Democrats
The Brief: Trump’s Primetime Address Backfires
Here’s a look at a few things TPM is following this morning.
07.17.26 | 8:09 am
Why the Democratic Party Has No ‘Base’ and Why That Matters Prime Badge
07.09.26 | 9:05 pm

We’re now in the midst of one of these now and again collective Democratic meltdowns, filled with dooming laments, drama, intra-party attacks and insults, rending of clothes, “reckonings” and more. But there’s a fact, little discussed and under-appreciated, that is nestled in these collective freak-outs. This may sound nonsensical or perhaps a semantic point with no real meaning. But it’s foundational to how the Democratic Party functions and why it functions differently and often disappointingly compared to the GOP.

We hear lots of arguments in Democratic politics that the party’s base is its left wing. There’s a certain logic to that. It’s a center-left party so it’s left wing is its base and it’s filled out by more fair-weather voters or less ideological ones. In a sense it’s really their party or they’re the legitimate owners of it as soon as corporate interests and softies and other interlopers can be kicked to the curb. But it’s not. The most obvious reason is that are just too few of them. But they are also very different, sociologically, ideologically, demographically from the rest of the party. This isn’t just a dig on the left. The same applies to white liberals. There are dramatically more of them. But they are still really, really different from much of the rest of the party.

Read More
The Brief: Graham Platner’s Exit Would Set Up a Busy Few Weeks in Maine
Here’s a look at a few things TPM is following this morning.
07.07.26 | 8:12 am
Congressional Report Alleges Fraud in Fundraising for ‘Christian Nationalist’ Freedom250
INSIDE: Sister Leticia Ugboaja ... JD Vance ... Avi Loeb
07.02.26 | 9:29 am
Why the Filibuster Absolutely Has to Go
05.29.26 | 4:08 pm

TPM Reader TB dropped me a note this afternoon about today’s second post. He liked it. Then he wrote this: “You’ve pretty much conclusively won the argument on SCOTUS reform, starting with immediate unilateral expansion.  You’ve written comparatively much less about the filibuster and I’m among those unconvinced that just nuking it is the best way forward or that that’s a win as a platform plank. Not passionately against it, just not clear on how concretely that plays out as a long-term win.”

I’ve written pretty extensively about abolishing the filibuster. But I haven’t done so in quite some time. So I welcome the opportunity to do so again.

I’d put the matter in three related arguments: 1) It’s bad on the merits and defies if not violates the Constitution. 2) It hurts Democrats disproportionately. 3) The existence of the modern filibuster is a major driver of the loss of confidence in public institutions.

Read More