Decline of the DNC V

[selmaborntidefan]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2070529584135647581

Incredible.

A liberal coalition is finally forming to push back against both the far right and the far left.

This week, they launched @thepromise2026, a public pledge with 13 sitting Congressmembers and candidates signing on, openly breaking with the DSA wing while refusing to be lumped in with MAGA.

Their commitments:
"We are capitalist, not socialist."
"We want safety, not lawlessness."
"We are responsible, not reckless."
"Government should solve problems, not create them."
"We are mainstream, not extreme."
"We are proud, not ashamed of America."

This is the kind of pro-America, anti-authoritarian coalition American politics desperately needs.

More of this, please.

I agree, but I fear it isn't going to work.

I know I'm preaching to the choir, but the reason third parties don't thrive is that the primary outcome of their inclusion is to split the vote and empower minority (in terms of support) candidates who then go and become part of the larger problem.

Here's the thing with Congress: about 1/2 of the freshmen who get elected lose in their first reelection attempt. BUT...if you can win that one election, even in a "purple" district, you are usually set for 15-20 years, sometimes more.

 

[arthurdawg]

Then maybe the John Kerrys of the world should be "paying their fare share" and not hiding behind tax loopholes. Bruce Springsteen, too.

A political tall order... But a tax code that doesn't allow you to evade more tax as you grow wealthier would be helpful. With the IRS currently gutted and toothless, this issue is only going to get worse.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

A political tall order... But a tax code that doesn't allow you to evade more tax as you grow wealthier would be helpful. With the IRS currently gutted and toothless, this issue is only going to get worse.

But this leads to another discussion that I don't think people will ever have much less WANT to have.

It's true the rich have always had an outsized say in our political system. But what put us where we are now? The answer is obvious except to those who don't want to admit it: when we moved the Presidential nomination process in both parties from the "smoke-filled rooms of the party bosses" to "let the people decide in primaries or caucuses," the price of GETTING ELECTED in the first place shot through the roof. When the rules suddenly said, "All of the delegates have to be selected in primaries/caucuses in all 50 states," the threshold for ENTRY got lowered and at the same time the threshold for WINNING got higher.

Jules Witcover relayed a story about how in 1972, Hubert Humphrey was considering jumping into the race (he eventually did) and fuming about having had to sit through an hour-long lecture from a rich guy about some certain aspect of the government all in hopes he'd write his campaign a big check. He said, "I hate this more than anything I have to do. It's made beggars of all of us." And Humphrey was one of the more light-hearted souls in politics in his time, but he watched the game change while he was in it in a way he didn't understand.

Go look at the money raised by campaigns, really starting with Nixon's operation in 1968, and almost invariably the candidate who raises the most money wins the nomination (with apologies to Jeb Bush in 2016). Michael Dukakis was unknown nationally in 1988, and you can just look at him and tell he's a spellbinding orator like Obama. His winning the nomination was basically because: a) Jackson got the blacks, Gephardt and Gore split the moderates, and Dukakis got the white liberals, which was the majority of the party; b) he had more money than anybody else, so he could lose back-to-back contests in Illinois and Michigan and still compete.


NOW.....I said all that to say this: what politician, no matter what he says on TV, is going to agree to anything that's going to cut off his most surefire resource to reelection?

Look at the embarrassing scandals involving money in politics just in recent years, from Watergate to Clinton's coffees to whatever the hell it was with Gore and the Buddhist temple, right through "McCain returned donations from some right wing dispensationalists who had insulted Catholics."

I don't in any way disagree with what's been said here over wealth inequality or some of what's necessary to resolve some of it.

But as Adlai Stevenson, the FIRST duty of a politician is to get elected.
And the second is to stay elected.

The system we have in place now of "let the people decide" has been a major contributor to what ails us. That's NOT to pretend that we didn't have things like the Teapot Dome scandal (where two oil men basically rented the Interior Department) or lousy nominees or Presidents (Harding being a great example).

But politicians in either party have no REAL incentive to fix the deficit or trade imbalances or anything economic that will take money from their major contributors, either.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Laotian national Tou Lue Vang was convicted of sexually abusing a 10-year-old girl in Minnesota. He was set to be deported until @GovTimWalz issued him a pardon.Then, I revoked his legal status. @ICEgov has removed him from the U.S. and he will never endanger another American.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2075567815856177323

Good lord, Waltz doubled down! How is anyone against deporting a child rapist?

SMH, so happy I don't live under his 'leadership'. What a disgusting clown.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz says he does not believe deporting an illegal alien who raped a 10 year-old girl makes his state safer.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2075980734615970242

 

[arthurdawg]

But this leads to another discussion that I don't think people will ever have much less WANT to have.

It's true the rich have always had an outsized say in our political system. But what put us where we are now? The answer is obvious except to those who don't want to admit it: when we moved the Presidential nomination process in both parties from the "smoke-filled rooms of the party bosses" to "let the people decide in primaries or caucuses," the price of GETTING ELECTED in the first place shot through the roof. When the rules suddenly said, "All of the delegates have to be selected in primaries/caucuses in all 50 states," the threshold for ENTRY got lowered and at the same time the threshold for WINNING got higher.

Jules Witcover relayed a story about how in 1972, Hubert Humphrey was considering jumping into the race (he eventually did) and fuming about having had to sit through an hour-long lecture from a rich guy about some certain aspect of the government all in hopes he'd write his campaign a big check. He said, "I hate this more than anything I have to do. It's made beggars of all of us." And Humphrey was one of the more light-hearted souls in politics in his time, but he watched the game change while he was in it in a way he didn't understand.

Go look at the money raised by campaigns, really starting with Nixon's operation in 1968, and almost invariably the candidate who raises the most money wins the nomination (with apologies to Jeb Bush in 2016). Michael Dukakis was unknown nationally in 1988, and you can just look at him and tell he's a spellbinding orator like Obama. His winning the nomination was basically because: a) Jackson got the blacks, Gephardt and Gore split the moderates, and Dukakis got the white liberals, which was the majority of the party; b) he had more money than anybody else, so he could lose back-to-back contests in Illinois and Michigan and still compete.


NOW.....I said all that to say this: what politician, no matter what he says on TV, is going to agree to anything that's going to cut off his most surefire resource to reelection?

Look at the embarrassing scandals involving money in politics just in recent years, from Watergate to Clinton's coffees to whatever the hell it was with Gore and the Buddhist temple, right through "McCain returned donations from some right wing dispensationalists who had insulted Catholics."

I don't in any way disagree with what's been said here over wealth inequality or some of what's necessary to resolve some of it.

But as Adlai Stevenson, the FIRST duty of a politician is to get elected.
And the second is to stay elected.

The system we have in place now of "let the people decide" has been a major contributor to what ails us. That's NOT to pretend that we didn't have things like the Teapot Dome scandal (where two oil men basically rented the Interior Department) or lousy nominees or Presidents (Harding being a great example).

But politicians in either party have no REAL incentive to fix the deficit or trade imbalances or anything economic that will take money from their major contributors, either.

No kidding... I'm not expecting much... But it is not good when they use tax evasion strategies to pay much or nothing, and it does effect the deficits. I mean, I'd love to have access to those strategies, but legally we schmucks pay the going rate.

This just in: Waltz is a dumbo. Wow... Apparently the victim wrote a letter asking for the perp to not be deported. But honestly, send them back.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Short version:
It would be a helluva lot easier to take a liberal seriously on crime if so many of them didn't do so many things to make it impossible to take them seriously on crime.

We see the same pattern every time:
1) run the "that's racist" play
2) blame the opposing party for it even happening
3) minimize it with a counter non-example
4) minimize it with statistics
5) say you acted and fixed what went wrong that is actually somebody else's fault

If the accusation is that leftist politicians (and judges) hate America so much that they eagerly release illegal rapists and murderers back into civilized society, this would seem to be Exhibit 1.

Btw, since it's so well-known in the "that's racist" category, let me use the Willie Horton example to show how no matter what, you can't get some people to admit coddling criminals is a bad thing. The "defenses" of Horton are, shall we say, typical and can be seen in almost every "counter argument" made. Side anecdote: when I was working contract in Massachusetts in 2022 and 2023, my hospital was right around the corner from where the original murder occurred.

- Horton and two other accomplices (Roosevelt Pickett, Alvin Wideman) robbed a Mobil gas station in 1974
- after getting all the money ($276), one of them (it's unclear who) stabbed Joey Fournier 19 times and stuffed his body in a garbage can. He was found ten hours later and his last words as he'd bled out were, "Don't hurt me"
- because of the felony murder law, all 3 were sentenced to life without parole
- Mass had a furlough program and after a period of time, Horton was eligible for weekend furloughs
- he went and returned ten times. In June 1986, he did not return from his 11th furlough
- in April 1987, he broke into the home of Clifford Barnes, awaited his arrival, and tied him up
- several hours later, Barnes's fiancé' (Angie Miller) arrived and Horton beat and raped her
- when Horton returned to Barnes (probably to kill him), he found he'd escaped; so did Miller
- Horton stole Barnes's car, which made it easy to catch him, and cornered, he tried to run
- he was shot at least twice by police and taken to a hospital and then to jail upon recovery
- THE JUDGE IN MARYLAND REFUSED TO EXTRADITE HIM BACK TO MA, fearing another release
- the Eagle Tribue paper in Lawrence, MA, knowing it was Horton, ran about 175 articles in 1987-88 demanding the abolition of the furlough program
- the governor, Michael Dukakis, not only would not hear of trimming the program, HE DEFENDED IT
- he further refused to meet with the victims
- the MA state legislature abolished the furlough program for 1st degree murderers OVER DUKAKIS' OBJECTIONS
- Dukakis then proceeded to say during the Presidential campaign that he "had ended it"

And btw, Al Gore brought up (generally) the Horton case in a debate sponsored by the Daily News in the New York primary in April 1988, and Dukakis snorted, "The difference between you and me, Al, is that I have run a criminal justice system. You haven't."

WHAT WERE THE RESPONSES?
1) "that's racist" (because Horton is black)
2) It's the Republicans' fault! ("but that program was started by a Republican governor")
3) "there was a murder in the federal program overseen by Bush" (the fact you don't even know the name Angel Medrano tells you even they knew this was a lame response)
4) "it's 99.9% effective"
5) "I acted to end that program" (Dukakis actually said this)

(At least Bill Clinton had the decency to execute his lobotomized black killer in January 1992 and avoid the Willie Horton trap. As Christopher Hitchens noted, boy Clinton a whole lot differently than if Reagan or Bush had left the campaign trail to execute a black guy who met the standard for clemency).

 

[AWRTR]

But this leads to another discussion that I don't think people will ever have much less WANT to have.

It's true the rich have always had an outsized say in our political system. But what put us where we are now? The answer is obvious except to those who don't want to admit it: when we moved the Presidential nomination process in both parties from the "smoke-filled rooms of the party bosses" to "let the people decide in primaries or caucuses," the price of GETTING ELECTED in the first place shot through the roof. When the rules suddenly said, "All of the delegates have to be selected in primaries/caucuses in all 50 states," the threshold for ENTRY got lowered and at the same time the threshold for WINNING got higher.

Jules Witcover relayed a story about how in 1972, Hubert Humphrey was considering jumping into the race (he eventually did) and fuming about having had to sit through an hour-long lecture from a rich guy about some certain aspect of the government all in hopes he'd write his campaign a big check. He said, "I hate this more than anything I have to do. It's made beggars of all of us." And Humphrey was one of the more light-hearted souls in politics in his time, but he watched the game change while he was in it in a way he didn't understand.

Go look at the money raised by campaigns, really starting with Nixon's operation in 1968, and almost invariably the candidate who raises the most money wins the nomination (with apologies to Jeb Bush in 2016). Michael Dukakis was unknown nationally in 1988, and you can just look at him and tell he's a spellbinding orator like Obama. His winning the nomination was basically because: a) Jackson got the blacks, Gephardt and Gore split the moderates, and Dukakis got the white liberals, which was the majority of the party; b) he had more money than anybody else, so he could lose back-to-back contests in Illinois and Michigan and still compete.


NOW.....I said all that to say this: what politician, no matter what he says on TV, is going to agree to anything that's going to cut off his most surefire resource to reelection?

Look at the embarrassing scandals involving money in politics just in recent years, from Watergate to Clinton's coffees to whatever the hell it was with Gore and the Buddhist temple, right through "McCain returned donations from some right wing dispensationalists who had insulted Catholics."

I don't in any way disagree with what's been said here over wealth inequality or some of what's necessary to resolve some of it.

But as Adlai Stevenson, the FIRST duty of a politician is to get elected.
And the second is to stay elected.

The system we have in place now of "let the people decide" has been a major contributor to what ails us. That's NOT to pretend that we didn't have things like the Teapot Dome scandal (where two oil men basically rented the Interior Department) or lousy nominees or Presidents (Harding being a great example).

But politicians in either party have no REAL incentive to fix the deficit or trade imbalances or anything economic that will take money from their major contributors, either.

It's not only their major contributors that they worry about when it comes to fixing the deficits. It also comes down to the average voter. When polled people always say that spending should be cut, but when you dig deeper they never want to cut their thing. That means politicians wind up doing nothing because they are much more concerned with winning and staying in power so they can enrich themselves instead of dealing with a looming problem.

Social Security is a great example, it won't be addressed until it runs off a cliff or is one inch from the cliff, and then everyone will run around with their hair on fire screaming it's the other sides fault. This is because no one wants to bite the bullet and fix the problem because addressing the real problem would cost them votes.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

In the FYI department, C.J. Robinson has an article on the NYT this morning about the nine previous times a Senate nominee was replaced during the race. The replacement has lost SEVEN of the nine times.

1996 - GOP - Arkansas - Mike Huckabee was the nominee, who was also the Lt Governor. When Governor Jim Guy Tucker was forced to resign over criminal activity, Huckabee became Governor and withdrew. Tim Hutchinson replaced Mike and beat state Attorney General Winston Bryant by 5 points, impressive given that at the time, the state was still not fully Republican and a former state governor was on the ballot for President, which should have increased Democratic turnout. WIN.

2002 - Democrat - Minnesota - Senator Paul Wellstone was killed in a plane crash only 11 days before the election. Former VP Walter Mondale replaced Wellstone on the ballot and narrowly lost (2 points) to Norm Coleman. LOSS.

2002 - Democrats - New Jersey - Senator Bob Torricelli, trailing in the polls largely due to ethical problems, withdrew from the race just five weeks before the election. Despite the fact NJ state law said replacements must be on the ballot no less than 51 days prior to the election, the NJ Supreme Court decided to let former Senator Frank Lautenberg's name appear on the ballot, where he beat Doug Forrester by ten points. Yes, folks, they've been pulling this for years, not just with Biden in 2024. WIN.

2004 - Democrats - Kansas - Robert Conroy, who expected to lose, won the nomination and then withdrew and asked them to put the loser (Lee Jones) on the ballot in his place. Jones lost by 42. LOSS.

2004 - GOP - Illinois - Jack "Patriot Games" Ryan won the GOP nomination in March. The Chicago Tribune, in the tank for Barack Obama, somehow got a crooked judge (it's Illinois, folks) to unseal Ryan's divorce records, revealing he took his then wife (actress Jeri Lynn Ryan) to sex clubs. Ryan withdrew and was replaced by Alan Keyes, who got clobbered by 43. LOSS.

2006 - GOP - Hawaii - Jerry "Mr" Coffee won the GOP primary in a crowded field after he'd already withdrawn. The party chose their best chance, liberal Republican Congresscritter Cynthia Thielen, who got smoked by 25 points. LOSS.

2014 - Democrats - Montana - nominee John Walsh, one of America's Most Wanted, won the nomination and was discovered to have plagiarized his Master's thesis at the Army War College. Amanda Curtis replaced him and got smashed by Steve Daines to the tune of 17 points. LOSS.

2016 - Democrats - Indiana - trailing in the polls, nominee Baron Hill withdrew in favor of the most popular Democrat in Indiana, former Senator Evan Bayh, hoping to regain the seat. (again - the Joe Biden trick). Bayh had $9.3 million sitting in a campaign fund and had won state elections. He got smoked by Todd Young, losing by ten points. LOSS.

2018 - GOP - Vermont - H. Brooke Paige won the GOP nominations for House, AG, Vermont Secretary of State, State Auditor, and US Senate all on the same day. Realizing he had zero chance at beating Bernie Sanders, Paige withdrew from all but the Secretary of State race and second place finisher Lawrence Zupan was placed on the ballot. He covered the six TD spread and lost by only 40. LOSS.

(Note: I think he's missed at least one. In 1976, Jerry Litton won the Democratic Senate nomination in Missouri. He and his family boarded their plane for a victory party, and it crashed on takeoff. Former Governor Warren Hearnes - a conservative Democrat under federal investigation - lost to Ralston-Purina gazillionaire and Episcopal minister John Danforth).

I sent a note asking if that met his criteria. It would seem to me to be no different than, say, Platner with the Wellstone ending.


Notice, of course, that in most cases you don't even know about these because they were in states that the replacement OR the original was never going to win anyway. Indiana is a notable exception as well as Minnesota, after the Paull Wellstone free pep rally on CNN they called a funeral.

Anyway, this will get interesting. It will be very difficult to pick up the seat now as Dems are demoralized and politicians who have held Senate seats for 30 years tend to have their ears to their constituents, which is how they stay there.

 

[Huckleberry]

NYT gift link

Three Things Democrats Have to Do if They Actually Want to Win​

Even now, according to a new survey by the left-leaning group Data for Progress, the Democratic Party has a net negative rating of minus 29 percentage points among swing voters, worse than the minus 25 for the Republican Party. Democrats seeking to restore their party’s credibility with the electorate as a whole, but especially among those crucial swing voters, might consider adding three planks — on immigration, urban disorder and transgender issues — to the 2028 Democratic platform.

Why? Because it is these three issues that serve to reinforce the perception that Democrats are willing to sacrifice the interests of the working and middle classes in favor of special interest constituencies.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Meanwhile in the Ponytail Guevarra Brigade, we learn some interesting things about Airhead O. Commie:

1) she doesn’t support institutions like the Senate
2) because the Senate was founded on Jim Crow, which came 174 years after the Senate

https://twitter.com/x/status/2078218720439160902

Remember: Graham Platner went down with a few videos and a few accusations. Someone somewhere has been saving every single stupid thing this airhead has uttered on camera for the last eight years.

But I am not bothered by AOC herself. She represents one kook district over 1500 miles away from me.

What bothers me are the people who say, “This woman should be President!”

Besides, I watched a bunch of Democrats just last year. Tell me this country is so racist and misogynistic and that is why Harris lost, so why would they nominate a non-white female? Victimhood? Hoping to lose? Or just lying about 2024?

 

[selmaborntidefan]

All these years of refusing to try to compete in the South keep the Democrats from hiring a Southern coordinator who will say, “Let me say it bluntly: going down South and trying to talk like them or their preachers is a HORRIBLE idea, don’t even think about it.”

Instead we get……

https://twitter.com/x/status/2078456163545329981

 

[AWRTR]

Meanwhile in the Ponytail Guevarra Brigade, we learn some interesting things about Airhead O. Commie:

1) she doesn’t support institutions like the Senate
2) because the Senate was founded on Jim Crow, which came 174 years after the Senate

https://twitter.com/x/status/2078218720439160902

Remember: Graham Platner went down with a few videos and a few accusations. Someone somewhere has been saving every single stupid thing this airhead has uttered on camera for the last eight years.

But I am not bothered by AOC herself. She represents one kook district over 1500 miles away from me.

What bothers me are the people who say, “This woman should be President!”

Besides, I watched a bunch of Democrats just last year. Tell me this country is so racist and misogynistic and that is why Harris lost, so why would they nominate a non-white female? Victimhood? Hoping to lose? Or just lying about 2024?

What idiots. The Senate was meant to represent the states, which were originally independent countries after the revolution. It was about larger population states or nations vs. smaller population states or nations. I know I'm not telling you anything you don't already know better than I do, but are they really this ignorant or are they just lying to play to a base that is that ignorant?

 

[arthurdawg]

What idiots. The Senate was meant to represent the states, which were originally independent countries after the revolution. It was about larger population states or nations vs. smaller population states or nations. I know I'm not telling you anything you don't already know better than I do, but are they really this ignorant or are they just lying to play to a base that is that ignorant?

Have to confess... My boss lady asked me if AOC was as serious presidential candidate and I burst out laughing. She is duly elected and can promote what she feels good for her constituents, but I would prefer a more experienced level headed and moderate candidate.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

What idiots. The Senate was meant to represent the states, which were originally independent countries after the revolution. It was about larger population states or nations vs. smaller population states or nations. I know I'm not telling you anything you don't already know better than I do, but are they really this ignorant or are they just lying to play to a base that is that ignorant?

I don't think they are that ignorant. They are just playing to a base that they believe is that ignorant. Given who the general public keeps electing, they probably aren't wrong.

 

[JDCrimson]

All these years of refusing to try to compete in the South keep the Democrats from hiring a Southern coordinator who will say, “Let me say it bluntly: going down South and trying to talk like them or their preachers is a HORRIBLE idea, don’t even think about it.”

Instead we get……

https://twitter.com/x/status/2078456163545329981

She should have asked Brian Kelly how this worked out for him upon arriving at LSU.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Have to confess... My boss lady asked me if AOC was as serious presidential candidate and I burst out laughing. She is duly elected and can promote what she feels good for her constituents, but I would prefer a more experienced level headed and moderate candidate.

So.......just ask anybody if the following people are "qualified" to be President:

Ruben Gallego (now Senator) - D-Arizona
Jared Huffman (2012) - California
John Garamendi (2009) - California
Mike Thompson (1998) - California
Ro Khanna (2016) - California (Indian)
Ted Lieu (2014) - California (Asian)
John Larson (1998) - Connecticut
Joe Courtney (2006) - Connecticut
Jim Himes (2008) - Connecticut
Sanford Bishop (1992) - Georgia (black)

WOMEN
Terri Sewell (2010) - Alabama (black)
Doris Matsui (2004) - California (Asian, worked for the 1992 Clinton campaign)
Dianna DeGette (1996) - Colorado (she's "only" 68)
Rose DeLauro (1990) - Connecticut
Lisa Rochester (2016) - Delaware, is now one of the senators from the state (black)
Kathy Castor (2006) - Florida
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (2004) - Florida

I'm only up to Illinois, but every single name on this list is MORE QUALIFIED than AOC is - and other than Gallego (who probably lost any chance with the latest allegations), most folks have never even HEARD of these folks.

If Dianna DeGette, who was in the Colorado House before getting elected to the US House THIRTY YEARS AGO and who comes from a quasi-battleground state isn't up there, AOC has no business being up there, either. Just because DeGette isn't a head bobbing Twitter loudmouth doesn't change that fact.

And the last time I looked, blacks are a far more reliable Democratic constituency than Hispanics, so shouldn't Terri Sewell be considered for the White House? Lisa Rochester?

And yet most folks haven't heard of these women, who are still far more qualified than the former bartender who apparently didn't listen in Economics class.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Also - Bernie Sanders IS NOT A DEMOCRAT.

Isn't that what we were told when he was never going to be the nominee in 2016?
He's not.

And now he's acting exactly like Trump and pulling the old, "I'll do whatever I want, and you won't do anything to me" with his wild-eyed endorsements trying to UNSEAT INCUMBENT DEMOCRATS with people more bent towards his warped worldview.

It has always been the accepted standard - and party members were often disciplined for it - to STAY OUT of the local primaries and then take on whoever "the people decide" should be the nominee. Bernie, again like Trump, is making his own rules and daring them to do anything about it.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Also - Bernie Sanders IS NOT A DEMOCRAT.

Isn't that what we were told when he was never going to be the nominee in 2016?
He's not.

And now he's acting exactly like Trump and pulling the old, "I'll do whatever I want, and you won't do anything to me" with his wild-eyed endorsements trying to UNSEAT INCUMBENT DEMOCRATS with people more bent towards his warped worldview.

It has always been the accepted standard - and party members were often disciplined for it - to STAY OUT of the local primaries and then take on whoever "the people decide" should be the nominee. Bernie, again like Trump, is making his own rules and daring them to do anything about it.

I don’t know how Sanders keeps getting elected, but regardless, twighlight is descending on his career and he knows it. Why should he play by the rules? He did plenty of that when he kept “losing” primaries then backing the “winner.” In fact, he bent the knee so much that it was literally costing him supporters. This is his last shot at being an agent of change.

TBH, I’m torn here. As much as I hate the establishent parties, his ideology has had a frightening amount of support lately and we have literal commies winning various seats here and there. If this thing snowballs, God help us all. I don’t have to tell you that I’ve never been a “Bernie-Bro”, but I do appreciate chaos…particularly the kind that can upend a system that does little for the people who are paying for everything. Still, this man’s ideology is now an actual threat and needs to be squashed once and for all.

 

[Huckleberry]

I don’t know how Sanders keeps getting elected, but regardless, twighlight is descending on his career and he knows it. Why should he play by the rules? He did plenty of that when he kept “losing” primaries then backing the “winner.” In fact, he bent the knee so much that it was literally costing him supporters. This is his last shot at being an agent of change.

TBH, I’m torn here. As much as I hate the establishent parties, his ideology has had a frightening amount of support lately and we have literal commies winning various seats here and there. If this thing snowballs, God help us all. I don’t have to tell you that I’ve never been a “Bernie-Bro”, but I do appreciate chaos…particularly the kind that can upend a system that does little for the people who are paying for everything. Still, this man’s ideology is now an actual threat and needs to be squashed once and for all.

To be fair, democratic socialists are not communists. And not everyone sees them as the real threat.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/20/politics/democratic-socialist-candidates-polling

How scary is a democratic socialist candidate? Apparently not as scary as a MAGA one​

 

[RollTide_HTTR]

Meanwhile in the Ponytail Guevarra Brigade, we learn some interesting things about Airhead O. Commie:

1) she doesn’t support institutions like the Senate
2) because the Senate was founded on Jim Crow, which came 174 years after the Senate

https://twitter.com/x/status/2078218720439160902

Remember: Graham Platner went down with a few videos and a few accusations. Someone somewhere has been saving every single stupid thing this airhead has uttered on camera for the last eight years.

But I am not bothered by AOC herself. She represents one kook district over 1500 miles away from me.

What bothers me are the people who say, “This woman should be President!”

Besides, I watched a bunch of Democrats just last year. Tell me this country is so racist and misogynistic and that is why Harris lost, so why would they nominate a non-white female? Victimhood? Hoping to lose? Or just lying about 2024?

This clip actually highlights exactly why I don't think she can win a nation wide election or even primary. She just isn't careful enough with her words or in general.

She obviously is not saying the Senate is founded on Jim Crow. What she is trying to do is discuss the history of the filibuster and its historical usage blocking civil rights legislation.

Anyway, even if you disagree with her desire to get rid of the filibuster, I am not sure how I really feel about it, her overall point is more coherent than her words here sound. But that is pretty typical for her which is a real flaw