Onscreen, anchor Jim Sciutto pivots from questions about inflation and Democratic inaction to the subject of transgender health care and whether Democrats have moved too far left. ...
Dems definitely have moved too far to the left.
She doesn’t flinch (but yes, she does roll her eyes). “Absolutely not,” she replies. “The idea that Democrats lost the election because of trans people is ridiculous and offensive.”
First of all, I want to distinguish "trans people" from "trans activists" and "overreach on trans issues". I think the latter did play a role in Dem defeat in 2024, even if it certainly wasn't the only reason. But the overreach on trans issues was a highly visible and potent symbol of the larger issue of Dems moving too far toward the activist left. That's why this ad was so effective.
People are frustrated by weird pronouns. It is one thing that when somebody transitions from say a man to a woman to be called by a female name and use female pronouns. But then activists started demanding that for example men who have not transitioned to anything at all may nevertheless demand to be called "they".
Does this look like a "he" to you, or a "they"?
She goes on to explain that trans and queer communities are often the first targets under “authoritarian and fascist regimes”—and that reinforcing those narratives only strengthens authoritarian power.
That is indeed bad. But there is a middle ground where trans (and other LGBTQXYZABC) people are not persecuted, but also the powers that be in politics, academia, sports or media do not automatically bow down to every cockamamie demand by the activist classes. Unhinged overreach by all these domains of power on racial issue in the aftermath of the 2020 Insurrection is also exemplary of that.
The real problem, she argues, isn’t messaging but disconnection. It’s that voters don’t feel heard, that the political system is run by politicians who are fundamentally out of touch.
Disconnection can go both ways. I think the reason Dems failed in 2024 is that they became too disconnected from large parts of the American electorate that does not agree with these activists that Dems have been increasingly catering to.
Could it (should it?) be populist leftist candidates who dismantle the establishment and reject neoliberalism? Or, as Scuitto suggested in his questions (and influential centrist thinkers like Matthew Yglesias argue), are more-moderate politicians better positioned to win back voters and stop Trump from destroying American democracy?
I think Yglesias is correct here. US is overall a center-right country. Furthermore, electoral college and the Senate favor less populated states. House, being based on discrete districts rather than proportional representation, favors rural and suburban areas over urban centers.
I do not think Dems can win by moving too far to the left.
Many people who voted for Trump did not particularly like him. But they did not like the direction the Democratic Party took since the 2018 moderate purge that gave us the Squad among other things either.
These aren’t abstract concerns. Abughazaleh is a half-Palestinian, Gen Z woman running in the post-Roe, unleashed-Trump era. She’s unapologetically left and already a lightning rod for conservative ire. She also knows the right-wing echo chamber inside and out—the full MAGA cinematic universe—and she’s happy to dive headfirst into the culture wars. Her candidacy could prove to be a blip or a bellwether.
She is a carpetbagger who is trying to unseat a Democratic incumbent in an ultrasafe, salamander-shaped (D+19) district.
“The establishment Democratic opinions are calcified,” says Hasan Piker, a progressive media personality whose Twitch streams and YouTube content have made him a key figure in leftist internet discourse (if not the “liberal Joe Rogan”).
A Twitch streamer?

And why are Muslims so overrepresented on the far left of the Democratic Party?
Also, see this:
Congressman Ritchie Torres Writes to Executives at Twitch and Amazon: Hasan Piker is Dangerous
Ritchie Torres is an NYC Democrat, btw.
Several of these new challengers have already announced their candidacies. They include Jake Rakov, a 37-year-old opposing 70-year-old Rep. Brad Sherman,
Another very safe district (D+17). And what's so bad about Brad Sherman from their point of view? He seems pretty progressive to me. 100% from HRC, 100% from NARAL, 100% from Brady Campaign, 100% from AFL-CIO, 100% from ACLU. What's his unpardonable sin that makes him unacceptable to the ideological puritans? At 70, he is not even particularly old compared to some of the other congresscritters.
and Saikat Chakrabarti, 39, who has mounted a challenge against former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
That fan of the Nazi collaborator Bose? Sure, Pelosi is 85 and should retire already, but SC would not be a good replacement.
And there’s Zohran Mamdani, a 33-year-old Democratic Socialist, running for mayor in New York City.
If he were to get elected, it would be a disaster for the city. For all his faults, Cuomo seems like the least bad choice running.
and [Kat the sexy Pokemon] leans into a femme aesthetic
What does that even mean? That she looks like a woman? I really hate this woke language.
They get so confused and triggered by women they’re attracted to.
I call BS on that. Sure, she is attractive, but people don't oppose her for that reason.
To illustrate this for me, she pulls up the hundreds of comments on her campaign-announcement video.
Yeah, I don't think Youtube (or similar) comments can be used to make any cogent point. A lot of nuts post there on all sides.
Nestled among the racist jokes about her name and epitaphs like “Marxist cunt,” there’s one that reads, “How can someone so hot have such bad opinions?”
There is no expected positive correlation between perceived hotness and sound opinions. And then there is the "dumb blonde" stereotype.
That comment reminds her of another one she read recently. “Some guy told me he was jacking off to my video and it de-radicalized him,” she says, deadpan. “Like, I’m glad you’re not a Nazi anymore but also, come on.”
Sounds like a troll honestly.
“AOC caught the Democrats sleeping at the wheel,” one supporter says. “They thought, Hispanic girl, bartender, whatever—she’s not going to be a problem. They were wrong. And once it started, they couldn’t stop it. They had to give her a seat at the table. And now, they’ll never let themselves get caught like that again.”
That is a problem with the partisan primary system in general, but especially in safe districts like the NY14, which is D+19. In the 2018 where AOC unseated Crowley, less than 30k cast a vote in the primary out of a population of ~740k.
A small minority gave us AOC (and similar primary upsets gave us the rest of the Squad). This 2018 Purge of moderates pulled the Democratic Party to the left, and I think it eventually led to Trump getting back into the White House.
For all California's faults, a jungle primary like they have would be a better system. Let everybody compete in one big pool, and top 2 go to the general election. Alternatively, have an Alaska-style jungle primary where top four advance, and there is IRV in the general.
One key issue that distinguishes Abughazaleh from most American politicians, including other Democrats, is her stance on Gaza. Outspoken in her criticism of the war, she has been labeled “anti-Israel” by opponents—a tag that could prove difficult to shake in her district, where many voters are Jewish.
The problem is that these activists who style themselves as "against the war" have no problem with Gaza attacking Israel, murdering >1000, and taking hundreds of others hostage. They just have a problem with Israel fighting back. They wanted a "ceasefire" immediately after the Gazan attack.
“It’s pretty basic,” Abughazaleh says. “I believe in basic human rights. War crimes are a bad thing no matter who commits them. No matter who they’re being committed against.”
So, what is she suggesting as a way to end this war and return hostages that would not make Hamas and other terror factions stronger by releasing 1000s of terror prisoners that would give Hamas et al not only more experienced fighters and commanders but also a huge PR victory? No, there is no alternative but to defeat them on the battlefield, even if that takes a while. Appeasement did not work for the Nazis, and it does not work for Palestinian terrorists.
From the GQ photo shoot:
She is definitely attractive, even if I do not see what in her resume recommends her for Congress.
This photo also seems to to lean into a retro aesthetic. I wonder if that was on purpose.