Flow Void

There is no chance it will backfire, because there is no chance it will pass.

The GOP has been trying to pass SAVE for years. That have never succeeded in the past, and they certainly aren't going to this year.

That's an income tax, not a wealth tax

If Musk pays a $100m yacht to the US government and there are no billionaires left who will buy it from the US government, who benefits from the yacht?

In the last blue wave, 10% of House seats flipped from red to blue. This wave will probably be larger.

That means they need to be at >10,000 polls. There aren't enough of them.

When Republicans do this....

Sure, but the WaPo clearly disagrees with many Dems about what work needs to be done.

Many Dems believe that GOP gerrymanders need to be countered with other gerrymanders.

The WaPo argues that gerrymandering needs to stop and be reversed.

Are you suggesting that erosion of rights is pleasant? Because otherwise, gerrymandering can indeed be both "unpleasant" and "erode the basic rights".

The WaPo didn't say the two parties are equivalent.

They said both sides are bad when Republicans did it, and they said both sides are bad when Democrats did it.

You certainly don't have to agree, but their message is internally consistent.

"Unpleasant" and "erosion" refer to gerrymandering in general, by both parties.

I don't necessarily agree with them. I'm just saying that aren't really contradicting themselves.

The headlines are embarrassing, but the editorials themselves are roughly self-consistent.

They aren't disappearing. In fact they have been outperforming for the last year, and they are going to win the House in November.

And it's not because they follow a set script. Dems win by running progressives in places progressives will win, and running liberals in places liberals will win.

Dems will never stop competing against progressives. That's how primaries are supposed to work, progressives don't get a free ride.

And progressives will never stop complaining about "ratfucking" when their opponents beat them. That's just cope.

If Demsocs are so popular and Dems don't help them, then Demsocs should run and win as a third party.

But of course they never do. Because Demsocs need Dem support to win.

I thought you said Dems don't run demsocs.

Democrats have been sweeping elections in the last year, so clearly they are popular now.

If you think you could win on those issues, then you should run.

Bernie led polls until he didn't. He had media support and then lost it. Those are signs of a bad candidate.

And "coordinated dropouts" only hurt candidates who lack majority support and thus depend on opposition disunity. A strong candidate is happy when opponents leave the race.

The fact that Zohran won NYC shows that progressives are popular in NYC.

The rest of the country, not so much.

That all sounds like cope.

McGovern couldn't win a general. Bernie was a terrible candidate who couldn't win a primary.

What happened is that people like Zohran lost.

So it turns out that people like Zohran usually can't win elections

Then why did you say Dems don't run people like Zohran?

If they nuked the filibuster, Roe would no longer be codified today.

"Universal health care" means everyone has health care. It is not the same as single-payer, which Obama did not support during his presidential campaign.

Democrats have been sweeping elections throughout 2025, and they are about to win back the House in November.

Anyone can run in a primary. Even you.

If you think "somebody like Zohran" could win, then you should convince somebody like Zohran to run.

And nevertheless they are to the left of their predecessors.

So the Democratic party is, in fact, moving to the left.