The Democratic Party

Literally ALL White People are Racists?

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

Last year in Easton, State Representative Bob Freeman beat City Councilwoman Taiba Sultana by such a wide margin that if it were any worse, he’d be winning by numbers on par with Saddam Hussein, Vladimir Putin, and other famous autocratic leaders. For full disclosure, I did work on his campaign, but also, I am not why he won. Bob won by so much because virtually everyone in Easton likes him, and for that matter in the other communities he represents. He’s been effective at legislating, and more importantly he has not one time in his career embarrassed his community. He’s a decent human being in a time when politics lack that.

Sultana’s campaign wasn’t going to be successful, but she probably didn’t help herself making every Easton City Council meeting a referendum on Gaza. Look, neither the State Representative or Easton City Council are for the destruction and death happening in Gaza. It’s a complicated, ugly issue, but they’re not the issue. I guess aiming at the wrong culprit is still her MO though. The Councilwoman wanted to put forward an ordinance protecting undocumented immigrants in Easton. For a variety of reasons, Easton really has no part in enforcing immigration. It’s out of their jurisdiction and they don’t allow their police to really be involved. It’s simply not an issue the Easton City Council can legally do much about.

So instead of the ordinance, the council decided to bring forth Councilman Ruggles’ 2017 resolution supporting the immigrant community in Easton, with additions based on Sultana’s proposal. You know what, I support that. A resolution stating the opinion of the city government, in particular on people being taken into custody without a warrant or any due process, is a good thing. The councilwoman’s proposed additions to the resolution dealt with what should be done with people at the border, which is somewhat of a different question, but even there I’m not saying they couldn’t say that. Of course, once Sultana started squaring off with Councilman Frank Pintabone about the language in the resolution, things went totally off the rails. Pintabone suggested her language watered down the message of the resolution. Then things went nuts:

Pintabone responded by stating the resolution does not offer protection of the federal government even if it calls out issues between the city and federal officials.

Sultana eventually said Pintabone was making such points because “undocumented immigrants cannot vote for you.” 

Pintabone described Sultana’s commentary as “great talking points for your next campaign.”

She later said, “you want to make sure you have the vote of all the racists, all the white people.”

Huh? All the white people? all the racists? What in the actual blue hell is that? Yes, there are plenty of white racists in this world. No, not every white person is racist. This is probably more true in Easton than most other places. Easton is a mixed racial community. There are significant White, Black, and Latino populations in the city. There is a history of Asians in the community and particularly a vibrant Lebanese history in the city. Easton’s schools, even in the townships, are pretty well integrated. I know damn well there are some racists in the community. Saying all the white people are racist is insane.

Last I checked, Easton was just over 50% white (in the city, the surrounding townships are whiter). If you think that a group of people that large in your community are sworn racists, why in the hell do you want to represent them? Even better question yet, if you think the majority population in your community are all racists, and you’re the one standing against racism, how do you think you’re actually going to win? I have good friends in the NAACP and other community groups that are like minded, and not one of them would say all the white people in the community are racists. They might say we can do more to fight racism, but they would never make such a blanket statement as this. It’s reckless and it’s dumb politics. It kind of explains why just about 4 out of every 5 voters in the State House race didn’t vote for her. This kind of naked identity based attack is dying a painful death in American politics, and that’s a good thing. Easton deserves better than this.

Bernie’s Goofy Lefties that don’t Believe in Political Gravity

/ Rich Wilkins / 6 Comments

Just based on his schedule and endorsements, it’s pretty obvious that ancient fossil/dinosaur/cranky old man Bernie Sanders either wants to run for President in 2028 or try to be the king maker for who Democrats nominate for President. Bernie is 84 years old and will be 87 in 2028. He is, in short, older than Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Al Gore, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and probably a bunch of other national political figures who are very old, or in most cases, long retired. Also, all of them were at least able to win a nomination to run for President, something Sanders failed at twice, and in fact did far worse in his second attempt at. Bernie is a delusional nut, and not just for his archaic left views on policy. People don’t vote for the guy. He’s not as likable as he thinks he is, thanks to the internet. His record of king making? Tulsi Gabbard, John Fetterman, some failed pro-life Mayoral candidate in Omaha, and of course, that lady Shontel Brown blew out in Cleveland (“HELLO SOMEBODY,” Nina Turner!). This guy is a delusional crackpot that Democrats should be trying to stuff back in the school locker that the DNC braintrusts let him out of in 2016. He’s yesterday’s loser.

Here’s the thing though, Bernie doesn’t just have delusions for himself, he creates delusions for others. Take Graham Platner in the Maine Senate race. The latest “white savior” from the far left to run for office is certain he can win a U.S. Senate seat away from Susan Collins. Never mind that he never has won anything, he’s certain he’s the LeBron James of Democratic politics. He’s so certain that he’ll tell you that his past Reddit posts questioning why Black people don’t tip, downplaying sexual assault, and using homophobic slurs don’t matter. You know, he was just trying to get a rise out of people. Now he’s re-shuffling his campaign and making people sign NDA’s so you don’t hear any more about it. He figures people will just forget about it and elect their savior, who is of course, him. For a brief moment yesterday morning he got a poll that showed that primary voters were willing to excuse the early stuff. That’s sick, vile, and disgusting, and I hope is just a matter of Maine voters not knowing enough about it yet. I’m sure we will soon find out that the general electorate is not as forgiving. I guess it was the endorsement from a white supremacist might do it. Or maybe, and just hear me out here for a second, it was having a Nazi tattoo that he got on a drunken night in Croatia when he was 37 will kill his candidacy.

The whole entire premise of his campaign is dumb to begin with though. Sara Gideon didn’t lose to Collins because she was some super moderate. The attack at the end that Collins team ran with was that Gideon wanted to defund police. Of course though, Bernie Sanders, surprisingly Senator Martin Heinrich, and basically all the Democratic Socialist types are sticking up for Graham and saying he’s a great candidate. They think this stuff will go away, or voters just won’t care. Assuming voters in Maine don’t mind that he’s further left than Gideon, who they rejected in 2020, they probably will mind that Platner is a piece of shit human being. Collins and her backers will remind them of it, over and over again. His defense is basically that he was a drunken man child. I’m sure people will be cool with a Neo-Nazi Senator.

This is the kind of judgment Bernie Sanders shows over and over again though. He endorses delusional deadbeats in primaries who run on his populist BS. Here in the 7th District of Pennsylvania, that’s his guy, Bob “Crooksy” Brooks. Crooksy took $55,000 from his mother-in-law and didn’t pay it back He went to court, and lost, then lost his appeal too. His excuse is that it was all just part of a messy divorce. That’s one helluva long divorce- it was basically the entire marriage! Crooksy took the money in 2004, paid none back by 2008 and therefore signed a promissory note to pay the money back, then proceeded to pay back not one dime for ten more years before the lady filed suit against him. A full two more years went by before the case went to court, he still didn’t pay any money back, then he appealed the case on the grounds that the promissory note was no longer valid, so he didn’t need to pay. Seriously. This dude stiffed his mother-in-law and thinks voters in the most swing district are going to trust him as some sort of ridiculous “every man” figure.

Look, if we set aside for a minute that he became the President of the Fire Fighters union by pushing out his predecessor allegedly in dubious ways, or that the guy is a racist, a gun nut and militant religious wacko, and maybe the only statewide union President too lazy to go to Labor Day events, I think most normal voters understand that stiffing your mother-in-law for over 15 years brings up some serious issues in your trustworthiness. Explaining his laissez-faire views on political violence can be hard to get across to voters. Taking money, not paying it back, and then lying about it is much easier. In his delusional mind though, he thinks he’s Congressional material. Ryan Mackenzie will make him the poster-child for elder abuse by the end of this race, fair or not. He’s easily the worst candidate in this field. But he’s lecturing Democrats about supporting working people. Give me a break.

Maybe I’m over thinking it though. Maybe the sign came on the first day of the campaign- the endorsement from Bernie Sanders. The same Bernie Sanders who stood on stage with Tulsi Gabbard and told us she’s great. The same Bernie Sanders who rallied voters for John Fetterman, who now wants to sell out our health care. The same Bernie Sanders defending the guy with the Nazi tattoo in Maine. The same Bernie Sanders who is fine with stiffing your mother-in-law in the Lehigh Valley.

Yeah, there’s a pattern here.

As the World Rejects Marxism and Third World Leftism, Some Democrats are Embracing It

/ Rich Wilkins / 1 Comment

Venezuela and Bolivia are actively rejecting Marxist ideology as their nations fail. The Cuban government is turning to foreign capitalists to solve their liquidity crisis, because Socialism has failed there. Socialism is collapsing across our hemisphere. Yet, Democratic Socialism is finding at least empathizers, if not outright sympathizers, all over the Democratic Party.

Zohran Mamdani can literally take pictures with unindicted co-conspirators in an infamous terror attack in New York City, refuse to call for Hamas to end, and say and do any number of outrageous things and there are Democrats backing him anyway, Democrats he has attacked. The Shapiro Administration and Chris DeLuzio are falling all over themselves to help a guy who stiffed his mother-in-law get to Congress from here in the Lehigh Valley. Graham Platner in Maine has damn Nazi tattoos and there are people defending him, saying “he was only 37,” and “he didn’t know what he got tattooed on himself,” as though that sounds better? Martin Heinrich, a ****ing U.S. Senator from New Mexico, literally still says he’s a good candidate. In fact, he goes further, to say he “obviously” doesn’t like this, but the real lesson is “stay off Reddit.” You cannot make this shit up.

You know, when Bernie started running for President as an already old man, it was stupid and all, but there were some half baked policies being discusses. “Medicare 4 All,” “Defund the Police,” and “Green New Deal” were all somewhere between not fully thought out plans (that could have been finished plans) and poorly thought up, stupid ideas that took actual problems and created new problems from them, but there was policy here. We are now at the point where “globalize the Intifada” and “you have to accept some Nazis to win back men” are actual arguments of the American left. I guess we could see this coming when “tough guy from Braddock” got a guy elected in 2022 who was in no way ready to serve in the U.S. Senate for Pennsylvania, but one would have thought that Fetterman’s utter and complete failure as a human being, let alone as a Senator, would have stopped that. It’s bad enough that he won’t fight for people’s health care, the guy has literally turned into an internet troll against the people who supported him in 2022 over Israel, an issue where I may agree with him more than not, but still find his cavalier, childish behavior disgusting.But we’re not just considering doing that again- we’re doing it on steroids.

Kamala Harris did not lose in 2024 because she moved too far right. That might make you sleep better at night, you might even be able to twist some parts of the story to make that seem plausible. Trump hasn’t gone up in every one of his three elections though, in raw votes and percentage, because the Democrats moved right. Millions of Biden voters, objectively considered the most moderate Democratic nominee in the post-Obama era, didn’t sit out the 2024 Election because the Democrats moved right. It’s a nice story that “Dearborn cost Harris Michigan,” but they voted against Biden in the primary and moved the numbers zero, they voted against Whitmer in 2022 and she won easily. Sure, in very blue enclaves it doesn’t matter if you nominate Zohran Mamdani, he’ll probably win. And then you can hope that he is able to enact some of the more popular policy stuff on housing and buses, and maybe all the “Intifada” talk goes away. At best, it’s a net neutral in competitive Congressional Districts, and my guess is it is much worse in the five or so neighboring seats to the city that might decide who wins the House. Of course, that message gets ignored. So much of the Democratic Party has decided to believe the myth that Dem-Socialist Populism is the only way to turn out the youth, who are the only way to win an election. They’re not only wrong, they’re exactly wrong.

Every vote Democrats have gained in the Trump era has come from the exact opposite of this populist brain rot. Kamala Harris became the first Democrat in my lifetime to carry college educated white men. Democratic midterm success in 2018, and to a large extent in 2022 was built off of college educated white voters and middle class Black and Latino voters. Joe Biden rode increased Black voter turnout and gains with college educated white voters to the most votes in American history. Bernie Sanders actually did worse the second time he tried to run for President. I get it, the guy has a following, he can get a crowd and a donor off the internet for you. What he can’t do is win you an election outside of a deep blue district. If you watched Sara Gideon get savaged in the closing days of the 2020 Maine Senate race with attacks that she supported “defunding the police,” and you think the answer to that is to nominate the guy with the Nazi tattoo who wants to take the party in a left populist direction, you’re a lunatic. It’s stupid, it’s not backed up in data, and it’s not backed up in facts. If you want to move on from “centering identity politics,” because “Hillary and Kamala lost,” I get that there’s a strategic argument to be had about what we talk about and how, but that’s very different from selling out the people who might vote for us for people who are loons and wackos, won’t vote for us, and will make us look even crazier than we already do. We’ve spent a decade trying to shame Republican supposed moderates into abandoning Trump, and they’ve spent a decade calling us hypocrites. In these people, we actually might prove them right.

Cash Rules Everything Around Me…

/ Rich Wilkins / 1 Comment

Welp, we have updated finance numbers. If it wasn’t clear before, Ryan Crosswell is going to have the most campaign cash in the PA-7 race. The former Trump Administration Republican from DC won the money race by a lot. Since we know the DCCC values that over everything, obviously they will go looking for a sixth candidate now, right?

Anyway, here’s the numbers here in PA-7, followed by some other races of note.

  • Crooksy brought in $308,259.47. He has $243,615.75 on hand.
  • Crosswell brought in another $380,000. He has raised $701,108.08 in two reports. He has spent $266,743.94, leaving him with $433,791.14. That’s some burn rate.
  • Carol Obando-Derstine brought in $123,000. She has raised $317,006.02. She has spent $198,245.98, leaving her with $127,513.18. That’s a really astounding burn rate.
  • Lamont McClure’s report doesn’t seem to be fully up on the FEC site yet. He raised $229,000 according to press reports, which should put him at $458,386.04. He had burned through $135,267.89 in the first two reports, which should leave him at $323,118.15, minus whatever he spent this quarter. That was a fast burn rate, but we’ll see what he did this quarter.
  • Mark Pinsley’s report isn’t up on the FEC site yet. Press reports indicate he has raised $73,000. I have nothing to add to that.

Crosswell is raising serious cash, but spending just shy of 40% of it on staff and things that aren’t voter contact. He’s spent $266,743.94 and 10% of voters or less really know anything about him. I actually have to compliment Crooksy’s campaign, their burn rate is like half of Crosswell’s. They might catch him in money if there was more than two and a half quarters left at this rate, but they won’t. Carol’s number slowed and her burn rate is very high. McClure wrote himself most of what he raised this quarter, but the word is he stopped most of his spending so he may have a decent cash on hand number, but we’ll see about that. Pinsley’s number won’t do it. Crosswell and Crooksy have decent numbers here, but not Neary enough cash on hand with their low name ID’s. We’ll see here.

Now for context, some other numbers of note:

  • Paige Cognetti, the Mayor of Scranton, running in PA-8, announced she raised over $500,000 in under a month. She currently has no primary and probably won’t get one.She has $442,966.97 on hand. That district won’t be easy for her, but those are damn good numbers.
  • Janelle Stelson brought in $1,249,712.55. She has $969,643.79 on hand. The burn rate is a little higher, but damn!
  • Not enough numbers are out yet in PA-3, but so far the leaders in cash-on-hand are Sharif Street at $372,089.87 and David Oxman at $331,724.05. I’m really interested in Dr. Ala Stanford’s number to see if they hype is real.
  • Across the river in NJ-7, two candidates have crossed the $1 million mark raised. Rebecca Bennett still has $922,757.14 and Brian Varela has $805,278.44 left. Tina Shah has $481,396.28 on hand and Michael Roth has $290,302.11 left.

At this stage in the game, the most important number is really your cash on hand number. Sure, the DCCC and a bunch of DC types care about the total raised and quarter raise for their horse race purposes, but if you spend everything you raise, who cares? Campaigns are, in the end, about talking to voters. Right now, no one in PA-7 is really prepared to spend on the level they need.

If You Don’t Like the County Executive, Just Get Rid of the Job?

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

I got a call from a little birdy yesterday (funniest description ever) about local political goings on. There was a lot of news, on all kinds of different topics. One piece of news though was hilarious to me.

A certain member of County Council, running for re-election in 2025, apparently has told people *they* (no I’m not giving it away) plan to introduce legislation at Northampton County Council tonight to scrap the County Executive and return to the three person commissioner system that most counties use.

Say what?

Northampton County passed a Home Rule Charter that basically serves as it’s constitution. That charter created an elected Executive to run the day-to-day goings of the government. Many other counties don’t have that, and are sort of ran by a part-time Commissioner board, but are mostly run by unelected bureaucrats and people who “go along to get along” running departments. They raise taxes whenever they feel like it, and tend to do what is most popular in the government center. They don’t give a shit about public sentiment and they only answer to a bunch of commissioners who don’t really know how the government runs, because they’re not there. It’s an awful system and it isn’t responsive to the public.

I’m not going to name this council person, I like them personally and I hope that posting this ahead of time discourages their poor behavior. They are not doing this because they believe it’s a good idea, they’re doing this because they do not like the current County Executive and they do not like who they think will be the next County Executive. This is petty politics at it’s worst, the kind of mean girl shit that will make life worse for the public. If you don’t like Lamont McClure, Phil Armstrong, Tara Zrinski, or any other person who tries to be County Executive, you run a campaign against them. If people elect a County Executive twice or more, you should just tip your cap- they do represent what the public wants. Running around talking about being a check on elected power, when the voters can kick out that official if they want, is simply living in denial. Deciding you’re going to get rid of the office because you think the voters are going to vote for a third time the opposite of what you think they should is anti-democracy behavior of the worst type. I know this kind of bullshit behavior is par for the course in MAGA right now, but hopefully we’re not going to see this individual try this crap with the county government.

We will see tonight.

John Fetterman… or um Crooksy Joins the Upper Lehigh Dems

/ Rich Wilkins / 5 Comments

He’s got the black hoodie. He talks about “fighting” in Washington. He claims he’s a blue collar guy. He’s supported by Bernie Sanders. He has the same media consultants as Bernie, Fetterman, and Zohran. He’d like you to call him Brooksy. He stiffed his mother-in-law though, so on here we call him “Crooksy.”

Crooksy went on the Upper Lehigh Dems podcast/zoom to talk about his campaign. I needed to watch the leaves fall off trees in my neighborhood though, so I was too busy to listen to this guy lie about what a champion for the little guy he is. He is only the champion for some little guys, I think. I’m not going to listen to him lie when everything we need to know about him was litigated in public. A friend of the blog did watch though, a very skilled friend, and they had some thoughts.

Gotta tell ya, he is just not political material. I cannot imagine him going toe to toe with Rs in Congress or even some of his D colleagues.

Yep.

DC people pushed him and his head got big

Even more yep. He’s not at all of the caliber to do this. He’s not even someone who has shown us he can win anything. If we nominated this guy, one of two things will happen. It’s most likely that everything I received on him, and probably worse, is used against him, and Ryan Mackenzie wins another term. Under the unlikely scenario where this guy wins, he goes to Washington and is the next John Fetterman. Look, I was for Conor Lamb, so I don’t want to watch the rest of you get duped again. Send Crooksy off to the retirement he earned and give someone real a chance.

Union Buster Crosswell Crushed Crooksy?

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

I haven’t seen any full reports yet, but apparently we’re in for a bit of a surprise. Bob “Crooksy” Brooks definitely didn’t “rake in the cash,” only so far saying he beat $300k. That’s definitely not the $400k the DCCC rumor mill pushed. Despite touting his backing from a bunch of people from out of town and the non-endorsement that is supposed to be an endorsement from Governor Shapiro, Crooksy isn’t keeping pace with what his handlers are saying about him.

Meanwhile the word was that Ryan Crosswell was going to underwhelm. Well it doesn’t matter if it’s crushing Coors Light in DC or raising cash, he’s apparently keeping a serious pace. His campaign says they’ve raised $700k so far in two quarters. That would mean he raised $380k this past quarter. He probably beat Crooksy pretty badly.

Both of these guys have awful negatives and I think are very vulnerable. I think Crooksy probably has insurmountable negatives, no one likes a guy who stiffs his mother-in-law. Neither is a Democrat really, so I guess they both have primary problems. Crooksy was already $320k behind Union Busting Ryan to begin with, now it’s probably like $350k. Nobody knows who Crooksy is out there, it’s so bad that Mackenzie just left him out of his poll this week. Of course, earlier polling showed people didn’t really love Crooksy even when they were read a positive bio, so that’s probably for the best. Neither of these two are well known, but Crosswell will at least have money to try and cover up his bad behavior. If Crooksy keeps spending away his campaign money and missing his goals, he’ll be lucky to finish fourth in this primary. He should never have ran.

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?

Are the PA Dems Essentially Running Crooksy’s Operation?

/ Rich Wilkins / 6 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.

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.