On a more serious note, it's kind of depressing how everyone is using the other party's insanity as a reason to keep racing to the bottom instead of taking the opportunity to get the normie centrists by acting like responsible adults.
I am convinced that if either party could put together a slate of candidates running on "keep the crazies, criminals, AND cops in check" while shutting up about social issues they would run away with the midterms.
There is a zero percent chance a third party would win. Assuming the trajectory of this administration holds, AOC would win easily by virtue of being the Democratic candidate.
I doubt that. She underperforms in her own district. You don’t even need to make an attack ad. Just play videos from her public instagram.
Run Rubio, she loses. Vance? Closer, but my money is the VP. She’s not very bright. She has some charisma, but I think it would wear thin quickly on the national stage, especially as she opens her mouth.
She just won 88% of the vote in her primary without actively campaigning. That’s almost 20 pts better than Torres did in his.
As for Rubio, if you can’t figure out how to tie the Secretary of State to one of the greatest foreign policy disasters of the last 50 years, then idk what to tell you. Ditto Vance since he’s spearheaded the failed peace deals. Neither is a viable candidate in 2028 save for a truly awful Democratic general election campaign.
Look at the turnout- about 40k people voted. She had one competitive race in her career, in which the incumbent didn’t even really campaign. It’s a deep blue district.
Winning against the 4th ranking Democrat in the House and machine boss of his district is impressive no matter which way you spin it.
Furthermore, plenty of viable national candidates haven’t run in competitive races or have underperformed. Joe Biden’s only competitive race before 2020 was almost 50 years prior. When Kamala Harris ran for Attorney General in California, she won by less than 1 pt, underperforming Obama by 24 pts.
It's conceivable. Say it's AOC/Newsome vs. Vance/Noem, and something happens that convinces Josh Shapiro and Marco Rubio to do a third-party run a la Ross Perot. What I could honestly see happening is that the (Shapiro/Rubio? Rubio/Shapiro?) ticket would end up getting a plurality of votes, but it would be because they'd be in second place in most of the states. (And I'd probably vote that ticket.)
However, in the event that the above scenario took place, the question would be if the centrist ticket actually A. managed to get any electoral votes and B. managed to take enough electoral votes to deny both AOC and Vance a majority. If they did, the election would go to the House, and then things would get *extremely* complicated, because we haven't had a situation like that since 1824.
Right, and besides everything else, I think the reveal of Bryon's busty bedroom antics is going to make her an unappealing running mate. Maybe if she gets divorced? 😬
As a leftie, I don't like Josh Shapiro for a. variety of reasons but Josh Shapiro is not going to team up with a pro-Trump Republican simply because AOC is the nominee. Actual Democratic voters and Democratic politicians like AOC.
Yes, the 40% of the electorate that will always vote Democrat love AOC, and the 5% that will almost always vote Democrat can live with her. The question is whether a majority of the persuadable middle 10% can.
Sure, 'is AOC as viable Presidential contender' is a perfectly fine question to ask.
'AOC as a nominee will make Josh Shapiro or somebody of similar heft (ie. an elected statewide Democrat) to run w/ a pro-Trump Republican as a "centrist" option is insanity.
If it didn't happen in 2016 when Trump hadn't taken over the GOP completely and Hillary was Hillary, it's not happening in 2028.
This was the thesis of Bret Weinstein in 2020 with the Articles of Unity. The best candidates he could get were Dan Crenshaw and Tulsi Gabbard. They were going to share the presidency and switch positions halfway through the term, but sadly they started campaigning too late to get on the ballot anywhere.
AOC has a +70 approval rating among Democrats - 2nd only to Kamala among active politicians. The 'AOC is too left-wing to be the Democratic nominee' lane is limited to old Gen X centrist dudes in urban areas freaked out by left-wing urban politics who make money via Substack and that's about it.
This is not the era of normie centrists. Where has normie centrism gotten us? Just look at our crumbling systems - all of them. That's the problem. Every reasonable person knows our country is in decline, but no one knows how to right the ship. The crazies have a certain appeal, if only because their crazy ideas are not "normie." Hope springs eternal and even normal people know that the status quo isn't working. The dem socialists will accelerate the decline and probably take us to a much darker place. Maybe that's where we need to go to get some clarity.
The thing is, we haven't been doing "normie centrism." If you asked the median American voter about crime, immigration, economics, or almost any other hot-button topic, you would find that we're not following their policy preferences.
You're right, hence my comment. So why are increasing numbers of "median American voters" voting progressive? I'm on the west coast, where once beautiful cities like Portland and Seattle have experienced unimaginable blight as a result of progressive thinking. Yet people here are proud of their leftist credentials and are not even embarrassed about the rotten conditions. Everything abnormal is the new normal for them, and they expect everyone else to fall into line.
Sure, moderate American voters are concerned about the kitchen table issues you mention. But are they concerned enough to start a movement? No. Because they can't articulate any bigger vision than just doing a little bit better on those kitchen table issues. And mediocre "moderate" politicians play right into this. If asked anything challenging, how often do you hear them deflect to "Well, what the American people really care about is the cost of groceries/gas/taxes, etc." Small ideas, even if centrist, are not going to save the Titanic. At some level a lot of people understand this, even if only intuitively.
Which more or less makes the point: if one of the smartest and funniest voices on the right is salivating at this, *just maybe* it wasn’t such a terrific idea?
David Wallace: Which makes me wonder if the report from "Letters from an American" two days ago about Republican dark money funding Lefty Loons was worse than I thought.....
A party that nominates a bunch of genocidal antisemites is a party made up of genocidal antisemites. And the rest deserve to get all the shit they're gonna get because of it.
I'd really love to just not have so many New York politicians with important Democratic party roles. It means that we spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about weird dynamics of the New York democrats, who are genuinely very strange and not all that relevant to other national politics. These are people running in districts that are so uncompetitive that they have forgotten who the real enemy is (the Republicans) since they never have to actually face a serious challenge from them.
Additionally it would be nice if the media wasn't so obsessed with New York generally, but I know that's not going to happen.
This is an opportunity for normie Democrats to distinguish themselves from normie Republicans by repudiating their crazies. It could end up being a good look, kind of like how sitting Democrat senators are giving all these non-endorsements of Platner.
What sort of combination of drugs, whether they are provided by a doctor or some plug, gets you to Darializa's mental state? I want to visit her personal pharmaceutical Utopia where prisons don't exist because murderers don't exist because exploitation doesn't exist because Israel doesn't exist.
On the other hand, it's a content generator for Rob Henderson, who will be able to write an article on Luxury Beliefs every single day for two years. (I like Rob's writing, but I feel like his breakthrough phrase is becoming kinda like Antonio Banderas in the 1990s. At first exciting but then showing up everywhere, whether it fits or not.)
I don’t know, I’ll happily support Lander any day compared to last night’s other 2. I can’t defend the rhetoric he used to attack Goldman, seemed very slimy, but at least he has actual legislative experience, 95% agreeable policy positions, and comes off like a regular, well-adjusted (if opportunistic) human being who wants what’s best for the country. The bar’s low, but still.
Also, apparently the mayor’s wife endorsed the other two yesterday and conveniently left him out. Wonder why - seems like a real head-scratcher.
The Tea Party's craziest standard-bearers had a habit of blowing winnable elections. These people are going to actually go to Congress, which is much, much worse.
The issue is that DSA is running major cities in the US - Seattle, Portland’s city council, NYC, LA on the way, and it is making the general party pick up on their antisemitic kook ideas. This is what the party wanted, the Hasan Pikers and Darializa and that Jews into concentration camps lady in Texas - no longer one-offs, right? This is who Ezra Klein and our buddy Favreau are raising as moral leadership in the party.
The Democrats are the Antizionist Socialist party, and Anzis are the same dog shit as Nazis.
Democrats better learn the lessons of the Labour Party in Britain. It went hard left, identitarian, kept nominating Jeremy Corbyn, and kept losing to the Tories, no matter how evil and incompetent they proved themselves.
On the bright side: Darializa should be good for at least two columns a month for the next two years. Think of the exciting new colors and dimensions her craziness can acquire when she enters the national stage!
To follow the Cassandryanna vibe: Lander is such a negative-charisma opportunist that I think he’ll stop screaming “AIPAC / GENOCIDE” and disappear into the woodwork the minute he gets to Washington. I don’t know what to say about Valdez other than she’s not psychotic. As for Chevalier, I wonder if Mamdani himself might be telling her “ixnay on the zycray” as she embarks on her new career.
As for AOC, I keep thinking that she will try to unseat / succeed Sen. Schumer, or that she will even try to climb the ladder in the House (on her good days, she’s a canny politician). But even without her hat in the ring for the 2028 Presidential nomination, I agree that the race could be very messy, with candidates tripping over each other to take the wackiest positions.
"As for Chevalier, I wonder if Mamdani himself might be telling her “ixnay on the zycray” as she embarks on her new career."
He could have also just, you know, not endorsed her. But no, he pushed the no prisons or borders candidate to victory, some random moderate Dems in competitive seats will lose because of the party's association with her, and neither he nor she will pay any political price for this.
On a more serious note, it's kind of depressing how everyone is using the other party's insanity as a reason to keep racing to the bottom instead of taking the opportunity to get the normie centrists by acting like responsible adults.
I am convinced that if either party could put together a slate of candidates running on "keep the crazies, criminals, AND cops in check" while shutting up about social issues they would run away with the midterms.
I agree. I also think if ‘28 ends up being, say, AOC vs. Vance, a third party, centrist candidate could conceivably win.
Jeff: Call me a deluded optimist but 2028 is a long way off. Things will happen we can't fathom. Keep your eye on the dark money.....
There is a zero percent chance a third party would win. Assuming the trajectory of this administration holds, AOC would win easily by virtue of being the Democratic candidate.
I doubt that. She underperforms in her own district. You don’t even need to make an attack ad. Just play videos from her public instagram.
Run Rubio, she loses. Vance? Closer, but my money is the VP. She’s not very bright. She has some charisma, but I think it would wear thin quickly on the national stage, especially as she opens her mouth.
She just won 88% of the vote in her primary without actively campaigning. That’s almost 20 pts better than Torres did in his.
As for Rubio, if you can’t figure out how to tie the Secretary of State to one of the greatest foreign policy disasters of the last 50 years, then idk what to tell you. Ditto Vance since he’s spearheaded the failed peace deals. Neither is a viable candidate in 2028 save for a truly awful Democratic general election campaign.
Look at the turnout- about 40k people voted. She had one competitive race in her career, in which the incumbent didn’t even really campaign. It’s a deep blue district.
Winning against the 4th ranking Democrat in the House and machine boss of his district is impressive no matter which way you spin it.
Furthermore, plenty of viable national candidates haven’t run in competitive races or have underperformed. Joe Biden’s only competitive race before 2020 was almost 50 years prior. When Kamala Harris ran for Attorney General in California, she won by less than 1 pt, underperforming Obama by 24 pts.
It's conceivable. Say it's AOC/Newsome vs. Vance/Noem, and something happens that convinces Josh Shapiro and Marco Rubio to do a third-party run a la Ross Perot. What I could honestly see happening is that the (Shapiro/Rubio? Rubio/Shapiro?) ticket would end up getting a plurality of votes, but it would be because they'd be in second place in most of the states. (And I'd probably vote that ticket.)
However, in the event that the above scenario took place, the question would be if the centrist ticket actually A. managed to get any electoral votes and B. managed to take enough electoral votes to deny both AOC and Vance a majority. If they did, the election would go to the House, and then things would get *extremely* complicated, because we haven't had a situation like that since 1824.
Why on earth would Vance run with Kristi Noem? She’s a completely discredited loser to the MAGA base.
Right, and besides everything else, I think the reveal of Bryon's busty bedroom antics is going to make her an unappealing running mate. Maybe if she gets divorced? 😬
Would you have another suggestion for a potential running mate? Greg Abbott perhaps?
I saw someone somewhere suggest that he'd run with Erika Kirk, which honestly feels like a pretty believable outcome
If he were to pick a different woman, maybe Sarah Huckabee Sanders or Katie Britt?
As a leftie, I don't like Josh Shapiro for a. variety of reasons but Josh Shapiro is not going to team up with a pro-Trump Republican simply because AOC is the nominee. Actual Democratic voters and Democratic politicians like AOC.
Yes, the 40% of the electorate that will always vote Democrat love AOC, and the 5% that will almost always vote Democrat can live with her. The question is whether a majority of the persuadable middle 10% can.
Sure, 'is AOC as viable Presidential contender' is a perfectly fine question to ask.
'AOC as a nominee will make Josh Shapiro or somebody of similar heft (ie. an elected statewide Democrat) to run w/ a pro-Trump Republican as a "centrist" option is insanity.
If it didn't happen in 2016 when Trump hadn't taken over the GOP completely and Hillary was Hillary, it's not happening in 2028.
This was the thesis of Bret Weinstein in 2020 with the Articles of Unity. The best candidates he could get were Dan Crenshaw and Tulsi Gabbard. They were going to share the presidency and switch positions halfway through the term, but sadly they started campaigning too late to get on the ballot anywhere.
AOC has a +70 approval rating among Democrats - 2nd only to Kamala among active politicians. The 'AOC is too left-wing to be the Democratic nominee' lane is limited to old Gen X centrist dudes in urban areas freaked out by left-wing urban politics who make money via Substack and that's about it.
The country desperately needs at least one sane party, otherwise the race to the bottom will continue.
Also, the parties are incredibly weak. Even decently powerful parties would have prevented these nutjobs from being in the race.
Structural problems. The primary system really hamstrings the parties.
This is not the era of normie centrists. Where has normie centrism gotten us? Just look at our crumbling systems - all of them. That's the problem. Every reasonable person knows our country is in decline, but no one knows how to right the ship. The crazies have a certain appeal, if only because their crazy ideas are not "normie." Hope springs eternal and even normal people know that the status quo isn't working. The dem socialists will accelerate the decline and probably take us to a much darker place. Maybe that's where we need to go to get some clarity.
The thing is, we haven't been doing "normie centrism." If you asked the median American voter about crime, immigration, economics, or almost any other hot-button topic, you would find that we're not following their policy preferences.
You're right, hence my comment. So why are increasing numbers of "median American voters" voting progressive? I'm on the west coast, where once beautiful cities like Portland and Seattle have experienced unimaginable blight as a result of progressive thinking. Yet people here are proud of their leftist credentials and are not even embarrassed about the rotten conditions. Everything abnormal is the new normal for them, and they expect everyone else to fall into line.
Sure, moderate American voters are concerned about the kitchen table issues you mention. But are they concerned enough to start a movement? No. Because they can't articulate any bigger vision than just doing a little bit better on those kitchen table issues. And mediocre "moderate" politicians play right into this. If asked anything challenging, how often do you hear them deflect to "Well, what the American people really care about is the cost of groceries/gas/taxes, etc." Small ideas, even if centrist, are not going to save the Titanic. At some level a lot of people understand this, even if only intuitively.
Oh Darializa, my sweet Muse of fully automated luxury communism, I shall write many an ode to your insanity over the coming years.
Which more or less makes the point: if one of the smartest and funniest voices on the right is salivating at this, *just maybe* it wasn’t such a terrific idea?
David Wallace: Which makes me wonder if the report from "Letters from an American" two days ago about Republican dark money funding Lefty Loons was worse than I thought.....
But that would imply that internecine conflict within Democratic Party ranks somehow benefits Republicans!
I enjoy a good Pounce as much as any other Republican. But I can't help feeling that these people are taking all the sport out of it.
It's like fishing with dynamite.
I’m here for that
Congratulations to New York on a proper, prompt counting of votes. Yeah, I'm talking to you California. Everyone but you does it!
A party that nominates a bunch of genocidal antisemites is a party made up of genocidal antisemites. And the rest deserve to get all the shit they're gonna get because of it.
1. This really made me laugh: " and to use DNA technology to clone Ramesses II and have him put the Israelites back to work".
2. It has been a really irritating day on my group chat with my progressive UMC NYC friends.
and to use DNA technology to clone Ramesses II and have him put the Israelites back to work".
Yeah, that was actually a really good reference. Lots of layers.
"my progressive UMC NYC friends."
If you have a groupchat that's all United Methodists from New York, there is no need to add "progressive" as a modifier.
I think UMC may have been a financial signifier, not a religious one.
I'd really love to just not have so many New York politicians with important Democratic party roles. It means that we spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about weird dynamics of the New York democrats, who are genuinely very strange and not all that relevant to other national politics. These are people running in districts that are so uncompetitive that they have forgotten who the real enemy is (the Republicans) since they never have to actually face a serious challenge from them.
Additionally it would be nice if the media wasn't so obsessed with New York generally, but I know that's not going to happen.
This is an opportunity for normie Democrats to distinguish themselves from normie Republicans by repudiating their crazies. It could end up being a good look, kind of like how sitting Democrat senators are giving all these non-endorsements of Platner.
Agree, here's hoping for a Sister Souljah moment . . . yes I am old.
What sort of combination of drugs, whether they are provided by a doctor or some plug, gets you to Darializa's mental state? I want to visit her personal pharmaceutical Utopia where prisons don't exist because murderers don't exist because exploitation doesn't exist because Israel doesn't exist.
First, we get Trump as an existential threat, and now this loon wants in on the action...
On the other hand, it's a content generator for Rob Henderson, who will be able to write an article on Luxury Beliefs every single day for two years. (I like Rob's writing, but I feel like his breakthrough phrase is becoming kinda like Antonio Banderas in the 1990s. At first exciting but then showing up everywhere, whether it fits or not.)
Most embarrassed for Brad Lander.
I don’t know, I’ll happily support Lander any day compared to last night’s other 2. I can’t defend the rhetoric he used to attack Goldman, seemed very slimy, but at least he has actual legislative experience, 95% agreeable policy positions, and comes off like a regular, well-adjusted (if opportunistic) human being who wants what’s best for the country. The bar’s low, but still.
Also, apparently the mayor’s wife endorsed the other two yesterday and conveniently left him out. Wonder why - seems like a real head-scratcher.
Embarrassed for him as a fellow Jew.
Well, I'm with you there...
Zeke: A point in his favor right there.....
Why? He made his choices.
Darializa, et. al. are going to be to the Democratic Party what Christine O'Donnell and Todd Akin were to the GOP during the Tea Party years
The Tea Party's craziest standard-bearers had a habit of blowing winnable elections. These people are going to actually go to Congress, which is much, much worse.
Todd Akin was a congressman for 10 years. He didn’t blow a winnable election until he decided to run for the Senate.
Correct. Democrats are about 10-12 years behind Republicans on the crazy scale.
The issue is that DSA is running major cities in the US - Seattle, Portland’s city council, NYC, LA on the way, and it is making the general party pick up on their antisemitic kook ideas. This is what the party wanted, the Hasan Pikers and Darializa and that Jews into concentration camps lady in Texas - no longer one-offs, right? This is who Ezra Klein and our buddy Favreau are raising as moral leadership in the party.
The Democrats are the Antizionist Socialist party, and Anzis are the same dog shit as Nazis.
I'd still vote for AOC over JD Vance and most likely Rubio, but I'd be so smug after she loses.
I was just saying this!
Democrats better learn the lessons of the Labour Party in Britain. It went hard left, identitarian, kept nominating Jeremy Corbyn, and kept losing to the Tories, no matter how evil and incompetent they proved themselves.
On the bright side: Darializa should be good for at least two columns a month for the next two years. Think of the exciting new colors and dimensions her craziness can acquire when she enters the national stage!
To follow the Cassandryanna vibe: Lander is such a negative-charisma opportunist that I think he’ll stop screaming “AIPAC / GENOCIDE” and disappear into the woodwork the minute he gets to Washington. I don’t know what to say about Valdez other than she’s not psychotic. As for Chevalier, I wonder if Mamdani himself might be telling her “ixnay on the zycray” as she embarks on her new career.
As for AOC, I keep thinking that she will try to unseat / succeed Sen. Schumer, or that she will even try to climb the ladder in the House (on her good days, she’s a canny politician). But even without her hat in the ring for the 2028 Presidential nomination, I agree that the race could be very messy, with candidates tripping over each other to take the wackiest positions.
Lander committed to supporting Hakeem Jeffries for speaker this morning and the DSA types are already furious.
"As for Chevalier, I wonder if Mamdani himself might be telling her “ixnay on the zycray” as she embarks on her new career."
He could have also just, you know, not endorsed her. But no, he pushed the no prisons or borders candidate to victory, some random moderate Dems in competitive seats will lose because of the party's association with her, and neither he nor she will pay any political price for this.