Tag: Democrats

How Democrats Can Win in 2028

Hint: Select Someone Like Bernie Sanders

BILL ASTORE

OCT 12, 2025

How can Democrats win in 2028? Not by doing what the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has been doing—chasing corporate money, currying favor with AIPAC, and catering to the donor class. That may enrich the DNC, but it’s not a winning strategy.

Winning elections requires inspiring people to vote for you—to believe you’ll actually fight for them. Kamala Harris lost in 2024 because too many people stayed home. Many of those same voters had once turned out enthusiastically for Joe Biden in 2020 and Barack Obama before him.

Nominating “Cheney-adjacent” Democrats—candidates who sound like Republican-lite fiscal conservatives and foreign policy hawks—hasn’t worked. These are candidates who embrace militarism, defend Israel no matter what, and cater to big money interests. That’s the path Kamala Harris chose in 2024, and even she later admitted it likely cost her the election. Establishment Democrats keep chasing the mythical “moderate Republican” who dislikes Donald Trump but could be persuaded to vote blue. It didn’t work for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and it failed again in 2024.

The reasons for the 2024 loss aren’t mysterious. Democratic leaders lied about Biden’s fitness for another term. They betrayed their base. They allowed the party to be captured by moneyed interests. And they ran a hollow campaign—focused on the “joy” of Kamala rather than on real issues like raising the federal minimum wage, reducing student debt, or protecting workers and the middle class.

Today’s Democratic leadership—an aging, entrenched gerontocracy—is out of touch. Obsessed with fundraising and self-preservation, they offer no charisma, no moral courage, and no compelling vision. Yet America desperately needs a strong, principled Democratic Party to counter Trumpism. What we have instead is a party that’s too old, too corrupted, and too timid to resist it effectively.

Democrats need to rediscover the spirit of Robert F. Kennedy Sr., George McGovern, and yes, Bernie Sanders. Remarkably, Trump now seems to many voters more “worker-friendly” than the average Democrat politician. He’s seizing traditional Democratic issues like lowering prescription drug prices while Democrats, paralyzed by caution, are doing little to challenge him.

Sanders himself has said the Democratic primary process is rigged against candidates like him. Voters recognize when they’re being sold a false bill of goods. When they feel manipulated, they stay home—or worse, cast protest votes for demagogues who seem more “authentic.” Sanders has also called both major parties “largely corrupt,”and sadly, the Republicans—corrupt as they are—are currently better at winning than the Democrats.

For his honesty, Sanders deserves respect. He’s one of the few major politicians willing to say plainly that the Democratic Party has become an obstacle to genuine democracy—rigging its own primaries and processes to favor establishment figures like Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris, while marginalizing the progressives who actually energize voters.

As Sanders noted in a recent interview (see above, after the 40-minute mark), the Democratic Party would rather lose an election than risk upsetting the status quo. Which brings us to 2028: it’s easy to imagine the DNC once again anointing someone like Gavin Newsom (handsome but hollow), Pete Buttigieg (a corporate technocrat who happens to be gay), or Josh Shapiro (a reliable Zionist), all while ignoring the lessons Sanders tried to teach.

And when President J.D. Vance takes office in 2029, Democratic leaders will once again blame the voters—never themselves.

Meet the New Centrist Democratic Party

Same as the Old Centrist Democratic Party

BILL ASTORE

OCT 11, 2025

Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-Michigan) is a rising star in the Democratic Party. In July she denied Israel’s genocidal intent in Gaza and deflected criticism of AIPAC and its role in American politics. Earlier in March, she gave the Democratic response to Trump by citing with approval, I kid you not, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. In the early weeks of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, she called for increases to Pentagon spending and more U.S. troops to be committed to Europe.

Elissa Slotkin: Let’s criticize Trump by praising Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush

Slotkin checks just about every box the Democratic establishment loves: a woman, Jewish, former CIA officer, veteran of the National Security Council and State Department. She’s the military-industrial complex softened by a woman’s touch—a reassuring smile masking a hardened national-security mindset. I can easily imagine her as vice-presidential material in 2028.

And who might lead that ticket? My bet is on Josh Shapiro, Pennsylvania’s governor. Like Slotkin, he’s Jewish, firmly pro-Israel, and rooted in a swing state Democrats must win. A Shapiro-Slotkin ticket—lawyer and intelligence officer, both hawkish, both “safe” for the donor class—would symbolize how far the party has drifted from its old progressive soul (think here of FDR and George McGovern).

Shapiro–Slotkin: the likely face of Democratic centrism in 2028.

And I know what my Democratic friends will tell me in 2028: No matter how pro-Israel and pro-Pentagon these Democrats are, they’re better than Trump or his successor. So hold your nose and vote blue no matter who.

Let’s not forget the time Josh Shapiro signed an artillery shell to be used against Russia. From Pennsylvania with love?

Israel, Gaza, and Moral Collapse

The Democratic establishment’s moral confusion (and collusion) over Gaza’s destruction is a measure of serious moral drift. Previous talk of a “partial offensive weapons boycott” against Israel was pure political theater, since Israel defines every weapon it uses as defensive. Even Iron Dome missiles—marketed as purely protective—provide cover for Israel’s ongoing offensive operations.

Let’s be honest: even Israeli human-rights organizations now call what’s happening in Gaza a genocide. The term “war crime” implies a conventional war, with atrocities committed in battle’s chaos. But Gaza isn’t a battlefield—it’s an occupied territory subjected to systematic destruction. Israel’s goal is transparently obvious: mass death and displacement. How can mainline Democrats support this? In fact, how can anyone with a heart support this?

A Party I Once Belonged To

I say this as someone who once called himself a Democrat. I voted for Obama twice and stayed registered with the party until 2016. I even received my share of glossy mailers from the Biden campaign in 2020 and 2024 before it all went down in flames.

So yes, I’m a winnable voter—someone who could still be moved by a Democratic candidate like Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, George McGovern, or RFK Sr. But that kind of Democrat, a principled progressive, a friend to the working classes, has vanished from the party’s upper ranks.

Since the Clinton years, the DNC has courted and served Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the Pentagon with equal zeal. The result is a party that preaches “diversity” while funding foreign wars, that champions “equity” while enabling wanton Israeli aggression.

If Democrats nominate yet another national security hawk in 2028—someone who kneels before Netanyahu and calls it diplomacy—I’ll vote third party again. But if they rediscover their moral compass and nominate a candidate with real progressive convictions, I’ll be the first to sign up.

Remembering What Democrats Once Were

I invoke names like Geroge McGovern and RFK Sr. not out of nostalgia, but to remind us that the Democratic Party once stood (however shakily) for peace, diplomacy, and courage. These were leaders who challenged militarism and believed America could be a force for good. Think of JFK’s brilliant peace speech in 1963.

Today’s Democrats, with few exceptions, are indistinguishable from John McCain when it comes to their enthusiasm for war and weapons. They celebrate “defense spending” as if it were a patriotic sacrament, while the Pentagon drains over a trillion dollars a year from our treasury.

I’ve supported Bernie Sanders since 2015 and still respect his attempt to challenge this militaristic drift, though I’ve been disappointed by his compromises. Sanders in particular has been slow to denounce Israel’s genocidal crimes in Gaza. I find myself in broad agreement with commentators like Caitlin Johnstone, who call out Israel’s genocide and the U.S. government’s bipartisan complicity here. Her critique of American empire resonates because I still believe in a constitutional republic with a citizen-soldier military focused on defense and domestic health.

That vision once animated much of the Democratic Party. Today, it feels like a very distant memory.

A Revealing Poll by NBC News Tells People How and What to Think

W.J. Astore

Forget about peace or reductions to military spending

According to an NBC News poll, America is rooting for Ukraine but Trump prefers Russia. Seriously. That’s the gist of the headline.

The intent of this poll wasn’t to analyze how Americans think about the Russia-Ukraine War or Trump or military strength. It was to control how they think by giving them only the most constrained choices.

Let’s take a close look at the results and the NBC headline. According to NBC News:

When asked where they believe Trump’s sympathies are, 49% choose Russia, 40% say they think Trump favors neither side, and 8% choose Ukraine. Another 3% say they are not sure.

So, a majority of Americans, 51%, believe Trump is either carefully neutral on the war, a Ukraine supporter, or they don’t know. A minority (49%) believes he sympathizes with Russia. But the headline says Americans believe “Trump prefers Russia.”

The photo that accompanies the NBC article shows Trump lecturing Zelensky.

Interestingly, I see no question about whether the Russia-Ukraine War should end after three long and bloody years so that lives are saved, or whether the U.S. should stop sending billions in weaponry to Ukraine with virtually no oversight as to where the weapons end up.

Further on, Americans are asked whether we should focus more on domestic affairs or whether we haven’t been strong enough globally. A majority of Americans believe we should focus on domestic affairs. But note how there’s no choice given for opposing war and preferring peace. Americans aren’t asked if they think the government is relying too much on military force. You have only two options: focus more at home, or strengthen the U.S. position abroad. 

Interestingly, it’s Democrats who are most concerned with strengthening America’s position abroad, with nearly six out of ten taking this position, whereas six out of ten Republicans want to focus on domestic affairs. That is a remarkable result, as Democrats have supplanted Republicans as the party of military interventionism and “strength.”

Again, NBC didn’t bother to ask directly whether Americans would prefer peace and substantial reductions to military spending. You are not supposed to have those preferences, so you’re not asked about them.

The bottom line of this poll and article is simple: Real Americans support Ukraine. Only 2% of Americans support Russia. Trump is overly sympathetic to Russia.

Apparently, real Americans can’t support peace nor are they allowed to consider significant reductions to spending on wars and weapons. To do so would be un-American, or so NBC News seems to suggest.

The Democrats Boldly Respond to Trump by Citing–Ronald Reagan

W.J. Astore

Trust me, I’m ex-CIA!

I confess I didn’t watch President Trump’s address last night nor the response from the Democrats. I’ve heard enough of Trump bloviating and I’ve had my fill of Democrats and their “resistance.”

Checking my news feed this AM, I see that the Democratic response was given by a “moderate,” Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan. She’s an ex-CIA agent, so I guess that means we can trust her? And she served alongside troops in the disastrous Iraq War, so I guess she’s patriotic and smart?

Here’s the link to her address.

Senator Slotkin tackled Trump not by citing progressive ideas and Democratic worthies like FDR and George McGovern but by applauding a Republican President, Ronald Reagan. President George W. Bush also got a positive mention.

Her main complaint was the “chaos” unleashed by Trump/Musk. She made a big deal about protecting the “homeland” along with immigration reform. She dropped a lot of buzzwords. She stressed that Trump apparently doesn’t think that America is theexceptional nation. And that he’s too cozy with Russia and Putin. The usual charges.

What was missing was vision, especially moral commitments to peace and justice. I heard nothing concrete about enlarging unions, boosting wages, affordable health care for all, serious student loan debt relief, or putting a stop to genocide in Gaza.

We’re still exceptional. Apple pie!

Slotkin’s speech was a perfect product of the corporate Democrats, or, more accurately, the uniparty and the national security state. She’s for “responsible” change. She’s for the middle class. Even apple pie got a mention!

Apparently, the Democratic plan to win back the presidency in 2028 is to reanimate the body of Ronald Reagan with apple pie as his running mate. How’s that for “resistance,” America? 

Bonus Lesson: Slotkin said America’s “superpower” is that we’re a nation of “strivers” and “risk-takers” who are “never satisfied.” I guess other nations and peoples don’t have innovators with ambition, or maybe they’re too easily satisfied, unlike Americans?

Political Blitzkrieg by Trump?

W.J. Astore

Answering a friend’s challenge

Recently, a friend wrote to challenge me to “write a great article about Trump’s introduction of ‘lightning war’ into politics,” citing Nazi Germany’s use of Blitzkrieg in the opening campaigns of World War II. My friend sympathizes with Trump, so his political Blitzkrieg comparison wasn’t meant pejoratively.

Image of Blitzkrieg from the Imperial War Museum. It wasn’t my idea for Trump…

Whether you call it Blitzkrieg or a “flood the zone” strategy, there’s little doubt Trump’s rapid-fire orders and actions have put those who oppose him on the defensive. Democrats are throwing up their hands in surrender-like motions. Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries plaintively asked: “What leverage do we have?” Then he added: “They [the Republicans] control the House, the Senate, and the presidency. It’s their government.”

The Democratic battle flag is a white cross on a field of white. They claim they can do nothing to stop Trump and his rampaging billionaire sidekick, Elon Musk.

It’s funny: When the Democrats had control of the House, Senate, and presidency, I often recall them complaining they couldn’t get much done due to obstruction by Republicans. How come Republicans can obstruct but not Democrats?

Leaving that aside, what about my friend’s praise of Trump as having launched Blitzkrieg politics? Reversing Clausewitz, is politics simply a continuation of war by other means?

America, so I’ve been taught, was founded as a republic with a Constitution. We claim to be a nation of laws. We like to think we’re a representative democracy. The House and Senate are supposed to be deliberative bodies where laws are made and money is spent in accordance with the will of the people.

I know: nice fantasy, right?

The U.S. government has become corrupted by money and special interests. We know our representatives rarely represent us. They represent their owners and donors. That breeds cynicism and a certain level of affection among some for Trump as a disruptor.

But smashing government isn’t the smartest and most effective way of reforming or even of rebuilding it. Empowering autocrats and plutocrats like Trump and Musk isn’t going to produce democracy and a government that serves the people. A Trump “political Blitzkrieg” will likely echo the Nazi Blitzkrieg of 1939-41, featuring widespread destruction and subjugation of “enemies.” It’s not a method conducive to greater justice and a more perfect union.

So, to my friend’s challenge, I say this: Political Blitzkrieg may provide an illusion of victory, but “victory” for whom, and for what? Wars, whether real shooting ones or political ones, are corrosive to liberty, freedom, and equality. In war, it’s typically the workers and poor who suffer most, the rich who profit most, as power congeals at the top.

Trump’s so-called Blitzkrieg, combined with a Democratic attitude of surrender, is producing a government by and for men like Elon Musk, even more so than it already is. If you truly desire plutocracy and one-party rule, Trump/Musk is your dynamic duo.

I still prefer democracy, however imperfect, and a system that doesn’t elevate and empower the richest among us as dictators.

The Decline and Fall of the Democratic Party

W.J. Astore

Further Thoughts on Tulsi Gabbard’s Confirmation Hearing

JAN 31, 2025

Tulsi Gabbard, once the darling of the Democratic Party, now viewed with scorn by Democrats

Once upon a time, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard was the future of the Democratic Party. Born in American Samoa. A woman of color. A military veteran who’d served in the Iraq war. A Hindu. She represented diversity, equity, and inclusion. Her politics were broadly progressive. And thus she was quickly given a position as vice chair of the DNC. That’s where the trouble began.

Because Tulsi believed in an equitable and fair process for the 2016 presidential campaign, when the DNC then was controlled by Hillary Clinton and her acolytes. The primary process was, in a word, rigged, with outsider candidate Bernie Sanders never having a fair chance to win the nomination despite his enormous popularity. So Tulsi resigned her position as vice chair even as she backed Sanders, earning the unending enmity of Hillary Clinton and the entire DNC establishment.

Tulsi was a candidate for president in 2020 in the Democratic primaries, where during one debate she demolished then up-and-comer Kamala Harris, another Clinton acolyte. Harris fizzled as Tulsi endured, despite smears by the Clinton wing that she was a Putin puppet. Tulsi never had a chance, of course, as Barack Obama intervened to throw the primary to Joe Biden, already a man in physical and mental decline.

After that, Tulsi sought another way, becoming an independent until she decided, obviously because she’s politically ambitious, to endorse Donald Trump and to turn Republican. I can’t say that I blame her. When Democrats are suggesting you’re a possible traitor to your own country, or at the very least a useful idiot for Putin and Assad, even as you wear the uniform of the U.S. Army as a lieutenant colonel, what was she to do?

As I watched yesterday’s confirmation hearing for Tulsi, I was once again struck by her intelligence, knowledge, and poise. A skilled speaker, she thinks well on her feet. Her answers are direct and clear: no “word salads” like Kamala Harris, no evasiveness, no laughing or giggling when she doesn’t know the answer. If Joe Biden had picked Tulsi as his running mate in 2020, and Tulsi had run against Trump last year, my bet is that America would now have its first woman—and woman of color—as President.

I recently read an article that listed the Democrats’ top presidential candidates for 2028. Not surprisingly, mediocre white males dominated the list: Josh Shapiro and John Fetterman of Pennsylvania (both fanatical Zionists) as well as “Mayor” Pete Buttigieg. The one female with a reasonable chance, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, has a standard background as a lawyer and a Christian. Most importantly, she’s a party loyalist, so look for her in 2028 as the “diverse” candidate of the DNC.

Of course, Democrats used to have a truly diverse, highly capable, and charismatic candidate in Tulsi Gabbard. She may yet emerge as a strong candidate for the presidency in 2028—as a Republican.

Much like RFK Jr., Tulsi is now hated by the Democratic Party for her nonconformity to corporate interests. Those interests have torn the heart out of the party of JFK, LBJ, and George McGovern. Only a corporate shell (and corporate shills) remains at the national level. And that is truly a shame for democracy in America.

Moving Rightwards in America

W.J. Astore

Ratcheting Up America’s Problems

On Twitter/X, I stumbled across this useful image that visually captures the U.S. political scene:

The modification I’d make to this illustration is with the caption. It’s not only Republicans who turn everything rightwards—Democrats help too. Consider Kamala Harris’ embrace of Dick and Liz Cheney during her campaign of ill-fortune. Or her embrace of military lethality and her celebration of Israel’s “right” to “defend” itself as it wages genocide in Gaza.

It’s Republicans and Democrats who are turning this country rightwards even as Democrats block any appreciable movement in progressive or “leftist” directions.

Mainstream Democrats will always say they need to do this as allegedly it’s the only way they can win, which is pure BS, as Harris’ defeat recently shows. It’s the old “fake left, run right” tactic, and corporate-friendly Democrats keep using it, if only to keep the money flowing.

No matter. Liberal magazines like The Nation are telling me that Harris lost because of “bigotry,” not because she embraced the Cheneys and left workers behind. I guess President Obama won two terms because of bigotry?

Given this “ratchet effect,” America desperately needs a political revolution, as Bernie Sanders in 2016 was wont to say, as rightist Hillary Clinton ran against Trumpist Donald Trump. (Trump makes populist noises, but his guiding light is self-aggrandizement.) 

As Democrats offer rightist candidates like Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris, Republicans give us a plutocratic “man of the people” (never mind the contradiction here) like Trump. Facing that grim “choice,” sensing that Clinton and Harris and Democrats like them are not what they say are, many Americans opt for the scrutable plutocrat and his friends. Elon Musk, anyone?

And thus America’s problems are ratcheted up.

P.S. A hearty “Happy New Years!” to all my readers wherever you are!

Tulsi Gabbard, A Smart Choice as Director of National Intelligence

W.J. Astore

And she surfs too

Former Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has been nominated as Director of National Intelligence by President-elect Donald Trump. The so-called intelligence community is up in arms about this. That is a very good thing.

Tulsi Gabbard (Reuters, Jeenah Moon photo)

Here’s what Reuters has to say:

WASHINGTON, Nov 14 (Reuters) – President-elect Donald Trump’s choice of Tulsi Gabbard as U.S. intelligence chief has sent shockwaves through the national security establishment, adding to concerns that the sprawling intelligence community will become increasingly politicized.

Trump’s nomination of Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman who lacks deep intelligence experience and is seen as soft on Russia and Syria, is among several high-level picks that suggest he may be prioritizing personal allegiance over competence as he assembles his second-term team.

Among the risks, say current and former intelligence officials and independent experts, are that top advisers could feed the incoming Republican president a distorted view of global threats based on what they believe will please him and that foreign allies may be reluctant to share vital information.

Randal Phillips, a former CIA operations directorate official who worked as the agency’s top representative in China, said that with Trump loyalists in top government posts, “this could become the avenue of choice for some really questionable actions” by the leadership of the intelligence community. [Emphasis added.]

As if the intelligence “community” isn’t already politicized! And who sees Gabbard as allegedly “soft” on Russia and Syria? Hillary Clinton? The “queen of warmongers,” as Gabbard memorably described her?

Wow. We might get “some really questionable actions” by the IC (intelligence community). I’m glad we’ve never had any of those before.

Tulsi has a wealth of experience in the military (she remains a lieutenant colonel), she’s a former Congresswoman who’s served on important committees dealing with national security, and she’s tough as nails, having survived ruthless attacks on her character by the neocon Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. She is an excellent choice as Director.

What Tulsi has is integrity. Honesty. Poise. Perhaps even more importantly, she has Trump’s ear and his respect. As Director, she will oversee the preparation of Trump’s daily intelligence briefs. Trump was notorious in his first term in office for not paying much attention to those briefs. He should do better with Tulsi, somebody he trusts, preparing them.

Tulsi won my respect in 2016 when she supported Bernie Sanders and revealed how the Democratic presidential primary process was being fixed for Hillary Clinton. Tulsi has paid a high price for her principled stance, being smeared by Clinton and mainstream media outlets like NBC as a “Russian asset,” maybe even a stooge for Vladimir Putin. Politics is a rough game, but accusing a serving U.S. military officer and Congresswoman of being a “Putin puppet” is truly reckless and defamatory. Good for Tulsi for punching back.

The establishment Democratic party hates Tulsi because she refused to play their game. She refused to bow to the Clintons. Tulsi has also questioned America’s constant warmongering and knows a thing or two about the horrendous costs of war. She even has a normal life as a surfer. She has a connection to nature that I respect.

Her poise, her toughness, her integrity, makes her a superb choice as DNI. The more the intelligence “community” complains about her, the louder certain Democrats scream, the more certain I am that Trump has made a smart decision here.

Recall when Kamala Harris vowed to put a Republican in her cabinet? Well, Trump has made Gabbard his DNI and RFK Jr. will lead Health and Human Services. He’s picked two (former) Democrats for important posts and the Democrats can’t stand it.

On this occasion, with these appointments, I applaud Trump. You go, Tulsi. Ride the wave. Continue to serve our country as you always have.

Blaming the Voters

W.J. Astore

Democrats Return to What They Do Best

The Democratic Party is returning to what they do best: blaming the voters for their defeat.

Why did Kamala lose? Racism and sexism. Duh. And white women. And Hispanics. And Black men. They just didn’t do what they were supposed to do, which was to vote for Kamala. After all, she was the candidate handpicked for you by the DNC elite. Geez, what more do you want? Look at the joy below!

You expected them to dazzle? Shame on you!

Remember Michelle Obama wagged her finger and scolded you not to expect Kamala to “dazzle”? Remember her husband berated Black men for not having Kamala’s back? I’m amazed that didn’t convince you to vote for Kamalove and Kamalot. Haters, all of you.

Of course, I channeled my hatred of women and Jews by voting for Jill Stein. But as a cis white male, nothing better was expected of me; I was always a lost cause. And by voting for Jill Stein, a Jewish woman dedicated to peace and against genocide in Gaza, I was obviously really voting not for Stein but for Trump. Duh.

I’m deplorable. I’m garbage. I’m a bad person. The only good people are those who voted for Kamala. End of story.

One thing is certain: It can’t be the candidate. It’s not her fault that she couldn’t inspire more voters to cast their ballots for her. It’s not her fault that she embraced the Cheneys. It’s not her fault she touted the “lethal” U.S. military and supported Israel and its genocide in Gaza. It’s not her fault that her track record in 2020 for winning support at the national level was abysmal. It’s not her fault she lost all seven battleground states despite more than a billion dollars spent on her campaign. It’s not her fault—it’s your fault. She didn’t deserve to be repudiated by voters—and you’re going to deserve your fate under Trump since you rejected her.

Some of you still want a populist like Bernie Sanders, don’t you? Sorry, that’s never going to happen. We the DNC would rather lose with a Cheney-endorsed neocon genocide-enabler like Harris than win with a principled populist like Sanders. Not just in 2016, not just in 2024, but in 2028 and all future elections.

Either you vote for the DNC Republican we give you or you get the RNC Republican we all deplore. Got a problem with that? Have you thought about leaving the country?

Addendum: If Democrats truly believe democracy dies in darkness under Trump, was a mediocre vice president with less-than-stellar political and speaking skills the best person to challenge him? If Trump=fascism, was anointing Kamala as the candidate without primaries the best way to demonstrate Democrats’ commitment to a fair process open to everyone within the party? Are voters really to blame when you give them no choice, no say, and no real power?

Donald Trump Wins Again

W.J. Astore

An unsurprising election result

I woke to the news that Donald Trump is the projected winner of the 2024 presidential election. What that means for the country and the world remains to be seen. Why he won, and why Kamala Harris lost, will surely be analyzed deeply.

It didn’t end well …

Readers here know my take. I didn’t think Harris was the best candidate for Democrats to run for several reasons:

  1. She was selected by the DNC rather than going through the normal primary process. In 2020, her campaign for the presidency flamed out quickly without her winning a single vote or delegate. She needed time to hone her message and develop her political chops, but she didn’t have that time.
  2. Her total support of Israel and her embrace of the Cheneys and Republican dissenters from Trump estranged her from progressives within her own party. If people want a Republican, they’re most likely to vote Trump, not a Cheney-endorsed Democrat.
  3. Harris had a muddled, “soft sell” message. It was unclear what she truly stood for. Words like “forward” and phrases like “We’re not going back” were vague to the point of meaninglessness.
  4. Harris was perhaps most closely associated with women’s rights, especially reproductive rights, but it’s hard for me to discern other issues that she well and truly believed in, issues she was willing to push for.
  5. She gained a reputation as a flip-flopper on issues like fracking and medicare for all, and her time as the immigration “czarina” connected her to a highly complex failure.
  6. She was far too closely linked to the doddering efforts of the Biden administration, and indeed she said she couldn’t think how she’d be different from Biden except for her pledge to put a Republican in her Cabinet. Again, if people want Republicans, they can vote for them.
  7. Too much of Harris’ message was focused on how she’s not Trump. We didn’t get a clear sense of what she stood for, what she was going to champion, how she was going to make America a better place. In the end, Harris didn’t communicate her message well enough to persuade enough voters to cast their ballots for her.

That’s my quick and dirty take. Before I’ve had my coffee! Readers, what do you think?

P.S. Apparently the Republicans have won the House and Senate as well. A rather stunning repudiation of Democrats and their shenanigans.