RepublicansSpencer Cox

Spencer Cox: People don’t hate social media companies enough

by Christian Heinze

In December 2025, potential 2028 Republican presidential candidate and Gov. Spencer Cox delivered one of the most gut-punch lines to tech executives at an AI Summit at the Utah Department of Commerce.

“However much you hate social media, you do not hate it enough. You do not hate these companies enough.”

I’m flagging that comment for a few reasons.

A) Since he’s relatively unknown, that quote just hasn’t circulated, and it’s a good one.

In an age of pejorative platitudes over social media, that quote stands out for its unvarnished passion and lack of disclaimer.

I can easily see it becoming a thing if he chooses to run and use it.

Oh, and there’s more from the same speech, as Utah’s KSL reported:

“They gave your daughter an eating disorder, and they gave your son a pornography addiction, and they gave our grandkids anxiety and depression, and many of them took their own lives. And they did it knowingly. They had studied the results. We’re finding this out now through lawsuits that they knew what they were doing, and they did it anyway.”

He added that the powerful tech companies have tried to “strip mine our souls.”

B) MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) would love the line, and I’m sure Jonathan Haidt and many parents would approve.

So would many other country’s school systems, which are increasingly banning smartphones specifically because of the access they offer to social media.

UNESCO reports that more than half of countries now have some form of smart phone bans in schools, which is a remarkable global epidemic (the good kind).

If you’re wondering just how toxic social media companies’ content has become, you can point to the fact that 32% of teenage girls felt worse about their bodies after using Instagram.

And if you’re wondering how the companies are about the harm, that statistic comes from Facebook’s own research.

I could cite stat after stat about the effects on every part of young people’s lives or you could just read Haidt’s book, which you’ve probably already consumed in some form.

The long and short of it is — parents are fed up, social media companies are tipping perilously close to being viewed as vice companies (ala cigarette makers), and there’s an entire voter demographic to be harnessed that is one of the drivers in RFK’s popularity.

And speaking of which, you’ve gotta bookmark this new Politico poll that’s a great deep-dive on what MAHA believes and includes this fascinating tidbit — men were more likely to identify as MAHA supporters than women.

C) Now AI is obviously different from social media, but it’s in the same basket of public concern.

And Cox has taken here a pretty nuanced view.

On the one hand, he’s been an advocate of helping the AI industry in Utah, and as the Utah Dispatch notes, he believes in its potential to solve important problems, including launching a “pro-AI initiative” and putting state cash behind it.

But on the other hand, he’s strenuously urged government to put guardrails on two things.

The first is AI’s potential to exploit children, and thus he’s a firm believer in state regulation and control, unwilling to entrust the federal government with such a delicate and important task.

The social media quote connection is that — if you can see what social media has done to kids, can you imagine AI’s impact?

The second is his philosophical belief that AI companies shouldn’t be dominated by a few giants and that users should have more control over their own data.

Alixel Cabrera of the Utah Dispatch.

….a big [state legislative] focus will be preventing anti-competitive actions by big tech companies, an issue Utah lawmakers started to work on this year, when they approved the first law in the nation to push tech companies towards interoperability, allowing users to own their own data

“We need to make sure that we don’t end up with five AI companies. We need thousands of AI companies in this country,” Cox said. 

So, I just wanted to give a little context for what I think is a killer political line for a 2028 candidate to make a name for himself.

As for the rest of who Spencer Cox is and why he’s an interesting voice and might show up on a debate stage (you can imagine his calling out JD Vance’s ties to Peter Theil and the AI industry as a viral moment that could trip JD up), I’ll write more in the future.

0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
DemocratsPete Buttigieg

Pete Buttigieg: “Freedom to” is as important as “freedom from”

by Christian Heinze

In a new interview with the Harvard Political Review, 2028 potential Democratic candidate Pete Buttigieg delivers one of the most effective, aspirational stump lines I’ve heard in awhile on “freedom,” which is currently one of the most disputed concepts in our democracy.

(Hey, free to dispute freedom, right?)

HPR: What does Pete Buttigieg stand for?

PB: One way that I try to shorthand it is freedom, security, and democracy, properly understood. That means freedom not just from, but freedom to. I think that in order to be free, you need a government that can provide basic services, and that can protect you from anyone who would make you unfree, including itself.
 I think security includes economic as well as physical security. And I think that a good democracy can deliver all of that. 

What I care about is making sure that we get our government to do the things that it needs to do for us to live a better everyday life. The government can’t make you thrive, but it can tear down the barriers between you and living the life of your choosing. I got into public service because I think it matters who’s making those decisions and what their priorities are. 


Now note that: “Freedom not just from, but freedom to.”

Sharp.

Now even though that’s a great line, it’s not immediately accessible.

It’s a little wonky, but it frames the rest of what he says in an extremely effective way.

In the era of Donald Trump, Democrats have been seized by “freedom from” — in other words, the overall goal to be free from the Trump era. If you’re a Democrat, it’s easy to see why. And it will probably get a lot of Democrats elected this fall.

But ever since Trump arrived on the scene, there’s the temptation for Democratic message-drift.

The entire platform becomes “freedom from” and therefore dominated by Donald Trump.

Voters know all about Trump and MAGA. They don’t need to be reminded. Trump won’t stop voters from being reminded. Centrist voters might want freedom from, but they want to know — what’s the Democratic party providing that’s freedom to?

The key for Democrats is offering an aspirational alternative, and that all stems from “freedom to” and not “freedom from.”

Pete spells out what freedom to looks like — “tear down the barriers between you and the living the life of your choosing.”

Now that’s a great campaign message, all stemming from the intellectual building block of “freedom to.”

Now… I’m not sure Americans are ready for 30 second commercials that are simply tag-lined “freedom to.”

But I’d bet they’re hungry for a commercial where every sentence begins with “freedom to… X, Y, and Z,” where, of course, X, Y, and Z are substantive issues that resonate with the vast and influential center of Americans.

How does that play out in a Democratic nomination? I’m not sure. It’s hard to know the climate in 2028. Right now, aspirational messages don’t really get you the clicks.

But Democrats should realize that if they want to win, they’re going to have to go on Rogan, Shaun Ryan, Theo Von, Flagrant etc., and if you can offer something that’s not just freedom from but freedom to, then that’s got the potential to be a winning message.

I’ll get to more about the interview in a separate post, but I had to flag that statement as Classic Pete in how he thinks (theoretically) and then can offer a coherent message based upon a central premise.

It’s a unique skill, but the top tier all have their unique gifts. Hence, the top tier.

0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
DemocratsElissa Slotkin

Slotkin to Iowa

by Christian Heinze

Fresh off her viral turn on Bill Maher’s show, The Des Moines Register reports that Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin is headed to… Iowa.

U.S. Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., will hold a town hall in Des Moines focused on health care with Democratic congressional hopeful Sarah Trone Garriott during a coming visit to Iowa.

Slotkin’s visit to meet with swing voters in Iowa and campaign for Democratic congressional hopefuls comes as she boosts her national presence ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Slotkin posted this clip on X yesterday, and notice what’s in there (it’s the economy, stupid) and what’s not in there. (Iran, Israel, culture wars).

She often refers to this as her Four Corners Pitch.

Slotkin is only at .3% on Kalshi, well behind her state’s governor Gretchen Whitmer, whom Axios has noted multiple times over the past year seems to be losing her fire for running for president.

Keep an eye on Slotkin if you’re thinking Michigan entry into the race. Oh, and Pete, I guess.

Here’s one of many notable moments on Maher — after which he remarked she could run for president.

Hat tip: Austin Cook X acct.

0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
DemocratsJon Ossoff

What 2028 darkhorse Jon Ossoff’s been up to

by Christian Heinze

Considering top tier 2028 candidates, Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff rarely pops up in national news headlines and, in my book, at this stage, that’s a good sign.

He’s focused on a reelection race and if he loses, his 2028 stock takes a massive hit.

The best thing he can do for 2028 is keep out of national affairs, focus on getting reelected in Georgia, and then pivot to national ambitions.

To keep up with Ossoff, here’s what’s been going on.

A) Liz Goodwin’s must-read Washington Post piece, “Republicans privately fear this swing state Democrat.“

Since Ossoff (barely) won his special election seat in 2021, Republicans have looked hopefully on knocking off Ossoff, claiming he’s too liberal for Georgia.

But, according to Goodwin, “behind closed doors, Republicans have tamped down their hopes.”

“I’m not feeling bullish about it,” said one Republican strategist who was granted anonymity to provide a more candid assessment. “[Ossoff] has wisely avoided the temptation of going on cable news for six years and playing to the base for social media likes. … I think he’s going to reap the benefits of that.”

In fact, one potential opponent, Buddy Carter, recently told folks:

“Look, this guy’s no slouch…. He’s pretty sharp, he’s articulate, he’s young, he’s handsome, he talks well. You better have somebody who can go toe to toe with him.”

(Of course, all that may be true, but the caveat is that Carter is in a competitive, super messy primary with MAGA-favorite Buddy Collins, who leads substantially in most GOP primary polls, and it’s in Carter’s best interest to portray Ossoff as a guy who can only be knocked off by a a more palatable general election nominee).

And Goodwin says Ossoff has started to pivot (I think a touch too soon, personally) to national issues.

…..he’s broken from his hyper-local focus in recent months to deliver stinging attacks on Trump and his administration that have won him admiration from national Democrats. A speech he gave in suburban Atlanta excoriating Trump for empowering a wealthy “Epstein class” to rule the country while slashing public services went viral. And in recent remarks at a Black church, Ossoff lashed out at the Trump administration’s actions as evil, criticizing Republicans from a biblical perspective.

Read the whole piece here, but you’ll find the general picture of a guy you shouldn’t underestimate for 2028.

(And btw, if you’re curious, here’s the full speech in Atlanta to which Goodwin referred.)

Also note – according to RCP’s average of Georgia polling, Ossoff maintains narrow (3-5%) leads on his potential Georgia Democratic opponents in 2026.

His national hopes depend pretty heavily, I think, on whether he wins.

B) His most buzzy moment, as of late – the grilling of Tulsi Gabbard in the Senate Intelligence Committee Hearing on Worldwide Threats, March 18, on whether Iran did, indeed, pose an imminent nuclear threat, considering she had previously said its program was “obliterated,” with “no efforts since then to rebuild their enrichment capability.”

After that, he pivoted to the controversial Fulton County raid.

Two things: a) He’s really sharp here — precise and strong without grandstanding (or nastiness) and b) it fits in line with his normal duties, so it’s not as if he’s going outside his Georgia Senator box in this viral moment.

The clip went viral with a range of analysts praising Ossoff’s line of questioning, from political influencers like Jon Favreau and Joannne Carducci to officials like retired US Navy Intel officer, Travis Akers, and NYU law professor Ryan Goodman.

C) The “Alligator Alcatraz Investigation.”

This is a substantive investigation with legs that both a) fits in line with Ossoff’s committee duties and b) gets him involved in an issue that has national implications — the treatment of ICE detainees.

Whereas the Gabbard clip stood out for its viral component, Ossoff and Dick Durban have launched an official investigation into allegations of “Alligator Alcatraz” torture.

The investigation is a response to concerns raised by Amnesty International, as well as Florida-based WLRN news reports.

Key passage from Ossoff and Durban’s letter:

“There have been credible allegations that detainees at ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ have been punished with confinement in a small cage-like structure known as ‘the box,’ where they are held in stress positions with hands and feet tightly shackled for hours at a time, in direct sunlight with no access to food or water.”

One political note — the investigation could help insulate him a bit from splitting with Dems on the Laken Riley Act that expanded detention for immigrants accused of certain crimes.

D) In an interview with Politico’s Adam Wren, Hasan Piker calls Ossoff his “darkhorse pick” for 2028.

Wow.

Piker is really controversial and really influential, and one advisor to a potential 2028 candidate told Politico they expect Piker has legs as a “gatekeeper” for the 2028 primary. Not sure that’s great for the party’s general election nominee, but what do I know.

My question – is Piker just playing political prognosticator w/Ossof here or saying: You know, I like this Ossoff guy a lot.

It seems… seems… that it’s the latter, based on the context of the quote.

“I said [Georgia Sen. Jon] Ossoff will be my dark horse pick, depending on how he presents himself if he has ambitions for higher office. I do love [UAW President] Shawn Fain personally. I like an outsider pick. I like Ro Khanna. I like AOC. I actually like [Sen.] Chris Van Hollen, quite a bit as well, even.”

Jewish Insider notes that Ossoff hasn’t responded to Piker’s comment, claiming that the silence speaks loudly.

Ossoff is Jewish. That puts any Democrat in an awkward position for 2028. Piker will be watching him closely on issues related to Israel, and that’ll be an interesting dynamic to keep in mind.

Kalshi Odds for Democratic Nominee, April 2, 2026: 6.6%, good for 3rd place behind Newsom and Cortez.

Considering that strong showing, weird he’s still considered a darkhorse.

0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Alexandria Ocasio-CortezDemocrats

AOC takes on the AI data centers

by Christian Heinze

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez teamed up with Bernie Sanders last week to introduce a bill that would put a moratorium on building new AI data centers (read here, and notice it leads with examples of numerous AI and business titans talking about its effect on industry) until certain conditions are met – namely, creating federal safeguards for AI to curb it from “affecting everything from our economy and well-being, to our democracy, warfare and our kids’ education.”

Here’s vid from AOC’s portion of the press conference.

Some key voices in the Democratic party immediately voiced opposition, which indicates the bill is probably doomed but not the political messaging.

More on that later.

First, to AOC’s presser:

Notice a few things.

  1. She talks about layoffs associated with AI – both ones that have already been attributed to it and those that have been warned about.
  2. Then she immediately shifts to Sam Altman’s testimony before Congress where he “begged us to regulate this industry” to prevent mass layoffs and benefit working people.”
  3. She followed with another Altman quote from 10 years ago: “AI will probably lead to the end of the world, but in the meantime there will be great companies created.” (some context to that quote here).
  4. AOC: “It’s our responsibility to take care of the people”; not Altman’s company (OpenAI) or said-companies.”

Now here’s the money quote that shows where the messaging is going on this:

AOC:

“Unfortunately, the leaders of this industry have repeated time and time again that they view working people as an endless untapped market to be manipulated and exploited.

That they would sell our country out if it meant that they could turn a profit.”

Translation: Wealth inequality.

Another potent message beyond wealth inequality — Privacy.

AOC:

“It is no surprise that in the four years since ChatGPT was released, we have seen AI deployed at a massive scale to create Big Brother-type surveillance.”

She continues:

“Companies like Palantir are mining endlessly the data and privacy of the American people, keeping track of everything that they say and do and sending it all to a militarized and centralized government.”

And why Americans should take the privacy threat seriously:

“When you take the subway, when you share a Tik-Tok, when you talk to your Alexa at home, they are collecting your data and figuring out new ways to weaponize it. And now they are using AI tools to automatize this so that it is not only pervasive but that it is effortless. We must sound the alarm now.”

Now to another political message — Affordability.

“These companies are now so desperate to profit off of the AI boom that they are racing to construct thousands of giant AI data centers and jacking up the utility costs of everyday Americans to pay for it. These data centers power thousands of high intensity computer chips that are processing at all times and require massive amounts of energy.”

And so… “People’s energy bills around the country are skyrocketing in order to pay for these AI data centers for them.”

Plainly: She integrates wealth inequality, privacy, and affordability into one issue (AI data centers), and that’s pretty good politics.

Here’s what gives it extra kick — some of AI’s biggest backers are practically household names.

The two most visible names are Sam Altman and Elon Musk, both of whom are very rich, very visible, and very controversial.

Another obvious name is Peter Thiel, though he isn’t quite a household name, although it’s getting there. And of course Alex Karp, who has all the makings of getting there, as well.

In normal class politics, progressive politicians usually say the “billionaires running the system.” But “Larry Fink” is gonna draw a lot of blank stares.

In other words, AOC already has data center foils that are controversy magnets (and magnates).

That matters, politically.

Her closing message: If AI wins, Altman, Musk and the Bro-Logarchs get richer, and you have to foot the bill of these huge data centers.

That last point is increasingly being addressed, but AI leaders let Americans paying high utility bills go on long enough that I think it’s contributed to a crystalizing of negative public thought towards it.

However…

Politically: Like I said, this billl is unlikely to pass.

At Axios’ AI+ DC Summit, key Democratic Sen. Mark Warner immediately called the idea of a moratorium “idiocy…. a data center moratorium simply means China is going to move quicker” and “the idea that we’re going to stuff this back into the bottle, this genie, that’s a ridiculous premise.”

John Fetterman also squashed the idea on X: “I refuse to help hand the lead in AI to China. The AI chassis can either come from China or the USA. That’s an easy choice.”

But ironically, that might actually help AOC’s fight.

In politics, fighting a losing battle can be a win, if a) the public is on your side of the message and b) it fits into a broader argument that’s also politically popular at this moment – that the middle and lower classes are getting increasingly squeezed by cost of living while the richer are getting richer.

And AOC has reason to think taking on AI in some fashion could be a popular cause.

In fact, an NBC poll this month showed registered voters think the the risks of AI outweigh the benefits, 57%-34%.

And here’s something fascinating about the poll – the youngest are most negative!

The demographic groups with the most negative views of AI are voters ages 18-34, among whom the net favorability rating for AI is minus 44, and women ages 18-49, who reported a net AI favorability rating of minus 41.

In other words, the group most opposed to new technology is the younger generation.

My guess – because young college graduates are struggling to find new jobs and younger adults are constantly hearing warnings (including from AI leaders) about vast swaths of jobs that could be wiped out in the future.

Having a foil that you essentially can’t stop (the inexorable advance of AI) can actually work in your favor because you don’t have to come up with something that addresses the need to adapt to the globe’s changing reality (Warner’s concerns).

Thus, I don’t think AOC and Bernie can win, legislatively, on this, but politically? Yeah. I think so.

It’s one of those issues that highlights the macro frustration of wealth inequality + the growing mass movement against what technology is really doing to us (the success of Jonathan Haidt’s Anxious Generation has become so vast that you can see a political movement arising from it).

AOC has a winning issue here, politically, even if it’s bound to fail.

And I don’t think she’s doing it cynically.

This fits perfectly with the consistent message she and Bernie have been highlighting on their Fighting the Oligarchy Tour. And it’s been a winning one across the country, as the affordability issue that doomed Democrats in 2024 threatens to doom Republicans in 2026.

On X, yesterday, she tweeted this warning:

Now, I do think the Trump Administration gets the political threat that AI poses to GOP.

The AP’s Matthew Daly:

The White House said last week that Congress should “preempt state AI laws” that it views as too burdensome, laying out a broad framework for how it wants Congress to address concerns about AI without curbing growth or innovation in the sector.

The legislative blueprint outlines a half-dozen guiding principles for lawmakers, focusing on protecting children, preventing electricity costs from surging, respecting intellectual property rights, preventing censorship and educating Americans on using the technology.

Companies that committed to Trump’s pledge to protect ratepayers include Google, Microsoft, Meta, Oracle, xAI, OpenAI and Amazon. The companies agreed to build or buy new sources of power generation for their data centers and cover the expense of infrastructure upgrades.

In other words, the Administration is “Full Steam Ahead!” while also recognizing the severe political vulnerability of its push on AI.

Browse the All-In Podcast, and you’ll see vid after vid of some of the most influential pro-AI voices acknowledging the industry faces a deep crisis in messaging.

So I doubt AOC wins on vote count here, but politics, yeah.

Axios’ Maria Curi notes:

AI’s massive energy demands are scrambling party lines, and efforts to halt construction could be an attractive political message on both sides of the aisle ahead of the midterms.

Now…. here’s another political thing to keep an eye on:

Some things in life are powered by Duracell.

JD Vance’s political ascent has been significantly powered by AI titans like Peter Thiel (See this classic piece from The New York Times: “How a network of tech billionaires helped JD Vance Leap into Power.”

AOC and JD seem to reserve special animosity towards one another (examples: here and here, but there are tons out there) that goes beyond the “Hey, I might run against you in 2028” jockeying.

One final thought: I’ve got a hunch that Palantir is on its way to becoming the bete noire of AI with Alex Karp and Peter Thiel the horsemen.

By the time it’s 2028, there’s a reasonable chance that Dems are throwing around nicknames of billionaires like “Peter Palantir Thiel” and somehow linking them to JD Vance in a way that makes things stick.

After all, the famous irony is that JD made his political career from the backstory of the hollowing out of manufacturing, yet might himself be an integral player in a future that could hollow out multiple industries.

Whether it’s AOC or someone else making that connection remains to be seen, but expect to hear a lot more from AOC on AI (unless, of course, everyone loves it by then).

0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
DemocratsPete Buttigieg

Axelord talks up Buttigieg’s outreach to African Americans

by Christian Heinze

David Axelrod, with this quote to Politico in Adam Wren’s fantastic read on Pete Buttigieg’s multi-state, multi-coalition, multi-outreach, maximalist approach to building a winning coalition.

“He had a remarkable run in 2020 and ultimately, one of the, perhaps the greatest obstacle, is that he didn’t have much of a relationship with African American voters.”

“And the fact that he’s spending a lot of time communing with Black voters across the country even if in the service of the midterm elections, is a reflection that he’s not headed for early retirement.”

You really need to read the piece because the whole Pete strategy (both philosophically and operationally) is pretty much there, but there’s this continual question that no one likes to talk about, but is one of the most daunting for Pete’s chances: Considering he’s gay, can Pete win enough black voters to win the nomination?

It’s the most ubiquitous, quiet question there is, because it assumes a homophobia among blacks, and progressives fear that accusation against such a valuable part of the Democratic coalition.

But Dems’ bleed in 2024 among Hispanics and Blacks was partially thanks to a leadership and activist base that had gone too far to the Left of Hispanics and Blacks on cultural issues.

Polling shows blacks are more religious than whites, more likely than others to read the Bible regularly, viewing it as God’s word, and thus more likely to be associated with denominations that consider homosexuality a sin.

That’s just the way it is.

It’s a demographic reality, and the Democratic party doesn’t want to say it out-loud, but Pete certainly know the dynamics.

After all, he earned less than 2% of the black vote when he ran for president in South Carolina. That, after finishing 2nd, overall, in Iowa and New Hampshire — which had far fewer blacks voting.

So while Pete’s shown tier 1 operational, rhetorical, and strategic capacity, it’s going to be a “prove-it” issue in much the same way Barack Obama’s was.

And in case you were wondering, Politico noted that a February Emerson poll had Pete running at 6% of the black vote, while Newsom scored 17% and Harris 36%.

That’s not as bad as it looks for Pete. Harris, of course, has sky high name ID, Newsom is up there too, and so Pete scoring 6% isn’t terrible. But of course not great.

And to that end, Wren notes:

Buttigieg has increased his engagement with Black candidates like Greene and the community more broadly, addressing a perceived weakness. In Alabama, Buttigieg joined civil rights leaders and community members in Selma for the Bridge Crossing Jubilee and Anniversary of Bloody Sunday, and made remarks at a unity breakfast and Tabernacle Baptist Church. In Birmingham, he joined a roundtable with business owners from the Historic 4th Avenue Business District.

Now, you couldn’t do better than to read the rest of Wren’s piece because it really shows how strategic Pete is about building a coalition and a winning strategy. It’s all about addition — demographics, venues, messaging, diversity of thought.

He’s not out there looking for the big 12 hr news cycle soundbite like a lot of the other Democratic contenders.

He’s squarely thinking about building a coalition that can win a general election.

And that will have to include a lot of traditionally religious black and Hispanic voters.

0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
DemocratsPete Buttigieg

Pete Buttigieg to Dems: Don’t just focus on Trump

by Christian Heinze

Fresh off a big surge in New Hampshire polling, Pete Buttigieg shows up on Raging Moderates with Scott Galloway and Jessica Tarlov and gives sage advice for his party.

Namely, avoiding falling into a trap Democrats have made throughout the Trump years — from Hillary Clinton’s campaign through now — by urging the party to look beyond Trump and focus on what it’s for and not what it’s against.

Trump’s weaknesses are low hanging fruit. Americans don’t like his style and a lot of how he does things. Why focus on what they already see?

But if persuadable Americans don’t like what Trump is offering, it’s not enough to just be the anti-Trump. You have to be the pro-something.

And that’s what Pete articulates here, and I think it’s a message Democrats are going to have to remember going forward.

“I think our party is still struggling to have this idea of what happens when Trump leaves the scene as a beginning point instead of the be-all-end-all goal of what we’re doing….. We are understandably so horrified by all the abuses that are going on right now. It’s just not enough. Maybe it’s enough for 2026, but it’s not actually enough to be a governing vision. Especially because so much has changed.”

So what does that look like?

“We’re going to need, probably, a completely new social contract in our economy because of what artificial intelligence is likely to do to jobs communities in just the next few years….. we have to have answers to end not just the horrible things we’re seeing right now; but what to do about it.

…. And the really amazing thing is — on so many of the answers — including things we’ve been saying all along, including that the wealthiest pay their fair share of taxes or making sure that there’s a better solution for people to get health care…. like 2/3’s of Americans agree with us.

…. If there’s issue after issue where 2/3’s of Americans agree with us and we’re not always getting 50% in the elections, how are we talking about these things and where are we talking about these things. Whether that’s people like me going on Fox…. or whether it’s going to these spaces where more people get their information that aren’t on TV at all…. sports, and culture, and comedy venues that are actually how a lot of younger people form their impression about what’s happening in the world.

If we’re not contesting that territory…..we’re going to be left behind because I now for a fact that the other side is doing it the other day.”

Tarlov then mentions his appearance on Flagrant, where Peteimpressed the Republican-leaning hosts.

Again, that’s where I think Pete is at his best — engaging with the other side in a way that’s not combative but constructive.

Whether you agree with him or not, he’s very good at it, and it’s something Dems are going to need.

So the reason I flag this interview is that he points out two very important things for Dems going forward.

a) To win in 2028, they have to be pro-Something; not just anti-MAGA.

b) And to deliver that message, they have to loosen up, lighten up, joke around, and talk about solutions in a way that’s positive.

Right now, there’s a prevailing theme that Democrats need a fighter to take back the White House, but the pendulum of history suggests that each new president is a corrective in vision from the previous.

If that holds, the winning Democratic candidate will offer something hopeful with a smile, rather than dystopian with a frown.

Btw, here’s his turn on Flagrant. Note how well he takes the gay jokes. I can tell you – young straight guys disillusioned by Trump are gonna love that and reconsider the party if the nominee adopts that kind of chill attitude. Not because these young guys are homophobic. But because of fatigue with what they feel were the excesses of the woke era of the Left.

0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
DemocratsGavin Newsom

Gavin Newsom’s week in review, March 15-23, 2026

by Christian Heinze

California Gov. Gavin Newsom had a big Sunday South by Southwest featured session, where Network and Chill host Vivian Tu hosted him for a sit down.

Joe Ellet, The Austin Chronicle:

Working the crowd with each word, all Newsom had to do was simply point to the work that Trump’s regime has conducted during his time in office: ICE raids around the country, the rollback of DEI representation, the war in Iran, the tariffs, voter suppression, and more. 

“They are putting America in reverse civil rights,” Newsom said. “Voting rights, LGBTQ rights, women’s rights. They want to bring us back, truly. Maybe it’s not even a 1960s world. Sometimes I wonder if it’s an 1860s world.”

He also heavily implied he’d run for president, but only if Democrats win the House in 2028 because otherwise “free and fair elections” would presumably be gone (we know he’d still run, though).

A few notes from his appearance:

He said (clip below from his X site), “If you ask me my identity, I’m a small businessperson…..I’m just impressing upon you my passion for entreprenurism. People have put everything on their line for risk…. that entrepreneurial mindset is about agency — that you can shape the future, that you’re not a victim…. you just gotta show up every single day.”

This is why I flag that: It’s normal to hear a progressive left wing candidate talk about fighting from the bottom, but it’s unusual to hear them use the words: “entrepreneurial mindset,” “agency,” “risk,” and “you’re not a victim.”

That’s centrist 101- talk, and the fact that narrative rolls off his tongue shows that he’s comfortable speaking with a mindset and coded words that would help him in a general election. Not necessarily a primary. But a general.

Newsom posted plenty more clips of what will undoubtedly be campaign messages — minimum wage, the gamification of the Iran war (although that will be less relevant, most likely, come 2028), Oval Office grift (which perhaps will touch Vance), the state of the economy (which can change between now and 2028), and tariffs.

The particular every-green comments, though, are the minimum wage message and the small business one (which his GOP opponents will call foul on because small business owners are often most affected by higher minimum wages).

Regardless, those are issues that will be around in 2028. The rest is headline stuff.

Like calling Trump a “man-child,” “jackass,” and “an invasive species.” Add that to times he’s called Donald Trump a “brain-dead moron who bombs children and protects p*dophiles” in response to Trump’s comments on his SAT moment, and Newsom continues to audition for Troller-in-Chief, which in today’s America just might become the next duty behind a president behind Commander-in Chief.

I don’t think it serves any candidate running against Trump or a Trump adjacent-character great in a general election to descend to name-calling, because MAGA is particular adept in those waters.

But Newsom does a pretty good job on the Trolling Front.

If Trump is a 10/10 on perfecting the proudly crass insult, Newsom gets to 8/10. Not bad. But is that really good for America?

NEWSOM’S TAX CLAIM:

At the conference, Newsom also reframed Florida and Texas as the “real high-tax states” and not California, calling the former regressive.

“Your middle class pays more taxes in Texas than our middle class in California,” Newsom added. “It’s a great mythology – it’s just ‘the richest of the rich come here because they can avoid paying a damn penny.’”

Newsom:

RCP’s Tom Bevan pushed back:

The aforementioned WalletHub study backing up Bevan, and here’s Hub’s take on what “tax burden” actually means:

Unlike tax rates, which vary widely based on an individual’s circumstances, tax burden measures the proportion of total personal income that residents pay toward state and local taxes.

WalletHub compared the 50 states based on the cost of three types of state tax burdens — property taxes, individual income taxes, and sales and excise taxes — as a share of total personal income in the state.

Newsom’s potential 2028 opponent, Ron DeSantis, said of Newsom’s claim: “There are lies, damned lies and statistics. Then there is whatever you’d call the claim that California has lower taxes than Florida.”

Fox Business said Newsom was probably referring to this study from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, ranking Florida and Texas in the top 10 of most regressive states.

ITEP’s analysis focuses on how tax burdens are distributed across income groups rather than overall tax levels. The group argues that states such as Texas and Florida look “low tax” largely because they do not levy a broad-based personal income tax — a structure that disproportionately benefits high earners.

To make up the difference, those states rely more heavily on sales, excise and property taxes, which tend to take a larger share of income from lower-income households. California, by contrast, uses a highly progressive income tax system that places more of the burden on top earners and helps offset regressive taxes lower down the income ladder.

My political take: Voters aren’t going to dive into “tax burden” vs “tax rate” or anything beyond their gut. That’s just the way it is.

Even without getting into numbers, Newsom runs into difficulty here.

Thought experiment for a general election: Who is really gonna buy the idea that California is the place to go if you want to pay lower taxes?

Newsom’s argument might be sufficient for some parts of the Dem base. But it’s going to be a problem for him in the general election if he tries to fight off the most vulnerable part of his record: The fact that most Americans don’t see California as a bastion of low taxes and, instead, view it as a Far Left lab that they’d really like to move to because it’s awesome there except… really unaffordable.

And really unaffordable is on everyone’s mind.

That’s Newsom’s continual weakness as a candidate, but he has a few years to trial run answers for it. Not wonky ones. But ones that resonate with voters.

The reason I focus on their messaging for a general election when ostensibly we’re talking the Democratic primary is that the most viable Democratic candidate for president will be the one who can talk with an eye towards the general election (see the Dems 2020 disaster, where the race to the far left meant that many Dems were saddled with quotes that would hurt them in elections to come).

Btw, here’s full video of Newsom’s appearance.

Trump’s war on Newsom’s dyslexia: Talking to reporters in the Oval Office on Monday, Donald Trump attacked Newsom for his dyslexia for at the least the fourth time in the past week, alone, according to Time’s Rebecca Schneid and The LA Times.

The President of the United States of America said:

“Gavin Newsom has admitted that he has learning disabilities, dyslexia. Honestly, I’m all for people with learning disabilities, but not for my president. Everything about him is dumb.”

To which Newsom responded on X.

And at a rally the week before, Trump said: “I don’t want the president of the United States to have a cognitive deficiency.”

To which Newsom two-worded him.

Trump also told Fox News Radio that “presidents can’t have a learning disability” and on a Truth Social post that he was a “Cognitive Mess.”

The LA Times notes the ways Newsom’s dyslexia has actually made him a sharper candidate, known for remarkable recall and ability to absorb vast amounts of detail – something that the Yale Center for Dyslexia and Creativity noted is common for those with the disability:

“While people with dyslexia are slow readers, they often, paradoxically, are very fast and creative thinkers with strong reasoning abilities.”

My take on the ongoing battle over Newsom’s dyslexia:

A) It seems incompatible that in the same riff that Trump claimed empathy for those with learning disabilities, he said everything about Newsom was dumb. Which infers those with learning disabilities on dumb.

B) Trump’s voracious attacks on Newsom seem to infer that he sees the CA gov as the biggest threat to whomever the GOP nominates in 2028. Yes, Trump has frequently attacked AOC (and everyone) and yes, Newsom has trolled Trump at every turn, but there seems to a be particular ire that Trump reserves for Newsom that signals he sees Gavin as his heir’s biggest threat.

And…

C) Even leaving morals aside, which learning disability groups are appropriately lamenting, Trump seems to be on the losing end of a Troll Battle here, which is rare, considering that he’s known for landing nicknames etc that stick and, however inflammatory, do genuine damage to the opposing candidate.

Trump’s battle on Newsom’s dyslexia also helps negate what is one of the most difficult dynamics Gavin has to face – that he’s an out of touch snob. Trump is unwittingly highlighting one of the most compelling aspects of Newsom’s life — the one most likely to make others who stereotype him reconsider. It’s bad politics on Trump’s part.

Consider it a fight on losing terrain. I’m not sure why Trump doesn’t go hard at Newsom’s biggest political weakness (perception of snobbery + governor of California), instead of stake his ground on a learning disability.

My hunch is that Trump will either wisen up, or that he and his team know that it’s bad politics, but Trump might be so full of contempt it’s one of those “Let Trump be Trump” things that even Susie Wiles lets go.

Conclusion: Every Trump insult over Newsom’s dyslexia is a win for Gavin, politically.

Consider, here, Newsom’s wife, Jennifer’s moving X post defending her husband and all those who struggle with a learning disability.

I know we’re out of the realm of the real struggles those with learning disabilities face here, but it’s not my job to express mortal outrage on this site. That’s for 99% of other blogs and X accounts to do. It’s to look aside and consider the politics to get a better angle on the race.

The Hill’s Amie Parnes talks with strategists who affirm that it’s probably Trump stress-testing the nickname, along with an acknowledgment that the president views Newsom as a legit threat.

And to that end, I’ll finish on the issue here:

An Emerson poll, taken soon after the back-and-forth showed that Newsom’s favorability polling had actually flipped positive to +2%. That’s a bounce from -11% in Emerson’s last poll, just four months ago (December 2025).

That could be the result of Newsom’s book tour (if so, that means he’s impressing voters on it), or maybe the X trolling, or just an overall brightening in favorability of Democratic candidates.

Regardless, Trump’s continual use of the the bully pulpit to, well, bully a person with a learning disability ain’t great for Republicans and works for Newsom.

Finally, Newsom paid respects to Robert Mueller, who passed away on Saturday night (helpful suggestion to the CA governor: it’s enough to just pay respects without mentioning Trump. The contrast in reactions to Mueller’s passing says everything. Newsom doesn’t have to include that in a RIP post).

Other things:

A) Newsom supports renaming Cesar Chavez day as Farmworkers Day after the NY Times published allegations of abuse against the former icon of the movement. (Note to Republicans: The NY Times published it, folks. This is why the MSM is necessary. If it had been posted from a right wing outlet, there would have been huge controversy. Instead, reaction against Chavez has been swift, including statue removal, street renaming etc., – even as Latinos struggle with losing an MLK-like icon for the movement. So instead of bashing the MSM at every turn, Republicans should appreciate the fact that this didn’t come from a right wing source).

B) Rememember when Newsom was on Shaun Ryan’s show and Shaun gifted him a pistol? Here’s video of the show.

Well, CalMattters notes that his own state’s laws might make it harder for him taking it home.

I think there are two more important things here.

A) The fact that Newsom is willing to hit up the bro-sphere is vital for any candidate’s 2028 chances. That hurt Kamala badly in 2020, obviously. Mayor Pete has also shown particular ability to enter skeptical confines and charm hosts with his intellect and command of the facts.

B) Keep in mind this quote from Newsom after Ryan gave him the gun, as a sign of his ideological flexibility as situation demands:

“Brother, this is fabulous…. The last thing people would expect is that I respect this gift. … I’m not anti-gun at all.”

Progressive Democrats might have one time winced there. But after the 2020 primary debacle, proudly saying “I’m not anti-gun” is probably the smart move. Note: He didn’t say “pro-gun.” Difference there.

POLLS:

Saint Anselm College Survey Center shows Pete Buttigieg surging ahead of Gavin Newsom in the race for the Democratic primary.

  1. Pete Buttigieg 29%
  2. Gavin Newsom 15%
  3. AOC 10%
  4. Kamala Harris 6%
  5. JB Pritzker 5%
  6. Amy Klobuchar, Josh Shapiro, Andy Beshear 4%

And at 2% or less: Cory Booker, Chris Murphy, Gretchen Whitmer, Rahm Emanuel 1%, Wes Moore 1%.

Of the surge, remember it’s only 2026, but also it’s notable that, last year, Pete and Gavin were tied in the same survey.

WMUR on the poll (Look at Rubio’s move on Vance – significant. But remember, that’s still a big gap in a state very familiar with Rubio, thanks to his 2024 run).

Btw, here’s RCP’s New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary polling average. Bookmark it! Note that Pete had a 5% lead over Gavin in a UNH poll last month.

Particularly notable in the Anselm Survey for me, as well: Kamala Harris, treading water all the way in 4th place at 6%. Considering she’s already been the Democratic nominee, that’s an awfully poor showing.

Politico’s Jonathan Martin aptly tweeted: “One of the biggest potential 2028 storylines in plain sight: NH will still likely go first and @PeteButtigieg probably has a floor in the low 20s there. Which means he will almost certainly finish in the top 3 in a crowded NH field.”

Meanwhile…

A Berkeley IGS Poll of California Democrats showed Gavin Newsom the preferred nominee for president among CA residents, beating fellow Californian Kamala Harris, substantially. In fact, Harris landed only 4th among voters in her own state.

California Democratic Nominee Preferences:

  1. Gavin Newsom 28%
  2. AOC 14%
  3. Pete Buttigieg 11%
  4. Kamala Harris 9%
  5. AZ Sen. Mark Kelly 7%

Newsom’s job approval is only 48% in the state, however.

INTERESTING READ: Axios’ Alex Thompson and Holly Otterbein, on how the 2028 Democratic candidates, including Newsom, are leaning into their childhood traumas.

Their frankness about their formative years and family dynamics is a way to shape their public stories before journalists do. It’s also a sign of shifting taboos and a growing desire for candidates to appear relatable to voters.

Yes, authenticity matters more than ever and with politicians not exactly known for that, even incremental gains can move the needle.

OP-ED: NY Times Frank Bruni, “Will A Peacock Like Gavin Newsom Fly?“

“….while I once considered that image a political liability, now I’m not so sure. Yes, it reeks of self-love. But it also announces that he came to play. That he’s ready to rule. It’s a positively Trumpian promise of dominance. Maybe that’s what Democrats feel they need….. Newsom’s strut is working for him…..Let Bernie Sanders orate about oligarchy. Newsom’s a meme machine.”

Newsom’s Press Office X meme of the week:

WARNING SIGN: Joe Rogan bashing Newsom over his response to fraud allegations in California. Two things: 1) Newsom has to address this, substantially, at some point and 2) Newsom has to go on Rogan at some point and face his long-time nemesis.

Kalshi Democratic Nominee Betting Odds: March 23, 2026. 26% (1st spot)

0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Alexandria Ocasio-CortezDemocrats

AOC generates huge 2028 buzz

by Christian Heinze
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at the Fighting Oligarchy Tour in Missoula, Montana

Last week might be considered the week that catapulted Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez permanently to the top tier of Democratic candidates for 2028 as AOC continues her “Fighting Oligarchy” tour with Bernie Sanders.

Until now, she’s been lurking as a kind of “maybe, possibly AOC?” in some corners of the internet, but this is the week she broke out in the mainstream media – and much deserved, as I’ve been writing about since before Trump was even reelected in 2024.

Here’s a brief look at her big week.

a) AOC revealed that she raised $9.6 million from January through March of the year. What’s most impressive and revealing about her haul is that the average campaign donation was just $21 and 64% came from first-time donors. That’s evidence of broad support among common folks — something that reflects genuine enthusiasm among the Democratic electorate and not institutional donors (institutional $ doesn’t always translate to votes).

Remember, Obama was generating this kind of small-dollar appeal in 2008 while Hillary was, instead, getting the institutional support. We know how that turned out.

Beyond the fundraising and her continuing mega tour with Bernie Sanders (which is drawing impressive crowds in red parts of the country, and according to The New York Times, surprised Sanders himself) the talking head buzz really got going when…

b) Nate Silver and and political podcaster Galen Druke called AOC the early front-runner for the 2028 Dem presidential primary in a “way too early presidential draft.” Silver and Druke noted two things a) her media savvy/charisma and b) broader appeal among the Democratic primary electorate than often assumed. Silver noted the recent poll where she would best Chuck Schumer in a Senate primary and accurately noted “New York Democrats are actually a pretty moderate lot.”

Druke talks about it all on MSNBC, where he notably mentions that AOC has, indeed, pivoted towards economic issues, while going quiet on things like abolishing ICE and other, less popular progressive positions she was famous for when she rose to prominence (think Green New Deal, among others).

I’d note something else, regarding the 2028 primary: Imagine all the ’28 candidates, crowded in the early states, in those numerous townhalls that are so clutch in determining the buzz and energy of a candidate.

Now think of candidates like Gretchen Whitmer, Kamala Harris, or Gavin Newsom’s holding their town halls right across the street from AOC’s. On a cold, windy day, who’s going to draw the crowd?

That’s not to say townhalls mean everything (Joe Biden didn’t exactly generate much in that regard in 2020), but it does speak to a candidate’s charisma, ability to attract media attention, and generate enthusiasm. That often turns to votes.

c) Kevin McCarthy also called AOC the future of the Democratic party during an interview on Fox News, but said it’s ultimately going to come down to an intraparty fight between the “AOC and Bernie Sanders” wing vs. the “Joe Biden/Kamala Harris/Nancy Pelosi/Schumer and Hakeem [Jeffries]” wing.

The winner of that tussle, McCarthy predicted, will become the “leader of the Democratic party.”

Now listen to this next bit, which is going to be the big knock on AOC from Republicans and, perhaps, concerned Democrats who don’t want to be seen as too far left in a 2028 general election.

McCarthy:

“Remember, AOC and Bernie Sanders are socialists. They literally registered as socialists. AOC came into the party campaigning for Bernie Sanders… this is how far the party has moved. And it shows – they are more at home going to a Latin American country than fighting for a hard-working American.”

If AOC is the nominee, expect Republicans to go hard at the fact that AOC did, in fact, form a close association with Democratic Socialists of America, worked to gain their endorsement, and, in 2021, was referred to by the organization as “DSA’s foremost socialist superstar.” She catalogues her own history with the movement here and it’s well worth the read.

This is going to be something she’ll have to deal with in a country where “socialist” can be electoral kryptonite in a general election. Or… even a Democratic primary (as Bernie Sanders learned the hard way).

What is AOC going to say about all this? How will she address it? Will she lean into it or shy away from it?

d) On his Real Time show this week, Bill Maher shot back at the idea of AOC as the Dem’s 2028 nominee: “It shouldn’t be her. It shouldn’t be her.”

e) A Yale Poll of national Democrats showed AOC running a very close second to Kamala Harris in the 2028 Democratic primary. Harris clocked in at 27.5%, Ocasio-Cortez 21.3%, and Mayor Pete 14%. Gavin Newsom drew 6.4% and Josh Shapiro 4.6%.

Most of these early surveys are Name ID checks, and so it’s understandable that Harris would rank first. What’s concerning for Kamala is just how tenuous that first place hold is, with AOC just a few percentage points behind.

f) MUST-READ: Axios’ Alex Thompson breaks down everything you need to know about AOC’s buzz in his piece “AOC seizes the moment as Dems seek a new identity.”

Money quote from AOC, while attending a rally in Folsom, California, which is represented by Republicans in the state house (although Biden squeaked out a narrow win in 2024):

“I don’t think this is Trump country — I think this is our country.”

Expect to hear that line a lot more from AOC.

Finally…. here’s full video of Sanders and AOC’s rally from Missoula, Montana.

0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Alexandria Ocasio-CortezDemocratsRo Khanna

Ro Khanna praises Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s mass market appeal

by Christian Heinze

In the midst of her wildly popular “Fighting Oligarchy” tour with Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is drawing praises from a potential 2028 rival, Rep. Ro Khanna.

Khanna tells Michelle Cottle of the New York Times:

“She connects with her life experiences in a way with young people and people who don’t follow all the details of politics by drawing them in.”

Further, in a remarkable display of the humility he’s known for projecting, Khanna talks about how he stacks up next to AOC when it comes to the X factor.

Representative Ro Khanna of California recalled to me that, at a recent town hall, people kept asking him, “What are you going to do to stop this?” None of his answers about what was possible in legislative terms ever “fully landed,” he said. “And then I would just say, ‘Look, it’s going to take all of us. It’s going to take a movement.’ And that’s what Bernie and A.O.C. are doing. They get it — that it’s not just in Washington that this is going to be stopped. It’s going to take everyone

For her part, AOC tells Cottle that the party needs to stop dividing itself into labels like “progressives” or “moderates” and needs to unite under a message of “economic populism.”

Maybe.

But I’d suggest that’s a really hard thing to do when the fact is that — just as there was an establishment, conservative wing of the GOP and a populist wing — there remains a progressive and moderate division in the Democratic party.

The GOP had a long, open fight over which side would win.

How often did we hear Trump rail in the 2016 primary (and ever since) against the “establishment” or “RINOs” or “Bush Republicans”? In fact, that explained some of his success. He was the most charismatic figure from the burgeoning populist wing to emerge and, ultimately, he won the battle and today’s GOP is MAGA, with only a few remaining holdouts (some elected representatives and the roughly 20% of Republicans who consistently voted for Nikki Haley in GOP primaries).

So I don’t think Democrats can avoid an inevitable showdown between the moderate wing and the progressive wing. Not in this moment, and not in the context of today’s increasingly partisan primaries.

It takes a rare candidate to unite both wings in a primary (even Barack Obama had difficulty reeling in the establishment from its allegiance to Hillary Clinton) and the divisions within the party have only intensified since then.

Nevertheless, at this moment, Democrats seem eager to embrace a more combative approach and candidate.

Look no further than the early April poll of a potential face-off between Chuck Schumer and AOC, where the latter led the powerful Senate Minority leader and most iconic figure in New York Democratic politics 55-36% among likely primary voters in that state.

Finally, AOC herself kind of makes the case for herself in the i/view with The New York Times, and it’s the one many make when they talk of her appeal for a 2028 presidential bid.

AOC:

“I think that people need to see some of us who’ve actually made it from really tough backgrounds and have really seen some things in their lives and not just heard about things in their lives. Because it’s visceral. To actually know what it’s like to come home to an apartment and the lights are off, to actually know what it’s like to not be able to afford a prescription, is something that can be really felt.”

I’ve written about her ability to connect with the working class because, she actually does come from the working class. And it shows up in things as simple as the fact she heads out to jump start her chief of staff’s car — a picture that went viral — as if it’s just a part of a daily life.

Plenty of politicians can try to feign that working class, relatable persona. Very few can pull it off.

Let’s circle back to Khanna, who offered the self-effacing praise of a potential future presidential primary opponent in AOC.

His pragmatism seemed particularly relevant to the party in the wake of Donald Trump’s broad 2024 victory when it was widely acknowledged the Democratic party had moved too far to the Left.

However, a lot can change in a few months.

Just look at these numbers for Trump with indies, via the AP and NORC from March 20-24, PRE-TARIFF and market volatility.

So the wind seems to have changed drastically in Democrats’ favor if they choose to focus on the issues that are currently moving independents.

Final note:

It’ll be fascinating to see what the 2026 Democratic primary produces.

Does the party try to moderate itself, which seemed to be the way it was trending in the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump’s victory, or will it lean into a more progressive, fighter mode that the party seems to want now?

Currently, Democrats seem to have landed on a message that resonates with folks: Trump 2.0 is more about billionaires in the White House and less about working class men and women, who will see prices rise with tariffs.

That’s a winning message.

And it could be the uniting message in a party that was splintering and falling apart as it grappled with how to address politically losing messages that were out of step with most Americans’ concerns in the 2024 election.

0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Load More Posts
-
00:00
00:00

Queue

Update Required Flash plugin
-
00:00
00:00