All posts tagged "democratic party"

Dems must avoid 'great temptation' of one topic in midterms run-up: analysis

The Democratic Party has been urged by a commentator to avoid the obvious issue in the lead up to the midterm elections.

Though the party would be right to highlight the economic shortcomings of Donald Trump's administration, Amanda Marcotte believes Dem representatives must pick up on a fresh approach. Writing in Salon, Marcotte suggested the party must fight fire with fire and step up to the wild momentum set by the president and his administration.

Marcotte wrote, "There is a great temptation, as happens so often in politics, to fight the last war.

"Working under the assumption that because voters said they voted for Trump in 2024 because of the economy, too many strategists still seem to ignore the fact that the country had just gone through unprecedented national trauma with the Covid-19 pandemic and, like virtually every country in the world, reacted by tossing out incumbents.

"It’s not that people weren’t reeling from the economic upheaval; they were also reeling from five years of death, disruption and despair. It was never just about the eggs."

Though Marcotte notes they are valid topics, the Democratic Party must move the conversation along, the columnist notes, by stepping up to the plate.

She added, "However Democratic congressional candidates ultimately decide to approach this, they simply cannot behave as if we are living through a time of politics as usual.

"A Republican majority that is allowing Trump to use tariffs as a weapon that hurts average Americans, occupy American cities with paramilitary forces, brutalize immigrants, depose foreign leaders, threaten allies, blackmail law firms and universities, defund science and education, and essentially tear up the Constitution, all in order to appease a tyrant, is simply not something they can ignore. Democrats can’t pretend the only thing that matters is the economy."

Democratic Party wins in the lead-up to the midterms could come through Trump himself, too, with the president making contact with longstanding political rivals.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Chuck Schumer have both been in touch with the president, who, Politico reports, reached out to the leading Dem representatives earlier this week. It may mean a mood change in the White House as one official suggested there is a consensus that could be reached between Dems and the Republican Party on housing and drug prices.

Alex Gangitano wrote, "For a president who wants his party to retain control of Congress, it’s a striking – even unexpected – level of outreach to some of the most liberal members on the opposing side. It comes as both parties compete for the mantle of affordability."

'Striking': Shock as Trump makes 'unexpected' phone call to work with longtime rival

Democratic Party Senators confirmed they had heard from Donald Trump, who had surprisingly reached out to party members to discuss the affordability crisis.

Part of the reason for Trump reaching out to Schumer and Warren, the latter saying she "did not recognize the phone number" when the president called, could be to make headway before the midterms.

An anonymous White House official said, "A lot of these proposals have, in part, been put forward by Democrats." They went on to suggest the affordability actions Trump had been in contact with Dem reps about were "more populist-inflected than some of the more classic proposals that had been worked on."

They also noted "pretty marquee issues where the perspective of more standard old-school Republican orthodoxy is not necessarily in step with where Republican voters are" could be worked on between Dems and the GOP.

"Some of these are issues where the Washington GOP consensus and the GOP base consensus are divergent," the source added.

Gangitano added, "While Trump’s outreach is new, enacting policy changes would require a dramatic reversal in the president’s ability to work with Democrats on Capitol Hill.

"During much of his first term as well as last year, that relationship has been deeply toxic — a government funding meeting last year prompted Trump to post a deepfake of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries in a sombrero — and, until now, neither side has shown any appetite to make amends."

But Trump's sudden call to Warren to ask about capping credit card interest rates, a project Warren had been working on for years, is a shift in the Dems' favor. Warren added, "Congress can pass legislation to cap credit card rates if he [Trump] will actually fight for it."

'Going on offense': Dems to make one issue key focus ahead of midterms

The Democratic Party is set to hone in on one message in particular ahead of the midterms this year.

Party insiders believe the affordability crisis across the country will hit best with voters, and representatives are already shifting the conversation to the cost-of-living crisis. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer confirmed affordability will be the main focus of the Democratic Party this election cycle in a statement to Politico.

He said, "Americans are fed up with Republicans’ failure to lower costs, and Democrats are going on offense. Costs will be our number one focus this year as we will stand up for hardworking Americans and fight back against Republicans’ price-spiking policies."

A Blue Rose memo which has taken into account the Democratic Party's performance in the 2024 elections notes there needs to be a "genuine persuasion of swing voters" in key states should gains be made in 2026.

It reads, "Overall, Democratic gains were particularly strong in areas that had swung away from the party in 2024." There was also a note on the "largest rebounds" being in states which the party lost in both 2020 and 2024.

The memo adds that "genuine persuasion of swing voters in addition to an enthusiastic, motivated base. Counties where Democrats lost ground between 2020 and 2024 showed the largest rebounds in 2025."

Schumer's hopes for the midterms come just a few days after Trump joked about cancelling the elections.

Speaking before Republican lawmakers at the Kennedy Center on the fifth anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol, Trump griped about facing Democrats at all, The Daily Beast reported. He then casually suggested the nuclear option.

“I won’t say cancel the election, they should cancel the election because the fake news will say ‘he wants the elections canceled. He’s a dictator.’ They always call me a dictator,” a grinning Trump said.

“But even if it’s successful, they don’t win. I don’t know what it is. There’s something psychological, like you vote against. But they say that when you win he presidency, you lose the midterm."

Dem reps hit out at 'mother-murdering thugs' and prep bill to strip ICE immunity

Democratic Party representatives are preparing a bill to strip ICE agent immunity, making convictions easier in future.

Congressman Eric Swalwell and congressman Dan Goldman confirmed they would work on a bill to prevent "mother-murdering thugs" from continuing with their controversial immigration order. Speaking to The New Republic, Swalwell denounced Donald Trump and the ICE agents' aims.

He said, "Donald Trump has sent these mother-murdering thugs into our community. And of course this is what was gonna happen because it started with putting ICE in the streets and then deporting a six-year-old, stage 4 cancer victim, U.S. citizen, dragging women by their hair. Those apparently were the lucky ones when you look at what happened to Ms. Good."

Renee Good was shot dead by ICE agents earlier this week in Minneapolis. A separate incident in Portland saw two people hospitalized after being shot by Border Patrol representatives.

Swalwell and Goldman believe restrictions currently in place make it hard for courts of law to take action against ICE agents. The bill has since been explained by Goldman, with the hope being it would be "difficult" for an ICE agent to use "subjective" arguments.

Goldman explained, "Yeah, well, basically what the officer is going to say would be that, I personally, subjectively, myself believed that she was driving her car right at me and using her car to try to run me over, and therefore I had to shoot her in self-defense."

"And because the standard is subjective and it allows for the officer’s own view to carry a lot of weight, it will be very difficult for him to be prosecuted with the current status of qualified immunity.

So what this bill does is only for civil enforcement officers—not criminal enforcement officers who are dealing with real bad guys, not moms driving cars it—would say that it’s an objective test."

"And if you are acting completely outside of your duties and responsibilities, you don’t have immunity from a civil lawsuit and you don’t have a defense from a criminal charge."

Part of the bill would remove the protection against lawsuits from victims who allege their constitutional rights were violated by an agent. Swalwell added, "It’s very hard today with qualified immunity to bring a civil action against somebody who has that immunity."

"We see these guys as acting as if they’re invincible, they’re untouchable—that they can drag women by their hair, throw them in vans that are unidentified, and now shoot them three times in the face and nothing will happen to them."

"So yes, civilly, this puts them into a place where they can be liable. And criminally, it knocks out a defense that they would otherwise enjoy, which would make a prosecutor think twice as they try and put forward a case that they’d have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt."

Dems must 'push back hard' on one Trump change set to dominate 2026: expert

The Democratic Party must "push back hard" against a prevailing narrative that Donald Trump could make the focus of 2026, a political analyst has warned.

Chauncey DeVega believes the Republican Party has controlled the narrative on "moral" outrage and that shifting this in favor of the Dems must be a priority this year. Writing in Salon, DeVega suggested, "Today’s Democrats and the mainstream liberals and progressives have surrendered the moral language — if not the entire moral front in the larger political battlefield — to the right-wing."

"To save themselves, as well as America’s multiracial, pluralistic democracy, they must push back hard. Technocratic arguments about public policy will not do this work."

DeVega went on to suggest the party and its commentators are currently "babbling" and need to hone in on tougher, moral language to counter the frequency of Trump's statements.

She added, "Currently, Democrats and the broader pro-democracy movement lack fluency in moral language; they are mostly babbling. This year and beyond, they need to quickly learn to speak moral language fluently — and with conviction."

That "conviction" is necessary, she argues, because of how "MAGA's most loyal supporters" view the Democratic and Republican parties. DeVega suggests there is a "designated enemies" image the Dems must overwhelm this year.

She wrote, "The Age of Trump and American neofascism have been greatly empowered by this framing, where Democrats, liberals, progressives and other designated enemies are not just to be disagreed with but are instead deemed to be evil, demonic and the poison in the blood of the nation."

Part of the "moral" take would be to "defend democracy", with the columnist suggesting the "moral contract" of democracy is at risk under Trump's administration.

"Democracy is not just a noun; it is something we do," DeVega wrote. "When we defend democracy, we are taking moral action. We must remember: Democracy is a moral contract. Despite historical flaws in practice, it rests on the foundational claim that individuals have the right to choose their government and hold it accountable."

Expert advises lawmakers against talking to Trump’s 'vindictive' FBI

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe urged Democratic lawmakers to be careful if they decide to talk to members of Trump’s politicized FBI this week.

CNN reported the FBI is taking the “highly unusual step” of seeking to interview six Democrats that appeared in a recent public service announcement reminding military personnel to disregard illegal orders. This decision comes on the heels of Trump’s Pentagon seeking to reduce the military rank and pension pay of Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz) for his participation in the same video.

What the FBI has issued is simply a request to sit down and provide information, and lawmakers are well within their rights to decline that request. But McCabe suggested declining the request to be the safest option.

“We don't have any indication that there's a subpoena or some sort of legal process that would compel them to sit down and provide testimony. … But I would add that in the current climate, what this administration has done in several of these vindictive sort of retribution-flavored investigations is go after people for things they said during testimony or interviews,” said McCabe. “The case against [former FBI Director Jim Comey is a perfect example.”

“So, if you're a member of Congress and you're thinking about sitting down with the FBI to explain why they're wrong about looking into this, you have to be really careful, because if you say something that can then later be characterized as a misstatement or an intentional misstatement, you could be charged with lying to a federal official,” McCabe said. “So, it's really very shaky ground here. And they should be very careful about.”

McCabe added that one of the FBI’s “most basic policies” is that “you never initiate an investigation or any investigative activity based solely on the expression of First Amendment protected speech.”

“And that is clearly what we have here, McCabe told CNN anchor Kate Bolduan. “This is a group of political people, a senator and five congressmen, talking about politics and encouraging other people to obey the law. You may not agree with their sentiment. You may think they should have minded their own business, or what have you, but that is nothing other than First Amendment-protected speech.”

Additionally, he said that what the lawmakers said was likely also covered by Congress's “Speech and Debate clause,” which protects members of Congress from any sort of repercussions, including criminal prosecution or investigation for things that they say and do in the course of their legislative duties.

But this does not mean a retaliatory and politicized FBI can’t try to embroil lawmakers in charges of lying to or misleading agents during routine interviews.

- YouTube youtu.be

I've seen the future of the Democratic Party — it isn't in the political center

The only upside to living through this dark time is it pushes us to rethink and perhaps totally remake things we once thought immutable.

Like the Democratic Party.

In case you hadn’t noticed, the current Democratic Party is dysfunctional if not dead.

Better dysfunctional than a fascist cult like the Trump Republican Party. But if there was ever a time when America needed a strong, vibrant Democratic Party, it’s now. And we don’t have one.

The brightest light in the Democratic Party is Zohran Mamdani, the 34-year-old member of the New York State Assembly who has a good chance of being elected the next mayor of New York City when New Yorkers go to the polls a week from Tuesday.

Mamdani is talking about what matters to most voters — the cost living. He says New York should be affordable to everyone.

He’s addressing the problems New Yorkers discuss over their kitchen tables. He’s not debating “Trumpism” or “capitalism” or “Democratic socialism.” He’s not offering a typical Democratic “10-point plan” with refundable tax credits that no one understands.

He’s proposing a few easy-to-understand things — free buses, free childcare, a four-year rent freeze for some two million residents, and a $30 minimum wage. He’s aiming to do what Franklin D. Roosevelt did in the 1930s: fix it.

You may not agree with all his proposals (I don’t) but they’re understandable. And if they don’t work, I expect that, like FDR, he’ll try something else.

The clincher for me is he’s inspiring a new generation of young people. He’s got them excited about politics. (My 17-year-old granddaughter is spending her weekends knocking on doors for him, as are her friends.)

Name a Republican politician who’s inspiring young people. Hell, I have a hard time coming up with a Republican politician since Teddy Roosevelt who has inspired young people.

You don’t have to reach too far back in history to find Democratic politicians who have inspired young people. Bernie Sanders (technically an Independent) and AOC. Barack Obama. (I was inspired in my youth by Bobby Kennedy — the real Bobby Kennedy — and Sen. Eugene McCarthy.)

And Zohran.

What do all of them have in common? They’re authentic. They’re passionate. They care about real people. They want to make America fairer. They advocate practical solutions that people can understand.

Nonetheless, Mamdani is horrifying the leaders of the Democratic Party. Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries haven’t endorsed him. Hillary Clinton has endorsed Andrew Cuomo, who’s spending what are likely to be the last days of his political career indulging in the kind of racist, Islamophobic attacks we’d expect from Trump.

Meanwhile, the editorial board of the New York Times counsels “moderation,” urging Democratic candidates to move to the “center.” Tell me: Where’s the center between democracy and fascism, and why would anyone want to go there?

In truth, the Times’s so-called “moderate center” is code for corporate Democrats using gobs of money to pursue culturally-conservative “swing” voters — which is what the Democratic Party has been doing for decades.

This is part of the reason America got Donald Trump. Corporate Democrats took the Party’s away from its real mission — to lift up the working class and lower middle class, and help the poor. Instead, they pushed for globalization, privatization, and the deregulation of Wall Street. They became Republican-Lite.

In 2016 and again in 2024, working and lower-middle class voters saw this and opted for a squalid real estate developer who at least sounded like he was on their side. He wasn’t and still isn’t — he’s on the side of the billionaires to whom he gave two whopping tax cuts. But if the choice is between someone who sounds like he’s on your side and someone who sounds like a traditional politician, guess who wins?

Trump also fed voters red-meat cultural populism — blaming their problems on immigrants, Latinos, Black people, transgender people, bureaucrats, and “coastal elites.” Democrats gave voters incomprehensible 10-point plans.

The Times tries to buttress its argument that Democrats should move to the “center” by citing Democrats who won election last year in places Trump also won.

But that argument is bunk. Democrats won in these places by imitating Trump. One mocked the term “Latinx” and was hawkish on immigration. Two wanted to crack down harder on illegal immigration. Two others emphasized crime and public safety. Another bragged about taking on federal bureaucrats.

This isn’t the way forward for Democrats. Red-meat cultural populism doesn’t fill hungry bellies or pay impatient landlords or help with utility bills.

Mamdani poses a particular threat to New York’s corporate Democrats because he wants to tax the wealthy to pay for his plan to make New York more affordable to people who aren’t wealthy.

He aims to generate $9 billion in new tax revenue by raising taxes on the city’s wealthiest residents and businesses. He’s calling for a 2 percent tax on incomes over $1 million, which would produce $4 billion in tax revenue. He wants to increase the state’s corporate tax rate to 11.5 percent to match New Jersey’s, generating about $5 billion annually.

He’s right. The wealthy have never been as wealthy as they are now, while the tax rate they pay hasn’t been as low in living memory.

Inequalities of income and wealth are at record levels. A handful of billionaires now control almost every facet of the United States government and the U.S. economy.

Even as the stock market continues to hit new highs, working class and lower middle class families across America are getting shafted. Wages are nearly stagnant, prices are rising. Monopolies control food processing, housing, technology, oil and gas.

The time is made for the Democrats. If the Party stands for anything, it should be the growing needs of bottom 90 percent — for affordable groceries, housing, and childcare. For higher wages and better working conditions. For paid family leave. For busting up monopolies that keep prices high. For making it easier to form and join labor unions.

Pay for this by raising taxes on the wealthy. Get big money out of politics.

This dark time should wake us up to the bankruptcy of the corporate Democratic Party.

It should mark the birth of the people’s Democratic Party. Zohran and others like him are its future.

Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/.
Robert Reich's new memoir, Coming Up Short, can be found wherever you buy books. You can also support local bookstores nationally by ordering the book at bookshop.org.

Our parties are dying — here's why it's worse news for Dems

American political parties are in disarray. Instead of being the engines that organize and drive our politics, their roles have been supplanted by partisan social media influencers, nonprofit political groups, super PACs, and the billionaires who fund them and consultant groups they hire.

A few generations ago, it was the political parties that organized politics. In many communities, there was an organic connection between the parties and their members. The parties provided structure and access and some benefits to those who belonged to and participated in their work.

That is no longer the case for most Americans. Today, the parties have become “brands” to which voters are asked to identify, and fundraising vehicles raising money for party operations and the consultant groups who now provide the “services” message testing, voter data files, advertising, and communications.

In other words, the connection between most voters and political parties is largely limited to a loose identification with the brand and to being on lists for fundraising emails, text messages, social media posts, or robocalls asking for money or votes. While these efforts do raise some funds, the amounts pale in comparison to the hundreds of millions contributed by billionaire donors who fill the coffers of the parties and the increasingly powerful liberal or conservative “unaffiliated” interest groups and political action committees.

It has been reported that in the 2024 presidential contest, one of these liberal independent committees raised and spent almost as much as the Kamala Harris campaign (about a billion dollars) on messaging that was sometimes at cross-purposes with the campaign they were supposedly backing. Republican independent expenditure groups did much the same, with one spending a quarter of a billion dollars targeting Arab and Jewish voters with disinformation mailings and ads designed to suppress their votes. In the end, the billions spent by the campaigns and the independent groups deluged voters with messages and counter-messages, causing confusion and alienation.

Even when the parties provided funding to consultants to make personal contact with voters by hiring canvassers to go door-to-door or phone banks to call voter lists, the efforts were perfunctory and unconvincing because the canvassers or callers had no organic ties to the voters they were engaging. This is in marked contrast to decades ago, when the canvassers and callers were local elected party captains engaging their neighbors with whom they had personal ties.

This lack of organic connection with voters, the weakness of the party infrastructures, and the barrage of television, social media, and other forms of digital messaging are some of the reasons why party identification is at an all-time low, with 43% of Americans now identifying as independent, and Republicans and Democrats tied at 27% each.

The parties have also lost their role in governing their electoral operations to the billionaires and interest groups. Look at the role they played in defeating congressional Democratic incumbents in the last election or how billionaire donors are stepping over the will of Democratic voters in New York City’s upcoming mayoral race.

During the primary contest, these interests spent $30 million in advertising to smear and defeat a progressive candidate, Zohran Mamdani. Now, despite Mamdani’s decisive win as the Democratic Party candidate, the same billionaires have pooled their money to support an independent in the November election.

To date, Democratic officials haven’t criticized this move. The party has a rule stipulating that consultants who work against Democratic voter-endorsed incumbents or candidates will not be eligible for party-funded contracts. This sanction has not been applied to those groups that accepted contracts to defeat pro-Palestinian incumbent congressional Democrats, a clear demonstration of the “official” party’s weakness in the face of billionaire spending.

After Democrats lost 1,200 federal and state legislative seats during the Obama era and suffered defeats in two of the last three presidential elections, I was initially optimistic to see two New York Times headlines last week, one of which read, “Democrats Are Mulling a 2026 Campaign Pivot: ‘We Need to Rethink Things.’”

It appears that autopsies are being conducted to understand why Democrats are losing. After reading the piece, however, it became clear that some of the groups conducting the autopsies are the very independent expenditure-funded consultants that are the source of the problem. Their solution: better message testing, better use of social media and digital messaging, etc. In other words, pay us more and we’ll dig the hole deeper. No lessons learned.

What needs to happen and is still not on the agenda is for the parties to reform and reconnect with and earn the trust of voters by rebuilding their state and local infrastructures. There is a push in that direction being made in the Democratic Party by some of its newly elected leaders. Spurred on by party reformers, they have greatly increased the funds being given to state parties, reducing the amounts sent to outside consultants. But as long as the billionaire-funded groups remain the dominant players in the political process, the Democratic reformers will continue to face an uphill battle to wrest back control over elections and party affairs.

Meanwhile, the Republican side appears to be a lost cause. President Donald Trump and his cult-like MAGA movement have been able to take advantage of the weakness of their party’s organization, forcing it to submit and transforming it into a wholly owned Trump subsidiary.

Republicans who opposed Trump’s conquest have either been demeaned and silenced or drifted away to form PACs that have focused their resources on “anti-Trump” advertising campaigns, which, while celebrated by some Democrats, have had no impact on rebuilding the Republican Party.

The bottom line is that American politics has become less a battle between two competing organized political parties and more a contest between billionaire-funded entities waging virtual campaigns attempting to lure voters to endorse their “brands.” Until a significant effort is made to regulate the corrosive role of big money in politics, this will continue as will voter disaffection and alienation.

Dr. James J. Zogby is the author of Arab Voices (2010) and the founder and president of the Arab American Institute (AAI). Dr. Zogby has also been personally active in U.S. politics for many years; in 1984 and 1988 he served as Deputy Campaign manager and Senior Advisor to the Jesse Jackson Presidential campaign. In 2000, 2008, and 2016 he served as an advisor to the Gore, Obama, and Sanders presidential campaigns.

This trust-buster is tearing apart the DNC. Bring it on.

Political activist David Hogg is facing a pretty clear conflict of interest. He’s part of a grassroots organization that will try primarying Democrats out of office in the coming congressional elections. He’s also the vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee. The DNC does many things, but unseating its own people isn’t one of them.

But I think this conflict is beside the point. What David Hogg brings is something that few others bring to the party, which is an unwavering demand for competition. If the DNC is a trust, Hogg is a trust-buster.

That’s such a big problem that DNC chairman Ken Martin is now proposing a rule change that would force Hogg to quit the DNC or quit Leaders We Deserve, the group that has pledged $20 million to challenging "out-of-touch, ineffective" Democratic incumbents.

It’s a microcosm of larger issues that Stephen Robinson has been writing about. He publishes a newsletter called The Play Typer Guy. In this interview, we talked about Hogg, the debate over “oligarchy,” coalition-building and how the Democrats, if they win the House next year, are going to be “expected to draw some form of political blood.”

JS: David Hogg wants to primary incumbent Democrats. He's also vice chair of the DNC. An apparent conflict. But the point is that he's generating energy inside the party. Given your critique of the Democrats, that would probably be a good thing in your view, right?

SR: The DNC should arguably exist to provide accountability for Democrats, not simply protect the weakest and sometimes outright antagonist members. I think back to Kyrsten Sinema, and how she took an immediately hostile approach to the party. She was building a brand as a "maverick" while distancing herself from the party.

That's only possible in a scenario where the party accepts this treatment. Worse, in Sinema's case, no matter how bad she got, the party never took a position against her. Even when she was no longer a Democrat, the party was hesitant to support [now US Senator] Ruben Gallego over her. She had to literally drop out. That just seems sadly passive-aggressive. Democrats need to change the system.

JS: So even if it's correct to say that Hogg is conflicted, he's still bringing competition to the internal functioning of a party that is very much not interested in competition. Is that fair?

SR: Yes, as I mentioned in my own piece, safe districts need competition the most, because otherwise, there is no actual "election." They can stay in office forever without ever engaging with the voters or adapting to new conditions, which is even more critical today.

JS: Where do you stand on the debate over using the word "oligarchy"? Some say normal people get it. Others say it's too academic.

SR: I'm writing something about this as well! A point I make is that Trump frequently called Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Democrats "Marxists," which is hardly a third-grade reading level concept.

I recall [US Senator] Marco Rubio back in 2021 saying, “‘social justice’ and ‘wokeness’ are just nice names for cultural Marxism, which teaches our children to hate our American history and sow division.” Notice what Rubio does: He acknowledges that “social justice” and “wokeness” sound like good things! So he directly associates it with something bad. He then clearly defines cultural Marxism on his terms. Three years later, your Fox News-watching grandmother who never attended college was reflexively calling Harris a “Marxist.”

Elissa Slotkin definitely stepped on a rake when she said that people didn't understand what “oligarchy” means. In a reality where people are "doing their own research" about diseases on Google, it's obviously not wise to suggest that the average voter doesn't understand a concept that you do. I think it's fine and reasonable to say that a term is silly and even offensive, like Ruben Gallego has remarked about "Latinx." But it's never a good idea to suggest that voters are idiots.

JS: A concern I have heard from Black liberals is that the oligarchy angle writes their interests and history out of the story. Think Bernie Sanders, who says the Democrats should ditch "identity politics" in favor of attacking billionaires. What do you think?

SR: I think Black liberals aren't a monolith. The danger is that the most vocal Black liberals within the Democratic Party are – like myself! – college-educated mainstream middle-aged and older liberals who have reliably voted Democratic for decades. The party's obvious problem is with younger voters of all ages, but specifically Black and Latino men.

I don't think "identity politics" is a winning issue. I think mainstream Democrats perhaps wrongly elevated it in 2016 to distinguish themselves from Sanders' more class-based appeals. That was a mistake. And I'm not even sure how the "oligarchy angle" writes out the interests and history of Black people, considering that rich people screwing over the poor is the backbone of slavery and segregation.

But viewing minority interests as different from working-class people regardless of race is perhaps another mistake. I don't see why you wouldn't want the angle that impacts the greatest number of people. Black voters are 12 percent of the electorate. Voters without a college degree are the majority of the electorate. Elon Musk screwing the poor and working class, regardless of race, is a unifying issue. I disagree with any liberal who argues for dividing a potential winning coalition.

JS: There are stirrings of impeachment. Some say the last two backfired and made Trump stronger. I'm guessing you have an opinion about that.

SR: That argument reflects a core weakness within the Democratic Party. Speaking from my arts background, it's like saying 20 years ago that previous attempts at making Marvel-related movies had failed. Why bother trying again? Execution is everything. Democrats didn't necessarily have a strategy for holding Republicans accountable for supporting Trump. They didn't strike while the iron was truly hot during the second impeachment in deference to Republicans and let him rebuild while in exile -- an issue directly linked to [former US Attorney General] Merrick Garland's delay in prosecuting Trump.

The past is somewhat irrelevant, also, because if Democrats regain the House in 2026, it won't be like 2018. They will be expected to draw some form of political blood.

ALSO READ: ‘Pain. Grief. Anger’: Families heartbroken as Trump backlash smashes adoption dreams

Inside the Democratic National Convention corporate interest moneyfest

CHICAGO — In ballrooms, barrooms and backrooms this week, the business of big business is getting done with Democrats out of public view.

Yes, Bernie Sanders on Tuesday railed before Democratic National Convention delegates about how “millionaires and billionaires” should “not be able to buy elections.” And sure, curtailing “the corrupting influence of money in politics” is a plank in the 2024 Democratic Party platform.

But most Democrats in Chicago are ignoring the socialist senator and stepping over and around that party plank while pursuing cash that corporations and moneyed special interests are all too keen to contribute.

Foremost, there are those who are asking for money.

Take the California Democratic Party, the home state party committee of 2024 presidential nominee Kamala Harris.

For $250,000, a corporation, union, trade association or individual can this week claim a “California gold” sponsorship that entitles the giver to a bevy of benefits, according to a brochure obtained by Raw Story.

Among the perks: membership on the party’s finance committee, "private VIP receptions," eligibility for “special” convention credentials, “priority” lodging and the “opportunity to include items in California delegates' tote bags." One's corporate or organization logo will be “displayed at the California Bash” — a tony party on Aug. 21 at the House of Blues Chicago — and “all four California Delegate breakfasts.”

The Texas Democratic Party similarly offers a $50,000 “Longhorn” package.

In part, it buys a taker “recognition as a title sponsor at our delegation breakfasts & Texas reception,” “one suite in our room block (4 nights)” and “4 guest passes for all Texas delegation breakfasts” and “2 VIP passes to the States Party with access to the Foundation Lounge,” according to a party document appropriately titled “sponsorship opportunities for the 2024 Texas Delegation.”

The Maryland Democratic Party features a $75,000 “Chairman’s Sponsor” package.

For that price, you’ll get “recognition in the Maryland Delegation Hotel and at all 14 Maryland Celebration events” along with a host of other items and honorifics.

And the National Democratic Institute, a nonprofit organization led by former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), is promoting its “exclusive landmark event space” to “network with global political leaders” and “400 high-level guests” to “build relationships as they address pressing challenges to democracy,” according to an invitation obtained by Raw Story.

Sponsorships of the National Democratic Institute’s week of Democratic National Convention-themed events in Chicago begin at $10,000 and top out at $250,000 — with a top-tier sponsorship landing the “presenting sponsor” a veritable public relations campaign, ranging from “inclusion of corporate materials at events and in registration packets” to an “invitation to meet Senator Tom Daschle and other high-level leaders.”

Sponsors from past Democratic National Conventions include Facebook, Visa, AT&T, oil company Chevron and pharmaceutical company Amgen, according to the invitation.

Raw Story reviews of more than 20 other convention-themed invitations from political committees, political consulting firms, state delegations and politically focused nonprofits yielded similar offers.

Sunlight dims

Democrats don’t want to talk about this lesser-known side of their national convention, where all manner of special interests have a standing invitation to shmooze with party brass and tour the party’s inner sanctum — for a price.

Officials for the California, Texas and Maryland Democratic committees did not respond to multiple emails and phone calls from Raw Story. Nor did officials from the Democratic National Committee.

Why such secrecy?

Accepting big money is inconvenient for Democrats, who have rhetorically railed against the era of unlimited election spending by corporate, union and certain nonprofit interests, which the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission animated.

But just as it does for Republicans, big money keeps Democratic committees competitive in the age of permanent political campaigns. It fuels politicians’ ambitions and helps keep them in power.

Where exactly this Democratic National Convention-adjacent money goes after everyone leaves Chicago often depends on the individual campaign finance laws of each state. It might end up in a federal, or state or ballot measure account. Maybe all of the above. Or somewhere else entirely.

Some of this money will be publicly disclosed, eventually, just as the Democratic National Convention and its host committee must disclose its funders, eventually.

However, some of the money — particularly if it comes from a politically active nonprofit group that may legally avoid disclosing its own funding sources — will remain unknown to average Americans, just beyond the “dark money” realm’s event horizon.

Since the high court’s seminal decision, Democratic leaders have often argued that they cannot “unilaterally disarm” and simply let Republicans bludgeon them with fat stacks of corporate cash. So they’d play the game in hopes of ending the game.

Advocates for good government are decidedly unimpressed at what they consider pay-to-play political ickiness.

"Sponsorship and events funded by corporate interests during both major political party conventions is yet another way that industry is able to peddle influence and overshadow the voices of real people,” said Donald K. Sherman, executive director and chief counsel of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

“Until Congress actually attempts to do something about this, the conventions will remain the same,” said Jessica Tillipman, associate dean for government procurement law at The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. “I don't see either party willing to step up and take measures to reduce influence peddling if they are not required to do so.

The givers

At most, Democrats’ approach to political money is of academic concern to the givers who, for a relative pittance, snag something far more precious than their five- or six-figure contribution: access.

Proximity to power, while never a panacea, is nevertheless a ticket to emails answered, phone calls returned, meetings scheduled and honored. It’s a tool for favorable regulations and prod for advantageous legislation. In a pinch, it’s a weapon against naysayers.

Invest a little now, get a lot later. Make friends, influence people, plan for a rainy day when the government seems more against you than with you.

Raw Story contacted more than 40 corporations and trade associations that, according to federal data compiled by nonpartisan research organization OpenSecrets, spent at least $1 million on federal-level lobbying efforts last year or are on pace to do so this year,

The vast majority of them did not respond to multiple requests for comment on whether they, in any form or fashion, supported the 2024 Republican or Democratic national conventions, or sponsored any political committee, state delegation or policy organization participating in convention festivities.

Chicagoland-based corporate giants McDonald’s Corporation and Allstate Insurance Company had nothing to say. Nor did Microsoft, Boeing, Pfizer, Apple, Comcast, Visa, Verizon, CVS, UPS, FedEx, Honeywell, The Walt Disney Company, Salesforce, TikTok, defense contractor RTX and Facebook parent Meta.

ExxonMobil co-sponsored a Democratic National Convention side event staged by Punchbowl News — one disrupted by climate activists. (The oil giant did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)

“We don’t have any comment,” said Megan Ketterer, a spokesperson for AT&T, whose logo could be found on kiosks, credential lanyards and signage in and around the Democratic National Convention.

ALSO READ: ‘Absolutely essential’: Son of Oath Keeper Stewart Rhodes is all in for Kamala Harris

Lockheed Martin responded to a Raw Story inquiry that included several detailed questions about the defense contractor’s participation in the 2024 convention.

Sort of.

A company spokesman, who declined to be named, first had questions for Raw Story: How many companies and special interest groups did Raw Story contact? Which ones? Did they respond?

In the end, Lockheed declined to answer most of Raw Story’s questions and emailed a statement: “We plan to attend both the Democratic and Republican conventions as part of our long-standing approach of non-partisan political engagement in support of our business interests.”

Raw Story persisted: “Are you able to offer any specifics on how you plan to support your business interests at the conventions? How much money does Lockheed Martin plan to spend between the two 2024 national party conventions?”

“We don’t have anything else to share,” the spokesman replied.

Chicago-based United Airlines — namesake of the United Center, where the Democratic National Convention is being conducted — said in a statement that the company “supported both the Milwaukee and Chicago Host committees” and increased the number of flights between Washington, D.C., and the two 2024 national convention cities.

Asked for additional details, United demurred: “We won’t have any further information to share.”

Similarly, a Google spokesperson, who declined to be named, noted that the company did not donate to either the Democratic or Republican convention committee, but helped “both the Republican and Democratic committees livestream their conventions on YouTube – like we have in previous elections.”

The Google spokesperson declined to comment on support Google did or did not offer state delegations, political committees and the like in conjunction with the Democratic or Republican national conventions.

A Walmart spokesperson said the company didn’t donate to either the Democratic or Republican convention funds but declined to comment further.

Some of the nation’s top lobbying forces were a bit more forthcoming.

“GM will sponsor the Democratic National Convention,” General Motors spokesperson Liz Winter confirmed. “We have supported both conventions for many years and aim to provide equivalent support to both the RNC and DNC. Through continuous bipartisan engagement with organizations like the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee, we have an opportunity to build an understanding of the issues important to our industry, our people and the communities we support.”

She added: “Our presence at the conventions does not represent an endorsement of a candidate.”

A few said they simply sat the 2024 national political conventions out.

Wells Fargo “did not contribute to either convention,” bank spokesman Robert Sumner said, adding, “no events, either.”

“We have not contributed for activities at the political conventions,” said Brian Dietz, spokesperson for trade group NCTA – The Internet & Television Association.

The National Federation of Independent Business has “not contributed any money / sponsorships or in-kind contributions to either the RNC or DNC conventions,” spokesperson Jon Thompson wrote in an email.

But the party never ends

When the Democratic National Convention ends Thursday night, and the final Democratic revelers stagger back to their downtown Chicago hotel rooms, there will have been hundreds of individual events and opportunities for wealthy special interests to leave their mark.

To take one: Invariant, a government relations and communications firm that lists Home Depot, H&R Block, Toyota, Marriott International and Cigna among its clients, hosted an “exclusive brat brunch” on Tuesday attended by “media personalities, influencers, administration honchos, Members of Congress, campaign staff diehards, and your friends at Invariant," according to an invitation shared with Raw Story.

Among those personally invited: Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), per an invitation.

It’s unclear whether the congresswoman attended. But as Politico would report afterward, a roster of other federal lawmakers sure did, mingling with lobbyists and activists and lots of folks with political agendas.

Invariant did not return requests for comment. But based on a question it poses on its website to potential clients, the event appeared to accomplish the firm’s mission.

“There are only two questions when it comes to lobbying,” Invariant posits. “Do you want to find Washington, or do you want Washington to find you?”