Analilia Mejia outperforms Kamala Harris won by 13 points. Graham Platner destroys a sitting Democratic governor. The left is proving its critics wrong.
I think that is really underrated. Most people don't need to agree with a politician on 100% of things. But understanding that a politician is actually genuine means so much to earning their trust.
These supposed “centrists” never acknowledge that in the Wisconsin 2016 DNC primary, Bernie won every single county but one and every single county in the WV 2016 DNC primary.
No, they say, these states need MORE CENTRISM to be viable which has proven to be false.
If they acknowledged the leftist DNC primary preferences in such “swing states”, it wouldn’t be possible to maintain the No Sympathy For The Hillbilly classist bullshit that enables them to project blame onto the victims in the non-coastal areas where 50+ years of neoliberalism has absolutely gutted by portraying them as undeserving.
Really great, granular look at the Meija win. Unfortunately, I think the current Democratic establishment would rather lead a major party that is out of power than hand over the reins to progressives (especially critics of war/Zionism) and see them win. Being the leaders of an out of power major party is not a bad gig.
The Democrats 2024 candidate in Tennessee 7th, a corporatist out of Vanderbilt University and rabid-centrist-to-rightist, lost the district by a 21 1/2% margin.
That's the thing about all this centrism — centrist candidates have and are running across the country. You just don't hear about them because they lose.
Losing because they’re (purportedly) not centrist enough. lacking solid right-wing credentials. Every one of those losses is a rebuke to Sanders, in Democrats’ eyes.
Planned Parenthood Action Fund just endorsed genocide supporter Dan Goldman. I promptly congratulated them on losing me for good. Will seek out alternative abortion rights defenders.
Thanks for your analysis. I think you made a good argument that being pro-Medicare for All, strongly anti ICE, and critical of Israel is popular or at least not too unpopular.
Where I disagree quite strongly is the generalization to progressive, left-wing beliefs in general. The policies you cited are specifically some of the left's strongest on the populist front: people want healthcare change, distrust ICE, and distrust data centers and AI. The most notable progressive plank there is pro-Palestinian sentiment, and it is revealing that this may be less toxic than it was in the spring of 2023.
What is notably missing from your analysis of Mejia's win are the majority of the unpopular social justice, anti-racism, anti-transphobia platforms of progressives that genuinely are unpopular among a lot of voters.
Additionally, +13 over Harris is not actually impressive when compared to Democrat overperformance in other recent special elections.
My initial response is that according to your logic, we must embrace false dichotomies, because the only alternative is cannibalism. (Source: https://xkcd.com/2592/)
What I was trying to say was that progressives who are seen to prioritize issues popular with the left wing's social justice movement, such as political correctness, anti-bias trainings, promoting medical gender transitions for youth, and such, may suffer electorally because their priorities do not align with that of many voters. While I did not exactly say that, I think the sentiment should have been fairly evident. Nowhere did I say that progressives should campaign on a platform of denying trans people's civil rights, instituting racial gerrymandering and encouraging existing discrimination among the police, housing, and career opportunities, or promoting social inequality.
(I would also note that I was responding to a factual claim of "progressive politics can win at the polls" with the note that certain progressive politics may succeed, but others are less likely to. Nowhere does this make a statement about my values or my preferred policy positions.)
If I am to give you my genuine opinions: I don't want to support idealistic pro-justice politics if it is going to lose. I want justice to win. And I think there are better methods than some that are promoted by the progressive left. To pick one example, I think that we can achieve more just outcomes through genuine dialogue with people that may disagree with us, rather than pathetic snipes in a Substack comment section.
If you want to promote a more perfect union, don't paint me as some sort of evil caricature for disagreeing with you. Especially if you want me and other people to adopt your values and political beliefs rather than working around the negative image of progressives that you make all the more believable.
I apologize if I am not extending a very successful olive branch. It can be difficult not to respond emotionally when someone acts in ways that I personally consider both mean and counter-productive for the long-term future of the values I cherish.
To summarize my view, I don't disagree that more progressive candidates can outperform more centrist candidates. However, I also think that centrist candidates can outperform progressives. I think some progressive policies are good, popular ideas, while others are bad, unpopular ideas (to oversimplify). And I think the same is true of centrist positions—corporatist status-quo policies are deeply unpopular, but abundance-focused YIMBY-type regulatory decluttering is both relatively popular and a good idea. What I want (and what I suspect voters want) are optimistic representatives who try new things and achieve seem likely to achieve tangible results.
In my mind, the "unpopular" social justice stuff that progressives bring isn't a big issue. I don't think people care about them. I'm not saying that in a pro or negative way. The Argument had a recent analysis that showed Kamala Harris voters disagreed with her support for trans rights. They called that a reason to moderate, but to me, it shows that such issues are so far from voters' concerns. As you said, they're much more focused on anti-ICE, anti-Israel, and healthcare. These are why progressives are winning.
As for the +13, there are certainly higher overperformers. But each location has different swings, and NJ suburbs didn't go as far right as other places, which reduces the Dem gain number.
That all seems reasonable. I do not necessarily disagree about the importance of social justice issues, though I honestly don't have enough information to be sure.
Overall, I think my reaction to your piece mainly is that it is a moderately persuasive argument that progressives can win, but not a highly persuasive argument that progressives are better at winning than more moderate candidates. (I would need to see more than two case studies and more in-depth analysis of confounding factors such as candidate personality, state particularities, etc., to become actively pro-progressive over moderate.)
What I would also ask is that you and any other pro-progressive Democrats please not lump in the centrist/moderate establishment with other centrists and moderates such as the abundance camp. In my personal experience, progressive Democrats have not distinguished effectively between the politics Chuck Schumer and Ezra Klein, when I think they are nowhere near the same thing.
Interesting. How would you see Schumer and Klein as different? They are both aligned on healthcare and Israel, two of the most important issues of our time.
2. There are policies that you implement when governing, and informal policies that govern governing. Even if Schumer and Klein would govern similarly, I think they would approach elections, corporate relations, etc. very differently. Schumer is an establishment centrist. Klein got established as an actual political figure in 2024 and is definitely not old establishment. (He's also not actually in the halls of power).
3. Klein represents new ideas, Schumer represents the status quo. In Klein's own words:
"So I am interested to see the Democrats run in 2026, and I would like to see, in places where it’s become very hard for Democrats to win, very unusual candidates. I would like to see them trying more things. Graham Platner, in Maine, is an interesting way to try to do that from an economic, populist perspective. But Maine is not a red state, so that’s not what’s going to win you in Texas. You see James Talarico, in Texas—he’s kind of an interesting candidate. Who are the Democrats going to run in Kansas? Who are they going to run in Missouri? Sherrod Brown, in Ohio, is a very strong candidate."
I think we both agree that Schumer was problematically anti-Platner. Klein isn't. Klein wants to try new things that might work, and trying new things that might work is what I most respect about a lot of progressives (Mamdani especially, but also Sanders, Platner, etc.).
I take a more cynical view of Klein. It's true his rhetoric is better than Schumer's. But I believe that's because he's a media figure who knows he has to stay relevant.
For example, there was reporting last year that Klein is acting as a power broker for the 2026 elections, talking to Harris, Newsom, Moore, and Shapiro. These are all establishment candidates, imo. And that shows where Klein's true belief is.
Allan should specify which voters he is referring to when he says a lot of voters think something is unpopular - Affirmative Action and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs are very popular with African-American voters, for example.
I hope you're doing well. If you want me to specify, you can always just ask me directly.
Part I: Affirmative Action
Linked below an old but probably reliable Pew article on affirmative action. According to his poll, AA appears to have suffered from a reverse Obamacare effect, where the phrase was moderately popular while the policies were moderately unpopular.
In 2024, Gallup actually found that a majority of black Americans surveyed thought the Supreme Court ending affirmative action was "mostly a good thing," though they also thought it would have more negative than positive outcomes, which is interesting.
Unfortunately, I have yet to come across good polling post-2024, and I didn't see cross-sections on party/race/gender/income
Best study I can find on short notice (published 2024, linked below) about determinants of affirmative action support indicates that perceiving discrimination against minorities, followed by being a Democrat/liberal and being black or Hipsanic, are the best predictors; being a sexual minority or a woman seem to be lesser predictors.
A Marist poll from early 2024 found that the country was quite strongly pro mandatory diversity trainings, which surprised me. The strongest supporters were Democrats, black people, white educated women, and younger people (non-Boomers). There were some interesting interactions and probably quite a few confounds.
A Washington Post/Ipsos Poll also found DEI programs generally, as well as specifics like mentoring programs, internships, and anti-bias trainings. So I'm wrong there as well.
A less trustworthy CivicScience poll (I don't know their sampling methods, but it seems like voluntary responses) also suggests slightly greater support than opposition, with 20% neutrality.
A March 2025 NBC news poll, on the other hand, suggested 49% against versus 48% for (though it did have several percentage points more strong Republicans than Democrats, which might explain some of the difference—though it did seem quite representative of the population, which may mean other polls have a less representative sample).
Pew Research (sorry, it's my favorite) suggests that voters are pretty strongly against active discrimination against trans people (in jobs, housing, etc.) but are also opposed to trans people competing according to their identity in sports, medical gender transitions of youth, and teaching about gender identity in schools. I also consulted a Human Rights Campaign Foundation report on a poll suggesting broad support for civil rights, but it didn't ask about the excessively politicized and divisive topics.
I appreciate your concern for specificity, even if part of me suspects it might have been a rather isolated call for rigor (see link below). Broadly speaking, polls don't do nearly enough multifactorial analysis. But what I did find was that black people, Democrats, and white women tended to be the most pro-Affirmative Action and pro-DEI. The country as a whole was more pro-DEI than I expected, and more anti-Affirmative Action than I expected to (to some extent—a lot of people thought ending it was good but had bad effects, suggesting a nuanced picture). As for trans advocacy, it is definitely highly partisan, but given the general opposition to the most extremely pro-trans positions, it seems likely that independents and more moderate Democrats are generally opposed.
This analysis also relies on polling on these issues in a vaccuum. Support for or opposition to these issues as significant parts of a campaign platform may be wildly different—if I wanted to analyze that, I should probably look through dozens or hundreds of campaign records. Without that, I can still make an educated guess: if, as Joe says and seems likely, most people don't care that much about DEI or trans people, a politician whose big issues include promoting mandatory DEI policies and supporting youth medical transitions is probably more likely to be seen as out of touch or otherwise less likable. And I think "out of touch" is one of the most important characterizations for Democrats to avoid, whether moderate or progressive. Mamdani is an excellent example of how to do this well, in my opinion.
I realize I did not exactly answer your question, and I think it is moderately likely that you did not actually want an answer for me so much as trying to score a point against my argument (I hope this is not the case, but we are having a discussion on the internet, so it is harder to rule out than I would like, and the fact that you did not comment to me directly slightly points in that direction), but I hope you and any other readers find this moderately interesting.
You know who’s to blame for Trump? The pieces of shit who voted for him. Too many people on our side let Trumpers off the hook - “they didn’t know any better” or “they were misled” - while fighting amongst themselves. If you’re more pissed at your own side than the opposition, you’re part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Yeah it’s not the Democratic Party that paved the entire step of the way for Trump. If you think this starts and ends at Trump, you’ve spent 0 time thinking about how the US got on this track
Just wish Platner… you know
It's refreshing to see candidates running on what they stand for, instead of just what they're against.
I think that is really underrated. Most people don't need to agree with a politician on 100% of things. But understanding that a politician is actually genuine means so much to earning their trust.
The centrists are going to be frantic soon thank you for writing
I think they already are! Johnson claiming that there's nothing to learn from the Maine Senate race is a pretty big collapse, in my opinion.
The centrists are more afraid of Hasan Piker than Donald Trump. Make that make sense.
Trump doesn’t challenge their power
👆
These supposed “centrists” never acknowledge that in the Wisconsin 2016 DNC primary, Bernie won every single county but one and every single county in the WV 2016 DNC primary.
No, they say, these states need MORE CENTRISM to be viable which has proven to be false.
If they acknowledged the leftist DNC primary preferences in such “swing states”, it wouldn’t be possible to maintain the No Sympathy For The Hillbilly classist bullshit that enables them to project blame onto the victims in the non-coastal areas where 50+ years of neoliberalism has absolutely gutted by portraying them as undeserving.
Essentially, they've found a way to dress up their preferred politics as "reasonable" electoralism. But as you say, it's not even reasonable.
Really great, granular look at the Meija win. Unfortunately, I think the current Democratic establishment would rather lead a major party that is out of power than hand over the reins to progressives (especially critics of war/Zionism) and see them win. Being the leaders of an out of power major party is not a bad gig.
I agree. It's the classic saying, "They'd rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven."
The Democrats 2024 candidate in Tennessee 7th, a corporatist out of Vanderbilt University and rabid-centrist-to-rightist, lost the district by a 21 1/2% margin.
That's the thing about all this centrism — centrist candidates have and are running across the country. You just don't hear about them because they lose.
Losing because they’re (purportedly) not centrist enough. lacking solid right-wing credentials. Every one of those losses is a rebuke to Sanders, in Democrats’ eyes.
Planned Parenthood Action Fund just endorsed genocide supporter Dan Goldman. I promptly congratulated them on losing me for good. Will seek out alternative abortion rights defenders.
I like their work. But outside their realm, PP can make some huge mistakes. They also have a lot of terrible labor relations issues.
Don’t underestimate how much the NJ vote was a backlash against Trump & ICE too. The Rs lost a lot of Latino voters in the past year.
Very much so.
Hi Joe,
Thanks for your analysis. I think you made a good argument that being pro-Medicare for All, strongly anti ICE, and critical of Israel is popular or at least not too unpopular.
Where I disagree quite strongly is the generalization to progressive, left-wing beliefs in general. The policies you cited are specifically some of the left's strongest on the populist front: people want healthcare change, distrust ICE, and distrust data centers and AI. The most notable progressive plank there is pro-Palestinian sentiment, and it is revealing that this may be less toxic than it was in the spring of 2023.
What is notably missing from your analysis of Mejia's win are the majority of the unpopular social justice, anti-racism, anti-transphobia platforms of progressives that genuinely are unpopular among a lot of voters.
Additionally, +13 over Harris is not actually impressive when compared to Democrat overperformance in other recent special elections.
Right, injustice, racism, and transphobia make for a winning formula at the polls!
Maybe you hate America more than Trump does.
Hi Michael, thanks for responding!
My initial response is that according to your logic, we must embrace false dichotomies, because the only alternative is cannibalism. (Source: https://xkcd.com/2592/)
What I was trying to say was that progressives who are seen to prioritize issues popular with the left wing's social justice movement, such as political correctness, anti-bias trainings, promoting medical gender transitions for youth, and such, may suffer electorally because their priorities do not align with that of many voters. While I did not exactly say that, I think the sentiment should have been fairly evident. Nowhere did I say that progressives should campaign on a platform of denying trans people's civil rights, instituting racial gerrymandering and encouraging existing discrimination among the police, housing, and career opportunities, or promoting social inequality.
(I would also note that I was responding to a factual claim of "progressive politics can win at the polls" with the note that certain progressive politics may succeed, but others are less likely to. Nowhere does this make a statement about my values or my preferred policy positions.)
If I am to give you my genuine opinions: I don't want to support idealistic pro-justice politics if it is going to lose. I want justice to win. And I think there are better methods than some that are promoted by the progressive left. To pick one example, I think that we can achieve more just outcomes through genuine dialogue with people that may disagree with us, rather than pathetic snipes in a Substack comment section.
If you want to promote a more perfect union, don't paint me as some sort of evil caricature for disagreeing with you. Especially if you want me and other people to adopt your values and political beliefs rather than working around the negative image of progressives that you make all the more believable.
I apologize if I am not extending a very successful olive branch. It can be difficult not to respond emotionally when someone acts in ways that I personally consider both mean and counter-productive for the long-term future of the values I cherish.
To summarize my view, I don't disagree that more progressive candidates can outperform more centrist candidates. However, I also think that centrist candidates can outperform progressives. I think some progressive policies are good, popular ideas, while others are bad, unpopular ideas (to oversimplify). And I think the same is true of centrist positions—corporatist status-quo policies are deeply unpopular, but abundance-focused YIMBY-type regulatory decluttering is both relatively popular and a good idea. What I want (and what I suspect voters want) are optimistic representatives who try new things and achieve seem likely to achieve tangible results.
Thanks for explaining your thoughts.
In my mind, the "unpopular" social justice stuff that progressives bring isn't a big issue. I don't think people care about them. I'm not saying that in a pro or negative way. The Argument had a recent analysis that showed Kamala Harris voters disagreed with her support for trans rights. They called that a reason to moderate, but to me, it shows that such issues are so far from voters' concerns. As you said, they're much more focused on anti-ICE, anti-Israel, and healthcare. These are why progressives are winning.
As for the +13, there are certainly higher overperformers. But each location has different swings, and NJ suburbs didn't go as far right as other places, which reduces the Dem gain number.
That all seems reasonable. I do not necessarily disagree about the importance of social justice issues, though I honestly don't have enough information to be sure.
Overall, I think my reaction to your piece mainly is that it is a moderately persuasive argument that progressives can win, but not a highly persuasive argument that progressives are better at winning than more moderate candidates. (I would need to see more than two case studies and more in-depth analysis of confounding factors such as candidate personality, state particularities, etc., to become actively pro-progressive over moderate.)
What I would also ask is that you and any other pro-progressive Democrats please not lump in the centrist/moderate establishment with other centrists and moderates such as the abundance camp. In my personal experience, progressive Democrats have not distinguished effectively between the politics Chuck Schumer and Ezra Klein, when I think they are nowhere near the same thing.
Interesting. How would you see Schumer and Klein as different? They are both aligned on healthcare and Israel, two of the most important issues of our time.
Hi again, Joe. In terms of major differences:
1. Vibes, if I'm being completely honest.
2. There are policies that you implement when governing, and informal policies that govern governing. Even if Schumer and Klein would govern similarly, I think they would approach elections, corporate relations, etc. very differently. Schumer is an establishment centrist. Klein got established as an actual political figure in 2024 and is definitely not old establishment. (He's also not actually in the halls of power).
3. Klein represents new ideas, Schumer represents the status quo. In Klein's own words:
"So I am interested to see the Democrats run in 2026, and I would like to see, in places where it’s become very hard for Democrats to win, very unusual candidates. I would like to see them trying more things. Graham Platner, in Maine, is an interesting way to try to do that from an economic, populist perspective. But Maine is not a red state, so that’s not what’s going to win you in Texas. You see James Talarico, in Texas—he’s kind of an interesting candidate. Who are the Democrats going to run in Kansas? Who are they going to run in Missouri? Sherrod Brown, in Ohio, is a very strong candidate."
I think we both agree that Schumer was problematically anti-Platner. Klein isn't. Klein wants to try new things that might work, and trying new things that might work is what I most respect about a lot of progressives (Mamdani especially, but also Sanders, Platner, etc.).
Source: https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-new-yorker-interview/ezra-klein-argues-for-big-tent-politics
I take a more cynical view of Klein. It's true his rhetoric is better than Schumer's. But I believe that's because he's a media figure who knows he has to stay relevant.
For example, there was reporting last year that Klein is acting as a power broker for the 2026 elections, talking to Harris, Newsom, Moore, and Shapiro. These are all establishment candidates, imo. And that shows where Klein's true belief is.
https://www.axios.com/2025/11/16/ezra-klein-power-play-democrats
Allan should specify which voters he is referring to when he says a lot of voters think something is unpopular - Affirmative Action and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs are very popular with African-American voters, for example.
Hi Mike,
I hope you're doing well. If you want me to specify, you can always just ask me directly.
Part I: Affirmative Action
Linked below an old but probably reliable Pew article on affirmative action. According to his poll, AA appears to have suffered from a reverse Obamacare effect, where the phrase was moderately popular while the policies were moderately unpopular.
In 2024, Gallup actually found that a majority of black Americans surveyed thought the Supreme Court ending affirmative action was "mostly a good thing," though they also thought it would have more negative than positive outcomes, which is interesting.
Unfortunately, I have yet to come across good polling post-2024, and I didn't see cross-sections on party/race/gender/income
Best study I can find on short notice (published 2024, linked below) about determinants of affirmative action support indicates that perceiving discrimination against minorities, followed by being a Democrat/liberal and being black or Hipsanic, are the best predictors; being a sexual minority or a woman seem to be lesser predictors.
Links:
Pew: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/16/americans-and-affirmative-action-how-the-public-sees-the-consideration-of-race-in-college-admissions-hiring/
Gallup: https://news.gallup.com/poll/548528/post-affirmative-action-views-admissions-differ-race.aspx
Study: https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fasap.12428
Part II: DEI
A Marist poll from early 2024 found that the country was quite strongly pro mandatory diversity trainings, which surprised me. The strongest supporters were Democrats, black people, white educated women, and younger people (non-Boomers). There were some interesting interactions and probably quite a few confounds.
A Washington Post/Ipsos Poll also found DEI programs generally, as well as specifics like mentoring programs, internships, and anti-bias trainings. So I'm wrong there as well.
A less trustworthy CivicScience poll (I don't know their sampling methods, but it seems like voluntary responses) also suggests slightly greater support than opposition, with 20% neutrality.
A March 2025 NBC news poll, on the other hand, suggested 49% against versus 48% for (though it did have several percentage points more strong Republicans than Democrats, which might explain some of the difference—though it did seem quite representative of the population, which may mean other polls have a less representative sample).
Links:
Marist: https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_RR_202402021601.pdf
WaPo/Ipsos: https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/40de4190-169e-4f25-8d15-aa3a7153da6a.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_5 (see pp. 12-14 or so)
CivicScience: https://civicscience.com/despite-a-shift-in-culture-a-plurality-of-americans-support-dei-initiatives/
NBC: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25597409-nbc-march-2025-poll/ (p. 9)
Part III: Trans Rights and Activism
Pew Research (sorry, it's my favorite) suggests that voters are pretty strongly against active discrimination against trans people (in jobs, housing, etc.) but are also opposed to trans people competing according to their identity in sports, medical gender transitions of youth, and teaching about gender identity in schools. I also consulted a Human Rights Campaign Foundation report on a poll suggesting broad support for civil rights, but it didn't ask about the excessively politicized and divisive topics.
Links:
Pew: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/26/americans-have-grown-more-supportive-of-restrictions-for-trans-people-in-recent-years/
The Pink News: https://www.hrc.org/resources/trans-visibility
Part IV: Conclusion
I appreciate your concern for specificity, even if part of me suspects it might have been a rather isolated call for rigor (see link below). Broadly speaking, polls don't do nearly enough multifactorial analysis. But what I did find was that black people, Democrats, and white women tended to be the most pro-Affirmative Action and pro-DEI. The country as a whole was more pro-DEI than I expected, and more anti-Affirmative Action than I expected to (to some extent—a lot of people thought ending it was good but had bad effects, suggesting a nuanced picture). As for trans advocacy, it is definitely highly partisan, but given the general opposition to the most extremely pro-trans positions, it seems likely that independents and more moderate Democrats are generally opposed.
This analysis also relies on polling on these issues in a vaccuum. Support for or opposition to these issues as significant parts of a campaign platform may be wildly different—if I wanted to analyze that, I should probably look through dozens or hundreds of campaign records. Without that, I can still make an educated guess: if, as Joe says and seems likely, most people don't care that much about DEI or trans people, a politician whose big issues include promoting mandatory DEI policies and supporting youth medical transitions is probably more likely to be seen as out of touch or otherwise less likable. And I think "out of touch" is one of the most important characterizations for Democrats to avoid, whether moderate or progressive. Mamdani is an excellent example of how to do this well, in my opinion.
I realize I did not exactly answer your question, and I think it is moderately likely that you did not actually want an answer for me so much as trying to score a point against my argument (I hope this is not the case, but we are having a discussion on the internet, so it is harder to rule out than I would like, and the fact that you did not comment to me directly slightly points in that direction), but I hope you and any other readers find this moderately interesting.
Links:
Isolated demands for rigor (Scott Alexander): https://readscottalexander.com/posts/ssc-beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor
You know who’s to blame for Trump? The pieces of shit who voted for him. Too many people on our side let Trumpers off the hook - “they didn’t know any better” or “they were misled” - while fighting amongst themselves. If you’re more pissed at your own side than the opposition, you’re part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Yeah it’s not the Democratic Party that paved the entire step of the way for Trump. If you think this starts and ends at Trump, you’ve spent 0 time thinking about how the US got on this track
Got on what track? You say that like this is something new.
On the fascist track. I’m saying it implying it’s not new