I have absolutely no idea what it is you're trying to do here with this column except to scold people who are doing the best they can in turbulent political times.
The column writer is attempting to point out where democrats have gone wrong in terms of reaching out to the rest of the country. This is constructive criticism - not 😂 “scolding”.
I’m a liberal Californian, but the take on Newsom is spot-on. He’s a beneficiary of the state’s Dem dominance and a protege of Nancy Pelosi. He followed on the heels of a strong predecessor, Jerry Brown, and made a number of big promises. His delivery has been underwhelming and he’s shown all the principles of a typical political wind vane. But one thing he does have is great hair, which is exactly why he will make a great candidate for Century 21’s next presidential comedy fest.
Someone better. Early in his first term he came out for halting the bullet train. I thought that was a good move, since even by then it amounted to an embarrassing fiasco and was nowhere close to completion. But he had to backpedal almost immediately, because, as it turned out, halting it would put the state on the hook for repayment of billions in federal grant$. If he’d done any homework on the issue he could’ve avoided looking foolish on that one. Later, during Covid-quarantime, he admonished Californians to wear masks, practice distancing and stay home. A few weeks later he went out to dinner - sans mask - with a lobbyist at a well known high-end restaurant in Napa; not exactly a great PR move, unless one wants to seem like an arrogant hypocrite. Now, near the end of his term, he’s set to leave the state budget deeply in the red. That’s unsustainable, a well known shortcut to contraction of public services and infrastructure maintenance, and layoffs of public employees, from teachers to park rangers to prison guards. All of that has happened before. His predecessor, Jerry Brown, knew it well, and in his second-go-‘round did a lot to keep the state solvent. So, someone like JB would be a big improvement.
Newsom is an adept Century 21 virtue signaler, and, just like others of that ilk, has oversold his goals and lacks substance. He’s spent time boosting his national profile, apparently heedless of the possibility that he might ever be called out on his uninspiring record as governor. For that reason he’s also politically vulnerable, much in the same way Harris was. Where would Newsom be if he didn’t have Trump to rail against?
First, let me say that I am a strongly center/left democrat, former DLC member in the 90s, and like you, very concerned about the far left woke politics that have hurt the Democrat brand. However, I think you’ve gone a little bit over board here, and are contributing to this problem as much as you are trying to help. Why is it that all of sudden any democrat who spouts left wing ideology or wokeness is fully representative of all democrats. There are many democrats today who do not support Bernie or AOC’s positions and fully reject extreme woke ideology. Why can’t you characterize those people as representative of a newly emerging centrist democratic point of view. Demanding centrist ideological purity isn’t helpful in the same way that the left demands such purity. The DNC is not representative of anything, and I suspect you know that. They have been an irrelevant organization for years. Do I wish they weren’t? Of course. But suggesting that they represent all Democrats is ridiculous. Spanberger may have taken a position on transgender participation in sports that you and I might not consider full throated of a centrist position, but let’s be clear, she is clearly a centrist politician, the kind I wish we had running for office across the county. Your article very unfairly makes her look like a weak kneed far left , woke apologist — which we both know is not the case. We need to beat Trump here. Your point about not imitating him or giving in to far left wokism is legitimate, but expecting centrist ideological purity isn’t helpful to the overall goal. And failing to support rather than tear down, those who are trying to drive a new mainstream democratic agenda (i.e. the abundance movement, the public policy institute, Welcome, etc.) is counter productive.
"Why is it that all of sudden any democrat who spouts left wing ideology or wokeness is fully representative of all democrats."
Because ALL Democrats in office want to make gender self-ID unquestionable under federal law. EVERY Democrat in Congres is a CO-SPONSOR of the 2025 Equality Act, which would do exactly that.
Many rank-and-file Democrats, like me, are VERY UNHAPPY about this, and will no longer vote for Democrats because of it.
And more and more people are finding out that the Democrats have fucked around on this, for example black lesbian Tish Hyman, who has been in the news lately:
So you’re willing to let the Rs run the country, trash the constitution, and possibly steal the next election, because you oppose the Ds gender policy?
Most will simply not vote, or vote 3rd party. LOTS of women in this category.
But I (a registered Democrat for 50 years) am so pissed off about it that I now donate heavily to Rs with a chance to defeat transqueer ideologue Ds (which is all of them), such as Earle-Sears vs Spanberger in VA.
And of course it is Trump who has restored the true meaning of Title IX after Obama and Biden attempted to transqueer it.
And now a question for you: is this really the hill you want the Ds to die on? You're going to tell me that there are hardly any "trans" people (I'm quite sure you will say that), so why do I care so much?
I care because it affects EVERY WOMAN IN THE COUNTRY, including my wife and daughters and nieces.
But then I will turn it around: if so few people are affected (again, this is false, but it is what YOU believe), then why do YOU care so much? Even though this issue contributed heavily to Trump's win in 2024 and will continue to cost the Ds votes in every election going forward? Why will you not work to turn the Ds in office around on this, so that they can get back my vote and the votes of so many other "normie" Ds?
Or do you simply not care about winning elections?
I disagree with the Dems on this question, but it’s insane to think, as you do, that it’s more important than stopping Trump’s authoritarian assault on democracy.
Biden ran his own "authoritarian assault on democracy" by having his Ed Dept and EEOC declare, with the force of law, that single-sex changing rooms and showers were illegal at every school and every workplace in the country. There was no popular vote on this (as would happen in an actual democracy, which literally means "rule by the common people"), or even a vote in Congress, or any sort of consultation at all. Biden's minions just fucking did it. IMO, this is as authoritarian as anything Trump has done. So: "democracy" left the building a long time ago. All we have now is two authoritarian cults duking it out, #MAGA vs #transqueer.
I've heard enough people who sound like you protest that they used to be Democrats or even that they still are liberals to call bullshit. Basing your entire political philosophy on what a tiny minority of people are doing is basically a fig leaf for what you really believe, which is that rights are just not for everybody.
I have to say that I agree with Craig here. I also agree with you Mark regarding the issue you raise, and I think there are many other moderate democrats who agree as well. I can’t stand it that Congressman Seth Moulten got lambasted by party dems in Mass for questioning whether it was safe for his daughters to play sports with boys. Let’s fight to support the vast majority of mainstream democrats who don’t support far left litmus tests and identify politics and build a stronger moderate democratic wing who can get more moderates elected, rather than corrupt, ego maniacs like Trump.
How many more times do you have to lose to a sociopath grifter criminal before you figure out that it's NOT a "minor issue"?
It was, in fact, THE #1 ISSUE for swing voters in the 2024 presidential election, per post-election polling by the Democrat-aligned PAC Blueprint 2024:
Winsome Earle-Sears leaned hard into transphobia with her Virginia campaign and lost by double digits. It may have worked for Trump in 2024, but that was before people realized how bad he would get and just how much Republicans would enable him.
Gender politics is WAY down on many Dems list of concerns. They make the mistake of responding to the maga crowd on this. Need to talk housing, disparity of wealth, climate change , pollution, oil lobby, health care . MAGA mob doesn’t want to talk these. Issue s
But you need more than base Dems to win national elections. And gender politics was, in fact, THE #1 ISSUE for swing voters in the 2024 presidential election, per post-election polling by the Democrat-aligned PAC Blueprint 2024:
“There are many democrats today who do not support Bernie or AOC’s positions and fully reject extreme woke ideology.”
The sad reality is that while there are indeed SOME Democrats who are as you describe, you are no longer the majority in your party, and you are a relatively small minority in primaries.
I wish it were otherwise, but that is just the reality.
More than half your party just voted for the even more socialist, even more anti-Zionist, jihadist Mamdani in NYC!
It is you who need to wake up and smell the coffee.
More than half of my party? Come on. He was running against Cuomo, who I agree, should not have been the only alternative. And It’s New York City. Look at Spanberger and Sherrill, both of whom are solidly moderate democrats. Look at Shapiro, Pritzker and Whitmer. These are major state Governors, all of whom are solidly moderate.
This just comes across as scoldy — the same as what you criticize woke Democrats for. Moreover, it's critical without suggesting anything. Democrats are, understandably, struggling to find the most effective way to combat Trump, and here's Yascha, acting as if the Democrats are the problem. If you want to be helpful, then be helpful and offer some ideas. This is just Yascha up on his high horse, preening and feeling self-righteous. Sorry, not a good look.
Idea for the Democrats: support women's sex-based rights.
As a registered Democrat for 50 years, one who has worked over the decades as a volunteer on multiple Democrat campaigns at all levels, I will not vote for any candidate who does not support women's sex-based rights. As of now, that means I will not vote for any Democrat.
They deserve a scolding for the mess theyve made. Democrats *are* the problem. How else do you lose to trump 2.0 other than being very bad at politics?
You realize that the majority of this column criticizes Democrats for enforcing ideological purity, before lambasting Democrats for not doing the same to Platner.
I can never tell when I read your pieces if you have any awareness of what the Democrat and nation’s intelligence/media/law enforcement leadership was up to from about 2015 until our most recent election. You seem fairly reasonable, and well meaning and I have a lot of respect for that. But they go low, we go high, is a myth. The dirty tricks (and worse) played behind the scenes are unforgivable. And the fact there has been no self examination about it just confirms the half of the country’s suspicions about the true character of the Democratic Party and it isn’t pretty. Obama and Biden presented as the high road while their administrations were doing unforgivable things. So if we have Trump radicalized, Democratic leadership can look in the mirror. But you are right to be pessimistic, it’s a race to the bottom at this point.
It *is* entertaining that Yascha so often quotes “when they go low, we go high” as if this was actual reality from the Obamas et al. I chuckle every time.
All I can say is that if I'm presented with a choice on voting day between a MAGA Republican and a Democrat with Nazi iconography tattooed on their chest, I'm staying home.
Yascha I enjoy your work overall. On this piece I think you misread what Newsom is doing here. It’s not “when they go low, we go low.” It’s something else entirely…when they warp reality, hold up a mirror.
What you call imitation is closer to exposure through reflection. Trump punches down. Newsom punches through, letting the absurdity indict itself. That’s not becoming Trump; it’s showing America what Trumpism looks like when it comes back at you from someone who actually knows how to govern.
Three thoughts in response:
1. This isn’t mimicry, it’s strategic adaptation.
The argument is that “successful revolutionaries tend to govern in the way they win power” and that Democrats will lose moral clarity if they sharpen their rhetoric. But unilateral restraint already failed once. Respecting democratic norms doesn’t require self-silencing in the face of authoritarian theatrics. It requires learning the media language of the era.
2. It’s not a descent, it’s a democratic counter-punch.
The article laments Democrats “decided to emulate Trump’s style” and calls it “soft-Trumpy in style.” But matching aggression with clarity is not the same as copying nihilism. Trump uses rhetoric to destroy truth; Newsom uses it to surface truth in the same channels disinformation travels. That’s not escalation, it’s translation.
3. The goal isn’t to act like Trump, it’s to show the country what they’ve been tolerating. This line gets it backward: “Voters who want a shameless bully… already have an impressive specimen available.” The point isn’t to out-bully. It’s to make people confront the ridiculousness and cruelty they normalized. It’s satire as civic hygiene, a tactic as old as democracy itself.
You seem unaware that Newsom’s aping of Trump on social media was satirical. And what is the alternative to Trump’s gerrymandering? Assume the fetal position while the Rs steal the next election.
Yascha, I used to read your stuff in the Atlantic 5-7 years ago. You were curmudgeonly against everything, but at least you could think. I wondered what happened to you to make you turn out the level of gibberish in this piece: being credibly accused of rape and fired by the Atlantic appears to have sent you over the edge. I have no fucking idea what the fuck you're trying to say here, but it doesn't really matter, because no matter what Democrats did, you wouldn't like it. Maybe you should just retire.
Redistricting in Democratic states in response to redistricting in Republican states isn’t politically toxic. Nor is it indication of “socialist” or other toxic ideology. If you want to use the GOP’s fascist propaganda framing of the Democratic Party, go for it. I’m not down with that.
If that's how you interpret Yascha's critiques, then respectfully clearly don't belong here. Heather Cox Richardson might be more your style. That's fine, but you don't have to be an asshole to the author just to find the unsub button.
Spanberger is LYING when she says "I think it is incumbent upon parents and educators and communicators, in each local community, to make decisions locally". She supports the federal Equality Act, which would make gender self-ID instantaneous and unquestionable nationwide, removing all "local" decision making. EVERY Democrat in Congress (plus Bernie and Angus King) is a CO-SPONSOR of the 2025 Equality Act. Obliterating women's right to single-sex spaces, events, sports, etc, is the one issue on which Democrats running for office totatlly agree.
I am having some fun, I like seeing Newsom shit-posting Trump and poking fun at the idiotic reporters and scolds like YM feigning outrage! Sure it is not going to win any votes but YM is very confused if he thinks self-flagellation is the remedy to what ails liberals.
No, youre right. But i understand where hes coming from. His is the type of response that wouldve been right 10-15 years ago.
But i like it bc its pretty accurate commentary on the meltdown of the democratic party. Will it help? No. Is it nice to hear someone say damn near exactly what ive been thinking? Sure. Bc the democrats really did screw the pooch, and we're sleeping in the bed they did it in
I mean, what else is there at this point? *Everybody* is critical of everyone else, but *nobody* is saying anything useful(at least that ive heard, which admittedly isnt much).
After you lose elections the biggest risk is that you end up fighting the last war for far too long and miss new opportunities that are created for you by circumstances.
The Dem rank and file has received the message that woke is a political loser. But you can never be less woke than Trump so it can never be the issue on which you have an advantage.
Time to start looking for new opportunities instead of wallowing about losing the last war assuming of course we will have free elections in 2026 and beyond.
But in this post YM is not just complaining about trans ideology, he is also complaining that Newsom is shit-posting Trump, re-gerrymandering CA (which is a basic game theoretic imperative) , and that Democrats...wait for it...are too forgiving to potential alleged former Nazis even though the person in question calls themselves squarely anti-fascist. Next week YM will probably write another article criticizing Planter not for being a secret Nazi (because it makes no sense) but for being "Antifa" or something.
1) Lots of Trump voters don't like his shit-posting (I personally know several such), YM is correct that emulating it does nothing to pull voters from R to D..
2) Re-gerrymandering CA is indeed correct game theoretically.
3) Nominating a guy with a nazi tattoo is NOT correct game theoretically (with game rules informed by actual political reality), no matter how many disclaimers and explanations he spews forth. Collins will win going away. Lost opportunity, which is YM's point.
>1) Lots of Trump voters don't like his shit-posting.
I think anyone who takes personal offense at Trump being insulted while being approving of his own despicable shit-posting is never going to vote Dem unless we are in a second great depression scenario. Let us remember that Trump himself did not even crack 50% on the NPV and the last 5%-6% of his voters are reluctant swing voters who do not care for him personally. A shit-posting Dem can easily get to 53-54% NPV if the economy is not good in 2028.
>3) Nominating a guy with a nazi tattoo is NOT correct game theoretically
All else being equal, yes, but if 2026 is an anti-incumbent wave election then even faulty candidates can win, like Trump himself in 2016 and 2024. Let's see what happens.
And that's why the Democrats are fated to keep losing. No matter how slowly and carefully the reasons they are losing are explained to them, they still don't get it.
Boring take. Just another "Democrats need to change, but not like this," article.
Do you think American voters care about principle in any way and will respond positively to staying above the fray and having no controversial baggage? Americans have low standards and short memories. If you doubt that, take a look at the man in the White House and all of the GOP lawmakers who instigated January 6th but are still holding their seats. An American electorate that celebrates and rewards political decency simply doesn't exist.
Your theory of basic political hygiene would probably encompass NOT running a man with 34 felony convictions who attempted to overthrow a free and fair election the last time he was in office. And yet, here we are.
The currency of politics in 2025 is attention and vibes, not principle and policy. The American public doesn't pay nearly enough attention to politics to notice or remember anything that isn't constantly in their social media feeds, and there are very few ways to go viral that don't involve going low.
If Jones wins statewide tonight and Platner holds his margin in Maine, will you reconsider? Because if both happen, it would appear it is YOUR theory that's clinging to false reality, not theirs.
I agree with your response about 80-85%. The texts of Jones came out after the primaries and VA AG is too important to simply forfeit based on the texts. However, the ME US Senate election is Nov 2026 but unsure of the primary date. There, I see a valid critique that Dems should be able to find a better candidate than a 70+ somewhat popular governor and a 40ish Harbor Master with a “problematic” tattoo that he has had for well over a decade yet “never” knew what it meant along with some “problematic” Reddit posts from his “misspent youth”.
Good points! And while I agree that Democrats could probably do better in ME, it's unreasonable for Yascha to call it a "striking refusal to engage in basic political hygiene" just because the whole national party didn't cancel a Senate primary candidate for being "problematic." Let's let the people of Maine decide what they find problematic.
Newsom is mocking and belittling Trump, not emulating him. He (his social media team) is playing the online irony card and playing it well. He is pushing back against Trump, getting attention (arguably more important than fundraising these days) and being funny while he does it. What would you prefer that he does, exactly? I agree that it’s not ideal, but everyone is playing with the cards they’re dealt, and Newsom is playing them better than most.
On Platner, sorry. You’re just wrong. He is representative of a segment of the population the commentariat class and Democrats have no understanding of: normal people. It is beyond obvious the guy is not a Nazi. I don’t know what else needs to be said about that. His Reddit comments are, I am sorry to say, just the way millions of normal people used to (and sometimes still do) talk. I read the comments and thought, “Some are a little off color, but seems just like a normal dude trolling.” It’s a nothing burger. He’s a normal person who talks like a normal person and who normal people like and relate to. It would be the most Democratic Party thing of all time to push him aside because of it.
The Dems are already all-in on being openly anti-Zionist, thinly veiled antisemitic.
So going all-in on a non-Nazi who was clearly for years a Nazi sympathizer is a great idea.
No, it might not be the best way to win older swing voters. But it *will* help turn out the vote from the radical left fringe that believes in oppressor-oppressed ideology, and knows with certainty that the white evil capitalist Israelis are oppressing the poor BiPoC without-agency Palestinians.
Yes, I am the one unaware that the Dem party is the open to antisemitism and oppressor-oppressed ideologues who are pro-Hamas.
But compelling comeback. I have now see the error of my ways. You are indeed correct about everything. It was foolish of me to interject, given your far superior knowledge and wisdom.
I have absolutely no idea what it is you're trying to do here with this column except to scold people who are doing the best they can in turbulent political times.
If this is the best they can do, then we deserve everything we're getting.
The column writer is attempting to point out where democrats have gone wrong in terms of reaching out to the rest of the country. This is constructive criticism - not 😂 “scolding”.
A laugh emoji? What are you 70?
I’m a liberal Californian, but the take on Newsom is spot-on. He’s a beneficiary of the state’s Dem dominance and a protege of Nancy Pelosi. He followed on the heels of a strong predecessor, Jerry Brown, and made a number of big promises. His delivery has been underwhelming and he’s shown all the principles of a typical political wind vane. But one thing he does have is great hair, which is exactly why he will make a great candidate for Century 21’s next presidential comedy fest.
Jesus dude, what exactly is it you want then?
Someone better. Early in his first term he came out for halting the bullet train. I thought that was a good move, since even by then it amounted to an embarrassing fiasco and was nowhere close to completion. But he had to backpedal almost immediately, because, as it turned out, halting it would put the state on the hook for repayment of billions in federal grant$. If he’d done any homework on the issue he could’ve avoided looking foolish on that one. Later, during Covid-quarantime, he admonished Californians to wear masks, practice distancing and stay home. A few weeks later he went out to dinner - sans mask - with a lobbyist at a well known high-end restaurant in Napa; not exactly a great PR move, unless one wants to seem like an arrogant hypocrite. Now, near the end of his term, he’s set to leave the state budget deeply in the red. That’s unsustainable, a well known shortcut to contraction of public services and infrastructure maintenance, and layoffs of public employees, from teachers to park rangers to prison guards. All of that has happened before. His predecessor, Jerry Brown, knew it well, and in his second-go-‘round did a lot to keep the state solvent. So, someone like JB would be a big improvement.
Newsom is an adept Century 21 virtue signaler, and, just like others of that ilk, has oversold his goals and lacks substance. He’s spent time boosting his national profile, apparently heedless of the possibility that he might ever be called out on his uninspiring record as governor. For that reason he’s also politically vulnerable, much in the same way Harris was. Where would Newsom be if he didn’t have Trump to rail against?
AI lovers are going to get what they want because Dems are being forced to play dirty.
I for one couldn't be happier
He's mad because no one is listening to his lame advice....😆
First, let me say that I am a strongly center/left democrat, former DLC member in the 90s, and like you, very concerned about the far left woke politics that have hurt the Democrat brand. However, I think you’ve gone a little bit over board here, and are contributing to this problem as much as you are trying to help. Why is it that all of sudden any democrat who spouts left wing ideology or wokeness is fully representative of all democrats. There are many democrats today who do not support Bernie or AOC’s positions and fully reject extreme woke ideology. Why can’t you characterize those people as representative of a newly emerging centrist democratic point of view. Demanding centrist ideological purity isn’t helpful in the same way that the left demands such purity. The DNC is not representative of anything, and I suspect you know that. They have been an irrelevant organization for years. Do I wish they weren’t? Of course. But suggesting that they represent all Democrats is ridiculous. Spanberger may have taken a position on transgender participation in sports that you and I might not consider full throated of a centrist position, but let’s be clear, she is clearly a centrist politician, the kind I wish we had running for office across the county. Your article very unfairly makes her look like a weak kneed far left , woke apologist — which we both know is not the case. We need to beat Trump here. Your point about not imitating him or giving in to far left wokism is legitimate, but expecting centrist ideological purity isn’t helpful to the overall goal. And failing to support rather than tear down, those who are trying to drive a new mainstream democratic agenda (i.e. the abundance movement, the public policy institute, Welcome, etc.) is counter productive.
"Why is it that all of sudden any democrat who spouts left wing ideology or wokeness is fully representative of all democrats."
Because ALL Democrats in office want to make gender self-ID unquestionable under federal law. EVERY Democrat in Congres is a CO-SPONSOR of the 2025 Equality Act, which would do exactly that.
Many rank-and-file Democrats, like me, are VERY UNHAPPY about this, and will no longer vote for Democrats because of it.
And more and more people are finding out that the Democrats have fucked around on this, for example black lesbian Tish Hyman, who has been in the news lately:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15254045/Los-Angeles-Gym-Lesbian-banned-trans.html
So you’re willing to let the Rs run the country, trash the constitution, and possibly steal the next election, because you oppose the Ds gender policy?
Yes. And so are many other Ds.
Most will simply not vote, or vote 3rd party. LOTS of women in this category.
But I (a registered Democrat for 50 years) am so pissed off about it that I now donate heavily to Rs with a chance to defeat transqueer ideologue Ds (which is all of them), such as Earle-Sears vs Spanberger in VA.
And of course it is Trump who has restored the true meaning of Title IX after Obama and Biden attempted to transqueer it.
And now a question for you: is this really the hill you want the Ds to die on? You're going to tell me that there are hardly any "trans" people (I'm quite sure you will say that), so why do I care so much?
I care because it affects EVERY WOMAN IN THE COUNTRY, including my wife and daughters and nieces.
But then I will turn it around: if so few people are affected (again, this is false, but it is what YOU believe), then why do YOU care so much? Even though this issue contributed heavily to Trump's win in 2024 and will continue to cost the Ds votes in every election going forward? Why will you not work to turn the Ds in office around on this, so that they can get back my vote and the votes of so many other "normie" Ds?
Or do you simply not care about winning elections?
I disagree with the Dems on this question, but it’s insane to think, as you do, that it’s more important than stopping Trump’s authoritarian assault on democracy.
Biden ran his own "authoritarian assault on democracy" by having his Ed Dept and EEOC declare, with the force of law, that single-sex changing rooms and showers were illegal at every school and every workplace in the country. There was no popular vote on this (as would happen in an actual democracy, which literally means "rule by the common people"), or even a vote in Congress, or any sort of consultation at all. Biden's minions just fucking did it. IMO, this is as authoritarian as anything Trump has done. So: "democracy" left the building a long time ago. All we have now is two authoritarian cults duking it out, #MAGA vs #transqueer.
I've heard enough people who sound like you protest that they used to be Democrats or even that they still are liberals to call bullshit. Basing your entire political philosophy on what a tiny minority of people are doing is basically a fig leaf for what you really believe, which is that rights are just not for everybody.
Oh please.
I have to say that I agree with Craig here. I also agree with you Mark regarding the issue you raise, and I think there are many other moderate democrats who agree as well. I can’t stand it that Congressman Seth Moulten got lambasted by party dems in Mass for questioning whether it was safe for his daughters to play sports with boys. Let’s fight to support the vast majority of mainstream democrats who don’t support far left litmus tests and identify politics and build a stronger moderate democratic wing who can get more moderates elected, rather than corrupt, ego maniacs like Trump.
“Let’s fight to support the vast majority of mainstream democrats who don’t support far left litmus tests”
What you fail to realize is that no longer describes the “vast majority of” Democrats.
It might not be a majority at all.
And it is clearly a minority of the Dems who vote in primaries,
IT IS A MINOR ISSUE!,
How many more times do you have to lose to a sociopath grifter criminal before you figure out that it's NOT a "minor issue"?
It was, in fact, THE #1 ISSUE for swing voters in the 2024 presidential election, per post-election polling by the Democrat-aligned PAC Blueprint 2024:
https://blueprint2024.com/polling/why-trump-reasons-11-8
Winsome Earle-Sears leaned hard into transphobia with her Virginia campaign and lost by double digits. It may have worked for Trump in 2024, but that was before people realized how bad he would get and just how much Republicans would enable him.
Yes, the transqueers may yet triumph and succeed in obliterating women's sex-based rights.
Of course eventually their islamist allies ("Queers for Palestine!") will take over and slit all their throats.
Good times ahead!
Gender politics is WAY down on many Dems list of concerns. They make the mistake of responding to the maga crowd on this. Need to talk housing, disparity of wealth, climate change , pollution, oil lobby, health care . MAGA mob doesn’t want to talk these. Issue s
But you need more than base Dems to win national elections. And gender politics was, in fact, THE #1 ISSUE for swing voters in the 2024 presidential election, per post-election polling by the Democrat-aligned PAC Blueprint 2024:
https://blueprint2024.com/polling/why-trump-reasons-11-8
Excellent reply
“There are many democrats today who do not support Bernie or AOC’s positions and fully reject extreme woke ideology.”
The sad reality is that while there are indeed SOME Democrats who are as you describe, you are no longer the majority in your party, and you are a relatively small minority in primaries.
I wish it were otherwise, but that is just the reality.
More than half your party just voted for the even more socialist, even more anti-Zionist, jihadist Mamdani in NYC!
It is you who need to wake up and smell the coffee.
More than half of my party? Come on. He was running against Cuomo, who I agree, should not have been the only alternative. And It’s New York City. Look at Spanberger and Sherrill, both of whom are solidly moderate democrats. Look at Shapiro, Pritzker and Whitmer. These are major state Governors, all of whom are solidly moderate.
Dude, he got just over half the vote in the city. And there are still *some* Republicans in NYC.
So yes, more than half of Democrats in NYC voted for Mamdani.
This just comes across as scoldy — the same as what you criticize woke Democrats for. Moreover, it's critical without suggesting anything. Democrats are, understandably, struggling to find the most effective way to combat Trump, and here's Yascha, acting as if the Democrats are the problem. If you want to be helpful, then be helpful and offer some ideas. This is just Yascha up on his high horse, preening and feeling self-righteous. Sorry, not a good look.
Idea for the Democrats: support women's sex-based rights.
As a registered Democrat for 50 years, one who has worked over the decades as a volunteer on multiple Democrat campaigns at all levels, I will not vote for any candidate who does not support women's sex-based rights. As of now, that means I will not vote for any Democrat.
They deserve a scolding for the mess theyve made. Democrats *are* the problem. How else do you lose to trump 2.0 other than being very bad at politics?
Right On
You realize that the majority of this column criticizes Democrats for enforcing ideological purity, before lambasting Democrats for not doing the same to Platner.
Having a nazi tattoo goes a little beyond "ideological purity".
“Cancel culture is bad…except…”
I can never tell when I read your pieces if you have any awareness of what the Democrat and nation’s intelligence/media/law enforcement leadership was up to from about 2015 until our most recent election. You seem fairly reasonable, and well meaning and I have a lot of respect for that. But they go low, we go high, is a myth. The dirty tricks (and worse) played behind the scenes are unforgivable. And the fact there has been no self examination about it just confirms the half of the country’s suspicions about the true character of the Democratic Party and it isn’t pretty. Obama and Biden presented as the high road while their administrations were doing unforgivable things. So if we have Trump radicalized, Democratic leadership can look in the mirror. But you are right to be pessimistic, it’s a race to the bottom at this point.
It *is* entertaining that Yascha so often quotes “when they go low, we go high” as if this was actual reality from the Obamas et al. I chuckle every time.
True points. Both parties will do almost anything to win. I always seem to find myself voting for the least dirty politician
All I can say is that if I'm presented with a choice on voting day between a MAGA Republican and a Democrat with Nazi iconography tattooed on their chest, I'm staying home.
I'll vote for the Democrat, thanks.
Go for it. I won't tell you otherwise. You'll just have to hope they get enough votes, unlike last November.
But if its on their dupa, I'm fine with it!😊
Yascha I enjoy your work overall. On this piece I think you misread what Newsom is doing here. It’s not “when they go low, we go low.” It’s something else entirely…when they warp reality, hold up a mirror.
What you call imitation is closer to exposure through reflection. Trump punches down. Newsom punches through, letting the absurdity indict itself. That’s not becoming Trump; it’s showing America what Trumpism looks like when it comes back at you from someone who actually knows how to govern.
Three thoughts in response:
1. This isn’t mimicry, it’s strategic adaptation.
The argument is that “successful revolutionaries tend to govern in the way they win power” and that Democrats will lose moral clarity if they sharpen their rhetoric. But unilateral restraint already failed once. Respecting democratic norms doesn’t require self-silencing in the face of authoritarian theatrics. It requires learning the media language of the era.
2. It’s not a descent, it’s a democratic counter-punch.
The article laments Democrats “decided to emulate Trump’s style” and calls it “soft-Trumpy in style.” But matching aggression with clarity is not the same as copying nihilism. Trump uses rhetoric to destroy truth; Newsom uses it to surface truth in the same channels disinformation travels. That’s not escalation, it’s translation.
3. The goal isn’t to act like Trump, it’s to show the country what they’ve been tolerating. This line gets it backward: “Voters who want a shameless bully… already have an impressive specimen available.” The point isn’t to out-bully. It’s to make people confront the ridiculousness and cruelty they normalized. It’s satire as civic hygiene, a tactic as old as democracy itself.
You seem unaware that Newsom’s aping of Trump on social media was satirical. And what is the alternative to Trump’s gerrymandering? Assume the fetal position while the Rs steal the next election.
Yascha, I used to read your stuff in the Atlantic 5-7 years ago. You were curmudgeonly against everything, but at least you could think. I wondered what happened to you to make you turn out the level of gibberish in this piece: being credibly accused of rape and fired by the Atlantic appears to have sent you over the edge. I have no fucking idea what the fuck you're trying to say here, but it doesn't really matter, because no matter what Democrats did, you wouldn't like it. Maybe you should just retire.
Jesus Christ, dude! If you don't think democrats should moderate from extreme and politically toxic positions, just unsubscribe.
Redistricting in Democratic states in response to redistricting in Republican states isn’t politically toxic. Nor is it indication of “socialist” or other toxic ideology. If you want to use the GOP’s fascist propaganda framing of the Democratic Party, go for it. I’m not down with that.
"GOP’s fascist propaganda framing"
If that's how you interpret Yascha's critiques, then respectfully clearly don't belong here. Heather Cox Richardson might be more your style. That's fine, but you don't have to be an asshole to the author just to find the unsub button.
Feel free to block and mute me and then go fuck yourself.
Spanberger is LYING when she says "I think it is incumbent upon parents and educators and communicators, in each local community, to make decisions locally". She supports the federal Equality Act, which would make gender self-ID instantaneous and unquestionable nationwide, removing all "local" decision making. EVERY Democrat in Congress (plus Bernie and Angus King) is a CO-SPONSOR of the 2025 Equality Act. Obliterating women's right to single-sex spaces, events, sports, etc, is the one issue on which Democrats running for office totatlly agree.
Sir with all due respect, you are at severe risk of sounding like a boring scold. Learn to have some fun yeah?
What? Youre not having fun right now?! Im having a fucking blast man! Watching the country i love turn to straight shit is tits!
>Youre not having fun right now?!
I am having some fun, I like seeing Newsom shit-posting Trump and poking fun at the idiotic reporters and scolds like YM feigning outrage! Sure it is not going to win any votes but YM is very confused if he thinks self-flagellation is the remedy to what ails liberals.
No, youre right. But i understand where hes coming from. His is the type of response that wouldve been right 10-15 years ago.
But i like it bc its pretty accurate commentary on the meltdown of the democratic party. Will it help? No. Is it nice to hear someone say damn near exactly what ive been thinking? Sure. Bc the democrats really did screw the pooch, and we're sleeping in the bed they did it in
I mean, what else is there at this point? *Everybody* is critical of everyone else, but *nobody* is saying anything useful(at least that ive heard, which admittedly isnt much).
Oh and what marks said, thats valid
After you lose elections the biggest risk is that you end up fighting the last war for far too long and miss new opportunities that are created for you by circumstances.
The Dem rank and file has received the message that woke is a political loser. But you can never be less woke than Trump so it can never be the issue on which you have an advantage.
Time to start looking for new opportunities instead of wallowing about losing the last war assuming of course we will have free elections in 2026 and beyond.
I completely agree with your thoughts on this, especially it being time to start looking forward. I truly hope that happens, and soon
Self-flagellation is not the remedy, dropping policies rejected by large majorities of voters is the remedy.
But in this post YM is not just complaining about trans ideology, he is also complaining that Newsom is shit-posting Trump, re-gerrymandering CA (which is a basic game theoretic imperative) , and that Democrats...wait for it...are too forgiving to potential alleged former Nazis even though the person in question calls themselves squarely anti-fascist. Next week YM will probably write another article criticizing Planter not for being a secret Nazi (because it makes no sense) but for being "Antifa" or something.
1) Lots of Trump voters don't like his shit-posting (I personally know several such), YM is correct that emulating it does nothing to pull voters from R to D..
2) Re-gerrymandering CA is indeed correct game theoretically.
3) Nominating a guy with a nazi tattoo is NOT correct game theoretically (with game rules informed by actual political reality), no matter how many disclaimers and explanations he spews forth. Collins will win going away. Lost opportunity, which is YM's point.
>1) Lots of Trump voters don't like his shit-posting.
I think anyone who takes personal offense at Trump being insulted while being approving of his own despicable shit-posting is never going to vote Dem unless we are in a second great depression scenario. Let us remember that Trump himself did not even crack 50% on the NPV and the last 5%-6% of his voters are reluctant swing voters who do not care for him personally. A shit-posting Dem can easily get to 53-54% NPV if the economy is not good in 2028.
>3) Nominating a guy with a nazi tattoo is NOT correct game theoretically
All else being equal, yes, but if 2026 is an anti-incumbent wave election then even faulty candidates can win, like Trump himself in 2016 and 2024. Let's see what happens.
Is there any Democrat who's doing anything you approve of?
It's a scramble, but what do you suggest?
It's beyond me how Obama is to be faulted for urging that the party fight back in the redistricting war.
Well… it could be the case that when you fight fire with fire you risk burning everything down.
Just one man’s opinion.
already happening.
I tried but couldn't find one coherent argument in this piece.
And that's why the Democrats are fated to keep losing. No matter how slowly and carefully the reasons they are losing are explained to them, they still don't get it.
Boring take. Just another "Democrats need to change, but not like this," article.
Do you think American voters care about principle in any way and will respond positively to staying above the fray and having no controversial baggage? Americans have low standards and short memories. If you doubt that, take a look at the man in the White House and all of the GOP lawmakers who instigated January 6th but are still holding their seats. An American electorate that celebrates and rewards political decency simply doesn't exist.
Your theory of basic political hygiene would probably encompass NOT running a man with 34 felony convictions who attempted to overthrow a free and fair election the last time he was in office. And yet, here we are.
The currency of politics in 2025 is attention and vibes, not principle and policy. The American public doesn't pay nearly enough attention to politics to notice or remember anything that isn't constantly in their social media feeds, and there are very few ways to go viral that don't involve going low.
If Jones wins statewide tonight and Platner holds his margin in Maine, will you reconsider? Because if both happen, it would appear it is YOUR theory that's clinging to false reality, not theirs.
I agree with your response about 80-85%. The texts of Jones came out after the primaries and VA AG is too important to simply forfeit based on the texts. However, the ME US Senate election is Nov 2026 but unsure of the primary date. There, I see a valid critique that Dems should be able to find a better candidate than a 70+ somewhat popular governor and a 40ish Harbor Master with a “problematic” tattoo that he has had for well over a decade yet “never” knew what it meant along with some “problematic” Reddit posts from his “misspent youth”.
Good points! And while I agree that Democrats could probably do better in ME, it's unreasonable for Yascha to call it a "striking refusal to engage in basic political hygiene" just because the whole national party didn't cancel a Senate primary candidate for being "problematic." Let's let the people of Maine decide what they find problematic.
Exactly. If I had a dime for every column like this that I've read.
Boring and unhelpful.
I think you are off base on Newsom and Platner.
Newsom is mocking and belittling Trump, not emulating him. He (his social media team) is playing the online irony card and playing it well. He is pushing back against Trump, getting attention (arguably more important than fundraising these days) and being funny while he does it. What would you prefer that he does, exactly? I agree that it’s not ideal, but everyone is playing with the cards they’re dealt, and Newsom is playing them better than most.
On Platner, sorry. You’re just wrong. He is representative of a segment of the population the commentariat class and Democrats have no understanding of: normal people. It is beyond obvious the guy is not a Nazi. I don’t know what else needs to be said about that. His Reddit comments are, I am sorry to say, just the way millions of normal people used to (and sometimes still do) talk. I read the comments and thought, “Some are a little off color, but seems just like a normal dude trolling.” It’s a nothing burger. He’s a normal person who talks like a normal person and who normal people like and relate to. It would be the most Democratic Party thing of all time to push him aside because of it.
The Dems are already all-in on being openly anti-Zionist, thinly veiled antisemitic.
So going all-in on a non-Nazi who was clearly for years a Nazi sympathizer is a great idea.
No, it might not be the best way to win older swing voters. But it *will* help turn out the vote from the radical left fringe that believes in oppressor-oppressed ideology, and knows with certainty that the white evil capitalist Israelis are oppressing the poor BiPoC without-agency Palestinians.
Go for it!
You’re already 85% of the way there, anyway…
Literally, what are you talking about.
Yes, I am the one unaware that the Dem party is the open to antisemitism and oppressor-oppressed ideologues who are pro-Hamas.
But compelling comeback. I have now see the error of my ways. You are indeed correct about everything. It was foolish of me to interject, given your far superior knowledge and wisdom.
Bye dude. I hope you find happiness banging your head against imaginary walls. I am muting you. I wish you well.
You nailed it on Platner, Dr. Philonious.