"And the Democrats aren't fighting back.... They didn't beat us, but they'd be victorious against the Communists."

"But they don't have the courage to do so. So, they're turning Communists themselves, becoming a Communist Party. These are not Social Democrats. These are hardcore godless Communists. They're godless Communists. All communists are godless. They don't believe in God. This is the most serious threat to our country since its existence... 250 years ago...."

"A Democratic House candidate in Texas who said she wanted to turn a local immigrant detention center into a facility to imprison and castrate 'American Zionists'..."

"... has Democrats scrambling to distance the party from her and accusing Republicans of behind-the-scenes interference in the race. The contest is happening in a congressional district that Texas lawmakers redrew last year to favor Republicans but that Democrats think can still be won as President Donald Trump’s approval rating plunges. The candidate, Maureen Galindo, finished first among four in the March Democratic primary and is competing in Tuesday’s runoff.... In an Instagram post on Thursday, she said that she 'never said I want Jews in internment camps' but did want to imprison 'billionaire American Zionists' for 'funding genocidal prison systems.'... On May 13, Galindo wrote on Instagram that if elected to Congress, she would write a bill to declare that Zionism is antisemitic, and she would convert an ICE detention center located in her district into a prison with a 'castration processing center' for 'American Zionists' and former ICE officers. She has said she is not antisemitic...."

From "Texas runoff roiled by shadowy spending and a call to imprison 'American Zionists'/Incendiary comments by Maureen Galindo, a Democratic House candidate in Texas, prompted condemnation from Democrats, who accused the GOP of propping her up" (WaPo).

You have to be very deeply into Democratic Party politics to write a blank-days-that-shook-the-blank headline about this.

"10 Days That Shook the House Map and Democratic Confidence."

That's the top headline at the NYT this morning. 

You know the story: "Just two weeks ago, Democrats felt increasingly emboldened about taking control of the House in November after seeming to fight the redistricting wars to a draw. But two court rulings — one by the Supreme Court and another by Virginia’s top court — and an aggressive new push by red states to carve up congressional maps have delivered the Republican Party its biggest burst of momentum in many months. Put bluntly, Republicans have roughly 10 more House seats that favor them than they did just 10 days ago, and Democrats are suddenly grappling with a new landscape."

This feels like one of those NYT articles that's mainly performing the service of tending to the readers' emotions. Let's all do panic together this morning. When I encounter that sort of thing, my natural instinct is to go somewhere else. If we're doing group emotion, I'm looking for the door.

So: I'm interested in the history of titles in the blank-days-that-shook-the-blank form. The original is "10 Days That Shook the World," the 1919 first-hand account of the Russian Revolution by John Reed. His editor described Reed's frenzy:

"I’m a professional liberal... and even I don’t think I could tell you what liberalism’s vision is, or who its leaders are, at this moment."

"In some way, liberalism never really recovered from the Obama era — when it had this grand victory in electing America’s first Black president; when it had this thoughtful, deliberate and, frankly, quite popular liberal leader. Then it ended in Donald Trump’s being elected — not once but twice. But here’s the thing: Donald Trump is not working out. He is not making people want more of what he is...."

Writes Ezra Klein, in "The Book That Changed How I Think About Liberalism" (NYT).

Klein is reading books looking for the answer. The book referred to in the title is "The Lost History of Liberalism," and here's the interview he does with the author, Helena Rosenblatt. There's a lot of talk about the historical meaning of the word "liberal," which hasn't got much to do with the predicament of the Democratic Party in recent years. What was "this grand victory" for liberalism in electing Obama? Klein only refers to Obama's race and demeanor! 

"[T]he dominant mode in Democratic politics right now. It’s not the rebellion or radicalism manifest in, say..."

"Hasan Piker’s Twitch-streamer Marxism or Zohran Mamdani’s telegenic democratic socialism. Notable as those tendencies may be, the Democrats’ fundamental condition is a late-Trumpian stasis — in which the president’s stark unpopularity encourages his opponents to imagine that they can keep everything basically as it was in the Biden era, with the same broad priorities and deference to activists and interest groups, and float back to power automatically. The continuing appeal of Harris is a useful indicator of this stasis. Yes, she is unlikely to be the 2028 nominee, and part of her support is name recognition...."

Writes Ross Douthat, in "Slouching Toward Kamala Harris" (NYT).

Harris is ahead in the polls for the Democratic nomination in 2028. The Real Clear Politics average has her up by 9.3 percentage points. The most recent poll, from Harvard-Harris — has her up by 28 percentage points. Here's her closest competition:

This is about as bad as I’ve seen him. pic.twitter.com/xksNZfG0BE

— Kira (@Kiradavis) May 3, 2026

"It’s Not Going to Get Any Easier for Democrats After Trump."

That's a NYT headline for a column by Thomas Edsall. 

Key sentence: "The precariousness of the Democrats’ position in the coming decade hit home for me after reading 'The 2026 Midterms Are Critical. But 2032 Could Be Existential,' a March 24 essay that Steve Schale, a Democratic strategist based in Florida posted on The Bulwark."

I have no gift links left to give on this, the last day of the month, but even if I did, I wouldn't use one for this. Just go read Schale's piece at The Bulwark. It's not paywalled. Or don't even do that. The big point is just that the 2030 census is going to be very tough on the Democrats.

Senator Elissa Slotkin, last night on Bill Maher's show, said that what people want is "more alpha energy."

Elissa Slotkin: You're not going to get me to defend democratic messaging. We can have a whole autopsy about that.

Whether you're a Democrat or Republican, the American people want something different out of their government. Can we have a little bit more alpha energy? pic.twitter.com/h8li6EAbmq

— Blue Georgia (@BlueGeorgia) March 28, 2026

"You're not going to get me to defend Democratic messaging. That's not going to be ever something that I'm going to defend. That's part of the problem and why we lost the last election. We can have a whole autopsy about that. I think, for me, what is important, going forward, whether you're a Democrat or Republican, is like: the American people, they're telling us something, they want something different out of their government. They want, they want some alpha energy from their leaders. And they certainly — whether you agree with him or not — are getting that from some of the Republicans. And my plea to my own party is, like, can we have a little bit more alpha energy? Punch and believe in what we believe in. Show people that we give a shit, and be simple about addressing the needs that they care about the most. And that has been a struggle to be a part of that change."

That came at the end of her interview with Maher and felt prepared and tacked on. There was no time left to explore the term "alpha energy," which just felt ridiculous. Was she saying Democrats need to talk and act more like Trump because they need to get elected and the voters are pretty damned stupid and self-interested?

I see Elissa Slotkin was saying "alpha energy" last summer. There's this interview, in the NYT, from July: "Elissa Slotkin Wants Democrats to Reclaim Their 'Alpha Energy'/In a wide-ranging interview, the junior senator from Michigan took stock of her party’s deep-seated woes, warning Democrats not to be 'so damn scared.'" 

You often talk about the need for Democrats to bring back “alpha energy,” along the lines of Michigan sports coaches. What is something Democrats do that is the opposite of alpha energy?

In the Midwest, alpha energy is about emotion. Whether you’re a coach and you know what your team has put into the game, or you’re frustrated that they didn’t give it their all, you’re not speaking from wonky details. You’re speaking about your gut and your emotion. I think Democrats have lost that.

We respond to people’s pain with a long list of wonky policies.

Alpha energy is synonymous with being bold. Call the tough play, take a risk, be bold. And don’t be so damn scared of your own shadow.

Yeah, my first guess was right: She's saying Democrats need to talk and act more like Trump because they need to get elected. 

Did she answer the question "What is something Democrats do that is the opposite of alpha energy?" Only vaguely. They're "speaking from wonky details" and not "speaking about your gut and your emotion." Her statement of the problem is, ironically, lacking in the quality she's saying they need. 

And what is that quality again? And frankly, I think the idea is based on gender stereotypes but mixes up the male and the female up so we're served an unwholesome stew.

"It seems that the Democratic Party, broadly, has concluded that the roughly 120-hour-old campaign is a disaster that the public is destined to despise...."

"[I]f the U.S. and Israel engineer a victory for the West in Iran, Democrats will have to spend 2028 arguing that voters should not believe their lying eyes. The Democrats are betting on failure, and they may be right. If they are, we’ll have bigger problems than the Democratic Party’s political achievements. But if they aren’t, Democrats will regret having to argue that the world was better off with the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Writes Noah Rothman, in "The Democrats’ Iran Gamble" (National Review).

"In the before times, I was very wary of candidates whose quest for the presidency seemed too insistent and all-consuming..."

"... who had been nursing the dream for too long and clinging to it too tightly. I worried that such single-mindedness erased any space for subtlety, for introspection, for ambivalence, for the crucially instructive mess of an unscripted life. And would voters relate to it? Part of what drew many Democrats I know to Barack Obama was that he seemed to be working through decidedly mixed feelings about his quest for the presidency — as most well-adjusted people would be. Part of what drew many Republicans I know to George W. Bush was that he seemed less comfortable on the campaign trail than on his ranch.... Newsom seems entirely unrestrained and wholly immodest, his confession of a 960 on his SAT notwithstanding.... But Newsom’s strut is working for him.... [I]f the Newsom way is looking like the surest path to a post-Trump future, I’m happy to head in that direction."

Writes Frank Bruni, in "Will a Peacock Like Gavin Newsom Fly?" (NYT).

There's no sure "path to a post-Trump future." To pose the problem in those terms frames the real problem: Democrats have made hatred of Trump their central issue. Get some substance of your own! You still have to be something that the people want. That was true in "the before times," and it's true now.

A classic clip from "the before times":

"I had not spent a lot of my life hanging out with Republicans, and what I imagined they were talking about was exactly the opposite."

"Now I'm in an administration surrounded by immensely talented people who are immensely idealistic. I always imagined Republicans would get together thinking about how to screw the poor and reduce taxes on the rich, but they're actually narrowly focused on how do we solve these big problems and make our country work. The level of idealism that I see at every level in the White House and in my agency is inspiring. And then the level of capability—the competence of the people I'm surrounded with...."

And a bit earlier in the conversation:

"These people are crazy, I’m telling you. They’re crazy. Amazing. Terrible. Boy, oh boy."

From the SOTU transcript (NYT): "All Democrats, every single one of them, voted against these really important and very necessary massive tax cuts. They wanted large-scale tax increases to hurt the people instead.... Countries that were ripping us off for decades are now paying us hundreds of billions of dollars.... Everybody knows it. Even Democrats know it. They just don’t want to say it.... As we speak, Democrats in this chamber have cut off all funding for the Department of Homeland Security. It’s all cut off — it’s all cut off.... They have closed the agency responsible for protecting Americans from terrorists and murderers.... We have no money because of the Democrats.... All voters must show proof of citizenship... and this should be an easy one and by the way it’s polling at 89 percent including Democrats, 89 percent.... Both Republicans and Democrats overwhelmingly agree on the policy.... And the reason they don’t want to do it.... They want to cheat..... But surely we can all agree no state can be allowed to rip children from their parents’ arms and transition them to a new gender against the parents’ will.... These people are crazy, I’m telling you. They’re crazy. Amazing. Terrible. Boy, oh boy.... Democrats are destroying our country....  Dangerous repeat offenders continue to be released by pro-crime Democrat politicians again and again...."

"Muzzle velocity, in its literal sense, describes the ferocious speed of a bullet at the moment it exits the front end of a gun."

"The term came from an interview that Steve Bannon, President Trump’s former chief strategist, gave in 2019. 'All we have to do is flood the zone,' Bannon said. 'Every day we hit them with three things. They’ll bite on one, and we’ll get all of our stuff done. Bang, bang, bang. These guys will never — will never be able to recover. But we’ve got to start with muzzle velocity.'"

Writes Ezra Klein, in "Trump Has Overwhelmed Himself" (NYT).

But has Trump "overwhelmed himself"? Listen to last night's press gaggle — all the topics he crunched through in 15 minutes. Iran. Venezuela. Cuba. China and India. Crime in Minneapolis and Chicago. ICE protests. The 250-foot arch and the ballroom, the Epstein files, suing Michael Wolff, suing the FBI. Greenland. And that "sleazebag" Don Lemon. 

He didn't seem overwhelmed at all, and that was at night, on a gruelingly noisy plane, grilled by reporters after an evening event where, as WaPo puts it, "Trump tries humor, gets some silence, at black-tie dinner with 'people I hate.'"

He seemed to be up for all of it.

"If ideological consistency can’t explain the enduring loyalty of Trump’s base, what does?"

I'm reading "The Four Types of Trump Supporter/The president’s political power depends on his ability to play different roles for different parts of his coalition," by Daniel Yudkin and Stephen Hawkins" (The Atlantic)(gift link).

1. "MAGA Hardliners" — 29% — "mostly composed of white Gen Xers and Baby Boomers," "animated by the belief... in America’s existential struggle between good and evil."

2. "Anti-Woke Conservatives" — 21% — "a more secular and affluent group of voters deeply frustrated by what they perceive as the takeover of schools, culture, and institutions by the progressive left."

3. "Mainline Republicans" — 30% —  "a more racially diverse group of middle-of-the-road conservatives who prioritize border security, a strong economy, and cultural stability."

4. "Reluctant Right" — 20% — "ambivalent" people who thought Trump "seemed 'less bad' than the alternative." (I'm laughing at "the alternative" — the name Kamala doesn't even appear in the article.)

Those are the 4 types of Trump supporters, we're told. Then there are 4 roles that Trump plays:

The RNC posted yesterday that "Democrats were told to be 'willing to get shot' to obstruct President Trump."

I do think this posting should say that this interview took place last July. Posting it relates to the shooting of Renee Good, but when Blitzer and Jeffries spoke, the incident had not yet occurred:

Democrats were told to be "willing to get shot" to obstruct President Trump, and instead of condemning it, they incited it further.

Democrats are held hostage by their violent and deranged far-left base.pic.twitter.com/Y3DQw2UG4z

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) January 8, 2026

Here's the Axios article Blitzer cites, "Democrats told to 'get shot' for the anti-Trump resistance" (published July 7, 2025). Excerpt:

A lynch mob? A crowd chants "Kristi Noem will Hang!" in New York City.

NOW: "Kristi Noem will Hang!" Huge crowd chants in Foley Square NYC, also "Save a life, kill an ICE" as they gather to protest the ICE killing of Renee Good in Minneapolis.

Some in the crowd condemn the talk of killing. pic.twitter.com/ifrXNZB0dz

— Oliya Scootercaster 🛴 (@ScooterCasterNY) January 8, 2026

Democrats who hope to win back power need to act now to reconnect with peace and good order. They seem to have encouraged the chaos yesterday, and they need something quite different today lest they be seen as they wanted us to see Trump after January 6th, as having incited insurrection.

Ponderous performance.

A fake candlelight vigil for a made-up holy day. And then they sang...this is the modern Democrat party. pic.twitter.com/jvbzutnRqn

— Kira (@Kiradavis) January 7, 2026

"He is not the Word made flesh but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair."

It's obviously laughable to pay Ezra Klein $40-70k to hear his vapid, DNC-donor-pleasing, liberal clichés.

That said, I would pay him some substantial portion of that fee to come to a wedding or birthday party to perform a dramatic reading of this hilarious passage he wrote: https://t.co/q0fX4EL2S8 pic.twitter.com/isZtqbNkRs

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 28, 2025

I don't know what irritates me more — the capitalization of one "word" but not the other, or the italics for "over." So he's not the Messiah but his excellent speech conquers... well, everything... or something. 

ADDED: I think Klein deserves this fee. He's a well-known figure who embodies the idea of moderation and civility and he will have to set aside his regular work to travel to and from your event. That's going to cost you at least $40,000. There must be all these Democrats fretting about how to not look so awful and the calming stately presence of Ezra Klein might help them believe there will be an answer.

"This is an embarrassing deal, a deal to basically settle for nothing. It’s particularly galling..."

"... since it comes only days after Democrats crushed Republicans in races across the country. Election Day not only showed that Democrats had payed [sic] no price for the shutdown. It also confirmed the already abundant evidence that it has been deeply damaging for Donald Trump. But even with all this, I think the overall situation and outcome is basically fine [because]... Democrats fought. They held out for 40 days.... And that’s a big deal... It’s a big change in the direction of the fight we need in the years to come that just didn’t go far enough. Yet."

Writes Josh Marshall, in "A Quick Take on Team Cave's Big Win."

"Six Takeaways From the Senate Deal to End the Shutdown."

Headline at the NYT. Free-access link: here. The 6 things (paraphrased unless in quotes):

1. Democrats lost their unity.

2. The health care matter was left out.

3. "Trump’s pressure tactics worked.... The group of people affected by the shutdown grew with each week" — from the thousands of federal workers going without pay to the millions who expected food-buying assistance and the millions who were hoping to travel by plane.

4. Trump did not participate in talks with Democratic Party leaders. He was, conspicuously, at an NFL game when the deal coalesced last night.

5. Republican leaders Mike Johnson and John Thune also withheld participation.

6. Democrats at least have "some concessions in their fight against the Trump administration’s concerted effort to reconfigure and diminish the federal government." That's not about health care. It's about rehiring those who were laid off during the shutdown and barring further layoffs until January 30th.

ADDED: Will Trump gloat? Should he? He hasn't put anything up on Truth Social since his display — 13 hours ago — of Air Force One flying over the football stadium. And at X, 9 hours ago:

 

The most EPIC flyover of the season 🇺🇸🦅 pic.twitter.com/WYJtg7AHcW

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) November 10, 2025

Unless they nuke the filibuster, "it will be impossible for Republicans to get Common Sense Policies done." The "Crazed Democrat Lunatics" will "block everything."

"FOR THREE YEARS, NOTHING WILL BE PASSED, AND REPUBLICANS WILL BE BLAMED. Elections, including the Midterms, will be rightfully brutal. If we do terminate the Filibuster, we will get EVERYTHING approved, like no Congress in History. We will have FAIR, FREE, and SAFE Elections, No Men in Women’s Sports or Transgender for Everybody, Strong Borders, Major Tax and Energy Cuts, and will secure our Second Amendment, which the Democrats will also terminate, IMMEDIATELY."

Wrote Trump, on Truth Social this Morning.

He's all about winning: "[The Democrats] have much less chance of WINNING if we have Great Policy Wins after Wins after Wins. IN FACT, THEY WILL LOSE BIG, AND FOR A VERY LONG TIME. TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER NOW, END THE RIDICULOUS SHUTDOWN IMMEDIATELY, AND THEN, MOST IMPORTANTLY, PASS EVERY WONDERFUL REPUBLICAN POLICY THAT WE HAVE DREAMT OF, FOR YEARS, BUT NEVER GOTTEN. WE WILL BE THE PARTY THAT CANNOT BE BEATEN - THE SMART PARTY!!!"