This is why you have new "liberal" think tanks being established that claim being funded by the super-rich instead of regular people is a feature, because rank and file Democrats who give money are too liberal.

The @adambonica.bsky.social vision for the Democrats creates a real challenge for many groups and candidates in the party. They are entirely reliant on contributions from the super-rich. They would struggle to raise money from the grassroots.

"The way out isn't about left versus right; it's about clean versus corrupt, reform versus a rigged system, the people versus oligarchs," writes @adambonica.bsky.social. data4democracy.substack.com/p/the-democr...

One important thing that Bonica gets is that the Third Way, abundance and Sanders electoral approaches often involve Democratic candidates essentially saying, "My party sucks but I am different from the party." That can help individual candidates, but that leaves a tattered party brand.

It's hard to prove anything electorally. But I think the @adambonica.bsky.social plan for the Democratic Party is electorally superior to abundance, fighting oligarchy and Third Way-ism and still could include the best policy ideas from the first two. data4democracy.substack.com/p/the-democr...

Yes. This is basically what @whstancil.bsky.social was screaming in 2022-2023, while Team Biden and Dem strategists were leaking that the sale of Twitter didn't matter because average voters weren't on the site.

Right. And the current criticism of Bluesky is exactly the same thing.

Public opinion on racial issues shifted a lot from 2014-2020. Twitter played a role. Opinion on Israel/Palestinian policy shifted a lot from 2022-24. I think that's about a broader range of social media (Tiktok, Insta) but that's one issue where I think Twitter did play a useful and important role.

I think it's likely that some center-left, center, center-right people encountered my pieces and were perhaps persuaded by them in the Peak Twitter era of 2014-2020. But I'm not sure how much that would be happening now. So many fewer people are using that site, and ideological lines have hardened.

Not criticizing Clara. But I learn a lot from people who share my values but have different expertises than me (foreign affairs, immigration.) So I learn a lot from Bluesky, even though there are not a ton of conservatives. I also think it's fine to be in spaces that reinforce our values.

I wonder about conceding to the "Bluesky is not ideologically diverse and that is bad" argument. I am not sure that spending four years on the Howard University campus exposes you to fewer ideas than state college X, even if most state colleges likely include more Republican students/faculty.

The real shift to Trump from 2020 to 2024 was among Black and Latino men, not Blacks or Latinos defined by any shared economic status. That points toward cultural/identity factors. Not clear Black/Latino men suffered economically much more under Biden compared to their female counterparts.

I support progressive economic policies but struggle to see much evidence that recent election results match economic conditions. (Inflation killed Dems in 2024 but not 22, when price increases were much sharper. Really?) A strong economy didn't help Obama/Clinton in 2016 or Trump in 2018.

This is a core difference in the Democratic Party. One Dem left thinks elections are largely about economic outcomes/deliverism/material conditions. The Dem center thinks elections are about economics and also identity/culture. Another left thinks elections are mostly about identity/vibes.

That might be it! It's a counterpoint that I don't disagree with.

I am paraphrasing what someone else said on here. I can't recall who. What Kristol/Never-Trump conservatives have in common with Sanders/AOC Dems is that neither bloc was shaped by/allied with the Dem establishment. So both blocs see Jeffries/Schumer as ineffective and say that bluntly.

MSNBC's shameful firing of Matthew Dowd shouldn't be forgotten/overlooked. It came before Kimmel's suspension but reflected the same wrongheaded impulses around Kirk's death that took hold throughout the corporate/elite media. Even worse since that's purportedly the liberal/pro-democracy network.

He 'is actually a bad advertisement for a politics of 'discourse' and “engagement,” because he suggests that it involves being weak in our confrontations with white supremacy and genocide." www.currentaffairs.org/news/as-the-...

"Fund the police. Fund them. Fund them."

No, you said it better! During the Biden years and when I worked at the Post, I used to describe the position of many white center-left readers as, "Democracy dies if you criticize the sitting president too much or black activists speak too loudly about racism." It was full democracy--for some.

This is the complicated question. You can win being milquetoast (2006, 2018, 2020 in many ways.) But GOP wins by being radical (2010, 2014, 2016, 2024). That creates an imbalance in governing. Dems think they must shun their base's priorities; Republicans embrace theirs.

The argument makes democracy a binary, as opposed to a continuum. Sure, America can be considered a democracy even if cops racially profile and abortion rights are severely curtailed. But people who want a fuller democracy understandably aren't eager to vote for candidates who support such policies.

"If you REALLY care about democracy, you will sacrifice other policy priorities to vote for the most conservative pro-democracy candidate" is the argument from the center-left. They make this argument to people who supported Biden in the 2020 general and would have done the same in 2024.

Also, Democrats have run many pro-life candidates in the South over the last 20 years. They almost always lose. This is not some novel idea! The fact that leading figures in the party are suggesting this is an original thought further illustrates the problem. abcnews.go.com/Politics/mis...

Unusual to see this degree of racial polarization in voting among congressional Democrats. Many, many white Dems in safe districts voted to praise Kirk. Black members largely voted against, although Jeffries also was in favor.

"Neither Trump nor the MAGA right wants to discuss or deliberate; it wants to dominate. American politics is no longer a fight over policy; it is a fight over the character of the nation itself," writes @jamellebouie.net. Exactly. www.nytimes.com/2025/09/20/o...

"Debate-me-bro culture, that's not real persuasion. Folks who are interested in this kind of debate-me-bro culture are not interested in persuasion at all. They're interested in the performance of their own intelligence," says @devawo.bsky.social. newrepublic.substack.com/p/is-america...

Also, I don't believe them. Trying to sidestep the Kirk resolution fits perfectly with their strategy of calling everything but their boring talking points on health care and the economy a "distraction." They ducked the Kirk resolution in a very predictable, uncourageous way.

People who are ashamed of what they are saying often resort to globby, incoherent phrases in the vain hopes of sneaking past their own conscience

THIS is what it looks like to report clearly on democratic erosion in the US. As always, @perrybaconjr.bsky.social is on it. So glad he’s now @newrepublic.com where his political reporting skills and sensibilities have wider latitude.

"Debate-me-bro culture, that's not real persuasion. Folks who are interested in this kind of debate-me-bro culture are not interested in persuasion at all. They're interested in the performance of their own intelligence," says @devawo.bsky.social. newrepublic.substack.com/p/is-america...

"It's always been the case that the Democratic Party is just shy of actively hostile to the movements to its left and has also refused to cede power. But the truth is that Third Way formulation has not been a winning strategy since Clinton. That's the fact," says @devawo.bsky.social.

"Now, is the social movement that is MAGA trying to mobilize the sentiment around Charlie Kirk's death in a way that is advantageous to it? Absolutely. And it's a really interesting move because Charlie Kirk was not particularly well-known in the United States at large," says @devawo.bsky.social.

"MAGA is a social movement and has been since the beginning. What you have is a situation in which a social movement took over one of the dominant political parties. But in this case, the movement that has taken over the party is largely anti-democratic," says @devawo.bsky.social.

"I just couldn’t understand why he would call me, right now, and make it all about himself." Wow. www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025...

My impression was that Jill and Joe Biden were incredibly obsessed with his legacy/stature---even more so than most high-level politicians. Harris's book confirms this, with really damning details. I hope Dems pick someone for 2028 who is less self-absorbed. www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025...

"The silencing of anyone is a terrible thing in a democracy. Period. Full stop. And yet, the silencing of our comedians, who are often some of our greatest truth tellers, especially sends a very strong signal across the body politic. It's very dangerous,' says @krforde.bsky.social.

"What's happening now is what happened in Hungary and Turkey, which is using regulatory threats and lawsuits as a way to capture the media, and to capture the information ecosystem. We should be all very, very concerned," says @krforde.bsky.social. newrepublic.substack.com/p/kimmels-su...

"Ownership matters. When you've got Paramount that has all these other business interests, they have made deals to protect their other interests. Same thing with Bezos. Same thing with the Walt Disney Company. I'm hoping the New York Times is going to hold the line," says @krforde.bsky.social.

"We have seen how quickly, the entertainment industry, the media industry more broadly, is willing to obey in advance, surrender in advance. This wasn't an official political action. These enormous industries knuckle under," says @anamariecox.bsky.social. newrepublic.substack.com/p/kimmels-su...

Exactly. Well said.

"Rank-and-file Democrats want to see their leaders take a stand. Not a stand on behalf of Obamacare, important though that is. A moral stand grounded in an idea about what our society is and should be," writes @mjtoma.bsky.social. newrepublic.com/article/2004...

Democratic Party officials spent Jan-March flirting with throwing trans people and immigrants under the bus to appease Trump/they agree with Trump. Universities have done the same with pro-Palestinian students/faculty and programs designed to support students of color.

Here's how to support my work: I'll be teaching a version of my Columbia class on Race, Media and International Affairs 101 and 102 next month for @resistanceschool.bsky.social. The course is online/ hybrid. Deadline is Sept. 19th! Sign up! www.resistancesummerschool.com/fall-2025-re...

The very least you can do is that if you subscribe to that newspaper you should immediately CANCEL YOUR SUBSCRIPTION. It's the basement in terms of an action to take.

What's being "protected" is not "free speech" but rather the RIGHT for white men to be white supremacists in public without any criticism or any consequences. I hope that's clear.

We're witnessing the most aggressive, fanatical crackdown on free speech in my lifetime. The speed and breadth of government censorship and private sector and nonprofit capitulation has been astonishing. As has the lack of urgency/silence from people who've long claimed to care about this stuff.

Washington Post’s commitment to personal liberties does not extend to employing people who criticize gun violence or accurately quote, without comment, Charlie Kirk’s words