If the Democrats want to win they need to take a page from none other than Moscow Mitch McConnell - absolutely no cooperation with Trump or the Republicans. During Trump's first term, and over the last two years, Democrats repeatedly saved Republicans from themselves. This has got to stop. If MAGA Mike Johnson can't get the votes to keep the government open from Republicans, so be it. Let the government shut down. If Comer or Jordan insist on stupid hearings, do them a solid - let Dan Goldman or Jasmine Crocket or Jared Moscowitz or Jamie Raskin take them to school. If the MAGA Senators try to pass an abortion ban, filibuster. Trump's immigrant round up and concentration camps are going to cost money, filibuster the supplemental appropriations. If they bury it in a must pass bill, vote no. Place holds on the worst nominees. Deny unanimous consent for anything more important than the lunch menu.
In other words, as much as possible make the Republicans own their actions.
And for the future, go out everyday and push policies that are good for everyone. When they pass another tax cut for the rich, talk about how they have raised taxes on the working class and taken that money from hungry children. If they continue to attack women's health care, talk about the women who are dying at their hand.
And a year from now when inflation is in double digits because of tariffs and there are food shortages because there is not one working on the farms, relentlessly pound home the message that this is what Republicans have done.
Democrats will be blamed in right-wing propaganda for all failures. A counter-apparatus is needed. Preferably something that can hijack the algorithms of YouTube and social media.
We need to work the refs the way GOP does w media…force the positive headline on them, repeat over and over the message and frame we want, go on favorable media to break news and make announcements as much as possible especially over corporate media, the NYT example of calling GAETZ nom provocative is disgusting their political reporting is so broken it just needs to go ahead and die
Of course we will. But our Reps can answer the coming complaints as I said. I’m already using it on uninformed family members who wasted their votes. Leaves them speechless. A very effective counter-apparatus.
Right? And the crazy part is, the 'good alternative plan' is exactly what VP Harris was offering. Reiterating her plan with some empathy is probably the preferable path forward. ( Wow, say that one 10 times fast! ).
Daniel, that is certainly a mood that we all fall back on. I wonder whether we need to forgive and forget and take them through journeys of redemption. Get them to participate in ways that counteract the egregious acts. Ways like those suggest by MS in the article.
NO!! They voted FOR what's coming! If people don't want to be educated, if they don't want to participate in the world around them, it's not for ME to coddle them, and soothe their hurt feelings. Their lack of caring now affects MY DAUGHTER!! My grand-daughters! The water WE ALL drink; the air WE ALL breathe! I have no sympathy for any of these lame-brains. I lost a brother due to covid, and the gross ineptitude of these cretins, and now the brain-dead buffoons who voted for this asshole AGAIN want my sympathy??? Not just no, but F*CK NO!! Let them all drown in their own shit. And thanks, David, for letting me vent. Nothing personal.
Peter, I agree. Let the Republicans fail through their own actions. Focus on those failures and reject the excuses and blame that will surely arise. Extract edge case examples that intensify the failures. Stop being constructive and "nice." Save that for when you have power.
100% but how do we make the wimps in congress and senate do this? I’m so angry at many of them for their silence right now it is making me want to tune out.
I totally agree....and yet the GOP/MAGA will find a way to blame their purposeful chaos and ineptness on someone else as they always do - the democrats did this ____(fill in the blank) when these were clearly their moves. How many times do we hear "Clinton , Obama, did it" or "Biden's fault" or some other person or liberal group. Doing this will be hard for everyone especially those Democrats who are at the bottom of the pile that the GOP enhanced (stratification has always been here, disgustingly enough but they have made it much worse through their policies - 'trickle down' is more like 'piss on'). But, if it provides the wake up that we so acutely need, and we can redirect this crazy town ride towards autocracy - it is a war that needs to be fought and won. I am so done with rescuing MAGA/GOP. Supporting those GOP who do speak out is crucial too - most of them are scared they will be kicked out and worse if they do. Then at least there may be a few whom would eventually work across party lines in the future.
I agree. Let the Republicans fail. And when they fail, use any available media, large and small, including mainstream (for whatever it’s worth) to shout out the failure, extremely loudly and incessantly. and it’s not just Trump‘s failure. It’s the GOP‘s failure. Call out the party. The message to Republicans on the street should be, “this is what you voted for.” But here’s a point of distinction: if they are belligerent, then ram it down their throats. But, if they are truly sincerely innocent, “I didn’t know“, talk to them more gently and get them to understand. (There really are people like this. Probably a lot of them.) Don’t alienate them. If you have any chance of converting them, they have to have a friendly place to go. One more thought: the thing that they really won’t be able to deal with is being laughed at.
I was very surprised that there was no campaigning on the lack of performance by the Republican led House over the previous two years. No focus on the wasted time getting Speakers elected, no pointing out the budget process being kicked down the road, no disgruntled voters messaging the lack of policy and progress as a reason to vote, let alone for whom to cast that ballot! Another oxymoron the electorate revealed in the D / R expectation column. Voters didn’t “hear” storied of the Biden accomplishments and didn’t care about the wasted salary expense in the House.
I agree with much of what you say but if they vote to shut down the government, it will be easy for trump and the republicans to blame the democrats for it. They need to pick wisely what they don't support.
McConnell was wise enough to not support government shutdowns.
Thanks for keeping this open for comments. I was actually mulling something just now, but didn’t know where to go with it. Perhaps you might have some thoughts.
I have been an MSNBC watcher for decades, even before they became the favorite of the left. And it has always required me to buy the more expensive cable TV package to get it. Fox, meanwhile, has always been included in the cheaper packages. So what I was mulling just now is the idea that Fox has been so widely available and cheap, that it became the default for viewers, including in hotel rooms and bars and waiting rooms too. And I wonder if anything can be done about it. Disinformation-wise.
Anyway, I am back to engaging in the news, but on my terms. I won’t watch pundits on TV go on about whatever they feel is the point. I am trying to read instead, and get news summaries from the AP to make sure I’m informed. My main focus is on enforcing the law, while we still can. And encouraging our government officials to uphold their oaths. And I’m keeping my subscriptions to the papers active, even if I don’t read them yet. We still need a free press.
Brenda, there is a movement called “UnFox My Cable Box” —it’s an uphill battle but it might interest you. Thanks for your thoughtful comment and for your support for quality journalism.
Excellent points & actions, especially as I was about to cancel my last MSM. I gave up all media tv news years ago. Sticking w PBS which can be frustrating also. Am carefully curating my sources - AP is a source Ive only used around election periods (exc 60 Min report sec mths back) , Substack, Guardian sometimes, prob the Atlantic, - sifting as we all get back on our feet. Thx
when I find it playing in a public place of business, like in car dealership waiting for repairs, I always explain to person in charge it is not appropriate and will lose them customers. Then they put on HGTV.
I'm pretty much done with MSNBC, at least during the week. I can't bear anyone but Joy and Lawrence on weeknights and Velshi is a bright spot, but the rest of it is populated by Never Trumpers and sellouts.
I had the same thought. There really isn’t the liberal equivalent of Fox “News” (not that we should necessarily WANT such a thing). But MSNBC is filled with former Republicans who never flinch from offering up their opinions about what Democrats should do to “win” (on whatever issue or election of the moment might be). And invariably their opinion and advice is to make Democrats more Republican in outlook and aspect. Democrats need to relearn FDR and channel him.
Honestly, a Democratic candidate could take an FDR speech, update it slightly to make it more in-step with the contemporary moment, and it would rattle people’s cages. Bernie Sanders would applaud it, Republicans would call it socialist, Democratic wealthy donors would scream and threaten to cut off funds.
Today’s Democratic Party more closely resembles Eisenhower Republicans.
I have been thinking about FDR’s fireside chats. We could have used those the last few years. The media wanted live and on the spot questions for gotcha moments. We needed actual calm communication. We could use some of that now, too.
Kamala would have been great at fireside chats, imho. We missed out on that. Biden doesn’t have the communication skills, perhaps due to his stutter. But he’s a wonderful man and he accomplished a lot.
Yes, keep subscriptions open if you can--there are many wise journalists working for all of the top newspapers. Tom Friedman and Eugene Robinson are very worth reading.
The NYT editorial board needs to get off its high horse it is “Bullshit Anderson” to think the NYT did not surreptitiously work toward and desire this outcome. It was death by a thousand cuts that gave us this outcome. Let us start with David Brooks condescending editorial changing his “grades” of VP Kamala Harris from his assessment of her back in 2020, arrogant. Then his focus on himself and the “elites.” Then we have the sickening NYT endorsement of VP Kamala Harris that in reality was a backhanded misogynistic belittling slap. And of course they hired wordsmiths that titled every article and editorial with a headline deliberately designed to distort and manipulate readers. Then the lengthy NYT owner/publisher explanation of its need to be neutral when the evidence that NYT gave Trump a pass, zero confrontation and coverage of trump and the Epstein files, zero day after day coverage of the embezzlement and frauds and donors paying the legal fees. NYT published thousands of articles on Hillary state department email that was a non story because it was email with sender and receiver both state department!! The NYT never simply killed the birther story by simply in large bold black print say Enough! President Obama’s Mother was Born in Wichita! End of Story. Let us face it the NYT got what it wanted and it has zero credibility and no place in advising democrats. Out Founding Fathers expected much from the free press as the main foot soldier defending our democracy and the NYT once was the lead soldier, however NYT is the bought press and the enemies’ of our democracy Trojan horse.
Absolutely. The headers alone made me drop them six months ago- realizing that many people don't even read the article but the constant, slanted drone of the headlines may be all a person reads and it leaves the impression. Influencing the naive and demoralizing the rest of us.
I agree with the main points of this post, yet I side with many who have lost faith (and trust) in legacy media.
They won't "do better", they won't abandon absurdly modulated language to describe fascism.
There are fine independent journalists, excellent Substacks, and publications such as The Guardian, Philadelphia Inquirer, ProPublica, Tennessee Holler, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, etc who called out the dangers in real time.
Rewarding legacy media for failing in their most basic responsibility as a bulwark of democracy serves no purpose.
I've become very pro-Guardian for daily news intake because they don't mess around with both-sidesism and their stories are generally short and to the point. I'm all for long-form journalism, but when you just want a daily perusal of the news, the NYT and WaPo (organizations I'm sick of anyway) tend to be more long-winded than necessary. They also both feature some both-sides columnists that annoy me to pieces. The New Yorker (which is sadly quite expensive) also has never wavered in its commitment to the truth, probably because they have such excellent fact checkers. It's terrifying how few people actually know anything real about the world, especially when so much information is available for free. The Guardian, AP, NPR and Reuters don't have paywalls, people. No excuses for ignorance.
The Guardian, AP, and NPR have no paywalls because they are nonprofits. Their business model relies on charitable donations. Not every news organization can do that.
I wasn't being critical of paywalls. I absoutely get that, as I was a newspaper journalist myself and realize that it's an expensive enterprise and the traditional ways of making money have all but disappeared. I'm happy to pay for news. I was pointing out there are places people can go for fairly straightforward news, so not being able to pay for a subscription is not a valid reason for being uninformed.
Another fine column I especially like your point that 45/47 did NOT get a "landslide mandate." Not at all.
I will still subscribe to the NY Times and Washington Post. There is still fine reporting going on there. To repeat from your earlier column, we also subscribe to two local newspapers, the local Investigative Post, and The Atlantic. We have supported National Public Radio for four decades. I read AP daily, and will start to contribute there, too. And I count on Heather Cox Richardson to aggregate the news and analyze it. We don't have the spare cash to support any other outlets.
For non-profits, we will probably donate modestly to local refugee agencies and to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press that you recommended. Journalists hauled to court by the new realm will need protection.
I still say that we need "legacy" media because they are doing the essential work from which the pundits and podcasters get their information.
I have emerged from my bubble of grief to post my views on the frightful nominations of incompetents and to reiterate my view that 45/47 is a threat to our democracy and the safety of the free world. I will resist in any way I can.
I applaud your commitment to supporting sources with credible information; I try to do the same and, like you, I will continue my NYT and WaPo subscriptions—for now. I also subscribe to my local paper (Seattle Times), local NPR station, The Guardian, The New Republic, The Nation. And, of course, Heather Cox Richardson. Jay Kuo is another trusted Substack. The real information is out there—if you have the time, inclination and money to seek it out. My worry is that so many people do not believe it is worthwhile (or possible) to do the same. If we are to change opinions and votes, we must penetrate the walls of mis- and dis- information.
Kudos to you for supporting multiple news outlets...especially the local newspapers.
I subscribe to more than I can reasonably read.
For those I read lightly, I consider the money I spend on them to be charitable donations. I may not personally use the 'service' but I subscribe because the organization benefits the wider community.
Your link to the NYT op ed by John Fetterman’s chief of staff provides exactly the wrong lessons about the election results. He advises jettisoning progressive ideals represented by what he dismisses as special interest groups. Why? Because their idealistic positions anger others in the Democratic camp. His “winning at all costs” strategy means giving up the progressive half of the Democratic coalition and moving center-right a la the Clinton era. Sure, the faux-liberalism (ie, neo-liberalism) of Clinton-style pandering to the right is better than Trump’s fascism. But dumping on the left side of the Democratic coalition is not the route to majority status. So many young progressives are within a whisker of giving up on the Democratic Party already. Their ranks are growing, and growing those ranks and then getting them to the polls is key not only to victory but to party identity. How about a strategy that manages to temper the more “extreme” demands of the Democratic left while showing the Democratic center that it is important and necessary to tolerate what it may think are the nuttier elements of the coalition?
What exactly are the “extreme” demands of the Democratic left: universal healthcare?, overtime pay?, defending a worker’s right to organize a union? A woman’s right to complete autonomy over her own body?
Yes. How much of every health care dollar is spent on insurance company bureaucracy? 33 cents! Beyond outrageous! Health care is a human right not a a commodity to bought like Cheetos. Speaking of which, the left going on about the “good” things RFK Jr supports, like taking on the ultraprocessed food industry, masks his bizarre and harmful views. Of course anyone who can read reviews of the recent studies on soda and ultraprocessed food would take that stand. We must stop this pandering to the right and supporting media that sanewashes and downplays the fascism blossoming like toxic weeds across the country.
I guess the thinking is that the stridency of “wokeness” alienated all kinds of people. Woke is good, overwoke is bad. And overwokeness definitely is a thing, and it’s unpleasant to run into in the workplace or anywhere. But it’s FAR from the Democrats’ biggest problem. Failing to acknowledge high food prices would be a better place to start.
I still don't believe "woke" (as the Republicans use it) is a real thing. Human diversity is a fact about humanity, so people who accept diversity are acknowledging a fact.
This is the first time I've heard of "overwoke."
If you (or the Republicans) mean that sometimes people feel uncomfortable (confused, annoyed, burdened, etc.) around each other, don't gel with each other's vibes, feel that respecting each other takes too much time and effort, or recognize that they don't have much in common and won't be each other's people, that's a subjective assessment and not an objectively existing position or character trait called wokeness.
I agree. That sounded like the same old advice to throw vulnerable groups under the bus in pursuit of the imaginary median (read straight white male) voter.
Yes. That op-ed perhaps made some good points about supermajority thinking, but it was obscured by the claim that MAGA’s television ad campaign WAS the Harris strategy. That is just bonkers and so counter to what we all just witnessed that it borders on gaslighting. This was a campaign that made appealing to the “center” its…center. We had a Glock toting, border defending, all but silent on trans issues candidate who campaigned with a Cheney, or was I hallucinating that? I live in PA and saw at least five MAGA tv ads for every one Dem ad. And yes, the MAGA ads were all focused on anti trans and anti immigrant sentiment, often combining the two. Harris and Casey ads were all about the economy and how Trump won’t help middle class voters and by the way is also unhinged. That was the Harris strategy. And it didn’t work and we must talk about why, but discussing a campaign that didn’t exist isn’t the way to go about it. Why accept that the things your opponent strategically manufactured about your positions are your actual weaknesses? And given that these were actually small shifts in votes with many different causes, it is sickening to me to see so many claim that the main thing we need to do is jettison our values so our values can win.
"Why accept that the things your opponent strategically manufactured about your positions are your actual weaknesses?" ⬅️ This!
Or, similarly: When your anti-trans, anti-immigrant opponent relentlessly accuses you of not being prejudiced enough and then wins the election, don't react by embracing his prejudice. Instead, figure out how to better educate the public about his prejudice (it's the real reason they shouldn't have voted for him) and lean harder into your own values as your strengths (it's the real reason they should have voted for you).
I agree. I also thought that the Gaza issue was a perfect example. The campaign didn’t emphasize the issue or elevate it in the way activists wanted them to do. They tried to play it down the middle, which was impossible on such a controversial subject, but Harris basically was following Gentlesen’s advice. What happened? The Pro-Palestinian group voted for Trump or stayed home. Anyone think they didn’t make a disastrous difference in Michigan, for example? And what does the group itself have to show for this? Nothing, of course. But Harris basically followed the advice of the NYT editorial and it sure didn’t help her to earn a win in that swing state. I know we need to figure out how to do better, but I’m getting awfully tired of pundits gaslighting us about what the campaign supposedly did wrong, rather than looking at their own role and trying to do better themselves.
We, as a society, are going to have to decide (with some degree of urgency now!) how to draw the line between promoting fee speech and allowing misinformation and deliberate lies to flourish.
One possible tactic: Severely cut our engagement on social media platforms that are sucking the life out of local news.
Even better, if possible, move to another platform.
I know...it's difficult to break the addiction. There would be (social/personal) costs for not posting, liking and sharing pictures with family and friends.
But passing legislation to regulate BigTech doesn't seem to have much of a chance at the moment.
Any effort to amend Sec. 230, the law that shields online platforms from liability, just took a major major hit.
This is precisely one of the reasons your political party lost.
“We, as a society, are going to have to decide (with some degree of urgency now!) how to draw the line between promoting free speech and allowing misinformation and deliberate lies to flourish”.
That’s called censorship, it’s illegal and takes away a persons 1st amendment right to free speech. If you don’t like, agree with or feel someone’s argument is not legitimate, then make a better argument. If you can’t and just want to shut someone up then you are just censoring.
And to add, who in your scenario, would get to decide what is truth and what is misinformation. Obviously, the covid/hunter laptop examples show that what was being censored was true and the misinformation was coming from the gov’t/media.
But let’s take your wish and play it out. Since Trump is going to assume office shortly, should he and his appointees decide what’s true, what’s misinformation and what should be censored? Would you be ok with that?
I have been part of a postcard writing group since 2016. We are ramping up to work on the VA special election in January. We must keep our blue legislature and elect Democrat Abigail Spanburger to protect us from these awful people and policies. I like the idea of embracing tea party tactics. We need to be loud in communicating the ramifications of dismantling government. Remember the 2016 campaign the Dems did to save the ACA? That’s what we need now. Most of these R senators want to get reelected and a lot of misinformed voters voted to make their lives better, not worse. We must push our elected officials to be louder and stronger. If you are white knuckling it through this horrific disaster, I encourage you to find a local grassroots organization and get to work. Action calms nerves. Indivisible has a new 2024 guidebook. It’s easy to find.
Margaret, your writing is truly entertaining. TDS lives on in every cell of your body and every corner of your soul. Keep up the deranged, off the rails hysteria. Reading your work is almost as entertaining as reading The Babylon Bee, only yours isn’t satire. In your world every republican is hitler and every democrat is mother Teresa.
So did I. But I got around it by creating a new email address on a different browser than I usually used for my former NYT subscription. But the short answer is that the article, in my opinion, wasn't worth the effort. Read this instead by Timothy Snyder, author of the great new book "On Tyranny". https://snyder.substack.com/p/the-phantom-campaign
You might try a local public library and see if they offer the NYT and/or WaPo online. Mine does offer a 48-hour pass and the library has an app that makes it easy to log in every day.
I was rather appalled by the opinion piece in the NYTimes that you highlighted. The few examples mentioned with very few in a platform with hundreds of issues. Much more damaging than the issues "from liberal and progressive interest groups" are the lies and evil twists that the republicans created out of any and all issues. Mainstreaming a campaign will not prevent such lies and accusations. It's similar to domestic violence . . . if a partner wants to be angry and violent, they will always be able to find a reason, no matter how hard one tries to appease them.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Let’s look at whimpy Dems like Seth Moulton who are hurting trans youth by saying despicable things or Jared Polis. They should know better. Pandering on the so-called left must be called out.
I admit that I bumped up hard against this: [[Achieving a supermajority means declaring independence from liberal and progressive interest groups that prevent Democrats from thinking clearly about how to win.]]
So is he saying that Democrats will have to throw women, racial and ethnic minorities, and LGBTQ folks under the bus? His language and tone strongly suggest so, and in quite a patronizing way: [[Groups have become too accustomed to enjoying access without holding themselves accountable; the question “is this tactic more likely to trigger backlash than to advance our goals?” is the single most important one, yet it seems to be rarely asked by many of the groups’ leaders or funders.]]
Well, *that's how interest groups work.* They focus singlemindedly on their issues, because that is the whole purpose of their groups' existing and because it is what works most frequently FOR THEM. A lot of Biden voters in 2020 stayed home this time, and while we don't yet *know* why, we DO know that a lot of the Democratic base was disillusioned by the Eisenhoweresque campaign Kamala Harris ran.
So it sounds a lot to me like the writer is saying to toss those people, among the most vulnerable in our society, over the side. I don't know whether that's the right thing to do from a purely election-winning standpoint, but I doubt it; Bill Clinton wouldn't have won in 1992 without Ross Perot siphoning votes away from Bush 41. And I know damned well it's not the right thing to do from a moral standpoint. How does he propose to square that circle? He doesn't, really. He talks about tactics used in a few state races and expects us to presume that they'll work as well, or almost as well, in a presidential campaign context. I'd like more proof before I go betting the future of the country on a tactic and strategy that may well deny some of our most vulnerable citizens a future.
Journalism seems to have utterly bowed to a fascist, and still Trump sued The Times for 10 Billion dollars. Trump’s nominations seem to be intended as a slap in the face to all voters. Incompetent, egomaniac, each committed to wreck the agency they’re named to. We have two months with Biden in power and I’d like to see us use it in some concrete, protective way. If Biden declared martial law until Trump’s crimes are properly adjudicated….there would be a lot of screaming. If Trump declares martial law on Jan 21, it would be deemed ‘provocative.’ If you’re reading this and thinking ‘Biden can’t do that’—I get it. But what major action can we take to preserve Democracy before tyranny fully arrives?
If the Democrats want to win they need to take a page from none other than Moscow Mitch McConnell - absolutely no cooperation with Trump or the Republicans. During Trump's first term, and over the last two years, Democrats repeatedly saved Republicans from themselves. This has got to stop. If MAGA Mike Johnson can't get the votes to keep the government open from Republicans, so be it. Let the government shut down. If Comer or Jordan insist on stupid hearings, do them a solid - let Dan Goldman or Jasmine Crocket or Jared Moscowitz or Jamie Raskin take them to school. If the MAGA Senators try to pass an abortion ban, filibuster. Trump's immigrant round up and concentration camps are going to cost money, filibuster the supplemental appropriations. If they bury it in a must pass bill, vote no. Place holds on the worst nominees. Deny unanimous consent for anything more important than the lunch menu.
In other words, as much as possible make the Republicans own their actions.
And for the future, go out everyday and push policies that are good for everyone. When they pass another tax cut for the rich, talk about how they have raised taxes on the working class and taken that money from hungry children. If they continue to attack women's health care, talk about the women who are dying at their hand.
And a year from now when inflation is in double digits because of tariffs and there are food shortages because there is not one working on the farms, relentlessly pound home the message that this is what Republicans have done.
AND, when their constituents, who voted R, piss and moan about what's going on, simply remind them that they are getting exactly what they voted for.
Democrats will be blamed in right-wing propaganda for all failures. A counter-apparatus is needed. Preferably something that can hijack the algorithms of YouTube and social media.
We need to work the refs the way GOP does w media…force the positive headline on them, repeat over and over the message and frame we want, go on favorable media to break news and make announcements as much as possible especially over corporate media, the NYT example of calling GAETZ nom provocative is disgusting their political reporting is so broken it just needs to go ahead and die
Of course we will. But our Reps can answer the coming complaints as I said. I’m already using it on uninformed family members who wasted their votes. Leaves them speechless. A very effective counter-apparatus.
as much as they deserve that, an ' I told you so' needs to come with some empathy and a good alternative plan.
Right? And the crazy part is, the 'good alternative plan' is exactly what VP Harris was offering. Reiterating her plan with some empathy is probably the preferable path forward. ( Wow, say that one 10 times fast! ).
Daniel, that is certainly a mood that we all fall back on. I wonder whether we need to forgive and forget and take them through journeys of redemption. Get them to participate in ways that counteract the egregious acts. Ways like those suggest by MS in the article.
NO!! They voted FOR what's coming! If people don't want to be educated, if they don't want to participate in the world around them, it's not for ME to coddle them, and soothe their hurt feelings. Their lack of caring now affects MY DAUGHTER!! My grand-daughters! The water WE ALL drink; the air WE ALL breathe! I have no sympathy for any of these lame-brains. I lost a brother due to covid, and the gross ineptitude of these cretins, and now the brain-dead buffoons who voted for this asshole AGAIN want my sympathy??? Not just no, but F*CK NO!! Let them all drown in their own shit. And thanks, David, for letting me vent. Nothing personal.
Peter, I agree. Let the Republicans fail through their own actions. Focus on those failures and reject the excuses and blame that will surely arise. Extract edge case examples that intensify the failures. Stop being constructive and "nice." Save that for when you have power.
100% but how do we make the wimps in congress and senate do this? I’m so angry at many of them for their silence right now it is making me want to tune out.
I totally agree....and yet the GOP/MAGA will find a way to blame their purposeful chaos and ineptness on someone else as they always do - the democrats did this ____(fill in the blank) when these were clearly their moves. How many times do we hear "Clinton , Obama, did it" or "Biden's fault" or some other person or liberal group. Doing this will be hard for everyone especially those Democrats who are at the bottom of the pile that the GOP enhanced (stratification has always been here, disgustingly enough but they have made it much worse through their policies - 'trickle down' is more like 'piss on'). But, if it provides the wake up that we so acutely need, and we can redirect this crazy town ride towards autocracy - it is a war that needs to be fought and won. I am so done with rescuing MAGA/GOP. Supporting those GOP who do speak out is crucial too - most of them are scared they will be kicked out and worse if they do. Then at least there may be a few whom would eventually work across party lines in the future.
I like this list. Thank you!
I agree. Let the Republicans fail. And when they fail, use any available media, large and small, including mainstream (for whatever it’s worth) to shout out the failure, extremely loudly and incessantly. and it’s not just Trump‘s failure. It’s the GOP‘s failure. Call out the party. The message to Republicans on the street should be, “this is what you voted for.” But here’s a point of distinction: if they are belligerent, then ram it down their throats. But, if they are truly sincerely innocent, “I didn’t know“, talk to them more gently and get them to understand. (There really are people like this. Probably a lot of them.) Don’t alienate them. If you have any chance of converting them, they have to have a friendly place to go. One more thought: the thing that they really won’t be able to deal with is being laughed at.
I was very surprised that there was no campaigning on the lack of performance by the Republican led House over the previous two years. No focus on the wasted time getting Speakers elected, no pointing out the budget process being kicked down the road, no disgruntled voters messaging the lack of policy and progress as a reason to vote, let alone for whom to cast that ballot! Another oxymoron the electorate revealed in the D / R expectation column. Voters didn’t “hear” storied of the Biden accomplishments and didn’t care about the wasted salary expense in the House.
I think the idea on this is that it's too esoteric for the average voter to figure out or care about.
Anyone want to take a bet on how long it will take for the Repubs to get rid of the filibuster, now that they have a trifecta?
I agree with much of what you say but if they vote to shut down the government, it will be easy for trump and the republicans to blame the democrats for it. They need to pick wisely what they don't support.
McConnell was wise enough to not support government shutdowns.
But I also believe they will not shut down the government while trump is president.
Hi Margaret,
Thanks for keeping this open for comments. I was actually mulling something just now, but didn’t know where to go with it. Perhaps you might have some thoughts.
I have been an MSNBC watcher for decades, even before they became the favorite of the left. And it has always required me to buy the more expensive cable TV package to get it. Fox, meanwhile, has always been included in the cheaper packages. So what I was mulling just now is the idea that Fox has been so widely available and cheap, that it became the default for viewers, including in hotel rooms and bars and waiting rooms too. And I wonder if anything can be done about it. Disinformation-wise.
Anyway, I am back to engaging in the news, but on my terms. I won’t watch pundits on TV go on about whatever they feel is the point. I am trying to read instead, and get news summaries from the AP to make sure I’m informed. My main focus is on enforcing the law, while we still can. And encouraging our government officials to uphold their oaths. And I’m keeping my subscriptions to the papers active, even if I don’t read them yet. We still need a free press.
Thanks you again. Your insight is great.
Brenda
Brenda, there is a movement called “UnFox My Cable Box” —it’s an uphill battle but it might interest you. Thanks for your thoughtful comment and for your support for quality journalism.
I'd like to see legislation to require cable providers to provide a no-Fox (or no-CNN) option. Not optimistic, though.
Thank you! I’ll check it out.
Yes, truth is often behind a paywall these days, while lies float about very freely.
Or they sell vitamins.
Excellent points & actions, especially as I was about to cancel my last MSM. I gave up all media tv news years ago. Sticking w PBS which can be frustrating also. Am carefully curating my sources - AP is a source Ive only used around election periods (exc 60 Min report sec mths back) , Substack, Guardian sometimes, prob the Atlantic, - sifting as we all get back on our feet. Thx
I don't think we'll have PBS for long. Project 2025 calls for defunding it.
Our local radio/tv, GBH, has been trying to get ahead of that.
Brenda, apparently Fox is played non-stop in the military too. How's that for scary?!
when I find it playing in a public place of business, like in car dealership waiting for repairs, I always explain to person in charge it is not appropriate and will lose them customers. Then they put on HGTV.
Never thought of asking them to change it. Always wonder why it’s on that one.
I change it when allowed ( or mute it) or ask to change it. I think it may be mindless or on purpose. I object.
I was also just going to say that. It’s like the only tv news on military bases
And the top military who are experienced and have a clue, are the ones trump and little sweetbuns Hegseth want to get rid of. God help us.
I'm pretty much done with MSNBC, at least during the week. I can't bear anyone but Joy and Lawrence on weeknights and Velshi is a bright spot, but the rest of it is populated by Never Trumpers and sellouts.
I had the same thought. There really isn’t the liberal equivalent of Fox “News” (not that we should necessarily WANT such a thing). But MSNBC is filled with former Republicans who never flinch from offering up their opinions about what Democrats should do to “win” (on whatever issue or election of the moment might be). And invariably their opinion and advice is to make Democrats more Republican in outlook and aspect. Democrats need to relearn FDR and channel him.
Honestly, a Democratic candidate could take an FDR speech, update it slightly to make it more in-step with the contemporary moment, and it would rattle people’s cages. Bernie Sanders would applaud it, Republicans would call it socialist, Democratic wealthy donors would scream and threaten to cut off funds.
Today’s Democratic Party more closely resembles Eisenhower Republicans.
I have been thinking about FDR’s fireside chats. We could have used those the last few years. The media wanted live and on the spot questions for gotcha moments. We needed actual calm communication. We could use some of that now, too.
Yes. There should have been a WH podcast.
Kamala would have been great at fireside chats, imho. We missed out on that. Biden doesn’t have the communication skills, perhaps due to his stutter. But he’s a wonderful man and he accomplished a lot.
Yes, keep subscriptions open if you can--there are many wise journalists working for all of the top newspapers. Tom Friedman and Eugene Robinson are very worth reading.
The NYT editorial board needs to get off its high horse it is “Bullshit Anderson” to think the NYT did not surreptitiously work toward and desire this outcome. It was death by a thousand cuts that gave us this outcome. Let us start with David Brooks condescending editorial changing his “grades” of VP Kamala Harris from his assessment of her back in 2020, arrogant. Then his focus on himself and the “elites.” Then we have the sickening NYT endorsement of VP Kamala Harris that in reality was a backhanded misogynistic belittling slap. And of course they hired wordsmiths that titled every article and editorial with a headline deliberately designed to distort and manipulate readers. Then the lengthy NYT owner/publisher explanation of its need to be neutral when the evidence that NYT gave Trump a pass, zero confrontation and coverage of trump and the Epstein files, zero day after day coverage of the embezzlement and frauds and donors paying the legal fees. NYT published thousands of articles on Hillary state department email that was a non story because it was email with sender and receiver both state department!! The NYT never simply killed the birther story by simply in large bold black print say Enough! President Obama’s Mother was Born in Wichita! End of Story. Let us face it the NYT got what it wanted and it has zero credibility and no place in advising democrats. Out Founding Fathers expected much from the free press as the main foot soldier defending our democracy and the NYT once was the lead soldier, however NYT is the bought press and the enemies’ of our democracy Trojan horse.
totally agree. NYT has totally caved to the fascists.
As they did in the past.
Absolutely. The headers alone made me drop them six months ago- realizing that many people don't even read the article but the constant, slanted drone of the headlines may be all a person reads and it leaves the impression. Influencing the naive and demoralizing the rest of us.
I agree with the main points of this post, yet I side with many who have lost faith (and trust) in legacy media.
They won't "do better", they won't abandon absurdly modulated language to describe fascism.
There are fine independent journalists, excellent Substacks, and publications such as The Guardian, Philadelphia Inquirer, ProPublica, Tennessee Holler, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, etc who called out the dangers in real time.
Rewarding legacy media for failing in their most basic responsibility as a bulwark of democracy serves no purpose.
I've become very pro-Guardian for daily news intake because they don't mess around with both-sidesism and their stories are generally short and to the point. I'm all for long-form journalism, but when you just want a daily perusal of the news, the NYT and WaPo (organizations I'm sick of anyway) tend to be more long-winded than necessary. They also both feature some both-sides columnists that annoy me to pieces. The New Yorker (which is sadly quite expensive) also has never wavered in its commitment to the truth, probably because they have such excellent fact checkers. It's terrifying how few people actually know anything real about the world, especially when so much information is available for free. The Guardian, AP, NPR and Reuters don't have paywalls, people. No excuses for ignorance.
The Guardian, AP, and NPR have no paywalls because they are nonprofits. Their business model relies on charitable donations. Not every news organization can do that.
I wasn't being critical of paywalls. I absoutely get that, as I was a newspaper journalist myself and realize that it's an expensive enterprise and the traditional ways of making money have all but disappeared. I'm happy to pay for news. I was pointing out there are places people can go for fairly straightforward news, so not being able to pay for a subscription is not a valid reason for being uninformed.
Ah. I apologize, then.
Another fine column I especially like your point that 45/47 did NOT get a "landslide mandate." Not at all.
I will still subscribe to the NY Times and Washington Post. There is still fine reporting going on there. To repeat from your earlier column, we also subscribe to two local newspapers, the local Investigative Post, and The Atlantic. We have supported National Public Radio for four decades. I read AP daily, and will start to contribute there, too. And I count on Heather Cox Richardson to aggregate the news and analyze it. We don't have the spare cash to support any other outlets.
For non-profits, we will probably donate modestly to local refugee agencies and to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press that you recommended. Journalists hauled to court by the new realm will need protection.
I still say that we need "legacy" media because they are doing the essential work from which the pundits and podcasters get their information.
I have emerged from my bubble of grief to post my views on the frightful nominations of incompetents and to reiterate my view that 45/47 is a threat to our democracy and the safety of the free world. I will resist in any way I can.
I applaud your commitment to supporting sources with credible information; I try to do the same and, like you, I will continue my NYT and WaPo subscriptions—for now. I also subscribe to my local paper (Seattle Times), local NPR station, The Guardian, The New Republic, The Nation. And, of course, Heather Cox Richardson. Jay Kuo is another trusted Substack. The real information is out there—if you have the time, inclination and money to seek it out. My worry is that so many people do not believe it is worthwhile (or possible) to do the same. If we are to change opinions and votes, we must penetrate the walls of mis- and dis- information.
Kudos to you for supporting multiple news outlets...especially the local newspapers.
I subscribe to more than I can reasonably read.
For those I read lightly, I consider the money I spend on them to be charitable donations. I may not personally use the 'service' but I subscribe because the organization benefits the wider community.
Your link to the NYT op ed by John Fetterman’s chief of staff provides exactly the wrong lessons about the election results. He advises jettisoning progressive ideals represented by what he dismisses as special interest groups. Why? Because their idealistic positions anger others in the Democratic camp. His “winning at all costs” strategy means giving up the progressive half of the Democratic coalition and moving center-right a la the Clinton era. Sure, the faux-liberalism (ie, neo-liberalism) of Clinton-style pandering to the right is better than Trump’s fascism. But dumping on the left side of the Democratic coalition is not the route to majority status. So many young progressives are within a whisker of giving up on the Democratic Party already. Their ranks are growing, and growing those ranks and then getting them to the polls is key not only to victory but to party identity. How about a strategy that manages to temper the more “extreme” demands of the Democratic left while showing the Democratic center that it is important and necessary to tolerate what it may think are the nuttier elements of the coalition?
What exactly are the “extreme” demands of the Democratic left: universal healthcare?, overtime pay?, defending a worker’s right to organize a union? A woman’s right to complete autonomy over her own body?
Yes. How much of every health care dollar is spent on insurance company bureaucracy? 33 cents! Beyond outrageous! Health care is a human right not a a commodity to bought like Cheetos. Speaking of which, the left going on about the “good” things RFK Jr supports, like taking on the ultraprocessed food industry, masks his bizarre and harmful views. Of course anyone who can read reviews of the recent studies on soda and ultraprocessed food would take that stand. We must stop this pandering to the right and supporting media that sanewashes and downplays the fascism blossoming like toxic weeds across the country.
I guess the thinking is that the stridency of “wokeness” alienated all kinds of people. Woke is good, overwoke is bad. And overwokeness definitely is a thing, and it’s unpleasant to run into in the workplace or anywhere. But it’s FAR from the Democrats’ biggest problem. Failing to acknowledge high food prices would be a better place to start.
I still don't believe "woke" (as the Republicans use it) is a real thing. Human diversity is a fact about humanity, so people who accept diversity are acknowledging a fact.
This is the first time I've heard of "overwoke."
If you (or the Republicans) mean that sometimes people feel uncomfortable (confused, annoyed, burdened, etc.) around each other, don't gel with each other's vibes, feel that respecting each other takes too much time and effort, or recognize that they don't have much in common and won't be each other's people, that's a subjective assessment and not an objectively existing position or character trait called wokeness.
I agree. That sounded like the same old advice to throw vulnerable groups under the bus in pursuit of the imaginary median (read straight white male) voter.
Exactly.
Yes. That op-ed perhaps made some good points about supermajority thinking, but it was obscured by the claim that MAGA’s television ad campaign WAS the Harris strategy. That is just bonkers and so counter to what we all just witnessed that it borders on gaslighting. This was a campaign that made appealing to the “center” its…center. We had a Glock toting, border defending, all but silent on trans issues candidate who campaigned with a Cheney, or was I hallucinating that? I live in PA and saw at least five MAGA tv ads for every one Dem ad. And yes, the MAGA ads were all focused on anti trans and anti immigrant sentiment, often combining the two. Harris and Casey ads were all about the economy and how Trump won’t help middle class voters and by the way is also unhinged. That was the Harris strategy. And it didn’t work and we must talk about why, but discussing a campaign that didn’t exist isn’t the way to go about it. Why accept that the things your opponent strategically manufactured about your positions are your actual weaknesses? And given that these were actually small shifts in votes with many different causes, it is sickening to me to see so many claim that the main thing we need to do is jettison our values so our values can win.
"Why accept that the things your opponent strategically manufactured about your positions are your actual weaknesses?" ⬅️ This!
Or, similarly: When your anti-trans, anti-immigrant opponent relentlessly accuses you of not being prejudiced enough and then wins the election, don't react by embracing his prejudice. Instead, figure out how to better educate the public about his prejudice (it's the real reason they shouldn't have voted for him) and lean harder into your own values as your strengths (it's the real reason they should have voted for you).
I agree. I also thought that the Gaza issue was a perfect example. The campaign didn’t emphasize the issue or elevate it in the way activists wanted them to do. They tried to play it down the middle, which was impossible on such a controversial subject, but Harris basically was following Gentlesen’s advice. What happened? The Pro-Palestinian group voted for Trump or stayed home. Anyone think they didn’t make a disastrous difference in Michigan, for example? And what does the group itself have to show for this? Nothing, of course. But Harris basically followed the advice of the NYT editorial and it sure didn’t help her to earn a win in that swing state. I know we need to figure out how to do better, but I’m getting awfully tired of pundits gaslighting us about what the campaign supposedly did wrong, rather than looking at their own role and trying to do better themselves.
Fetterman is proving to be a big disappointment. Better than Oz but disappointing.
We, as a society, are going to have to decide (with some degree of urgency now!) how to draw the line between promoting fee speech and allowing misinformation and deliberate lies to flourish.
One possible tactic: Severely cut our engagement on social media platforms that are sucking the life out of local news.
Even better, if possible, move to another platform.
I know...it's difficult to break the addiction. There would be (social/personal) costs for not posting, liking and sharing pictures with family and friends.
But passing legislation to regulate BigTech doesn't seem to have much of a chance at the moment.
Any effort to amend Sec. 230, the law that shields online platforms from liability, just took a major major hit.
This is precisely one of the reasons your political party lost.
“We, as a society, are going to have to decide (with some degree of urgency now!) how to draw the line between promoting free speech and allowing misinformation and deliberate lies to flourish”.
That’s called censorship, it’s illegal and takes away a persons 1st amendment right to free speech. If you don’t like, agree with or feel someone’s argument is not legitimate, then make a better argument. If you can’t and just want to shut someone up then you are just censoring.
And to add, who in your scenario, would get to decide what is truth and what is misinformation. Obviously, the covid/hunter laptop examples show that what was being censored was true and the misinformation was coming from the gov’t/media.
But let’s take your wish and play it out. Since Trump is going to assume office shortly, should he and his appointees decide what’s true, what’s misinformation and what should be censored? Would you be ok with that?
I have been part of a postcard writing group since 2016. We are ramping up to work on the VA special election in January. We must keep our blue legislature and elect Democrat Abigail Spanburger to protect us from these awful people and policies. I like the idea of embracing tea party tactics. We need to be loud in communicating the ramifications of dismantling government. Remember the 2016 campaign the Dems did to save the ACA? That’s what we need now. Most of these R senators want to get reelected and a lot of misinformed voters voted to make their lives better, not worse. We must push our elected officials to be louder and stronger. If you are white knuckling it through this horrific disaster, I encourage you to find a local grassroots organization and get to work. Action calms nerves. Indivisible has a new 2024 guidebook. It’s easy to find.
I did hit a paywall when I tried to read the Times piece you linked to.
Try this https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/16/opinion/democrats-interest-groups-majority.html?unlocked_article_code=1.aU4.kgGr.eZh_DAoeQLox&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb
Margaret, your writing is truly entertaining. TDS lives on in every cell of your body and every corner of your soul. Keep up the deranged, off the rails hysteria. Reading your work is almost as entertaining as reading The Babylon Bee, only yours isn’t satire. In your world every republican is hitler and every democrat is mother Teresa.
I too hit a paywall trying to read the Times piece.
me too
So did I. But I got around it by creating a new email address on a different browser than I usually used for my former NYT subscription. But the short answer is that the article, in my opinion, wasn't worth the effort. Read this instead by Timothy Snyder, author of the great new book "On Tyranny". https://snyder.substack.com/p/the-phantom-campaign
I did, too.
Me too.
Hit a paywall too
I got the article
You might try a local public library and see if they offer the NYT and/or WaPo online. Mine does offer a 48-hour pass and the library has an app that makes it easy to log in every day.
I was rather appalled by the opinion piece in the NYTimes that you highlighted. The few examples mentioned with very few in a platform with hundreds of issues. Much more damaging than the issues "from liberal and progressive interest groups" are the lies and evil twists that the republicans created out of any and all issues. Mainstreaming a campaign will not prevent such lies and accusations. It's similar to domestic violence . . . if a partner wants to be angry and violent, they will always be able to find a reason, no matter how hard one tries to appease them.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Let’s look at whimpy Dems like Seth Moulton who are hurting trans youth by saying despicable things or Jared Polis. They should know better. Pandering on the so-called left must be called out.
Stand and fight. We cannot watch as our democracy is destroyed. We must start teaching civics to our children.
For those hitting a paywall on that piece, try this: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/16/opinion/democrats-interest-groups-majority.html?unlocked_article_code=1.aU4.kgGr.eZh_DAoeQLox&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb
Thanks, Margaret, that worked.
I admit that I bumped up hard against this: [[Achieving a supermajority means declaring independence from liberal and progressive interest groups that prevent Democrats from thinking clearly about how to win.]]
So is he saying that Democrats will have to throw women, racial and ethnic minorities, and LGBTQ folks under the bus? His language and tone strongly suggest so, and in quite a patronizing way: [[Groups have become too accustomed to enjoying access without holding themselves accountable; the question “is this tactic more likely to trigger backlash than to advance our goals?” is the single most important one, yet it seems to be rarely asked by many of the groups’ leaders or funders.]]
Well, *that's how interest groups work.* They focus singlemindedly on their issues, because that is the whole purpose of their groups' existing and because it is what works most frequently FOR THEM. A lot of Biden voters in 2020 stayed home this time, and while we don't yet *know* why, we DO know that a lot of the Democratic base was disillusioned by the Eisenhoweresque campaign Kamala Harris ran.
So it sounds a lot to me like the writer is saying to toss those people, among the most vulnerable in our society, over the side. I don't know whether that's the right thing to do from a purely election-winning standpoint, but I doubt it; Bill Clinton wouldn't have won in 1992 without Ross Perot siphoning votes away from Bush 41. And I know damned well it's not the right thing to do from a moral standpoint. How does he propose to square that circle? He doesn't, really. He talks about tactics used in a few state races and expects us to presume that they'll work as well, or almost as well, in a presidential campaign context. I'd like more proof before I go betting the future of the country on a tactic and strategy that may well deny some of our most vulnerable citizens a future.
Thank you for your words of wisdom. Having read your article will help to get me through the day with resolve.
Margaret, you’re a treasure. Your posts are a tonic as well as an inspiration for resolve and action. Thank you. Please keep it coming!
Journalism seems to have utterly bowed to a fascist, and still Trump sued The Times for 10 Billion dollars. Trump’s nominations seem to be intended as a slap in the face to all voters. Incompetent, egomaniac, each committed to wreck the agency they’re named to. We have two months with Biden in power and I’d like to see us use it in some concrete, protective way. If Biden declared martial law until Trump’s crimes are properly adjudicated….there would be a lot of screaming. If Trump declares martial law on Jan 21, it would be deemed ‘provocative.’ If you’re reading this and thinking ‘Biden can’t do that’—I get it. But what major action can we take to preserve Democracy before tyranny fully arrives?