Peter Rothpletz on Dems finally learning to use their leverage, Marjorie Taylor Greene showering Nancy Pelosi with praise, OpenAI's latest crisis, and 'Sandwich Guy' prevailing in court.
I agree with your point in ‘Democrats Finally Escape the Wilderness’, but I do have a problem with the implication that they should run anyone who can win. Does this mean that the failed party should stand for nothing and just include those who seem likely winners?
In this election, the winners mostly stood up for the working class & an end to kowtowing to the oligarchs, and convinced voters they had integrity. This is a far cry from a campaign where the only goal is winning. A ‘winning’ strategy early in the race probably would have argued against Momdani and several other Tuesday winners.
So I think your overall idea is very good, but I think the way you worded the fifth paragraph seems to describe an undesirable approach based on election odds and not on principles. Isn’t that what caused the Dems’ problem?
Also, we need to break the 2-party duopoly. That will, I believe, require widespread adoption of ranked choice voting. (And, where applicable, proportional representation.)
Great job,Peter! Thank you, Zeteo!
Thank you, Margie!
So great Peter!
Thank you!!
The demands for exiting shut down needs to increase now to protect healthcare and the republic:
-Eliminate All ICE and concentration camp funding, all $170B. Stop the Gestapo and Concentration camps now.
I agree with your point in ‘Democrats Finally Escape the Wilderness’, but I do have a problem with the implication that they should run anyone who can win. Does this mean that the failed party should stand for nothing and just include those who seem likely winners?
In this election, the winners mostly stood up for the working class & an end to kowtowing to the oligarchs, and convinced voters they had integrity. This is a far cry from a campaign where the only goal is winning. A ‘winning’ strategy early in the race probably would have argued against Momdani and several other Tuesday winners.
So I think your overall idea is very good, but I think the way you worded the fifth paragraph seems to describe an undesirable approach based on election odds and not on principles. Isn’t that what caused the Dems’ problem?
Also, we need to break the 2-party duopoly. That will, I believe, require widespread adoption of ranked choice voting. (And, where applicable, proportional representation.)
All the Democratic wins in 2025 can only mean one thing - the GOP cannot afford to permit elections in 2026.