But now I see that Edsall piece was published on May 11, 2016.
Ha ha ha. I guess we found out.
Edsall ends with: "[T]he simple fact that Trump has beaten the odds so far means that it is not beyond the realm of possibility that he could beat them again. If he does take the White House, much, if not all, of his margin of victory will come from voters too ashamed to acknowledge publicly how they intend to cast their vote."
Said Democratic Senator John Fetterman, by video, at the GOP convention, introducing a man he called "my friend," Pennsylvania's Republican senator, Dave McCormick.
Here's how he put it: "I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000, very much like a successful company will do a cash distribution to its shareholders or like last year when I gave our great members of the military $1,776."
I remember getting thousands of dollars during the pandemic....
Headline at the NYT for the story about Darline Graham's victory in yesterday's primary runoff.You can see the story the Times wants to tell, even as the facts on the ground don't line up exactly right:
Some of the luster had seemed to come off Mr. Trump’s political brand in recent weeks. His approval ratings have drooped, his party’s midterm outlook has darkened and his chosen picks in several races for governor and the House have fallen short.
ADDED: He slingshots her. It's like something Wile E. Coyote would do to himself to cross a canyon. Or what the Lost Boys did to Robin Williams:
The Mythbusters tried it:
"... referring to transition surgeries for minors. Dr. El-Sayed responded by asking if Mr. Watters was circumcised. 'Uh, yeah, but that’s a personal question, doctor,' Mr. Watters responded, laughing, before contending that 'circumcision’s different than castration.' Dr. El-Sayed said that he believed the government should not tell Americans what health care procedures they could undergo, but he did not directly say whether he approved of transition surgeries. The interview showed the strategy Dr. El-Sayed is adopting as Mr. Rogers seeks to paint him as a radical leftist who is out of touch with Michigan voters. The Democratic nominee’s approach is to cast 'culture-war' issues as a distraction from the everyday problems Americans face, like rising costs and worries about health care...."
Joe and Hilton are old friends, and this discussion goes on for 3 hours, so this should be a major boost for Hilton. I'll just jump in at the point where they are talking about the waste of money on nonprofits that deal with homelessness:
Steve Hilton: This woman runs a homeless nonprofit, 1.6 million dollar salary. Homeless nonprofit.... There's another one... 2.6 million a year....Joe Rogan: And here's the most important thing. The homelessness only got worse. Like if in the private sector, imagine if you were a CEO of a company that was just losing insane amounts of money and never completing its tasks, never doing the thing that it set out to do....Steve Hilton: The more I look at it, the more insane it is. And everyone just looks at it and no one's ever pointed this stuff out.... The government just makes everything so expensive in California. Everyone says, oh, it's so expensive. What are we going to do? We'd better give them more welfare benefits... we better have a billionaire wealth tax.... They don't have that mentality of cutting costs like every normal business.... And this is what happens, I think, when you've got this one party rule thing that's been going on for 16 years now. They've run everything. They don't care because they think they'll be in power forever and it just doesn't matter....
"... and who will go down to certain defeat at the hands of Ashley Moody, a truly Fantastic Senator, from the Great State Florida. Vindman, if you remember, was the one who lied about my 'Perfect Call' with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, only to find out that the conversation was routinely recorded and proved that I was 100% in the right (Completely Innocent!). It was, indeed, a Perfect Call, and the Dumocrats Fake Impeachment effort massively failed. Vindman should be prosecuted for what he did! President Donald J. TRUMP."
"Turning up for church hall meetings was well and fine. But haven’t you heard that Americans are bowling alone? Better to email. Phone banking turned into text-a-thons, where volunteers sent millions of text messages to cellphones we had not yet learned to ignore.... That... felt like the future in 2008.... By 2020, the Democratic advantage in digital campaigning was long gone.... As algorithms turned neighbors into unrecognizable partisans with crazy conspiracy theories, Silicon Valley abandoned the Democrats for Trump. Through it all, the frantic fund-raising text messages just kept coming.... [In the Michigan primary,] Abdul El-Sayed upset the deep-pocketed, establishment choice, Haley Stevens, by building a relational campaign on an economic populist message. El-Sayed won, in part, by characterizing the $62 million in outside money that backed Stevens’s campaign as a sign of... political corruption...."
So... money isn't the answer. You need something other than money, and the socialists do have something. How, then, can they be stopped? The linked column puts it like this: "I’d be looking for the candidates who are thinking and running as if they know that bases are made of people, not dollars."
If you really wanted to show that you are about people, you wouldn't say "bases are made of people." You'd say people matter and hide that the reason they matter to you is they're what is required to make a "base."
The socialists are to the Democratic Party what the Tea Party was to the GOP. All they need now is their Trump.
The "former father-in-law" is Senator Bernie Moreno.
We're told: "Mr. Miller bobbed and weaved, criticizing Mr. Moreno, until Mr. Tapper interrupted. 'It’s not really the issue, though, right?' the anchor said. 'The issue is — the one I asked you about is — did you hold this doll hostage?' (Mr. Miller said 'no' before returning to his harangue about his father-in-law.)"
This is why you should never get divorced. You create all those "former" this and thats, and they might say anything. And make sure to always give your toddlers whatever toy they cry out for. You never know who might one day say that was the precise item without which the little cutie pie could not sleep. One day, it's your little daughter's mundane struggle over bedtime, and some day in the future it might be the symbol of what a monster you are.
The last bit of the article: "Mr. Tapper concluded the interview by asking if 'anyone in your life' is telling Mr. Miller that 'it really might be in the best interests for your daughter and for your own mental health to drop out.' 'My daughter is going to grow up one day, and she’s going to see all of this,' Mr. Miller said. 'And she’s not going to see that her father caved to political and social media pressures for something that he never did.'"
Top-rated comment over there: "Third Way and some other centrist groups seem far more interested in defeating progressives than defeating MAGA and far more interested in telling Democratic voters they’re wrong than earning their votes. If moderates are losing, then the problem is with those candidates, not the progressives who beat them."
The article notes that "the next big test is only a week away": "In Wisconsin, Francesca Hong, a democratic socialist and state assemblywoman representing the progressive hotbed of Madison, has emerged as the party’s front-runner for governor in another key battleground race." There's not one word about the candidate/candidates the moderates are pushing.
El-Sayed overcame a nearly $65 million onslaught of outside money and an establishment that had rallied around Stevens. Popular Gov. Gretchen Whitmer endorsed Stevens late last month — a move seen as a last-ditch effort to stop a rising El-Sayed.
"In 2026, however, we face a president who has surrounded himself with sycophants and yes men, with years left in a term that has already been marked by grotesque lawlessness and abuses of power."
The incident neatly captures how Trump, through his handling of this horrific ICE shooting, is inadvertently screwing over Collins and complicating her path to reelection... Can Democrats turn the ICE shooting into a serious liability for Collins and shift the broader moral debate over immigration their way? It should be very doable....
ADDED: Interrupting the Concerts on the Square can't be the best way to win over moderates. It was a beautiful day and this is an extremely well-established and much-loved Madison tradition:
Troy Jackson, a powerful Maine legislator now running for Senate, once angrily threw a water bottle in a meeting after he couldn’t persuade a lawmaker to vote his way. He yelled at another lawmaker, prompting her to post on social media that straight men were “too emotional” to be in politics. And he cursed and shouted in a meeting with the speaker of Maine’s state House, until she kicked him out of her office. During the six years Jackson presided over Maine’s Senate, until he left office in 2024, his temper was a feature of his leadership, and one that Democratic lawmakers discussed among themselves as a problem and even raised with the governor.... [S]ome Democrats fear that Jackson’s history of conflicts with women lawmakers could hurt him in the general election against Republican Sen. Susan Collins, given that she has won past elections in the consistently blue state by appealing to independent and left-leaning women.
"Have you seen this clip?" I was asked yesterday, by a family member who texted me a clip that you might be about to link to in the comments.
My answer: "Yeah. I didn’t blog about it because I thought people would just be mean to that person who obviously didn’t belong there...."
The NYT doesn't discuss this person, Ashley Webb, but I can see that she was included in that special Democratic U.S. Senate debate. Originally, the debate was going to be limited to 4 candidates who had won at least 20% of the vote in the Democratic primaries for governor or U.S. House. When people complained about that they opened it to everyone who had filed a formal "intent to run." That was one part of the massive screwup that is ruining the Democrats’ chance to unseat Susan Collins. Laughing at Webb is low and beside the point.
"Her anger wasn’t directed at him.
It was aimed at the powerful people far away from her working-class harbor town who, one after the next, had rescinded their endorsements of a candidate she supported in the Democratic primary last month. The feeling was familiar — watching people in Washington decide who should represent her.
She said she believed the woman who had accused Mr. Platner.... She decided to support him anyway, because he had promised to work on her behalf, and she believed him... [S]ome women in this independent-minded slice of the country who powered the progressive upstart’s meteoric rise are angry and grieving.... Several women said they recognized Mr. Platner’s swaggering style from men in their lives who had hurt them.
They supported him anyway...."
"Ms. Upton-Cosulich, 40... a mother, a pottery studio owner and a survivor of abuse... was in the kitchen of the house she cannot afford to buy when she learned that Mr. Platner had suspended his campaign. The feeling reminded her of 2016, when she read reports that officials with the Democratic National Committee had privately derided and mocked her preferred presidential candidate, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont...."
"... is the one that the Platner boom offered before the bust. The hunger that lifted him — the overflow crowds, the volunteer armies, the sense that here, at last, was someone who meant it — was real.... Handed the chance to litigate what the party actually believes, Democrats have mostly declined.... Mr. Platner’s appeal was never really about oysters or facial hair. It was that he seemed to stand for something. He was angry on voters’ behalf about an economy that seems rigged for the powerful, and he was unafraid to say so. People responded to the promise of conviction. That signal is the one the party ought to be reading. The tragedy of a campaign like his is not only that it collapsed, as it deserved to, but that so much energy was poured into a messenger before anyone was sure of the message...."
So "he seemed to stand for something," but we really don't know what, and instead of letting us argue publicly about what that message was and whether it is what we want, they took out the man. I think they had the ability all along to destroy him as a man, but they propped him up as a man. The Nazi tattoo was somehow okay! But when they decided they needed to replace him (presumably, because he wasn't going to win), they used the personal material to take him out.
Here's how Platner himself explained it as he bowed to the Party's demand that he drop the nomination the primary voters had given him: "I think it's really important to understand why this is happening in the timeline, why this is happening right now.... there is a reason that this is happening now...."
And there's this, from Devon Murphy-Anderson, executive director of the Maine Democratic Party: "Unfortunately, Graham Platner’s team has repeatedly reached out to us in an attempt to put their thumb on the scale of what this process looks like. We have repeatedly reiterated to Graham Platner’s team that they have no role in determining our next Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate."
But he won the primary. Shouldn't that at least mean that someone with the same political orientation should replace him? Otherwise, it seems as though the part of the Democratic Party that lost in the primary process is stealing the nomination. That means the only way Platner’s team can have any role in determining the nominee is for Platner to hang onto the nomination he won. Unfortunately for the Party, it has no role in stopping him.
He wants to hold on? He can hold on. The dream is dead? Hold onto that dream.
UPDATE: Platner abandons his dream. He’s out. Watch his video here.
That's the headline at the London Times, a question that assumes a proposition I don't accept as true. Democrats didn't ignore red flags. They saw them and went forward anyway.
The question should be why did they do that, and we know why. It's not hard to figure out. I don't for one minute believe that Democrats are deeply contemplating why they backed Platner despite what they knew. They wanted to win the Senate seat, and they imagined he was their best hope. Now, they are trying to act as though they were blindsided by this rape accusation, and it suddenly disqualifies Platner in a new way.
By the way, what's Platner's motivation to withdraw? He won the primary. It's his nomination. What's good is there for him in withdrawing? If he hangs on for a few more days, past the July 13th deadline for replacing him as the candidate, won't the heat die down? He will have weathered the storm, and he can present himself as a rebellious survivor.
Yes, he may lose, and that loss may be the one Senate seat that denies Democrats the majority they covet, but so what? I mean: "So what?" from his point of view. Should he shrink back into oyster-ridden obscurity because of a rape he says he did not commit? Because of a tattoo everyone knew about when he won the primary?
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Encourage Althouse by making a donation:
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
Posts
