‘We are at war – bring it on': Democrats ready to fight dirty to stop Trump
Fast forward to Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, speaking in Chicago this week. 'This is not the Democratic party of your grandfather, which would bring a pencil to the knife fight,' he insisted. 'This is a new Democratic party. We're bringing a knife to a knife fight, and we are going to fight fire with fire.'
It was a brutally honest acknowledgement of what a decade of Donald Trump's politics has wrought. Out go the courtly and courteous playing-by-the-rules Democrats convinced that Maga is a passing phase, a fever that will break. In come a new generation of pugnacious Democrats prepared to take off the gloves and fight dirty.
The trigger for this scorched-earth approach is Trump's push to find more Republican seats in the House of Representatives ahead of next year's crucial midterm elections through gerrymandering, a process of manipulating electoral maps to benefit one party over another.
At the president's urging, Texas Republicans have proposed new congressional districts aimed at flipping five Democratic-held seats, diluting the voting power of millions of people of colour and further skewing an already deeply partisan map in that state.
Trump also dispatched his vice-president, JD Vance, to Indiana to discuss redistricting with the state governor and legislative leaders in the hope of gaining one or two Republican seats. Separately, a top Republican leader in Florida announced plans to begin redistricting efforts in the president's adopted home state.
After months of inertia and disunity in response to Trump, Democrats are now finding their voice and taking a stand. Democratic state legislators from Texas fled their home state to deny Republicans a quorum and prevent a vote on the proposed new map.
Democratic governors floated the possibility of rushing to redraw their own state maps in retaliation, even if their options are limited. Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, wants Democratic gerrymandering in his state if Texas proceeds, though voters would have to bypass an independent redistricting commission.
Newsom said: 'Donald Trump is trying to steal the 2026 election. We cannot sit back and watch this happen.'
Illinois governor JB Pritzker and New York governor Kathy Hochul have also declared their intent to push redistricting to neutralize Republican map-rigging. Pritzker denounced Trump as a 'cheater' and said: 'As far as I'm concerned, everything is on the table.'
Standing with six Texas Democrats who sought refuge in New York, Hochul told reporters: 'I'm tired of fighting this fight with my hand tied behind my back. We are at war and that's why the gloves are off – and I say bring it on.'
They have the backing of prominent party figures such as Eric Holder, a former attorney general under President Barack Obama. Holder, whose organisation has long campaigned to end gerrymandering, admitted this week that he has changed his position and now believes that Democrats should respond with their own redistricting.
Holder told the New York Times: 'What's driving Democrats is, I think, a legitimate response. I mean, it's like the Germans have invaded France. Are you going to just say, 'Well, we're against war and we're for the resolution of disputes in a peaceful way'? Sometimes you have to take up arms. And when confronted with this authoritarian, anti-democracy effort, we have to take up arms.'
The view is shared by another lifelong proponent of independent redistricting commissions. Norm Eisen, a lawyer and co-founder of Democracy Defenders Action, a nonpartisan group dedicated to free and fair elections, said: 'It's said you should never bring a knife to a gunfight. My view is that you should bring a bazooka to a gunfight.
'I believe we have no choice now but to respond with massive pro-democracy force to these autocratic manoeuvres by Trump and his enablers in Texas. I favour every Democratic state that has the power to do it maximizing the number of districts. If Texas blinks, they can back off as well.'
A mid-decade redistricting arms race makes some observers uneasy. They fear that Democrats will sacrifice the moral high ground by using anti-democratic measures in the name of democracy, evoking a statement often attributed to a US army major during the Vietnam war: 'It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.'
Eisen acknowledges the 'tremendous danger' of a race to the bottom. But he added: 'If we spend time wringing our hands about that we may find we've lost our democracy while we tarried. The continuity of American democracy may depend on blue states responding with alacrity to what Trump and Texas have started. Democracy won't survive that kind of asymmetry.'
Few Democrats personify the new bareknuckle approach better than Jasmine Crockett, who was among the leaders the last time Texas Democrats left the state to thwart Republicans in 2021. They stayed away for 38 days, although the Republican-led elections bill and voting restrictions eventually passed.
Now a congresswoman in Washington, Crockett argues that such tactics remain effective. 'If it's waking up the conscience of this country about why this is a terrible practice, then that is a win,' she told the Guardian in a phone interview this week. 'If it is showing those who decided to stay on the couch during the last presidential there are Democrats that are willing and ready to fight – but you just got to give us a shot.'
Republicans have responded more aggressively to Texas Democrats' efforts to stall procedure than they did four years ago. Senator John Cornyn said the FBI has agreed to help track down the Texas Democrats. Governor Greg Abbott said he is taking legal action to remove dozens of them from office.
Crockett believes the authoritarian threat is now so severe that Democrats must stand and fight. 'They have taken our kindness for weakness,' she said. 'Democrats are very much wanting to be fair.
'That is why you don't find independent redistricting committees in Republican states; you find them in Democratic states. How can we fight when we tie our own hands behind our backs? It is so bad right now that we've got to do whatever we can to try to even the playing field somewhat.'
She added: 'Democracy is currently hanging by a thread at this point. We've got one team that's playing chess and another one that's playing checkers. We got to play the same game. Unfortunately we have endured a lot of harm and there's a lot of systems that have been broken in only the first seven months of this administration.'
Democrats have long been accused of timidity, showing more concern about being right than about being in power, eschewing vicious attacks on opponents with the notable exception of their own left wing. Joe Biden, then 78, sought to use his presidency to build bridges, restore bipartisanship and the soul of America.
Crockett, 44, represents a new generation of smash-mouth politicians ready for verbal combat. Last year her denunciation of Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene's 'bleach blonde bad-built butch body' at a congressional hearing became a meme. Last weekend she told a conference that Trump is 'a piece of shit', earning raucous cheers from her audience.
Crockett believes that the Democratic base is crying out for the party to be more bold-faced. 'People are OK with you not having all the answers, but I don't think that people are OK with you not being willing to fight on their behalf. When you sign up to be an elected representative on any level they expect you to be their voice.
'We've had this kind of over-pronouncement of Republican voices because they do whatever they want and then we're just letting it happen. People are saying, 'What is the point? I can never vote for the Republicans but what are you going to do?'
'It is about rebuilding that rapport and trust with our base and letting them know that we will be the fighters that they need – not only doing it in response, but we've actually got to be proactive.'
Newsom, a potential 2028 presidential candidate, has also been pursuing a gloves-off approach. He called Trump a 'stone cold liar', sued him for illegally federalising the national guard and, when threatened with arrest by border czar Tom Homan, retorted: 'Arrest me. Let's get it over with, tough guy.' Newsom filed a $787m defamation lawsuit against Fox News, accusing the network of falsely claiming he lied about a phone call with Trump in June.
Simon Rosenberg, a Democratic strategist, said: 'You're seeing that the era of the Clintons and the Pelosis and the Bidens are yielding now to a new era of Democratic leaders. JB Pritzker's emerged, Gavin's emerged, Jasmine Crockett's emerged. You're seeing new voices emerge in this scrum, as you would expect in a democracy. There isn't one person in charge.'
Even as they do battle in a more aggressive manner, Rosenberg argues, Democrats are obliged to make clear the values they striving to defend. 'We're in a fight for the future of our country and for our democracy,' he said. 'We have to now operate out of patriotism and love of country and allow that to be our our north star and our guiding force through all of this.
'Not fighting means that you're conceding and that you're obeying in advance. In this case, this is where we decide to draw a line. We have to now go fight in this and go win it.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Government data is now in question. Here's where macro investors are turning to fill the gaps.
The firing of the BLS head by President Donald Trump has spooked some macro investors. Trump's nomination of a partisan economist may push investors to rely more heavily on other data. Sources like ADP, Homebase, and MIT's Billion Prices Project have become critical, traders say. No savvy investor makes a decision off a single data point, but there are some numbers that carry more weight than others. For many macro investors, the North Star has long been the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unit within the Department of Labor that measures, among other things, inflation, unemployment rates, and wage growth. Those in charge of the BLS have long been non-partisan economists, but President Donald Trump's firing of Commissioner Erika McEntarfer on August 1 and his top pick for her replacement, chief economist at the right-leaning Heritage Foundation, EJ Antoni, have many concerned with the validity of future government data, especially as Antoni floated pausing monthly jobs reports. Love Business Insider? Log in to Google and make us a preferred source. It's concerning for macro traders who rely on this data to make their bets, but there are non-governmental data sources that many already use. While helpful, these alternative databases can't replicate the widespread foundation BLS numbers provided for decades, where all market participants worked for the same set of basic facts about the state of the world's biggest economy. Still, traders are ramping up their use of this data in light of Trump's moves. "What's going to be tricky here is how to judge numbers coming out of the Bureau of Labor Statistics moving forward," said Andreas Steno Larsen, onetime macro investor and researcher, on his weekly podcast. He compared the firing to something that would happen "in Latin America" and predicted that investors would "look for alternative sources" to get a second opinion on the official data. Four macro investors pointed to the well-known ADP jobs report, which comes out monthly and tracks payroll from private employers, and MIT's Billion Prices Project as ways to track employment and inflation, respectively, in the US. The investors declined to be named because their firms don't authorize them to speak publicly. Some investors tap datasets that constantly scrape e-commerce prices, such as PriceStats, and track how different products rise and fall over time. This is a useful tool to understand Trump's tariff policies' impact, given the volume of online goods that US consumers buy from overseas. Payroll and scheduling company Homebase tracks more than 150,000 small businesses and produces monthly employment reports. LinkUp has tracked online job postings since 2007. Numerator has become a key source for in-person consumer data at places such as restaurants and home improvement stores. "Given the recent BLS conversations, we've recently seen demand for our data increase," Homebase CEO John Waldmann said in a statement. Not a replacement These alternative data sources are just that — alternative. They were used to get a sneak peek or a deeper look at inflation or unemployment figures that the government would release, not replace them entirely. They also sometimes vary. For example, ADP's payroll figures often diverge from the BLS's monthly jobs report, and MIT's Billion Prices Project can capture inflation trends sooner than the official CPI but is less comprehensive. "We don't see them replacing economic statistics altogether in the near future," said Julie Meigh, the head of ESG & macro research at alt-data platform Neudata, about non-traditional datasets. Even if BLS data becomes less trustworthy, the different macro investors who spoke with Business Insider said they'll still need to use it in some fashion unless there's a structural change in financial products. For example, Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities, or TIPS, change when the Consumer Price Index from the government is announced. For those who have exposure to these types of assets, ignoring the BLS is not possible even if the data becomes untrustworthy. As one trader at one of the world's biggest macro hedge funds said, he was surprised markets weren't more spooked by Trump's firing. Equity markets were near record highs, and bond yields stayed mostly steady. "I think it's clear that institutions are not as strong as many had thought," this individual said. Read the original article on Business Insider Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Mayor Of Chicago Fired Back At Donald Trump Calling Him "Incompetent," And His Response Is Going Viral For Being The "Bar Of The Year"
The Mayor of Chicago, Brandon Johnson, is going viral for his "brilliant" takedown of a reporter and Donald Trump, which people are calling the "bar of the year." Chicago — like other major cities across the nation — is preparing for a potential "federal takeover of policing" following Donald Trump's issuing of National Guard troops on the streets of Washington, D.C. in the name of fighting crime. Recent videos of FBI and DEA agents patrolling the streets of Georgetown — a D.C. neighborhood — wearing tactical gear have gone viral online. FNTV / Twitter: @ScooterCasterNY Related: "If we need to, we're going to do the same thing in Chicago, which is a disaster," Trump said in a recent press conference. "We have a mayor there that's totally incompetent. He's an incompetent man." It's important to note that, according to FBI statistics, violent crime in Chicago is down. Well, the mayor of Chicago was repeatedly asked by a reporter to respond to Trump calling him "incompetent," and his response is going super-viral. "What do you say to Donald Trump? How did you feel when Donald Trump called you 'incompetent?' Please answer that question if you will," a reporter asked from the crowd. Related: "OK. Fine. Since you are begging," Johnson replied to the reporter. The reporter then tried to interrupt, but Johnson continued. "So let me just answer that. I do appreciate you begging," he repeated. "So, I will just say it like this, that the President has always been intimidated by the intellectual prowess of Black men." Related: "And so, of course, he would speak in those petite and puerile terms, because he's small." The clip of the interaction has received over 1.5 million views on TikTok and thousands of comments. People are absolutely obsessed with Johnson's quick-witted response, with many applauding the way he addressed the eager reporter. ...Others called Johnson's comments on the President the "bar of the year." Related: "Using vocabulary that he won't even understand is damn poetic," one person wrote. "*MAGA furiously googles petite and puerile,*" another person joked. And this person praised Black politicians who have clapped back at Trump. What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below. Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Also in In the News:
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
The House is awash in subpoenas as Epstein inquiry expands
Congress has been rightly criticized for not pushing back sooner against executive branch encroachments on first branch constitutional prerogatives. Congress's relative somnolence is understandable though not wholly excusable. The silence on the Hill has been due in large part to the unilateral party control of both houses of Congress and the presidency. There is a certain grace period observed at the outset of a new administration while it gets its ducks in a row on policy and legislative priorities. Missteps and overreach inevitably occur and usually are met by majority party tolerance and inaction on the Hill. This Congress has followed the norm and oversight was overlooked except by the lone voices of protest on the minority party side of the aisle. Last month we witnessed the first cracks in the stone dam. It occurred on July 22 in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. There, in the Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement chaired by Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.), ranking member Summer Lee (D-Pa.) offered a motion to subpoena the Justice Department for the complete files of Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender who died by suicide in prison in 2019. The motion surprisingly carried on an 8-to-2 vote with three Republican members joining all Democrats to adopt the motion. Two of the subcommittee's Republicans, including Chairman Higgins, voted against the motion. The subcommittee subsequently adopted by voice vote a motion offered by Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) to subpoena the deposition testimony of a host of former government officials from both parties, including former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, six former attorneys general and two former FBI directors. One of the subpoenaed former officials, Obama Attorney General Eric Holder, was asked on ' Meet the Press ' last Sunday whether he would comply with the subpoena. He wouldn't commit, explaining that conversations were ongoing to determine exactly what information the committee wanted. Program moderator Kristen Welker pressed him, noting that he was the first attorney general in history ever to be held in contempt of Congress in 2012 for his refusal to testify on 'Operation Fast and Furious,' tracking illegal gun sales. 'Do you have any regrets about that now,' and, 'will that be informing your decision now?' Holder explained that the information sought in that instance was 'confidential' internal executive branch communications and, presumably privileged (though only the president can invoke executive privilege). The White House and Justice Department did not attempt to prosecute Holder for criminal contempt of Congress in 2012. Whether the other subpoenaed former attorneys general and FBI directors will take their lead from Holder's decision this time will be interesting to watch. What makes the Epstein files disclosure demand especially unique today is President Trump's apparent flip-flop on the issue of disclosure from his previous use of it as one of the major issues on which he campaigned. It was a symbol of bringing down the ruling elites and draining the Washington swamp. That commitment has waned. As pressure grew, the president belatedly directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek release of sealed grand jury transcripts in the Epstein case. That request was denied by a Florida judge. Meanwhile, the president has put out the word that it's 'time to move on.' The Supreme Court's decision in McGrain v. Daugherty in 1927 held that Congress has an inherent right to compel testimony and conduct oversight as part of its constitutional lawmaking functions. The case was an offshoot of the Teapot Dome oil leasing scandal of the early 1920s. In that instance, a Senate select committee was inquiring into why former Attorney General Harry Daughety did not investigate the matter when it first broke. It had subpoenaed Mally Daugherty, the attorney general's brother and president of a bank at the heart of the scandal. When Mally refused to comply with the subpoena he was cited for contempt of Congress and found guilty. The Supreme Court reversed a lower court and upheld Mally's conviction. That 1927 decision did not turn off the spigot and witnesses today are still challenging subpoenas and inviting contempt citations. Whether a contempt citation is prosecuted is solely at the discretion of the Justice Department. The failure by the Justice Department to prosecute Holder's contempt of Congress citation in 2012 could well be a precursor to another prolonged battle of the branches. This time Congress could potentially wind-up with a sawed-off limb. Don Wolfensberger is a 28-year congressional staff veteran culminating as chief of staff of the House Rules Committee in 1995. He is author of, 'Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial' (2000), and, 'Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays' (2018).
