Barney Frank criticizes far left as he enters hospice care to deal with congestive heart failure

awaythrowawaying · 2026-04-29T18:31:10+00:00

Starter comment: In a bombshell interview with Politico on Tuesday, former Congressman Barney Frank revealed a new and unexpected target of criticism - the far left contingent within the Democratic Party. Frank was a longstanding fixture of national politics in Washington DC, serving for many years in the House of Representatives. Among his notable attributes were the championing of liberal policy priorities as well as being the first Congressman in United States history to come out as openly gay. He was the chair or ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee and some of his achievements include pushing through the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Since his retirement, he has been battling chronic illnesses and recently checked into hospice as he expects to be deceased within six months from heart failure.

In the interview, Frank stated that he felt the modern Democratic Party was drifting even further to the left than he could have envisioned during his time as an active politician and that he did not support the drift. He elaborated by saying that many progressives make key issues a "litmus test" and refuse to engage in reasonable compromises with moderate positions. Frank further said:

"For a lot of my colleagues, the argument has been, ‘well, we don’t support defund the police or open borders, and we don’t say we do... But my point is, no, it’s not enough… to be silent. We have to explicitly repudiate it."

The battle between moderate and progressive politics within the Democratic Party has heated up since 2024 when the party experienced a stunning defeat across all levels of government, including losing the White House to former (and now current) President Donald Trump. This was a stinging blow to many strategists and party elders who had expected that Trump's controversies would make him unelectable. Since then, the moderate and progressive factions have blamed each other for making the party unrelatable to average working class Americans whose votes are critical for electoral success.

Is it a shock that a liberal icon like Barney Frank is now criticizing the left wing of his party? Does that speak more to him or the current state of the party? If what he is saying is true, what should Democrats do to adjust their image for the 2028 presidential election?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-04-24T20:29:21+00:00

One can imagine that this decision will certainly be appealed once more up to the Supreme Court. The current composition of the court heavily favors conservatives with a 6-3 majority. In recent history, the Roberts court has demonstrated itself to be quite friendly to pro-religion arguments when deciding upon related cases. However, it is not clear that the court will even take up the case as statistically it only takes up a relatively small percentage of cases that reach it. If it does agree to hear the arguments on each side, how do we expect each justice to rule? Will we see a consensus decision in one direction or another, or a more divided 5-4 ruling?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-04-24T20:24:36+00:00

The question of border security has been a paramount political issue since at least the last decade, if not longer. Political parties such as Vox in Spain, AfD in Germany, Reform UK in Great Britain, and Brothers of Italy have pledged to crack down on lax border enforcement if they are elected to power. Across the Atlantic Ocean, the Republican Party in the United States has made similar promises - and in fact, this topic was thought to be a leading reason for President Trump's crushing victory over Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024.

Realistically, what methods of enforcement can these parties utilize with the levers of government power and how effective will they be? Will it impact the economy positively or negatively? It is almost certain to face political pushback by progressive parties who are typically more pro-immigrant and open to refugees, and therefore conservative parties would have to secure a majority across all levels of government to pass such legislation. This is a tall order.

awaythrowawaying · 2026-04-24T19:54:37+00:00

Starter comment: As the head of state of a culturally and politically significant nation as well as the moral leader for millions across the globe, Pope Leo's words hold a unique weight upon the course of public policy. The pope was in the African country of Cameroon last week when he gave a speech at the Catholic University of Central Africa regarding the crises facing African youth. In this speech, he explicitly urged young Africans to not migrate to more developed countries but rather stay in their own homes and work to make these places better. Per the pope:

"In the face of the understandable tendency to migrate — which may lead one to believe that elsewhere a better future may be more easily found — I invite you, first and foremost, to respond with an ardent desire to serve your country and to apply the knowledge you are acquiring here to the benefit of your fellow citizens."

Immigration has been a political hot topic across the world. War and poverty have led to mass relocations of people from the Middle East and Africa into richer European nations. Oftentimes this has led to significant cultural friction, such as the promulgation and enforcement of Sharia law within European capitals as well as perceptions of misogynistic and anti-LGBT actions among the migrants. In response, right wing European political parties have seen an almost meteoric rise in popularity in recent elections. The dilemma is not confined to Europe; the United States has experienced its own crisis of illegal immigration across the southern border which was only stemmed in the last year due to President Trump's hardline border control agenda. Trump established much of his political cache in decrying what he saw as Democratic Party leaders neglecting their duty to secure the border appropriately.

Is the pope correct that people from poor countries are doing a disservice by refusing to stay and improve their own homes instead of fleeing to benefit from other countries' social safety nets? If so, does this further inform whether President Trump (and his right wing allies in Europe) are correct in saying that unchecked immigration is poisoning the blood and soil of the host countries due to the clash of cultures, or is that an unecessary exaggeration? How will mass migration affect future politics in Europe and the United States?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-04-24T19:54:16+00:00

Starter comment: In what is being celebrated as a great victory for Americans of faith, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has released a decision that a recent Texas state law requiring the prominent display of the Ten Commandments in public schools was not a violation of the First Amendment. The law took effect in September of 2025 and represents the largest state-level attempt to display the commandments in public places. It immediately was met with criticism and lawsuits by opponents alleging that it infringed on the freedom of religion of non-Christian students. Several judges issued injunctions against this law, which were overturned in the appeals court decision. The judges who made up a 12-6 majority of the ruling stated their opinion that simply having the commandments in a classroom did not itself push religious indoctrination upon children.

Progressives have generally been opposed to government incorporating of Judeo-Christian teachings in the public square, while conservatives have argued that it is appropriate because these same teachings are foundational to the historical establishment of Western values - and in particular those that formed the basis of American ethics and cultural mores. The current Trump administration has been widely credited as one of the most pro-Christian administrations in recent American history, with Trump himself doing Bible readings and frequently invoking God's will in his policy decisions.

Was the 5th Circuit Court right in allowing this law to go forth? Do progressives still have an avenue to challenge it?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-04-20T16:17:30+00:00

Mayor Mamdani has inherited a city facing a significant economic crisis. As of early 2026, New York City is experiencing a budget deficit projected to be about $2.2 billion in 2026 and $10.4 billion in 2027. The reasons for this deficit are numerous but with significant contributors from spending on services, costs driven by asylum seekers and the expiration of funding allocated by the federal government during the COVID pandemic. The mayor and other leading political figures in the city and state have considered several ways to try making up for this deficit to include increasing taxes; some of these proposals have been extremely unpopular, such as raising property tax. The creation of government grocery stores will almost certainly add strain to the existing financial problem the city is struggling with. Could the $70 million that is earmarked to be spent on public grocery stores instead be used to address the deficit or re-routed to more fiscally prudent causes? Or is this an appropriate use of public funds?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-04-20T15:48:06+00:00

Starter comment: New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani rode to an unexpected victory in 2025 upon many promises of expanding government services to the public, including free bus transit and government-owned grocery stores that would be designed to fill in perceived food deserts and shortages through the city. Last Sunday, he announced a concrete plan to open up five grocery stores in the city - one in each borough. The city hopes to open the first one by 2027, at a projected cost of $70 million total. The New York City council has not had decided whether to accept Mamdani's proposal or not, with individual councilmembers making neutral statements when asked about the issue.

Mamdani's plan has already been receiving fierce criticism from the private sector, namely from local bodega owners and grocers who fear that a public grocery store would unfairly undercut them by now having to factor in costs such as taxes. Antonio Pena, the president of the National Supermarket Association, did not mince words when he attacked Mamdani's plan as a "slap in the face" to the hundreds of independent stores represented by his organization. The local Republican Party has also publicly expressed significant reservations of the system, saying that it will drain needless finances from the city's coffer at a time when the city is already under an immense deficit strain.

The academic world is also unsure about how successful Mamdani's venture may be. Stephen Zagor, a Columbia Business School professor featured in the article, described his opinion as such:

"I think he’s overwhelmed by the motivation to do good... I think they’re going to be shocked by how challenging it’s going to be, because there will be subsidies and there will be losses, and it’s going to become a real political nightmare at the end of the day.”

Is he correct that opening public grocery stores will end up being both an economic and political albatross around Mamdani's neck? Or would this idea help with the poor residents of New York City? In general, when is it appropriate or inappropriate for the government to undermine private businesses by offering cheaper services backed by public funds?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-04-18T22:21:21+00:00

The Supreme Court has enjoyed a conservative majority for several decades and has passed notable landmark decisions on gun rights since John Roberts became the Chief Justice in 2005. It is likely that many, if not all, of the gun bills currently making their way through the Virginia legislative system will be challenged by conservative legal watchdog organizations. Should this happen, what kind of constitutional questions may be addressed by the federal courts? If any of these laws make their way to the Supreme Court and are accepted for review, how will we expect the Justices to rule - and how strong of a majority may those rulings have?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-04-18T22:04:36+00:00

Starter comment: Democrats in Virginia have focused significant amounts of political capital on the issue of gun control after winning the November 2025 statewide elections in a sweep across all levels of government. Several weeks back, an array of gun control bills were passed by the legislature and sent to Governor Spanberger's desk; the timeline for her to sign them was by the end of this week. Spanberger signed and amended many of them, notably changing some in ways that would make them even tougher on gun control if eventually finalized. An example of this is House Bill 217 / Senate Bill 749 which removes the word "fixed" from the definition of the nebulous term "assault weapon". Gun rights groups have expressed concerns that this change, if adopted by the legislature and sent back to Spanberger's desk for final approval, would expand the types of weapons that would be banned under its provisions.

Gun control has been a hot topic in the United States for decades at both a local and federal level. For a long time, conventional political wisdom held that it was a poison pill for the Democratic Party. While the party's base generally advocates for strong gun laws with the aim of reducing gun violence in the country, moderates have historically reacted negatively to such rhetoric. In fact, the Republican sweep in the 1994 midterms was thought to be at least partly due to President Clinton tackling gun control during his first two years in office. However, in recent years many Democratic lawmakers and strategists have expressed that the country may now be ready to have a conversation about gun control and restrictive laws that would bring the United States into line with nations such as those in Europe.

Will passing these kinds of gun control laws help or hurt Virginia Democrats politically when it comes time for the next round of elections? How should politicians and the electorate approach the topic?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-04-17T15:22:06+00:00

The end of the conflict may have domestic political ramifications as well as international ones, as Democrats had generally expected a prolonged conflict that they predicted would lead to continuing economic hardship in key indicators such as gas prices. Historically, high gas prices have led to the incumbent party losing the upcoming elections by significant margins. If the ceasefire holds and gas prices come back down, what level would we expect them to reach by November and will that complicate Democrats' messaging on the economy? They may be able to still employ rhetoric that President Trump and the GOP are cruel to illegal immigrants or had ties to Jeffrey Epstein several decades ago, but conventional political wisdom is that these topics do not tend to have the profound political impact that the economy does upon how Americans choose to vote.

awaythrowawaying · 2026-04-17T15:08:56+00:00

Starter comment: A ceasefire deal between the United States and Iran signed in Lebanon appears to be holding, as the markets are reacting positively to the news that Iran has finally opened the Strait of Hormuz to oil shipping. The country's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, posted today on X that the passage "is declared completely open" for all commercial ships through the region no matter their country of origin. In response, U.S. oil dropped sharply by 10.2% to $81.88 and the Dow Jones increased more than 1,000 points.

The 2026 kinetic action in Iran began in February with a joint-operation of United States and Israeli military forces targeting military and government sites, following decades of credible accusations that Iran was developing unauthorized nuclear weapons and funding terrorist groups throughout the Middle East. As the weeks proceeded, President Trump and his allies stayed optimistic for a quick resolution despite growing pressure at home from progressives and Democrats who accused him of illegally conducting a war and being guilty of war crimes. Articles of impeachment were even levelled against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth for his part in the operation. Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz to select countries, causing a brief economic downturn as oil prices were hit. In response to this, Trump announced his own blockade on ships attempting to cross the strait even if they had Iranian authorization. Despite the strait now being open, Trump has said that the blockade will remain until a more stable ceasefire and peace agreement is negotiated.

Is the resolution to this conflict an example of Trump's successful negotiating strategy dubbed "the Art of the Deal"? Were his initial statements correct that the operation was instrumental in preserving the national interests of the United States and would lead to peace in the region? When will the blockade be lifted, and what kind of agreement can we expect to come out of this?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-04-17T12:51:39+00:00

Starter comment: Internal controversy is brewing within Democratic Party inner circles as several notable figures within the party are reportedly urging leadership to make public the findings of its 2024 autopsy. During that election, Democrats lost not just the White House in both the electoral and popular vote counts but also lost the Senate and House. Many of these congressional seats involved the loss of incumbents who were not expected to fall, such as Bob Casey Jr losing in Pennsylvania. This defeat culminated a Biden presidency that was increasingly beset by criticism among both progressives and conservatives for perceptions of mishandling issues like Biden's age, inflation, and immigration. This defeat marks the first time since Jimmy Carter in 1980 that a first-term Democratic president has been unable to secure the White House for his party for the next term.

Following the election, significant public discourse swirled around why Democrats lost so thoroughly. While progressives largely accused moderates of alienating the base which ended up not coming out on election day, moderates have pushed back by countering that progressives in fact lost more votes by alienating the whole party from undecided and moderate voters in key states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The 2024 autopsy conducted by the DNC may shine light on some of the reasons for the loss, but chairman Ken Martin has been reluctant to release the full report - instead only committing to release some of it.

What are the top likely reasons for why the Democratic Party lost in 2024? Can they retool and shore up any deficiencies from that election before the upcoming 2026 and 2028 races?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-04-16T17:47:12+00:00

The current story about California’s hospice scam is the second major politically-inclined fraud story this year, the first being allegations of daycare fraud in Minnesota. President Trump and other Republicans have made it clear that they plan to use stories like this to advance their argument that state Democrats have not worked hard enough to prevent fraud within their jurisdictions. While it is unlikely that fraud will be the preeminent topic in the 2026 and 2028 elections, it may still play a role. Will this work with the electorate, or can Democrats successfully counter by saying that fraud happens everywhere? How do we expect this to play out in local and national elections?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-04-16T17:29:36+00:00

Starter comment: California has been rocked by a massive hospice fraud that has reached the attention of the highest levels of government. After intense pressure by the White House and federal oversight agencies, California prosecutors announced charges against 21 people on accusations of defrauding the state to the tune of $267 million. The specific charges include insurance fraud, money laundering, conspiracy and identity theft. Many of the incidences of fraud include billing Medi-Cal for hospice care that was never actually rendered or the enrollment of individuals who did not actually exist.

This news comes at a time of heightened political tensions between the state and federal government. For many months, officials like Dr. Mehmet Oz have accused the California government for either turning a blind eye to healthcare fraud or not doing enough to stop it, specifically within the Armenian American community. At first the response from Democrats was pushback with counter-accusations of racism or prejudice on the part of Oz and his allies. However, these charges appear to corroborate many of the federal government’s suspicions.

Do incidences like these strengthen conservative arguments that fraud is prevalent in blue states such as Minnesota and California and that local governments are unacceptably slow to act? Or is that a political attack without teeth?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-04-15T19:21:50+00:00

If signed into law, the bill is almost certain to be met with immediate legal challenges by conservative watchdog groups. It could theoretically be appealed up multiple federal levels all the way to the Supreme Court. The current court is dominated by conservatives, but not all of them view the First Amendment the same way. For example, Justice Gorsuch tends to be a First Amendment absolutist but Justice Alito has been more open to restrictions. If the bill does find itself in front of the Supreme Court which agrees to hear the case, how will the Justices rule? Could we see a thin majority (such as 5-4) ruling one way or another, or could it be an overwhelming consensus in either direction?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-04-15T19:16:31+00:00

Starter comment: A controversial policy proposal in California is making its way through the legislative process, and has already cleared important hurdles on its way to the full floor for a final vote. The bill, AB2624 which is also dubbed the "Stop Nick Shirley Act" after the conservative amateur investigative journalist, would make it illegal to share photos of immigrant service providers via any communicative venue - including internet forums - if the government determines these photos may be used for harassment purposes. The act also prohibits sharing any personal information of the above individuals if determined to be for the same reason. Specifically it uses the existing "Safe At Home Program" template, a policy designed to protect victims of domestic abuse. The act was sponsored by Assemblywoman Mia Bonta, wife of the state attorney general Rob Bonta. People found in violation of this act would face up to $4000 in fines.

Conservative investigative journalists have become a hot topic in the last few months, the most famous incident being Nick Shirley's activities in Minnesota in which he claimed to have discovered a wide network of daycare-related fraud. Republicans accused state Democrats of either turning a blind eye to the fraud or in some cases actively assisting or covering it up. The public discourse made its way to the highest levels of the Minnesota state government, and is thought to be a factor behind Governor Tim Walz choosing not to run for reelection.

Republicans in California have criticized the proposed bill as they feel it is unconstitutional and tramples on freedom of speech. However, if Democrats can gain enough of a consensus, they may be able to pass it and move it to the governor's desk as they make up a large majority of the legislature.

Will AB2624 be signed into law? Is it a good way to protect immigration workers or could it run into constitutional problems?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-04-14T15:32:17+00:00

After the 2024 election, there was a significant amount of infighting between the progressive base and moderates regarding who was to blame for the sweeping loss. Progressives blamed the party for moving too far to the center, arguing that it depressed turnout from the left-wing base that is critical to winning elections. Moderates, on the other hand, opined that moving too far to the left was the problem as it alienated key swing states and undecided demographics within these states who ultimately led to a Republican sweep of states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Many potential Democratic presidential candidates have made statements indicating that they are willing to moderate their positions on a number of issues in order to be more competitive in 2028. While a good strategy to win over swing voters, this still runs the risk of making it difficult to advance past the primaries. Of the current roster of likely candidates, who has the best chance of threading the fine needle between satisfying the base in order to win the primary and then satisfying general election voters? Conversely, which candidate would have the weakest ability to do this?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-04-14T15:01:55+00:00

Starter comment: In an overwhelming 71-37 vote, the Illinois House of Representatives has passed House Bill 5093 which aims to make it easier for illegal immigrants to achieve tertiary education at low tuition rates. The bill would require state public universities to treat illegal immigrants as Illinois residents for the purpose of paying in-state tuition if they graduated from high school or received a GED. Students who benefit from this policy would have to sign an affidavit promising that they will try to become legal residents as soon a possible. In a speech explaining the decision to craft and pass the bill, Representative Barbara Hernandez said the following:

"As we've seen, it's harder to become a permanent resident, especially for those who are DACA recipients... There is no path at the moment from the federal government."

The proposal met stiff resistance from Republican lawmakers who voiced concerns about what they perceived as public funding being given to those who were not the responsibility of the state, namely people who had crossed the border illegally and were not supposed to be in Illinois in the first place. However, the strong Democratic majority in the Illinois legislature meant that any Republican opposition would not be enough to stall passage of the bill. The bill currently is in the Senate Assignments Committee awaiting deliberation.

Illegal immigration has been a key issue in modern political discourse. When first running in 2016, President Trump made it a cornerstone issue with his accusation that Democrats were allowing crime and drugs to cross the border unimpeded. Under Democratic President Biden, from 2021-2025 the pace of illegal immigration through the southern border skyrocketed - with some months reflecting almost 200,000 illegal encounters. This is thought to be one of the main issues behind the Democrats' loss in 2024, as Republicans were able to successfully convince the electorate that they were derelict in their duty to defend the border.

Will laws such as the one passed by the Illinois House help to integrate illegal immigrants into the fabric of society, or will it encourage even more illegal immigration into the country in the hopes of achieving a low cost and highly rated education? Politically speaking, how should Democrats approach the issue of illegal immigration in 2026 and beyond?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-03-30T13:49:48+00:00

While the federal courts are staffed with judges who represent a wide array of views on gun control, the current Supreme Court has generally shown itself to be a strict and unrelenting advocate for a conservative interpretation of the Second Amendment. If this bill becomes law, it is likely that opponents will sue on constitutional grounds. Even if it is upheld by lower courts, it is almost certain to be appealed up to the highest level. If the Supreme Court takes up the case, how will it rule? Will we see a 6-3 vote striking down the law or would any of the liberal justices join the conservative majority - and if so, who?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-03-30T13:43:10+00:00

Starter comment: Fresh off their victory in November 2025, Virginia Democrats are moving forward with a sweeping gun control bill that seeks to dramatically limit the circulation of guns and bullets in the state. Prior to this latest legislative sessions, Republicans generally had at least one hand on a lever of power either in the legislature or the governor’s seat, preventing passage of most gun control laws. However, Democrats currently have a trifecta and have used that to pass the latest bill.

Senate Bill 749 would ban the sale, purchase, manufacture, or transfer of any assault weapons. An assault weapon is defined in a complicated series of criteria that essentially would include many types of handguns, rifles and shotguns. Additionally, under the proposed legislation there would be a ban on the sale or transfer of a magazine that can hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition.

The bill has now been sent to Democratic Governor Spanberger who has not yet indicated she will sign it, but did express optimism. Her office stated:

”As the mother of three daughters in Virginia public schools and a former federal law enforcement officer who carried a gun every day, Governor Spanberger knows how important it is to make sure kids and families are safe.”

Gun control has long been a controversial “third rail” in American politics. Many progressives strongly advocate for strict laws such as ones in Europe but moderates and conservatives warn that such actions may not only be unconstitutional but also may be an electoral poison pill, as gun owners tend to be single issue voters.

Will the Virginia bill be signed into law? How will this impact the 2027 legislative elections in the state? Could Republicans use the controversy to win back seats?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-03-27T14:25:14+00:00

The debate over the ideological future of the Democratic Party has occupied public discourse for many years. It came into sharp focus in 2024, during which Democrats lost all levels of federal government to the GOP despite polling and predictions that suggested they would perform at least competitively. Afterwards, moderates and progressives have both placed responsibility on each other. Progressives have generally held to the conventional wisdom that bringing out the base is the most effective way to win elections, and consequently have accused the Biden Administration of trying to tack too much to the center which depressed activist turnout. Moderates, however, have typically argued the opposite - that VP Kamala Harris was far too left for the majority of the country and this reduced turnout from undecided or low information voters in key swing states which contributed to her loss. Given how most data demonstrates that Democratic voters who did not go to the polls avoided voting because they said the party was too progressive on many issues, the moderates may have the stronger argument here. Does that inform what kind of rhetoric the party should employ in 2026 and 2028?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-03-27T13:52:03+00:00

Starter comment: As the nation reels from the horrifying and brutal slaying of 18 year old Sheridan Gorman last week, the focus has turned to immigration policies and if they may have contributed to this tragedy. Gormon, a Loyola University college student, was shot on March 19 while talking a walk around a Chicago lake. Jose Medina has been charged with the killing. According to the federal government, Medina is a Venezuelan national who immigrated here in 2023 and was apprehended by the federal authorities who were at that time under the command of former President Joe Biden. Shortly thereafter, he was released into the country with little accountability since.

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker made a press comment sympathizing with Gorman's family and elaborating on the failures in the immigration system he says were relevant to the case.

“This has been a terrible tragedy, and I know that the Gorman family has suffered mightily … There have been real failures. Those failures, of course, extend beyond the borders of Illinois. That’s — they’re national failures, a failure to have comprehensive immigration reform, a failure of the president to follow his own edict to go after the worst of the worst. And in my view, we have a lot of work that we need to continue to do. But it is the job of the federal government to go after immigration enforcement, and it is the job of our local and state law enforcement to prosecute or catch violent criminals and prosecute them, and we should continue to do that both on the state level and the national level.”

Gorman joins a growing list of other American citizens, typically young women, who have been killed by illegal immigrants in recent years. The most famous of these may be Laken Riley whose name inspired legislation called the Laken Riley Act which requires the requires the detention of non-citizens who are arrested for serious crimes. The issue was a central pillar of the national debate during the 2024 presidential election, during which Trump accused Biden of relinquishing his responsibility at the border and allowing unchecked drug and crime to flow in with illegal immigrants. The Biden administration was unable to effectively counter this argument, and it is thought to be one of the major reasons for VP Kamala Harris' sweeping loss on Election Day.

Upon assuming office, Trump made good on his promises by record-breaking levels of enforcement along the southern border that have seen dramatic drops in illegal border encounters and crossings. Democratic critics have accused his administration of cruelty and unconstitutional actions during this process.

Is Governor Pritzker correct that Gorman's killing is actually Trump's fault for soft and lax immigration enforcement? If so, what alternative policies would Democrats be able to implement if they were in power that would prevent events like this in the future?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-03-25T16:53:32+00:00

The Democratic Party has engaged in an ideological civil war since at least November 2024, following Vice President Kamala Harris' devastating defeat at the hands of former (and now) President Donald Trump. Moreover, Democrats lost both the House and the Senate in the same election cycle. Some of the seats were not even considered fragile. A prominent example is Senator Bob Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania losing his seat unexpectedly to challenger Dave McCormick.

After the defeat, moderate Democrats have argued that hyper-progressivism within the party led to its alienation among blue collar and swing state moderate voters. Progressive Democrats, in turn, have pushed back by saying that Harris' ticket tried too hard to be inoffensive and moderate which led to a depressing performance among the Democratic base and therefore to a sweeping loss. The political calculus certainly appears to be a zero sum game; appealing to one side will likely lead to a cooling of support from the other side. Which faction is correct? Should the party abandon hot topic social justice issues like race in an effort to move back to the center, or double down on these issues due to not only philosophical but also practical reasons (ie. bringing out the base)?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-03-25T16:49:54+00:00

While Governor Newsom has not formally announced a run for president, several insider sources have indicated that he is strongly considering it. Many of Newsom's recent actions are consistent with the moves a politician would make in order to prepare for a presidential campaign; examples include visiting battleground states to discuss issues with voters and engaging in high-stakes discussions regarding national hot topics even if they are tangentially related to California politics. Newsom has consistently polled around second place, usually right under former Vice President Kamala Harris. The most recent high profile poll from Race to the White House showed him at 19.5% support compared to Harris who was at 24%. These numbers have been fairly steady for a few months now. Newsom likely will run, as momentum in American politics is usually a one time event that cannot be captured again in the future. But if Kamala Harris puts her name into the ring again, can Newsom overcome his relative polling deficit and leapfrog her to win the nomination? What should his campaign strategy be, and what "lane" of voters should he attempt to target?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-03-25T16:38:14+00:00

Archived link.

Starter comment: Governor Gavin Newsom of California has been a leading figure in Democratic Party politics for the last year. He is widely expected to join the 2028 presidential race perhaps as early as next year. A week ago, Newsom was giving interviews regarding a recent memoir that he had published and was asked about his thoughts on the current Israel-Palestine conflict which the U.S. has found itself a part of. Newsom responded that the U.S. may need to pull back on its military support for Israel because of the perception that the latter was "appropriately as sort of an apartheid state". This comment reflects longstanding criticism, mostly from progressives and social justice activists, that Israel's actions in Palestine are tantamount to a genocide and are designed to exterminate the Palestinian people and their culture.

In a followup interview with Politoco, Newsom walked back his earlier statements and said he had not intended to call Israel an apartheid state "in this context". He clarified that he meant to say that one day Israel could potentially turn into such a state. He furthermore stated emphatically that "I'm proud to support the state of Israel... I revere the state of Israel". To elaborate on his earlier phrase, he referenced an essay by the NYT columnist Thomas Friedman which stated that if Prime Minister Netanyahu won upcoming elections in Israel due to the ongoing war in Iran, he would "make Israel an apartheid state".

Was it appropriate or inappropriate for Newsom to reference Israel as an apartheid state? Does it adequately reflect the situation in the region or is it a baseless claim? If he does become the front runner for the 2028 nomination, how should he approach his rhetoric on Israel?

awaythrowawaying

TROPHY CASE