Democrats fighting Trump's government reforms are waging a losing battle
Democrats have gone to the mattress against Donald Trump. Not to protest his immigration crackdown, his intention to shut down the Department of Education, his tariffs or any of the other controversial policies the new president has proposed in the past two weeks. No, Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to protect the federal bureaucracy.
Just recently, Senate Democrats took the extreme measure of filibustering through the night to decry the nomination of Russell Vought, Trump's nominee to head the White House budget office and, more broadly, the new administration's efforts to cut wasteful government spending. Historically, Senate filibusters have supported civil rights legislation or opposed ObamaCare — you know, consequential issues. Vought, a fellow likely familiar to few Americans and a veteran of the prior Trump administration, must be flattered.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer declared 'We're going to be speaking all night. We want Americans, every hour, whether it's 8 p.m. or 3 a.m., to hear how bad Russell Vought is.' In reality, probably not many Americans tuned into what even the Democrat-friendly New York Times called a 'performative protest.' Republicans only need a majority to confirm nominees; they have that.
What exactly are Democratics so wound up about? They are incensed that Elon Musk and his DOGE posse are turning over the rocks and exposing corruption and waste in the federal government. Progressives like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) are screeching that Americans did not elect Musk president, while others portray the world's richest man as a grifter hoping to line his own pockets. Seriously.
Warren is right; no one elected Musk president, but they did elect Donald Trump, who was very open about his plan to cut down our bloated, redundant and wasteful bureaucracy — and who is very supportive of Musk's efforts.
Hoping to get Musk tossed from the Trump train, Democrats and their allies in the liberal media are trying to drive a wedge between the Tesla founder and the president by noting the brilliant entrepreneur's critical role and growing clout. Recent stories in The Atlantic are typical: 'Elon Musk is President' declares one; another highlights 'Elon Musk's Bureaucratic Coup.'
No doubt the left was sorely disappointed when the president recently vouched for Musk after he gained unprecedented access to the Treasury's payments systems. Trump said that Musk 'can't do and won't do anything without our approval,' suggesting that the SpaceX founder so far is acting within those bounds. Trump also said 'If there was something that didn't have my OK, I'd let you know about it very fast,' leaving no doubt about who's the boss.
Democrats hate the idea of shrinking the 3 million-person federal workforce; after all, political contributions from the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest union representing such workers, totaled $2.6 million in the last election, 96 percent of which went to Democrats.
But what Democrats really hate is shining a spotlight on where U.S. taxpayer money is going. Hence the uproar about the U.S. Agency for International Development, which many on the right are blasting for having funded left-wing causes and for being utterly unaccountable.
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), chair of the DOGE caucus, told Fox Digital that USAID has ' stonewalled ' her office for years; she complains of wasted fund flowing to 'tourism in Lebanon, Sesame Street in Iraq, sending Ukrainians to Paris Fashion Week and so much more.'
Secretary of State Marco Rubio also accuses USAID of being unresponsive and unwilling to cooperate with congressional oversight. He has taken over as temporary head of USAID; he says some existing programs will continue, but he wants to make sure that the $44 billion in taxpayer money annually spent by the agency is 'aligned with the national interest.'
How could any elected official disagree? Especially when a majority of the country thinks that corruption, inefficiency and red tape are 'major problems' in the federal government.
It turns out that while the Washington Post claims that 'Democracy Dies in Darkness,' Democrats today believe that democracy dies when the lights are turned on. And thanks to DOGE, serious wattage is shining on USAID.
Elon Musk tweeted recently, 'Did you know that USAID, using YOUR tax dollars, funded bioweapon research, including Covid-19, that killed millions of people?' His note referenced another post claiming that 'USAID funneled $53 million to EcoHealth Alliance, which then used U.S. taxpayer funds to support gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab – research that likely led to the creation of Covid-19.'
Musk has also called USAID a 'criminal organization' — tough words. But the agency's activities include a host of offensive programs and expenditure, including $15 million for condoms to the Taliban, $3,315,446 for 'being LGBTQ in the Caribbean,' $425,622 to help Indonesian coffee companies become more climate and gender friendly and $2.5 million to build electric vehicle charging stations in Vietnam's largest cities.
Social media accounts reported recently that the left-leaning site Politico had received $8 million in recent years from USAID. Politico denied it had ever received government grants but acknowledged that government agencies, including USAID, held many subscriptions to their 'pro service.' Do taxpayers think this is a good use of their dollars? Does USAID also subscribe to the Wall Street Journal or other right-leaning news organizations?
We are in the early innings of the effort to cut back on government waste, and Democrats are throwing up as many legal challenges as they can. Do they know we have a $36 trillion national debt, and that most Americans (by a wide margin) consistently think the U.S. government tries to do too much?
Democrats look foolish opposing a genuine and promising effort to thin down our government. The more the American people hear about where their tax dollars go, the more absurd their protests will appear.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ethics legislation stalls in Springfield as Senate president tries ‘brazen' move that would have helped his election case
In the closing hours of the Illinois General Assembly's spring session, Senate President Don Harmon tried to pass legislation that would have wiped clean a potential multimillion-dollar fine against his political campaign committee for violating election finance laws he championed years ago. Harmon's move came against the backdrop of the former Illinois House speaker's upcoming sentencing for corruption and abuse of power and almost instantly created a bipartisan legislative controversy that resulted in the bill never getting called for a vote. The Oak Park Democrat's maneuver, characterized by critics as 'brazen' and self-serving, also raises anew questions about how seriously political leaders are trying to improve ethical standards in a state government the electorate already holds in low regard. Blowback to Harmon's action, particularly from inside the House Democratic caucus, was so severe it derailed an entire package of new election measures that would have required severe warnings about penalties for noncitizen voting, mandated curbside voting access for the disabled, broadened the ability of voters to cast ballots in centralized locations and provided more detailed public information about voting results. 'This is a terrible look,' said state Rep. Kelly Cassidy, a Chicago Democrat who recalled being one of several who spoke out in a closed-door House Democratic caucus meeting. 'I don't recommend that anybody in our caucus take a vote like that. There was not a single person in that caucus that could defend that vote. … There was a visceral reaction to it in caucus — both to the substance of it and the lack of forewarning.' But in an interview with the Tribune, Harmon repeatedly maintained his effort was justified and disputed criticism that it was self-serving. Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker — who previously said former Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan's February conviction was a 'vital reminder that we must maintain our vigilance in cleaning up government' — also defended Harmon and said their political party takes ethics seriously. Still, Harmon's activity is reflective of a political culture in Springfield where officials talk a good game about the importance of ethics in government but routinely stop short of adopting robust laws governing their conduct. After a legislative session that ended last weekend with lawmakers never advancing significant ethics bills, Democratic House Speaker Emanuel 'Chris' Welch of Hillside maintained that such legislation 'remains a top priority' for him. He pointed to ethics proposals approved during his first year as speaker in 2021 after Madigan was ousted while federal investigators were closing in. Welch said current 'ethics laws and the laws of the state of Illinois worked' in Madigan's case — though his predecessor was charged and convicted under federal, not state, law. 'The system worked. We don't need to rush and react. We need to take our time and get things right. We don't need to react to headlines,' he said. 'We need to make sure things get properly vetted, that the House, the Senate and the governor's office can all come to agreement on these things, and we're committed to doing that.' Madigan, 83, once the state's most powerful politician, faces sentencing Friday after being convicted Feb. 12 by a jury on federal bribery conspiracy and other corruption charges that alleged he used his office to enhance his power, line his pockets and enrich a small circle of his most loyal associates. But pieces of the post-Madigan changes that Welch points to still draw criticism because they are weaker at holding lawmakers in Illinois accountable than laws in other states. In particular, a revolving-door clause only requires lawmakers to wait a maximum of six months to become a lobbyist if they leave office in the middle of their term. And, if they complete their term in office, they can start as a lobbyist the next day. Rep. Patrick Windhorst of Metropolis, the top Republican on the House Ethics & Elections Committee, said the lack of substantive action on ethics this spring should make it 'clear to any objective observer — any observer, really, of the state government — that the Democratic majority does not care about ethics reform, does not believe we need ethics reform and is not going to take serious action to enact ethics reform.' Rep. Maurice West, the Rockford Democrat who chairs the House committee on ethics, said his panel never held hearings on major ethics proposals during the spring session because there was no agreement with Senate Democrats to advance any bill. During the session, West repeatedly said the committee was set to meet to take testimony on proposed ethics changes. 'That was my expectation and hope, that there was going to be a robust conversation on ethics, but I also knew that I had to go through a process. This had to be agreed upon in both chambers to ensure … that we can get it signed into law,' West said. 'And if there's not an agreement, then it's an automatic brick.' After lawmakers adjourned, a spokesperson for Pritzker referred questions about proposed ethics laws to West, who said he had a brief conversation with the governor toward the end of the session about 'how we can partner … and collaborate on ethics over the summer.' 'That's all I have to say when it comes to the governor,' West said, declining to elaborate on any specific proposals. Cassidy, the House Democrat, said it may be time to take up each proposal on its own merits rather than jam them into one bill that requires Democrats in both chambers to agree before a vote is taken on ethics, elections and campaign finance matters. 'I just wonder if maybe we should rethink that,' she said. While any legislative movement on ethics languished in Springfield, Harmon, on the final scheduled day of the session, attempted to statutorily quash his case before the State Board of Elections, which acted following a Tribune review and inquiry about political contributions Harmon received last year. Elections board officials in March informed the Senate president that he had improperly accepted nearly $4.1 million in contributions exceeding the allowed campaign finance limits, and they threatened to levy a substantial fine. Harmon has filed an appeal and said he 'fully complied with the law.' At the heart of the disagreement between Harmon and election officials is a significant and controversial loophole in state campaign finance law. It allows politicians to collect contributions above state limits if any candidate in the race in which they are running — themselves or an opponent — reports reaching a 'self-funding threshold' in which they have given or loaned their campaign funds more than $250,000 for statewide races and more than $100,000 in races for the state legislature or local offices. Originally described as a method allowing a candidate to compete against a wealthy self-funded opponent or to counter a well-funded opposing group's independent expenditures, the loophole has instead become a way for candidates — even if they face no opposition — to accept unlimited contributions by purposely breaking the limits themselves. Harmon, who sponsored the earlier law, has repeatedly done that himself, giving or loaning his campaign fund more than $100,000 — sometimes by just a single dollar — to trigger the so-called 'money bomb' loophole. Harmon did it again for the 2024 campaign season when, in January 2023, he gave his state Senate campaign committee more than $100,000 even though he was not running for office last year. While members of the Illinois House are up for election every two years, state Senate seats have one two-year term and two four-year terms every 10 years. In paperwork filed with the state elections board, Harmon indicated the move allowed him to keep collecting unlimited cash through the November 2024 election. However, board officials informed him that the loophole would be closed after the March 2024 primary. Still, from the March 2024 primary through the end of that year, state records showed his Friends of Don Harmon for State Senate campaign committee collected more than $8.3 million, nearly half of which the state board has now said was over the campaign contribution limits. In appealing the board's case, Harmon's campaign fund acknowledged that, if it loses, it could be subject to a penalty of up to $6.1 million — a figure based on the 150% of the amount the board deems a candidate willingly accepted over the limits — as well as a payment of nearly $4.1 million to the state's general operating fund. Such a massive penalty, however, is unlikely. Politicians frequently challenge the board, and negotiations can result in final fines that are a fraction of the potential penalty. And if Harmon wins the appeal before the elections board, he could end up paying no penalty. In a Tribune interview last week, Harmon defended his eleventh-hour attempt to change state law with a clause that could have eliminated his elections board dispute and potential fine. He said the language he sought to insert in the statute was 'existing law.' But that is Harmon's interpretation of 'existing law,' not the elections board officials'. 'A fundamental notion of campaign finance law is that House candidates and Senate candidates be treated the same,' Harmon told the Tribune. 'The state board staff's interpretation treats House candidates and Senate candidates fundamentally differently.' When pressed on the political optics of his move, Harmon said the new clause 'was just intended to call attention' to differences in the way the board addresses House and Senate candidates. 'We'll revisit the bill after we win the case,' Harmon said, adding, 'We're going to proceed with the case under the law as written.' Welch acknowledged it was a backlash among his House Democrats over the Harmon-backed provision that resulted in the overall bill never advancing. 'I did inform (Harmon) after our caucus that we didn't have support for that, and if a bill came over with that in it, we would not take it,' Welch told the Tribune. Good-government advocates, stymied on key proposals again this spring, were taken aback when the Harmon clause appeared late in the session. 'I thought I'd seen everything, but I was shocked to see it in the bill,' said Alisa Kaplan, executive director of Reform for Illinois. 'It clearly would have changed the law, but it was framed as just a clarification of existing rules so it would apply retroactively to Harmon's case. And it was buried in an enormous omnibus bill … at the last possible minute to minimize discussion. 'Just a breathtakingly cynical use of legal language and procedure,' Kaplan said, adding: 'It's bad enough that legislative leaders regularly abuse the self-funding loophole. We should be closing the loophole, not blowing it wide open for even more opportunities for pay-to-play politics and corruption.' The two-sentence clause Harmon backed would have generally expanded the period that a senator in a four-year term who breaks the caps can keep them off. But the second sentence in the Harmon clause caused the uproar on both sides of the aisle: 'This amendatory Act of the 104th General Assembly is declarative of existing law,' phrasing many lawmakers interpreted to mean that, if passed, could have eliminated Harmon's election board dispute. Sen. Jil Tracy, a Quincy Republican, called the clause 'mind-blowing.' 'The language was brazen,' she said. 'My initial reaction was shock. I couldn't believe the majority would be that brazen.' She said she learned of the clause in the waning hours of the legislative session when a legal staffer told her the proposal would erase Harmon's case before the board. 'That bill would have condoned and made it appropriate to go beyond what the election code allows and to supersede the limits and create a path (to) interpret what President Harmon had done was OK,' said Tracy, a former assistant attorney general who served under both former Republican Jim Ryan and Democrat Lisa Madigan, the former speaker's daughter. 'He still argues what he did was OK, but why do a bill?' asked Tracy, a member of a Senate subcommittee on ethics. At an unrelated appearance in West Chicago on Thursday, Pritzker sought to vouch for Harmon while he said that he and his fellow Democrats in Springfield have sought to clean up a state with a culture of corruption. 'I know that the Senate president doesn't have any intention other than to make the law better,' he said. At the same time, the governor acknowledged he didn't 'know enough about the violations that have been alleged.' Another provision that raised eyebrows in the Harmon-backed legislation would have allowed statewide elected officials and state lawmakers running for federal offices to hold fundraisers on session days and the day before, as long as they're held outside of Sangamon County, which includes Springfield. A statewide ban on such fundraisers was a provision in the 2021 ethics law touted by Pritzker and other top Democrats. The new provision would have benefited Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton, Pritzker's two-time running mate who's running for U.S. Senate, and a handful of state legislators who've declared their candidacies for the U.S. House. The candidates also would have been able to transfer money raised on session days for their federal campaigns into their state accounts, as long as they adhered to state contribution limits. Welch, Harmon and Pritzker's office all said they didn't know the origin of the language, which was presented in a brief committee hearing late on the final day of session as an attempt to align state law with rules governing fundraising for federal candidates. But West, giving the overall package its only public airing, couldn't explain how leaving a restriction in place only for Springfield's home county would pass legal muster. There was a feeling that it would be more ethical to keep in-session political fundraisers 'as far away from the state Capitol as possible,' West said. But Rep. Carol Ammons, an Urbana Democrat, called the provision problematic, saying: 'I don't know what difference it makes what county you're in. If you're fundraising while we're in session, you're fundraising while we're in session.' Chicago Tribune's Jeremy Gorner and Addison Wright contributed.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump and Musk can both hurt each other in their feud. Here's how.
An explosive breakdown in the relationship between President Donald Trump and his biggest political donor turned part-time employee, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, has been foreshadowed since their alliance first took shape. When Trump brought Musk along for the ride as he moved back into the White House, the looming question was always how long the two could possibly stay in sync. After all, neither the most powerful person in the world nor the richest person on Earth is known for keeping his ego in check. The main thrust of the Trump-Musk feud boils down to who can assert dominance over the other. In the intense back-and-forth that had everyone glued to their screens Thursday, we saw bullies used to getting their way desperately trying to find leverage over each other. But unlike the flame wars of old, where internet trolls would hurl insults at each other across message board forums, Trump and Musk can do serious damage to each other in the real world — and to the rest of us in the process. Musk first gained access to Trump through his vast fortune; he donated almost $300 million during last year's election and hasn't been afraid to throw his money around in races this year. Though he said in May he would be 'spending a lot less' on funding political races, he has also been quick to threaten pumping money into the midterms should lawmakers back the massive budget bill currently working its way through the Senate. And Musk has made clear that he expects a return on his investments, having already snidely claimed on his X platform that Trump would have lost and Democrats would have taken Congress without his backing. Trump is reportedly more focused on the midterms than he was during his first term, worried that a new Democratic majority would lead to more investigations and/or a third impeachment. While he's already sitting on $600 million to help hold on to a GOP majority, Musk's money could throw a spanner in the works, especially if he follows through on his public musing about bankrolling a third party to 'represent the 80% of Americans in the middle.' Though Trump has his own social media platform, Truth Social, X remains a much louder microphone to amplify Musk's messaging to the right, including his supposed 'bombshell' about Trump's presence in the Jeffrey Epstein files. (Musk provided no evidence for the claim and Trump has previously denied any involvement with Epstein's criminal behavior.) Trump, in turn, has threatened Musk's lucrative government contracts, which would include billions of dollars funneled toward his SpaceX company, as well as the subsidies that Tesla receives for its electric car production. Musk responded by warning about cutting off access to SpaceX launches, which would potentially cripple NASA and the Defense Department's ability to deploy satellites. But that would prove a double-edged sword for Musk, given how large a revenue stream those contracts have become. By Thursday evening, Musk had already backed down from his saber-rattling about restricting access to the Dragon space capsule, but he could change his mind again. That he made the threat in the first place has raised major alarm bells among national security officials. The Washington Post reported Saturday that NASA and the Pentagon have begun "urging [Musk's competitors] to more quickly develop alternative rockets and spacecraft" to lessen his chokehold on the industry. Notably, Trump isn't alone in his fight against Musk, though as ever those wading into the brawl have their own motives. Former White House strategist Steve Bannon took the opportunity to launch a broadside against Musk. 'People including myself are recommending to the president that he pull every contract associated with Elon Musk,' Bannon told NBC News on Thursday night. Bannon requested that 'major investigations start immediately' into, among other things, Musk's 'immigration status, his security clearance and his history of drug abuse.' There are already several federal investigations of Musk's companies that have been underway for years, which critics had previously worried might be stonewalled due to his influence with Trump. While the extremely public breakup makes for high drama and more than a little schadenfreude, the pettiness masks a deeper issue. The battle Musk and Trump are waging is predicated on both wielding a horrifying amount of unchecked power. In a healthy system of government, their ability to inflict pain on each other wouldn't exist, or at least such an ability would be severely blunted. Musk being able to funnel nearly unlimited amounts of spending into dark money super PACs is an oligarchical nightmare. Trump using the power of the presidency to overturn contracts and launch investigations at a whim is blatant authoritarianism in action. In theory, there are still checks to rein each of them in before things escalate much further. Musk's shareholders have been unhappy with his rocky time in government, and the war of words with Trump sent Tesla's stock price tumbling once more. Trump needs to get his 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' passed into law and — next year — ensure Congress doesn't fall into Democrats' hands. Trump and Musk have incentives, then, to stay in each other's good graces despite their wounded pride. Trump made clear to NBC News in an interview Saturday that he has no real interest in patching things up with Musk, warning that there will be "very serious consequences" if his one-time ally funds Democratic campaigns. Even if the two eventually reach a détente, it's unlikely to be a lasting peace, not so long as one feels his authority is challenged by the other. The zero-sum view of the world that Trump and Musk share, one where social Darwinism and superior genetics shape humanity, doesn't allow for long-term cooperative relationships. Instead, at best they will return to a purely transactional situationship, but one where the knives will gleefully come back out the second a new opening is given. Most importantly, there is no protagonist when it comes to the inciting incident in this duel, as a total victory won't benefit the American people writ large. Trump wants Congress to pass his bill to grant him more funding for deportations and to preserve his chances of staying in power. Musk wants a more painful bill that will slash the social safety net for millions. No matter what the outcome is as they battle for supremacy over each other, we're the ones who risk being trampled. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Chabria: Democrats are busy bashing themselves. Is it needed, or just needy?
To hear Republicans tell it, California is a failed state and Donald Trump won the presidency in a landslide that gives him a mandate to do as he pleases. No surprise there. But more and more, Democrats are echoing those talking points. Ever since Kamala Harris lost the election, the Democratic Party has been on a nationwide self-flagellation tour. One after another, its leaders have stuck their heads deep into their navels, hoping to find out why so many Americans — especially young people, Black voters and Latinos — shunned the former vice president. Even in California, a reliably blue state, the soul-searching has been extreme, as seen at last weekend's state Democratic Party convention, where a parade of speakers — including Harris' 2024 running mate, Tim Walz — wailed and moaned and did the woe-is-us-thing. Is it long-overdue introspection, or just annoying self-pity? Our columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak hash it out. Chabria: Mark, you were at the convention in Anaheim. Thoughts? Barabak: I'll start by noting this is the first convention I've attended — and I've been to dozens — rated "R" for adult language. Apparently, Democrats think by dropping a lot of f-bombs they can demonstrate to voters their authenticity and passion. But it seemed kind of stagy and, after a while, grew tiresome. I've covered Nancy Pelosi for more than three decades and never once heard her utter a curse word, in public or private. I don't recall Martin Luther King Jr., saying, "I have a [expletive deleted] dream." Both were pretty darned effective leaders. Democrats have a lot of work to do. But cursing a blue streak isn't going to win them back the White House or control of Congress. Read more: Barabak: Yelling, finger-pointing and cursing galore as California Democrats gather near Disneyland Chabria: As someone known to routinely curse in polite society, I'm not one to judge an expletive. But that cussing and fussing brings up a larger point: Democrats are desperate to prove how serious and passionate they are about fixing themselves. Gov. Gavin Newsom has called the Democratic brand "toxic." Walz told his fellow Dems: "We're in this mess because some of it's our own doing." It seems like across the country, the one thing Democrats can agree on is that they are lame. Or at least, they see themselves as lame. I'm not sure the average person finds Democratic ideals such as equality or due process quite so off-putting, especially as Trump and his MAGA brigade move forward on the many campaign promises — deportations, rollbacks of civil rights, stripping the names of civil rights icons off ships — that at least some voters believed were more talk than substance. I always tell my kids to be their own hero, and I'm starting to think the Democrats need to hear that. Pick yourself up. Dust yourself off. Move on. Do you think all this self-reproach is useful, Mark? Does Harris' loss really mean the party is bereft of value or values? Barabak: I think self-reflection is good for the party, to a point. Democrats suffered a soul-crushing loss in November — at the presidential level and in the Senate, where the GOP seized control — and they did so in part because many of their traditional voters stayed home. It would be political malpractice not to figure out why. That said, there is a tendency to go overboard and over-interpret the long-term significance of any one election. This is not the end of the Democratic Party. It's not even the first time one of the two major parties has been cast into the political wilderness. Democrats went through similar soul-searching after presidential losses in 1984 and 1988. In 1991, a book was published explaining how Democrats were again destined to lose the White House and suggesting they would do so for the foreseeable future. In November 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president. Four years later, he romped to reelection. In 2013, after two straight losing presidential campaigns, Republicans commissioned a political autopsy that, among other recommendations, urged the party to increase its outreach to gay and Latino voters. In 2016, Donald Trump — not exactly a model of inclusion — was elected. Here, by the way, is how The Times wrote up that postmortem: "A smug, uncaring, ideologically rigid national Republican Party is turning off the majority of American voters, with stale policies that have changed little in 30 years and an image that alienates minorities and the young, according to an internal GOP study." Sound familar? So, sure, look inward. But spare us the existential freakout. Read more: Chabria: California isn't backing down on healthcare for immigrants, despite Trump threats Chabria: I would also argue that this moment is about more than the next election. I do think there are questions about if democracy will make it that long, and if so, if the next round at the polls will be a free and fair one. I know the price of everything continues to rise, and conventional wisdom is that it's all about the economy. But Democrats seem stuck in election politics as usual. These however, are unusual times that call for something more. There are a lot of folks who don't like to see their neighbors, family or friends rounded up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in masks; a lot of people who don't want to see Medicaid cut for millions, with Medicare likely to be on the chopping block next; a lot of people who are afraid our courts won't hold the line until the midterms. They want to know Democrats are fighting to protect these things, not fighting each other. I agree with you that any loss should be followed by introspection. But also, there's a hunger for leadership in opposition to this administration, and the Democrats are losing an opportunity to be those leaders with their endless self-immolation. Did Harris really lose that bad? Did Trump really receive a mandate to end America as we know it? Barabak: No, and no. I mean, a loss is a loss. Trump swept all seven battleground states and the election result was beyond dispute unlike, say, 2000. But Trump's margin over Harris in the popular vote was just 1.5% — which is far from landslide territory — and he didn't even win a majority of support, falling just shy of 50%. As for a supposed mandate, the most pithy and perceptive post-election analysis I read came from the American Enterprise Institute's Yuval Levin, who noted Trump's victory marked the third presidential campaign in a row in which the incumbent party lost — something not seen since the 19th century. Challengers "win elections because their opponents were unpopular," Levin wrote, "and then — imagining the public has endorsed their party activists' agenda — they use the power of their office to make themselves unpopular." It's a long way to 2026, and an even longer way to 2028. But Levin is sure looking smart. Chabria: I know Kamala-bashing is popular right now, but I'd argue that Harris wasn't resoundingly unpopular — just unpopular enough, with some. Harris had 107 days to campaign. Many candidates spend years running for the White House, and much longer if you count the coy "maybe" period. She was unknown to most Americans, faced double discrimination from race and gender, and (to be fair) has never been considered wildly charismatic. So to nearly split the popular vote with all that baggage is notable. But maybe Elon Musk said it best. As part of his messy breakup with Trump, the billionaire tweeted, 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate." Sometimes there's truth in anger. Musk's money influenced this election, and probably tipped it to Trump in at least one battleground state. Any postmortem needs to examine not just the message, but also the medium. Is it what Democrats are saying that isn't resonating, or is it that right-wing oligarchs are dominating communication? Read more: Barabak: Gavin Newsom has lots to say. Is it worth listening? Barabak: Chabria: Mark? Barabak: Sorry. I was so caught up in the spectacle of the world's richest man going all neener-neener with the world's most powerful man I lost track of where we were. With all due respect to Marshall McLuhan, I think Democrats need first off to figure out a message to carry them through the 2026 midterms. They were quite successful in 2018 pushing back on GOP efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, if you prefer. It's not hard to see them resurrecting that playbook if Republicans take a meat-ax to Medicare and millions of Americans lose their healthcare coverage. Then, come 2028, they'll pick a presidential nominee and have their messenger, who can then focus on the medium — TV, radio, podcasts, TikTok, Bluesky or whatever else is in political fashion at the moment. Now, excuse me while I return my sights to the sandbox. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
