Is Plattner’s SNAFUs one of the reasons Janet Mills, Maine’s popular Dem. governor is running for the Senate? I didn’t think Mills entering the race was a good idea, but after reading this column I have changed my mind.
Thank you, Sandy — that’s a really sharp observation. Yes, I do think Plattner’s missteps and that whole string of unforced errors have opened the door for Janet Mills to seriously consider a Senate run. Her record in Maine and her ability to balance pragmatism with principle make her a compelling alternative to the current noise we’re seeing. Like you, I was initially unsure whether she’d make the jump, but the landscape has shifted enough that her candidacy suddenly feels not only plausible but necessary.
I’m glad the piece got you thinking differently about it — that’s the best kind of feedback a writer can get. Thanks again for reading and sharing such a thoughtful comment.
If I grin any harder I'm going to split my lips apart. 😁😁😁 So glad somebody finally articulated this. Yes, Platner over Collins, Fetterman over Oz - but voter should keep punching them squarely in the face to make them accountable for their stupidity even after they win.
Thank you, LV — I’m really glad this one resonated with you. I completely agree that accountability shouldn’t end once the votes are counted. Too often, Democrats win elections and then immediately forget how they got there — or worse, start trying to impress the very people who would never vote for them in the first place. I share your frustration with candidates like Platner and Fetterman who confuse “being authentic” with abandoning basic competence.
Your line about “keep punching them squarely in the face” made me laugh — that’s the spirit, though maybe we’ll call it a “metaphorical punch” for the sake of civility. But yes, voters have to stay engaged after Election Day if we want to prevent the same cycle of arrogance and amnesia from repeating. Thanks for reading and for putting it so perfectly.
Thank you, Nancee — that really means a lot. I know exactly what you mean about not holding your breath, though. It sometimes feels like Democrats hear the truth but don’t always internalize it. Still, I try to keep writing in the hope that a few of these ideas break through the noise. I appreciate you calling it a “truth bomb” — I’ll take that as high praise coming from one of my favorite readers.
Thank you so much, Linda — I really appreciate that. And yes, you’re absolutely right about Carnegie. His understanding of civic responsibility and moral leadership feels almost foreign in today’s political culture, where self-interest tends to drown out public service. The fight for democracy has always required that mix of courage and conviction, and it’s encouraging to see readers like you who still hold those values front and center. Thanks again for taking the time to read and share your thoughts — it truly means a lot.
I loathed LBJ when I was little and didn't know any better. Now, I wish for him back-- ten-gallon hat and all (meaning yeah, party-insider and all that). "Hope and Change," empty, empty, empty . . .
Amy, I completely understand that shift in perspective — LBJ was complicated, but he knew how to use power to deliver real outcomes. Civil rights, voting rights, Medicare — those weren’t slogans; they were tangible achievements that changed lives.
You’re right that “Hope and Change” felt like air compared to that. It was an era built on symbolism instead of strategy. Democrats have to stop mistaking inspiration for execution. I’d take a flawed dealmaker who gets results over a perfectly branded dreamer any day.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$is driving everything on both sides. When a rural congressional race has $22 million available, something is wrong. If we continue to let the donors and consultants call the shots, we’re doomed.
Rosemary, you’re absolutely right — money is driving everything, and it’s poisoning both parties. When a rural congressional race needs $22 million just to be competitive, something’s deeply broken. The donors and consultants have become the real power brokers, and the candidates end up sounding like whatever their funders want them to be.
Democrats have to be better than this. We can’t keep pretending we’re the “party of the people” while running campaigns fueled by the same corporate machinery we claim to oppose. Until we find a way to break that cycle and prioritize grassroots organizing over donor politics, the message — no matter how noble — will always ring hollow.
Particularly since the Citizen’s United SCOTUS decision in 2010 one of the Nazi party’s strategies has been has been with their megawealthy business interested coalition to swamp election campaigns with so many dollars that an election win is expected
But despite the Muskrat spending $20M in the weeks before the Wisconsin Supreme Court race to support the Nazi candidate who lost Now the billionaires are at it again outspending the Mamdami campaign $8 to $1 Obviously the billionaires don’t want to see NY city taxes increase under Mamdami This isn’t about disagreement with policy it’s about the megawealthy avoiding paying their fair share And Muskrat, Theil, and their billionaire buddies are planning to use their mega$ to influence future elections so they can harness political power with Cheeto at the helm, pouring millions of dollars into the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races
It’s now gotten to the point of greed Nazi billionaires not wanting to pay their fair share in a society that has given them more than enough to live comfortably And Americans are waking up to the wealth inequality as measured by an ever expanding income gap in the country
Dr. Bill, you’re absolutely right — Citizens United opened the floodgates for billionaires to turn elections into investments, and we’ve been paying the price ever since. What used to be democracy is now a bidding war between the ultra-rich trying to protect their tax breaks and deregulated empires.
The problem isn’t just greed; it’s the infrastructure that enables it. Musk, Thiel, and their circle have learned to use their wealth not just to buy influence, but to launder ideology through campaigns and media ecosystems. They’re shaping narratives as much as they’re funding candidates.
Until Democrats get serious about campaign finance reform and stop pretending we can “out-raise” corruption, we’ll keep playing the game on their terms. The public is catching on — the question is whether the party will catch up.
Hey Kristoffer great comment about the supporting infrastructure that enables along with SCOTUS the ability of the megawealthy to carve out niches of power and influence Of course when the Nazis are out of office they go back into their holes only to resurface when the current Nazi party gets back into power And you're spot on about meaningful policy platform of the DNC but don't know they have the guts because they depend on wealthy donors as well But reform is the key
Thank you for this article. I’ve been contributing to Platner, and kept hearing these stories, then the aides quitting. I’ve decided to cancel my contribution now. I despise Fetterman and Sinema and feel you are likely right about Platner.
that's sad that you're letting this one person's opinionated article sway your thoughts about Platner to make a decision about him before looking into more facts.
In addition, I am not a Mainer. I pick and choose candidates across the country to give very small but usually monthly amounts. I’m not rich, but am putting my usually spent on maybe stupid stuff money to work as best possible to support our diminished democracy. I put a lot of thought into whom and what I support. Thank you very much.
Really? Please re read what I wrote. It should be plain as the nose on your face that I hesitated and pulled up as many insights as I could before making my final decision. This is the opposite of what you are suggesting.
Sabrina, I completely understand your frustration — and honestly, I really hope he isn’t the guy I think he might be. But the pattern is all too familiar: the same cycle of performative “progressives” who sell themselves as something new while recycling the same bad instincts.
What really sealed it for me was when he defended that “Black people don’t tip” stereotype instead of apologizing. That wasn’t a slip — that was a choice. And the way he doubled down almost made it seem like he was proud of coming to that conclusion. It’s that kind of arrogance wrapped in self-righteousness that makes these so-called reformers so dangerous to the party.
I’ve known men like Al Franken. He did not belong in the Senate. Smart-ish, funny, on the correct side of most issues? Sure. Clueless when it comes to respect for women, who make up half of the population, and zero self-awareness, so I’ll take a pass.
Thanks for weighing in, and I totally understand where you’re coming from — but I have to respectfully disagree about Al Franken. He was probably my favorite senator during his era. Franken served from 2009 to 2018, representing Minnesota, and sat on key committees like Judiciary, Energy, Indian Affairs, and Health, Education, Labor & Pensions. He wasn’t a showman — he was a policy guy who actually did the work.
He fought for consumer protections, veterans’ mental health, and against corporate wage theft. He also took on privacy and tech issues before they became mainstream, pushing for the Location Privacy Protection Act to stop mobile tracking and strengthen digital rights.
And without getting too deep into it — I know the party involved in the allegations that ended his career, and all I can really say is that he was railroaded. It was one of the clearest examples of how Democrats sometimes eat their own while Republicans protect theirs at all costs.
Still, I appreciate your comment and the respectful dialogue — these are exactly the kinds of debates we should be having.
So I just got off Threads where a “Progressive activist “ wants to deseat Hakeem Jeffries and put in a more “progressive “ democratic person. What I wish this idiot and the other progressive idiots (yes I m not being nice) understood is the value of experience Hakeem Jeffries and other politicians have. Hakeem was right in saying Mamdani isnt the future of the democratic party. Reason is Mamdani is running for City Office also (its a blue city ) and his ideas haven’t been tested before. He has to win and implement his ideas before he can be the future of the party. On top of that the Democrat party is a big tent party and what works in NY will not work in Normal NE. What these progressive need to do is stop thinking they have answers . ( I sure as hell dont . I ask I listen I allow myself to make mistakes and then I learn from said mistakes and do better the next time . All skills good leaders have) it’s obvious the progressive wing of the democratic doesn’t learn. They complain loudly over the internet they are suckered in by any person who claims to have the same values and vision but they AREN’T LIKE US. Period. We value Hard work we know politics is about Compromise and inches. Here is the key difference between ( I m sorry to say and use him as an example ) a Jamal Bowman and George Latimer,while Jamal Bowman makes viral clips George Latimer knows his community and has done the unglamorous work of improving lives and talking to people. I m not sending you to congress for fun I want you bring back money into the community so I can take the bus or train to Orlando. I want you say I m fighting against big pharmaceutical and tech so I can go on this thing called a vacation. If I’m in your district I have 2 jobs you have a problem . This a job like any other and tick people off long enough they will vote you out.
Nenapoma, this is such a sharp and grounded take. You hit on something most people miss — experience matters, and so does pragmatism. Hakeem Jeffries isn’t perfect, but he understands the machinery of governance in a way that can’t be replaced with Twitter activism or catchy soundbites. Mamdani and others in that progressive lane might have energy, but like you said, their ideas haven’t been tested. You can’t lead a party — let alone a country — with theories that haven’t survived contact with reality.
I completely agree that what works in New York City doesn’t always work in the rest of the country. The Democratic Party has always been a coalition — that’s its strength and its curse. The progressive wing often mistakes volume for persuasion, and it alienates working-class voters who still believe in incremental progress and tangible results.
Your point about compromise and inches is spot on. Real leadership is unglamorous — it’s meetings, negotiations, late nights, and community relationships. Bowman makes good headlines, but Latimer gets results. I love that you framed it around hard work, because that’s the part of politics people forget: showing up, listening, and delivering.
And you’re right — if a representative’s district is filled with people working multiple jobs just to survive, speeches about revolution ring hollow. What people want are competent public servants who fix problems, not personalities who perform them.
With all that said, I genuinely hope Mamdani is a successful mayor, and Democrats should pay close attention — especially if he wins on Tuesday. His first job is to win elections, but he’ll quickly learn that his real challenge will be winning results. To his credit, he’s already started shifting his campaigning a bit, which shows he may be realizing that governing requires a completely different skill set than rallying.
I m not involved in my local level but my grandparents were leaders in their community in Puerto Rico A section is named after them in their old neighborhood( also Lolol theirs was the 1st house of the neighborhood ) and what I observed is that they did the unglamorous work of knowing who lived where what was happening to who .They showed me (eventho I wasnt paying attention) what it is to be a teacher,leader and mentor.
I’ll add it took 10 years for the ACA to be popular. Even Obama said in his interview with Marc it was a compromise he wanted health care for all people. (Weirdly Americans are scared of change . ) I m sure it took the same amount of time for SNAP and medicare to be popular. We dont have a great safety net for people here in america . My question to progressives is what does a medicare for all system look like? What if (not that I m in love with it )I like my employer base insurance because of my doctor and HSA benefits? Explain to me the grand plan With the details I only do things half cocked with buyin my planner stickers not my health care.
That’s such a powerful story, Nenapoma — your grandparents sound like the kind of community leaders we rarely see anymore: people who led not for attention, but through connection and consistency. That kind of neighborhood leadership is the foundation of civic life, and it’s something we’ve lost sight of in an era where activism too often happens only online.
You’re also absolutely right about how long it takes for social programs to gain acceptance. The Affordable Care Act faced fierce resistance early on, but now roughly 62% of Americans view it favorably, including a sizable number of independents and even some Republicans. The same pattern happened with Social Security in the 1930s and Medicare in the 1960s — both were attacked as “socialism” before becoming bedrock parts of American life. Once programs like these are implemented and people experience the benefits directly, they become nearly impossible to undo.
Your question about what a true “Medicare for All” system would look like is an important one. Ideally, it would preserve flexibility — allowing people to keep private supplemental coverage if they wanted — but guarantee that everyone has baseline access to care regardless of income or employment. It’s the same principle that underpinned the ACA: a floor, not a ceiling.
And I loved that line about buying planner stickers instead of health care — that kind of honesty makes the policy discussion real. Thanks again for sharing such a personal and grounded perspective.
Bernie's a good man with some good ideas, but he's almost criminally naive. He's the one who boosted Tulsi Gabbard's political career - despite millions of people waving warning flags about her anti-LGBT views, being a Hindu nationalist and an apologist for Syria's murderous dictator, Assad. And look what that got us: The same Fetterman-style running to Fox to trash Democrats, stepping on our backs to rise in MAGA world. Bernie also accepted an endorsement from Joe Rogan, for crissakes. Sinema, Fetterman, Adams and now Platner are brands not serious politicians. When in the hell did we forget the old warning about things that seem too good to be true?
Thank you once again Kristoffer- think this guy in Maine is an idiot frankly-and absolutely not what we need. Spouting slogans designed for the TikTok crowd does not a good candidate make. I am not sure he is going to fly in Maine anyway-sincerely hoping that Sherrill and Spanburger in NJ and VA demonstrate the power of hard work rather than showbiz stunts to the Democrats-it is what we need.
Ollie, I couldn’t agree more. The obsession with social media optics has replaced real political skill, and Platner is a prime example of that. Democrats don’t need TikTok slogans or viral sound bites — they need policy depth, emotional intelligence, and a grasp of governance. Maine voters, in particular, tend to value substance over flash, so I share your doubt that this act will play well there.
You’re spot on about Sherrill and Spanberger — they prove that voters still respond to competence and steady leadership. The challenge is getting the party to stop rewarding influencers masquerading as reformers.
Keeping my fingers crossed here in NJ-but if Sherrill pulls it out what a telling message to other Dems moving forward-it will surely set the tone for those in the party who have been unglamourously working behind the scenes all along. I applaud them -all over the country- and hope a Sherrill-Spanburger win inspires them to keep on going!
The political left and the political right have one thing in common: they easily fall in love with conmen. I doubt Platner's campaign will survive much longer now that Janet Mills has entered the race - speaking of someone demonstrating the power of hard work not showbiz. I'm really hopeful that Sherrill and Spanberger will both win on Tuesday. We need more work horses and fewer show ponies in our politics.
Jane, I think you summed it up perfectly — Bernie’s idealism often blinds him to the opportunists he helps elevate. The list you mentioned — Gabbard, Sinema, Fetterman, Adams, and now Platner — is exactly why I wrote this piece. Every few years, Democrats fall for someone “different,” only to realize they were just the same political opportunist in new wrapping.
You’re also right that the left and right share this weakness for performance over principle. The difference is the right weaponizes it with discipline; the left mistakes it for authenticity. That’s why we end up celebrating style while they consolidate power.
I agree that the future belongs to the workhorses, not the show ponies. Sherrill and Spanberger are great examples of what happens when competence actually takes priority over branding.
Sadly so. And also this is as much or more true of the GOP. Look at all those performative MAGA actors without a moral or ethical compass among them, all "pick me" girls/boys vying for daddy trump, daddy putin's attention and approval as well as availing themselves of all of the perks of the gig.
The problem as I see it is that national politics has become a big, grubby, influence peddling, all you can eat buffet of money and power that attracts only the HUNGRY. So hungry for status, wealth, starving for attention or fame and willing to do anything to get it. People like me that don't want or need any of that are the folks that should be running and many are on the local/state levels but the big show is off-putting to people satisfied with enough with ethical core values.
There is zero upside except perhaps service to this country but I see the treadmill of seemingly earnest folks with that stated mission turn into ineffective zombies at best looking to extend their time in office with little to show for it or much, much worse with exceedingly rare exceptions. Now I inspect every candidate like three day old fish. Which is the least spoilt, which is the most palatable. Why are they running in the first place? Are they actual residents or carpetbaggers? Unfortunately honesty is in short supply and the press could give a damn but they often don't until a potential front page scoop appears.
Until the very basis of obscene amounts of money that streams into our national politics and the ability to mint more once in office and finally the empire building that protects the mint until they die or leave office with gold plated gigs changes I have little hope of getting a better cut of candidate.
Also I'd be interested in seeing big reforms. It's disgusting to me that Congressional asshats are being paid while civil servants are not. Same with investments. As a civil servant I could not invest in stocks that my agency regulated as a matter of professional ethics. The same should be true of ALL federal officials but no, it's just a giant feeding trough, an open sewer of corruption and look at the rats that seems to attract....
Cathy, you nailed it — politics has become one giant buffet of ego, power, and access, and the hungriest people are often the ones least suited to lead. I completely agree that too many enter public office to secure influence or a future paycheck rather than serve. The performative “pick me” culture you mentioned has infected both parties, but it’s especially grotesque on the right with the MAGA cosplay crowd.
Your point about the lack of ethical grounding is spot on. We’ve built a system where corruption is practically subsidized, and genuine reformers are either pushed out or ignored. The same rules that apply to civil servants — like the investment restrictions you mentioned — should absolutely apply to members of Congress. Until that happens, we’ll keep mistaking performative outrage for public service.
Jane, I wholeheartedly agree — Vance perfectly embodies the hollow “pick me” archetype. No convictions, no integrity, just opportunism dressed up as populism. It’s the political equivalent of cosplay — all image, no substance.
Tis the season to speak of shapeshifters and things that go bump in the night. You got it right, Prof. You captured it in very energetic and quite poetic words on how we do fall for a "new kind of Democrat". Actually Sin-na-mon Bun was on my radar. Dark-hoody man wasn't until too late. Was disappointed for NY City when Adams was elected mayor. Not my city but definitely everyone's problem. Tattoo man--thanks for enlightening me on him. I really hadn't caught the whole story. It's like the Democratic Party is Wilie-O-Cayote trying to catch a "New Type of Democrat" which is delivered by the ACME truck hauling outlandish products. Unlike old Wilie, the Dems seem to catch the truck and its products. When will we ever learn?
On a sad note, 😢but a happy note for you--the Dodgers won. They climbed the hill.
Thanks, Prof. for always speaking clearly. Take care.
Maxine, I love that Wile-E-Coyote analogy — it perfectly captures how Democrats keep chasing whatever shiny “new kind” of candidate consultants dream up. And you’re right, Adams was a red flag from the start. But when I heard Platner actually defend that “Black people don’t tip” stereotype, I was done. That moment said everything about how comfortably some of these so-called reformers traffic in old prejudices while pretending to be something new.
Appreciate your thoughtful read — and yes, the Dodgers really did climb that hill!
That’s a fair point, Ginger — I never said it was exclusive to the Democratic Party. The difference is that since I’m a Democrat, I focus on holding my own side accountable. The Right has perfected performative politics, but the Left keeps falling for it in new packaging — often under the banner of “disruption.”
You’re absolutely right that performative politicians exist everywhere, but Democrats can’t afford to mirror the same cynicism they claim to oppose. That’s really what this piece is about — self-reflection before self-destruction.
🙋♀️"Not exclusive to the Democratic Party" - can vouch. And it's been going on for a long time. In 2010, in my home state of Delaware, the republicans were in their Tea Party Era and nominated a complete huckster named Christine O'Donnell for senate. She was nothing but a professional candidate who'd lost twice before by crushing margins, but she was an attention grabber and the Delaware TPers who'd taken over the party nominated her. And only then did the vetting start. In public. On national TV. I'm sure many people remember her getting called out by Bill Maher for claiming to be a former witch who found Jesus. You might even remember her infamous "I'm Not A Witch' campaign ad. Nope, dopes falling for dopes is not exclusive to Dems.
Glad to hear that, Courtney — sometimes laughter is the only way to stay sane while connecting all these dots. The absurdity would be funny if it weren’t also the playbook shaping real policy. Appreciate you reading and engaging.
Is Plattner’s SNAFUs one of the reasons Janet Mills, Maine’s popular Dem. governor is running for the Senate? I didn’t think Mills entering the race was a good idea, but after reading this column I have changed my mind.
Thank you, Sandy — that’s a really sharp observation. Yes, I do think Plattner’s missteps and that whole string of unforced errors have opened the door for Janet Mills to seriously consider a Senate run. Her record in Maine and her ability to balance pragmatism with principle make her a compelling alternative to the current noise we’re seeing. Like you, I was initially unsure whether she’d make the jump, but the landscape has shifted enough that her candidacy suddenly feels not only plausible but necessary.
I’m glad the piece got you thinking differently about it — that’s the best kind of feedback a writer can get. Thanks again for reading and sharing such a thoughtful comment.
If I grin any harder I'm going to split my lips apart. 😁😁😁 So glad somebody finally articulated this. Yes, Platner over Collins, Fetterman over Oz - but voter should keep punching them squarely in the face to make them accountable for their stupidity even after they win.
Thank you, LV — I’m really glad this one resonated with you. I completely agree that accountability shouldn’t end once the votes are counted. Too often, Democrats win elections and then immediately forget how they got there — or worse, start trying to impress the very people who would never vote for them in the first place. I share your frustration with candidates like Platner and Fetterman who confuse “being authentic” with abandoning basic competence.
Your line about “keep punching them squarely in the face” made me laugh — that’s the spirit, though maybe we’ll call it a “metaphorical punch” for the sake of civility. But yes, voters have to stay engaged after Election Day if we want to prevent the same cycle of arrogance and amnesia from repeating. Thanks for reading and for putting it so perfectly.
A searing truth bomb from my favorite nerd professor. From your lips to Democrats' ears, but I'm not holding my breath
Thank you, Nancee — that really means a lot. I know exactly what you mean about not holding your breath, though. It sometimes feels like Democrats hear the truth but don’t always internalize it. Still, I try to keep writing in the hope that a few of these ideas break through the noise. I appreciate you calling it a “truth bomb” — I’ll take that as high praise coming from one of my favorite readers.
We hang together or we'll all hang separately. I look forward to your posts.
Good article! Kristoffer! Know some history about Carnegie! We must defend the freedom and fight for democracy!
Thank you so much, Linda — I really appreciate that. And yes, you’re absolutely right about Carnegie. His understanding of civic responsibility and moral leadership feels almost foreign in today’s political culture, where self-interest tends to drown out public service. The fight for democracy has always required that mix of courage and conviction, and it’s encouraging to see readers like you who still hold those values front and center. Thanks again for taking the time to read and share your thoughts — it truly means a lot.
I loathed LBJ when I was little and didn't know any better. Now, I wish for him back-- ten-gallon hat and all (meaning yeah, party-insider and all that). "Hope and Change," empty, empty, empty . . .
Amy, I completely understand that shift in perspective — LBJ was complicated, but he knew how to use power to deliver real outcomes. Civil rights, voting rights, Medicare — those weren’t slogans; they were tangible achievements that changed lives.
You’re right that “Hope and Change” felt like air compared to that. It was an era built on symbolism instead of strategy. Democrats have to stop mistaking inspiration for execution. I’d take a flawed dealmaker who gets results over a perfectly branded dreamer any day.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$is driving everything on both sides. When a rural congressional race has $22 million available, something is wrong. If we continue to let the donors and consultants call the shots, we’re doomed.
Rosemary, you’re absolutely right — money is driving everything, and it’s poisoning both parties. When a rural congressional race needs $22 million just to be competitive, something’s deeply broken. The donors and consultants have become the real power brokers, and the candidates end up sounding like whatever their funders want them to be.
Democrats have to be better than this. We can’t keep pretending we’re the “party of the people” while running campaigns fueled by the same corporate machinery we claim to oppose. Until we find a way to break that cycle and prioritize grassroots organizing over donor politics, the message — no matter how noble — will always ring hollow.
Cheeto And Nazi Billionaires Buying Elections
Particularly since the Citizen’s United SCOTUS decision in 2010 one of the Nazi party’s strategies has been has been with their megawealthy business interested coalition to swamp election campaigns with so many dollars that an election win is expected
But despite the Muskrat spending $20M in the weeks before the Wisconsin Supreme Court race to support the Nazi candidate who lost Now the billionaires are at it again outspending the Mamdami campaign $8 to $1 Obviously the billionaires don’t want to see NY city taxes increase under Mamdami This isn’t about disagreement with policy it’s about the megawealthy avoiding paying their fair share And Muskrat, Theil, and their billionaire buddies are planning to use their mega$ to influence future elections so they can harness political power with Cheeto at the helm, pouring millions of dollars into the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races
It’s now gotten to the point of greed Nazi billionaires not wanting to pay their fair share in a society that has given them more than enough to live comfortably And Americans are waking up to the wealth inequality as measured by an ever expanding income gap in the country
Dr. Bill, you’re absolutely right — Citizens United opened the floodgates for billionaires to turn elections into investments, and we’ve been paying the price ever since. What used to be democracy is now a bidding war between the ultra-rich trying to protect their tax breaks and deregulated empires.
The problem isn’t just greed; it’s the infrastructure that enables it. Musk, Thiel, and their circle have learned to use their wealth not just to buy influence, but to launder ideology through campaigns and media ecosystems. They’re shaping narratives as much as they’re funding candidates.
Until Democrats get serious about campaign finance reform and stop pretending we can “out-raise” corruption, we’ll keep playing the game on their terms. The public is catching on — the question is whether the party will catch up.
Hey Kristoffer great comment about the supporting infrastructure that enables along with SCOTUS the ability of the megawealthy to carve out niches of power and influence Of course when the Nazis are out of office they go back into their holes only to resurface when the current Nazi party gets back into power And you're spot on about meaningful policy platform of the DNC but don't know they have the guts because they depend on wealthy donors as well But reform is the key
Thank you for this article. I’ve been contributing to Platner, and kept hearing these stories, then the aides quitting. I’ve decided to cancel my contribution now. I despise Fetterman and Sinema and feel you are likely right about Platner.
that's sad that you're letting this one person's opinionated article sway your thoughts about Platner to make a decision about him before looking into more facts.
In addition, I am not a Mainer. I pick and choose candidates across the country to give very small but usually monthly amounts. I’m not rich, but am putting my usually spent on maybe stupid stuff money to work as best possible to support our diminished democracy. I put a lot of thought into whom and what I support. Thank you very much.
Really? Please re read what I wrote. It should be plain as the nose on your face that I hesitated and pulled up as many insights as I could before making my final decision. This is the opposite of what you are suggesting.
Sabrina, I completely understand your frustration — and honestly, I really hope he isn’t the guy I think he might be. But the pattern is all too familiar: the same cycle of performative “progressives” who sell themselves as something new while recycling the same bad instincts.
What really sealed it for me was when he defended that “Black people don’t tip” stereotype instead of apologizing. That wasn’t a slip — that was a choice. And the way he doubled down almost made it seem like he was proud of coming to that conclusion. It’s that kind of arrogance wrapped in self-righteousness that makes these so-called reformers so dangerous to the party.
I’ve known men like Al Franken. He did not belong in the Senate. Smart-ish, funny, on the correct side of most issues? Sure. Clueless when it comes to respect for women, who make up half of the population, and zero self-awareness, so I’ll take a pass.
Thanks for weighing in, and I totally understand where you’re coming from — but I have to respectfully disagree about Al Franken. He was probably my favorite senator during his era. Franken served from 2009 to 2018, representing Minnesota, and sat on key committees like Judiciary, Energy, Indian Affairs, and Health, Education, Labor & Pensions. He wasn’t a showman — he was a policy guy who actually did the work.
He fought for consumer protections, veterans’ mental health, and against corporate wage theft. He also took on privacy and tech issues before they became mainstream, pushing for the Location Privacy Protection Act to stop mobile tracking and strengthen digital rights.
And without getting too deep into it — I know the party involved in the allegations that ended his career, and all I can really say is that he was railroaded. It was one of the clearest examples of how Democrats sometimes eat their own while Republicans protect theirs at all costs.
Still, I appreciate your comment and the respectful dialogue — these are exactly the kinds of debates we should be having.
I have soooo many thoughts I have to work my second job right now so I will work on my thoughts for later tonight
So I just got off Threads where a “Progressive activist “ wants to deseat Hakeem Jeffries and put in a more “progressive “ democratic person. What I wish this idiot and the other progressive idiots (yes I m not being nice) understood is the value of experience Hakeem Jeffries and other politicians have. Hakeem was right in saying Mamdani isnt the future of the democratic party. Reason is Mamdani is running for City Office also (its a blue city ) and his ideas haven’t been tested before. He has to win and implement his ideas before he can be the future of the party. On top of that the Democrat party is a big tent party and what works in NY will not work in Normal NE. What these progressive need to do is stop thinking they have answers . ( I sure as hell dont . I ask I listen I allow myself to make mistakes and then I learn from said mistakes and do better the next time . All skills good leaders have) it’s obvious the progressive wing of the democratic doesn’t learn. They complain loudly over the internet they are suckered in by any person who claims to have the same values and vision but they AREN’T LIKE US. Period. We value Hard work we know politics is about Compromise and inches. Here is the key difference between ( I m sorry to say and use him as an example ) a Jamal Bowman and George Latimer,while Jamal Bowman makes viral clips George Latimer knows his community and has done the unglamorous work of improving lives and talking to people. I m not sending you to congress for fun I want you bring back money into the community so I can take the bus or train to Orlando. I want you say I m fighting against big pharmaceutical and tech so I can go on this thing called a vacation. If I’m in your district I have 2 jobs you have a problem . This a job like any other and tick people off long enough they will vote you out.
Nenapoma, this is such a sharp and grounded take. You hit on something most people miss — experience matters, and so does pragmatism. Hakeem Jeffries isn’t perfect, but he understands the machinery of governance in a way that can’t be replaced with Twitter activism or catchy soundbites. Mamdani and others in that progressive lane might have energy, but like you said, their ideas haven’t been tested. You can’t lead a party — let alone a country — with theories that haven’t survived contact with reality.
I completely agree that what works in New York City doesn’t always work in the rest of the country. The Democratic Party has always been a coalition — that’s its strength and its curse. The progressive wing often mistakes volume for persuasion, and it alienates working-class voters who still believe in incremental progress and tangible results.
Your point about compromise and inches is spot on. Real leadership is unglamorous — it’s meetings, negotiations, late nights, and community relationships. Bowman makes good headlines, but Latimer gets results. I love that you framed it around hard work, because that’s the part of politics people forget: showing up, listening, and delivering.
And you’re right — if a representative’s district is filled with people working multiple jobs just to survive, speeches about revolution ring hollow. What people want are competent public servants who fix problems, not personalities who perform them.
With all that said, I genuinely hope Mamdani is a successful mayor, and Democrats should pay close attention — especially if he wins on Tuesday. His first job is to win elections, but he’ll quickly learn that his real challenge will be winning results. To his credit, he’s already started shifting his campaigning a bit, which shows he may be realizing that governing requires a completely different skill set than rallying.
I m not involved in my local level but my grandparents were leaders in their community in Puerto Rico A section is named after them in their old neighborhood( also Lolol theirs was the 1st house of the neighborhood ) and what I observed is that they did the unglamorous work of knowing who lived where what was happening to who .They showed me (eventho I wasnt paying attention) what it is to be a teacher,leader and mentor.
I’ll add it took 10 years for the ACA to be popular. Even Obama said in his interview with Marc it was a compromise he wanted health care for all people. (Weirdly Americans are scared of change . ) I m sure it took the same amount of time for SNAP and medicare to be popular. We dont have a great safety net for people here in america . My question to progressives is what does a medicare for all system look like? What if (not that I m in love with it )I like my employer base insurance because of my doctor and HSA benefits? Explain to me the grand plan With the details I only do things half cocked with buyin my planner stickers not my health care.
That’s such a powerful story, Nenapoma — your grandparents sound like the kind of community leaders we rarely see anymore: people who led not for attention, but through connection and consistency. That kind of neighborhood leadership is the foundation of civic life, and it’s something we’ve lost sight of in an era where activism too often happens only online.
You’re also absolutely right about how long it takes for social programs to gain acceptance. The Affordable Care Act faced fierce resistance early on, but now roughly 62% of Americans view it favorably, including a sizable number of independents and even some Republicans. The same pattern happened with Social Security in the 1930s and Medicare in the 1960s — both were attacked as “socialism” before becoming bedrock parts of American life. Once programs like these are implemented and people experience the benefits directly, they become nearly impossible to undo.
Your question about what a true “Medicare for All” system would look like is an important one. Ideally, it would preserve flexibility — allowing people to keep private supplemental coverage if they wanted — but guarantee that everyone has baseline access to care regardless of income or employment. It’s the same principle that underpinned the ACA: a floor, not a ceiling.
And I loved that line about buying planner stickers instead of health care — that kind of honesty makes the policy discussion real. Thanks again for sharing such a personal and grounded perspective.
Nenapoma, sounds good — I’ll look for your comment later when you’ve had time to dive in. Always appreciate your thoughtful takes.
Bernie's a good man with some good ideas, but he's almost criminally naive. He's the one who boosted Tulsi Gabbard's political career - despite millions of people waving warning flags about her anti-LGBT views, being a Hindu nationalist and an apologist for Syria's murderous dictator, Assad. And look what that got us: The same Fetterman-style running to Fox to trash Democrats, stepping on our backs to rise in MAGA world. Bernie also accepted an endorsement from Joe Rogan, for crissakes. Sinema, Fetterman, Adams and now Platner are brands not serious politicians. When in the hell did we forget the old warning about things that seem too good to be true?
Thank you once again Kristoffer- think this guy in Maine is an idiot frankly-and absolutely not what we need. Spouting slogans designed for the TikTok crowd does not a good candidate make. I am not sure he is going to fly in Maine anyway-sincerely hoping that Sherrill and Spanburger in NJ and VA demonstrate the power of hard work rather than showbiz stunts to the Democrats-it is what we need.
Ollie, I couldn’t agree more. The obsession with social media optics has replaced real political skill, and Platner is a prime example of that. Democrats don’t need TikTok slogans or viral sound bites — they need policy depth, emotional intelligence, and a grasp of governance. Maine voters, in particular, tend to value substance over flash, so I share your doubt that this act will play well there.
You’re spot on about Sherrill and Spanberger — they prove that voters still respond to competence and steady leadership. The challenge is getting the party to stop rewarding influencers masquerading as reformers.
Keeping my fingers crossed here in NJ-but if Sherrill pulls it out what a telling message to other Dems moving forward-it will surely set the tone for those in the party who have been unglamourously working behind the scenes all along. I applaud them -all over the country- and hope a Sherrill-Spanburger win inspires them to keep on going!
Yes, Ollie Mognoni,I was falling for his con man working class BS
The political left and the political right have one thing in common: they easily fall in love with conmen. I doubt Platner's campaign will survive much longer now that Janet Mills has entered the race - speaking of someone demonstrating the power of hard work not showbiz. I'm really hopeful that Sherrill and Spanberger will both win on Tuesday. We need more work horses and fewer show ponies in our politics.
Jane, I think you summed it up perfectly — Bernie’s idealism often blinds him to the opportunists he helps elevate. The list you mentioned — Gabbard, Sinema, Fetterman, Adams, and now Platner — is exactly why I wrote this piece. Every few years, Democrats fall for someone “different,” only to realize they were just the same political opportunist in new wrapping.
You’re also right that the left and right share this weakness for performance over principle. The difference is the right weaponizes it with discipline; the left mistakes it for authenticity. That’s why we end up celebrating style while they consolidate power.
I agree that the future belongs to the workhorses, not the show ponies. Sherrill and Spanberger are great examples of what happens when competence actually takes priority over branding.
Yes indeed Jane!!
Sadly so. And also this is as much or more true of the GOP. Look at all those performative MAGA actors without a moral or ethical compass among them, all "pick me" girls/boys vying for daddy trump, daddy putin's attention and approval as well as availing themselves of all of the perks of the gig.
The problem as I see it is that national politics has become a big, grubby, influence peddling, all you can eat buffet of money and power that attracts only the HUNGRY. So hungry for status, wealth, starving for attention or fame and willing to do anything to get it. People like me that don't want or need any of that are the folks that should be running and many are on the local/state levels but the big show is off-putting to people satisfied with enough with ethical core values.
There is zero upside except perhaps service to this country but I see the treadmill of seemingly earnest folks with that stated mission turn into ineffective zombies at best looking to extend their time in office with little to show for it or much, much worse with exceedingly rare exceptions. Now I inspect every candidate like three day old fish. Which is the least spoilt, which is the most palatable. Why are they running in the first place? Are they actual residents or carpetbaggers? Unfortunately honesty is in short supply and the press could give a damn but they often don't until a potential front page scoop appears.
Until the very basis of obscene amounts of money that streams into our national politics and the ability to mint more once in office and finally the empire building that protects the mint until they die or leave office with gold plated gigs changes I have little hope of getting a better cut of candidate.
Also I'd be interested in seeing big reforms. It's disgusting to me that Congressional asshats are being paid while civil servants are not. Same with investments. As a civil servant I could not invest in stocks that my agency regulated as a matter of professional ethics. The same should be true of ALL federal officials but no, it's just a giant feeding trough, an open sewer of corruption and look at the rats that seems to attract....
Cathy, you nailed it — politics has become one giant buffet of ego, power, and access, and the hungriest people are often the ones least suited to lead. I completely agree that too many enter public office to secure influence or a future paycheck rather than serve. The performative “pick me” culture you mentioned has infected both parties, but it’s especially grotesque on the right with the MAGA cosplay crowd.
Your point about the lack of ethical grounding is spot on. We’ve built a system where corruption is practically subsidized, and genuine reformers are either pushed out or ignored. The same rules that apply to civil servants — like the investment restrictions you mentioned — should absolutely apply to members of Congress. Until that happens, we’ll keep mistaking performative outrage for public service.
The most obnoxious 'pick me' boy has to be [not even his real name] JD Vance. No spine, no convictions, not a shred of morality.
Jane, I wholeheartedly agree — Vance perfectly embodies the hollow “pick me” archetype. No convictions, no integrity, just opportunism dressed up as populism. It’s the political equivalent of cosplay — all image, no substance.
Sorry but this subject really fires me up.
Tis the season to speak of shapeshifters and things that go bump in the night. You got it right, Prof. You captured it in very energetic and quite poetic words on how we do fall for a "new kind of Democrat". Actually Sin-na-mon Bun was on my radar. Dark-hoody man wasn't until too late. Was disappointed for NY City when Adams was elected mayor. Not my city but definitely everyone's problem. Tattoo man--thanks for enlightening me on him. I really hadn't caught the whole story. It's like the Democratic Party is Wilie-O-Cayote trying to catch a "New Type of Democrat" which is delivered by the ACME truck hauling outlandish products. Unlike old Wilie, the Dems seem to catch the truck and its products. When will we ever learn?
On a sad note, 😢but a happy note for you--the Dodgers won. They climbed the hill.
Thanks, Prof. for always speaking clearly. Take care.
Maxine, I love that Wile-E-Coyote analogy — it perfectly captures how Democrats keep chasing whatever shiny “new kind” of candidate consultants dream up. And you’re right, Adams was a red flag from the start. But when I heard Platner actually defend that “Black people don’t tip” stereotype, I was done. That moment said everything about how comfortably some of these so-called reformers traffic in old prejudices while pretending to be something new.
Appreciate your thoughtful read — and yes, the Dodgers really did climb that hill!
"Self-styled disrupters aren't committed to real progress. These politicians are only in it for themselves."
Not exclusive to the Democratic party
Performative " politician " is now the head of the country... "maybe we can do better next time"?
That’s a fair point, Ginger — I never said it was exclusive to the Democratic Party. The difference is that since I’m a Democrat, I focus on holding my own side accountable. The Right has perfected performative politics, but the Left keeps falling for it in new packaging — often under the banner of “disruption.”
You’re absolutely right that performative politicians exist everywhere, but Democrats can’t afford to mirror the same cynicism they claim to oppose. That’s really what this piece is about — self-reflection before self-destruction.
🙋♀️"Not exclusive to the Democratic Party" - can vouch. And it's been going on for a long time. In 2010, in my home state of Delaware, the republicans were in their Tea Party Era and nominated a complete huckster named Christine O'Donnell for senate. She was nothing but a professional candidate who'd lost twice before by crushing margins, but she was an attention grabber and the Delaware TPers who'd taken over the party nominated her. And only then did the vetting start. In public. On national TV. I'm sure many people remember her getting called out by Bill Maher for claiming to be a former witch who found Jesus. You might even remember her infamous "I'm Not A Witch' campaign ad. Nope, dopes falling for dopes is not exclusive to Dems.
You have made me laugh at my and others failing to follow the dots.
Glad to hear that, Courtney — sometimes laughter is the only way to stay sane while connecting all these dots. The absurdity would be funny if it weren’t also the playbook shaping real policy. Appreciate you reading and engaging.