pa-7

Understanding the Modern Democratic Party

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment
Bill Clinton speaking in front of an American flag at the Hotel Bethlehem during the 2008 Presidential Primary season.
I guess Bill and I saw the same thing?

If you want to know where you’re going, you need to know how you got there. The Democratic Party is in a seeming civil war right now. This week it was Illinois, last week it was Texas. On one side, the Biden/Clinton coalition of voters from 2016/2020 and on the other, the Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren wing. The actual policy differences in the two are only marginal, really. Both favor expanding health care access, fighting climate change, funding things like public education, and access to reproductive health care. The disagreement is largely based on details and how far to go, from a policy standpoint. Philosophically they are different though. The Bernie/Warren wing of the party wants to build a Democratic Party that resembles a European Green/Social Democratic Party, or British Labour under Corbyn. The Clinton/Biden voter wants a more center-left party. How did we get here and how do you square the two?

To understand the modern Democratic Party I think you need to go backwards and start at there different dates- 1966, 1992, and 2006. They are actually not similar elections at all. Two are midterms, one a Presidential. Democrats won in 2006, while 1966 and 1992 are a mixed bag in many ways. So why these years? I’ll start with 1966, because to me it’s the beginning of all modern politics (not that nothing mattered before that, but nothing should really be viewed as modern). 1966 was the first election after the passage of LBJ’s Civil Rights agenda in Congress. It was the beginning of Democrats decline among white voters that truly culminates in the Reagan years, then relatively stabilizes with Clinton. Democrats started to see some losses in 1966. Many folks like to attribute Johnson’s fall in popularity with Vietnam, but any honest analysis tells you it was mostly otherwise. In 1968 the nation would move to electing Nixon on such themes as “the silent majority,” “law and order,” and eventually “peace with honor.” White voters began their move in 1966, but accelerated it in 1968 and especially 1972. Watergate did interrupt Republican dominance in 1974 and 1976, but by 1980, 1984, and 1988 Republicans were carrying Catholics, running 60% neighborhood numbers with White voters, and carrying the Midwest. They also began eroding the “Solid South” Democrats had enjoyed since the Civil War, which ultimately culminated in the 1994 takeover of Congress, but really took hold under Reagan. In fact, 1966 was the “canary in the coal mine” that foreshadowed Republicans winning five of the next six Presidential elections. Obviously that takes me to 1992 and Clinton. Clinton was the first Democrat to truly reap the benefits of the growing support the party had from Black voters. He also made gains with “soccer moms” and other “normie” voters who were alarmed by the “Christian Coalition” and other culture warrior conservatives. Bill Clinton pulled in white moderate voters and majorities with most non-white groups. Clinton largely abandoned the ideological left of the 1960’s politically. Clinton’s White House was less progressive dogma than his Democratic predecessors, even if that is a bit embellished by some (see his 1993 budget). Sure, Clinton invested heavily in education, the environment, and “built a cabinet that looks like America,” but he also did welfare reform, balanced the budget, was a free trader, and had “Sista Soulja.” Clinton aimed for broad appeal that made him less popular with left-wing academics, ex-hippies, and ideological leftists. He was really popular too, sitting in the 60’s through the end of his term amidst an economic boom. Clinton was personally problematic though. He had the Lewinsky affair. His Vice-President ran for President and lost a very, very controversial election. And probably most importantly of all, his wife became the first ever First Lady to run for office herself after the White House, winning a U.S. Senate seat in New York, which was of course not Bill’s home state. Of course we know the early 2000’s after Clinton were a tumultuous time as well, with 9/11 and the Iraq War dominating much of the discourse through the 2004 Election. And that pretty much takes us up to modern times.

The third year I put in there was 2006, and 2006 is truly the beginning of what the Democratic Party is now. George W. Bush was deeply unpopular by 2006. Iraq, Katrina, a failed Supreme Court nomination, and an attempt to privatize Social Security had worn him down. The Democratic Party was almost identity-less at that point though. The party’s last two Presidents, Carter (defeated) and Clinton (problematic personally) were memories by then. The last two House Speakers who had been run out of office in defeat (Jim Wright of Texas had been forced to resign and Tom Foley of Washington was defeated in his re-election). Tom Daschle’s brief period as Majority Leader in the Senate was a bad memory (Iraq, the Patriot Act, his own defeat in 2004). The Supreme Court had been narrowly conservative since the Reagan-Bush period. The party had no recognizable national leader really. And yet, the party won, and won a lot. Democrats took both houses of Congress in a wave election. Nancy Pelosi became the first woman to lead Congress as Speaker. Moderate mormon Harry Reid, a marginally pro-life Nevada Senator took over the Senate. Democrats took the House winning in places like Suburban Pittsburgh, took the Senate by flipping states like Missouri, Montana, and Virginia, and won Governorships in places like Ohio. This wave in non-traditionally blue areas set the stage for 2008 and the birth of today’s Democratic divisions, in part because the Democrats basically won Congress without a real ideological direction. They ran talking about the minimum wage, the war, health care, and ending corruption. It wasn’t exactly a far left manifesto.

A lot of people have revised the history of the 2008 primaries to fit their narratives that emerged after 2016. First off, the race was essentially a one-on-one race from New Hampshire on. Barack Obama’s coalition was built largely on Black voters, young voters, and progressive white voters. Hillary Clinton dominated among rural voters, older voters, and Hispanic voters. These coalitions dramatically changed by 2016, and even again by 2020. While Clinton won women on the whole pretty solidly, she lost young women in her 2008 run, and Black women. Obviously that was different in 2016. Obama’s coalition didn’t really crack based on age at all. Hillary continuously won in primaries, Obama won caucuses. Opposition to the Iraq War was a huge selling point for Barack Obama, particularly with lefties and young people. Obama’s coalition more closely actually resembled Bernie Sanders campaigns, and yet he was able to win. That was largely a product of Black voters sticking by him loyally. That’s about the only theme from that primary that holds up moving forward though. The rest of his primary coalition essentially forms the backbone of today’s populist left.

I think it’s fascinating to guess as to why most of the groups in the Obama coalition moved from him in 2008 to a more combative populist by 2016. There’s not really an obvious reason. Barack Obama, even today, polls as the most popular Democratic politician in the country pretty easily, and across most ideological spectrums. Some surmise that he wasn’t tough enough on Wall Street after the 2008 crash, or that he didn’t deliver a “public option” in Obamacare, or that he didn’t get out of Afghanistan and close Guantanamo, or all kinds of other theories of his shortcomings, and yet there’s not an ounce of data in polling that suggests these voters soured on Obama even a bit in his Presidency. Interestingly it does seem that Clinton’s coalition did crack quite a bit on their support of her. The more rural Democratic voters who had supported her in places like West Virginia and South Dakota joined young voters and progressive white voters in backing Bernie Sanders in 2016, while Black voters joined older voters and Hispanic voters in backing Clinton’s 2016 primary campaign. While Obama’s poll numbers stayed strong, something clearly had moved within his original base by 2016. Not only did a lot of his coalition move to Bernie, a fatally sizable portion of progressive whites, young voters, and even Clinton’s 2008 rural base either moved to Donald Trump or didn’t vote for her. While she got virtually the same amount of votes as Obama got in 2012, and won the popular vote, Clinton lost the election. Florida, Ohio, and Iowa moved comfortably right into Trump’s coalition. Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin moved towards Trump by the skin of his teeth. Clinton narrowly hung onto Maine, New Hampshire, and Minnesota. Obama had won all nine of these states both times, and rather convincingly for the most part.

The thing I find interesting about 2016 is that it really wasn’t supposed to happen. The progressive champion of the moment in 2015 was Elizabeth Warren, and she simply missed her moment in time to try and run for President. Joe Biden was probably the most bullet proof candidate the Democrats would have had at that time, and most of official Washington dismissed him as a candidate. There were some dead-ender “normies” that thought Martin O’Malley was a real alternative to Hillary, but basically the Beltway was ready to hand her the nomination. Bernie Sanders had some real people in Iowa and New Hampshire, but his national campaign apparatus didn’t read like a powerhouse. Republican operatives thought they were going to get a battle between Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Chris Christie, almost all of them thought Trump was a joke. Bernie and Trump were literally no one’s idea in DC. Then our politics turned on it’s head.

Of course 2018 did happen, but it now looks more like an anomaly than a sea change in our politics. Democrats made a real pivot towards nominating women for Congress in the aftermath of Hillary’s defeat and managed to take the House this way. Of course, Democrats had cultivated no new leaders in the time from 2006 until 2018 though, and Pelosi was back in the Speaker’s office. Pelosi is probably the closest thing to middle ground between the left and center in the Democratic national leadership, but even that isn’t neutral. 2018 brought a new majority in the House of Obama/Clinton Democrats, but also brought about “The Squad,” and did little to assuage the oncoming 2020 nomination fight.

The early portion of the 2020 primaries was a mirage. Joe Biden eventually was nominated by dominating with a coalition of Black, Hispanic, rural, and older Democratic primary voters that was both more moderate and yet more broad than Clinton’s. In the early going states of Iowa and New Hampshire though, he struggled while splitting his electorate with Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar. Once he edged them out in Nevada for second though, he consolidated his electorate in South Carolina and ran away with the nomination by the widest margin since Kerry in 2004. Bernie Sanders had some early success before fading, building largely off of a coalition of younger Hispanics, younger voters in general, and progressive white voters. Bernie also faced problems early on with splitting his vote, particularly the progressive female portion of it, with Elizabeth Warren. The other obvious weird part was Covid essentially interrupting the primaries shortly after Super Tuesday and making the primary seem to be over. Even so, Biden had built a substantial lead after Super Tuesday and lead every poll at that point.

Biden went on to win the 2020 election with the broadest coalition in American history, getting 51%, over 81 million votes, and 306 electoral votes. Democrats won the Senate and made Chuck Schumer the Senate Majority Leader along with Pelosi still leading the House. From there, things sort of went down hill. In 2021, Roe v. Wade was overturned, setting off rage within the Democratic ranks. In 2022, despite rising inflation and Biden’s unpopularity, Democrats lost single digit seats in the House, despite losing the popular vote by over 2 million votes and ultimately narrowly losing the House. Frankly, the defeat looked way better than it actually was, and the loss was foreshadowing of what was to come. Biden’s popularity continued to drain over economic concerns and worries about his age. He ended up dropping out in the middle of the 2024 Presidential race, despite what was essentially a margin of error deficit in the polls. He was largely pushed out by major donors, many of whom had been fans of his as Vice-President and even as a Senator. He was replaced by his Vice-President Kamala Harris, who immediately attempted to moderate her image more towards that of what Biden’s had been in 2020. She talked about her time as a Prosecutor, talked about fighting inflation, attacked Trump as an unacceptable, authoritarian figure, and tried to appeal to moderate voters with endorsements from former Republican electeds like Liz Cheney. Harris leaned into the image of a tough prosecutor type, something she had leaned far away from in 2020 when supporters of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren called her a “cop.” Republicans pushed back, seeking to use her 2020 campaign statements to cast her as a far left liberal and continuation of Biden’s policies, which by then they had cast as more liberal than he ran as. They hammered her on support for transgender people, support for a liberal border policy, and support for Biden’s economic policies. Data says it worked. While Harris bled out less votes from her own base than Hillary had in 2016 (it’s true, the left really did vote for her), she lost a lot of moderate Biden voters. Some flipped. More didn’t show up.

All of this brings us to today. The Democratic Party’s “brain trusts” in DC seem to be moving the party in a very different direction suddenly. They seem to think the way to bring back the “missing” Biden voters is to move which voters they are prioritizing with their messaging. Most of the front-runners for the 2028 Presidential race that are being created by DC consultants and the media are white men, many of them Governors. So in this group, think Shapiro, Newsom, Pritzker, Beshear, Gallego, and Murphy. The other group getting attention are non-white populist progressives such Ro Khanna and AOC, and while he’s not a Presidential contender, Zohran Mamdani is a figure they are pushing. Then there is a whole other element of candidate rising amongst the consultant class- the “white masculine man” that is going to bring back appeal to white men. This is a solution in search of a problem. as Kamala Harris actually did better with white men than Biden, Clinton, or Obama, even winning the college educated white men. Even so, we’re seeing the rise of candidates like Graham Platner, Bob “Crooksy” Brooks, and James Talarico. Even worse, the white guy governors seem to be embracing this crap too. Newsom is going to go on human pile of dogshit Hasan Piker’s podcast to talk. Shapiro is endorsing Brooks. Senators such as Gallego, Murphy, Heinrich, and Whitehouse are embracing Platner. The fix is in. They want to go all in on “manly” white men as their path forward. What problem does it solve? I’m not sure. They’re doing it though.

I think the clear thing to understand is this isn’t the party’s top problem, but the party’s lack of appeal to white people is a problem. If states like Ohio, Iowa, and Florida are out of reach, and states like North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Arizona, and Nevada aren’t firmly in the win column, the map tilts conservative. The reality is that further erosion could take Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin out of the Democratic column for good. Even more succinctly, while half the country is going to live in like 8 states that will be more diverse, the other 42 states are going to be decidedly white. The Democratic Party’s decline with white voters largely has stabilized for a quarter century though, and Kamala Harris did better with white guys than one might have guessed. I’m not sure what in our modern history suggests that we need to nominate Neo Nazis, crooked “every” men, and people who go on conspiracy podcasts in order to win? We got more votes than anyone in history in 2020 by running a moderate guy who had solid appeal to Black voters and didn’t seem like an extremist nut to white and rural voters. We’re risking our strongest bases of support- Black voters, Jewish voters, and educated White women to appeal to who exactly? The descendants of people who moved away from the party between 1966 and 1994? The last few Dixiecrats who ran away in 2010? People who came out of nowhere to vote for Donald Trump in 2016, 2020, or 2024? Do we really think going on Hasan Piker’s ridiculous podcast is going to make us look normal? Didn’t we learn our lesson from thinking normal people listened to Charlamagne? What in the last 60 years of the party makes us think we can get votes from people who don’t vote for us by being more like a New York City Mayor who won’t oppose saying “Globalize the Intifada?” Sure, I do think Democrats overreached with trying to normalize and formalize DEI, #MeToo, and other social movements that the country wasn’t ready for at this time, but are we now going to embrace terrorists and Nazis to chase mythical votes we haven’t received in decades? It should be worth noting that the only group to support eversuccessful Presidential candidate in recent times on the Democratic side are Black voters. Jewish voters are the only other group to support every Democratic Presidential nominee in recent history. Wouldn’t any modest gains made with guys with Nazi tattoos chopping wood in the rural South be offset with the losses we’d take with our base? Seems so to me.

Anyone to study recent American political history understands that the ideological left Democratic Party broke up as the electorate included more and more women, and Civil Rights finally let Black voters vote. Race and gender simply trump ideology in the American electorate. One that wants an ideological party could put in the time to organize and build support for their positions, maybe even try to pass some legislation that moves the ball forward towards their position. Instead, some think the right idea is to wholesale try to turn 60 years of political movement around by embracing lunatics and bigots. It’s a horrible strategy. It’s tone deaf. It’s historically ignorant. It’s a path to losing the 2028 Presidential election. Tread wisely, friends.

Sultana, Tiburcio Challenged, Obando-Derstine is Not.

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

If you bat .500 in baseball, you win the batting title. I told you yesterday that Taiba Sultana’s nominating petitions for the 18th State Senate District and Carol Obando-Derstine’s nominating petitions for the 7th Congressional District were potentially being challenged. Only Sultana’s petitions ended up being challenged. It turns out that Carol’s 1,800 plus signatures stood up. Sultana’s may not.

Bernie O’Hare reports that Ray Lahoud filed the challenge to Sultana, stating that she only has 484 valid signatures amongst her 901 signatures. He also says her statement of financial interests is invalid. They will now go to a hearing.

Meanwhile in more/less surprising news, Ana Tiburcio’s petitions were also challenged in the 22nd House District. The suit contends that a majority of her signatures are bad. After watching the debate for the special election, I don’t find myself shocked.

The Sultana and Tiburcio cases will now get a court date. Then we’ll see what happens.

I’ve Been Too Nice to Bob “Crooksy” Brooks

/ Rich Wilkins / 2 Comments

Sure, I told you he’s a deadbeat. Sure, I told you he’s a religious fanatic and gun nut. I told you he’s for political violence. I told you he likes election deniers. I told you he wasn’t a fan of Barack Obama. I told you he expressed racist views about Colin Kaepernick kneeling. I told you he’s a fake “everyman.” I told you about his awful endorsers. Hell, I even told you he’s the next Fetterman. I not only told you all of this, I showed you. I showed you his screenshots. I showed you the Superior Court opinion against him for stiffing his mother-in-law. This stuff isn’t questionable. This is the verifiable stuff. I didn’t go into the other stuff I heard, about his private business, about how he came into the Presidency of his union, about some of his friends he’s pals with from over the years, about investigations into him, or even that one of his superiors has a lot to say about him (and is giving it to the Republicans). I even stayed out of what he promised other candidates who exited the race for him. In general, I think you only fire verified shots. More so, I don’t think every past misdeed actually really should matter. Of course, that’s if you’re not a candidate for Congress. If you’re going to seek the nomination of your party for the U.S. Congress, you need to understand that the other side will find everything and make you look as awful as humanly possible. Look at the way Susan Wild was savagely attacked in the last election for doing her job as a defense attorney for Lehigh Valley Hospital. Look, you may not approve of what a client does in any given case, but the premise of our legal system is even that the worst scumbags deserve a lawyer to help them navigate the ordeal in the best legal way possible.

I’ll tell you what, I hope Crooksy has a good lawyer.

I was too nice to this guy. I mean, I knew he was a deadbeat. According to the lawsuit filed against him in February by his ex-mother-in-law, this guy is nothing more than a parasite that is still taking her for every dime he can. I’m going to let Bernie’s piece on this do the talking here:

Let me give you some background. In 2008, his in-laws transferred a residential property to Brooks and his Wife #1. They even fronted the cost of subdividing the property to the tune of $55,000. Everyman Brooks promised to pay the money back but never did. Eventually, he and Wife #1 signed a promissory note for the money, but he never paid a cent. He was sued, and a $130,000 award was entered against him in 2020. In an effort to string things along, he appealed. He lost in a unanimous Pennsylvania Superior Court ruling. In 2022, judgment was entered against him for $130,000. 

That judgment remains open of record. 

After screwing over his in-laws, he and his wife eventually parted ways, with a divorce being granted in 2018. Then, in the midst of two mortgage foreclosures and lawsuits by two credit card companies, Brooks quitclaimed his interest in the property to a person who I thought was Wife #1 in 2022. But according to the lawsuit filed against Brooks, he actually quitclaimed his interest to Wife #2 in a Quitclaim Deed that both he and Wife #2 executed. 

I’ve told you that Wives  #1 and #2 have virtually identical names. Wife #1 is Jennifer Lynne Brooks. Wife #2 is Jennifer Lynn Brooks. There is no “e” in “Lynne” in Wife #2’s name. The lawsuit avers that the Quitclaim was a fraudulent attempt to obscure the real identity of Wife #2 in order to avoid paying a $130,000 judgment. As a bonus for Brooks, this alleged subterfuge would have enabled Wife #2 tro obtain a $330,000 mortgage. 

According to the lawsuit, the signature in the Quitclaim is different than the Note signed by Wife #1 and Brooks for the cost of subdividing their property.  

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the mother-in-law, now seeks $160,000 from Brooks and from Wife #2. In addition, punitive damages are sought for “outrageous” and “malicious” subterfuge that “shock the conscience”

He’s no working-class hero. He’s shady. While there might be an innocent explanation to these allegations of forgery, there’s no denying that Brooks has adamantly refused to pay a family loan, not just a bank loan, for the home in which he lives.

I don’t even know what to add to this. The dude married a lady with the same name as his ex, basically, then pretended he was signing away the property he owed money on to his ex-wife? Remember, he was actually given this property in 2004, or 22 years ago, then signed the promissory note in 2008, then still hadn’t paid ten years later when she sued, then lost his appeal about four years ago, and then he did this. His plan is literally to con this woman out of the money that he signed that he would pay back forever.

I’ve had some Democrats say to me that they think he can get past this. I mean maybe, perhaps if Democrats win 40 seats or more and Josh Shapiro wins by 12 points it’s possible that just enough voters will overlook this man’s personal stench. I mean, Ryan Mackenzie has stayed true to his word and completely enabled a President cares not of constitutional rights, human dignity, helping his fellow man, or doing anything to improve life on this planet with his power, only that he protects himself from prosecution, exposure in the Epstein Files, and enriching himself. That may be enough of an albatross to sink Ryan Mackenzie even if we nominate a fraud who stole from his own family. Maybe. Or maybe Mackenzie slimes him up so badly with his personal baggage that 10-15% of Democrats are personally repulsed and either leave it blank or vote for Mackenzie who wouldn’t have against literally any of the other three. And perhaps we haven’t even seen rock bottom yet. No one has got into that divorce yet. No one has dropped all the stuff I just don’t feel is right to drop. One of his former bosses did give negative info about him to a DC Republican, we have no idea what’s in that.

Nominating this man is malpractice. Some folks are not Congressional material, and God knows that applies here. I get it, a lot of people are so partisan at this point that they’ll vote for Ted Cruz or a guy with a Nazi tattoo to vote against the other side. I guarantee you that’s not every last voter. And it won’t take much. Even in the best election imaginable, no candidate is winning by 10%. I guarantee you that 1 in 20 voters will see this stuff and want to puke before they’d consider voting for this guy. I might even know a few.

Petition Challenge Arrives

/ Rich Wilkins / 1 Comment

Petitions to be placed on the ballot for the May Primary are all done, so in theory we know who will be on the ballot now. Of course, members of your own party can challenge your petitions, either by stating they have a fatal defect, that you don’t have enough valid signatures, or that you are not actually eligible. There’s a lot more legalese than that, but none of you are here to read that. You want to know who is getting challenged. So I’ll tell you about what I know.

Taiba Sultana’s petitions to challenge State Senator Lisa Boscola in Senate District 18’s Democratic Primary are being challenged. Sultana has a rough history with petitions. Two years ago her petitions to challenge State Rep. Bob Freeman made waves when Boscola’s name was actually on her petition as a signer, but at an address that doesn’t exist and in a town which Senator Boscola doesn’t live in. Senator Boscola accused her of forging the signature, which was on a petition circulated by now-County Councilman Nadeem Qayyum, Sultana’s husband. Freeman decided not to challenge her petition, and he ended up beating her by over 50% of the vote, winning every municipality in the district. Supporters of Senator Boscola are apparently not giving Sultana the opportunity to get crushed this time, and they are challenging her petitions. I’m not sure what the challenge is this time, but we’ll hear soon.

The other challenge I heard about was quite interesting. Someone is apparently considering a challenge to Carol Obando-Derstine’s nominating petitions for the 7th Congressional District. I was sent the petition above (I screen shotted part of it) as an example of allegedly forged signatures in her filing. The person sending it also says there are other issues, and someone thinks they can drive her under 1,000 valid signatures with their collective challenges. I was told by a source closer to Carol that she filed over 1,800 signatures and they would be shocked if it’s an issue. I won’t post who circulated this petition, but they do work in government. If I didn’t know better, I’d think some of the Harrisburg boys who are pushing Crooksy want to send this woman a message about who she supports. Then again, Crosswell would also benefit from being the only Lehigh County candidate in the race. Hell, if we’re honest, all three guys would benefit at least a little if she was driven off the ballot. They better really have the goods though, challenging and failing would look bad to insiders (like that matters to any normal people though). You can be the judge of at least the sheet above, but it definitely looks like the same handwriting to me. One sheet wouldn’t be enough to win the challenge though.

We’ll know by 5pm tonight. I’m sure there’ll be more.

Crooksy’s Really Problematic, Antisemitic Endorser

/ Rich Wilkins / 5 Comments

Way back on September 12th, 2025, Congressman Ro Khanna of California endorsed Bob “Crooksy” Brooks for Congress. Crooksy was very proud of himself. He said of Khanna’s endorsement, “My friend (and PA native) Ro Khanna has been a champion for working class people. Grateful to have him on board.” Ro said a bunch of nice things about Crooksy too. None of this is shocking, Ro endorsed Bernie Sanders for President and Bernard endorsed Crooksy on day one. It’s all one little corrupt crew of bros.

I wonder if Crooksy was still proud yesterday. Ro went on a bender of antisemitism and just outright lunacy. He defended left-wing freaks. He defended outright right-wing fascists. It was rather remarkable and stands right up there next to Wilt Chamberlain’s 100 point NBA basketball game as one of the most amazing feats of human achievement in history. Let’s take a look at Ro’s big day.

Defending Pat Buchanan

Ok, this is amazing by any standard.

Pat Buchanan is a fucking lunatic, pardon my French. First off, he argues World War II. wasn’t necessary and that Winston Churchill caused the war by pledging to defend Poland. He also says the Treaty of Versailles after World War I was too harsh. He thinks that Hitler was actually a pragmatist, at least in 1933. He literally wrote a book outlining all of this stuff. Buchanan once said that the Congress of the United States was under Israeli occupation. Buchanan once had to remove a forum for Shoah deniers from his website. He once wrote a piece for “The American Free Press,” a publication ran by a Holocaust denier. He called AIDS a “retribution” against “homosexuals.” He questioned “Did Hitler Want War?” in an article. The guy said a lot of crazy shit. Look, some bad statements and acts don’t disqualify every last idea you speak for the rest of your life. Was Buchanan occasionally right about singular issues? Sure. The guy also defended Hitler, wanted to basically stop non-white immigration, and trafficked in homophobia. Given all of that, no normal person should feel the need to defend him on a specific instance. Hell, Donald Trump once opposed this guy and called him a “Hitler Lover.” Ro isn’t normal though.

Ro Copies Gretchen Whitmer’s Statement on Michigan Synagogue Attack

This is just embarrassingly bad work.

This is terrible staff work. If it mattered to him though, he would have required actual work.

Ro Expresses Pride in his Antisemitic Friends

When you’re a United States Congressman, sometimes you just let some things go. Not everyone gets a response. A younger staffer at Third Way is probably not someone you should choose to go after.

Now, there’s the whole issue of whether he should have engaged anyway, but this post comes out around the time today of the synagogue attack in Michigan. Necessary? Definitely not. Let’s go deeper though. He defended three specific people. Let’s look at them.

Hasan Piker is an asshole, again, pardon the French. I’m not sure why he got famous, but some people listen to him. Not shocking, people vote for Donald Trump. Not that long ago though, saying you supported Hamas, a terrorist organization that kills Palestinians and hasn’t held an election in Gaza in like 20 years was a deal breaker. Saying the same for Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that occupies Lebanese sovereign territory, was also a dealbreaker. And the Houthis? They’re newer to the public debate, but they’re literally shooting at foreign ships coming into their region. No thanks. As for Graham Platner, how about we just don’t add to that. The guy had a Nazi tattoo for decades, goes on Nazi podcasts, and retweets Nazis. Look, whatever good ideas he may have, he’s a Nazi, and I was always taught that’s bad. As for Mamdani, I’ve made it clear how I feel. He’s probably the least offensive of these three, and he’s still awful. I’m not embracing the Intifada, even if I think Israel’s war in Gaza is awful at this point.

To be clear here, we’re not going to claim that all of Ro Khanna’s nonsense is Crooksy’s responsibility- besides, he doesn’t pay up on his responsibilities. The bigger point here is that a lot of the same people end up showing up in all of this antisemitic bigotry. Ro Khanna, Ruben Gallego, and Bernie Sanders are all endorsers of Graham Platner and his Nazi tattoo in Maine, and they’re all endorsers of Obama-hating Bob “Crooksy” Brooks here in PA-7. Hey, at least Crooksy only takes his mother-in-law’s money, that’s a helluva lot better than getting a Nazi tattoo, right? Once Martin Heinrich joins they can get the whole band together. These folks want to effectively U-Turn the Democratic Party from where it’s been post-Barack Obama and take it to some sort of pre-LBJ version where we “prioritize” the “working class again,” which is really just code word with them for white guys (Kamala won every other “working class” demographic in 2024). They’re readily willing to toss aside Jewish voters, who are probably the second most consistently Democratic voting group in the electorate, to appease voters they can’t appease anyway. I don’t know why anyone would want to follow the strategy of a guy who lost two primaries for President by millions and millions of votes and has passed like three bills in thirty years in the Congress, but here we are. On the dumbest timeline. With the dumbest endorsers, endorsing a guy who pulled his shirt over his face when he was asked about funding Israel at a Lehigh Valley 4 All meeting (the video has since been made private by the group). We’re going to pretend there is some sort of morality here, some sort of strategic vision here, quite frankly some sort of brain waves here. Meanwhile this snake oil salesman is being endorsed by a Congressman defending Pat Buchanan. Great times.

The New Democratic Establishment’s Loser Values

/ Rich Wilkins / 1 Comment

Two things happened yesterday that are only sort of unrelated. Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico endorsed modern Nazi sympathizer Graham Platner for the Senate race in Maine. Look folks, on this, I’m not “vote blue no matter who.” This guy has Nazi tattoos, he is pals with Nazis, was a Blackwater mercenary, and posts horribly racist shit on the internet. All of his behavior screams Nazi. If we nominate this piece of human sludge, we should lose the race. Heinrich isn’t alone though. Ruben Gallego recently endorsed him too. Ro Khanna has also endorsed Mr. Nazi Tattoo. Not to be left behind, Bernard Sanders had to be involved as an endorser. In case you’re wondering, all of them but Heinrich (to my knowledge) have endorsed Bob “Crooksy” Brooks, a man who stiffed his mother-in-law for $55k, said President Obama “sucks,” stated his hate for Colin Kaepernick very loudly, and spouts off fanatical stuff about guns and religion. Kind of fits, right? We went through this before with John Fetterman, and people ignored the obvious. Fetterman was a degenerate nut-job, and now we’re going to arm an army of him in Congress, if these bros have their ways.

Now, as I said, there was a second thing that happened. Last night Muhammad “Sef” Casim lost a special election for the Prince William County Supervisor race in the Woodbridge, VA district. Dems had held it for 38 years. “Sef” was a problematic candidate, not unlike Platner. He says really racist shit. Casim was also an outright antisemite. Republican Jeannie LeCroix beat him by 6% and almost 20% wrote in another candidate. After winning a primary running as a far left nut, Casim blew a lay up race, failing to even reach 40%. Much like Mamdani, the general electorate was less impressed with his left-wing populism and looked for literally any other option but to vote for this bigot. Northern Virginia, much like New York City, is very Democratic. Once you got beyond the primary, most Democrats don’t want this kind of vile shit.

The “new” Democratic Establishment, built of consultants and operatives from the Bernie and Fetterman world, are building a Democratic establishment that will cement MAGA control of the White House for years to come. It’s a road to nowhere. Here in PA-7 they are promising jobs to young candidates and electeds who endorse them, and painting a rosy picture of a future that looks very much like a Bernie rally. It’s fools gold. Bernie Sanders lost cleanly twice when he ran for President, because he couldn’t build a coalition of people who were bought in enough to vote for him against the “boring old” establishment figures that he and Mr. Nazi Tattoo want to create. Regular, real people who live in this country don’t want this shit. Most people want to be normal. Our party does not want a revolution:

Analysis of the data suggests the Democratic coalition can be broken into three distinct blocs. Moderates—voters who identify as moderate Democrats, independents, or anti-Trump Republicans—account for 47 percent. They are demographically diverse, older on average, and the most electorally flexible—only 45 percent say they have never voted for a non-Democratic presidential candidate.

A second bloc, Progressive Liberals, make up 37 percent. They are reliably left-leaning, whiter than the other blocs, and disproportionately concentrated in suburbs and on the West Coast.

Last comes the Woke Fringe—voters who identify as democratic socialists or Communist. These add up to just 11 percent of the coalition. The Woke Fringe is the youngest of the three groups, the most conspiratorial, the most likely to report poor mental health, and—not incidentally—the most likely to spend excessive sums of time on the internet. Notably, previous quantitative and qualitative Manhattan Institute research on the GOP coalition shows that the youngest and most hyper-online Republicans also skew hardest toward ideological wackiness.

So why the hell are we listening to a bunch of lefty white guys who want to expel Jews and welcome Chairman Mao to the party? It’s somewhat the fault of donors. It’s somewhat the fault of podcasters. It’s largely the fault of “the bubble children” in DC that manage the interest groups in between their stays at the party committees. What they are building is a party that isn’t likable. They are building a party that is weird, fake, and harmful in the eyes of most Americans. They’re building a freak show. We need to reject them. A fake “working class hero” movement lead by an 80 something year old that used his campaigns to make money isn’t useful.

The Fields are Set in the Lehigh Valley

/ Rich Wilkins / 1 Comment

Well, petitions are over. We know who is on the ballot now here in the Lehigh Valley. Let’s take a look at what our options are on the ballot.

Governor and Lt. Governor

So, there’s no surprises at all. No gadfly candidates who made the ballot, no freak shows, no party dissidents. Governor Josh Shapiro is the only Democrat for Governor. State Treasurer Stacy Garrity is the only Republican. Lt. Governor Austin Davis is the only Democrat in that race too. Republicans Jason Richey (Allegheny) and John Ventre (Westmoreland) are the only Republicans. I’m voting for Shapiro and Davis. Simply put, Garrity and whichever of these folks wins are simply too dangerous to essential public needs, such as health care, public education, infrastructure, and the environment. I have my disagreements with the Governor’s judgment on several issues, but this isn’t the time to deal with those.

Congress- PA-7

Only four of the gaggle of announced candidates made it to the starting line. Bob “Crooksy” Brooks is a total fraud. Carol Obando-Derstine seems like a solid person and Democrat, I’d have nothing bad to say if she got nominated in this race, and I’d vote for her in November. Ryan Crosswell is a Republican and a union buster. I’m voting for Lamont McClure. I will keep this as simple as can be. In eight years as County Executive he expanded farmland preservation, kept Gracedale County owned, didn’t cut services to the public, and didn’t raise taxes. In the aftermath of the “Big Beautiful Bullshit Bill,” we’re going to need members in Congress who understand the way cuts to Medicaid, the ACA, infrastructure spending, and all the other government programs that were cut are actually hitting us locally. Additionally, he’s been an advocate against new warehouse proliferation and for passenger rail from Amtrak. I think we have two pretty good candidates, I am just going to vote for him.

State Senate- 14th

Only two folks filed. Democratic incumbent Nick Miller and Republican Omy Juriel Maldonado. Nick has done a good job in his first term. While not making waves, he’s made his way into Democratic leadership and is delivering for the people of Valley. I don’t have a vote in this district, but I’m for Nick Miller.

16th

So only three of the four Democrats made it to the starting line. Richlandtown Mayor Wayne Codner, Pennridge School Board Member Bradley D. Merkl-Gump, and Lehigh County Controller Mark Pinsley. The Bucks Dems tried to herd everyone into backing Merkl-Gump, whom I’m guessing will be the best fundraiser in this race. Pinsley has the name recognition here from losing in 2022 by 9%. Codner is relatively unknown, but his profile as a veteran, a Black man, and the Mayor of a very red town is pretty impressive. I think if we’re truly trying to win this seat and nominate an authentic candidate, Codner is the strongest to me. But I think we should let them all campaign a bit and see.

18th

Senator Lisa Boscola has a challenger from both sides. My guess is that will mean she did something right to Lehigh Valley voters. Apparently losing for the State House by over 50% to Bob Freeman has not soured Taiba Sultana on the idea of this quixotic primary on the Democratic side. I don’t know who tells her this is a good idea, but she’s going to lose her home precinct in Easton in this race. If Taiba wanted to run a primary where she could get 20% and be competitive while ranting about ICE and genocide, she should have run for Congress. This is a sideshow. Republican Scott Janney is their sacrificial lamb this time, and he’ll do way better than Taiba. But he’ll lose by at least 15%. I’m for Lisa Boscola. Again, she’s delivering the things our local governments are asking for. You may wish she was more of a leftist, but be honest with yourself, then she’d lose. That’s not who lives in Northampton County.

State House- 137th

Since I live in this seat, I’ll start here. County Councilman Jeff Warren is challenging Joe Emrick. I’m voting for Jeff Warren. Simply put, Joe Emrick is not there for our schools, our seniors, our infrastructure, or our environment. He’s a no vote on legalizing recreational cannabis, thereby denying our students and seniors the tax dollars that are going across the river into Phillipsburg, NJ, from our customers. He’s an ex-teacher who really doesn’t want to solve property taxes or fund the schools, so the worst of all worlds. Simply put, he’s a road block.

131st

Milou who? Ryan’s Mommy is back, running to be the self-proclaimed most Conservative state elected in the Lehigh Valley. Meriam Sabih is running against her. Look, by default I’m for Meriam Sabih. With that said, I thought her last campaign was very energetic, practical, and impressive. She ran as a serious person with thought out policies, and that makes her better than Milou Mackenzie.

135th

Steve Samuelson is being challenged by Republican Joseph Poplawski. I know nothing about this guy, other than he will lose in the general. I’m with Steve Samuelson.

136th

Bob Freeman is being challenged by… oh, it doesn’t matter what his name is. Bob is the best legislator in our region, and at least to me, in the state. In 40 years the guy has never, not once, embarrassed us in his service. I’m with Bob Freeman.

138th

Up in the northern tier of Northampton County, Jared Bitting is challenging Ann Flood for this seat. This is really tough terrain for a Democrat, but I’m for Jared Bitting.

183rd

Zack Mako is being opposed by Deirdre Kamber. I don’t know her at all. Friends of mine say very nice things about her. I’m for her I think, but let’s see her campaign.

132nd

Mike Schlossberg is being opposed by Republican Caren Lowrey. I know nothing about her. Mike might make some poor endorsements, but Mike is a very, very good state representative. For every reason I stated that we need to re-elect the Governor, Senator Miller, and Senator Boscola, and every reason I stated we need to remove Joe Emrick, we need Mike re-elected to the House. As Whip, he is one of those ultimately responsible for moving progress forward.

134th

Pete Schweyer is being opposed by Miriam Alicia Maldonado. Again, I know nothing about her. Basically everything I wrote about Mike basically applies here too.

187th

After a two year break, Gary Day is back roaming the halls of the State Capitol aimlessly. Bless his heart. He’s being challenged by two Democrats, Rachel Guynn-Cuevas and Geoffrey Whitcomb. I know nothing about either right now.

22nd

Fresh off of her win, Ana Tiburcio is being challenged from all sides. Ce-Ce Gerlach is challenging her on the Democratic side. Bob Smith must not have lost bad enough in the special election, because him and his 200 and some votes (I think?) are back. I’m for Ce-Ce Gerlach. Look, I watched that debate. I may think Ce-Ce is further to the left than I like, but she knows the issues and she’s going to vote on the right side because those are her values, not because other legislators tell her what to think on the issue. Allentown can do better, and it should.

NOTE- I somehow left Jeanne McNeill out of here. Feel free to laugh at me, I’ve literally done work for her. She’s a great Representative and deserves another term.

Crooksy and the Election Deniers

/ Rich Wilkins / 1 Comment

Bob “Crooksy” Brooks is running to be the Democratic nominee for Congress in PA-7. He even filmed a commercial with Pete Buttigieg this week in a cigar bar to give you the sense he’s a middle class guy (It’s a great cigar bar, I recommend it). One has to wonder though, does Crooksy even like Buttigieg? We know he doesn’t like President Obama. Brooks personally announced the Pennsylvania Professional Fire Fighters Association was not endorsing Kamala Harris. I wonder why? Crooksy really doesn’t seem to like other Democrats, unless they’re endorsing him.

Maybe Crooksy is running in the wrong primary. He loves religious radicals and gun nuts. He really doesn’t think Democrats know how to talk to working class people. Most importantly though, Crooksy loves election denying Republicans. He made sure to personally repost social media posts from his union praising Republican State Senators Mike Regan and Camera Bartolotta. Regan was named in a report for spreading election denial conspiracies. Bartolotta signed a letter to Senator Mitch McConnell and Congressman Kevin McCarthy asking them to delay certification of the 2020 Election. Bartolotta currently sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee in Harrisburg, as well as the Rules & Executive Nominations Committee. She is an election denier when it’s convenient for her. Crooksy is fine with this.

Look, I know most of these GOP legislators are just doing this to keep their jobs. Adherence to “Dear Leader” is a requirement in that party, and both of these folks probably pushed this shit to stay on the right side of the local MAGA Juntas, or local GOP committees (didn’t work for Bartolotta). The problem here is the hypocrisy of Crooksy. He personally made it a point to not endorse Vice-President Kamala Harris as leader of his union, which is certainly his choice, but he’s giving cover from that same post to people who were giving cover to people in the nut house, denying the 2020 election. Now he wants to run and claim he’s some leftist that will take back the working man. Crooksy is just the new John Fetterman, right down to the hoodie. What a shame that Buttigieg is covering for this fraud.

Establishment Politics and the Democratic Party’s Road to Nowhere

/ Rich Wilkins / 2 Comments

Ruben Gallego is a United States Senator in Arizona. He won his seat in 2024, a key hold for Democrats, largely running on stronger border security. As best I can tell, his Congressional history is largely pro-Israel, opposing BDS, supporting the “Iron Dome,” supported a stronger definition of antisemitism, and consistently supporting a two-state solution (he did support the Iran Deal under President Obama, which Israel opposed). Gallego even says the Democratic Party should focus on building prosperity, over focusing on equity. The guy is a full blown moderate, or at least he was. He seems to be blowing in the winds of change, embracing a radically different vision now.

Ruben Gallego endorsed Graham Platner for the Maine Senate seat today, a shameful act that drew political fire from all directions. Last Fall, he went on Pod Save America to slam the party’s narrative with a bunch of lefties, a bizarre move from a political moderate. Gallego has displayed further bro behavior by complaining about Democrats not allowing “women to be hot.” The guy’s behavior is really all over. When he was running for Senate, he wanted his divorce records sealed after saying his PTSD from the war had lead him to drink and smoke too much and have outbursts. He blasted Kyrsten Sinema for “doing nothing” while considering a run against her, then ran as a moderate Democrat anyway. Gallego is really all over the map.

Even though Gallego is an enigma, his endorsement of Platner doesn’t make much sense. Platner is Mr. Nazi Tattoo. He posted horrible things on the internet for years. His campaign pays his wife a salary, which Gallego doesn’t. Platner might have dated several women at once. He was a Blackwater mercenary. Now we find out he’s going on Nazi conspiracy theorist podcasts and retweeting Neo-Nazis. Even for Gallego’s unsteady brand, Platner is insane. He called him the “kind of fighter Maine has never seen,” which is true, the Nazis never invaded Maine. This seems totally unnecessary.

Well, sometimes endorsements happen for stupid reasons. Really stupid reasons. Like Ruben Gallego has the same television consultant as Graham Platner, so he endorsed him. Rebecca Katz, who was also a part of that Pod Save America debacle, is the television consultant for both of them. She was John Fetterman’s advisor as well, because of course she was. Her co-workers worked for the likes of Bernie Sanders and Cori Bush. Oh, and they’re Bob “Crooksy” Brooks’ consultants too. And in case you need to be shocked some more- Ruben Gallego also endorsed Brooks. Because I’m sure he knew a lot about Crooksy going into this.

This whole “blue collar populist” Democratic movement is a sham. If you pay certain people enough money, they’ll shovel you into their template and give you another endorsement from an erratic Senator in another state. They’d probably have “Shrek” Fetterman out there endorsing some of these freaks, but he’s not very popular right now because he refuses to cosplay a Nazi, and honestly that might be the most respectable thing he’s done in his strange, strange existence, which they also created. Their entire argument is that if we just have some white guys all go out and sell socialism, with an occasional non-white person who happens to be young and halfway interesting, we can convince America to at least be more like Europe, if not like Mao’s China. Because, you know, Mr. Nazi Tattoo is a good future for America.