Editor's blog
November 22, 2024, 7:12 pm

Get Off the Floor and Keep It Simple

Today I read this piece in Vox comparing the 2004 and 2024 elections and what Democrats today can learn about how the Democrats came back from defeat. Author Nicole Narea says Democrats did three things 1) They’re pursued a 50 state strategy, 2) Democrats reevaluated their messaging, 3) Democrats sought to become the party of ideas.

There’s some truth to Item #1. A 50 state strategy is absolutely something Democrats should pursue. But none of these three things are actually what happened. And they’re not why Democrats scored two successive wave elections in 2006 and 2008.

The Vox article speaks of a “reckoning” the Democrats had to have then and another “reckoning” they have to have now. I absolutely see red whenever I see people using this word in a political context. In post election terms it appears to mean a kind of ash and sackcloth self-criticism session on the part of whoever you have decided is to blame for the Democrats’ loss.

No.

[Read More]

-Josh Marshall
November 22, 2024, 2:22 pm

Listen To This: Don’t Let The Gaetz Hit You On Your Way Out

A new episode of The Josh Marshall Podcast is live! This week, Kate and Josh discuss Matt Gaetz’s quick rise and fall, RFK Jr.-curious Democrats and the worst people in media this week.

You can listen to the new episode of The Josh Marshall Podcast here.

-Jackie Wilhelm
November 22, 2024, 1:09 pm

A Party of Institutions In An Era of Distrust

We’ve been discussing a lot of plans and ingenious new strategies for a Democratic comeback which are variously half-baked, hyperbolic, histrionic or merely silly. Here’s one that I believe is not. It’s not even a strategy. It’s simply identifying a real challenge, or a knot Democrats need to untangle.

A key reason that many people are Democrats today is that they’re attached to a cluster of ideas like the rule of law, respect for and the employment of science and expertise, a free press and the protection of the range of institutions that guard civic life, quality of life and more. On the other side, say we have adherents of a revanchist, authoritarian politics which seeks break all those things and rule from the wreckage that destruction leaves in its path. So Democrats constantly find themselves defending institutions, or “the establishment,” or simply the status quo. Yet we live in an age of pervasive public distrust — distrust of institutions, leaders, expertise. And not all of this distrust is misplaced. Many institutions, professions, and power centers have failed to live up to their sides of the social contract.

In short, Democrats are by and large institutionalists in an age of mistrust. And that is challenging place to be.

[Read More]

-Josh Marshall
November 21, 2024, 8:38 pm

My Kingdom for Some Scorecards

I’ve been thinking about this since the day after the election and been going back and forth on whether to say someone else should do it or just do it myself. Still not sure which, but here goes. It would be very beneficial for Democrats to create scorecards right now charting where inflation, unemployment and GDP were at the end of Biden’s term and regularly updating it with Trump’s latest numbers. One of the smaller benefits of this is these three numbers are currently pretty hard to beat. You can only get them slightly lower or higher, depending on which statistic you’re referring to, and you can get them much further into bad territory. I’d also add percentage of people with health insurance, even though that’s not normally considered an economic marker.

[Read More]

-Josh Marshall
November 21, 2024, 11:48 am

Sailing Due North Through the Seas of Post-Election Hyperbole

For years I’ve had a love/hate relationship with Tom Edsall, the one-time Washington Post reporter and author who now writes a weekly column about politics for the Times. The love/hate has a temporal dimension. When I was first getting interested in politics as a teen and young adult I was very taken with Edsall’s books. They were very smart and opened my thinking to new ways to approach political questions, particularly how to think about political economy. In recent years he almost always drives me to distraction. I can’t tell you whether he’s changed or I have or, more likely, we’re just no longer in sync. In the 21st century, Edsall seems always to approach big questions with the idea that regardless of the situation it must be a disaster for the Democratic Party.

In any case, I was reading his latest column, which ends up raising some interesting questions about the politics of liberalism and freedom, building off a column by Noah Smith. Edsall starts with a premise that I think is clearly true. Over the last fifteen years or so, many of the more active Democrats (“strong Democrats,” they’re called in this piece) have moved significantly to the left not only of the median voter but even of the median Democrat on issues tied to sexuality, immigration, race, etc. It’s worth noting that being to the left of the median voter doesn’t mean you’re wrong. And it goes without saying — though it remains curiously unsaid in these discussions — that the same is true of party activists on the right. Still, that can create electoral challenges that need to be managed. That’s what the whole Jentleson/Favreau conversation about “saying no” is about.

So far, so good.

[Read More]

-Josh Marshall
November 20, 2024, 12:27 pm

Addendum

I want to add a quick addendum to today’s Backchannel about Democrats saying “no” to interest groups. This comes out of an exchange I had with TPM Reader CC. She argued a number of reasons that she sees gay marriage and trans rights as substantively quite different from each other. (For context, in her email she notes that she is “a lesbian who benefitted from the marriage equality movement.”) I actually agreed with most of her points. So let me make my argument a bit more specific and clear. I’m not arguing the two issues are substantively the same. I’m observing the general point that in 2003/2004 marriage equality was clearly opposed by a majority of Americans. The argument being put forward now is that Democrats shouldn’t be getting behind any position or issue that a majority of voters oppose. It’s fair to look back 20 years and consider how that framework would apply in that case.

-Josh Marshall
November 20, 2024, 9:57 am

It’s Not as Simple As Saying ‘No’ to Interest Groups

Let me return to something I wrote about yesterday and said I’d return to: Adam Jentleson’s piece in the Times on whether the Democratic Party can learn to say no to interest groups that often demand assent to various positions and commitments that are either obscure or toxic to a majority of voters. Trans rights aren’t the only issue Jentleson was talking about. But the larger debate clearly revolves around the ad the Trump campaign ran against Kamala Harris saying she supported tax payer-funded sex change operations/gender affirming care for prisoners. This was a question Harris checked “yes” to on an ACLU candidate questionnaire in 2019 as part of her 2020 run for the presidential nomination. There is at least the perception among some that it played a non-trivial role in turning the campaign against her

As a general matter I agree with Jentleson’s point. Not specifically about trans rights issues, but more generally. The goal of parties and campaigns is first to win elections.

But I can’t say that without noting some recent history.

[Read More]

-Josh Marshall
November 20, 2024, 9:08 am

Sic Transit

Here’s a morsel of news that shows you how far we’ve come over the last eight years. Donald Trump made a heavy play for the crypto world in the last campaign, promising to be a “crypto president” and courting donors in that space. He’s now in talks to buy (through the parent company of Truth Social) the crypto trading firm Bakkt. This comes after he already founded his own new crypto venture, World Liberty Financial. Bakkt was formerly led by former appointed Sen. Kelly Loeffler, who was later defeated by Sen. Raphael Warnock. This was when Loeffler was an executive at Atlanta-based Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), the parent company of The New York Stock Exchange. Loeffler’s husband Jeff Sprecher is ICE’s CEO. Both Loeffler and Sprecher remain major backers and financial supporters of Donald Trump.

-Josh Marshall
November 20, 2024, 9:07 am

No Podcast Today (11/20)

Due to scheduling conflicts, the newest episode of The Josh Marshall Podcast will be released Thursday. We’ll be back to our regular schedule next week just in time for Thanksgiving!

-Jackie Wilhelm
November 19, 2024, 12:50 pm

Miscellaneous Thoughts on a Democratic Path Forward

Because these thoughts are provisional and in process, I’ve decided to package them seriatim, as a list of ideas, possibilities, counters and so forth.

  • One of the shortfalls of the recriminationfests that come after a big political defeat is that the people getting the most attention are usually those shouting loudest and making the most totalizing claims. But there are important caveats and qualifiers to keep in mind. One is that anything obvious, sure-fire and without real costs would have been tried already. There’s no silver-bullet solution. This is just common sense, perhaps even conventional wisdom. At worst, it can be used to stifle new thinking or taking new chances. That’s another important pitfall. But it’s still true.

[Read More]

-Josh Marshall
x

SessionsWire

June 13, 2017, 6:52 pm

Zero Recall: Sessions Punts Questions On Trump, Comey, Russia Probe

Attorney General Jeff Sessions removes his glasses as he speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, June 13, 2017, while testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing about his role in the firing of James Comey, his Russian contacts during the campaign and his decision to recuse from an investigation into possible ties between Moscow and associates of President Donald Trump. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

In an often-contentious Tuesday hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee, an indignant Attorney General Jeff Sessions made clear that he was upset that allegations that he knew of collusion between Trump campaign officials and Russian operatives during the election were impugning his “honor.” But in nearly three hours of testimony, he failed to answer many of the key questions that prompted the panel to invite him to testify in open session.

[Read More]

June 13, 2017, 6:27 pm

Dem Senator: ‘Hard To See’ How Sessions Can Be AG After Senate Hearing

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) on Tuesday said it is “hard to see” how Attorney General Jeff Sessions can remain in his position after refusing to answer questions during an open session of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“Attorney General Sessions has recused himself from the investigation of Russian interference in our election, recommended the dismissal of the Director of the FBI, reportedly offered his resignation to the President, and refused to answer questions from the Senate Intelligence Committee,” Durbin said in a statement. “It is hard to see how he can continue to serve.”

Sessions cited executive privilege several times while testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, though he acknowledged that President Donald Trump has not in fact invoked it yet.

“So what is the legal basis for your refusal to answer these questions?” Sen. Angus King (I-ME) pressed him.

“I’m protecting the right of the President to assert it if he chooses,” Sessions replied.

June 13, 2017, 5:59 pm

RNC’s Funding Plea Attributed To Trump After Sessions Hearing: ‘WITCH-HUNT!’

President Donald Trump speaks during a cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House, Monday, June 12, 2017, in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

The Republican National Committee sent out a fundraising email on Tuesday attributed to President Donald Trump and warning of a “WITCH-HUNT” after Attorney General Jeff Sessions testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“There is an effort to SABOTAGE us,” the email attributed to Trump reads.

It accused Democrats of “using a conspiracy theory” to “DERAIL” Trump’s presidency.

“We MUST keep fighting,” the email reads. “WITCH-HUNT!”

Trump did not offer any comment on Sessions’ testimony via Twitter, his favored medium for rapid response.

June 13, 2017, 5:33 pm

No Republicans (So Far) Will Go On CNN To Respond To Sessions Testimony

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer said after Attorney General Jeff Sessions testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday that Republicans hadn’t yet committed to responding to Sessions’ testimony on the network.

“I just want to alert our viewers that we’ve invited Republicans to join us as well,” Blitzer said, before an interview Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT). “Hopefully they will. So far we’ve received certain maybes down the road.”

June 13, 2017, 5:29 pm

McCain To Sessions: ‘I Don’t Recall You’ Being Interested In Russia As A Senator

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on Tuesday said he did not recall Attorney General Jeff Sessions taking any interest in Russia as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, though Sessions claimed he met with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak in that capacity.

Sessions testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that he pressed Kislyak on Russia’s actions in Ukraine.

“I remember pushing back on it and it was testy on that subject,” Sessions said.

“Knowing you on the committee, I can’t imagine that,” McCain replied.

He asked Sessions whether he talked to Kislyak about Russian interference in elections held by U.S. allies.

“I don’t recall that being discussed,” Sessions said.

“If you spoke with Ambassador Kislyak in your capacity as a member of the Armed Services Committee, you presumably talked with him about Russia-related security issues that you have demonstrated as important to you as a member of the committee,” McCain said.

“Did I discuss security issues?” Sessions repeated in apparent confusion.

“I don’t recall you as being particularly vocal on such issues,” McCain said. “In your capacity as the chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, what Russia-related security issues did you hold hearings on or otherwise demonstrate a keen interest in?”

“We may have discussed that,” Sessions said, apparently responding to McCain’s earlier question. “I just don’t have a real recall of the meeting. I was not making a report about it to anyone. I just was basically willing to meet and see what he discussed.”

“And his response was?” McCain pressed.

“I don’t recall,” Sessions said.

June 13, 2017, 5:14 pm

Sen. Reed Confronts Sessions With Flip-Flops On Comey Handling Of Clinton Emails

Attorney General Jeff Sessions was confronted with his flip-flops on then-FBI Director James Comey’s handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server Tuesday.

During a hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) quoted Sessions’ responses to then-FBI Director James Comey’s announcement in July 2016 that he would not recommend charges against Clinton.

Sessions signed onto a memo from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that cited Comey’s handling of the case as unprofessional, and one justification for his firing.

On July 7, Reed said, Sessions said the email investigation dismissal “was not his problem, it’s Hillary Clinton’s problem,” referring to Comey.

[Read More]

June 13, 2017, 4:50 pm

Sessions Snaps At Harris: ‘If I Don’t Qualify’ My Answers, ‘You’ll Accuse Me Of Lying’

Attorney General Jeff Sessions snapped at Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) during a hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday, saying the pace of her questioning made him nervous, and that she would accuse him of lying if he was not given time to qualify his answers.

“As it relates to your knowledge, Did you have any communication with any Russian businessmen or any Russian nationals?” Harris asked Sessions.

“I don’t believe I had any conversation with Russian businessmen or Russian nationals—” Sessions began in response.

Harris interjected: “Are you aware of any communications — 

“— although a lot of people were at the convention it’s conceivable that somebody —” Sessions continued, before Harris spoke again

“Sir, I have just a few—” she began.

“Will you let me qualify it!” Sessions said, voice raised. “If I don’t qualify it, you’ll accuse me of lying. So I need to be as correct as best I can—”

“I do want you to be honest,” Harris said

“—and I’m not able to be rushed this fast. It makes me nervous,” Sessions said.

Watch below via ABC News:

June 13, 2017, 4:41 pm

Sessions: Accusations Against Me Are ‘Just Like Through The Looking Glass’

Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Tuesday said suggestions he met with Russian officials to influence the 2016 election are like a story written by Lewis Carroll.

Sessions’ simile was perhaps prompted by Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-AR) remark that Democrats went “down lots of other rabbit trails” in their lines of questioning as Sessions testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“It’s just like through the looking glass. I mean, what is this?” Sessions said.

Sessions said he “explained how in good faith” he claimed he had not met with Russian officials.

“They were suggesting I as a surrogate had been meeting continuously with Russians,” Sessions said. “I said I didn’t meet with them. And now, the next thing you know, I’m accused of some reception, plotting some sort of influence campaign for the American election. It’s just beyond my capability to understand.”

June 13, 2017, 4:34 pm

Sessions: All I Know About Russian Meddling ‘I’ve Read In The Paper’

Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, June 13, 2017, prior to testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing about his role in the firing of James Comey, his Russian contacts during the campaign and his decision to recuse from an investigation into possible ties between Moscow and associates of President Donald Trump. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Attorney General Jeff Sessions told the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday that all he knew about Russian meddling in the 2016 election he had learned from press reports.

Earlier in the hearing, Sessions said he had “in effect” recused himself from campaign-related matters the day after he was sworn in as attorney general, and not after later reports he had had undisclosed meetings with the Russian ambassador — at which point he publicly announced a recusal for the first time.

“Do you believe the Russians interfered with the 2016 election?” Sen. Angus King (I-ME) asked Sessions.

“It appears so,” Sessions said. “The intelligence community seems to be united in that. But I have to tell you, Sen. King, I know nothing but what I’ve read in the paper. I’ve never received any detailed briefing on how a hacking occurred or how information was alleged to have influenced the campaign.”

“There was a memorandum from the intelligence community on Oct. 9 that detailed what the Russians were doing,” King said. “After the election, before the inauguration, you never sought any information about this rather dramatic attack on our country?”

“No,” Sessions replied.

“You never asked for a briefing or attended a briefing or read the intelligence reports?” King asked.

“You might have been very critical of me if I, as an active part of the campaign, was seeking intelligence relating to something that might be relevant to the campaign,” Sessions said. “I’m not sure that would be —”

“I’m not talking about the campaign,” King interjected. “I’m talking about what the Russians did. You received no briefing on the Russian active measures in connection with the 2016 election?”

“No, I don’t believe I ever did,” Sessions said.