– James Carville, lecturing people in the Democratic Party
.
(James Osyf is entirely correct when he says "Silence won’t serve this moment." But in the case of the chronically-overexposed James Carville I think we can make an exception. Although he occasionally does have a valid point, I really do wish mainstream media would find someone better than Carville to interview about Democratic strategies.)
Yeah, the problem isn't that Axelrod (and Plouffe) weren't in charge of well run campaigns. They were. They did an excellent job with Obama's 2008 and 2012 campaigns, which were well run and highly effective.
The problem is that their insight isn't necessarily of the extra high value that they and others think it is. It's been 13 years since Obama's last campaign. A lot has changed in that time period. Many electoral lessons of yesteryear are no longer relevant or accurate. Many assumptions and understanding of the electorate and the political landscape are no longer applicable.
Obama also ran in 08 with an incredible wind at his back. I'm not at all convinced he would've won if he'd been the nominee in 04. His campaign was good, but it would've actually taken effort at that point (in 08) to run a bad one.
Bryce, sadly, yes. However, self-respecting journalists should instead be interviewing the strategists behind the downballot campaigns that had the greatest overperformances in the November election and in Special Elections* since then. THAT is how you shine a bright light on "best praxis"!
(After all, the Downballot has a wonderful overview, which should make the journalists’ job much easier.)
Melat Kiros is a perfect example of the type of hard left zealot that is killing the Democratic brand in the Midwest. Hopefully she gets blasted out of the water in the primary.
Don't see based on what was written above, including the link to her thoughtful blogpost, which I suggest you read, how she is a "hard left zealot." Whatever that means. Or how her views are "killing the Democratic brand in the Midwest."
She has called for the elimination of the state of Israel. I don't want to get into a fight over this issue, but anyone with any common sense should be aware of how extreme that position is and how offensive that is to many voters. The Democratic party would be much better off without extremist cranks like her who can and will constantly use up all their political capital and then some fighting over Middle East politics.
How can it be against the rules to discuss something mentioned in the digest? The digest says
“Kiros, 28, is the daughter of immigrants from Ethiopia and has never run for office before. She did, however, attract attention two years ago when she was fired by her law firm, Sidley Austin, after she reportedly refused to take down a blog post criticizing a letter signed by more than 100 firms (including hers) because it included "calling for … the elimination of the State of Israel" as an example of "anti-Semitic activities."
If we’re not supposed to discuss that, it shouldn’t be mentioned in the digest, just like how the digest doesn’t discuss Democratic presidential primaries. I personally would argue that not including that in the digest and discussion would stop us from fully capturing and learning about the dynamics of the race, but either way the rules should be consistent between the digest and the comments.
Without getting into the I/P debate or merits of Kiros candidacy I kinda hope DeGette sticks around until redistricting and then retires. Yes there is a commission but I think her retirement would help ease the idea of cracking Denver at least somewhat.
I second this. Even without debating the I/P issue, we can and should acknowledge that calling for the elimination of Israel is an extreme position that is deeply damaging to the Democratic Party – and is likely to sink the campaigns of candidates in most states and districts.
The other thing is that because Diana DeGette has been in Congress for a long time, I didn't realize she was just 67, and I certainly don't believe the Democratic Party should purge liberal, effective members who are merely in their late 60s, by contrast to 82-year-old Rosa DeLauro. If I were living in her district, I'd carefully consider whether her opponent is good enough to vote for them merely on the basis of their being younger, though that would by no means be automatic, as a healthy 82-year-old woman could easily successfully complete a new 2-year term. But come on, 67 is not that old!
It’s starting to feel like anything to the left of Bill Clinton is “hard left” to some of the Democratic center. Unless you have evidence, I refuse to also believe that the existence of the left is somehow killing our “brand” in the Midwest.
Actually, what would you define as our “brand”? What would you say Democrats should stand for?
Honestly I feel like “fighting the left” is beginning to take precedence over “fighting Trump”.
Philips has a constituency of one, which I think reflects how much clout he carries with the more moderate side of the party. All I've seen since his statement on CNN have been dunks on it by more "moderate" Dems.
Many of them, but seemingly not Mamdani. I'm not sure how similar his views are to Kiros', though, and we can't get into any point-by-point discussions of those here.
Something caused fucking Trump to win all of the Midwest except for Illinois and Minnesota, so there's no reason for any of us to be sanguine about leftists winning back those voters, is there?
But how do we know it was the left that was responsible? I’m not saying the left can win them back, I’m saying that unless I’m presented hard evidence, the left simply existing did not cost us those voters. Remember - inflation was a major issue in 2024, and quite frankly a lot of voters are frighteningly stupid and likely thought Trump would just magically end inflation. Even here in suburban NY I was seeing Biden “I did that” stickers next to gas prices. I don’t believe the left’s mere existence cost us those voters, I really think it was an inflation election. I’m not sure it would have mattered what we did. People are stupid sometimes.
I would argue that the reason we lost was due to inflation and unhappiness with the economy. However, the more progressive left is trying to use the 2024 election results as a reason to move leftward on a variety of issues and unfortunately some of their positions are far from helpful at making us the majority party in swing states because some of their positions on issues related to crime and foreign policy are far from popular among swing voters. As someone who is from Ohio and has lived in the Midwest my whole life, I can say with certainty that while the Democratic party can move towards a more progressive position on some economic issues, other issues like "Defund the police" and the progressive position on I/P are deeply unpopular here and are hurting us.
I agree with this, but I also think that most people who voted for Trump won't suddenly go to the other extreme - and yes, I as a socialist do nevertheless recognize some positions by the DSA to be extreme, although by no means threats to democracy.
There is no one thing that is responsible for where we are now. Inflation seems to be the top one to me. But I think we need to really twist ourselves into pretzels not to see 2022-2024 as largely a rejection of, in no particularly order, immigration, criminal justice reform, multi-culturalism, student debt reform, equality (for women, lgbtq, etc.). Most of that is cultural stuff (though it all still touches on economics, particularly immigration) and the rejection was coming from the right at every turn. After Trump won in 2016 there were some minor leftwing gains in deep blue areas that allowed the left to think it was more powerful and popular than it was and allowed some Dems to think that certain policies were more popular - or popular at all, than they were with the people who vote. It feels like the cycle is just resetting and people are allowing themselves to think that again.
People were voting for or against Harris and Trump. The Left was not on the ballot. It's such a vague notion that no one here can define it. It's a convenient punching bag for MGP and others (along with "the faculty lounge") who want to court big donors. The problem in WI, PA, & MI was not that they were too Left in 2024.
No, it was inflation, and listen, I'm part of the left. But as I said, people who vote for Trump don't usually then turn around and vote socialist. Some do, but certainly not a huge fraction.
I didn't think I was being condescending to you but as far as what I would define as the brand... We allow our enemies to brand us. I think the brand is whatever the consultant class believes plays well. I'm not sure if I have a proposal as you have to overcome so much Conservative Media Machine propaganda but I think being unapologetic about what we believe in is a start. For all of their faults people like Mamdani and Abughazaleh are unapologetic about their stances and aren't afraid of the Right's attempts to define and smear them.
I have to assume that a primary challenge to a popular incumbent from someone whose main qualification is having been an attorney for a a couple of years before being canned is not overly likely to go anywhere far.
Diana DeGette is popular? Since when? Every politically active person I've talked to in Denver either dislikes her or is ambivalent. I've never met a DeGette superfan. She is not a very remarkable representative despite being in office forever. Most people just think she's invincible. I hope she sweats a little in a primary, I don't like when politicians just sit in office forever doing next to nothing because they arrogantly think they "deserve" it.
She's no Pat Schroeder that's for sure but she has been in office since the 90's so it really doesn't matter how popular she is if people are still showing up to vote for her but yes i agree no politician should feel safe from a challenge.
Serving 30 years in Congress with little electoral trouble seems like a good indicator of popularity. Even if you mostly attribute it to inertia, if DeGette were unpopular then she’d be gone by now or at least struggling to hold on.
It may be worth testing her to see just how strong that popularity is or if it’s just inertia from not being challenged much, but Kiros doesn’t sound like a great candidate to do that.
As a somewhat local (I work in her district) I would agree with the general assessment. I've never met a "superfan" either but I also haven't met anyone who's grievance is much beyond ambivalent or minor dislike for her being kind of a back bencher.
"The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Title II of Pub. L. 95–223, 91 Stat. 1626, enacted December 28, 1977, is a United States federal law authorizing the president to regulate international commerce after declaring a national emergency in response to any unusual and extraordinary threat to the United States which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States."
Brazil isn't doing anything that's a threat to the U.S., so with a reasonable Judiciary, Trump's unilateral actions would be annulled, but we don't have a reasonable Supreme Court.
I think there’s a real chance SCOTUS sides against Trump here. The panel that unanimously struck down Trump’s tariffs in May included a conservative judge.
It also dovetails nicely with the major questions doctrine and post-Chevron jurisprudence and, frankly, is what basically all of corporate America wants but Trump simply won’t accept tariffs don’t work the way he has convinced himself they do
Ironically he may be giving Lula. whose approvals have gone into the dumps, a political boost a la Canada and Australia. Most Brazilleans won't appreciate the POTUS meddling in their domestic affairs.
Hopefully Lula doesn't also propose amending the nation's constitution. If I had a Real for every time that ruined a South American left-leaning leader the past decade, I'd have at least two Reals.
“We just lecture people too much.”
– James Carville, lecturing people in the Democratic Party
.
(James Osyf is entirely correct when he says "Silence won’t serve this moment." But in the case of the chronically-overexposed James Carville I think we can make an exception. Although he occasionally does have a valid point, I really do wish mainstream media would find someone better than Carville to interview about Democratic strategies.)
It’s either him or Axelrod. Everyone else is either still working, or straight up faded into obscurity
Axelrod really thinks he did something with "hope" and "change", amazing work.
Why wouldn't we credit him for that? It was a brilliantly successful campaign.
Yeah, the problem isn't that Axelrod (and Plouffe) weren't in charge of well run campaigns. They were. They did an excellent job with Obama's 2008 and 2012 campaigns, which were well run and highly effective.
The problem is that their insight isn't necessarily of the extra high value that they and others think it is. It's been 13 years since Obama's last campaign. A lot has changed in that time period. Many electoral lessons of yesteryear are no longer relevant or accurate. Many assumptions and understanding of the electorate and the political landscape are no longer applicable.
Obama also ran in 08 with an incredible wind at his back. I'm not at all convinced he would've won if he'd been the nominee in 04. His campaign was good, but it would've actually taken effort at that point (in 08) to run a bad one.
Bryce, sadly, yes. However, self-respecting journalists should instead be interviewing the strategists behind the downballot campaigns that had the greatest overperformances in the November election and in Special Elections* since then. THAT is how you shine a bright light on "best praxis"!
(After all, the Downballot has a wonderful overview, which should make the journalists’ job much easier.)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JGk1r1VXnxBrAIVHz1C5HTB5jxCO6Zw4QNPivdhyWHw/edit?gid=415249345#gid=415249345
Melat Kiros is a perfect example of the type of hard left zealot that is killing the Democratic brand in the Midwest. Hopefully she gets blasted out of the water in the primary.
Don't see based on what was written above, including the link to her thoughtful blogpost, which I suggest you read, how she is a "hard left zealot." Whatever that means. Or how her views are "killing the Democratic brand in the Midwest."
She has called for the elimination of the state of Israel. I don't want to get into a fight over this issue, but anyone with any common sense should be aware of how extreme that position is and how offensive that is to many voters. The Democratic party would be much better off without extremist cranks like her who can and will constantly use up all their political capital and then some fighting over Middle East politics.
We are not allowed to discuss Israel and Palestine here. It is against the rules.
How can it be against the rules to discuss something mentioned in the digest? The digest says
“Kiros, 28, is the daughter of immigrants from Ethiopia and has never run for office before. She did, however, attract attention two years ago when she was fired by her law firm, Sidley Austin, after she reportedly refused to take down a blog post criticizing a letter signed by more than 100 firms (including hers) because it included "calling for … the elimination of the State of Israel" as an example of "anti-Semitic activities."
If we’re not supposed to discuss that, it shouldn’t be mentioned in the digest, just like how the digest doesn’t discuss Democratic presidential primaries. I personally would argue that not including that in the digest and discussion would stop us from fully capturing and learning about the dynamics of the race, but either way the rules should be consistent between the digest and the comments.
Without getting into the I/P debate or merits of Kiros candidacy I kinda hope DeGette sticks around until redistricting and then retires. Yes there is a commission but I think her retirement would help ease the idea of cracking Denver at least somewhat.
I second this. Even without debating the I/P issue, we can and should acknowledge that calling for the elimination of Israel is an extreme position that is deeply damaging to the Democratic Party – and is likely to sink the campaigns of candidates in most states and districts.
The other thing is that because Diana DeGette has been in Congress for a long time, I didn't realize she was just 67, and I certainly don't believe the Democratic Party should purge liberal, effective members who are merely in their late 60s, by contrast to 82-year-old Rosa DeLauro. If I were living in her district, I'd carefully consider whether her opponent is good enough to vote for them merely on the basis of their being younger, though that would by no means be automatic, as a healthy 82-year-old woman could easily successfully complete a new 2-year term. But come on, 67 is not that old!
It’s starting to feel like anything to the left of Bill Clinton is “hard left” to some of the Democratic center. Unless you have evidence, I refuse to also believe that the existence of the left is somehow killing our “brand” in the Midwest.
Actually, what would you define as our “brand”? What would you say Democrats should stand for?
Honestly I feel like “fighting the left” is beginning to take precedence over “fighting Trump”.
We're all left here to some degree but i think history tells us the DSA types would much rather protest dems than protest Trump, let's be real.
Versus what Dean Phillips, et al. have been doing? I’m no DSA fan but it’s not like it’s only the left doing this.
Philips has a constituency of one, which I think reflects how much clout he carries with the more moderate side of the party. All I've seen since his statement on CNN have been dunks on it by more "moderate" Dems.
That isn't helping either
Many of them, but seemingly not Mamdani. I'm not sure how similar his views are to Kiros', though, and we can't get into any point-by-point discussions of those here.
Not true at all.
Something caused fucking Trump to win all of the Midwest except for Illinois and Minnesota, so there's no reason for any of us to be sanguine about leftists winning back those voters, is there?
But how do we know it was the left that was responsible? I’m not saying the left can win them back, I’m saying that unless I’m presented hard evidence, the left simply existing did not cost us those voters. Remember - inflation was a major issue in 2024, and quite frankly a lot of voters are frighteningly stupid and likely thought Trump would just magically end inflation. Even here in suburban NY I was seeing Biden “I did that” stickers next to gas prices. I don’t believe the left’s mere existence cost us those voters, I really think it was an inflation election. I’m not sure it would have mattered what we did. People are stupid sometimes.
I would argue that the reason we lost was due to inflation and unhappiness with the economy. However, the more progressive left is trying to use the 2024 election results as a reason to move leftward on a variety of issues and unfortunately some of their positions are far from helpful at making us the majority party in swing states because some of their positions on issues related to crime and foreign policy are far from popular among swing voters. As someone who is from Ohio and has lived in the Midwest my whole life, I can say with certainty that while the Democratic party can move towards a more progressive position on some economic issues, other issues like "Defund the police" and the progressive position on I/P are deeply unpopular here and are hurting us.
I agree with this, but I also think that most people who voted for Trump won't suddenly go to the other extreme - and yes, I as a socialist do nevertheless recognize some positions by the DSA to be extreme, although by no means threats to democracy.
There is no one thing that is responsible for where we are now. Inflation seems to be the top one to me. But I think we need to really twist ourselves into pretzels not to see 2022-2024 as largely a rejection of, in no particularly order, immigration, criminal justice reform, multi-culturalism, student debt reform, equality (for women, lgbtq, etc.). Most of that is cultural stuff (though it all still touches on economics, particularly immigration) and the rejection was coming from the right at every turn. After Trump won in 2016 there were some minor leftwing gains in deep blue areas that allowed the left to think it was more powerful and popular than it was and allowed some Dems to think that certain policies were more popular - or popular at all, than they were with the people who vote. It feels like the cycle is just resetting and people are allowing themselves to think that again.
People were voting for or against Harris and Trump. The Left was not on the ballot. It's such a vague notion that no one here can define it. It's a convenient punching bag for MGP and others (along with "the faculty lounge") who want to court big donors. The problem in WI, PA, & MI was not that they were too Left in 2024.
No, it was inflation, and listen, I'm part of the left. But as I said, people who vote for Trump don't usually then turn around and vote socialist. Some do, but certainly not a huge fraction.
Let's be honest. The Democratic "brand" is toxic in these places so maybe we should try something different.
What do you propose? What do you define as the “brand”, how would you change it, and what evidence do you have that said change would help us?
Also enough with the obnoxious condescension, from everyone here.
I didn't think I was being condescending to you but as far as what I would define as the brand... We allow our enemies to brand us. I think the brand is whatever the consultant class believes plays well. I'm not sure if I have a proposal as you have to overcome so much Conservative Media Machine propaganda but I think being unapologetic about what we believe in is a start. For all of their faults people like Mamdani and Abughazaleh are unapologetic about their stances and aren't afraid of the Right's attempts to define and smear them.
Like what?
I have to assume that a primary challenge to a popular incumbent from someone whose main qualification is having been an attorney for a a couple of years before being canned is not overly likely to go anywhere far.
Diana DeGette is popular? Since when? Every politically active person I've talked to in Denver either dislikes her or is ambivalent. I've never met a DeGette superfan. She is not a very remarkable representative despite being in office forever. Most people just think she's invincible. I hope she sweats a little in a primary, I don't like when politicians just sit in office forever doing next to nothing because they arrogantly think they "deserve" it.
She's no Pat Schroeder that's for sure but she has been in office since the 90's so it really doesn't matter how popular she is if people are still showing up to vote for her but yes i agree no politician should feel safe from a challenge.
Serving 30 years in Congress with little electoral trouble seems like a good indicator of popularity. Even if you mostly attribute it to inertia, if DeGette were unpopular then she’d be gone by now or at least struggling to hold on.
It may be worth testing her to see just how strong that popularity is or if it’s just inertia from not being challenged much, but Kiros doesn’t sound like a great candidate to do that.
As a somewhat local (I work in her district) I would agree with the general assessment. I've never met a "superfan" either but I also haven't met anyone who's grievance is much beyond ambivalent or minor dislike for her being kind of a back bencher.
Sidenote kind of crazy to think how much Colorado has changed since she was elected in 96 when Dole was narrowly winning the state.
Yeah I don’t hate DeGette or anything, I just feel like Denver could do a lot better.
Trump trying to use the tariff to turn Brazil law into U.S. law and spare his fascist buddy:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/11/world/americas/brazil-trump-tariffs.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Vk8.G0Pe.NhXI256ip6c-&smid=url-share
The appeal case over IEEPA cannot come soon enough
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Economic_Powers_Act
"The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Title II of Pub. L. 95–223, 91 Stat. 1626, enacted December 28, 1977, is a United States federal law authorizing the president to regulate international commerce after declaring a national emergency in response to any unusual and extraordinary threat to the United States which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States."
Brazil isn't doing anything that's a threat to the U.S., so with a reasonable Judiciary, Trump's unilateral actions would be annulled, but we don't have a reasonable Supreme Court.
That assumes Brazil would have standing to sue. But a U.S. business that imports from Brazil would.
The problem for the Supreme Court majority is that they would be torn between two of their heroes. An imperial president and a corporation.
I think there’s a real chance SCOTUS sides against Trump here. The panel that unanimously struck down Trump’s tariffs in May included a conservative judge.
It also dovetails nicely with the major questions doctrine and post-Chevron jurisprudence and, frankly, is what basically all of corporate America wants but Trump simply won’t accept tariffs don’t work the way he has convinced himself they do
We can only hope, but we can never count on them to do the right thing or to limit Trump's power in any way.
Ironically he may be giving Lula. whose approvals have gone into the dumps, a political boost a la Canada and Australia. Most Brazilleans won't appreciate the POTUS meddling in their domestic affairs.
What's caused Lula's loss of popularity this time?
Not a Brazil expert but same things that are hurting nearly all incumbents . .cost of living and crime (or perceptions thereof).
Hopefully Lula doesn't also propose amending the nation's constitution. If I had a Real for every time that ruined a South American left-leaning leader the past decade, I'd have at least two Reals.
And not even for the right reasons like being too tight with Russia.
Also, Jair could have just claimed asylum when he was visiting Disney World or something. He's an idiot for going back.
“He’s an idiot” yep that Jair for ya
The special election to replace assassinated Minnesota Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman has been set:
September 16th with a primary, if necessary, on August 12th.