what it's done many other other times that a member of the United Nations has committed a serious violation of international law in its view: impose sanctions. The issue is never with the legitimacy of the state actor -- that's assumed. It's with the legality of the action, and the appropriate response.
The important thing moderates need to do is recognize that Democratic primary voters want people who are proposing solutions to the serious problems we face. Right now the left wing is the faction that advocates both for Matt-style solutions like congestion pricing and legal apartments and for things Matt doesn't like, like punitive taxes on billionaires. As long as moderates are the faction of not doing things they're going to keep losing intra-party debates.
As I said, moderate Democrats are designing everything by committee which benefits progressives in factional battles. A strong moderate personality and agenda means progressives get fewer policy wins.
It seems bad to oppose a policy that is both popular and effective. The technocratic side of Democrats really disappears if you mention crime or education, I just don't understand why Democrats risk so much unpopularity with terrible policies on crime. There are powerful teaching unions which I can understand listening to, I don't think there is a shoplifters union, but Democrats act like there is and it is a powerful lobby they want to support.
I wonder how much of the pressure on the Democrats for soft-on-crime policies comes from renters living in high-crime but otherwise desirably-located neighborhoods, who fear they'd be displaced by gentrification if the crime was dealt with?
I have thought about that as a theory, especially in terms of riots lowering rent. But I don't think it works in mainstream politics, it is too big of an effect and the pro-crime stuff is popular in a left wing politics not just in places that could gentrify.
I'd like to get on the record as not wanting Newsome OR AOC.
Similar to the discussion around the Talarico/Crockett race, I would like someone who presents as moderate/mainstream but has a sincerely liberal heart. A good communicator who can connect with a majority of the country, but also someone who can do math and think about actual budgets - not just make wild assertions about impossible dreams.
I think Buttigieg would govern as a true pragmatic moderate with a sincere liberal heart. But I worry that he won’t do enough vocal stiff arming of the left in the general election. And he also has Biden administration baggage.
I think he could govern, and he would be a good prime minister - if that were our system.
But I worry he misses on the "connect with the majority of the country" part. He doesn't have that "person you'd like to have a beer with" vibe. Not convinced he will be a good candidate.
Some variation that is "Buttigieg, but a cool guy" would be tempting though!
I disagree on that, Buttigieg has quite a good personal manner on podcasts and seems like someone who voters (maybe only White voters) would like to have a beer with. Maybe he seems less presidential because of his height and inexperience, but his personal interactions are good.
I don't get the impulse to pretend that Buttigieg is a viable general election candidate. Is it intended to signal that the person saying it is not homophobic? It doesn't make sense since most people suggesting that are not in danger of being accused of homophobia.
It's the super obvious elephant in the room that left leaning media refuses to acknowledge about why he has single digit polling with blacks and latinos
Well he seems like the most "technocratic" person in the mix. I think that is the appeal. But I would not say it is the mood of The People at the moment, sadly.
Nonsense! I'm gay, and I like Pete -- but he's too glossy and slick for the blue-collar types. That's why (for electability) I prefer Kelly or Gallego.
This Ultra Dark MAGA Republican wouldn’t mind seeing a Mayor Pete/JDV match up. Then Mayor Pete could explain why he was more concerned about racist roads and why he discriminated against white male air traffic controller applicants.
Not sure if you are kidding or serious, but Mayor Pete's comments about the racist placement of highways back in the day are very true, at least it is every place that I have lived, which are all in the Northeast and Midwest. But, yeah, the sound bites probably won't play well.
I want a happy warrior who loves the flag, hot dogs, and fireworks. I am tired of people being so down and negative about this country. Also being back Rock.
That person does not exist and could not survive in national dem politics.
I think the closest thing is Shapiro, and if he acts on national ambitions, he will immediately be DOA (or change himself into an unconvincing progressive).
I honestly would like to know we have a huge group of moderates on this board. What is the big picture vision for why we want to elect moderates?
Like you’ve achieved every political goal you have the presidency and 67 Senators and a 50 seat majority in the house. What are you doing? What is the spoils because all I ever hear about is how the left is bad.
Matt's whole blog is basically an answer to that question. Some that come to mind:
Immigration: Strengthen border security, don't look the other way on asylum loopholes and understand that it's *good* if an illegal immigrant (or even green-card holder) that gets caught shoplifting is deported.
Housing: Do whatever Ezra and Matt Y. would do. Don't be Dean Preston or whatever.
Large Gov't Bills: Do big stuff (IRA, etc.), but don't everything-bagel it. Focus on getting the stuff done, not appeasing workers, unions and non-profit lobbying groups.
I think you've hot the nail on the head with this one. Before you answer, moderates, think about how what Biden did didnt get across to the electorate. Also think that this is an electorate somewhat tired of your type and expecting something big. Its not the electorate of the 2000s, there's a lot of discontent and there are a lot of change voters these days.
Moderate Dems must convince America they deserve to govern.
Obama left a huge hole in the Democratic Party. This hole got filled by committees and we get this long list checkbox like set of policies but no real direction or message.
Rank and file elected Democrats are risk adverse and the tumult of Sanders’ insurgent campaign reinforced that risk aversion.
Progressives like the current govern by committee and weak moderates for factional reasons. It is easier for them to exert influence or extort concessions (e.g. why do NGOs only protest Democrats who support their stated aims?)
Finally, Obama had a level of technocratic elitism. He thought Harvard educated people and professors were the best experts and filled his administration with these types. That has to have affected the priorities of the Democratic Party. That also probably feeds into how many Democrats snub non college educated voters, culture, and challenges.
Liked this because I think it's a very important question that's not getting much in the way of attention in these discussions of potential 2028 Dem candidates. I think being Californian (and not just any Californian--San Franciscan) is a HUGE potential liability for Newsom, just like being a New Yorker is a huge potential liability for AOC. There's a significant regional angle to Dem struggles in Presidential elections, and nominating a candidate from one of their coastal bastions would be just about the stupidest thing the Dems could do.
Yes - my kind-of-insane litmus test for 2028 is that I won’t vote for a blue-state Dem in the primary.
There’s a big list of candidates from purple or red states (Shapiro, Ossoff, Warnock, Gallego, Kelly, Whitmer) who have proven records of winning tough contests. You could even convince me on Klobuchar just because she overperforms fundamentals so much.
Really glad for this post. As someone who is likely to the left of you (although definitely not as lefty as say Bernie or Bernie super fans) I’ve come to accept that even just for just for pragmatic political reasons you need to moderate strategically. But I’ve come to really frustrated with “Moderate” voices in general partly because I find I real smugness in rhetoric but also because I’m continually underwhelmed and quite frankly disappointed with “moderate” policy ideas being put out.
Case in point. Please see the latest tax plans put out by Senator Van Hollen and Senator Booker. Someone on social media described the plans as almost “perfect” Democratic tax plans; policies cosplaying as for the working class that actually benefit the upper middle class. Also, for the first time in decades we have real concerns that high deficits are putting upward pressure on interest rates and you want to make it worse?! Also, there’s a reason your Democrats. And one reason is recognizing that the unique circumstance of 1980 haven’t applied for decades which means blind devotion to tax cuts is idiotic and has only become more idiotic over the past 25 years.
I could go on, but man o man is it not a good look for the moderate faction to a) try to moderate on an issue where public is actually probably on your side b) putting our policy proposals that would genuinely make people’s lives worse give what this would likely do to interest rates c) just have a complete lack of understanding of what issues are actually the best issues to be moderating on.
There’s actually more I could criticize about this plan but I just want to say to Matt that stuff like this is why people like me have had reasons to at least be skeptical of moderate Dems since late 90s.
Good point to reference the “smugness” aspect. We can’t complain when leftists wag their finger, morally lecture people etc. when the moderates etc. do the same thing too, BUT right after complaining about leftists lecturing people etc
All of this leaves me withthe question of what is winning for? Is it just to prevent the next Republican from continuing with or exacerbabing Trump's defict, immigrtion restrictions and tariffs by being slightly less bad on these same issues? If so, is Newsom any worse than Gallego?
I'd like to see Democrats with a positive vision of growth with equity -- low deficits, high immigration of skilled people, low import restrictions except from adversaries, and low cost reductionsin CO2 emissions -- and measures to restrict Executive powers vis a vis Congress.
>I think the people most likely to do that in a compelling way are purple-state politicians like Josh Shapiro and Ruben Gallego, but Newsom could do it and so could A.O.C.<
I was looking at some polling a few days ago—sorry, no time to rustle up a link at the moment—but Shapiro performs *much* better vs. hypothetical GOP nominee J.D. Vance than Newsom does. The latter's numbers nationally are not...wonderful. Neither are Harris's. Nor Buttigieg's for that matter. I suspect the Gallego/Ossoff/Kelly/Beshear/Whitmer tier would similarly poll more strongly than the Establishment Libs vis-a-vis Vance (the poll indicated they're not sufficiently well-known nationally to generate a meaningful result).
Newsom *could* win it, sure. But why risk going into the general without the strongest possible nominee?
Newsom just isn't as likeable as much of the other contenders. He's clearly teeing himself up for a run but I think the more exposure he has leading up, the less popular he will become.
I mean, you know the answer: every marginal point you get by moderating is a platform plank you’ve “sold out” on. If you’re going to win anyway, it doesn’t actually matter if you win by .1 or by 20 points. And have you ever met a political party operative that’s pessimistic about their chances of winning? It’s like meeting a religious person who thinks their religion’s eschatological vision won’t play out.
I'm impressed with Gallego thus far in that he seems unafraid to go against the left, while being stridently anti-Trump and anti-Iran war. I even saw him ding Janet Mills on a podcast just for being old. So he's a moderate "fighter" that isn't yet part of the Establishment and doesn't talk like a career pol. He could end up being the right guy in the right place at the right time. Yet, he's actually not that articulate nor charismatic. I'm wondering if this could end up being an advantage though, boosting authenticity while not coming off as slick.
Especially with the Iran war (unless the regime falls quickly, with a rapid transition to democracy -- a highly unlikely prospect, to say the least!) -- I dread the thought of Shapiro running against Vance -- much as I like almost everything about Shapiro.
Springtime for Hitler! That's where Vance finally breaks with Trump. The undercurrents are already unmistakable -- "Israel dragged us into this" -- among friends to whom Vance has already given the nod (and then some), declaring, "No purity tests." And this, in turn, will even appeal to certain elements of the "woke" left.
Against Vance, I'd put my money on Kelly, with Booker, perhaps, as VP -- though I also wouldn't mind seeing Gallego run over a crowd of latte-sipping urbanists with his big-ass truck. ;-)
PS: With Kelly, we get a Jewish first lady -- but with Vance, we get a Hindu, which (in that instance) might help neutralize the Jew-baiters in his campaign.
I also think it could and should be mentioned, especially for how many times we criticize or “punch left”, the time that the person establishment or party leaders were wrong policy wise, “vibes” wise, picking candidates etc.
Definitely not saying the party shouldn’t moderate in some aspects (policy, perception, slogans etc.). But makes me a bit cynical when one moment the party is wagging their fingers at the “left” (very vague or open ended definition in this context) to tell them they’re not popular or large in numbers, but then almost instantly blame them for every loss (they can’t be the reason every time).
But overall, I agree with the article. Sometimes, it’s not just the activists or left who have their priorities in the wrong order
It's good to headline "Stop Somebody." But who? "Stop the Groups" is obscure, "Stop Billionaires" is mathematically wrong and has a low ceiling (and is taken already), and "Stop the NGO/activist/foundation ecosystem that your staffers know will have to pay their salaries when this ends" is true but is the worst yet. I guess "Abundance" = "Stop the blue-state regulators and ______" where everyone fills in the blank VERY differently, and that seems worth a try but I'm not optimistic.
This is a great post. But the upshot is that some outsider is going to show up and promise tax cuts (and hence entitlement cuts) with Democratic characteristics, and they will be hailed as the great Democratic moderate reformer. You can see the seeds of this with Booker and Chris Van Hollen’s hilarious proposals to cut taxes for people making 900k a year while claiming it’s a tax cut for people making 75k a year.
Personally, I can’t wait! Medicare and Social Security need a diet, as Matt implied a few months back.
Mechanically, any tax cut for someone making $75k is a tax cut for someone making $900k.
Fundamental problem with the federal income tax is we under tax half the population. Also entitlement spending on elderly has repeatedly gotten more generous and it’s crowding out public investments for other people. (This is why the no tax on social security was bad policy, because it was high income non workers who benefit not people scraping by.)
That is not true, plenty of tax breaks have phaseouts. The SALT deduction succeeds in being a tax cut for people making almost exactly between 400k-550k.
Deductions feel different than rate cuts but mechanically they do lower taxes. I was thinking rate cuts. I am going to have to nag my wife again for her 1099s tonight.
There’s also something about seeing a young hopeful (almost naive) politician having his genuine convictions disciplined under the responsibility of governing (Obama/Mamdani) that makes people more sympathetic to policy shifts than seeing party hacks (Hilary/Biden/Harris/Newsom) try to flip flop to gain power.
Also relates to Matt's point about Mamdani. Having charisma makes it easier to roll your base.
Sure but I’d still distinguish charisma from likability. Both Mamdani and Newsom are charismatic, but Newsom can project a kind of slick, overly polished energy, whereas Mamdani is simply easy to like.
Theres a distinct quality of earnestness that is separate from charisma that makes one extend the kind of grace of viewing shifting policy stances charitably. Just yesterday, Mamdani, who is 34 years old, was trying to navigate in his press conference how to address an attempted Islamist terrorist attack in the middle of an anti-Islam rally outside HIS house and it was not quite “charming”, but it felt human watching him struggle. He looked genuinely flustered in a way that was unusual for him and you could see him trying to figure out how to handle it in real time. There is a distinct kind of young man learning on the job quality that makes people who aren’t his fierce ideological adversaries a little more forgiving.
It also conforms to a sense of a “hero’s journey” for the career of the politician.
The difference between “accepting discipline” and flip flopping is charisma.
I hate it when you are right.
I never saw Hillary Clinton as much of a flipper. Her low favorables were driven by a heady mixture of: perception of corruption, unwillingness to suffer fools gladly, misogyny, and dislike (on the left) of her hawkishness.
And she really *was* to Bernie's left on immigration and gun control. Sanders was a traditionalist, pro-union immigration skeptic, as well as someone who realized large numbers of his constituents were gun owers.
I was a Hillary fan, but nowadays I find myself much more open to 2016 Bernie.
I blame Bernie for Trump eking out a win in 2016. I will never forgive him for his petulance and calling for a contested convention when he lost by a landslide.
I blame Bernie for knuckling under to the podium-stealers and hecklers. It was bad leadership and created a permission structure for bad behavior.
One of the little-known aspects of prewar Japan is that the military had a shitty cultural quirk where junior officers could basically commit violent mutinies and then get away with it by claiming they felt compelled to take action in defense of the emperor. It helped drag the country into wars it wasn’t ready for, and also undermined the chain of command and various other power centers in a country that was actively being contested between those centers.
A similar thing happened starting with Bernie. His refusal to stand up to the activists paved the way for a shitty mutiny that we’re only just now starting to see peter out.
So many of his 2020 staffers came out as nutters and made grifting careers as completely unhinged commentators and influencers.
“Some”
You and I aren’t on the same page on this. I think your bar for “nutters and grifters” is probably a low lower than mine.
I blame Nurse Ratched for losing to (a fake) McMurphy in 2016.
Bernie endorsed (but couldn't rescue) Her. She just wasn't likeable enough.
I find myself much more open to the *2020* Bernie.
All I have to say is: I ❤️ Hillary. I will ❤️ Hillary always & forever.
C'mon. She was one of the most famous women in the world in 2000. She didn't need whatever nonsense "connections and leverage" related to a rabbi and a Puerto Rican terrorist you're talking about. Come to think of it, your comment is an excellent example of what I'm trying to illustrate.
I must say I hate them and much prefer the cynics. No one I despise more than people who think they can solve things with pithy slogans and "good" intentions.
I think people just don't like it when someone visibly hungers to be President. (I think, by the way, it is bad that people feel this way. We should encourage ambition!)
Mamdani was pretty ambitious and really wanted to be mayor. IMO it’s more that if you are an ideologue, it makes it appear that you want to become president/mayor because you want to implement your agenda, however one feels about the merits of the agenda. If you aren’t an ideologue, it’s easier to ascribe your ambition to personal career advancement as opposed to advancing an ideological project (like Bernie/Mamdani).
Great post, Matt. AOC is not the solution but at least she aims to put forth a vision (perhaps incomplete) for the future of the country. I see Newsom as a Hillary 2016, wanting the presidency so bad he'll bend and twist in every manner to look as appealing to every Democratic faction but lacking any actual ideals.
I'm quite certain that Beshear will run in '28 but folks seem to be sleeping on him right now. I see him having quite possibly the largest net of appeal across most 2028 hopefuls and being a successful two term governor in KY is no slouch. He also has a Talarico earnestness that I think could play very well among conservatives in red states. He's about as moderate as one could want without being too overtly ideological (by default given where he lives) and articulates his policy wins in clear ways. I would say this is what makes the horse race so fun but the stakes are too chillingly high over the next couple years.
I don’t get the Beshear hype. He’s only governor because his father was a popular governor of Kentucky. That is not replicable in a presidential campaign and he’s not very charismatic.
"He’s only governor because his father was a popular governor of Kentucky."
That can't be the only reason. It's the kind of thing that probably gave him a big leg-up early on in terms of name recognition, but sasn't he won reelection?
The positioning on Israel in the primary is going to be wild.
I'm skeptical how salient Israel will be in the in '28 primary. I know it is THE litmus test on the left, but it never cracks top 10 in issue priority polling.
Just look at the number of comments whenever Matt writes about Israel / Palestine to see why this will be a salient issue in the primaries.
So we're betting on this whole Iran thing being over quick, then?
That would be the wildcard.
I'm personally betting on it. Trump happily telegraphs to the world what he's thinking, and what he's thinking is "I can't let gas go much higher."
I give the reappearance of TACO three weeks tops.
I think TACO should be retired as an insult. I'm tired of him NOT chickening out. Illegal and unwise actions to capture Maduro, start a war with Iran, unilaterally and illegally apply tariffs on the entire world with extra tariffs on anyone who insults.
Let's not encourage him to "stick to his guns".
TACO is a pro-Trump message
TIAC
“Trump Is A Chode” (I miss that guy on my commute home. I hope he comes back out now the weather is nice.)
He can TACO all he wants, but in foreign policy the enemy gets a vote, too.
Eh, I really don't think the Iranian regime is any position to keep going a day after we stop.
The Netanyahu government on the other hand just might, or restart things at anytime if they see it in their interest.
The current supreme leader’s wife and parents were just killed in the war. The rest of the leadership are, unlike in Venezuela, ideologues. The Iranian government has the ability to project power through foreign terrorist organizations and could reconstitute their domestic drone and ballistic missile programs relatively quickly after an end to immediate hostilities. At this point, if we don’t conduct regime change, we will not see the end of retaliation for years to come.
This sort of depends on Iran being a situation he can actually unilaterally withdraw from.
True enough -- and meanwhile, who will open the Strait of Hormuz?
Do you think that the price goes down enough if he stops in a week?
Oh I have no idea about the specifics of gas prices. I'm talking generalities: more and longer war means higher oil prices, and sinking numbers for the GOP. Stopping the war presumably does the opposite. But he's done himself and the GOP brand damage either way, I reckon, because there doesn't seem to be a revolution brewing in Iran, and if the regime survives, it's going to be hard to dodge the "LOSER" label.
Until a tanker gets a drone strike.
The faith of so many people that this can all be contained is surprising to me.
The Iranian regime is probably biding their time.
I don't see them being removed by this. When the bombs are done, they will go back to massacring their own people.
It's going to be "Iranians killed by Iranians" "Iranians killed by Americans and Israelis" "Iranians killed by Iranians"'.
I don't see why we had to insert ourselves in the middle there.
Netanyahu convinced Trump it would somehow enhance his greatness.
I feel that Biden made the mistake of helping intercept missiles after Israel assassinated one of Iran’s leaders.
Or (worse) Putin leaned on Trump to start the war (in order to increase global oil prices) by threatening to release the kompromat on him?
It's a low-priority issue for general election voters, but I'm guessing it's a much higher-priority issue for Democratic primary voters and (especially) the influencers and tastemakers whom Democratic primary voters listen to.
It's also pretty obvious that the optimal strategy on Israel to win a Democratic primary at this point is pretty much the Bernie Sanders/Mamdani/AOC line of calling it a genocide, saying Bibi is a war criminal, pledging no more aid, criticizing AIPAC and the pro-Israel lobby. Now that Biden's out of office, registered Democrats (particularly older ones) have become much more opposed to the war in Gaza because doing so no longer codes as breaking with "their" president. See here: https://www.economist.com/briefing/2025/09/18/america-is-falling-out-of-love-with-israel. The same dynamic happened with the Vietnam war and LBJ, as detailed in Chapter 9 of this book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_and_Origins_of_Mass_Opinion.
That’s poison for the general though. I think you have to hope a “not my business” America first peace ticket vaguely in support of a two state solution but promising much less involvement is enough.
Yea, only the slightly more polished version of "fuck them all, they all suck" can possibly thread the needle here.
A pox on both their houses, focus on hearth and home is a fine general election message.
Zionists don’t care about gas prices. If this keeps up, they will become a rather unpopular minority. The reasons for supporting Israel are too gossamer for normies to embrace any real sacrifice to maintain israeli nuclear hegemony.
Also possible that Tucker Carlson- or someone like him- gets into the Republican primary bashing the war and claiming it’s only for Israel’s benefit with huge costs to America.
Vance will get there first. (What color is a chameleon on a mirror?)
I’m sure he’ll try, but Tucker (or whoever) will say that you were part of the administration- why didn’t you stop it or resign in protest?
Maybe we will get an Omnicauser Putsch at the convention?
I am burned out on Israel.
Within political circles yes. It is vastly over done.
But, if Iran goes on for long or oil stays high or Americans are sent over, suddenly the non political people will be paying attention.
Iran still has a pile of fissile material they could dig up. They have every reason to be a bigger problem.
And what are we doing to stop that problem?
Bombing won't work.
Robot spiders?
Nor do the popular vote and cross-tabs from the general election suggest Israel is all that salient. There was lots of angry screaming to the effect that Genocide Joe's policies were going to sink Harris, but I've seen pretty much zero evidence of this.
I'm happy to be corrected, but she didn't lose because of defections from the left.
Primaries amplify the left most people.
I hope pro Palestinian politicians will deploy “Zionists don’t care about gas prices.” That sort of attack will work better than hand ringing about human rights.
I agree. I think even if Israel isn't central to the median voter by 2028 it's the perfect issue to wedge the Democratic coalition and it's a debate that goes toxic fast, meaning it will get a lot of attention and generate bad feelings all around. I dxpect bad faith actors (chuds like Jill Stein and Musk type algorithm manipulators) to amplify the issue in the 2028 Democratic primary.
Having a Islamist throwing homemade bombs in front of Mayor Mamdani's house isn't going to help, regardless of what Stein and the algorithm does.
I’m still mad all the reporting on this initially was “anti Muslim extremists try to blow up mayor”. Surprise surprise it was the islamists throwing bombs around.
Because the two sides present in numbers were the goat-walkers and the omnicause leftoids and very few people expected a bomb-throwing 18-year-old ISIS sympathizer as the wild card.
Are you saying the omnicause left and bomb-throwing isis sympathizers are different and distinct parties?
Within the context of a western country, at the very least they are a happily travelling together.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Speicher_massacre
In case anyone is wondering what ISIS types think of people like Mamdani
"chuds like [nice old hippie lady] Jill Stein"
pass di crack pipe pon di left hand side
What’s fun is “support for Palestine” and “support for Israel” are both very unpopular positions. But politicians will be asked about it anyway!
I think the Iran war, unless it works out great, opens a lane here though. “I support Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. But they need to stop expanding settlements and return to the negotiating table for a two state solution instead of dragging America into their wars with Iran. As president will do everything I can to facilitate peace and support our allies but I am going to be putting American interests not Israeli interests first in foreign affairs”.
"I support South Africa's existence as a white state"....
A lot of people in the Democratic coalition are going to hear it like that.
"I support Israel's right to exist" would be better. Do not wade into making a statement about Israel's desired ethnic composition.
Maybe they will, but no matter what you say some people are going to be super pissed. Classic wedge issue. I think two state solution is the least controversial of the controversial options, especially coupled with signaling that you are going to draw down support and involvement and untether our foreign policy from “whatever Bibi wants”.
Kind of tangential but I am really tired of the “Israel’s right to exist” language. No state has a right to exist. Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia didn’t have a right to exist and now they don’t. As a nation if you have enough strength to hold yourself together from internal and external threats you will continue to exist. If you don’t you won’t. It really is that simple. Israel is probably going to be around for a while. The question is what kind of relationship do we want to have with it.
Yes. It will be a race to the bottom, someone will actually propose eliminating the country in the debates, and whoever gets elected will have made some insane promise to treat Israel like cancer - and it will all amount to nothing, exactly as Biden’s promises to make Saudi Arabia a “pariah state” did.
I dunno; if AIPAC gets involved just tweet pictures of dead American soldiers at them.
I feel like AIPAC knows that they are at the end of their own era.
If they thought that, they would act with more restraint.
Being able to bulldoze your opponents for four decades is not great for self awareness or humility.
Think about Trump's cabinet at the moment. They are all getting theirs while the getting is good. I imagine a lot of AIPAC is looking at the current moment like that.
I think that there's an impregnable position on Israel for any candidate smart enough to take it:
-- non-cooperation and non-support of Netanyahu and the Israeli Far Right;
-- insistence that any Israeli government return to support of a two-state solution and removal of all obstacles, including settlements in the Occupied Territories, that make a two-state solution non-viable;
-- unquestioned support for the legitimacy of the State of Israel in domestic politics and international forums;
-- absolute rejection of anti-Semitism in all its forms and guises.
Listen you haven't been paying attention if you think there hasn't been a decades long push to make #1 a violation of #4.
Of course there has been, and there's a technical term for that push: it's called "a lie". "Live not by lies" is as good advice for political life as it is for moral life.
OK, to take another hypothetical, #3 and #1, so let's say the far right does what they want and does kick out the Palestinians from another big chunk of the west bank or Gaza. Maybe there will also again be tens of thousands of unfortunate deaths as well.
Then can someone in America say Israel, the state, is illegitimate? Maybe it wasn't before, but it has become so through their own elected leaders and actions?
The politics on this are not as easy as the 4 points suggest. (They aren't bad points, but I am thinking of the practicalities of it)
I didn't say that the position I suggested was "easy", I said that it was "impregnable", by which I meant "very difficult to attack effectively", because it's legally, morally, and ethically coherent, and outlines a path of action that's I think is executable, legal, and politically smart.
With respect to this particular question, of course individuals can "say" what they want -- it's a free country. The real question, I think, is what does the Government of the United States DO? My answer is, what it's done many other other times that a member of the United Nations has committed a serious violation of international law in its view: impose sanctions. The issue is never with the legitimacy of the state actor -- that's assumed. It's with the legality of the action, and the appropriate response.
So we are also having #5 as well. "The US will stop issuing blanket UN vetoes on Israel's behalf."
“removal of all obstacles, including settlements in the Occupied Territories, that make a two-state solution non-viable”
The majority of Palestenians do not favor a two state solution.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/695582/peace-distant-prospect-israelis-palestinians.aspx
How do you propose removing that particular obstacle?
The important thing moderates need to do is recognize that Democratic primary voters want people who are proposing solutions to the serious problems we face. Right now the left wing is the faction that advocates both for Matt-style solutions like congestion pricing and legal apartments and for things Matt doesn't like, like punitive taxes on billionaires. As long as moderates are the faction of not doing things they're going to keep losing intra-party debates.
As I said, moderate Democrats are designing everything by committee which benefits progressives in factional battles. A strong moderate personality and agenda means progressives get fewer policy wins.
In NY, congestion pricing is thanks to Michael Bloomberg. And later put into legislation by Andrew Cuomo.
https://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc/downloads/pdf/publications/full_report_2007.pdf
If you want to live like a progressive, vote for the technocrat.
It seems bad to oppose a policy that is both popular and effective. The technocratic side of Democrats really disappears if you mention crime or education, I just don't understand why Democrats risk so much unpopularity with terrible policies on crime. There are powerful teaching unions which I can understand listening to, I don't think there is a shoplifters union, but Democrats act like there is and it is a powerful lobby they want to support.
I wonder how much of the pressure on the Democrats for soft-on-crime policies comes from renters living in high-crime but otherwise desirably-located neighborhoods, who fear they'd be displaced by gentrification if the crime was dealt with?
I have thought about that as a theory, especially in terms of riots lowering rent. But I don't think it works in mainstream politics, it is too big of an effect and the pro-crime stuff is popular in a left wing politics not just in places that could gentrify.
I'd like to get on the record as not wanting Newsome OR AOC.
Similar to the discussion around the Talarico/Crockett race, I would like someone who presents as moderate/mainstream but has a sincerely liberal heart. A good communicator who can connect with a majority of the country, but also someone who can do math and think about actual budgets - not just make wild assertions about impossible dreams.
Got any leads?
I think Buttigieg would govern as a true pragmatic moderate with a sincere liberal heart. But I worry that he won’t do enough vocal stiff arming of the left in the general election. And he also has Biden administration baggage.
I think he could govern, and he would be a good prime minister - if that were our system.
But I worry he misses on the "connect with the majority of the country" part. He doesn't have that "person you'd like to have a beer with" vibe. Not convinced he will be a good candidate.
Some variation that is "Buttigieg, but a cool guy" would be tempting though!
I disagree on that, Buttigieg has quite a good personal manner on podcasts and seems like someone who voters (maybe only White voters) would like to have a beer with. Maybe he seems less presidential because of his height and inexperience, but his personal interactions are good.
"Maybe he seems less presidential because of his height" made me laugh because it is true!
We gay guys have a different way of measuring size ;-)
I'm gay, and I like Pete -- but he's too glossy and slick for the blue-collar types. That's why (for electability) I prefer Kelly or Gallego.
I don't get the impulse to pretend that Buttigieg is a viable general election candidate. Is it intended to signal that the person saying it is not homophobic? It doesn't make sense since most people suggesting that are not in danger of being accused of homophobia.
It's the super obvious elephant in the room that left leaning media refuses to acknowledge about why he has single digit polling with blacks and latinos
Well he seems like the most "technocratic" person in the mix. I think that is the appeal. But I would not say it is the mood of The People at the moment, sadly.
I think you're underrating the likelihood of being accused of homophobia regardless of what one's objective track record is.
Nonsense! I'm gay, and I like Pete -- but he's too glossy and slick for the blue-collar types. That's why (for electability) I prefer Kelly or Gallego.
This Ultra Dark MAGA Republican wouldn’t mind seeing a Mayor Pete/JDV match up. Then Mayor Pete could explain why he was more concerned about racist roads and why he discriminated against white male air traffic controller applicants.
Not sure if you are kidding or serious, but Mayor Pete's comments about the racist placement of highways back in the day are very true, at least it is every place that I have lived, which are all in the Northeast and Midwest. But, yeah, the sound bites probably won't play well.
Isn't that going to be a problem for any Democrat who was around in 2020? Look at Talarico's issues with his tweets.
I want a happy warrior who loves the flag, hot dogs, and fireworks. I am tired of people being so down and negative about this country. Also being back Rock.
Flags, hot dogs, fireworks... Yevgeniy Prigozhin?
How did Prigozhin get into this?
Putin’s chef and caterer was a hotdog vendor. He successfully franchised during the 90s.
Hot dog sales
Ossoff. I'm very doubtful he can climb his way into the top tier, but in my view he ticks all the boxes.
That person does not exist and could not survive in national dem politics.
I think the closest thing is Shapiro, and if he acts on national ambitions, he will immediately be DOA (or change himself into an unconvincing progressive).
"could not survive in national dem politics"?
Is that because they would be cut down by both the left and the right? or some other reason?
I honestly would like to know we have a huge group of moderates on this board. What is the big picture vision for why we want to elect moderates?
Like you’ve achieved every political goal you have the presidency and 67 Senators and a 50 seat majority in the house. What are you doing? What is the spoils because all I ever hear about is how the left is bad.
More housing, more efficient healthcare provision, less crime, reduced carbon emissions, less attention being paid to the news.
Matt's whole blog is basically an answer to that question. Some that come to mind:
Immigration: Strengthen border security, don't look the other way on asylum loopholes and understand that it's *good* if an illegal immigrant (or even green-card holder) that gets caught shoplifting is deported.
Housing: Do whatever Ezra and Matt Y. would do. Don't be Dean Preston or whatever.
Large Gov't Bills: Do big stuff (IRA, etc.), but don't everything-bagel it. Focus on getting the stuff done, not appeasing workers, unions and non-profit lobbying groups.
I think you've hot the nail on the head with this one. Before you answer, moderates, think about how what Biden did didnt get across to the electorate. Also think that this is an electorate somewhat tired of your type and expecting something big. Its not the electorate of the 2000s, there's a lot of discontent and there are a lot of change voters these days.
Moderate Dems must convince America they deserve to govern.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1668023482
A few thoughts.
Obama left a huge hole in the Democratic Party. This hole got filled by committees and we get this long list checkbox like set of policies but no real direction or message.
Rank and file elected Democrats are risk adverse and the tumult of Sanders’ insurgent campaign reinforced that risk aversion.
Progressives like the current govern by committee and weak moderates for factional reasons. It is easier for them to exert influence or extort concessions (e.g. why do NGOs only protest Democrats who support their stated aims?)
Finally, Obama had a level of technocratic elitism. He thought Harvard educated people and professors were the best experts and filled his administration with these types. That has to have affected the priorities of the Democratic Party. That also probably feeds into how many Democrats snub non college educated voters, culture, and challenges.
Do you think being Californian would in and of itself be a significant liability for Gavin Newsom as a presidential candidate?
Liked this because I think it's a very important question that's not getting much in the way of attention in these discussions of potential 2028 Dem candidates. I think being Californian (and not just any Californian--San Franciscan) is a HUGE potential liability for Newsom, just like being a New Yorker is a huge potential liability for AOC. There's a significant regional angle to Dem struggles in Presidential elections, and nominating a candidate from one of their coastal bastions would be just about the stupidest thing the Dems could do.
Yes - my kind-of-insane litmus test for 2028 is that I won’t vote for a blue-state Dem in the primary.
There’s a big list of candidates from purple or red states (Shapiro, Ossoff, Warnock, Gallego, Kelly, Whitmer) who have proven records of winning tough contests. You could even convince me on Klobuchar just because she overperforms fundamentals so much.
Really glad for this post. As someone who is likely to the left of you (although definitely not as lefty as say Bernie or Bernie super fans) I’ve come to accept that even just for just for pragmatic political reasons you need to moderate strategically. But I’ve come to really frustrated with “Moderate” voices in general partly because I find I real smugness in rhetoric but also because I’m continually underwhelmed and quite frankly disappointed with “moderate” policy ideas being put out.
Case in point. Please see the latest tax plans put out by Senator Van Hollen and Senator Booker. Someone on social media described the plans as almost “perfect” Democratic tax plans; policies cosplaying as for the working class that actually benefit the upper middle class. Also, for the first time in decades we have real concerns that high deficits are putting upward pressure on interest rates and you want to make it worse?! Also, there’s a reason your Democrats. And one reason is recognizing that the unique circumstance of 1980 haven’t applied for decades which means blind devotion to tax cuts is idiotic and has only become more idiotic over the past 25 years.
I could go on, but man o man is it not a good look for the moderate faction to a) try to moderate on an issue where public is actually probably on your side b) putting our policy proposals that would genuinely make people’s lives worse give what this would likely do to interest rates c) just have a complete lack of understanding of what issues are actually the best issues to be moderating on.
There’s actually more I could criticize about this plan but I just want to say to Matt that stuff like this is why people like me have had reasons to at least be skeptical of moderate Dems since late 90s.
Good point to reference the “smugness” aspect. We can’t complain when leftists wag their finger, morally lecture people etc. when the moderates etc. do the same thing too, BUT right after complaining about leftists lecturing people etc
All of this leaves me withthe question of what is winning for? Is it just to prevent the next Republican from continuing with or exacerbabing Trump's defict, immigrtion restrictions and tariffs by being slightly less bad on these same issues? If so, is Newsom any worse than Gallego?
I'd like to see Democrats with a positive vision of growth with equity -- low deficits, high immigration of skilled people, low import restrictions except from adversaries, and low cost reductionsin CO2 emissions -- and measures to restrict Executive powers vis a vis Congress.
>I think the people most likely to do that in a compelling way are purple-state politicians like Josh Shapiro and Ruben Gallego, but Newsom could do it and so could A.O.C.<
I was looking at some polling a few days ago—sorry, no time to rustle up a link at the moment—but Shapiro performs *much* better vs. hypothetical GOP nominee J.D. Vance than Newsom does. The latter's numbers nationally are not...wonderful. Neither are Harris's. Nor Buttigieg's for that matter. I suspect the Gallego/Ossoff/Kelly/Beshear/Whitmer tier would similarly poll more strongly than the Establishment Libs vis-a-vis Vance (the poll indicated they're not sufficiently well-known nationally to generate a meaningful result).
Newsom *could* win it, sure. But why risk going into the general without the strongest possible nominee?
EDIT: Here's where I saw that polling:
https://x.com/OpenSourceZone/status/2030679753632428121
Newsom just isn't as likeable as much of the other contenders. He's clearly teeing himself up for a run but I think the more exposure he has leading up, the less popular he will become.
I think the depressing evidence is that a political brand is very hard to renovate.
Mannequins get bleached and brittle remarkably quickly when exposed to sunlight. ;-)
I mean, you know the answer: every marginal point you get by moderating is a platform plank you’ve “sold out” on. If you’re going to win anyway, it doesn’t actually matter if you win by .1 or by 20 points. And have you ever met a political party operative that’s pessimistic about their chances of winning? It’s like meeting a religious person who thinks their religion’s eschatological vision won’t play out.
I'm impressed with Gallego thus far in that he seems unafraid to go against the left, while being stridently anti-Trump and anti-Iran war. I even saw him ding Janet Mills on a podcast just for being old. So he's a moderate "fighter" that isn't yet part of the Establishment and doesn't talk like a career pol. He could end up being the right guy in the right place at the right time. Yet, he's actually not that articulate nor charismatic. I'm wondering if this could end up being an advantage though, boosting authenticity while not coming off as slick.
Especially with the Iran war (unless the regime falls quickly, with a rapid transition to democracy -- a highly unlikely prospect, to say the least!) -- I dread the thought of Shapiro running against Vance -- much as I like almost everything about Shapiro.
Springtime for Hitler! That's where Vance finally breaks with Trump. The undercurrents are already unmistakable -- "Israel dragged us into this" -- among friends to whom Vance has already given the nod (and then some), declaring, "No purity tests." And this, in turn, will even appeal to certain elements of the "woke" left.
Against Vance, I'd put my money on Kelly, with Booker, perhaps, as VP -- though I also wouldn't mind seeing Gallego run over a crowd of latte-sipping urbanists with his big-ass truck. ;-)
PS: With Kelly, we get a Jewish first lady -- but with Vance, we get a Hindu, which (in that instance) might help neutralize the Jew-baiters in his campaign.
I also think it could and should be mentioned, especially for how many times we criticize or “punch left”, the time that the person establishment or party leaders were wrong policy wise, “vibes” wise, picking candidates etc.
Definitely not saying the party shouldn’t moderate in some aspects (policy, perception, slogans etc.). But makes me a bit cynical when one moment the party is wagging their fingers at the “left” (very vague or open ended definition in this context) to tell them they’re not popular or large in numbers, but then almost instantly blame them for every loss (they can’t be the reason every time).
But overall, I agree with the article. Sometimes, it’s not just the activists or left who have their priorities in the wrong order
The lowest hanging fruit for Democrats is young men, especially young men of color.
All Democrats truly need to win is a little sex positivity.
It's good to headline "Stop Somebody." But who? "Stop the Groups" is obscure, "Stop Billionaires" is mathematically wrong and has a low ceiling (and is taken already), and "Stop the NGO/activist/foundation ecosystem that your staffers know will have to pay their salaries when this ends" is true but is the worst yet. I guess "Abundance" = "Stop the blue-state regulators and ______" where everyone fills in the blank VERY differently, and that seems worth a try but I'm not optimistic.
Stop the fascists AND the wokesters!
This is a great post. But the upshot is that some outsider is going to show up and promise tax cuts (and hence entitlement cuts) with Democratic characteristics, and they will be hailed as the great Democratic moderate reformer. You can see the seeds of this with Booker and Chris Van Hollen’s hilarious proposals to cut taxes for people making 900k a year while claiming it’s a tax cut for people making 75k a year.
Personally, I can’t wait! Medicare and Social Security need a diet, as Matt implied a few months back.
Mechanically, any tax cut for someone making $75k is a tax cut for someone making $900k.
Fundamental problem with the federal income tax is we under tax half the population. Also entitlement spending on elderly has repeatedly gotten more generous and it’s crowding out public investments for other people. (This is why the no tax on social security was bad policy, because it was high income non workers who benefit not people scraping by.)
That is not true, plenty of tax breaks have phaseouts. The SALT deduction succeeds in being a tax cut for people making almost exactly between 400k-550k.
Deductions feel different than rate cuts but mechanically they do lower taxes. I was thinking rate cuts. I am going to have to nag my wife again for her 1099s tonight.