"Republicans did not do issue polling to decide if they wanted to demonize immigrants and trans people." www.liberalcurrents.com/democrats-mu...

ah, perhaps instead of pumping millions into endless factional infighting Dem donors could invest in making local Dem organizations genuine civic spaces that can reach people during and between elections

I wrote about this kind of question using an analogy of an unclear property line:
americanconstitutionalfront.substack.com/i/176789318/...

decide to win dot org in shambles

I think this is a good take and it's worth highlighting in contrast to the almost mythological "tough on crime" question for Democrats. First is the very obvious "what does that even mean?" in the sense that being anything on crime, tough or not, has TONS of moving parts.

The volume of people who think that having convictions is a political weakness is staggering. Politicians can lie on issues, but voters can tell when you don't believe things generally. Mamdani's victory in the primary is obvious evidence of this.

Currently reading Eric Foner's Reconstruction and it's unbelievable how popular it was to argue that you couldn't redistribute land from plantation owners to freedmen because then they wouldn't know the value of hard work. Who in the world could know that value better than someone who was enslaved?

This essay from last week dives into how the Constitution *really* works. At the end of the day, there's a lot in there that's not clear. The final adjudicator of that clarity isn't the Supreme Court, and it certainly isn't the President.

It's the People.

Hello The Economist! It seems you're having trouble reading. I know the 22nd Amendment is a doozy at 162 words long, but fear not! All you need to read is the first 14 words: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice"

Hope this helps!

one of jamelle bouie's best posts is how he is constantly telling people that politics is not about trying to do something that people would care about, but trying to make people care about the thing you want to do

Net favorability among Dem primary voters

AOC +68
Kamala Harris +68
Joe Biden +56
Democratic Socialists +48
Chuck Schumer +8

(Districts polled: IL02, IL03, IL07, IL08, IL09, PA03, PA12, MI11, MN05)

What does the flag mean?

The Preamble outlines six specific purposes for the Constitution, represented by the six vertical red and white stripes.

No Kings

The history of this being wrong stretches all the way back to the English Parliament in the 1600s. It's so wrong that Bessent should have to write a 15-page essay about how wrong it is and if it isn't sincere enough he should get an F and have to do it again.

The more people stand up, and the more people put their finger on the scale, the better chance we have of making a better outcome. Every person who chooses not to be involved is handing another small victory to the other side.

And with times as volatile as they are, small victories pile up quick!

I keep telling people who want prognostications that we're at a moment of extremely high variance. The future could plausibly go in a wider variety of directions--from full-on authoritarianism to backlash promoting a Third Reconstruction--than at any time in recent history.

Woodrow Wilson had a fundamentally warped understanding of what democracy is, and he built his tyranny on that foundation. He believed that his version of social order was more important than democracy, and because of that, both were damaged.

americanconstitutionalfront.substack.com/p/friction-p...

the number of elected dems who actually understand the republican party is shockingly small. rather than giving them better insight, knowing and working alongside republicans has blinded them. it’d be fascinating if it wasn’t such an existential threat

imo, if someone believes some races or ethnicities are genetically inferior to others, that person has revealed a weakness of mind and character that casts extreme if not irrefutable doubt on their other ideas. why would i expect them to use more rigor on, eg, housing than they do on human nature?