I'm agnostic on the question of whether democracy is truly imperiled at the moment, but I've read that the way to beat back authoritarian movements is to very much treat them like you would any political movement -- hit them where they're weak while campaigning on what makes you popular, instead of investing them with the dark glamour of being a World-Historical Evil (which somehow attracts people who are desperate to feel strong).
I.e., whether or not politics is "normal," you have to keep calm and act like it is.
Which is very much an argument against doing any favors for "normal" Republicans.
I think this is basically right. However, if Democrats are willing to roll the dice on getting Trumpists elected I don't think they also get to act like Trump is an existential threat to the Republic.
I disagree on house races. First, all the Dems did was label the likely candidate as too extreme for the district. Second, as long as Meijer was a vote for McCarthy as Speaker he’s not different enough from the wackos to matter, so politics dictates you should prefer the weaker candidate.
If regular political strategies are applicable then Trump isn't an existential threat. If he was, then Meijer would have been the better bet because the Democrats would be minimizing harm if he had won.
The idea is that is a Republican who would use his powers as speaker to minimize the Trumpist faction would be potentially tolerable, but Kevin McCarthy is not that person, and therefore a reliable vote for McCarthy's positions is complicit in his behavior. Liz Chaney as speaker was never an option
Well said Josh. Prior to the 2016 election, I think establishment republicans thought they'd pay an electoral price for Trump. Instead, they were surprised to benefit from him electorally and to add to their advantages in the courts. It's possible that the bill is coming due a little later than expected, but now they can't influence the party enough to pick more electable candidates, and the Trump faction claims they're the only one who knows how to win. The consequences may be that they're stuck with the baggage of Trump stupidity without the benefits of upset wins. Hopefully Democrats can show they deserve power and press their advantage over a few election cycles. May be wishful thinking but we'll see.
I fully agree with this. I think the problem the establishment republicans are running into NOW is that they have already had multiple off-ramps to depart the Trump Train, and have consistently refused to take them.
Set aside everything Trump did as president. If they really wanted to get Trump gone they should have gone through with the impeachment hearing, whether or not the specific articles the democrats wrote made any sense (impeachment is political anyway). Missing that, they could have put full force behind the January 6th commission, instead of leaving Cheney stranded. They could be supporting a different 2024 candidate than DeSantis, who (despite being a far superior candidate) is 100% supportive of Trump.
The problem is they were never willing to sacrifice anything to get rid of Trump. Yeah it would have been painful to abolish the guy from the party, but it was doable. They just weren’t willing to put anything on the line to make it happen.
Conservatives are correct to point out Democrats' hypocrisy, and it's wrong for Dems to roll the dice supporting many of these wacky Trump-endorsed candidates. It's stupid and dangerous. However, conservatives pouncing on Garland is absurd, and if this means Ron doesn't get the 2024 nomination, tough. Republicans are going to have to deal with the Trump problem until it is officially over, and that might last one more election cycle.
I don't think the "ask" is "help our party get rid of the monster we've created; the ask is "don't prop up candidates you claim are a threat to democracy."
Democrats are of course free to decline this request; the rest of us are then free to draw conclusions about how deep their commitment to democracy is.
But, hey, it's good to know that if the Democrats put up a candidate I don't like or have disagreements with against Trump, I do not have a patriotic duty to suck it up and vote for him/her anyway in order to save Democracy. That's the Democratic Party's problem, and they need to figure out how to put up more appealing candidates if they want to win elections. Why should I reward them for nominating a candidate I don't like?
Yep is all I can say to this - republicans get your right wing under control or I vote democrat - the democrats are putting their whack jobs to flight as far as I can tell living here in CA better than you are at this point
You're definitely not wrong here. To be fair to National Review, they have generally always opposed Trump, but it's very fair to point out their clear lack of influence.
I do wish Trump would be gone forever, but Republicans can't seem to stop him. They could, but it would require political sacrifice that most are unwilling to take.
Also, DeSantis is awful - all of Trump’s awful personal qualities, but smarter. And if you think that his policies are bad, “more intelligently implementing terrible policy and punishing enemies” is not actually a point in his favor!
In a 2-person vote between DeSantis and Trump, I’m taking Trump because at least his selfish and arbitrary style might occasionally lead him to do something correct out of self interest or by random chance.
This is one perspective I disagree with. Since elections are primarily decided by fundamentals, I always want the other party to nominate their best person.
The tail risks of Trump are so bad, such as inadvertently starting a nuclear war, I'll take DeSantis as their nominee.
And I will vote against DeSantis as I do all Republicans for non ultra-local level politics.
DeSantis is not awful. I'd gladly vote for him in an election and I think he'd wipe the floor with Biden in the general. Sadly, Trump will probably win the primary.
I mean it depends on your policy preferences! My opinion is he shares enough of Trump’s bad personal qualities, some cowardice (in the sense that he doesn’t ever publicly push back against Trumpism or similar bad right wing cultural tendencies), and his intelligence might not be a good thing if he uses it to push policy that I think is bad. But obviously if you agree with the policy objectives, he is less bad.
Main liberal pro-DeSantis argument is he might just be cynically embracing the worst ideas and people on the right, sort of like Romney 2012 (bad campaign, probably would have been decent president). But I think it’s a legit question which is worse between DeSantis and Trump, even for a relatively moderate/neoliberal Democrat
Florida has been an unequivocal success under his reign. You can argue that it was just continuation of secular trends, but he didn't do anything to mess it up.
Also:
His leadership during COVID was more sensible than most Dems.
Stood up to pro-crime DAs
Dismantling the "credential" state by allowing folks to teach without degrees (DeSantis “signed a law allowing state agencies to substitute work experience, including military experience, for college degrees in hiring.” )
If you're of the mind that the cultural phenomenon of "wokeness" has gone too far (as I am), he's a breath of fresh air as one of the few openly opposing it.
But for me, it's more simple than that. Democrats are pro-crime, anti-merit and pro-affirmative action. Those things are enough for me to oppose them out of pure principle.
And as a reponse to "But Biden is a moderate!"... I saw a great quote on Twitter a few months ago. No matter who you vote for, you will get a government of 5,000 Elizabeth Warrens. The median ideology of a Dem bureacrat is Elizabeth Warren - no matter who the President is.
In what way is Florida an "unequivocal success?" I ask as a Florida resident because it's not apparent to me in any statistics and the examples you cite are really just policy preferences
I mean it’s fine if you like DeSantis! I just don’t understand why the conservative movement feels like it needs to make Democrats support DeSantis too. There are a lot of good reasons someone could oppose Trump but think DeSantis is as bad or worse. Just as there are a lot of good reasons someone could want a GOP president in 2024.
As a moderate republican, neither really excites me, but Trump scares me. Not because of his intelligence, but because of is utter lack of respect for the law and norms. He latches on to any theory that can justiify his actions and then pushed that theory well passed what it's sell by date. DeSantis can be infuriating in his stoking of culture war issues, but he's not going to set a crowd against the capital because he doesn't want to admit he lost an election.
For me the issue isn't that the Democrats are supporting weak Republican candidates, it's that they are pushing candidates that would not be good for the country to be elected. Even in the minority, they get a lot of air play. I'm totally fine with them going after Trump for the illegal things he's done. I think the Jan 6 committee is good for the country long term.
My hope for the Republican party is that it actually suffers election losses in November and that can be the fuel to finally make Trump irrelevant, and I can return to my normal complaint of not having enough Moderate Repulicans or Moderate Democrats to vote for;).
That’s a decent pro-DeSantis argument honestly, as someone who’s not really a conservative and would hate his presidency as much as you (or me) would hate a Warren presidency. The lack of respect for norms might be Trump’s most uniquely dangerous trait
As an aside, my hope is for Democrats to keep the senate for now (with Joe Manchin as the deciding vote, to annoy all the worst people), win the presidency in 2024 but lose the house for awhile. They passed a surprisingly good climate change law which is important to me, but I’m not sure they have any good laws left in them that I actually would want passed. Just keeping the current GOP out of the White House is the only useful thing they have left in them. And a couple more liberal Supreme Court seats would help the legitimacy of that institution (also, Roberts again being the deciding vote would annoy all the worst people too)
I don’t disagree with you but I really just don’t know what Desantis’ policies are. All I can tell is that when it was convenient, he was very much a Paul Ryan Republican; totally unclear to me if those are sincerely held beliefs.
IMHO the left is going to portray DeSantis as “worse than Trump” for this very reason - to deceive lo-info dem voters that there’s no difference. Because we have to have primaries De Santis is going to get people like Alex jones’ vote for the lo-info right - my question is what happens once he gets nominated? It’s a tough situation for a centrist because no matter what they look bad
I think Republicans will eventually get past Trump. I don’t think Democrats will ever get past having more sympathy for drug addicts and criminals than tax paying families. Anyone who lives in a blue urban core can attest to that. I’ve been assaulted 2x outside my apartment in the past 3 months. I’ve seen homeless having drug induced breakdowns hurl profanities at a family taking their toddler to the local playground. The authorities do absolutely nothing.
I agree that Republicans are horrifically corrupt, but I can’t morally justify backing a pro-crime political party.
FWIW I raised my concerns at a local city meeting and was told that since people can do drugs in the privacy of their home, homeless should be able to do so in public. Otherwise I’m “criminalizing poverty”.
I can fight to make the Republican Party a better political outfit. These people, on the other hand, live in a separate reality than me.
You’re optimistic to think that Trumpist Republicans are not living in a separate reality from you.
I live in the red part of a blue state. I’ve tried to take to heart Josh’s advice that people who care should be part of a party because being an independent robs you of influence. And even with pretty radical political views I am part of the temperamental center. I’m still unsure of whether that means I should try and join the Republicans and try and push them away from madness or the Democratic Party and try and push them away from madness.
Sure but I don’t think their impact is as strong as pro-crime Democrats. Trump and Trumpists will get opposed by the media and bureaucracies every step of the way. Pro-crime Democrats have wiped 20 years of urban progress in a matter of years. I swore I would never ever live in a suburb, but this year I’ve genuinely felt unsafe leaving my apartment (in one of the highest cost neighborhoods in one of the highest cost cities in the world). Seeing a homeless meth addict yell profanities at a family taking their child to a playground really changed something inside me. I just don’t share any values with anyone who would take the side of the drug addict. Government exists to serve people who contribute to society, not to make sure those that refuse to contribute aren’t inconvenienced even the slightest.
If you live in an urban area, you will have zero influence trying to be outside of the Democratic Party. Orthodox Jews in New York know to be part of the Democratic Party even though they’re super conservative.
This is true, but I get how he or she feels. In an urban area these days it is easy to feel like battling the left of the party is impossible (although in both NYC and SF lately we see it might not be). I think the local Dems also are why I don't buy that the Dems are so much more moderate. That, and the fact that the bureaucracy and staffer class aren't moderate either. I so desperately want the Rs to nominate sensible competitive candidates who can push the Ds to the middle (and get past Trump and the understandable reaction he causes, where any discussion of issues is met with "democracy is at stake!").
I think this is largely correct except a part of Democrats' message to some of the Biden voting Republican and Independents is about the horribleness of January 6th and Republicans abandoning all concerns with the fundamental precondition of democracy. I don't know if Democrats are served well by propping up some of these ass clowns (at least the absurd ones like John Gibbs and Mastriano who genuinely seem like they want to overturn democracy and, at least in the case of Mastriano, would have considerable power to do so should they win)
I mean, you're not wrong about whose fault this problem is, but I still can't help but be totally annoyed that DCCC dollars were going toward getting rid of one of the very few House Republicans who voted to impeach. Holding that vote in particular against Meijer is just obnoxious, even if strategically understandable. I think the DCCC could stand to be a little less shortsighted and not maximally ratfucker-y in those few races, particularly when the GOP electorate is more than capable of choosing bad candidates without your help anyways.
The rejoinder to this, though, is that if Democrats are right that the timeline we're living in is one where Trump's return to power would mean the annihilation of the republic, future historians reading this post might write something like:
"Could Trump's second putsch have been stopped? Almost certainly yes. It was well understood on both sides in 2022 how to deliver the kill-shot to the cult of Trump once and for all. The Democrats needed simply to ignore Trump, enabling a new set of GOP leaders to plow past him without open repudiation and paving the way for a likely non-Trump Republican win in 2024. Yet at the critical moment the Democrats engaged instead in petty scorekeeping, insisting that 'normie' Republicans had made the mess to begin with and it wasn't Democrats' 'job' to clean it up.
"Evidently, saving democracy wasn't quite so compelling an end as to be worth a DeSantis presidency. The Democrats in 1876 were willing to make that strategic calculus when it was ending Reconstruction that was at stake. Their successors in 2022 were too consumed with punishing Republican misdeeds to accept the same trade when it came to ending the reign of Donald J. Trump."
This is excellent.
I'm agnostic on the question of whether democracy is truly imperiled at the moment, but I've read that the way to beat back authoritarian movements is to very much treat them like you would any political movement -- hit them where they're weak while campaigning on what makes you popular, instead of investing them with the dark glamour of being a World-Historical Evil (which somehow attracts people who are desperate to feel strong).
I.e., whether or not politics is "normal," you have to keep calm and act like it is.
Which is very much an argument against doing any favors for "normal" Republicans.
Great points Elizabeth, I agree 100%.
That was a deliciously cathartic read. Thank you
I think this is basically right. However, if Democrats are willing to roll the dice on getting Trumpists elected I don't think they also get to act like Trump is an existential threat to the Republic.
I disagree on house races. First, all the Dems did was label the likely candidate as too extreme for the district. Second, as long as Meijer was a vote for McCarthy as Speaker he’s not different enough from the wackos to matter, so politics dictates you should prefer the weaker candidate.
If regular political strategies are applicable then Trump isn't an existential threat. If he was, then Meijer would have been the better bet because the Democrats would be minimizing harm if he had won.
The idea is that is a Republican who would use his powers as speaker to minimize the Trumpist faction would be potentially tolerable, but Kevin McCarthy is not that person, and therefore a reliable vote for McCarthy's positions is complicit in his behavior. Liz Chaney as speaker was never an option
Power, power, power .....
I believe this is about getting a democrat elected, not minimizing any threats.
Well said Josh. Prior to the 2016 election, I think establishment republicans thought they'd pay an electoral price for Trump. Instead, they were surprised to benefit from him electorally and to add to their advantages in the courts. It's possible that the bill is coming due a little later than expected, but now they can't influence the party enough to pick more electable candidates, and the Trump faction claims they're the only one who knows how to win. The consequences may be that they're stuck with the baggage of Trump stupidity without the benefits of upset wins. Hopefully Democrats can show they deserve power and press their advantage over a few election cycles. May be wishful thinking but we'll see.
I fully agree with this. I think the problem the establishment republicans are running into NOW is that they have already had multiple off-ramps to depart the Trump Train, and have consistently refused to take them.
Set aside everything Trump did as president. If they really wanted to get Trump gone they should have gone through with the impeachment hearing, whether or not the specific articles the democrats wrote made any sense (impeachment is political anyway). Missing that, they could have put full force behind the January 6th commission, instead of leaving Cheney stranded. They could be supporting a different 2024 candidate than DeSantis, who (despite being a far superior candidate) is 100% supportive of Trump.
The problem is they were never willing to sacrifice anything to get rid of Trump. Yeah it would have been painful to abolish the guy from the party, but it was doable. They just weren’t willing to put anything on the line to make it happen.
Is my party so out of touch?
No, it's the Democrats who are wrong
Conservatives are correct to point out Democrats' hypocrisy, and it's wrong for Dems to roll the dice supporting many of these wacky Trump-endorsed candidates. It's stupid and dangerous. However, conservatives pouncing on Garland is absurd, and if this means Ron doesn't get the 2024 nomination, tough. Republicans are going to have to deal with the Trump problem until it is officially over, and that might last one more election cycle.
I don't think the "ask" is "help our party get rid of the monster we've created; the ask is "don't prop up candidates you claim are a threat to democracy."
Democrats are of course free to decline this request; the rest of us are then free to draw conclusions about how deep their commitment to democracy is.
But, hey, it's good to know that if the Democrats put up a candidate I don't like or have disagreements with against Trump, I do not have a patriotic duty to suck it up and vote for him/her anyway in order to save Democracy. That's the Democratic Party's problem, and they need to figure out how to put up more appealing candidates if they want to win elections. Why should I reward them for nominating a candidate I don't like?
Yep is all I can say to this - republicans get your right wing under control or I vote democrat - the democrats are putting their whack jobs to flight as far as I can tell living here in CA better than you are at this point
You're definitely not wrong here. To be fair to National Review, they have generally always opposed Trump, but it's very fair to point out their clear lack of influence.
I do wish Trump would be gone forever, but Republicans can't seem to stop him. They could, but it would require political sacrifice that most are unwilling to take.
The GOP’s take on this just seems like another version of the extremely stupid, “you should have elected Mitt Romney to prevent Trump” from 2016-7
Also, DeSantis is awful - all of Trump’s awful personal qualities, but smarter. And if you think that his policies are bad, “more intelligently implementing terrible policy and punishing enemies” is not actually a point in his favor!
In a 2-person vote between DeSantis and Trump, I’m taking Trump because at least his selfish and arbitrary style might occasionally lead him to do something correct out of self interest or by random chance.
This is one perspective I disagree with. Since elections are primarily decided by fundamentals, I always want the other party to nominate their best person.
The tail risks of Trump are so bad, such as inadvertently starting a nuclear war, I'll take DeSantis as their nominee.
And I will vote against DeSantis as I do all Republicans for non ultra-local level politics.
I agree with you. Trump brings out the worst in everyone, and I'd rather have him gone no matter what.
DeSantis is not awful. I'd gladly vote for him in an election and I think he'd wipe the floor with Biden in the general. Sadly, Trump will probably win the primary.
I mean it depends on your policy preferences! My opinion is he shares enough of Trump’s bad personal qualities, some cowardice (in the sense that he doesn’t ever publicly push back against Trumpism or similar bad right wing cultural tendencies), and his intelligence might not be a good thing if he uses it to push policy that I think is bad. But obviously if you agree with the policy objectives, he is less bad.
Main liberal pro-DeSantis argument is he might just be cynically embracing the worst ideas and people on the right, sort of like Romney 2012 (bad campaign, probably would have been decent president). But I think it’s a legit question which is worse between DeSantis and Trump, even for a relatively moderate/neoliberal Democrat
I don't mind DeSantis.
Florida has been an unequivocal success under his reign. You can argue that it was just continuation of secular trends, but he didn't do anything to mess it up.
Also:
His leadership during COVID was more sensible than most Dems.
Stood up to pro-crime DAs
Dismantling the "credential" state by allowing folks to teach without degrees (DeSantis “signed a law allowing state agencies to substitute work experience, including military experience, for college degrees in hiring.” )
If you're of the mind that the cultural phenomenon of "wokeness" has gone too far (as I am), he's a breath of fresh air as one of the few openly opposing it.
But for me, it's more simple than that. Democrats are pro-crime, anti-merit and pro-affirmative action. Those things are enough for me to oppose them out of pure principle.
And as a reponse to "But Biden is a moderate!"... I saw a great quote on Twitter a few months ago. No matter who you vote for, you will get a government of 5,000 Elizabeth Warrens. The median ideology of a Dem bureacrat is Elizabeth Warren - no matter who the President is.
In what way is Florida an "unequivocal success?" I ask as a Florida resident because it's not apparent to me in any statistics and the examples you cite are really just policy preferences
Massive domestic migration.
I also forgot home starts per capita as a success of DeSantis - Florida has actually been building a ton during his term.
I mean it’s fine if you like DeSantis! I just don’t understand why the conservative movement feels like it needs to make Democrats support DeSantis too. There are a lot of good reasons someone could oppose Trump but think DeSantis is as bad or worse. Just as there are a lot of good reasons someone could want a GOP president in 2024.
As a moderate republican, neither really excites me, but Trump scares me. Not because of his intelligence, but because of is utter lack of respect for the law and norms. He latches on to any theory that can justiify his actions and then pushed that theory well passed what it's sell by date. DeSantis can be infuriating in his stoking of culture war issues, but he's not going to set a crowd against the capital because he doesn't want to admit he lost an election.
For me the issue isn't that the Democrats are supporting weak Republican candidates, it's that they are pushing candidates that would not be good for the country to be elected. Even in the minority, they get a lot of air play. I'm totally fine with them going after Trump for the illegal things he's done. I think the Jan 6 committee is good for the country long term.
My hope for the Republican party is that it actually suffers election losses in November and that can be the fuel to finally make Trump irrelevant, and I can return to my normal complaint of not having enough Moderate Repulicans or Moderate Democrats to vote for;).
Bob
That’s a decent pro-DeSantis argument honestly, as someone who’s not really a conservative and would hate his presidency as much as you (or me) would hate a Warren presidency. The lack of respect for norms might be Trump’s most uniquely dangerous trait
As an aside, my hope is for Democrats to keep the senate for now (with Joe Manchin as the deciding vote, to annoy all the worst people), win the presidency in 2024 but lose the house for awhile. They passed a surprisingly good climate change law which is important to me, but I’m not sure they have any good laws left in them that I actually would want passed. Just keeping the current GOP out of the White House is the only useful thing they have left in them. And a couple more liberal Supreme Court seats would help the legitimacy of that institution (also, Roberts again being the deciding vote would annoy all the worst people too)
I don’t disagree with you but I really just don’t know what Desantis’ policies are. All I can tell is that when it was convenient, he was very much a Paul Ryan Republican; totally unclear to me if those are sincerely held beliefs.
Doesn't matter.
Like all politicians he will campaign in the middle and govern from his base.
IMHO the left is going to portray DeSantis as “worse than Trump” for this very reason - to deceive lo-info dem voters that there’s no difference. Because we have to have primaries De Santis is going to get people like Alex jones’ vote for the lo-info right - my question is what happens once he gets nominated? It’s a tough situation for a centrist because no matter what they look bad
Right. That's what always happens. I remember when Mitt Romney was a terrible right-wing crazy according to those on the far left
I think Republicans will eventually get past Trump. I don’t think Democrats will ever get past having more sympathy for drug addicts and criminals than tax paying families. Anyone who lives in a blue urban core can attest to that. I’ve been assaulted 2x outside my apartment in the past 3 months. I’ve seen homeless having drug induced breakdowns hurl profanities at a family taking their toddler to the local playground. The authorities do absolutely nothing.
I agree that Republicans are horrifically corrupt, but I can’t morally justify backing a pro-crime political party.
FWIW I raised my concerns at a local city meeting and was told that since people can do drugs in the privacy of their home, homeless should be able to do so in public. Otherwise I’m “criminalizing poverty”.
I can fight to make the Republican Party a better political outfit. These people, on the other hand, live in a separate reality than me.
You’re optimistic to think that Trumpist Republicans are not living in a separate reality from you.
I live in the red part of a blue state. I’ve tried to take to heart Josh’s advice that people who care should be part of a party because being an independent robs you of influence. And even with pretty radical political views I am part of the temperamental center. I’m still unsure of whether that means I should try and join the Republicans and try and push them away from madness or the Democratic Party and try and push them away from madness.
Sure but I don’t think their impact is as strong as pro-crime Democrats. Trump and Trumpists will get opposed by the media and bureaucracies every step of the way. Pro-crime Democrats have wiped 20 years of urban progress in a matter of years. I swore I would never ever live in a suburb, but this year I’ve genuinely felt unsafe leaving my apartment (in one of the highest cost neighborhoods in one of the highest cost cities in the world). Seeing a homeless meth addict yell profanities at a family taking their child to a playground really changed something inside me. I just don’t share any values with anyone who would take the side of the drug addict. Government exists to serve people who contribute to society, not to make sure those that refuse to contribute aren’t inconvenienced even the slightest.
If you live in an urban area, you will have zero influence trying to be outside of the Democratic Party. Orthodox Jews in New York know to be part of the Democratic Party even though they’re super conservative.
This is true, but I get how he or she feels. In an urban area these days it is easy to feel like battling the left of the party is impossible (although in both NYC and SF lately we see it might not be). I think the local Dems also are why I don't buy that the Dems are so much more moderate. That, and the fact that the bureaucracy and staffer class aren't moderate either. I so desperately want the Rs to nominate sensible competitive candidates who can push the Ds to the middle (and get past Trump and the understandable reaction he causes, where any discussion of issues is met with "democracy is at stake!").
I think this is largely correct except a part of Democrats' message to some of the Biden voting Republican and Independents is about the horribleness of January 6th and Republicans abandoning all concerns with the fundamental precondition of democracy. I don't know if Democrats are served well by propping up some of these ass clowns (at least the absurd ones like John Gibbs and Mastriano who genuinely seem like they want to overturn democracy and, at least in the case of Mastriano, would have considerable power to do so should they win)
I mean, you're not wrong about whose fault this problem is, but I still can't help but be totally annoyed that DCCC dollars were going toward getting rid of one of the very few House Republicans who voted to impeach. Holding that vote in particular against Meijer is just obnoxious, even if strategically understandable. I think the DCCC could stand to be a little less shortsighted and not maximally ratfucker-y in those few races, particularly when the GOP electorate is more than capable of choosing bad candidates without your help anyways.
The rejoinder to this, though, is that if Democrats are right that the timeline we're living in is one where Trump's return to power would mean the annihilation of the republic, future historians reading this post might write something like:
"Could Trump's second putsch have been stopped? Almost certainly yes. It was well understood on both sides in 2022 how to deliver the kill-shot to the cult of Trump once and for all. The Democrats needed simply to ignore Trump, enabling a new set of GOP leaders to plow past him without open repudiation and paving the way for a likely non-Trump Republican win in 2024. Yet at the critical moment the Democrats engaged instead in petty scorekeeping, insisting that 'normie' Republicans had made the mess to begin with and it wasn't Democrats' 'job' to clean it up.
"Evidently, saving democracy wasn't quite so compelling an end as to be worth a DeSantis presidency. The Democrats in 1876 were willing to make that strategic calculus when it was ending Reconstruction that was at stake. Their successors in 2022 were too consumed with punishing Republican misdeeds to accept the same trade when it came to ending the reign of Donald J. Trump."