America

Why Trump Was Able to Get His Ceasefire in Gaza

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

Jimmy Carter made history with a deal between Egypt and Israel, but still couldn’t forge a lasting peace in the region. Bill Clinton got peace accords signed between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, and then very nearly got a permanent agreement creating two states, but he came up narrowly short thanks to Arafat. Barack Obama got a nuclear deal with Iran and removed many of the standing issues between the United States and the Middle Eastern nations, but still couldn’t build a lasting peace. Joe Biden ended our long occupation of Afghanistan and tried very hard to hammer down a lasting agreement in Gaza, but he couldn’t get it done. Of course the Bush Presidencies were bogged down in the region and did not leave popular in the region, and Reagan was illegally playing both sides of a brutal war in the region, so he’s not loved either.

To hear Donald Trump tell it, he has been more successful in the region. He negotiated the Abraham Accords, and has convinced multiple Arab states to recognize Israel. Now he has negotiated a new ceasefire in Gaza. This is driving some people nuts, as Trump and his followers are saying he should win the Nobel Peace Prize now. While that is ridiculously silly, Trump has had some real successes in the region. You have to be a total partisan hack to say otherwise. But why is this man succeeding there?

The long and short of why Arab states are willing to deal with Trump in ways they did not with previous U.S. Presidents is simple- they agree with him and share common goals. Past Republican Administrations had neoconservative leanings and wanted to spread democracy across the region, a goal Trump could not give two shits about, and a goal that most Middle Eastern leaders reject. Past Democratic Administrations very much wanted a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian question, and from 1948 to today, no Middle Eastern country has really wanted that to happen, especially not the countries closest to the West Bank and Gaza, while Trump has shown no real inkling of wanting a Palestinian nation to exist on any sort of terms that Palestinians would want. Past Democratic nations have also wanted to take up issues of human rights abuses in the region, which Trump is completely disinterested in. Trump is interested in making money with some of the rulers in the Middle East though, something they are very interested in with him as well. In short, his interests basically align with most of their’s, so they’re happy to deal with him.

There is of course the Israeli side of this, and again, I think this comes down to simple interests. Past U.S. Administrations have wanted a two state solution, and governments in Israel after Oslo I have either opposed that outright or been wary of it. While I think Netanyahu has tested Trump’s patience a bit by not just giving him the headlines he wants, in the end neither has any burning interest in a two-state solution. Netanyahu may prefer a “Hot War” to a “Cold War” with Hamas, but even in a ceasefire state he can continue to make the case for his right-wing positions on the Palestinians as long as Hamas is there. Trump is fine with Hamas being there, as long as they sign his ceasefire to make him look good. Neither Hamas or Bibi Netanyahu have any real interest in ending this state of war. Trump has no interest in making them do so. They’re all pretty happy with it.

Now, I don’t think you really need to worry about Trump winning a Nobel Peace Prize, if you really care all that much about it (I don’t). The prize is based in Oslo, Norway, and the politics behind who wins it are largely driven by Western European politics. On the issue of Gaza, Western Europe is basically moving the goalposts so far left on Trump now that they will not have to really consider giving it to him. Governments across Western Europe are going for full-blown Palestinian statehood, which is fairly popular with their publics, which is frankly a position that Carter, Clinton, Obama, and Biden all could not have met realistically in a real political sense. So Trump’s position on a ceasefire will still look fairly reactionary to most of Western Europe, and his reluctance to full embrace Ukraine in their war with Russia will disqualify him across the continent. In short, they’re not going to give him the prize, no matter what.

With that all said, we shouldn’t all dismiss this ceasefire agreement, or at least the desire for one, out of hand. Israel had every right to respond after October 7th, but both their government and Hamas have drug this conflict out well beyond what was necessary or useful. The return of any remaining Israeli hostages and a halt to the violence that is killing thousands of Palestinians each month is a good thing for both groups of people. While I think anything short of the eradication of Hamas is a recipe for future disaster, that doesn’t make this deal a bad short-term thing.

Some things are bigger than our feelings about Trump, and even a broken clock is right twice a day.

The Dumbest Campaign Interview Ever, and Generally Bad Democratic Candidates Right Now

/ Rich Wilkins / 2 Comments

I was never a fan of Katie Porter and her white board. Or her reading a book during the State of the Union. I was never impressed when she just yelled at witnesses during House Oversight Committee Hearings (I’m not impressed with the existence of the Oversight Committee, it serves zero purpose for the general public and writes no laws.). She was just not my cup of tea. She generally votes right and was fine as a Congresswoman, but I was disappointed when she gave up her swing seat to run a quixotic campaign against Adam Schiff for Senate, when literally the entire Democratic Party wanted him. I’m not much of a fan.

The shame when a party wins a wave election is that it drags in some good and some bad candidates. You have people that win in tough swing districts because they’re good candidates, and others who do so because they’re lucky. Then you also have people drug in through the tide who win very safe seats that have no broader appeal to the national electorate, but the Squad is a discussion for another day. The shame of course is when the good candidates in tough districts eventually lose their seats, a lot of activists and donors think *those* are the weaker candidates, and people like Porter are somehow a real future star. That’s how we end up where we are.

So in Porter’s case, the question was absolutely stupid. Why would she need the 40% of voters in California who voted for the losing candidate to help her win? Why not just win over most of the 60% who voted for the winning candidate? If you want to ask if she has any intentions of being bipartisan, go ahead, but don’t act like you can’t do math. Porter’s reaction was also amateur hour. Just give the standard bullshit “I’m working for every vote,” or go with the partisan “I’m concentrating on the Californians who share our vision for the future,” or some shit. Why storm out, it’s not like the reporter called you an asshole? This interview was below the public discourse in 2025, and well, that’s a major achievement.

People like Porter just don’t go away though. A few candidates meet an archetype that is popular with an activist crowd, and it’s a disease that takes a long time to get out of your blood. Amy McGrath is begging you to light your money on fire for her again in Kentucky, where she wants to lose for Mitch McConnell’s seat and raise $100 million again. It’s honestly not going to happen, just go fail up and run for President at this point. Mikie Sherrill might pull out the win in New Jersey, but that’s only because it’s New Jersey. Her campaign of a noun+a verb+fighter pilot+Trump+an inaudible sound is about as inspiring as week old bread, which is just fine as long as she wins, but does give people watching a few skipped heart beats that aren’t necessary. Then there’s James Talarico in Texas and Graham Platner in Maine, both running for Senate seats they are grossly unqualified for on the genius notion that the Democratic Party sucks, and if only we nominate the “working class white guy savior,” we’ll be fine. All of these rising stars, created by a combination of insular DC Democratic operatives, rich out of touch donors, and activists. Could it be that we lose elections because we nominate bad candidates? Could it be that we nominate bad candidates because we look for them in all the wrong places?

I don’t know, what the hell do I know?

NFL Power Rankings, 10/8

/ Rich Wilkins / 17 Comments

And then, thanks to some interesting officiating, and a few collapses, there were none. No one is undefeated anymore in the NFL. Because of that, there won’t be as much movement as one might think after a crazy week. A lot of teams took an L. A good few of them didn’t see it coming.

Last week’s rankings. 9/24 rankings. 9/16 rankings. 9/9 rankings.

Here’s the updated rankings:

  1. Philadelphia Eagles
  2. Buffalo Bills
  3. Tampa Bay Buccaneers
  4. Indianapolis Colts
  5. Detroit Lions
  6. Jacksonville Jaguars
  7. San Francisco 49’ers
  8. Pittsburgh Steelers
  9. Green Bay Packers
  10. Los Angeles Rams
  11. Seattle Seahawks
  12. Los Angeles Chargers
  13. Denver Broncos
  14. Washington Commanders
  15. New England Patriots
  16. Minnesota Vikings
  17. Atlanta Falcons
  18. Chicago Bears
  19. Dallas Cowboys
  20. Houston Texans
  21. Kansas City Chiefs
  22. Arizona Cardinals
  23. Carolina Panthers
  24. Cincinnati Bengals
  25. Baltimore Ravens
  26. Las Vegas Raiders
  27. Cleveland Browns
  28. Miami Dolphins
  29. New Orleans Saints
  30. Tennessee Titans
  31. New York Giants
  32. New York Jets

The Phillies are one Loss from What Should be an Inevitable Breakup

/ Rich Wilkins / 2 Comments

I tend to value experiences more than I used to. I actually have felt this way for several years, as I was arriving at the dawn of my fifth decade, but that’s more true than ever after going through a near death experience. I kind of now see that youth is wasted on the young, that all of those playoff and World Series games I got to go to in the Rollins-Howard-Utley-Hamels era, like all the great concerts and other events I got to go to, they were a blessing. I took a long moment to enjoy and take in the atmosphere when I was at game three of the 2022 World Series, as I realized what a childhood dream it was when I was there in 1993 and 2008. You don’t get these experiences every day. In fact, they can be taken away from you in the course of a random Summer afternoon. You need to enjoy it while it’s here.

Saturday evening I was at the Pass & Stowe bar in Citizens Bank Park before the game and having a seat for a moment and that dawned on me again. This group of Phillies has had a really good run, and we ought to appreciate it. “Red October” over these last four years has been the most incredible atmosphere one can experience in sports. I’m grateful to all of these guys, even the guys who are playing terribly right now. Four years is an eternity though in sports. Time passes everyone by. That 2008 group was the greatest era in Phillies history, and it was stone cold dead by the end of 2012. Sports are a young man’s game. Economics are a cruel reality. Being sentimental in the sports industry, and throwing around money chasing a ghost you aren’t going to catch is how you end with an old and broken team. It’s either going to happen or it isn’t. The people running your team need to know that. Otherwise you’ll be in a stadium with 15,000 people in three years watching a losing team play out the string.

I think the Phillies are actually not at the end of their window of contention if they want to stretch it with this group. In fact, they’ve won more games every year since Bryce Harper signed in Philadelphia. There’s a strong argument that you re-sign Schwarber and at least one of Realmuto and Suarez, and just hope your team is the hot one next October. You just run it back, because statistically it’s your best odds of reaching your goal, a championship. Look, we have done this in Philadelphia with the 76ers for the better part of the last decade. Our best shot has been to hope for a healthy Embiid, paired with some star guard, and things maybe will fall our way one year. Then we get to the next season, and things end the same way in the playoffs, or worse. Yes, the Phillies best chance of winning a title is to keep running out a team that has one of the best records in the league. Sure, one year they won’t be that good anymore. We don’t know when that will be, of course, but until then we should just keep trying it with tinkering around the edges. I’m sure that’s what the analytics say.

The Phillies are down 2-0 going to Los Angeles for game three facing elimination. Their top three hitters are a combined 2-for-21 with a few walks through two games, but it looks exactly like last year’s Mets series (if not worse), which kind of looks like the last few games of the 2023 Diamondbacks series, which of course, kind of looks like games 4 through 6 of the 2022 World Series. Not only have the top three bats gone cold again, but the bullpen has wilted under the unkind, bright lights of the playoffs, where every out has outsized meaning. The manager has again, ran out his bullpen arms for one or two too many outs in big spots. Topper has had a great four years here, but Dave Roberts is doing what Carlos Mendoza and Torey Lovullo did before him- press the right buttons. The other teams make adjustments in the series, and even in the games, and the Phillies just can’t quite answer. There just isn’t some stroke of brilliance there, nothing that stems the tide against them. And it’s like this every October. Sure, one year it didn’t happen until the World Series. Here’s the truth though- the Phillies are one loss from a third straight playoff series loss to a team that won less games than them in the regular season. There is something pretty damning about that alone, let alone that it looks the same each time.

The playoffs are just a different beast than the regular season in every sport. In baseball, the biggest difference is that you do have to lean much heavier on your best players. Your bench players can’t really be getting many at-bats, let alone starts. Your middle relievers should be getting the bare minimum number of outs. Your starters should be willing to come out of the bullpen. We can criticize Topper for the fact he is less aggressive within these realities than other managers, but that’s really not the whole story. The Phillies have a tremendous payroll. They have big time star players. Those players have just come up a little short each year. And now we’re one loss from that happening again.

Don’t eulogize the living. Ranger Suarez will throw game three, and while starting pitching hasn’t been the reason the Phillies are losing, Suarez has shown in the past that he is capable of pitching on a whole other level in big spots. Then you have the choice of going with Nola or going back to Sanchez, and well, if you win that game this is a totally different discussion about the greatest comeback in team history. I mean, in truth, they had a better year than the Dodgers and they have been pretty good against them for several years. There’s no reason this team *can’t* comeback in this series. Five game series are notoriously weird and lend themselves to weird outcomes. There’s plenty of reasons to still think it’s possible.

The problem with that though is I’m watching these games. Nothing we see makes us think this is going to happen. In fact, I recently went back and re-read what some of the national writers had to say before the 2022 season about this group, and it’s ringing true. The group the Phillies had assembled would certainly have nights they mashed the ball, but they also were prone to streaky hitting and a lot of strikeouts. This team is capable of putting on a show, but they are also capable of just being shut down for a week. In 2023, the Diamondbacks pitchers had a meeting on the flight back to Philadelphia for game six where their coaches essentially told them to stop giving in and throwing predictable pitches (aka- fastballs for strikes) to this team when they were sitting on it. This group has always been very good, but very flawed. It’s feast or famine. We’ve seen famine before. This looks like famine.

Wednesday night the Phillies will play another baseball game, then they will do so again if they win, on Thursday. Essentially a week from now they might be white hot and preparing for the NLCS, or they may be eliminated by Thursday morning. If this continues towards where it looks like they’re going, I think it’s time for a shake up with these Phillies. That, in my mind, should mean changes to the manager and the coaching staff. It should mean a willingness to trade some starting position players away. It should mean a willingness to let any combination of Kyle Schwarber, J.T. Realmuto, and Ranger Suarez go to free up space to add new and different pieces. It should absolutely mean guaranteeing a spot to Justin Crawford off of a sensational season in left and center fields in AAA this season, who looks ready to come in and make an impact. It should also mean laying out a pathway for Aidan Miller to hit his way into the 2026 infield by the middle of next summer. I would suggest that if this series doesn’t turn around, the Phillies should be married to absolutely nothing going into the off-season. Running it back in 2026 is most likely going to end how all the other years have ended, or worse. Sure, fans will be sad when players who did great things for this group walk away. Fans will eventually learn to love future players if they come in and perform.

Again, as I said above, appreciate everything you’ve had. Also, for all things a season. Father Time is unbeaten.

Are the PA Dems Essentially Running Crooksy’s Operation?

/ Rich Wilkins / 7 Comments

Street word is that Bob “Crooksy” Brooks is going to fall well short of the $400k the DCCC and his campaign were putting out there. Now it sounds like $300k. That’s a very good first quarter. That’s not “clear the field” level numbers. That comes as no one on the ground is endorsing him and his union support has stopped after his own IAFF and the crooked SEIU endorsement. While Crooksy is popular with some Harrisburg types, people on the ground are scared off by his lazy personal campaign style and the abundance of negatives that follow this guy around. Deadbeat Bernie Sanders is for Crooksy, but PA-7 is not. This fire is too big for Crooksy.

There is the whole matter though of how Bob “Crooksy” Brooks is raising $300k in the first place though. In multiple calls with local party leaders this week, they all remarked how he’s late for events and leaves before they’re over. At least two of these leaders made the remark to me though, “he does have the state party helping him.” Really? I’m not shocked that he has the Bernie grifters helping him raise money, and for that matter the same people who created Fetterman. The state party though? That’s fascinating. This is a Democratic Primary, almost all of the other candidates are definitely Democrats. The state committee, the elected body that governs the staff at the party, has not voted to endorse in this or any other Congressional Primary in years. No county party in the district has voted to endorse Crooksy. In fact, no elected official in this district is backing Crooksy. So under what authority are the new chairman and his staff helping this guy? Seems crooked as hell.

By now though everyone knows what’s going on here. Brooksy has no shot in hell against Ryan Mackenzie, they’ll drown him just with the fact that he stiffed his mother-in-law for $55k, let alone all the other stupid things. That was a temporary distraction though. No one has shown they are the certain nominee in this district, and Crooksy is good for the good ole’ boys in Harrisburg’s bottom line. Senator Fetterman’s mouthpieces get paid. The out-of-district legislators endorsing him get to come back to the IAFF later and remind them how they supported their guy. The Governor can say to IAFF leadership in his gubernatorial run, and his future Presidential run, that he has been a loyal soldier with them. Here’s the thing- that’s all true. The folks at the DCCC got to push some work to consultants they like too. Absolutely none of this does anything to win this seat and give the Democrats a majority in PA-7. We actually run the risk of nominating a dude who will be way over his head and get mugged by the GOP money machine in November. It’s a political dead end, and worse yet, even if I’m wrong and he does win, the guy is just another John Fetterman. Wasn’t it enough for the good ole’ boys in Harrisburg to push one massive mistake on us all? Do we need to do that again?

Does one district decide everything? No. This one is as close as you can get though. Nominating this guy and either losing or getting a shit Congressman will hurt people who need government to work. No one benefits from that. We need to sink this guy, and sink him fast. He’s a nightmare in waiting.

MLB Power Rankings, 10/6

/ Rich Wilkins / 4 Comments

A week ago I wrote up my rankings with 12 teams alive. Today, four of them are eliminated. Another is down 2-0. Two others are down 1-0. As I write this, the rankings are tremendously shook up by those facts, and MLB’s “second season” is a totally different world than we were living in a week ago. Teams #13-30 won’t be changing until free agency and other things happen. In the playoffs though, the world changes fast and furiously for those taking part.

Here is this week’s rankings:

  1. The Milwaukee Brewers
  2. The Toronto Blue Jays
  3. The Los Angeles Dodgers
  4. The Detroit Tigers
  5. The Seattle Mariners
  6. The Philadelphia Phillies
  7. The Chicago Cubs
  8. The New York Yankees
  9. The Cleveland Guardians
  10. The San Diego Padres
  11. The Boston Red Sox
  12. The Cincinnati Reds
  13. The Houston Astros
  14. The New York Mets
  15. The Kansas City Royals
  16. The Texas Rangers
  17. The San Francisco Giants
  18. The Arizona Diamondbacks
  19. The Miami Marlins
  20. The St. Louis Cardinals
  21. The Tampa Bay Rays
  22. The Oakland Athletics
  23. The Atlanta Braves
  24. The Baltimore Orioles
  25. The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
  26. The Pittsburgh Pirates
  27. The Minnesota Twins
  28. The Washington Nationals
  29. The Chicago White Sox
  30. The Colorado Rockies

As was the case last week for teams #13-30, this is the end of the line for teams #9-12. Teams #6-8 are currently trailing in their series, and if that holds, next week will be their last new ranking, as it will be for whoever loses #4-5. At the end of the playoffs I’ll re-rank #3-12 based on opinion, but it probably won’t change a lot.

9/29 rankings. 9/22 rankings. 9/15 rankings. 9/8 rankings. 9/3 rankings. 8/25 rankings. 8/18 rankings. 8/11 rankings.

Sometimes the Hardest Part is Getting Noticed

/ Rich Wilkins / 1 Comment

There will be millions of dollars spent on Pennsylvania’s judiciary this year. Millions will be spent on the Supreme Court’s retention race, where simply vote yes or no on each of the three incumbents (I recommend yes). The same will be said for the Superior Court and Commonwealth seats up for retention this year. There will be at least a few hundred grand spent on races for new seats on the Superior and Commonwealth Court as well. Here in the Lehigh Valley there is a singular seat on the Court of Common Pleas in both counties that is being competitively contested. All of these races will get plenty of attention and will stir up people’s emotions, just as races for County Executive, County Council, and municipal office will.

You know what hopefully doesn’t get you all hot and bothered this year? Retention votes for the Court of Common Pleas in Northampton County. Judge Paula Roscioli and Judge Sam Murray are both up for retention this year. Judge Roscioli has been on for 20 years. Judge Murray has been on for ten years. Both come highly recommended for another term by basically every lawyer I know in the county. They’re qualified, they’re competent, neither has done anything stupid or embarrassing to the community up there. Their colleagues speak highly of them. Give them another term.

Now here’s the only reason I’m writing about this- voting on these questions can be confusing. First off, the retention votes aren’t on the same part of the ballot as the votes for open judicial seats, so you have to go and find them and vote yes. Second off, a lot of money is going to be spent telling people to vote yes or no on other judicial retentions. Those are completely separate, more partisan races. I’m voting yes on those too, but maybe your politics are different than mine. Even if that’s the case, Democrats and Republicans alike approve of these judges. Vote yes to retain them.

The Democrats Brand Problem, Made Simple

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

With the brief exception of right before the election, Donald Trump has been historically unpopular for ten years now. Most Presidents have a period of time in which they are very popular with the public, at a minimum after their inauguration. Trump never got there. He’s the first and only President to win twice and lose the popular vote twice, and not hit 50% in any of three runs. Many Democratic policy positions are reasonably popular, and even now they are winning on most issue polling. Most ballot initiatives, from expanding health insurance to protecting abortion rights, to funding schools, to protecting the environment, to legalizing weed, and so on, pass even in red states. Democrats may even win in both New Jersey and Virginia, not to mention the NYC Mayoral race and Pennsylvania Supreme Court retentions this Fall. There are a lot of reasons to think that Democrats could have a very good midterm, and Republicans could have a very bad one. And yet, there’s a lot of reasons to not think that too.

Anecdotal evidence on the ground here in Pennsylvania shows GOP gains in the turnout battle for 2025. There have been weak polls and anecdotal evidence in New Jersey of similar sluggishness in the Democratic Party. Talk to most professionals and they’ll tell you online fundraising has not picked back up since the 2024 Election. The enthusiasm isn’t great. It’s not a sure sign of defeat. It’s problematic though.

Polling on the Democratic Party, rather than their positions, suggests that just about everyone reviles this party right now. Conservatives and Republicans hate the Democratic Party, obviously. Leftists and Democratic Socialists hate the party too, for not radicalizing. Centrist and moderate Democrats generally think the party has lost it’s mind and doesn’t know how to win. Most of the major national figures in the Democratic Party are at least partially controversial to the Democratic base, if not the whole country. Many of the key national policy fights right now, such as “law and order,” immigration, trans-rights, and Gaza are fights that divide Democrats and tend to poll favorably for the GOP. This is astounding given the deep cuts to health care, the environment, student loans, and education that were just carried out in Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” but Trump is managing to push these issues to the forefront through over-the-top actions.

A lot of people in the Democratic tent want to take this time to argue about ideology and “the Overton Window,” and all kinds of largely academic fights that don’t mean anything and won’t change our fortunes right now. Tweaking our position on student loans or health care really isn’t going to change matters very much. Democrats have two main macro-sized problems that are going to drown out any nuance anyway.

  1. Voters don’t like who they think we are. This is sort of self-explanatory. Conservatives think Democrats are a bunch of wimpy nerds who want to make them eat kale, listen to some scientist tell them every decision to make in their lives, and want them to believe that terrorists, criminals, and illegal immigrants are the good guys, but the cops in their town are the bad guys. Leftists and Democratic Socialists think Democrats are a bunch of wimps who will either roll over and play dead in any policy fight, or are bought already and will sell out, or worse yet, are just a bunch of rich privileged kids that want to stay important. Then there’s the rank and file Democratic voter, who generally thinks we’re concerned with matters that don’t matter enough to people’s lives, and are losing elections because we attach ourselves to niche cause we can.
  2. Voters are unenthusiastic at best about the product we’re selling them. We have spent a lot of time fighting about whether we should have more or less identity in our politics, more or less economic ideology in our politics, or that we’re just packaging both wrong. Here’s the reality- a guy who is not popular with the overall public continues to grow his vote share in each election. We can argue about whether it was dislike directly toward Hillary and Kamala, or dislike with our policies, or something else, but voters do not like what we are offering them. I hear a lot of activists saying we can’t morally re-consider even what positions we talk about, much less moderate on them, but the reality is that what we’re doing now doesn’t work. The guy who was perceived as the most moderate candidate beat the crap out of 20 or so Democratic primary candidates and then won a majority to defeat Trump. Once he was seen as feeble and compromised to the party, we have had nothing. Clearly re-running the last decade isn’t going to work.

It is entirely possible that the Democrats can win in 2025 and 2026 without really changing anything. They almost certainly won’t win the Senate, as Democrats hold exactly zero seats right now in states Trump won all three times, and they would need to claw back seats in places like Iowa, Ohio, and Florida, which maybe they do once, but not across the board. In the House though it’s close, and most of the GOP members did take a vote to gut Medicaid. The Republicans were deeply unpopular in 2010 and won over 60 seats. Of course, they lost two years later. It wasn’t until they found a standard bearer that motivated voters and was “different” than the Bush Era GOP that they took back the whole government.

This is really unpopular with some of the most motivated Democrats, but here’s the reality- Democrats should run fairly normal (to regular people, not us), frankly successful people for office, and they should run on things that voters care about and agree with us on. No, I’m not saying you have to change your position on protecting trans kids from bullying, nor do I think you should. I am saying campaigning on broad amnesty for illegal immigrants or defunding the police is stupid and will lose us elections. Saying the War in Gaza should end is fairly easy and mostly agreeable, but don’t defend Hamas or say “Globalize the Intifada.” It’s a loser position. Raising the minimum wage, fixing the student loan system, making more people eligible for overtime, funding schools, building more affordable housing, legalizing marijuana- these are things that most people can support. If it sounds like I’m avoiding some of the bigger social fights, I’m not necessarily. I think we can win running on abortion rights and really most fights that involve protecting the rights of an individual to live how they chose. I think lecturing America about every social ailment it has though has gone piss poor for us, and has backed us into a political corner. So yes, I would try to run a product that people might relate to or even want. If that means talking a little differently to voters, I think the evidence is pretty clear we need to do that.