SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
concentration camps
No, It's Not Rahm Emanuel. Graham Platner Is the Future of the Democratic Party
Despite the Democratic establishment, a younger and more charismatic generation of populist and progressive Democrats is on the way to winning primaries and general election races across America.
May 08, 2026
Last Thursday, populist Democratic candidate Graham Platner shook up the Democratic establishment when his primary competitor, Maine Governor Janet Mills, suspended her Senate campaign amid polls showing her badly trailing Platner, an oyster farmer who had come out of nowhere to win a national following.
Platner is the latest example of the rise of anti-establishment outsiders in the Democratic Party — a trend that also includes self-proclaimed democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani, who last year defeated former Gov. Andrew Cuomo for New York City mayor.
Yet the Democratic establishment — corporate Democrats, wealthy Democratic donors, entrenched Washington “centrists,” the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic National Committee, and Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer — still don’t get it.
Hell, the Democratic establishment didn’t get it a decade ago when Hillary Clinton was the presumptive Democratic nominee (and, not incidentally, Jeb Bush was considered a shoe-in for the Republican nomination).
I remember interviewing voters about their political preferences in the late spring of 2015, in the Rust Belt, Midwest, and South, for a book I was then writing. When I asked them whom they wanted for president, they kept telling me Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump. Often the same individuals offered both names. They explained they wanted an “outsider,” someone who would “shake up” the system, ideally a person who wasn’t even a Democrat or a Republican.
The people I met were furious with their employers, with the federal government, and with Wall Street. They were irate that they hadn’t been able to save for their retirements, indignant that their children weren’t doing any better than they had at their children’s age, and enraged at those at the top. Several had lost jobs, savings, or homes in the financial crisis or the Great Recession that followed it.
If Democrats fail to connect with the frustrations of average hardworking Americans and decide instead to side with big corporations and Wall Street, they’ll have given up the most crucial opportunity in a generation both to take back control of Congress and to lead the way on a new progressive agenda.
They kept reiterating that the system was “rigged” in favor of the powerful and against themselves. They didn’t oppose government per se; most favored additional spending on Social Security, Medicare, education, and roads and bridges. But they hated “crony capitalism” — large corporations using their political clout to gain special favors and changes in laws that often hurt average people.
The following year, Sanders — then a 74-year-old Jew from Vermont who described himself as a democratic socialist and wasn’t even a Democrat until the 2016 presidential primaries — came within a whisker of beating Clinton in the Iowa caucus and ended up with 46 percent of the pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention from primaries and caucuses. Had the DNC not tipped the scales against him by deriding his campaign and rigging its financing in favor of Clinton, Sanders would probably have been the Democratic nominee in 2016.
Trump, then a 69-year-old egomaniacal billionaire reality TV star who had never held elected office or had anything to do with the Republican Party and who lied compulsively about almost everything, of course won the Republican primaries and went on to beat Clinton, one of the most experienced and well-connected politicians in modern America. Granted, he didn’t win the popular vote, and he had some help from Vladimir Putin, but he won.
Something very big was happening in America: a full-scale rebellion against the political establishment.
That rebellion continues to this day. Yet much of Washington’s Democratic elite is still in denial. They prefer to attribute the rise of Trump and, more broadly, Trumpism — its political paranoia, xenophobia, white Christian nationalism, misogyny, homophobia, and cultural populism — solely to racism. Well, racism is certainly a part of it. But hardly all.
In 2024, Democrats didn’t even get to choose their nominee from the primary process, since Biden dropped out after a dreadful debate performance and was replaced by Kamala Harris — leaving some Democrats feeling like higher powers were picking their nominee.
The anti-establishment groundswell has by now spread to independent voters — who are now a whopping 45 percent of the electorate and have moved sharply against Trump. It’s one of the most dramatic shifts in recent political history.
Trump’s approval rating among independents now stands at 25 percent, while 68 percent of independents disapprove of him. In 2024, independents were evenly divided, with 48 percent voting for Harris and 48 percent for Trump. In 2020, independents favored Biden by 9 percentage points.
The Democratic establishment still doesn’t see the groundswell — or is actively fighting it.
In Iowa, whose primary is June 2, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is quietly backing state Rep. Josh Turek against state Sen. Zach Wahls. That’s probably a mistake. Turek is a good candidate, but Wahls is a young, dynamic progressive — similar to Platner in his ability to inspire and rally. (In Iowa, independents who want to vote in the Democratic primary need only declare themselves Democrats by June 2.)
In California, whose primary is also June 2, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee just rejected Randy Villegas as its preferred nominee for the 22nd Congressional District and instead endorsed doctor and assemblywoman Jasmeet Bains. Villegas, known as a strong progressive, has been endorsed by the congressional progressive caucus and the congressional Hispanic caucus’s campaign arm. “This is about party leadership and D.C. elites putting their thumb on the scale for who they know will bend the knee to party leadership and corporate interests,” Villegas says.
In Arizona, whose primary is July 21, the DCCC has endorsed Marlene Galán-Woods in a Democratic primary to replace Representative David Schweikert, the Republican who is leaving Congress to run for governor. The DCCC rejected Amish Shah, a doctor and former state legislator who won the primary in 2024 and came within a few points of defeating Schweikert. (That year, Ms. Galán-Woods finished third in the primary.) Shah has been leading Galán-Woods by a 3-to-1 margin in the only public poll of the race. Shah says Democrats should stop backing the party apparatus if they want to win the House majority.
In Michigan, whose primary is August 4, the DSCC is backing Rep. Haley Stevens, who’s in a tight race against rival Abdul El-Sayed. Also probably a mistake. El-Sayed is another young progressive who’s showing a remarkable ability to galvanize Democrats and independents. (Michigan has open primaries in which any voter can participate.)
I could go on, but you get the point.
If Democrats fail to connect with the frustrations of average hardworking Americans and decide instead to side with big corporations and Wall Street, they’ll have given up the most crucial opportunity in a generation both to take back control of Congress and to lead the way on a new progressive agenda.
What does this anti-establishment surge — including the remarkable growth of independents and their sharp rejection of Trump — mean for the presidential race in 2028?
For one thing, it suggests that the current presumed Democratic frontrunners — Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom — are frontrunners only because of their name recognition. As voters find out more about the alternatives, it’s unlikely that either of them will make the cut.
For another, it suggests that anti-establishment candidates are the ones to watch.
Obama chief of staff and former Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel told a packed crowd at the Milken Institute Global Conference this week that the biggest challenge both parties have faced over the last quarter-century has been the battle between establishment forces and anti-establishment forces.
Emanuel was correct. But he then went on to suggest, absurdly, that he’s anti-establishment. Emanuel’s cozy ties to corporate America, his closeness to Citadel founder Ken Griffin (who praised Emanuel from Milken’s main stage), and even Emanuel’s presence at the Milken conference, belie his claim.
But the mere fact that Emanuel thinks it important to claim anti-establishment creds underscores that the biggest force in American politics today — and in the Democratic Party — is anti-establishment rage at political insiders.
Despite the Democratic establishment, a younger and more charismatic generation of populist and progressive Democrats is on the way to winning primaries and general election races across America. If Graham Platner beats Republican Senator Susan Collins in Maine, which seems likely, he’s the kind of candidate who (in my humble opinion) will be the future of the Democratic Party.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘An Almost Unthinkable Threat’: Trump Warning That Iran Will ‘Glow’ Sparks Latest Fears of Nuclear Attack
“It again raises urgent questions: Is this president fit to lead and make consequential decisions that impact countless lives?” said the National Iranian-American Council.
May 08, 2026
As he struggles to force Iran’s capitulation, US President Donald Trump issued what seemed to be yet another threat to commit an act of mass destruction against the country through nuclear warfare.
When negotiations have faltered in recent weeks, Trump has on multiple occasions defaulted to genocidal threats—including that the “whole civilization” of Iran would “die,” and that the whole country would be “blown up"—which have only seemed to anger and galvanize his Iranian adversaries rather than make them quake with fear.
While the Trump administration has continued to insist that the ceasefire with Iran was still in effect, the two countries have exchanged significant fire this week.
On Thursday, the US launched what it said were "self-defense" strikes on military facilities it claimed were responsible for attempting to attack three US Navy ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran called the attacks a violation of the ceasefire and said its attacks on US ships were in response to American bombings of Iranian oil tankers the previous day.
Trump told reporters on Thursday that if the ceasefire were truly over, everyone would know. "If there's no ceasefire, you're just going to have to look at one big glow coming out of Iran," he said. "They'd better sign the agreement fast… If they don’t sign, they’re going to have a lot of pain.”
To many observers, this sounded like a threat from Trump to carry out a nuclear holocaust, though it could also be a redux of Trump's threats to attack civilian energy infrastructure, which would still be a war crime.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, the editor-in-chief of Responsible Statecraft, noted that if it were indeed a nuclear threat, it would be "ironic since the war today supposedly is to prevent Iran from getting... a nuclear weapon."
The National Iranian-American Council (NIAC) said that “threatening to make Iran glow—with nuclear weapons or otherwise—is an almost unthinkable threat to commit a mass war crime against 92 million people. It must never be normalized.”
“It again raises urgent questions: Is this president fit to lead and make consequential decisions that impact countless lives?” the group said. “Would the chain of command refuse unlawful orders to make Iran ‘glow,’ killing millions of people?”
Trump's pledge to wipe out Iranian civilization last month drew widespread condemnation and led dozens of Democratic members of Congress to call for his Cabinet to remove him from office using the powers of the 25th Amendment.
“Our leaders need to interrogate these questions seriously, and not write them off as the ramblings of a madman,” NIAC said. “Trump is the president, and may seek to act on these horrible, contemptible threats. This war needs to end, and so [does] Trump’s horrific threatening of war crimes.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Two Party Politics... Is Dead' in UK Says Green Party Leader After Labour Thrashed
"People have made it clear that they are desperate for an alternative to this failing Labour government," said Zoë Garbett, the victorious Green Party Hackney mayoral candidate.
May 08, 2026
The UK's Labour Party got a political thrashing from both the progressive left and the reactionary far right in local elections on Thursday, with BBC reporting that the center-left party of Prime Minister Keir Starmer has lost at least 490 council seats so far.
The biggest winner from Labour's collapse was the far-right Reform Party, led by Nigel Farage, which has gained over 650 seats as of this writing.
However, the triumph of Reform was not the only notable development, as the left-wing Green Party, with a focus on uplifting the working class by challenging corporate power, gained at least 96 seats.The centrist Liberal Democrats, meanwhile, also took a bite out of Labour's share of the vote by securing 36 seats and possibly more.
Green Party leader Zach Polanski said the elections marked a turning point in UK politics as both Labour and the Conservative Party, traditionally the two largest parties in the country, collectively lost more than 700 seats.
"This is an historic victory," Polanski said in the wake of the results. "It's the first time the Green Party has ever won a directly elected mayor. Two-party politics is not just dying, it is dead, and it is buried."
Polanski suggested that the real coming fight for the future of the country would be between his party and Reform, which has positioned itself as anti-immigration and anti-European Union.
In a social media post, Polanski boasted his party had "gained seats across the country and an increase in our vote share almost everywhere we've stood."
"All over the UK people are voting to end Rip Off Britain," Polanski added.
Zoë Garbett, the Green Party candidate who won the mayoral race in the longtime Labour stronghold of Hackney, told The Guardian that her victory shows "people have made it clear that they are desperate for an alternative to this failing Labour government."
"It’s not old politics... versus new parties," Garbett said. "This is about a system of fear versus a movement of hope."
Writing in The Times, UK political analyst John Curtice said the evidence was clear the Greens had helped inflict severe damage on Labour, even though Reform was the chief beneficiary of Labour's collapse.
"Both Reform and the Greens have been able to inflict significant damage on Labour," wrote Curtice. "It appears that around half of Labour’s losses have been to Reform. This reflects the fact that, at 26 per cent, Reform’s average share of the vote in the BBC’s sample is well above the 16% recorded by the Greens. Nevertheless, Labour’s vote has tended to suffer more when the Greens have recorded a strong vote than when Reform have done."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Stinks of Rotting Meat': Critics Warn Trump DOJ Settlement Would Legalize Price-Fixing
"Get ready for even higher prices for chicken, turkey, and pork," said one antitrust attorney.
May 08, 2026
US President Donald Trump's Justice Department moved Thursday to settle a Biden-era antitrust lawsuit against the analytics firm Agri Stats, proposing an agreement that critics say would effectively give the stamp of federal approval to meat industry price-fixing schemes.
The Justice Department—now headed by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, formerly Trump's personal lawyer—hailed the proposed settlement as a "historic" win over a company whose "business model directly raised the price of chicken, turkey, and pork in local grocery stores across our nation." But critics said the agreement, which must undergo review by a federal judge, would do nothing substantial to rein in price-fixing in the meat industry.
Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel for the American Economic Liberties Project, said the deal "stinks of rotting meat," noting that the settlement was proposed just days before the case was set to go to trial.
"No way does it address the harms," Hepner said of the 79-page settlement. "Agri Stats spent decades hiking prices on over 90% of processed meat in the country. Now they're being told to exercise some discretion going forward."
"It's a gut punch to those who worked on this case for four years thinking it might actually deter these price fixing services from cropping up in every other industry," Hepner added.
The Biden administration brought the antitrust lawsuit against Agri Stats in September 2023, accusing the company and its subsidiary EMI of "collecting, integrating, and distributing competitively sensitive information related to price, cost, and output among competing meat processors."
"While distributing troves of competitively sensitive information among participating processors, Agri Stats withholds its reports from meat purchasers, workers and American consumers, resulting in an information asymmetry that further exacerbates the competitive harm of Agri Stats’ information exchanges," the Biden DOJ said.
"This settlement legalizes meat price-fixing—it just says you have to bring the giant retailers and distributors in on the game."
The Trump Justice Department's settlement would require Agri Stats to "make the vast majority of information" it distributes "available to all interested domestic purchasers on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms," along with several other conditions.
But the settlement states that EMI is not otherwise "prohibited... from continuing to provide EMI Price Reports in substantially the same manner as it did as of April 24, 2026."
Agri Stats noted in a statement Thursday that it "denied all allegations" of illegal conduct and "has admitted no wrongdoing" as part of the settlement. Agri Stats' lead counsel in the case called the deal "a win" for both the company and consumers—a claim that antitrust advocates rejected, calling the agreement blatantly one-sided in the corporation's favor.
"This settlement legalizes meat price-fixing—it just says you have to bring the giant retailers and distributors in on the game," wrote Basel Musharbash, managing attorney at Antimonopoly Counsel. "Get ready for even higher prices for chicken, turkey, and pork."
The proposed Agri Stats settlement is the latest favorable deal that Trump's Justice Department—which is in the grip of lobbyists with ties to the president—has cut with a major corporation accused of illegal price-fixing.
Last November, as Common Dreams reported, the Justice Department agreed to settle a Biden-era lawsuit filed against the real estate software company RealPage, which was accused of an "unlawful scheme to decrease competition among landlords in apartment pricing and to monopolize the market for commercial revenue management software."
RealPage welcomed the settlement, noting that the agreement included "no financial penalties, damages, or findings or admissions of wrongdoing."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular