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
democracy
Stephen Miller's Ascendancy Ushers in a New and Dangerous Moment for the US
The next two years will either be the last, desperate gasp of fascism in America or the pivot to the point of no return. And that outcome is going to be dependent on what we do now—together—as moral, patriotic, and clear-eyed Americans.
Nov 10, 2026
Well that was an awesome 48 hours of joy and relief.
While no surprise, the ascent of Stephen Miller to chief of staff, sitting sidesaddle with Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought, ushers in a new and dangerous moment for America. At this point, President Donald Trump is simply their useful idiot.
My take: Miller saw the numbers—the writing on the wall for the midterms. The margins were too wide, too significant to try to overturn or fight.
The American public must see strength and “fight” from the leaders they elected to put down this fascist threat once and for all.
So time to shift strategy—and just ignore the outcome altogether.
A smart person once told me that power in America is not given, it’s taken.
If I were Stephen Miller, this would be my plan:
- Hope that that fear, laziness, and incompetence from both the Democrats and the defeated, beaten-down Republicans (who hate him!) could pave the way for a great escalation of fascism in America.
- Make a deal with the tech oligarchs and corporate media that they can’t refuse—from a money and assured pardon point of view. In doing so, shore up the surveillance state and control information flow to the public.
- Bet the rest of the business community and most institutions would go along to protect themselves, even if they are holding their noses. Essentially a continuation of the capitulation of powerful institutions across the board that we have witnessed over the last two years.
- Finally, double down on stamping out dissent. Erase the elation and replace it with FEAR. Create real costs for those leading dissent.
While I realize this doesn’t paint a rosy picture and we have barely recovered from our champagne-induced hangovers—to be honest, what other play does Mr. Miller have?
So how do we fight back?
- Time to stop celebrating. Sorry. Celebration is complacency. Miller is counting on us to lie in our feather beds of self-satisfaction while he doubles down. Remember: evil, not stupid.
- The newly elected Congress needs to demonstrate its absolute strength—zero appeasement. The American public must see strength and “fight” from the leaders they elected to put down this fascist threat once and for all. If they don’t, Americans will get scared, and they will fall silent.
- The legislative branch can and must *create cost for capitulation*. Only when the cost of working with Trump outweighs the benefit will business and institutional behavior change.
- Fear is Miller’s sharpest weapon. Leaders of the opposition must double down on visual, public, fearless opposition to whatever comes next. We must continue to be brave to spread courage.
The next two years will either be the last, desperate gasp of fascism in America or the pivot to the point of no return. And that outcome is going to be dependent on what we do now—together—as moral, patriotic, and clear-eyed Americans.
Put down the champagne and buckle up.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Take a Deep Breath, America—the Immediate Threat to Democracy Has Been Turned Back
While very soon it will be time to get back to work—because so much more needs to be done—we should enjoy this moment for we have achieved something monumental.
Nov 04, 2026
Good morning. What a day.
November 3rd will be remembered in history as a day like December 7th or July 4th. It was the day that tens of millions of people stood up to defend democracy in the United States.
I have no illusions about the many, many dark points in this country’s history, which predated Donald Trump, many of which were still very much present when he took office. But a democracy that has at least the pretense of respecting human rights and basic decency is infinitely better than a dictatorship that has open contempt for anything that challenges its power.
We are a long way from being completely out of the woods. Donald Trump still has two more years in his term and his sycophants still command the most powerful military in the world, as well as a squad of domestic henchmen that openly act outside of the law. They can do enormous harm to the country and the world in this time.
We are a long way from being completely out of the woods...But our ability to limit the damage is hugely greater today than yesterday.
But our ability to limit the damage is hugely greater today than yesterday. And to be clear, the mission is far larger than surviving the last two years of Donald Trump’s term. We have to reverse the inequality and corruption that led to a situation where tens of millions of people could look to a bumbling reality TV show star as the solution to the problem.
We need to create a government that people believe is on their side, that actively works to make their lives better. However much better the Biden administration and prior Democratic and even Republican administrations might have been in serving the public, people had real grounds for believing that the government was not serving their interests. Elon Musk was already incredibly rich on January 20th, 2025.
Anyhow, that is a long and incredibly important project, but for now, we can all take a deep breath. The immediate threat to democracy has been turned back with an electoral landslide of historic proportions. We should enjoy the moment while still recognizing that much more needs to be done.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'How Do You Get Money Out of Politics Without Overturning Citizens United?' Montana Could Have the Answer
Initiative 194 "is not going to stop Elon Musk from writing a big fat check," explained one backer, but it would prevent "laundering the money through a dark money group."
Nov 03, 2026
Montanans are voting Tuesday on a potentially groundbreaking ballot initiative that could become a model for how to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission—the 2010 US Supreme Court decision that ushered in the era of unlimited money in politics—without the near-impossible necessity of a constitutional amendment.
Citizens United established that the government cannot restrict independent political expenditures by corporations, labor unions, and other outside groups on the basis of their corporate or union identity. Simply put, the decision affirmed corporate personhood and, essentially, that money is speech that cannot be restricted.
Since then, super political action committees have proliferated, and corporate spending has exploded from just $12.8 million during the 2010 election cycle to $737 million during the current one.
Initiative 194, also known as the Montana Plan, would prohibit corporations, nonprofits, trade associations, and other artificial entities from spending money to influence elections and ballot measures in the state. Rather than attempting to restrict corporations' constitutional rights as affirmed by Citizens United, states could simply not give corporations the legal power to spend on politics.
"A yes vote on I-194 means that only real people—not corporations, unions, trade associations, nonprofits, or groups with anonymous donors—are allowed to spend money in Montana elections," the Yes on Initiative 194 campaign said on its website.
"It's time to kick the oligarchs out of Big Sky country," the campaign added.
The proposal's backers argue that legal entities should not have the same rights as natural persons.
"Each state creates and defines its corporations. It need not permit its creations to consume it," Tom Moore, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP), explained in September, arguing that corporations are legal creations, not natural persons, and that states retain broad authority to determine what powers they exercise.
"When the state creates a corporation, it is starting from nothing and deciding what to give the corporation, and no case has ever held that they have to give local spending power to a corporation," Moore told Fortune on Tuesday. "It's not regulation; it's redefinition."
Moore stressed that Initiative 194 "is not going to stop Elon Musk from writing a big fat check to some election in Montana."
"What it will stop them from doing is laundering the money through a dark money group," he added.
Montana's former commissioner of Political Practices, Jeff Mangan—who spearheaded Initiative 194—was equally blunt.
"The Montana Plan simply removes the ability for corporations to spend in our politics," he told Montana PBS. "By removing the corporation's ability to spend in our politics, we end dark money. Simple as that."
Initiative 194 has attracted support from Montanans concerned about the growing influence of wealthy donors and anonymous political spending.
"Most people I talk to when they hear about the prospect of getting dark money out of elections are in favor of it," state resident Nathan Kommers told Montana PBS. "I think that it makes sense to almost everybody."
Shannon Stober, who lives in the Bozeman area, said: "I think what I've observed over the past 15 years is the ways in which money and politics has completely created a decline in civic engagement and participation. A lot of people have just decided that their participation doesn't matter and they don't feel like there's a way out."
Opponents, including the Montana Chamber of Commerce, argue that Initiative 194 violates the First Amendment by restricting organizations' political speech. If passed, the measure will surely face legal challenges.
However, former Republican Montana Gov. Marc Racicot, who supports Initiative 194, said the effort is worthwhile regardless of the ultimate outcome.
"You can't just sit back and curse the darkness," he told Montana PBS. "You have to try and do something about it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
My Front Row Seat to Unfolding Democracy: Witnessing the Birth of a Congressman or Two
I take this election day privilege to say thank you to two soon-to-be US congressmen from two different states: Manny Rutinel of Colorado and Sam Forstag of Montana.
Nov 03, 2026
It is still early enough on midterm Election Day, and I ought to be relaxed. Yet in this moment of community political organizing, some of us must acknowledge that we’ve lived long enough to have a front row seat to America’s still-unfolding version of the changing of the guard. The guard, you say. What? Well, it is finally time, even in these tumultuous moments, that we need to push through after winning today to get on with building a new, humane path forward with shared values and truths we still hold as universal and, certainly by now, self-evident.
As I’m one of the elders in the huge Boomer army of volunteers and community organizers working in and for hundreds of organizations and campaigns, I take this election day privilege to say thank you to two soon-to-be US congressmen from two different states by way of a true story. So, tag along here. It is all true, and writing this is my last chance to speak to these candidates and their voters before the polls close.
Today, I watched a transition in front of my eyes and in my heart. I’ve been blessed to work with Alex Lawson and the Social Security Works team since late spring to focus on two races. Just over a week ago, Jon “Bowzer” Bowman, 79, of ShaNaNa fame and now president of Social Security Works, made a stop in Colorado’s 8th Congressional District as one of many he made across the country to educate voters about the danger the Trumpublicans pose to seniors and those who depend on our Social Security benefits to survive. I wrote about it in a letter to the editor of the Greeley Tribune published last week.
Thank you, Manny, and Sam, for letting me see once again that “this is what democracy looks like.”
Colorado’s 8th Congressional District democratic candidate is Manny Rutinel. This morning, we had our final canvas launch outside his Thorton office, and we had three congressional Reps. (Brittany Pettersen, D-Colo., CD7, Joe Neguse, D-Colo, CD2, Jason Crow, D-Colo, CD6); one US Senator, Michael Bennet (D-Colo.); our soon-to-be Governor-Elect Phil Weiser and his choice for Lieutenant Governor, Lesley Dahlkemper; and several family members making these final campaign stops. Having them all together was incredible.
One aside: Rep. Crow wins my vote for best election morning treats with the box of Winchell’s donuts he brought for us. I grabbed the biggest frosted chocolate old-fashioned donut I could grab. Yummy and delicious. Thank you to this decent man representing so many of us in Colorado with courage and grace and a deep sense of humanity. This man is Colorado. And donuts this good? Seriously? No one else had a chance when I saw him offering the open box.
Sam Forstag, from Montana’s 1st Congressional District, has been a breath of fresh air to support from a distance. Though I have not met him personally, people I care about and trust have—they liked him. Sam seems like a perfect fit for his state. He understands the issues facing his state and earned great endorsements from groups I like. Beyond being great on the issues, Sam’s lived experience shines through every discussion. Sam shares the values most Montana voters do. I loved seeing this young man blossom from afar. He is Montana. There is no one close on their ballots running for any other office who comes close to exuding the human decency, strength, and courage of Sam Forstag. Alan Minsky of Progressive Democrats of America was so proud to endorse Sam, and we all are. I feel it remotely, and I feel him growing into his power. Keep going, Sam, keep going.
Now, back to the transition I watched in person this morning in Colorado’s 8th. I brought with me a note for Etta, the young woman who was the organizing director for Manny’s congressional campaign. She is an angel and smart beyond measure. She worked so hard and never seemed to lose her focus. It takes a special person to balance all that she did for months. And Manny even looked different today. He is launching into the arena for us all, and now the magnitude of that task is beginning to settle on him. I could feel it. In the last moments I will know him as Manny, I handed him a note and a tiny notepad. I told him I used to watch a young Rep. Keith Ellison take a small notebook out of his jacket’s chest pocket and write down the names and concerns he heard when he spoke. I watched Manny put the note and notepad I brought him in his back pocket to read later. I felt a sigh of relief and sorrow too.
Thank you, Manny, and Sam, for letting me see once again that “this is what democracy looks like.” With tears filled with pride and anticipatory relief, thank you for paying attention to the Constitution and stepping up. Hang on to your essence. Worry more about setting up your field offices in your districts than your DC office (you are not going to get a good one anyway). We former Girl Scouts used to sing a song, “Make new friends, but keep the old, one is silver, and the other gold.”
I know I have been a witness to history today. Democracy is like that.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Voters in 10 States Can Block AI Data Centers in Their Communities on Election Day
Solid majorities of voters across parties oppose data centers in their communities. In dozens of municipalities across the US, they have an opportunity to do something about it.
Nov 03, 2026
Artificial intelligence data centers have become one of the defining issues in the 2026 election cycle, with some candidates putting opposition to their unchecked growth at the heart of their campaigns.
Polls show that majorities across parties oppose building data centers in their communities, citing concerns about excessive energy and water use, pollution, and noise.
On all six local data center measures decided before Election Day—including in Maine, Michigan, and New Hampshire—voters favored limiting development, often by overwhelming margins.
Tuesday offers a bigger test of just how toxic data centers have become. Across 10 states, 44 local measures are on the ballot, according to a tracker by Redbud Consulting.
Many of the measures ask voters whether to ban or temporarily pause data center development, cap facilities’ power use, or require voter approval for new projects. Others give voters a chance to support development.
Demonstrators wave signs during a nationwide protest against AI data center expansion in Imperial, California, on July 18, 2026. (Photo by Sandy Huffaker/AFP via Getty Images)
Ohio
Nearly half the local measures on the ballot are in Ohio, ground zero for the data center boom, where Democratic former US Sen. Sherrod Brown has seized on voters’ outrage to paint his opponent, Republican Sen. John Husted, as “the face of data centers” over his role in attracting projects and securing tax breaks.
Zoning measures are on the ballot in Wilmington and in the townships of Sprigg and Monroe. Grove City’s measure would require voter approval for large developments. In Monroeville, a nonbinding question asks voters whether the village should allow data center development.
Eight municipalities—Conneaut, Defiance, Granville, Oregon, Pataskala, Sunbury, Trenton, and Upper Sandusky—will vote on proposals to restrict new data centers. The proposals generally target facilities that draw more than 25 megawatts. A stricter measure in Urbana would prohibit new data centers, with an exception for certain facilities below 7.5 megawatts. In Hubbard, a measure would ban new data centers citywide, regardless of size or power demand.
Maine
Democratic labor leader Troy Jackson, who is running to unseat Republican Sen. Susan Collins, has said data centers benefit tech oligarchs while foisting costs onto ordinary residents. He said data center developers should be required to pay for their own power, protect water quality, and keep electricity rates from rising. Collins has called for restrictions on a case-by-case basis and has been criticized for speaking favorably about certain projects around the state.
Eight towns in Maine have data center measures on the ballot Tuesday. Eliot, Freedom, Peru, and Wiscasset are considering temporary pauses on data center development regardless of size. Proposed moratoriums in Brownfield, Sabattus, and Wells would apply based on facility size or power demand. A measure in North Berwick would permanently ban facilities of 25,000 square feet or more.
In April, the Maine Legislature passed a bill that would have halted permitting for data centers with electric loads of 20 megawatts or more until November 2027. Democratic Gov. Janet Mills vetoed the bill. At least 21 municipalities have already enacted similar restrictions, according to The Maine Monitor.
Illinois
In Illinois, which has one of the nation’s highest concentrations of data centers, voters in five townships will be asked whether they support allowing new facilities—Chouteau, Granite City, Nameoki, Venice, and Joliet. All of the measures are nonbinding.
A separate advisory question asks Bloomington voters whether the city should impose a moratorium on new large-scale data centers. In Morgan County, residents can vote to call for countywide restrictions on data center construction and operation, though the measure leaves the details to county officials.
Kansas
Data centers have been a major source of strife in Kansas, where lawmakers from both parties voted last year for a 20-year sales tax exemption for data center construction and equipment to lure more hyperscale facilities to the state.
Though both candidates for governor voted for the bill, state Sen. Cindy Holscher (D-8) now supports a statewide pause on data center development, while state Sen. Ty Masterson (R-16) still defends the tax breaks. In the state’s unexpectedly competitive Senate race, Democrat Adam Hamilton has hammered Republican Sen. Roger Marshall for voting for last year’s Republican budget bill, which Hamilton says gave federal tax breaks to data centers.
Voters in Emporia and El Dorado will decide Tuesday whether to ban data centers with peak electrical loads above 10 megawatts or daily water use above 100,000 gallons. Ottawa is voting on a 10-year ban on large data centers with a 25-megawatt threshold.
Elsewhere
Six other communities have data center measures on the ballot.
- Alhambra, California: Residents can vote to affirm the city’s existing ban on data centers in all zoning districts and require voter approval to change or repeal it.
- Edgewater, Florida: A measure would ban new data centers citywide and require another public vote to change or repeal the ban.
- Boulder City, Nevada: A proposal would allow data centers in the Eldorado Valley Transfer Area on land outside a wildlife habitat conservation agreement.
- Downe Township, New Jersey: A nonbinding question asks whether residents support data centers, though the township has already adopted an ordinance banning them.
- Harwood, North Dakota: An amendment to the city charter would require independent review and a public hearing before the city approves large industrial projects, including data centers.
- Janesville, Wisconsin: A referendum would require voter approval for projects costing more than $450 million at the site of the former General Motors plant and its vehicle shipping yard.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Voting Is an Act of Care for What Matters
Our right to have a say in what comes next is on the line. We have an opportunity to demand a future that puts our families and caregivers first.
Nov 03, 2026
This country depends on caregivers, but too often it fails the very people holding our families and communities together. As we head into the midterms, we have the chance to make our voices heard on the policies that affect our lives and families’ futures.
A 2025 AARP and National Alliance for Caregiving survey found that 63 million Americans identify as caregivers—nearly 50% more than the decade prior. That’s millions of people raising children, caring for aging parents, supporting loved ones with disabilities, all while balancing that labor with jobs and bills of their own. Caregiver needs and experiences deserve to be represented in the decisions we make at the ballot box.
Both of us are parents (one of us is a mother to six beautiful children and leads an advocacy organization and the other is a father and maternal health advocate).
Caregivers deserve a voice in the decisions that shape our lives, but exercising that right can be difficult when we’re already stretched thin.
We understand personally and professionally that the burden of caregiving is not shared equally, that mamas are expected to do more with less. There is an absolute need for fathers to do more as engaged parents. Black mamas make up nearly 40% of caregivers in the US. Yet, Black women continue to die from pregnancy-related causes at three times the rate of our white counterparts. When mothers lack support, the whole family feels it.
These inequities are not inevitable. They reflect decisions about whose health, time, and communities our systems prioritize—and whose needs are overlooked. Those priorities are shaped by the people we elect as leaders and the policies they enact.
As we head into the midterm elections, we cannot afford to let confusion, misinformation, or intimidation efforts stop us from making our voices heard. For parents and caregivers, these are not abstract policy fights. They are about whether we have a say in the decisions that determine our access to affordable childcare, quality healthcare, and the support we deserve.
That’s what we mean when we say care is on the ballot this November. Our right to have a say in what comes next is on the line. We have an opportunity to demand a future that puts our families and caregivers first.
Care is about more than what happens in a doctor’s office. It is whether we can afford groceries, find childcare, and take time off for a sick loved one. It is whether moms receive support before, during, and after pregnancy, and whether dads have the resources to be the parents they want to be. And it is whether our children have the tools they need to not only survive, but thrive.
From pregnancy through postpartum, care should be full-spectrum, comprehensive, and supportive. It should protect maternal health, provide direct cash during and after pregnancy, offer support to fathers, and help care for our kids while we work to put food on the table.
Caregivers deserve a voice in the decisions that shape our lives, but exercising that right can be difficult when we’re already stretched thin. We should not have to navigate a maze just to exercise our right to vote while juggling the demands of caring for our families. And we cannot hold elected officials accountable if we are shut out of the process.
Yet, changing voting rules are making it harder to understand when, where, and how to cast a ballot. From new mail-in voting shifts and voter ID requirements to redistricting efforts and the gutting of federal protections under the Voting Rights Act, these changes create additional uncertainty for busy families and caregivers—especially Black voters and other historically marginalized communities who have long faced barriers to the ballot. We cannot allow these barriers to deepen or history to repeat itself.
Every eligible voter deserves to cast a ballot free from intimidation, with confidence that their vote is private, and that their voice will be counted. Our democracy works best when everyone has a free and fair chance to participate.
Moms and dads alike know what it takes to care for what matters. Now is the time to bring the same determination to the ballot box.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Today Is About National Unity: for Democracy Over Fascism, and a Fair Economy
Today, we must stand shoulder to shoulder, in unity, to defeat the oligarchs and fascists and preserve all that is great about America!
Nov 03, 2026
On November 8, 1932, Franklin Roosevelt won an unprecedented landslide victory over President Herbert Hoover; and Democrats won massive majorities in both houses of congress.
Two days earlier, on November 6, 1932, the Nazi Party failed to win a majority of seats in the German parliamentary elections, performing more poorly than the previous election in June, which also resulted in a hung parliament. In both elections, the left, center-left, and center parties, all of which opposed the Nazis, won enough seats to form a government, but they refused to enter into a coalition. New elections were called for March 1933. The Reichstag burned down on February 27. We all know what followed
Today—November 3, 2026—we cannot, we must not, make the same mistake the German people made in 1932 when the opposition divided and the Nazis ascended. We must act again as Americans did on election day 1932 when our love for democracy and its institutions generated a landslide! That result produced the most popular administration in American history, one that unapologetically served the interests of working people and proceeded to marginalize reactionary politics in America and crush fascism around the world.
If anyone believes these kleptocrats have any interest in supporting a broadly middle class society, like the one developed in post-WWII America, they are either willfully naïve, stone cold stupid, or on the take.
Yes, it’s true that between progressives and moderate Democrats, independents and ethical conservatives, we have our differences and they are not insignificant—but we are bonded by our support for our constitutional democratic republic.
Today, we must stand shoulder to shoulder, in unity, to defeat the oligarchs and fascists and preserve all that is great about America!
I am loathe to compare anything to Hitler and the Nazis, but the historical proximity of those two elections 96 years ago reveals, in stark relief, the importance of Americans reaffirming our commitment to democracy—and how much better the country and the world will be afterwards.
Indeed, it is not only the maintenance of popular sovereignty, in the land that launched the age of democracy, that is on the line. Also at stake is any possibility of our country returning to an economic social contract that serves the vast majority of the population. According to all polling, the return of an economy that prioritizes the interest of average middle class households is the deepest wish of the American people—and has been since the collapse of the housing market, and the great recession that followed, in 2008.
As bad as American wealth inequality was by 2024, we’ve never seen anything like the past two years. While most Americans struggle to get by, not only have unimaginable fortunes been accrued by the country’s billionaires, but a notable subset of this tiny fraction of the population have become part of President Donald Trump’s inner circle—and are shamelessly wielding political power in their own interests.
If anyone believes these kleptocrats have any interest in supporting a broadly middle class society, like the one developed in post-WWII America, they are either willfully naïve, stone cold stupid, or on the take.
Tuesday is likely our last opportunity to check their power; and begin, through democratic means, to build an economy for all the people.
Fortunately, the signs are promising. Early voting has shattered previous records. Just one more day of non-stop GOTV efforts, followed by 60 days of legal vigilance (until the new Congress is seated)—then we begin to make things right!
* * * * *
One final thought, on a theme I will return to after the elections.
For all non-progressives reading this (and for progressives, please share this with your non-progressive friends), understand that the contemporary progressive movement is not anything radically exotic or unfamiliar on the American landscape.
As mentioned above, progressives were behind the most popular administration in our history, we also designed the economic policies in the era of America’s greatest prosperity, and we ran the country during our greatest military triumph (WWII).
Just like then, we simply want a free and just America that works for all people. As during the “golden era” of post-war America, we want to live in a prosperous society with unlimited possibilities—with the one caveat that, going forward, those opportunities must be extended equally to all people.
Because these are our convictions, we support a set of policies with a proven track record to deliver these society-wide outcomes. They worked previously in America and are still succeeding around the world—and, with only a few tweaks and updates, we are superconfident they will work their magic again in 21st century America.
So, don’t be swayed by anyone who tries to make us sound scary or irresponsible. Give us a listen, and you’ll quickly realize that we are just like you. We want the same things, and we look forward to working together to achieve our shared goals.
The first step is winning big today! Onward!
Keep ReadingShow Less
Is The New York Times Helping Trump Steal an Alaska Senate Race?
When Trump's DOJ filed a potentially election-blocking lawsuit over the fact that there were two Dan Sullivans running as Alaska Republicans, the Times put its investigative efforts not into Trump’s threat to democracy, but into attempting to document that he might have a point.
Nov 01, 2026
We don’t know if there was a second gunman involved in the JFK assassination in Dallas. We do know that there is a second Dan Sullivan running for US Senate in Alaska.
Can you believe it? Two Dan Sullivans? In Alaska? The New York Times is on it.
Dan S. Sullivan is a Republican representing Alaska in the US Senate, facing a strong challenge from former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola. Her viability in the race is worrying the GOP about the midterms generally—while also, as a pro-oil Democrat, encouraging those in her party who fear it’s moving too far to the left (Politico, 10/28/26).
People outside the snowy state learned about the existence of another Republican on the ballot named Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr.—the state has a multi-candidate ranked-choice system—when President Donald Trump ordered the Department of Justice, as ABC News (10/23/26) reported:
to preemptively file a lawsuit to try to block the certification of the crucial Alaska Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses, citing name confusion among the candidates.
This struck many as a sign, as Time (10/28/26) put it, “that the midterm elections could face unprecedented interference by federal authorities.” The last time Trump won a major election, he instigated an insurrection to try to block certification of his opponent’s victory. His threat to annul the voting result in Alaska suggested that he was going to similarly reject the results of the 2026 midterms.
But The New York Times put its investigative efforts, not into Trump’s threat to democracy, but into attempting to document that he might have a point.
‘To Coax Other Would-Be Spoilers’
The New York Times produced an in-depth report (10/28/26) headlined “Inside Democrats’ Secret Effort to Stack Alaska’s Ballot.” The subhead: “Operatives aligned with Mary Peltola, the Democratic nominee for Senate, spent months recruiting candidates to peel votes from Senator Dan Sullivan, the Republican.”
The meat of the piece, by Times political reporter Kellen Browning, was this:
The Peltola campaign has repeatedly denied any involvement in [Daniel J. Sullivan’s] candidacy. But the Times has found, based on interviews and text messages, along with documents prepared for a potential lawsuit against the campaign, that not only did Ms. Peltola’s team work with people trying to recruit Mr. Sullivan to run for Senate, but the effort was much broader. The group worked to coax other would-be spoilers into the race, to dilute the incumbent’s support and help catapult the Democrat to victory.
Anyone who follows US elections closely knows that spoilers are a part of politics. Sometimes campaigns will quietly help third-party candidates from the opposite end of the political spectrum in hopes that they’ll siphon votes from their major rival (Fortune, 9/2/24). And other times they recruit candidates with a look-alike name in hopes that some voters will check the box next to the wrong candidate.
According to Ballotpedia, “28 states had at least one 2026 race between candidates that share the same last name.” In 1998, who did Georgia Republicans find to challenge civil rights hero and then-Democratic Rep. John Lewis? Another guy named John Lewis.
The Brookings Institution (10/28/26) recalled when John F. Kennedy first ran for Congress:
One of Kennedy’s opponents was an Italian-American Boston city councilor named Joe Russo. Kennedy’s father, Joe, set about to confuse voters by allegedly paying another Joe Russo, a janitor with no political experience, to run on the primary ballot as well—in hopes of splitting the Italian vote. As it turned out, it wasn’t necessary to get the other Joe Russo into the race—Kennedy won the primary by a large margin.
‘Common in Politics’
While not a particularly honorable campaign tactic, recruiting a candidate with a confusing name is not a crime. In fact, The New York Times admits:
Ballot-stacking tactics are common in politics and generally considered legal—and have been employed by both parties in Alaska. But this operation, which has not been reported before, reveals the lengths to which Democrats went to seek advantage in a Senate race that could determine control of the chamber.
So these tactics are “common,” and “legal,” but also reveal “the lengths” Democrats are willing to go to win a historic midterm election? Common, legal lengths?
The paper also said that “Alaska’s voting system makes it especially easy to add spoilers to the ballot,” which “allowed Mr. Sullivan of Petersburg, a longtime supporter of Ms. Peltola and other Democrats, to land a spot on” the ballot. It continued, “Republicans have also taken advantage of this system,” noting that when Peltola “ran for re-election to the House two years ago, the state Republican Party backed an effort to help a Democrat—an inmate who ran his campaign from a New York prison—stay on the ballot.”
While the article does lay out the drama of how Democrats seized an opportunity to make the election messier for the incumbent, the Times doesn’t ever make a case that Democrats broke the law.
‘Liberal Shrieks Fading Now’
You know what is a crime? Annulling an election so that the candidate who wins the most votes can’t take office. Though Trump administration officials had already announced an intent to commit that crime, The New York Times report seemed tailor-made to abet their efforts.
Predictably, Republicans seized on the Times investigation to lend legitimacy to Trump’s election-threatening efforts. Trump himself called for Peltola “to drop out of the race and be criminally prosecuted,” the New York Post (10/28/26) reported; it quoted the president, “They said they didn’t do it, and they did do it, and they got caught.” The tabloid explained:
Top aides of Peltola were behind the recruitment effort, The New York Times reported. She had originally denied any involvement, but Wednesday’s shock report revealed she was “definitely aware” of the scheme.
Wall Street Journal editorial board member Kimberley Strassel (10/28/26) explicitly cited the Times report as an after-the-fact justification for Trump’s election-nullification plan:
When the Justice Department sued Alaska over its manipulated Senate ballot, liberal shrieks could initially be heard up to the Arctic. They’re fading now, after The New York Times on Wednesday published evidence that Democrats rigged Alaska’s ranked-choice ballot with a decoy candidate who threatens to deny Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan re-election.
The National Review‘s Michael A. Fragoso (10/28/26) also relied on the “bombshell New York Times report” to bolster his argument that the recruiting a same-named candidate was “different from lawful trickery.” The second Sullivan, Fragoso argued, is “designed to take voters who intend to vote for the incumbent and trick them into not doing so even though they want to.”
Tell that to Florida Democratic voters who were deceived into voting for Pat Buchanan for president with maldesigned ballots in 2000, an incident that helped usher George W. Bush into the White House without a popular mandate (American Political Science Review, 12/01).
‘Disturbing New Evidence’
The New York Times investigation prompted state officials as well as the feds to target Peltola (AP, 10/29/26). Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy, a Republican, announced that he had ordered an investigation into whether Peltola should face civil or criminal penalties, saying that the Times report
reveals disturbing new evidence of an organized effort to manipulate Alaska’s elections by recruiting candidates—including one with the same name as an incumbent US senator—to deliberately confuse voters and misdirect their votes.
Times editors had to have known that this article would be a gift to an administration that claims Democratic wins are not legitimate, and that the very notion of Republican losses can only be explained by complicated election rigging rather than not getting enough votes (New York Times, 8/20/26, 10/17/26, 10/25/26, 10/27/26, 10/27/26).
If the Times had found potential wrongdoing by Alaska Democrats, that would have been a necessary story for readers. This, however, is a long-read about the usual shenanigans of US electoral politics. It doesn’t add to our understanding of politics, nor is it especially damning in the bigger context.
It is mildly entertaining, for sure, but the biggest impact this investigation will have is providing more justification for an authoritarian administration that already has plans in place to shut down democratic outcomes.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Solution Staring Israel in the Face
What is needed from the opposition leaders? Nothing beyond decency. The government that ousts Netanyahu is the one that accepts the votes of Arab citizens.
Oct 30, 2026
Benjamin Netanyahu, Itamar Ben-Gvir, and Bezalel Smotrich decisively lost Israel’s election on October 27. The governing coalition of Likud, the far right, and the ultra-Orthodox parties fell from 64 seats in 2022 to 53, eight short of a majority in the 120-seat Knesset. The other 67 seats went to parties that campaigned to replace the government: 48 to the Jewish-led opposition headed by Gadi Eisenkot, a former army chief of staff, and 19 to the two Arab parties. Turnout was 77.9 percent, the highest since 1999, and Arab citizens, who make up about one-fifth of Israel’s population, voted at an estimated rate of about 80 percent, up from 53 percent in 2022. The results make it clear: Israeli voters chose to end the Netanyahu government. The solution to Israel’s political crisis is in plain view. The only thing standing in the way of ousting the government is racism: the refusal of Israel’s Jewish opposition leaders to treat Arab citizens as part of the political community.
The racism is not hidden. On election night Netanyahu claimed a “decisive majority among the Zionist and Jewish public,” a formula that simply subtracts the votes of one citizen in five. His Likud party then viciously and absurdly declared that the election had been “stolen” by the Arab parties and demanded investigations by the police and the Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service. The purpose, of course, is to brand Arab votes as illegitimate, so that no government resting on them can be accepted.
The tragedy is that the opposition leaders have adopted the same premise. Naftali Bennett, a former prime minister, has said that the Arab parties “are not Zionist, and therefore we will not rely on them.” Avigdor Liberman has ruled out any government that depends on Arab votes, even a temporary one. Eisenkot has said that Ra’am’s leader “won’t be part of my next government,” and that he does not “see any Arab or Haredi parties who accept” his conditions for partnership. These leaders do not object to anything the Arab parties would do in government. With good will, they could easily negotiate a governing arrangement.
The consequences of the racism are predictable. If the opposition leaders hold to their refusal, only two outcomes remain. Israel will go to another election, with the current murderous government remaining for many more months, or the opposition will join a unity government in which Netanyahu stays in power. Netanyahu has ruled out abandoning his far-right partners. Either way, the opposition leaders would hand Netanyahu and his murderous colleagues the victory that the voters denied him.
There are no real policy obstacles to cooperation. Ra’am, the United Arab List, has already served in an Israeli government. In 2021 it joined the coalition led by Bennett and Yair Lapid, the first independent Arab party ever to do so. The other Arab party, the Joint List, has said it would vote with an Eisenkot-led government to establish an official inquiry into the failures of October 7, which is the opposition’s own first priority. Israel’s voters appear to be ahead of their leaders. A Hebrew University survey on election night found that more than 61 percent of opposition voters want Eisenkot to form a government with Ra’am, while only 20 percent prefer new elections. Arab and Jewish opposition voters want the same thing, which is to oust Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir, and Smotrich.
A practical plan should follow directly from the arithmetic. First, when the new Knesset convenes, the 67 members opposed to the Netanyahu government should elect a new Speaker, giving the new majority control of the parliamentary agenda even before a government is formed. Second, Eisenkot should form a true coalition in which Ra’am sits as a full partner with ministerial posts, giving 56 seats, with the Joint List supporting the government from outside to reach 67.
The program of such a government would not be hard to negotiate, because the parties that would be in it already share most of it. The government would establish an official inquiry into the failures of October 7. It would adopt an emergency plan against the crime and violence that have devastated Arab towns, and it would invest in housing and services for Arab communities, including the unrecognized Bedouin villages of the Negev. It would restore the independence of the courts and the attorney general.
The government might last a year. Questions of borders and the Palestinian territories would not be settled by this government, but a non-racist coalition government now would move Israel toward a lasting peaceful solution, perhaps toward a binational democratic state or toward the two-state solution of the long-standing Arab Peace Initiative. In the meantime, and crucially, Netanyahu and the other war criminals would be ousted.
Israel’s leaders should also understand what is at stake beyond Israel’s borders. Israel’s racism and murderous campaign in Gaza and the occupied West Bank have profoundly alienated people all over the world. A Pew Research Center survey of 36 countries this spring found that a median of 67 percent of respondents view Israel unfavorably, including 60 percent of Americans. In Pew’s surveys this year, Israel was viewed more negatively than any other country it asked about. More Americans now sympathize with the Palestinians than with the Israelis. The alienation extends to Jews all over the world. If the politicians double down on their racism now, they will confirm the world’s harshest judgments of Israel.
What is needed from the opposition leaders? Nothing beyond decency. The government that ousts Netanyahu is the one that accepts the votes of Arab citizens. Israel’s president has asked the party leaders to come to his consultations with an open mind. The majority to remove Netanyahu exists, provided that the leaders drop their racism
Keep ReadingShow Less
Billionaire Wealth Is Destroying US Democracy
The more political power the billionaire class has, the less political power the rest of us have
Oct 30, 2026
We shouldn’t begrudge billionaires.
As America’s super-wealthy become super-wealthier, their riches don’t come directly at our expense. It’s possible for billionaires to get even richer without the rest of us becoming poorer.
Or to put it a different way, making a fortune in America isn’t a zero-sum game.
But this doesn’t mean billionaires should be allowed to do whatever they want with their billions.
Billionaire wealth becomes a public problem when it finds its way into politics—making it harder for average voters to be heard. It throttles democracy.
Consider the estimated $300 million from more than 70 California billionaires seeking to defeat Proposition 40—the one-time 5 percent tax on billionaires that’s on Tuesday’s ballot.
It’s being led by Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who single-handedly put $102 million behind the campaign to defeat the measure. (Brin’s personal fortune of $251 billion makes him among the top 4 to 5 richest people in the world.)
Also leading the campaign against the billionaire tax are former Google CEO Eric Schmidt (now worth $64.3 billion, but likely far more after the upcoming IPO of Anthropic, in which he’s a major shareholder); venture capitalist John Doerr ($12 billion); Stripe CEO Patrick Collison ($17.5 billion); and crypto executive Chris Larsen ($13.3 billion).
Brin, Schmidt, Doerr, Collison, and Larsen might be perfectly nice people, for all I know. I don’t mean to impugn their integrity by noting that they’re pouring money into trying to stop California from imposing a one-time 5 percent tax on their wealth.
But in so doing, they’re unwittingly illustrating why billionaire wealth is so bad for democracy.
This is the story of American democracy in this second Gilded Age. Billionaires are building their wealth with bribes campaign donations (as well as with their ownership of media and with their armies of lawyers marching to the Supreme Court to contest judicial rulings that harm their bottom lines).
Billionaires poured money into getting Trump elected in 2016, with his promise of a big federal tax cut if he succeeded, on which he delivered, and poured their money into getting him elected again in 2024, with his promise of another big federal tax cut, on which he delivered again.
Paying for those tax cuts required, among other things, cuts in Medicaid—which in turn prompted California’s move to fill those cuts with a one-time 5 percent tax on billionaire wealth.
Total spending on advertising in the 2026 midterms is $11.3 billion so far—already higher than the total spent on ads (including the presidential race) in 2024. And much of it is from the billionaire class. The 50 largest donors to super PACs have contributed a combined $2.77 billion. Elon Musk himself has sunk $446 million into supporting Republican candidates.
Is it any wonder that billionaires aren’t paying their fair share of taxes? Many pay little or no income taxes because they have little or no income. Instead, they borrow against their vast fortunes to pay for their lavish living expenses. That borrowing isn’t taxed.
California’s Governor Gavin Newsom opposes Prop 40. He has even lent his support to a poison pill (Prop 42) that would prevent the state from ever again trying to tax billionaire wealth.
Newsom claims he’s concerned about billionaires exiting California. Maybe that’s his true motive, but Newsom may have another reason to oppose Prop 40.
As The New York Times reports, Newsom is “preparing a turnkey high-dollar operation” for an upcoming run for the Democratic nomination for the 2028 presidential election. And “as the governor of California, the state with the most billionaires,” Newsom has “certain advantages. Already, two Democratic megadonors, Reed Hastings, the Netflix co-founder, and Chris Larsen, a crypto billionaire, have signaled their leanings toward him. Mr. Newsom has staked out a donor-friendly position opposing California’s proposed billionaire tax and invited donors to V.I.P. receptions on his book tour.”
Interestingly, another California presidential hopeful—Representative Ro Khanna—supports the Prop 40 billionaire tax. Khanna has also sworn off super PAC funding.
Newsom is no more corrupt than the billionaires who are pouring money into opposing Proposition 40, but that’s exactly the point. America’s billionaire class is becoming far richer by the day—they could have paid the entire Prop 40 tax with the additions to their wealth since Labor Day—and although wealth isn’t a zero-sum game, power definitely is a zero-sum game.
The more political power the billionaire class has, the less political power the rest of us have. Hence, the importance of taxing their wealth if we want to preserve our democracy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy