Tag: democratic party
Ben Gruber

If Democrats Like Ben Gruber Can Win In Rural Districts, The GOP Is Toast

Wisconsin’s 51st state Assembly District is a sprawling rural landscape west of Madison, containing towns you likely have never heard of, such as Mount Horeb, the largest in the district, with a population of 7,754.

It is a bit of a political anomaly. In 2024, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris narrowly won the district despite its rural character. However, it has been represented by Republican Todd Novak since 2014. Now it is perhaps the assembly’s biggest battleground as Wisconsin Democrats fight to retake the state legislature for the first time since 2010.

And Ben Gruber, the Democrat trying to flip this seat, might offer some clues about how Democrats can begin winning back rural America.

Gruber certainly looks at home in the district he wants to represent. He’s a big, broad-shouldered guy with closely cropped hair and a full salt-and-pepper beard—more wilderness than buttoned-up politician. He grew up around Arena (population 844), worked hayfields and a local cheese factory as a kid, and has spent his adult life as a firefighter, police officer, paramedic, EMT, and now conservation game warden.

“I hate to say it, but Trump is charismatic,” Gruber told me over Google Meet from his kitchen. “I hear it all the time. People say that he gets things done. And he does, even though it’s usually not helpful.”

That initially resonated with rural voters, Gruber explained, because they pride themselves on getting things done—baling hay before the rainstorm comes in, for example. “It doesn’t always have to be pretty,” Gruber said. “It just has to get done.”

It’s not often we find rural Democrats these days, yet an old strain of prairie populism remains stubbornly alive in Gruber’s patch of Wisconsin. That area has deep roots in the progressive tradition that produced Robert La Follette: small farmers suspicious of concentrated corporate power, strong cooperatives and organized labor, and a politics that once made economic populism perfectly compatible with being rural. The New Deal cemented much of that constituency into the Democratic coalition for many years, though rural America more broadly has since moved dramatically toward Republicans.

That history is part of what makes this district fertile ground for a Democratic comeback. In 2023, the new liberal majority on the state Supreme Court struck down Republicans’ appalling legislative gerrymanders, putting control of the legislature within reach.

The race for the 51st Assembly District matters far beyond Wisconsin. If Democrats take control of both chambers of the state legislature and Democratic nominee David Crowley wins the governor’s race, they can pass new congressional maps next year ahead of the 2028 elections. Wisconsin is about as purple as you can get, yet Republicans currently hold six of its eight congressional seats. If we win this race and Democrats retake the state legislature, the state’s House map could be redrawn to flip three—or more—seats in the next election cycle.

But before Democrats can redraw Wisconsin’s congressional districts, Gruber has to persuade rural voters who have spent years moving toward the Republican Party to vote for a Democrat.

In rural communities, there is an undercurrent of discontent over being trampled by outside forces—whether it’s high-voltage power lines running through farms without local consent, the dearth of broadband internet, or their schools and healthcare clinics shutting down.

For Gruber, a former trickle-down Republican himself, the accumulation of those losses opened his eyes. His daughter faced a nearly 100-minute bus ride to kindergarten after a local school shuttered, his website says. While working as a game warden, he once spent 27 minutes doing CPR with a local police officer to keep a woman alive in the field while waiting for an ambulance arriving from the next county over because there were no local volunteers available that night.

In a brutal irony, around the time Gruber and the Arena police officer were presented an award for their heroics, the village’s police department effectively closed. Keeping it open would have required raising property taxes, Gruber said, which he described as “choosing between flushing toilets and public safety.” Meanwhile, a Republican-led law legally prevents communities from raising property taxes without a referendum.

Add in unfettered Republican control of the state for nearly two decades, and for Gruber, it was hard to miss that conservative ideology simply wasn’t working.

But that doesn’t necessarily mean rural conservatives will eagerly vote Democratic this year. Social media is replete with conservatives trashing Trump for failing to deliver on his promises, quickly followed by statements like “But Kamala would’ve been worse” or “That doesn’t mean I’m a commie now!”

And it’s not just anecdotes. A recent report by Navigator Research found that roughly 1 in 5 of Trump’s 2024 voters say they regret their vote, but just eight percent of them would change it if it were possible.

It’s one thing to be disappointed by someone you helped elect. Remember, for one thing, we were similarly disappointed with then-President Barack Obama’s inability to get a public option into his healthcare law. It’s another thing to parlay that disappointment into literally changing parties.

For Gruber, the first step is simply talking to potentially hostile voters.

“Sometimes conservative folks will say, ‘Why should I vote for a Democrat?’” he said. “And I tell them, ‘You shouldn’t vote for a Democrat, just like you shouldn’t vote for a Republican. You should vote for someone you believe shares your values and is going to show up and work for you and your community.’”

Of the thousands of voters he said he’s talked to, Gruber reports that maybe five have sent him packing because they will vote for only Republicans.

I asked about those shared values. And honestly, it’s nothing groundbreaking. Nothing Democrats haven’t been fighting for since forever.

He said he wants to fight for rural education, public lands, and healthcare, instead of the $2 billion that Republicans in Madison helped to earmark to subsidize massive data centers for wealthy companies like Meta and Microsoft. While Gruber’s district isn’t in line to host any data centers, he said that residents are furious at the power lines being built to deliver power to nearby data centers, as well as the resulting increases in their electric bills.

And then there’s Trump’s escalating trade war with Canada, a particularly sensitive issue in dairy country. Canada is one of Wisconsin’s largest agricultural export markets, and its retaliatory tariffs now include 25 percent on U.S. cheese and 50 percent on several other dairy products. For farmers already feeling squeezed, that gives Gruber another economic issue that hits close to home.

In fact, Gruber got visibly emotional when the topic of Canadian tariffs came up.

“As a former firefighter, 9/11 is important to me, and no country came to the aid of the United States faster than Canada,” he said.

Wisconsin and Canada share a lot more than a border, and that’s common across the northern states. There’s a reason Trump’s “Lake America” is landing with a thud for most Americans, including many Republicans.

Being pro-Canada is an American value.

The GOP’s campaign against Gruber certainly isn’t talking about any of those issues, though. Instead, Republicans are leaning into culture-war attacks.

While I spoke with Gruber, I joked about whether Republicans were trying to tie him to transgender issues—and it turns out they are, as absurd as it sounded to me.

“They’re attacking me for knowing someone who knows someone who knows someone that supports prisoner sex-change operations,” he said. “It’s patently absurd, but it’s not as if Republicans can talk about healthcare, the economy, or anything of substance."

So whenever the matter comes up on the campaign trail—and it does—Gruber flat-out deflects it back to economic concerns. If someone is obsessed with that issue, he shrugs it off—they probably won’t vote for him anyway.

Republicans’ attack ads also make vague allusions to his “unhinged” social media posts, a characterization he has gleefully parodied since. Seriously, I went through months of his Facebook posts. “Tame” would be the better adjective.

That gets at the larger question I put to Gruber: When do immediate economic concerns—schools closing, ambulances taking too long to arrive, rising electricity bills, expensive groceries—outweigh fears about some trans kid somewhere else in the country?

There is no magical formula here, though. No logic that can tell us at what point people might stop voting against their economic interests because of irrational fears stoked by the conservative media ecosystem.

In the end, Gruber argues that Democrats must deliver economically for voters while still protecting marginalized communities. It’s not an either/or proposition. But he thinks the party’s main public focus has to be on improving people’s material lives—or, as he put it, offering candidates “who share their values, show up, and work hard to improve daily life.”

Which brings us right back to what Gruber said at the beginning of our conversation: Rural voters respected Trump’s willingness to act.

I’ve written about the same phenomenon. Our politicians have too often blamed norms, traditions, institutions, and procedural obstacles for their inability to change a system that increasingly benefits the wealthy and powerful. It’s excuse after excuse after excuse.

But Trump just does what he wants. Yes, he’s using that power toward ends we vehemently oppose, and many of his actions have been clawed back by the courts. But that has helped reveal the contours of presidential power—what a president can do, what the courts will stop, and what survives those challenges. And it turns out a president has far more power than we were led to believe.

The next Democratic Congress and president need to be just as laser-focused on using the power that voters give them to deliver tangible economic benefits to everyday people, without hiding behind norms and traditions that entrench the status quo.

Do that, and maybe some of those conservative voters in Gruber’s rural district will be impressed enough to reassess their partisan affiliations. Most won’t, to be sure. But we don’t need them all. Chip away at the GOP’s rural monolith, and the state of play changes dramatically.

That’s what makes Gruber’s corner of Southwest Wisconsin so interesting. This isn’t just a race for one seat in the state assembly. It’s a test of whether Democrats can begin rebuilding a rural presence by showing up, focusing relentlessly on people’s material lives, and then actually delivering when given power.

You can support Ben Gruber here. And remember, this isn’t just support for a revitalized Democratic rural presence. It’s support for a Wisconsin legislative majority that can redraw the state’s congressional map and net us at least two new U.S. House seats in 2028.

Let’s do it!

Markos Moulitsas is founder and editor of the blogging website Daily Kos and author of three books.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

el-sayed

Michigan Democrats Urging Unity After El-Sayed Wins Close And Costly Primary

Abdul El-Sayed narrowly won Michigan’s Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate on Tuesday, defeating Rep. Haley Stevens in a major victory for the party’s progressive faction.

Stevens conceded in a congratulatory call to El-Sayed and immediately endorsed him after a bitter race that featured more than $60 million in spending on her behalf by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). She joined other Democrats critical of the insurgent candidate’s position on Israel, Gaza, and the Mideast conflict -- including State Sen. Mallory McMorrow, who dropped out of the primary, and Sen. Elissa Slotkin – to call for unity in the general election against Republican nominee, former Rep. Mike Rogers.

“Congratulations to Abdul El-Sayed for winning the Democratic nomination for Senate.,” Slotkin posted on social media. “It’s been a long primary, but now it’s time to gear up to beat Mike Rogers (again) and win up and down the ticket. There is nothing more important than the mission of the next 90 days: uniting, keeping this seat blue, flipping the House and Senate, and providing a real check on President Trump.”

After noting that his upset victory “shook up the world,” El-Sayed reciprocated with an equally conciliatory tone, noting the “great conversation” with Stevens, whom he described as “one of the most committed public servants that you’ll ever meet…whatever differences that we might have had in the primary, they pale in comparison to what unifies us.”

In other Michigan primaries, Sunrise Movement co-founder Will Lawrence defeated former Ambassador Bridget Brink and former Navy Seal Matt Maasam to face GOP Rep. Tom Barrett in the state’s Seventh District, while State Rep. Donovan McKinney, a Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) member, beat incumbent Democratic Rep. Shri Thanedar in the 13th District. Observers regared McKinney’s victory over Thanedar as determined more by ethnic solidarity in a Detroit community – the winner is Black, the loser Asian-American – than ideology.

Aside from the DSA-flavored results in the Great Lakes State, there were few triumphs for the left. In Missouri, Rep. Wesley Bell overwhelmingly defeated former Rep. Cori Bush, a DSA stalwart supported by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and highly critical of party leadership. Centrist or moderate candidates also won primaries in Virginia, while the more progressive candidate won the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Kansas.

Missouri voters also rejected a Republican initiative to abolish the state income tax by a margin of four-to-one – a sign that middle America is in no mood to entertain the GOP’s oligarchic platform.

Centrist Democrats Versus Insurgent Socialists Is A Fight Not Worth Having

Centrist Democrats Versus Insurgent Socialists Is A Fight Not Worth Having

Whenever I encounter a person, media report, or podcast that’s wound up about socialists taking over the Democratic party and thereby winding down capitalism as we know it, I find myself somewhere between puzzled and eye-rolly.

The main reason for my response is that our economy has always existed on a continuum between pure free markets and deep market interventions by the public sector. There’s Social Security, an intergenerational transfer program that is highly valued by those who identify as die-hard capitalists. Those same capitalists are generally comfortable with Medicare, public infrastructure, laws that protect their property, health, and safety, rules that structure markets, and so on. Taken together, expenditures on Social Security and Medicare amount to about nine percent of GDP. When it comes to such “socialism,” we’re more than a little bit pregnant.

Where we locate on that continuum is a dynamic process driven by the general degree of comfort with the status quo. And today, there is—as there should be—great discomfort among the vast majority with the status quo, in which case we should expect movements along the continuum.

But why move left vs. right? Surely, because of the obvious failure of Trump’s right-wing, faux populism. He ran on making life more affordable than under Biden but to the extent that he’s done anything in the affordability space, he’s pushed hard in the wrong direction. He’s exacerbated inflation, leading to higher interest and mortgage rates than would otherwise prevail, cut taxes for the rich, and partially offset the resulting debt costs by cutting health coverage and nutritional supports for economically vulnerable families. Last week he refused to sign a bill to help, at the margin, increase the supply of affordable housing, because his Republican allies have been unable to pass a vote to rig forthcoming elections (not that they didn’t want to, to be clear, but that they couldn’t get the votes to override a filibuster).

So I don’t think anyone should be surprised that the move along the continuum away from the status quo has been to the left. At the same time, I see no reason for Ds to overreact to this. Mamdani, to take exhibit A in this faux war, didn’t run on socializing the means of production or getting rid of market-based pricing. He ran (in part) on more affordable child care and housing, paid for by higher taxes on the rich.

The Wall Street Journal teed the issue up thusly:

They described the “insurgents” as “[r]unning on a tax-the-rich platform that would provide more services to working Americans, as well as on calls to separate the U.S. from Israel and “abolish ICE.”

First, I challenge you to find a Democrat of any stripe who doesn’t want to provide “more services to working Americans,” and the majority, left and center-left, would raise taxes on the wealthy to offset the costs. Mainstream, centrist Democrats complained bitterly, and justly so, when Trump and the Republicans extended their tilted, regressive tax cuts. Given the actions of the Netanyahu government, that part of our historical status quo must also change, something we’re hearing a lot more from moderate Democrats (and moderate Republicans).

The ICE call is trickier because for many voters, it suggests opening the borders to undocumented immigration in ways to which most Americans, and most Democrats, object. But it is clear to me and anyone else paying attention that we must abolish the unchecked, murderous power of this corrupted agency. I doubt there are many Americans (to be clear, I know there are some; in fact, a nontrivial minority) who are comfortable with the fact that the killers of Alex Pretti and Renée Good—and the killers’ enablers—have come nowhere close to being held to account.

I don’t mean to downplay the socialism label, which is surely notable. And I do think it expresses a frustration with current day, U.S.-style capitalism, a system that is currently and massively rewarding tech oligopolists who blithely pronounce that their latest and greatest invention is going to dis-employ large swaths of the workforce. Would you expect a regular, not-particularly-ideological person, struggling to make ends meet, whose grown kids can’t afford a home, while the deeply corrupt president takes equity shares in private companies, to stand up and applaud today’s capitalism? Or might you expect them to be open to a different offer?

So, let’s talk about that offer. Because this, not the label, is what will ultimately matter. If Mamdani and the other new-wave Democratic Socialists can deliver on the affordability and social justice agenda where status-quo purveyors—in both parties—have come up short, then they should and will win. If they fail, they’ll be kicked to the curb like every other incumbent these days.

In this regard, there is solid logic to the idea of collecting more tax revenues from those who’ve benefitted most not just from market forces (often juiced by regulatory protections—see Baker’s work on patents and monopoly power) but from decades of high-end tax cuts, and use some of those resources to offset the affordability crisis facing middle and low-income families.1

Rent control, on the other hand, sounds good to stretched renters and is a rare housing policy that helps people today vs. years in the future when affordability policies (like those in the ROAD Act) finally lead to added housing supply. But it has a track record of doing more harm than good. A lot of landlords are also stretched, and the rent freeze will make it harder for them to maintain upkeep. Worse, evidence shows rent control to lead owners of rental units to get out from under the freeze by converting to condos.

Still, good for Hizzoner for delivering on his campaign promises, in this case a two-year rent freeze on 40 percent of New York City apartments. I worry this one will have unintended consequences, and if I’m right, his administration should unwind it early.

That last part seems important to me. Again, forget about the names and labels. The future of democracy and the potential for getting back to functional governance requires a lasting political coalition, and that can only be built by delivering help to the people who need it the most. If you ran on a rent freeze, that go ahead and try a rent freeze. But if it backfires, quickly explain to your constituents that it isn’t working, you’re ending it, and you’re moving on to plan B, followed by, if necessary, plan C (see CAP’s plan for direct rent relief; it’s a federal plan, but aside from Trump, there’s actually bipartisan interest in addressing the shortfall in affordable housing).

Remember what Roosevelt said in 1932, another period when capitalism’s flaws were blatantly transparent: “The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something."

One last point about this alleged internal attack by socialist insurgents. As I’ve said, I see no such thing but instead see earnest politicians, and in Mamdani’s case, a highly skilled politician, recognizing that the status quo is broken and reaching for alternatives.

But we do not live in a political vacuum and the right will use the socialists’ wins to try to scare the broad electorate. Their leader posted this on social media:

The Communists are finally making their move. I’ve been waiting and preparing for this for a long time. It’s easy to be a Communist—All you have to do is say, ‘I’ll give you everything,’ but that means you’re taking it away from others that have earned it.

I’m not a political advisor, so take what follows with a shaker of salt. But there is, I believe, a way to break this attack. It starts by recognizing the obvious point that what works in New York City won’t work in most other places. But if it stops there, we’re sitting ducks. Remember, the fact about contemporary Republicans is that they’re awful at governing but a lot better than Democrats at getting elected, largely through fear tactics and pitting people against each other, a strategy as old as politics itself.

The key to winning in this period of unaffordability, chaos, fear, and heightened inequalities is not for Democrats to fight over the socialist, capitalist, centrist or leftist labels, but to connect with voters on how we’re going to help them and equally importantly, on how the other side has failed to do so and still has no idea what to do other than to try to scare people away from new, younger faces with bold, new ideas.

Trump and his reckless, corrupt, and inept enablers promised they’d help people, but clearly they lied, and now, when they’re not engaging in self-enriching grift and graft, they’re name-calling to try to distract us from their blatant failures.

But we know who the enemy is. It is the status quo. The polling, both electoral and consumer sentiment, couldn’t be clearer on this. And to shout “commie!” or “socialist!” at someone with potentially credible ideas on how to wield public policy to help solve real problems is to defend the status quo. Full stop.

Jared Bernstein is a former chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Joe Biden. He is a senior fellow at the Council on Budget and Policy Priorities. Please subscribe to his Substack, from which this is reprinted with permission.



1
Mamdani's 2028 Bombast Doesn't Bode Well For National Democrats

Mamdani's 2028 Bombast Doesn't Bode Well For National Democrats

Yes, Mayor Zohran Mamdani's socialist picks just knocked off some Democratic incumbents in New York City. They included surprising defeats, especially that of Rep. Adriano Espaillat, chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Espaillat lost to Darializa Avila Chevalier, whose social media swims with past calls to abolish the police, free prisoners and stop deportations for any reason, presumably including murder.

It's not like Espaillat's district was dominated by the young professionals who flocked to Mamdani. His electorate is 52 percent Hispanic and includes such non-hipster neighborhoods as Harlem, Washington Heights, and parts of the Bronx.

Nonetheless, Mamdani may have seriously misread the national mood when he said right before the primaries: "When does the race for 2028 begin? It starts now." That was an awesome display of grandiosity for a guy who didn't get even 50% of the vote even though he was the official Democratic candidate in a very Democratic city.

The New York primaries may indeed be kicking off the presidential contest in 2028, but not in a way Democrats would like. Look at recent history. Backlash against Donald Trump's erratic governing style returned control of the House to the Democrats in 2018. Similar forces helped Joe Biden to take the presidency from Trump two years later.

The Democratic left sold these results as a thumbs-up for its radical agenda. But those same views — things like defunding police and obsession with transgender issues — turned off the middle America voters who gave Biden his win in 2020.

Two years later, Republicans retook the House majority by weaponizing the dumbest things left-wingers had said. Similar dynamics powered Trump's return to the presidency in the 2024 election. It is dangerous to assume that disgust with Trump translates into a desire to stop immigration enforcement.

The recently elected Mamdani, meanwhile, is enjoying an overly long honeymoon. The reality is sure to overtake the massive publicity he attaches to the smallest of achievements. New Yorkers are noticing that there are still no free buses, as promised. The rents are not frozen. And universal childcare has not happened. Mamdani has also antagonized the financial business leaders, jeopardizing the prospects of the young grads seeking white-collar jobs, that is, much of his base.

Democrats seeking victories in the heartland should fear having the excesses of coastal socialists hanging around their neck. The veteran New York political analyst Errol Louis described the dangers New York's far left pose to the Democrats' future. As an anchor at Spectrum News NY1, he has interviewed them all.

"They've got some ideas that will not sell in Des Moines or in, you know, Cleveland," Louis said. Their strategists tell him that they're "gonna fight, fight, fight ... get themselves arrested, introduce legislation, whether or not it has a chance of getting a hearing or ever becoming law."

Barack Obama understands well the radicals' lack of appeal outside choice urban corridors. He's called out affluent progressives who think they earn halos by pushing polices deemed to help the less fortunate but end up costing Democrats at the polls. They can embrace left-liberal politics without personally paying a price, Obama said last year. "You could still make a lot of money. You could still hang out in Aspen and Milan and travel and have a house in the Hamptons and still think of yourself as a progressive."

Democrats have fine hopes that this year's midterms will deliver at least a House majority. The growing dislike of Trump puts wind in their sails.

Come the 2028 presidential contest, however, Trump will presumably not be running. But the Democrats' aggravating radicals will still be at it. If the race for 2028 starts now, Democrats should be concerned.

Froma Harrop is an award winning journalist who covers politics, economics and culture. She has worked on the Reuters business desk, edited economics reports for The New York Times News Service and served on the Providence Journal editorial board.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Trending

World