Look at what you’re saying. Look at the words you are using. Do you really think someone like Pritzker has any chance of becoming president? Well, he’s “wealthy and can bash character”, you say.
You talk about “those without a college degree” in an implicitly disparaging way, but without saying basket. Minor “visuals” are hyper-important.
The only Dem governor I would even consider voting for is Shapiro, but why would I vote for anyone affiliated with a political party that promotes an open border, child sex mutilation, homelessness (for profit), unlimited abortion, defunding the police, lawfare, slush-funds, and DEI. Why would anyone in their right mind do that?
The democrat party is a very successful political machine, that has lost its way . . . it’s new motto is “f*ck the rules, do whatever it takes to win” . . . and then do whatever you want.
While running for governor, Sharpiro was for school choice. After winning he knelt to the teacher's union and opposed school choice. He is opposed to legislation banning transgender girls and women from participating in women's sports. He again proves that when Dems run as moderates they ALWAYS govern as liberals. Don't fall for it.
If track record matters to voters, then Newsom, Pritzger and Shapiro are going nowhere.
On further reflection, I pondered Clinton’s legacy (a corrupt moderate from Arkansas), Obama’s (a razor thin resume with very progressive tutors) and Biden’s (a lifetime of political mediocrity), and I’m forced to conclude that superior ability is not a prerequisite.
"it’s new motto is “f*ck the rules, do whatever it takes to win”
This is not its 'new motto', this is the new modus operandi of politics. It is the procedural psychology of both sides of the aisle.
But have a little self-awareness of the two-sidedness of the problem here--the number of rules Congressional Republicans have more or less said 'f*ck it' to is massive.
Let's enumerate a few of the ones they have told to f*ck off, just in the past six months:
-Rules against open bribery arrangements between POTUS and private parties and presidential emoluments (presidential dinners in exchange for investing in the president's memecoin, accepting emoluments from the Qataris, for a start, but it goes waaay deeper: https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2025-trump-family-presidency-wealth/)
-apportionment rules (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment) whereby Congress determines the budget and the spending of the government (these were unilaterally overruled and these powers were put into the hands of an unelected billionaire with massive conflicts of interest in controlling said spending)
-rules whereby state legislatures gets to approve (or reject) the use of federal troops in their state to enforce the law (there was zero opposition by party leadership to the sending of troops into California despite the police chief of LA and the state's governor rejecting the measure)
...it goes on and on. No doubt we could list out all manner of things Democratic leaders have done that seem to be a total flouting of political law and convention, too--but to say this is just a Democratic thing is patent nonsense.
Instead we are watching, in real time, a process of political escalation, whereby each party is driving the other to greater and greater extremes, pushing the boundaries of the rules further, bit by bit, aided by the dominance of powerful demagogues and, most of all, the latent structure of modern information networks.
I was accused by someone else on this site of arguing against a "caricature" of Republicans when I stated a few things that I know many Republicans believe in and suggested (I think accurately) that those were positions of the party. The claim here that Democrats support "open borders, child sex mutilation etc" is completely over the top. DEI is the. only thing on the list that substantial numbers of anyone believes in, and that is probably dead as a result of the Supreme Court decision. The question is how long are Republicans going to be able to get away with attacking straw men while stacking tax and trade policy against the middle class.
I share your unease over many of Trump's economic policies, but you are misinformed about what almost all elected Democrats publicly advocate on several issues. They oppose any meaningful controls on immigration, including ICE actions to remove even criminals from the country; they oppose any laws banning transgender surgeries; they won't change an iota on DEI.
Seems we have a fact problem here. As you know, Obama, Clinton and Biden deported had millions of persons deported. I would call that a meaningful control and it is simply untrue that Democrats favor allowing criminals into the country. They certainly don’t oppose all laws banning transgender and voluntary transgender surgeries are not properly characterized as mutilation and gentle person may differ on when they are appropriate for minors. Personally, I would be pleased to outlaw them completely if I thought that was all it took to get rid of the MAGA movement. On DEI, I think it is on the way out as a result of the recent Supreme Court decision. Unfortunately, cronyism and hiring only sycophants has gotten very popular so we can expect many more unqualified MAGAs to be hired than there ever were DEI hires. So, if your concerns about Democrats were that they favored open border, mutilation and so on, you have no reason not to now focus on other issues.
As time went by Biden deported very few illegal immigrants. It is a matter of fact that he effectively opened the borders wide and invited people in to stay permanenetly. No prominent Democrat has advocated to NOT do that in the future - the far Left base of the party demands open borders.
No prominent elected Democrat has the courage to advocate banning gender change surgeries for minors as the UK is now doing; in the woke world that is transphobic. No prominent elected Democrat has the courage to oppose the DEI extremism that took root under Biden. A large majority of elected Democrats wants to expand the Supreme Court to allow for full-blown left-wing judicial activism that will allow for DEI to come back full force.
I wish these facts were otherwise, but they are the facts no matter how much we disdain Trump.
I believe that you are wrong about Biden deportations. My quick web search said that there were 271,000 deportations in 2024 which was the highest up to that time. It is a matter of myth that Biden opened the borders and invited people to stay here. NO prominent Democrat has advocated open borders. As to banning gender change surgery for minors, I am unsure if that is the proper position or not although I would agree it should be very limited. As I said, though, I would be pleased to toss transsexuals under the bus to have sane environmental and economic policies.
No prominent Democrat has said directly that he/she favors open borders, but ALL of them in effect do, or they are afraid to publicly support restrictions on immigration. Name even one Democrat who publicly says that the Trump policy to seal the southern border has worked and is commendable. Please don't make me die of old age while you try to find such an elected Democrat - they don't exist.
As a Texas resident, can assure the open border was not a myth. 45 minutes out of a major city, in a semi rural area, a year into Biden's term, I was passed by a large sedan doing 100 miles an hour, that came out of nowhere. A few minutes later, a second SUV flew by me. Had I been a kid on a phone, I might very well be dead. That never happened pre open borders.
5 minutes up the road, men in ICE vests were chasing nearly a dozen young men, running thru a field. I have no idea how that many people were packed into a single car. During Biden's term , everyone I knew had a similar experience. Those with relatives, residing at the border, have stories that are similar to a war.
The migrant caused vehicular deaths in Texas are no longer surprising. It is simply a matter of how many bodies. Migrant semi drivers, working illegally, have killed 10 people in 2 fatal mass wrecks, in the last 4 months alone. That does not include the run of mill 2 car fatalities.
Moreover, in the middle of the afternoon, in 100 degree heat along a major 4 lane road, running thru upscale areas, it is no longer unusual to see a women walking with a child, 15 miles from the nearest bus stop. No one exercises with a child in Texas, during a summer afternoon.
A local NGO handed $3 billion dollars, with a "b" to resettle unaccompanied migrant kids had so many claims of sexual abuse it was shut down, virtually, overnight. The kids were handed out without vetting or DNA testing. A 1/2 dozen "executives" earning between $300K-$700K annually, for years, doing the "Lord's Work", took their millions and ran to the next NGO. No one care about the children in this historical mess. If Biden doesn't rot in Hades for what he allowed to happen at the border and to those 300K migrant kids, he should.
It was high because the numbers he was letting was exorbitant. I believe 271,00 is .027 of ten million. Not even in the ball park of impressive. AS for the trans issue, all they ever had to do was not force it on others. Anytime anything is forced on others, they will fight back and harder.
Perception is reality. What a partisan believes is irrelevant. What those they wish to woo to their side is all that should matter. And $20 million doesn't buy that kind of knowledge. Open minds. a tough thing to find on the Dem's side.
How is cutting off a child’s healthy breasts not mutilation? Or giving a child hormones that could cause permanent damage to their health, sterilize them, or make them permanently incapable of having an orgasm?
The fact they had so many deportations is because they had so many that came in illegally. Your argument is disingenuous at best. But mainly worthless since without the context, it appears just another half answer meant to skew the truth.
Look, my point is that there were never “open borders.” I think we’ve had enough back and forth the night and it seems unlikely that we will make much progress. Have a good evening.
Didn’t say “democrats” support - said democrat “party” supports. Lots of good democrats still out there - the party is the problem, the cadre / leadership / ideology / activists . . . The Machine.
Is the “party” the problem or is it “the party’s policies”? The last election clearly said, “We aren’t buying what you are selling” but no potential 2028 candidates are successfully changing what is being put on the table.
The question is, why are you concerned about republicans? Can you bring them to your side. Will they help win elections? What do you care. You're targets should be independents and the identity Dem members the party finally drove out. They will make the difference you need to become winners. biden didn't care squat about the middle class. Nothing has changed with the Dems nor does it appear likely to change.
Perhaps the messenger, will be far less important than the message. Not a single Dem has repudiated any Biden policy, accept to agree it is OK to deport migrant murderers and rapists, after years of due process.
Over the weekend, perennial Dem Golden Boy, Beto O' Rourke promised, using the F word as a noun, a verb, an adjective and an adverb, Dems will immediately grant citizenship to every Dreamer, their parents, and every other migrant working hard in the US, the moment Dems retake power. James Carville, the OG of Dem policy for decades, has lectured Dems, they must immediately bring 2 new Blue states into the Union, and pack SCOTUS, when retaking all 3 branches of government.
Not a single Dem has mentioned tossing a trillion dollars at Green corps, most of which will never survive without mass and permanent subsidy, might require reevaluation. Nor has anyone mentioned the Biden term ended with a full quarter of the US enrolled in Medicaid, for the first time in US history.
Public schools failing 2/3rds of students do not seem to be a priority. Likewise, hospitals are going to great lengths to explain they are suspending child sex change programs, not ending them. Seemingly on advice, the moment Dems regain power, the child mutilations will resume.
Reps are lousy enough at messaging, perhaps they will fail to convey the above. If they happen to crack the code, it would seem of somewhat limited importance if the next Dem Presidential contender is simply a younger, more lucid version of Biden, with the same far Left polices.
More than just "freely debating the party’s top priorities and errors" -- although that should be standard political boilerplate for a party hamstrung by rudderless smugness and grave missteps -- Democrats need to open their 2026 and 2028 primaries to the widest participation of candidates in the hope of finding and defining a new, better (ie. more popular mainstream) way.
If that way fails to bring some real enlightenment and redirection, rising above the entrenched if stale competition of geriatric status quo hangers-on and an embarrassingly naive, woke, identity politics progressive far Left, then further losses or even insufficient gains in 2026 and 2028 should send a serious political party into a deeper dive for sustainable answers, or put it out of its misdirected misery altogether and wait out an entirely new start.
The latter proving that there really is no fixing irrelevant stupidity.
At this remove, it is hard to remember that Obama coined the phrase "bitter clingers" to describe working class supporters of Hillary in the PA primary. Those voters, now Trump supporters, made it their own on their way to the exits. That sort of smugness still permeates the Democratic party.
I've read a lot of pieces about why the Democrats have lost support, and like this one, I agree with most of them. But they've all missed an important point: the Dems have created a cult-like religion that I call Inclusivism, and it has overwhelmed them. They can't see past it any more than could most followers of Jim Jones or Heaven's Gate.
Inclusivism's core beliefs include DEI, gender ideology, open borders, and unrestricted globalism (which is to say, giving away our manufacturing expertise to China). For a while, "Joe Biden is as sharp as a tack!" was part of the believer's mantra, along with
* The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination!
* Trans women ARE women!
* No person is illegal!
* Vote for Harris to save Democracy!
That last one replaced the Biden mantra, and no one in the cult appeared to see the irony in the claim that a candidate who had never even competed in a single primary was somehow carrying the torch of Democracy. Don't know about others out there, but I was certainly on the receiving end of some righteous anger when I tried to point that out. I've been told that I'm stupid more than once.
Inclusivism's core beliefs are sacred. Deviate from any of them, and you become a heretic, as Dean Phillips discovered.
Members of the cult include the party leadership, rank and file elected members, and much of the base. Trying to point out that some of its beliefs harm its members and others is about as easy as convincing your neighbors that none of their prophet's predictions about the impending Apocalypse have come true, that maybe the world will make it past April 23, 2018, too, and that maybe you should re-think selling everything you own so you can travel and spread the word.
Once people get emotionally and mentally invested in that kind of mindset, it's very difficult to rescue them. This is, unfortunately, a known part of human psychology. It's called belief perseverance.
Watch Megyn Kelly's interview with Ro Khanna last year (link below). She made irrefutable arguments against puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, and Khanna didn't flinch. He showed all of the classic signs of someone who digs deeper into an absurd idea in the face of undeniable arguments against it. But he was being "kind," in that he didn't call her names or get angry.
As is known outside the cult, "kindness" is a core practice of Inclusivism. It requires that members stomp all over anyone who disagrees, while screeching about how concerned they are for the underprivileged. Ergo, drugs and double mastectomies for 14-year-old "trans" girls are kind, while saying, "Hey, I'm not so sure about that..." is being insensitive, exclusive, and cruel.
This is why the endless op-eds, books, interviews, maybe even electoral losses won't change anything. Either a new messiah with a new message appears from the wilderness, or this stuff will continue until a new party emerges. As a former Democrat, I weep for what I see.
The conclusion that should be made from this analysis is that a moderately liberal Democrat could be elected in President in 2028. That is, someone who would shore up the safety net and end the Trump excesses in policy and personal behavior.
But a moderate liberal/centrist can't get nominated in the current Democratic party. The far Left will show up at 90+% rates in the 2028 primaries, while the actual majority of more moderate voters will show up at way lower rates, hence the far Left guy gets the nomination. And if the Marxist nut gets elected Mayor of NYC then the public image of the Democratic party will sink even lower.
Trump's excesses and personal behavior are ending in the WH in 2028. That is not up for debate.
Dems are so consumed with hating the man, they give no thought to Trump not surviving his term or simply fading away to his golf courses, after 2028. The man is nearly 80 years old, and not a small person. A neighbor in his age group and of similar build, often remarks Trump is already in the bonus round, and people are like dogs, the big ones have shorter lifespans.
That is not wishing for anyone's demise, but it would seem Dems consumed with Trump for a decade, might want to give some thought to what happens the day after Trump is no longer, personally, effecting politics.
If the game plan is simply to revert to trillions chasing green fantasies, open borders, mass naturalization and resumption of child social engineering in schools, athletic fields and operating rooms, Dems may find Trump has not been their real problem, after all.
Just imagine what happens if Trump resigns in the fall of '27 on health grounds and makes Vance the acting president and endorses his '28 candidacy. It would be God's own masterstroke. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be the Democrats. In general, I think the Dems have VASTLY underestimated Vance's intelligence and appeal. He will be a formidable candidate even if the economy's not on his side.
Shore up the safety net? Approximately 40% of Americans are on Medicaid or Medicare and we spend over $1T in welfare programs. How much more should the safety net be shored up, and where will the money come from?
We need to significantly increase taxes for everyone making over $100k, weighted toward the higher earners. That is the only thing that is going to save our economy from the debt spiral we are sinking into. There is no way we can get that money from spending cuts without decimating our country.
Justin’s analysis seems spot on to me. But he gingerly steps around the far-left progressives who dominate the party’s street activism and fundraising. Their end game is not a broad Democratic coalition. It is complete domination of American politics. Just as they rant and scream about Trump and Republicans today, they will cast aside all moderate Democrats when they are no longer needed. A quick review of how Lenin and his small fringe group consolidated power in post-czarist Russia is their playbook.
Oh, calm down. Of course they want "complete domination of American politics." Both sides do, and the system's structure keeps it from happening. Thanks much, Founding Fathers. You really were geniuses. Lenin? Blah blah blah. Come on, make sense. You sound like Cleon Skousen. Look him up. LOL
" strong leadership that might also resonate with Trump-leaning audiences, it is demonstrated by ... former administration officials such as Lina Khan, who served as Biden’s razor-sharp FTC chair but has never held elected office."
If you really and truly believe Lina Khan was a razor-sharp FTC chair whose strong leadership resonates with Trump-leaning audiences, you haven't been paying attention at all. Now I must question the rest of the article too.
In the past the "far left" referred to a focus on the economic issues of the working class. Now the "far left" refers to the issues of identity politics. No wonder that Democrats have lost the non college voter.
"... Dan Osborn, the Nebraska independent, generating more grassroots excitement than the current crop of Democratic honchos..." Democrats in Nebraska aren't even running a candidate; they endorsed Osborn. He's not generating any grassroots excitement, according to Open Secrets he was primarily being financed by out of state Democrats when he tried to unseat Deb Fischer: 5.3% in-state donations vs. 94.7% out-of-state donations.
The party can’t “reinvent itself as the champion of the American dream and workers’ rights” as long as it remains just as dependent as the GOP on high-dollar campaign donors. This dilemma leaves Dems with only populist sloganeering (“socialism”) and silly cultural radicalism as ways to simulate being the party of the downtrodden.
Trump has proven that it is possible to win while being massively outspent. It isn't so much that pols need the megadonors, it is that they think they do.
Good point but also beside the point. Yes, having the most money doesn’t guarantee victory. But without a lot of money your campaign isn’t viable. Besides, Trump and allied independent groups raised almost $1 billion. He didn’t just imagine that he needed campaign cash. Thanks for commenting.
The Democrats will remain in the wilderness until they stop looking for the “next Barack Obama”, whose hard left turn in his second term broke the coalition and start looking for the next Bill Clinton. Even Clinton didn’t fully pivot to the broadly popular centrist policies he campaigned on until he got smacked back by the GOP taking over the House in 94.
The blue collar voters the Democrats need to win back want good paying jobs not government handouts and only favor the latter as a short term hand-up for Americans who have fallen on hard times due to no fault of their own.
The Dems problem is that the ones who now publicly speak for the Dems most often are those who attack Trump. It failed in 2024 and it will fail again. Until you muzzle these folks, you stand no chance. Actually Kathy Hochul is the worse. She has watched far too many Eastwood spaghetti westerns and tough cop shows. She's gone beyond entertaining to ridiculous. Do Dems actually believe the narrative of redistricting that the Dems put forward? Why do your leaders assume independents and those who left the Dem party, to be blunt, are as stupid as the stupid narratives they put out? At this time, every play to the base is a play against any not under the small Dem tent.
You mention credit card debt. Credit card debt and personal debt hit all time highs under biden. I believe Independents have figured out such truths and to not address them will not bring enough of them to the Dem to win elections.
There is no time left to sway voters to the Dem side. Heck there is no Dem side. Any failure of Trump can be seen in the biden administration and most time to a worse degree. All I really want to see from any Dem at this time, is one who never mentions Trump name.
Trump won’t matter by then because the Dems will still have nothing to offer than fear politics and lies. That works for the base but not for the ones who the Dems need to vote for them. e.g. independents.
Trump won't matter, but the Democrats will spend valuable time and money waving the bloody shirt and claiming that every Republican is but a Trump avatar.
I've become so disaffected by the Dems that it's easy to count them out, but that would be a mistake. The parties have a way of reviving themselves, and then there are events. Never forget that shit happens. Good example would be that the Dems won the presidency in 1976 after disastrous conventions in '68 and '72. Thanks, Watergate. Talk about your shit happening, and talk about how utterly brainless and unnecessary all of that one was. But shit happens. And the Republicans won in '68 after Goldwater in '64. Thanks, Vietnam and Chicago.
I'm not seeing prominent, viable Dems right now. Whitmer and Ossof? Weak, IMO. Shapiro? Good luck holding the party together with a Jewish nominee. Beshear? Why? Winning the governorship in a red state? Not enough, IMO.
I think the Democrats will pick Newsom. Speaks volumes that he's actually their safe choice, but that's (weirdly) what he is. I don't see anyone else having the recognition or the presence. My basic view is that the direction of the economy in early '28 will determine the winner, as it has in every presidential election since World War II. So even though I think Newsom is a slug, I don't count him out now and will not until July of '28. Then there's the margin. If the economy is strong that spring, I think Vance will beat Newsom quite handily. If the economy isn't strong, I think Newsom beats Vance by a whisker. Not because I'd want him to, but because that's how it has worked for what will be 80 years in 2028.
Past all of that, I'm not seeing the Democrats carve an actual identity as a party. They don't have a central identity now, which is why all those unpopular "progressive" talismans are defining them in the public mind. They are at a really low ebb in that sense. What are they for? Not some consultant-driven ad campaign ("messaging"), but the real thing. That's their big problem, IMO.
Wes Moore vetoing the MD legislature’s reparations bill a few months back was the first sign I’ve seen of a Democrat who understands what it will take to win a national election. After Biden’s bait and switch it going to take multiple “Sister Soulja moments” on steroids for the public to buy it.
I think the Democratic Party does have a national identity. It’s just that it’s the “luxury beliefs” of the faculty lounge and Davos Man rather than the common sense of your average working stiff.
Additionally while I generally agree that the economy trumps all (pun intended), with the leftists coming after people’s kids I think cultural issues are capable of overriding a bad but not horrible economy. Especially if the Republican nominee is smart enough to acknowledge it and propose a course correction.
I agree with much of that, and am a bit contradictory too. I mean here we are on a website talking about issues. They matter to me, and to you, and to everyone here. I think the Dems are so lacking in a central identity that the conglomeration of those fringe issues has come to substitute for a central identity.
To me, that central identity is how best to deal with the economy. The Dems have always until recently stood for economic growth and redistribution to some extent, while the Republicans have stood (and still do) stand for the idea that if government backs off on regulation and redistribution, the economy will do well enough that the rising tide will lift all boats.
Now that private sector unions are all but dead, the Democrats have really struggled to recast their central identity, because without unions then they have to redistribute entirely through taxes, which presents a bunch of sticky problems. The donors are rich and non-union, so they've stressed those "identity" fringes, which I see as distractions to make it look like they care about people's lives.
That's not flying against the Republican message, which is stop getting in the way, get a better deal in trade, and let 'er rip. Climate change hurts the Dems because, in practice, it makes them favor higher energy prices, which translate to a lower standard of living.
At the more tactical level, ever since World War II with only two exceptions, you could predict the popular vote winner of the November presidential election by comparing the June unemployment rate to the March rate. If it did anything but decline, the incumbent party's nominee lost. The exceptions were 1956 and 2012. There were reasons for those, the first being that the economy was strong even though UE ticked up ever so slightly in the spring of '56, and the second was an artifact of a seasonal adjustment change that invalidated the predictive indicator that year.
My point is this: Yes, we are here because we care about the issues, but any given presidential election will turn on the strength of the economy that spring. The issues and campaigns will determine the victory margin, but not the underlying result. So I, for one, will not predict the '28 outcome until the June unemployment number is released in early July of that year. By the way, no pundit will dare touch the indicator I've mentioned, because then what would they have to talk about?
That’s not an unreasonable thesis, Jim. Being a native Californian who follows developments here closely, Newsom has been an unmitigated disaster for California. But he’s well-funded, good looking and a smooth liar. That goes a long ways these days, regardless of party.
As you say, however, he has to get past Vance. He performed terribly in his debate with Ron DeSantis. But he wants it. He really wants it. We’ll see what happens.
Watch me be flat wrong, not that I ever am, but he sure seems like the easiest choice for the Dems. Other than him, maybe Beshear. I know little about him. I recall the 1992 Democratic primary season. Seven candidates, nicknamed "the seven dwarfs." Clinton emerged, and he was one hell of a good candidate.
One of the great things about this country is how people can emerge out of "nowhere", socially speaking, and become president. It's happened many times, and it's something I've never seen happen in Europe. Clinton is an excellent example, easily the best such example in the 20th century.
I’m a MAGA Dem and I don’t see the Democrats getting back in the White House in my lifetime. What I want to see is a Democrat version of the MAGA agenda. Absent that, I’ll just keep voting for MAGA Republicans. I don’t need a leader to emerge from the Dem cesspool , I need a new party platform. I do agree that the PMS wing (progressivist Marxist socialist) needs their own party and the Marie Gluzencamp Perezes need to be amplified.
I think it looks like a debate. I don’t think the MAGA goals are problematic; we desperately needed them. The debate would improve the strategies needed to achieve the goals and allow us to fine tune the goals. As mentioned in one of the comments, the eagle needs a left wing and a right wing to fly. It is my opinion that we do indeed need to make America great again and make America healthy again. I think having MAGA Dem and MAGA Rep coalitions will be so fruitful and positive. That’s what I’m going to focus on.
Look at what you’re saying. Look at the words you are using. Do you really think someone like Pritzker has any chance of becoming president? Well, he’s “wealthy and can bash character”, you say.
You talk about “those without a college degree” in an implicitly disparaging way, but without saying basket. Minor “visuals” are hyper-important.
The only Dem governor I would even consider voting for is Shapiro, but why would I vote for anyone affiliated with a political party that promotes an open border, child sex mutilation, homelessness (for profit), unlimited abortion, defunding the police, lawfare, slush-funds, and DEI. Why would anyone in their right mind do that?
The democrat party is a very successful political machine, that has lost its way . . . it’s new motto is “f*ck the rules, do whatever it takes to win” . . . and then do whatever you want.
While running for governor, Sharpiro was for school choice. After winning he knelt to the teacher's union and opposed school choice. He is opposed to legislation banning transgender girls and women from participating in women's sports. He again proves that when Dems run as moderates they ALWAYS govern as liberals. Don't fall for it.
If track record matters to voters, then Newsom, Pritzger and Shapiro are going nowhere.
On further reflection, I pondered Clinton’s legacy (a corrupt moderate from Arkansas), Obama’s (a razor thin resume with very progressive tutors) and Biden’s (a lifetime of political mediocrity), and I’m forced to conclude that superior ability is not a prerequisite.
Jump ball!
"it’s new motto is “f*ck the rules, do whatever it takes to win”
This is not its 'new motto', this is the new modus operandi of politics. It is the procedural psychology of both sides of the aisle.
But have a little self-awareness of the two-sidedness of the problem here--the number of rules Congressional Republicans have more or less said 'f*ck it' to is massive.
Let's enumerate a few of the ones they have told to f*ck off, just in the past six months:
-Rules against open bribery arrangements between POTUS and private parties and presidential emoluments (presidential dinners in exchange for investing in the president's memecoin, accepting emoluments from the Qataris, for a start, but it goes waaay deeper: https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2025-trump-family-presidency-wealth/)
-apportionment rules (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment) whereby Congress determines the budget and the spending of the government (these were unilaterally overruled and these powers were put into the hands of an unelected billionaire with massive conflicts of interest in controlling said spending)
-rules whereby state legislatures gets to approve (or reject) the use of federal troops in their state to enforce the law (there was zero opposition by party leadership to the sending of troops into California despite the police chief of LA and the state's governor rejecting the measure)
-First Amendment protections preventing the retaliation of federal officials against press outlets for the content of their speech. (and this is not even counting the lawsuits against press outlets) (https://www.ap.org/media-center/ap-in-the-news/2025/ap-wins-reinstatement-to-white-house-events-after-judge-rules-government-cant-bar-its-journalists/)
-Preventing the DOJ of performing openly retaliatory actions against its critics (https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/09/donald-trump-retribution-miles-taylor-00007512), (https://www.npr.org/2025/08/08/nx-s1-5496351/letitia-james-justice-department-subpoena-trump), (https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/02/politics/jack-smith-office-of-special-counsel-hatch-act)
...it goes on and on. No doubt we could list out all manner of things Democratic leaders have done that seem to be a total flouting of political law and convention, too--but to say this is just a Democratic thing is patent nonsense.
Instead we are watching, in real time, a process of political escalation, whereby each party is driving the other to greater and greater extremes, pushing the boundaries of the rules further, bit by bit, aided by the dominance of powerful demagogues and, most of all, the latent structure of modern information networks.
I was accused by someone else on this site of arguing against a "caricature" of Republicans when I stated a few things that I know many Republicans believe in and suggested (I think accurately) that those were positions of the party. The claim here that Democrats support "open borders, child sex mutilation etc" is completely over the top. DEI is the. only thing on the list that substantial numbers of anyone believes in, and that is probably dead as a result of the Supreme Court decision. The question is how long are Republicans going to be able to get away with attacking straw men while stacking tax and trade policy against the middle class.
I share your unease over many of Trump's economic policies, but you are misinformed about what almost all elected Democrats publicly advocate on several issues. They oppose any meaningful controls on immigration, including ICE actions to remove even criminals from the country; they oppose any laws banning transgender surgeries; they won't change an iota on DEI.
Seems we have a fact problem here. As you know, Obama, Clinton and Biden deported had millions of persons deported. I would call that a meaningful control and it is simply untrue that Democrats favor allowing criminals into the country. They certainly don’t oppose all laws banning transgender and voluntary transgender surgeries are not properly characterized as mutilation and gentle person may differ on when they are appropriate for minors. Personally, I would be pleased to outlaw them completely if I thought that was all it took to get rid of the MAGA movement. On DEI, I think it is on the way out as a result of the recent Supreme Court decision. Unfortunately, cronyism and hiring only sycophants has gotten very popular so we can expect many more unqualified MAGAs to be hired than there ever were DEI hires. So, if your concerns about Democrats were that they favored open border, mutilation and so on, you have no reason not to now focus on other issues.
As time went by Biden deported very few illegal immigrants. It is a matter of fact that he effectively opened the borders wide and invited people in to stay permanenetly. No prominent Democrat has advocated to NOT do that in the future - the far Left base of the party demands open borders.
No prominent elected Democrat has the courage to advocate banning gender change surgeries for minors as the UK is now doing; in the woke world that is transphobic. No prominent elected Democrat has the courage to oppose the DEI extremism that took root under Biden. A large majority of elected Democrats wants to expand the Supreme Court to allow for full-blown left-wing judicial activism that will allow for DEI to come back full force.
I wish these facts were otherwise, but they are the facts no matter how much we disdain Trump.
I believe that you are wrong about Biden deportations. My quick web search said that there were 271,000 deportations in 2024 which was the highest up to that time. It is a matter of myth that Biden opened the borders and invited people to stay here. NO prominent Democrat has advocated open borders. As to banning gender change surgery for minors, I am unsure if that is the proper position or not although I would agree it should be very limited. As I said, though, I would be pleased to toss transsexuals under the bus to have sane environmental and economic policies.
No prominent Democrat has said directly that he/she favors open borders, but ALL of them in effect do, or they are afraid to publicly support restrictions on immigration. Name even one Democrat who publicly says that the Trump policy to seal the southern border has worked and is commendable. Please don't make me die of old age while you try to find such an elected Democrat - they don't exist.
As a Texas resident, can assure the open border was not a myth. 45 minutes out of a major city, in a semi rural area, a year into Biden's term, I was passed by a large sedan doing 100 miles an hour, that came out of nowhere. A few minutes later, a second SUV flew by me. Had I been a kid on a phone, I might very well be dead. That never happened pre open borders.
5 minutes up the road, men in ICE vests were chasing nearly a dozen young men, running thru a field. I have no idea how that many people were packed into a single car. During Biden's term , everyone I knew had a similar experience. Those with relatives, residing at the border, have stories that are similar to a war.
The migrant caused vehicular deaths in Texas are no longer surprising. It is simply a matter of how many bodies. Migrant semi drivers, working illegally, have killed 10 people in 2 fatal mass wrecks, in the last 4 months alone. That does not include the run of mill 2 car fatalities.
Moreover, in the middle of the afternoon, in 100 degree heat along a major 4 lane road, running thru upscale areas, it is no longer unusual to see a women walking with a child, 15 miles from the nearest bus stop. No one exercises with a child in Texas, during a summer afternoon.
A local NGO handed $3 billion dollars, with a "b" to resettle unaccompanied migrant kids had so many claims of sexual abuse it was shut down, virtually, overnight. The kids were handed out without vetting or DNA testing. A 1/2 dozen "executives" earning between $300K-$700K annually, for years, doing the "Lord's Work", took their millions and ran to the next NGO. No one care about the children in this historical mess. If Biden doesn't rot in Hades for what he allowed to happen at the border and to those 300K migrant kids, he should.
It was high because the numbers he was letting was exorbitant. I believe 271,00 is .027 of ten million. Not even in the ball park of impressive. AS for the trans issue, all they ever had to do was not force it on others. Anytime anything is forced on others, they will fight back and harder.
Perception is reality. What a partisan believes is irrelevant. What those they wish to woo to their side is all that should matter. And $20 million doesn't buy that kind of knowledge. Open minds. a tough thing to find on the Dem's side.
How is cutting off a child’s healthy breasts not mutilation? Or giving a child hormones that could cause permanent damage to their health, sterilize them, or make them permanently incapable of having an orgasm?
The fact they had so many deportations is because they had so many that came in illegally. Your argument is disingenuous at best. But mainly worthless since without the context, it appears just another half answer meant to skew the truth.
Look, my point is that there were never “open borders.” I think we’ve had enough back and forth the night and it seems unlikely that we will make much progress. Have a good evening.
How did 10 million plus illegals get into this country with closed borders or even controlled borders?
Didn’t say “democrats” support - said democrat “party” supports. Lots of good democrats still out there - the party is the problem, the cadre / leadership / ideology / activists . . . The Machine.
Is the “party” the problem or is it “the party’s policies”? The last election clearly said, “We aren’t buying what you are selling” but no potential 2028 candidates are successfully changing what is being put on the table.
The question is, why are you concerned about republicans? Can you bring them to your side. Will they help win elections? What do you care. You're targets should be independents and the identity Dem members the party finally drove out. They will make the difference you need to become winners. biden didn't care squat about the middle class. Nothing has changed with the Dems nor does it appear likely to change.
It was obvious to us 2 1/2 years ago.......
Democrats can either
1. boot progressives out of the party, or
2. lose
Nothing has changed.
Perhaps the messenger, will be far less important than the message. Not a single Dem has repudiated any Biden policy, accept to agree it is OK to deport migrant murderers and rapists, after years of due process.
Over the weekend, perennial Dem Golden Boy, Beto O' Rourke promised, using the F word as a noun, a verb, an adjective and an adverb, Dems will immediately grant citizenship to every Dreamer, their parents, and every other migrant working hard in the US, the moment Dems retake power. James Carville, the OG of Dem policy for decades, has lectured Dems, they must immediately bring 2 new Blue states into the Union, and pack SCOTUS, when retaking all 3 branches of government.
Not a single Dem has mentioned tossing a trillion dollars at Green corps, most of which will never survive without mass and permanent subsidy, might require reevaluation. Nor has anyone mentioned the Biden term ended with a full quarter of the US enrolled in Medicaid, for the first time in US history.
Public schools failing 2/3rds of students do not seem to be a priority. Likewise, hospitals are going to great lengths to explain they are suspending child sex change programs, not ending them. Seemingly on advice, the moment Dems regain power, the child mutilations will resume.
Reps are lousy enough at messaging, perhaps they will fail to convey the above. If they happen to crack the code, it would seem of somewhat limited importance if the next Dem Presidential contender is simply a younger, more lucid version of Biden, with the same far Left polices.
More than just "freely debating the party’s top priorities and errors" -- although that should be standard political boilerplate for a party hamstrung by rudderless smugness and grave missteps -- Democrats need to open their 2026 and 2028 primaries to the widest participation of candidates in the hope of finding and defining a new, better (ie. more popular mainstream) way.
If that way fails to bring some real enlightenment and redirection, rising above the entrenched if stale competition of geriatric status quo hangers-on and an embarrassingly naive, woke, identity politics progressive far Left, then further losses or even insufficient gains in 2026 and 2028 should send a serious political party into a deeper dive for sustainable answers, or put it out of its misdirected misery altogether and wait out an entirely new start.
The latter proving that there really is no fixing irrelevant stupidity.
At this remove, it is hard to remember that Obama coined the phrase "bitter clingers" to describe working class supporters of Hillary in the PA primary. Those voters, now Trump supporters, made it their own on their way to the exits. That sort of smugness still permeates the Democratic party.
I've read a lot of pieces about why the Democrats have lost support, and like this one, I agree with most of them. But they've all missed an important point: the Dems have created a cult-like religion that I call Inclusivism, and it has overwhelmed them. They can't see past it any more than could most followers of Jim Jones or Heaven's Gate.
Inclusivism's core beliefs include DEI, gender ideology, open borders, and unrestricted globalism (which is to say, giving away our manufacturing expertise to China). For a while, "Joe Biden is as sharp as a tack!" was part of the believer's mantra, along with
* The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination!
* Trans women ARE women!
* No person is illegal!
* Vote for Harris to save Democracy!
That last one replaced the Biden mantra, and no one in the cult appeared to see the irony in the claim that a candidate who had never even competed in a single primary was somehow carrying the torch of Democracy. Don't know about others out there, but I was certainly on the receiving end of some righteous anger when I tried to point that out. I've been told that I'm stupid more than once.
Inclusivism's core beliefs are sacred. Deviate from any of them, and you become a heretic, as Dean Phillips discovered.
Members of the cult include the party leadership, rank and file elected members, and much of the base. Trying to point out that some of its beliefs harm its members and others is about as easy as convincing your neighbors that none of their prophet's predictions about the impending Apocalypse have come true, that maybe the world will make it past April 23, 2018, too, and that maybe you should re-think selling everything you own so you can travel and spread the word.
Once people get emotionally and mentally invested in that kind of mindset, it's very difficult to rescue them. This is, unfortunately, a known part of human psychology. It's called belief perseverance.
Watch Megyn Kelly's interview with Ro Khanna last year (link below). She made irrefutable arguments against puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, and Khanna didn't flinch. He showed all of the classic signs of someone who digs deeper into an absurd idea in the face of undeniable arguments against it. But he was being "kind," in that he didn't call her names or get angry.
As is known outside the cult, "kindness" is a core practice of Inclusivism. It requires that members stomp all over anyone who disagrees, while screeching about how concerned they are for the underprivileged. Ergo, drugs and double mastectomies for 14-year-old "trans" girls are kind, while saying, "Hey, I'm not so sure about that..." is being insensitive, exclusive, and cruel.
This is why the endless op-eds, books, interviews, maybe even electoral losses won't change anything. Either a new messiah with a new message appears from the wilderness, or this stuff will continue until a new party emerges. As a former Democrat, I weep for what I see.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADN71U7UR3U
Thanks for the link. Ro wants to find common ground for sterilizing children? That's a no.
The conclusion that should be made from this analysis is that a moderately liberal Democrat could be elected in President in 2028. That is, someone who would shore up the safety net and end the Trump excesses in policy and personal behavior.
But a moderate liberal/centrist can't get nominated in the current Democratic party. The far Left will show up at 90+% rates in the 2028 primaries, while the actual majority of more moderate voters will show up at way lower rates, hence the far Left guy gets the nomination. And if the Marxist nut gets elected Mayor of NYC then the public image of the Democratic party will sink even lower.
Trump's excesses and personal behavior are ending in the WH in 2028. That is not up for debate.
Dems are so consumed with hating the man, they give no thought to Trump not surviving his term or simply fading away to his golf courses, after 2028. The man is nearly 80 years old, and not a small person. A neighbor in his age group and of similar build, often remarks Trump is already in the bonus round, and people are like dogs, the big ones have shorter lifespans.
That is not wishing for anyone's demise, but it would seem Dems consumed with Trump for a decade, might want to give some thought to what happens the day after Trump is no longer, personally, effecting politics.
If the game plan is simply to revert to trillions chasing green fantasies, open borders, mass naturalization and resumption of child social engineering in schools, athletic fields and operating rooms, Dems may find Trump has not been their real problem, after all.
Just imagine what happens if Trump resigns in the fall of '27 on health grounds and makes Vance the acting president and endorses his '28 candidacy. It would be God's own masterstroke. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be the Democrats. In general, I think the Dems have VASTLY underestimated Vance's intelligence and appeal. He will be a formidable candidate even if the economy's not on his side.
Shore up the safety net? Approximately 40% of Americans are on Medicaid or Medicare and we spend over $1T in welfare programs. How much more should the safety net be shored up, and where will the money come from?
Where will the money come from? Do you have a job? Then, you.
We need to significantly increase taxes for everyone making over $100k, weighted toward the higher earners. That is the only thing that is going to save our economy from the debt spiral we are sinking into. There is no way we can get that money from spending cuts without decimating our country.
Justin’s analysis seems spot on to me. But he gingerly steps around the far-left progressives who dominate the party’s street activism and fundraising. Their end game is not a broad Democratic coalition. It is complete domination of American politics. Just as they rant and scream about Trump and Republicans today, they will cast aside all moderate Democrats when they are no longer needed. A quick review of how Lenin and his small fringe group consolidated power in post-czarist Russia is their playbook.
Oh, calm down. Of course they want "complete domination of American politics." Both sides do, and the system's structure keeps it from happening. Thanks much, Founding Fathers. You really were geniuses. Lenin? Blah blah blah. Come on, make sense. You sound like Cleon Skousen. Look him up. LOL
" strong leadership that might also resonate with Trump-leaning audiences, it is demonstrated by ... former administration officials such as Lina Khan, who served as Biden’s razor-sharp FTC chair but has never held elected office."
If you really and truly believe Lina Khan was a razor-sharp FTC chair whose strong leadership resonates with Trump-leaning audiences, you haven't been paying attention at all. Now I must question the rest of the article too.
In the past the "far left" referred to a focus on the economic issues of the working class. Now the "far left" refers to the issues of identity politics. No wonder that Democrats have lost the non college voter.
"... Dan Osborn, the Nebraska independent, generating more grassroots excitement than the current crop of Democratic honchos..." Democrats in Nebraska aren't even running a candidate; they endorsed Osborn. He's not generating any grassroots excitement, according to Open Secrets he was primarily being financed by out of state Democrats when he tried to unseat Deb Fischer: 5.3% in-state donations vs. 94.7% out-of-state donations.
The party can’t “reinvent itself as the champion of the American dream and workers’ rights” as long as it remains just as dependent as the GOP on high-dollar campaign donors. This dilemma leaves Dems with only populist sloganeering (“socialism”) and silly cultural radicalism as ways to simulate being the party of the downtrodden.
Until we fix campaign finance we can’t fix either party. www.savedemocracyinamerica.org
Trump has proven that it is possible to win while being massively outspent. It isn't so much that pols need the megadonors, it is that they think they do.
Good point but also beside the point. Yes, having the most money doesn’t guarantee victory. But without a lot of money your campaign isn’t viable. Besides, Trump and allied independent groups raised almost $1 billion. He didn’t just imagine that he needed campaign cash. Thanks for commenting.
The Democrats will remain in the wilderness until they stop looking for the “next Barack Obama”, whose hard left turn in his second term broke the coalition and start looking for the next Bill Clinton. Even Clinton didn’t fully pivot to the broadly popular centrist policies he campaigned on until he got smacked back by the GOP taking over the House in 94.
The blue collar voters the Democrats need to win back want good paying jobs not government handouts and only favor the latter as a short term hand-up for Americans who have fallen on hard times due to no fault of their own.
The Dems problem is that the ones who now publicly speak for the Dems most often are those who attack Trump. It failed in 2024 and it will fail again. Until you muzzle these folks, you stand no chance. Actually Kathy Hochul is the worse. She has watched far too many Eastwood spaghetti westerns and tough cop shows. She's gone beyond entertaining to ridiculous. Do Dems actually believe the narrative of redistricting that the Dems put forward? Why do your leaders assume independents and those who left the Dem party, to be blunt, are as stupid as the stupid narratives they put out? At this time, every play to the base is a play against any not under the small Dem tent.
You mention credit card debt. Credit card debt and personal debt hit all time highs under biden. I believe Independents have figured out such truths and to not address them will not bring enough of them to the Dem to win elections.
There is no time left to sway voters to the Dem side. Heck there is no Dem side. Any failure of Trump can be seen in the biden administration and most time to a worse degree. All I really want to see from any Dem at this time, is one who never mentions Trump name.
In the next Presidential election, Democrats won't have Trump to run against. They will anyway. Not a winning program.
Trump won’t matter by then because the Dems will still have nothing to offer than fear politics and lies. That works for the base but not for the ones who the Dems need to vote for them. e.g. independents.
Trump won't matter, but the Democrats will spend valuable time and money waving the bloody shirt and claiming that every Republican is but a Trump avatar.
I've become so disaffected by the Dems that it's easy to count them out, but that would be a mistake. The parties have a way of reviving themselves, and then there are events. Never forget that shit happens. Good example would be that the Dems won the presidency in 1976 after disastrous conventions in '68 and '72. Thanks, Watergate. Talk about your shit happening, and talk about how utterly brainless and unnecessary all of that one was. But shit happens. And the Republicans won in '68 after Goldwater in '64. Thanks, Vietnam and Chicago.
I'm not seeing prominent, viable Dems right now. Whitmer and Ossof? Weak, IMO. Shapiro? Good luck holding the party together with a Jewish nominee. Beshear? Why? Winning the governorship in a red state? Not enough, IMO.
I think the Democrats will pick Newsom. Speaks volumes that he's actually their safe choice, but that's (weirdly) what he is. I don't see anyone else having the recognition or the presence. My basic view is that the direction of the economy in early '28 will determine the winner, as it has in every presidential election since World War II. So even though I think Newsom is a slug, I don't count him out now and will not until July of '28. Then there's the margin. If the economy is strong that spring, I think Vance will beat Newsom quite handily. If the economy isn't strong, I think Newsom beats Vance by a whisker. Not because I'd want him to, but because that's how it has worked for what will be 80 years in 2028.
Past all of that, I'm not seeing the Democrats carve an actual identity as a party. They don't have a central identity now, which is why all those unpopular "progressive" talismans are defining them in the public mind. They are at a really low ebb in that sense. What are they for? Not some consultant-driven ad campaign ("messaging"), but the real thing. That's their big problem, IMO.
Wes Moore vetoing the MD legislature’s reparations bill a few months back was the first sign I’ve seen of a Democrat who understands what it will take to win a national election. After Biden’s bait and switch it going to take multiple “Sister Soulja moments” on steroids for the public to buy it.
I think the Democratic Party does have a national identity. It’s just that it’s the “luxury beliefs” of the faculty lounge and Davos Man rather than the common sense of your average working stiff.
Additionally while I generally agree that the economy trumps all (pun intended), with the leftists coming after people’s kids I think cultural issues are capable of overriding a bad but not horrible economy. Especially if the Republican nominee is smart enough to acknowledge it and propose a course correction.
I agree with much of that, and am a bit contradictory too. I mean here we are on a website talking about issues. They matter to me, and to you, and to everyone here. I think the Dems are so lacking in a central identity that the conglomeration of those fringe issues has come to substitute for a central identity.
To me, that central identity is how best to deal with the economy. The Dems have always until recently stood for economic growth and redistribution to some extent, while the Republicans have stood (and still do) stand for the idea that if government backs off on regulation and redistribution, the economy will do well enough that the rising tide will lift all boats.
Now that private sector unions are all but dead, the Democrats have really struggled to recast their central identity, because without unions then they have to redistribute entirely through taxes, which presents a bunch of sticky problems. The donors are rich and non-union, so they've stressed those "identity" fringes, which I see as distractions to make it look like they care about people's lives.
That's not flying against the Republican message, which is stop getting in the way, get a better deal in trade, and let 'er rip. Climate change hurts the Dems because, in practice, it makes them favor higher energy prices, which translate to a lower standard of living.
At the more tactical level, ever since World War II with only two exceptions, you could predict the popular vote winner of the November presidential election by comparing the June unemployment rate to the March rate. If it did anything but decline, the incumbent party's nominee lost. The exceptions were 1956 and 2012. There were reasons for those, the first being that the economy was strong even though UE ticked up ever so slightly in the spring of '56, and the second was an artifact of a seasonal adjustment change that invalidated the predictive indicator that year.
My point is this: Yes, we are here because we care about the issues, but any given presidential election will turn on the strength of the economy that spring. The issues and campaigns will determine the victory margin, but not the underlying result. So I, for one, will not predict the '28 outcome until the June unemployment number is released in early July of that year. By the way, no pundit will dare touch the indicator I've mentioned, because then what would they have to talk about?
That’s not an unreasonable thesis, Jim. Being a native Californian who follows developments here closely, Newsom has been an unmitigated disaster for California. But he’s well-funded, good looking and a smooth liar. That goes a long ways these days, regardless of party.
As you say, however, he has to get past Vance. He performed terribly in his debate with Ron DeSantis. But he wants it. He really wants it. We’ll see what happens.
Watch me be flat wrong, not that I ever am, but he sure seems like the easiest choice for the Dems. Other than him, maybe Beshear. I know little about him. I recall the 1992 Democratic primary season. Seven candidates, nicknamed "the seven dwarfs." Clinton emerged, and he was one hell of a good candidate.
One of the great things about this country is how people can emerge out of "nowhere", socially speaking, and become president. It's happened many times, and it's something I've never seen happen in Europe. Clinton is an excellent example, easily the best such example in the 20th century.
I’m a MAGA Dem and I don’t see the Democrats getting back in the White House in my lifetime. What I want to see is a Democrat version of the MAGA agenda. Absent that, I’ll just keep voting for MAGA Republicans. I don’t need a leader to emerge from the Dem cesspool , I need a new party platform. I do agree that the PMS wing (progressivist Marxist socialist) needs their own party and the Marie Gluzencamp Perezes need to be amplified.
"What I want to see is a Democrat version of the MAGA agenda."
What would this look like to you on various specific issues?
I think it looks like a debate. I don’t think the MAGA goals are problematic; we desperately needed them. The debate would improve the strategies needed to achieve the goals and allow us to fine tune the goals. As mentioned in one of the comments, the eagle needs a left wing and a right wing to fly. It is my opinion that we do indeed need to make America great again and make America healthy again. I think having MAGA Dem and MAGA Rep coalitions will be so fruitful and positive. That’s what I’m going to focus on.