Tuesday, March 31, 2026

Election Day and Election Reforms (Not Week, Month, or Season)

Election Day and Election Reforms (Not Week, Month, or Season)

Election Day and Election Reforms (Not Week, Month, or Season)
AP Photo/Louie Traub, File

The United States Supreme Court is finally ruling on an issue (Watson v RNC) that should have been decided long ago: the dissonant practice of accepting ballots after the Election Day deadline.

This case could indeed shift the 2026 midterms in Republicans’ favor, since Democrats often win by broad and unjustified election expansion, which opens the door to cheating, stuffing, and undoing the vote.

More election cases are coming before the United States Supreme Court, and the conservative majority looks more inclined to bring the much-needed order and common sense back to our elections.

Why would the RNC sue Mississippi, of all places? It’s a ruby red state, after all, where even Elvis Presley’s Democratic cousin could not get elected Governor.

This decision was a masterstroke. Democratic states have mostly expanded this corrupt effort, allowing ballots to be counted long after the Election Day deadline. If a Republican organization went after a Democratic state, the proponents of these “grace period” laws could have argued that the RNC is targeting election reforms they don’t like in states where they can’t win. Instead of arguing the merits of the case, the RNC would have wasted time and resources explaining to federal courts that their interest is in the fairness of the vote as opposed to the pursuit of partisan assistance or advantage.

For the record, the RNC deserves more credit than they are receiving for fighting off election fraud machinations and seeking to restore election integrity in our voting practices. They jumped ahead of the problems, potential, and actually, long before Election Day in 2024, warding off a repeat of the failures and questions that dominated the 2020 election results.  

How do we want the court to rule in Watson? What should this first set of election reforms look like?

Justice Samuel Alito could not have summed it up better:

“We have lots of phrases that involve two words, the last of which, the second of which is ‘day,’ Labor Day, Memorial Day, George Washington's birthday, Independence Day, birthday and Election Day, and they're all particular days. So if we start with that, if I have nothing more to look at than the phrase ‘Election Day,’ I think this is the day in which everything is going to take place, or almost everything.”

It’s Election Day—not a week, month, or season. Everyone understands that simple phrase in connection with many other holidays and commemorative events. Sure, some of us turn our birthday into a week of avoiding work and spoiling ourselves with fun and frolic. Some families extend their Christmas festivities for the entire week, all the way into New Year’s Day.

But with election day, power and the course of governments hang in the balance. Voters deserve a sense of finality, whether their preferred candidate or cause wins or loses. We have to finish the work in order for the voice of the people to be heard.

Yes, it’s time to end the folly of mass vote-counting long after Election Day. Mississippi most likely allowed the five-day grace period as a holdover from the old days when the Democratic machine dominated the Magnolia State.

Today, the worst offender when it comes to late tallying is my home state of California. Everyone receives a ballot in the mail, whether they want to vote or not. They can drop off their ballot in any number of voting centers across the state. Yes, across the state—a massive contrast to 25 years ago, when you had to vote in the county where you lived, and obtaining a provisional ballot was very difficult. I still remember trying to vote in Election 2000, and the voting both at the UC Irvine campus (in Orange County) told me that I had to find a voting station in Los Angeles County. Those were the days!

Currently, Californians wait over a month before the ballots are tallied for statewide and local elections. It’s outrageous! Election integrity activists monitored the vote count in Orange County, where a number of Congressional seats slipped into Democratic hands as the Election Day(s) turned into weeks. We watched a Northern Los Angeles County seat slip into Democratic control, as well.

These elections need to get wrapped up, and in a timely fashion.

But we should not settle for timely election results alone.

The vote is all about registering the view of a citizen. If it were possible and practical, every voter would have the opportunity to cast their vote in person, declaring their views and values in the election. The ballot exists as a means of transfer and should not be viewed as the end in itself of our election process.

How do we restore confidence in our elections? How do we ensure that those who have the right to vote, who want to vote, get to vote?

  1. Absentee voting must be restricted. Only those physically incapacitated or those removed from the country or jurisdiction should use absentee ballots. Furthermore, if the individual cannot vote in person, they should go to the County Clerk or Registrar of Voters' office, request the ballot in person, and show their ID to prove their identity. For those who cannot visit the registrar, they can provide a proxy to pick up the ballot, including a notarized statement of identity and support.
  2. Early voting should be eliminated. Citizenship should include the virtue of patience. Besides, many weak candidates depend on early voting by making quick pleas and social media campaigns to hype themselves up. Many elections are getting decided by this permanent absentee process, and all too often those same candidates flame out under pressure or during debates. By then, the votes have been cast, and the electorate cannot retract or change their vote.
  3. If we take away early voting, how do we deal with the long lines and the obstacles to a rapid voting process? I have no problem with turning Election Day into a holiday. Let’s make it easier for working people to retain basic compensation, but at least have an opportunity at any time during the day to cast a ballot.
  4. Of course, the SAVE Act reforms should become standard operating procedure for all elections around the country. Citizens must provide documentation that adheres to uniform standards in order to register to vote, i.e., prove their citizenship. They should register in person (not by computer) in order to vote. States should have a basic system in place to remove inactive voters (whether due to death or relocation. Above all, a strict voter ID requirement should be the norm for all elections. Some states have ID, but it does not have to have the citizen’s photo. What is this?! Other states allow citizens to claim that they are who they say they are, then sign an affidavit. We shouldn’t tolerate such flimsy assurances. Also, elected officials who do not comply with the election integrity reforms should face fines or go to jail, and American citizens should have the power to sue government entities that don’t comply with these laws.

Election reforms start with simple rules and clear deadlines: One day for Election Day, a chain of custody, and rigorous safeguards should be the norm.

https://townhall.com/columnists/arthurschaper/2026/03/27/election-day-and-election-reforms-not-week-month-season-n2673520?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&utm_content=ncl-rwcQbt6b9N&utm_term=&_nlid=rwcQbt6b9N&_nhids=ncdGxHGkCPEzls

What a Difference a Day Makes

What a Difference a Day Makes

by Alan Joseph Bauer 

What a Difference a Day Makes
AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein

Especially if that day happened to be January 20, 2025.

I know plenty of people who do not like Donald Trump. They usually throw out words like “narcissist” or “fascist”. When I ask about specific policies like closing the border or collecting tariffs in the tens of billions monthly, they are rarely opposed. They object to a mental image of Donald Trump either created during the president’s more swinging years or from the media that call Donald Trump every name that more correctly applies to the politicians on their team.

In all likelihood, if you read Townhall articles, you are neutral to very positive on the current president. Anyone who loathes Donald Trump and reads the offerings on this site probably also brushes his teeth with sandpaper. Donald Trump has done an enormous amount both at home and abroad in the relatively short period of time that he has been back at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. The experiences of his first term (can you say “Rex Tillerson”) and his years persecuted out of office prepared the president and his people to act quickly and aggressively. Millions of illegal aliens have left the US, Nicolas Maduro is sitting in a NY jail cell and the US is finally taking apart the Iranian regime after nearly fifty years of global terror. Let’s take a look at the upgrade that took place on that cold January day of last year.

  • President

Where does one start? Joe Biden was never there. When he was running in 2020, I kept saying that his wife should be in jail for elder abuse. It was both pathetic and sad to see Joe Biden unable to walk or communicate with complete sentences and intelligible words. The 46th president was a figurehead for the Obama retreads. They injected huge amounts of money into the economy and high inflation made life too expensive for many. Their lack of being feared apparently played a role in both Putin and Sinwar making their moves against Ukraine and Israel, respectively. Biden was ineffective as he was mentally compromised. He would be hard-pressed to name a meaningful accomplishment in his four years in office. The auto-pen was used to give everyone a Stay Out of Jail card on their way out.

Donald Trump is the antithesis of Joe Biden. He is a human dynamo who seems to be working all the time and is in no need of sleep. If Marco Rubio says that he has to hide on Air Force One so that the president doesn’t know he is taking a nap, then that tells you a lot. He answers reporters’ calls and has had many more press conferences than Joe Biden ever could. His cabinet meetings are often open to the press, and he most importantly understands the common man—a rare feat for other billionaires. His policies are geared to make life for average American families affordable, safe, and enjoyable. Crime rates are the lowest ever recorded, and his recent move to get ICE into the TSA-reduced airports has led to faster movement of fliers as well as positive reviews from anyone without blue hair. The president’s economic and foreign policies will seal his place as one of the most consequential presidents in US history.


  • Vice-President

This comparison is almost unfair. While Joe Biden is suffering from the effects of old age, Kamala Harris is clueless and ineffective in her own efforts. She has no signature accomplishment from her four years as vice president that she can hold up and use for an apparent 2028 presidential run. Her word salads give a bad name to RFK Jr.’s efforts to have people eat more leafy vegetables. She could not answer simple questions, and her cackling laughter covered for her complete ignorance on most subjects. She famously used child actors to have a “natural” discussion with students about space. She once ran a meeting in which she introduced herself by her name, pronouns, and what she was wearing. There was nothing serious about Kamala Harris, and her only accomplishment in life has been to ride the DEI wave to the second most important position in the US government. Just as Prince once said of U2’s Bono that if he had had the latter’s voice, he would have been a janitor, Kamala not making her way through California politics as she did would have made her an outstanding candidate for the French fry station at an Oakland McDonald’s.

JD Vance is the antithesis of Kamala the Clueless. A former Marine and Yale Law graduate, he is included in most major Oval Office meetings. He has recently been put in charge of fighting fraud, which apparently is annually in the hundreds of billions of dollars or higher. I wish he would break from Tucker Carlson, as it’s hard for me to see a solid MAGA candidate hanging around with a shameless Jew hater, but in terms of intellect and ability, JD Vance is miles ahead of his predecessor.

  • Secretary of State

The only thing that Tony Blinken might have going for him is that he plays guitar. He was ineffectual and lacking in gravitas in dealing with America’s friends and enemies. He was the driving force for the 51 Lying Intelligence Officials, as he initiated the letter to get Slow Joe past Donald Trump and the radioactive Hunter laptop. He was a non-factor in world affairs and he still bought into the UN as a force for good. I hope he plays guitar better than he does diplomacy.

Marco Rubio might be the most successful cabinet member in the Trump White House. He is on top of the issues and is a driver for policy and action, like revoking 800 student visas for the Intifada Revolution crowd. His Cuban background and fluency in Spanish are major pluses with the US reapplying the Monroe Doctrine in the Western Hemisphere. A recent poll by Donald Trump of Republican donors had Rubio as the man they want to see run in 2028.

  • Secretary of War

In all fairness, Lloyd Austin was Secretary of Defense, while Pete Hegseth is the present Secretary of War. Austin was a former defense contractor executive. When he wore a mask and plastic cover during COVID-19, he looked like Darth Vader’s nephew, Billy. Under his watch, the US did not win any wars or battles. DEI and Drag Queen Story Hour on major bases became more important than actual military readiness. Ships slammed into each other and longtime bases were renamed so as not to offend the sensibilities of people long dead. The department did everything except make and win wars. Christians were hounded, Covid vaccine refusers were thrown out, and recruitment goals were not met.

Enter Pete Hegseth. Though he barely got through the Senate, he has been a dynamo in his position. Recruitment numbers are through the roof, and professionalism and lethality are back. Admiral Brad Cooper always reminds those currently fighting Iran to remain lethal—and he gets that from the top. Hegseth has moved forward by reaching back to America’s martial successes and history. No more DEI or gay/trans considerations. He works out with the troops and shows them the respect that they deserve from all American citizens. His office has shown professionalism in the Maduro raid and the current Epic Fury operation. Maduro and the mullahs thought that Biden and Austin were still around and then they got a dose of Trump and Hegseth. Kinetic action is his way of running the Pentagon.

One could write about additional members of the Trump team like Bobby Kennedy, Jr., Scott Bessent and Chris Wright. Donald Trump chooses strong lieutenants and then sets them free to run their shows. Most succeed and we benefit. And then there is Tom Homan….

https://townhall.com/columnists/alanjosephbauer/2026/03/27/what-a-difference-a-day-makes-n2673495?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&utm_content=ncl-Ndgcv82gSR&utm_term=&_nlid=Ndgcv82gSR&_nhids=ncdGxHGkCPEzls

What’s Fueling the Democrats’ Trump Derangement and Nihilism?

What’s Fueling the Democrats’ Trump Derangement and Nihilism?

AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein, File

“We are going to fight back and we’re going to punch this bully in the mouth.”

This example of unhinged hostility toward President Donald Trump came not from some random online troll in a comment section, but from the governor of California — the online troll who is the frontrunner for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination.

Victor Davis Hanson cites this example of Trump Derangement Syndrome in a recent video for The Daily Signal on the subject of Democrat nihilism. "He’s completely flipped out,” Hanson says of Newsom.

Consider any red-state governor who ran for president in the last decade — Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Ron DeSantis. Can you imagine any of them saying this about Barack Obama or Joe Biden, or vulgarly telling Europeans they “had kneepads as if they were performing some… foul sex act” on a current president, to use another example Hanson gives of Newsom’s TDS?

Successful policies are one of the reasons red-state governors don’t have to resort to this type of rhetoric. Hanson explains the failures of blue-state governors that have led to a mass exodus of residents from blue to red states:

Their paradigm of high taxes, fraudulent entitlements, lax on crime, overregulation leads to … unsafe streets, poor schools, people who feel they can’t stay in the middle class because they’re taxed too high, they can’t afford a home. I’m talking about places that particularly like Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, and California, and people are leaving, and the Democrats are doing what? They’re appealing to a shrinking constituency in local and state politics that has no national resonancy. It doesn’t resonate with the national population. So if you can’t win an election because your agenda either doesn’t exist, but more likely, if it did exist would offend people as a 70/30 issue — they being on the 30% — you go hysterical, you go nihilistic. You do what the Democrats are doing today.

VDH mentions Illinois, whose governor, JB Pritzker, is also — amazingly — considered a frontrunner for the presidential nomination and, as our own Stephen Kruiser has pointed out, like Newsom is “trying to position himself as one of the tough guys in the Democrats' sad 'Resist' tantrum.” Pritzker's rhetoric, like the following words he said at a 2025 press conference, has been as belligerent as Newsom's: "These Republicans cannot know a moment of peace. They have to understand that we will fight their cruelty with every megaphone and microphone that we have! We must castigate them on the soapbox, and then punish them at the ballot box."

     Related: Fat, Drunk, and Governor of Illinois Is No Way to Go Through Life, Son

It’s not just the middle class that is fleeing blue states like California and Illinois; it’s also the wealthy class. PJ Media has reported on the billionaires who are leaving California to join the exodus to red states because of a 2026 ballot initiative that would impose a 5% tax on the state's billionaires.

Ironically, pandering to billionaires is one of the things that led to so many of the Dems' problems. Globalization enriched people along the blue coasts because it rewarded those with the necessary skills in such industries as media, finance, insurance, and law with access to a "7 billion–person market." Hanson explains the dire consequences:

And they made an amount of money that was staggering. And that gave the Democratic Party the billionaire class. Go into the Fortune 400, look at two things: the size of the fortune and the political leanings of the billionaires. They were mostly left-wing, and that enriched the coffers of the Democratic Party through foundations and PACs, and gave them these boutique issues from green energy to transsexuality that they pushed down our throats — all fueled by money, all without popular support.

Open borders have had just as deleterious an effect on the Democratic Party as globalization. There are now 53 million foreign residents in the U.S., 16% of the population. Many are from poor, autocratic societies and require large amounts of federal and state subsidies, Hanson notes. Appealing to them results in more bad ideas being pushed down our throats, like anti-Israel rhetoric. Hanson says: “We see it with questions of Israel, The new DEI constituency does not like Israel. It’s radically changed the Democratic Party. We see it with visiting students. We see it with green card holders.”

That’s why politicians like Newsom will lie and say genocide is being committed by Israel in Gaza but will say nothing when the Iranian regime slaughters tens of thousands of its citizens in the streets.

     Related: The Fraud Newsom Doesn’t Want You to Know About

As with many mental illnesses, sometimes we can't even be sure of what leads to TDS — Hanson wonders if it's Trump's "Queen’s accent, his appearance, his utter disdain for the media, the academic world, the deep state, the corporate boardroom." Whatever causes it, there's no denying how insane it makes its sufferers look, whether it’s Cory Booker screaming at airports even as travelers are happy that ICE agents are filling in for unpaid TSA agents, senators appearing at "No Kings" rallies alongside clueless protestors, or female members of Congress kickboxing in the name of "resistance" in a TikTok video. 

It makes a Republican long for the sanity of the ... Bill Clinton years. At least Clinton could say, "I believe that together we can make American great again.”

Hanson concludes: "The Democratic Party such at is in the last ten years, at least from the advent of Barack Obama, bears no resemblance to what we saw as lately as the 1990s with the 1992 and 1996 Democratic platforms. They seem like Republican platforms.”

Monday, March 30, 2026

Sen. Kennedy Exposes Schumer's New, Last-Minute Bad Move on Potential DHS Deal

Sen. Kennedy Exposes Schumer's New, Last-Minute Bad Move on Potential DHS Deal

AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson

Enough. 

Democrats lost in 2024, and one of the main things people voted for was deporting illegal aliens. ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is charged with arresting people by way of getting that done—not because President Donald Trump pulled that idea out of the sky, but because they are authorized to do so under our law. 

Instead of being supportive of Americans who are doing their law enforcement job for us, the Democrats have smeared and demonized the entire agency. It's this demonization that has led to violence against those brave federal agents. But the Democrats not only want to smear them, but they want to incapacitate them from doing their job.

As White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, the Democrats "cared more about illegal aliens" than Americans. 

This needs to end, in the best interests of the defense of the country, especially when we're in a battle with Iran. 


READ MORE: TDS Is More Than a Distraction While We're Battling With Iran - It’s a Threat

Dems Reveal Who They Really Care About in DHS Fight - This Should Run on a Loop for the Midterms


Apparently, the Republicans thought they had a deal in the offing with the Democrats. The idea was that Democrats would agree to fund everything except ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), which Republicans would then try to push through with reconciliation, without the reforms that Democrats want on things like warrants and masks. 

That's potentially problematic to try to get that through reconciliation.

But then, after apparently having that deal on the table, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) backed off on it, according to Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA). 

"Schumer has changed his mind...we’re back to square one," Kennedy explained during an interview on CNN. 

So if there had been a Democratic offer on the table, it doesn't appear to be there anymore, at least as previously proposed. Democrats moved the goal posts, thinking they could get more. 

They don't care about how dangerous what they are doing is. Schumer's priorities are illegal aliens, and trying to look tough to the left to fend off being primaried in his next election. 

Republicans have to solve this; they can't cave to these characters. The Democrats are not negotiating in good faith. The Republicans have to stop the Left's ridiculous ability to have constant shutdowns, holding the American people and their safety hostage.

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2026/03/25/sen-kennedy-excoriates-schumer-for-latest-move-on-a-potential-dhs-deal-n2200619?utm_source=rsmorningbriefingvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

The Economists Who Got It Right

The Economists Who Got It Right

The Economists Who Got It Right
AP Photo/Matt Rourke

Politicians say they can "make the economy work better."

I once believed they could.

But years of reporting taught me that politicians' attempts to "fix" the economy usually make things worse.

Twenty years ago, Republicans and Democrats helped create the Great Recession by telling government-backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy more peoples' mortgages because, as President George W. Bush put it, "Owning a home is a part of (the American) dream."

But that guarantee inspired lenders to approve dubious mortgages, given to riskier borrowers.

Housing prices shot up in a government-created bubble. When many people stopped making mortgage payments and the housing bubble burst, we got the Great Recession.

It's just one example of what Austrian economists Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises wrote about years ago.

In "The Fatal Conceit," Hayek writes, "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."

Mises' "Human Action" points out that all economics start with individuals making purposeful choices. That "human action" determines prices, and markets coordinate the most efficient use of resources.

But the media believed the socialists. The New Republic wrote: "the major task of our civilization is ... to organize our great economic organs."

On the contrary, wrote Hayek: "To follow socialist morality would destroy much of present humankind and impoverish much of the rest."

He was right. Every socialist government, everywhere, has failed. They fail because no political leader can ever know as much as millions of individuals doing our own thing.

"That's the idea that Mises' introduced to the world," says Ryan McMaken of the Mises Institute. "Central planning doesn't work because everybody has different ideas for themselves, wants to do different things with their property. If you take away their ability to do what they want, it eventually causes great impoverishment."

I assumed belief in socialism would die when the Soviet Union did -- but bizarrely, it hasn't. Recently, young people helped elect socialist mayors in Seattle and New York City.

They promise rent control and government-run grocery stores.

"We don't have to look any further than Mises to find an excellent explanation of why that doesn't work," says McMaken in my new video.

Unfortunately, Mises and Hayek were never as popular as economists pushing central planning and government spending.

"There's a big advantage that the people who are in favor of inflation and more government regulation have. Everyone in government wants that same thing," says McMaken. "'Like to spend? Like to regulate the economy? Boy, have we got an economic theory for you.' (That) of course became instantly popular with people in government."

And popular with the public.

"Because the public wants government to spend on them as well!" says McMaken. "Here was an economic theory telling them the government can give you boatloads of welfare nonstop forever and there's no downside. ... The reality is that there is a downside: recessions, unemployment, inflation and falling real wages."

We got that in the 1970s, after years of spending on President Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society" programs. In total, American taxpayers have spent $30 trillion in the name of reducing poverty. Politicians said government agencies would spend the money efficiently.

They rarely did, and the deficit spending contributed to 15% inflation.

"People then saw, 'Everything we've been told for the last 30 years about managing the economy isn't really true,'" says McMaken. "When you start to inflate the money supply, it sows the seeds for a future economic collapse. That is the cause of everything we've seen over the last century. It is Mises' work that explains why the Great Depression happened ... We have to study the economic side of things because if we don't ... we can't see the ways that the state is ripping us off."

Hayek and Mises were right. The socialist planners are wrong.

Books like "The Fatal Conceit", "The Road to Serfdom" and "Human Action," although I couldn't get through all of it, are well worth reading today.

https://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2026/03/25/the-economists-who-got-it-right-n2673381?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&utm_content=ncl-jJpeDD2mbb&utm_term=&_nlid=jJpeDD2mbb&_nhids=ncGAXFxjtjebls

Too Little, Too Late? NY Times Now Worried About 'Out of Touch' Democrats.

Too Little, Too Late? NY Times Now Worried About 'Out of Touch' Democrats.

AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

Moments of clarity are not often found anywhere in the pages of The New York Times. There are days when it feels as if even the "Cooking" section has been politicized. As regular readers of mine are aware, I begin my perusal of the media each work day by reading the Opinion sections of both the Times and The Washington Post. Those have always been hotbeds of egregious leftist bias, but have turned into veritable minefields of Trump Derangement Syndrome crazy in the past year. With one or two exceptions (Jim Geraghty writes for WaPo, for example), the Opinion writers at both organizations are not watching the same presidency that you and I are watching. 

Imagine my surprise on Tuesday morning when I came across a Times Op-Ed titled, "Why Are So Many Democratic Politicians So Far Out of Touch?" An even bigger shock was that it was written by Thomas B. Edsall, a wordy, biased leftist apologist of the first order. In late 2023 or early 2024, I briefly wrote a recurring column called the "Trump Derangement Syndrome Meltdown of the Week." Edsall was the subject of the very first one of those and made a couple more appearances later. 

My money would never have been on Edsall to wonder aloud if the Dems have gotten a little too out there. I'll just focus on two paragraphs from Edsall's article

Why don’t more Democrats explicitly moderate their stands on transgender rights, immigration and other issues? Those who maintain far-out positions are well to the left of the electorate and its emblematic median voter. The trans issue clearly weakened Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign, leaving her open to devastating pro-Trump ads.

In the case of one of the most disputed rights claimed by some parts of the transgender activist community — transgender women’s participation on women’s sports teams — Democrats have clear liberal grounds to challenge that claim, by asserting that they are protecting a woman’s right from unfair competition.

The question that kicks off the first paragraph is easy to answer. Democrats have been elevating and idolizing their bluest blue state politicians for several years now: New York's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, California's Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom, Minnesota's Tim Walz, and JB Pritzker from Illinois. These people are all products of states and political machines that long ago plunged off of the radical far-left cliff. They are completely unaware that they are "well to the left of the electorate" and would think that the "emblematic median voter" was a visitor from another planet. 

Edsall fails to note the role that the news organization he writes for has played in this unyielding radical shift by prominent Democrats. The New York Times has probably done more to normalize the Democrats' far-left fringe than any other organization in media. The above-mention politicians use up all of the media oxygen in any room that they're in, especially AOC.

The second paragraph brings up a point I've been writing about for a while, which is that allowing biological males to compete in women's sports is a complete abandonment of young women who the Democrats claim to want to empower. Instead of, as Edsall mentions, trying to protect female athletes' rights, the Dems have gone all-in on kowtowing to a group that's a fringe of a fringe. 

Relevant: After Not Shutting Up for 50 Years, Feminists Go Mute About Trans 'Females' in Women's Sports

The way the Democrats are manifesting their opposition to everything that the agents of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) do isn't moving the party any closer to the center. They could be making policy suggestions and engaging in some principled opposition but they're out there telling people that ICE agents are going to murder them in airports. 

Near the end of the article, Edsall mentions the fundraising power of many of the progressives, which is demonstrably true. However, that money isn't buying them victories quite like they'd like it to, as we have seen in recent weeks.

The rise of the noisy progressives in the Democratic Party has pulled the old guard establishment types more to the left than they're admitting to themselves. They're so far out there that they couldn't find the political center with GPS and a team of Sherpa guides. 

If anyone at the Democratic National Committee begins to worry about the problems associated with the ultra-progressive positions, Gavin Newsom will almost certainly be the first one thrown under the bus. The point that many of us on the right have been making about Newsom is that California's brand of leftism isn't always appealing outside of California. California is also an ideological bubble, which is why Newsom still thinks he's killing it out there. Even if he wanted to give a head-fake to 2028 primary voters and try to run as a more moderate candidate, he wouldn't be able to because he's been in a far-left echo chamber for too long. He hasn't the slightest clue what a moderate looks or sounds like. 

Even if some Democratic candidates soften their positions on trans issues, I can't see them moderating any views on immigration after a year of demonizing ICE. They got way out over their skis when they committed to that route and, as I just wrote in Tuesday's Morning Briefing, I think it's a vulnerability for them going into the midterms. 

https://pjmedia.com/stephen-kruiser/2026/03/24/too-little-too-late-ny-times-now-worried-about-out-of-touch-democrats-n4951018?utm_source=rsmorningbriefingvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl