Okay. So I've wanted to articulate this for a while, but never really knew how.
But I'm personally absolutely, completely disgusted with the Democratic Party — *my* party, in many ways — and not because of the party moving "too far left/right". Let me explain.🧵
Everything I write here is in my personal capacity. And this is not a giant thread on "why I left the Democratic Party". I'm not doing that, because I agree with Democrats significantly more than I do with the GOP, and I vote for the side I agree with more.
But I'm still angry.
I'm tired of the incessant deference to unions *at the cost of progress* (see: the Jones Act and Puerto Rico). And I'm tired of programs we forget are a means to an end, rather than the end itself (CA HSR is a great example. Give us results, don't point to "jobs created"!).
It's the "process over results" attitude that I'm just sick and tired of. So many programs are created with immense goodwill and money to be put into good things. But when the time comes to build, *we just can't*, because paperwork and process is like crack cocaine to Democrats.
And we're told "it's fine". But it's really not. Government should exist to work for people, not work for itself. If you have a program that has poured $40M into rural broadband with no results, you can rationalize it in any way you want, but it's a massive failure at the end.
Mostly, I'm tired of being promised things that the party has no intention of living up to. It goes beyond policies — we were promised that Biden was fine, and we'd see it at the debate.
Really? What the fuck was that?
"Oh, it was a bad night."
The next 3 weeks were bad too!
What about Donald Trump and January 6th? Well, Biden's own Justice Department slow-walked so much of the prosecution out of a deference to norms to a guy they say tried to overthrow the govt.
They got no help from the legal system. But their own actions did them no favors either
It's this constant prioritization of process over policy, of process over results, and of "defending our institutions" that I'm sick and tired of. If these are our institutions, can you blame voters for asking: what the fuck is the point?
I don't want our institutions to just hold, I want them to *work*.
It's not okay for CVS and Target to lock everything up in SF. It's not okay for people to be afraid of taking the BART at 11 PM. It's okay for people to want institutions to play a role in *actually fixing them*.
I continue to vote for Democrats, and I think I'll do that for the foreseeable future — at the end, I don't believe in withholding votes because one side is going to win, and I'd rather the side I agree with more win. So that's the Democrats.
But I still criticize them a lot.
Why? The Affordable Care Act, while imperfect, is massive. Social Security is a boon to seniors and helps them live decently. Medicaid/Medicare is an immensely valuable program. Trump and J6 cross a line for me. And I just don't think tearing down institutions fixes things.
But I'm also tired. I'm tired of treating institutions like some incredible holy grail that must be championed and above criticism. This isn't about a left/right axis for me — I'm just tired of being told that things are all fine when they're obviously not.
I'm not open to overtures about "why I left the Left" or whatever. I'm a Democrat.
"Sheep", "NPC", whatever — save it. The right isn't going to have me, and I don't want them (I was born here but 90% of online MAGA still wants to deport me, lol).
I just want things to work.
@the_transit_guy And look, here's the thing: highways may suck for urban planning, but highways *work* and so the average American isn't going to complain about more funding for something they use (and have to use) every day. It is what it is.
@the_transit_guy @flaminhottweets If your choice is to fund it into irrelevance, that's ok, but there are real political and policy costs associated with keeping it — costs that arguably significantly outweigh the ones associated with letting it go.
This ended up getting more attention than I imagined. This isn't really electoral advice for Democrats. It's just my own frustrations.
It's not a diagnosis of why they lost, and they don't technically *need* to change much to win 2026, but that doesn't mean I like what exists.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Approaching Trump's inauguration, this is *probably* the zenith of conservative influence in pop culture and society over the last 30 years, despite Trump's relatively slim victory of 1.5%.
The movement may last. But I *suspect* people are overconfident here. 🧵
To begin with, it is unquestionably true that public opinion has shifted *sharply* to the right on a host of issues over the last four years — transgender rights, immigration, and even "coolness" (zoomers are way less Dem than millennials were, and tech is lining up behind Trump)
The thing is, though, that I can recall so many good examples of majorities being rebuked because they either misread the moment, the mandate, or the public's true desire.
When people find out what policies would entail, for example, support craters.
Here's where we stand in the House (11/10, 23:59 EST).
- Democrats at 213 seats with the latest #CA27 drop, but have lost #CO08. Rs at 217.
- Dems must sweep #CA13, #CA45, #AKAL, #AZ06, #CA41.
- #CA13 is tilt D. #CA45 a tossup/tilt R. #AKAL leans R. #AZ06, #CA41 very likely R.
#CA13: the two counties that are the most complete already have Duarte underrunning his 2022 margins by ~2, when he won by only half a point.
- Merced (Gray's home county) has yet to report a ton of blue-leaning mail. Would narrowly rather be Gray, but it will be *very* close.
#CA45: Dropbox ballots are way bluer and Tran has been crushing it in the LA County drops. If he gets anything like that from Orange (most of the seat), he'd win easily. But he won't — Orange is way redder. Would narrowly rather be Steel, but could really tip either way.
The Washington Primary has served as a historical canary in the coal mine. This year, it tells us that Democrats are in pretty good position to make gains in the House and have a modest popular vote victory.
@maxtmcc @washingtonpost A lot of you had been asking us for *something* at least discussing the high-level takeaways of the Washington primary. The piece gives an easily-digestible overview of what it is, why it's important, and what it means.
In short: it's way better than what Dems feared a month ago
@maxtmcc @washingtonpost There is a LOT of room for late movement this time. And we think that Democrats are on track for a modest victory in the popular vote. It doesn't point to a 2008 landslide.
But it helps validate that the current polling environment is decently aligned with polls, unlike 2020.
The pundits see Kamala Harris and they see a candidate with a -14 favorable rating, a horrible 2020 campaign, and similar odds against Donald Trump if she replaces Biden.
When I see Kamala Harris, I see...an imperfect understanding of what candidate quality is
"She's got her issues. She tacked way to the left in the primary in 2020 and came out in favor of ridiculous things like banning fracking and signals to defund the police despite being a DA.
But is she 82 years old? No. No!"
"Chuck. Biden's going on the block and you're my first call."
"[Why?]"
"...Because, he's making the rest of us Democrats look bad."
"[You want Shapiro?]"
"No. I want Kamala and Tim Walz".
It is worth pointing out that however this all plays out, Kamala Harris has played her role as Biden's VP to perfection at this point, and it is a *far* cry from the relative chaos that seemed to permeate her orbit and her office during the 2019-2021 period.
Harris has managed to acknowledge Biden had some issues in the debate, played the role of loyal soldier since then, and has made several high-profile appearances to reinforce confidence in her without making a single move to undermine the President. It's not easy.
When something similar happened to Mike Pence in the aftermath of Access Hollywood, he instantly let it be known to Reince Priebus that he would be very open to replacing Trump as nominee. Morality aside, it was a strategic blunder — Trump had some serious issues with it.