Hawley’s Civil War: Voter ID vs. Party ID

Josh Hawley is raging on Fox because four Republicans just knifed Trump’s favorite voter‑ID project — not from the left, but from inside the church. Collins, Murkowski, McConnell and Tillis joined Democrats to block the SAVE Act amendment, which would have strapped federal voter ID and proof‑of‑citizenship rules onto a GOP funding bill for ICE and Border Patrol.

Hawley plays the outraged populist: “Voter ID is the most popular thing out there… you can’t explain to me why you wouldn’t vote for voter ID.”

He’s not wrong about the polling — around three dozen states, including blue ones, already use some form of ID — which is exactly why both parties weaponize it.

For Republicans, it’s a loyalty test to Trump; for Democrats, it’s a perfect villain to rally against while quietly running ID rules at home.

The four GOP rebels are not suddenly pro‑democracy saints. They’re just reading the fine print.

A hard federal SAVE‑style regime would nationalize control of voter eligibility in a way that a future Democratic White House could flip and use right back against them.

So they hide behind “states’ rights” while their own states enforce ID anyway, and hope the base is too mad at “RINOs” to notice this is really about keeping Congress free to rig the field later.

In the end, nothing here is about your right to vote. It’s about who gets to control the machinery that decides who counts. Trump wants a nationwide filter branded as “integrity.”

Senate leadership wants to keep the filter in their own hands. Voters get a performance: one side screaming “fraud,” the other screaming “suppression,” and both perfectly happy with systems that make it just hard enough for the wrong people to show up.

#USA #elections #voterID #Hawley #Trump #Republicans #Democrats #fakeDemocracy

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

Data Center Rage vs. Bipartisan Cowardice

Voters hate AI data centers. Politicians hate saying “no” to the people who build them. That’s the whole story.

Across the U.S., locals are furious that giant AI server barns are chewing through power, raising bills, wrecking landscapes and dumping noise and pollution next to schools and parks.

In Gallup’s polling, more than 70 percent of Americans don’t want a data center in their area — that’s stronger than support for most “hot button” issues.

Yet bans are still the fringe position: one city in California just passed a permanent prohibition; a handful of progressives like Sanders and AOC talk moratoriums while most candidates quietly look away.

Why? Money, unions, and campaign math. Democrats are split because trade unions like the construction jobs and because AI and cloud giants can nuke a campaign with one ad blitz.

Republicans backed data centers enthusiastically when Trump ordered them fast‑tracked, and only started whining when their own suburban base saw the power bills and the bulldozers.

Both parties now converge on a safe middle: no outright bans, just slogans like “bring your own energy” and “investors should pay the electricity, not residents.” Translation: keep the industry, tweak the bill.

In the swing states this all revolves around — Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, Georgia, Texas — the line is the same. Candidates promise “offsets,” “ratepayer protections,” maybe a special tax to fund job training.

Nobody serious on the ballot wants to say the one thing locals want to hear: stop building these things here.

Even Sanders‑backed candidates in tight races dodge hard bans; they’d rather regulate and tax than shut the door and watch the data‑center lobby spend millions to bury them.

So you get the usual democratic illusion. On the ground, parents are collecting signatures in suburbs, watching forests turn into AWS server farms beside playgrounds.

On TV, candidates posture about “moonshots of the 21st century” and “reliable, affordable energy for residents,” while signing pledges with tech CEOs to “offset” power use — an accounting trick, not a grid fix. The real policy is simple: AI gets the electrons, locals get the promises.

If this anger really explodes in the midterms, it won’t be because a party “found its spine.” It’ll be because politicians finally realize that the same people they trained to worship “the future” now see that future as a noisy, glowing box that makes their bills go up.

Right now, both parties are betting voters will keep swallowing it as long as the marketing says “innovation,” not “extraction.”

#AI #datacenters #USA #Democrats #Republicans #elections #energy #oligarchy #fakeDemocracy

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

Can Zohran Mamdani Become a “Democratic Trump” ?

🔤🔤🔤🔤➖

The back yard of a Brooklyn bar, beneath strung-up lightbulbs and swaths of fabric that swooped like great sails, an ecstatic crowd greeted Zohran Mamdani, the New York City mayor, and his victorious ally, Brad Lander.

These Democrats also had a withering verdict on their own party establishment.

“To me, centrists can go fuck themselves,” said Léa Zimmerman, 34.

“They’re fucking useless, they don’t stand for anything, and if they do stand on something, it’s pathetic. I’m done with pathetic, performative people.”

Once sacred tenets of US politics – unyielding support for Israel, unquestioning faith in capitalism – are under threat from surging frustration with the old way of doing things. No one personifies the tectonic shift better than Mamdani, 34, a democratic socialist who is also the first Muslim mayor in New York’s history.

As results rolled in on Tuesday evening, he flexed his political muscle after backing three insurgent candidates in Democratic primary elections for the US House of Representatives.

All had promised to “abolish ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement]”, condemned Israel’s “genocide” in Gaza, and vowed to “tax the rich”. All emerged triumphant.

Lander, a progressive, ousted the two-term incumbent congressman Dan Goldman; Darializa Avila Chevalier, a democratic socialist and former campus organiser, toppled Representative Adriano Espaillat, head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus; and Claire Valdez, another democratic socialist and former union organiser, defeated Antonio Reynoso for an open seat in Brooklyn and Queens.

The trio could be among more than a dozen leftwingers heading to Washington next year as part of what is being dubbed “squad 2.0”, a significant expansion from the original “squad” of four progressive women elected to the House in 2018.

That might be enough to wield influence on Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic House minority leader, by withholding votes on party priorities until their demands are met.

Mamdani enjoyed even more victories in state legislative races, where he successfully backed five other candidates, and wants more. The mayor said he hopes to “write a new chapter in our party’s history, where working people are back at the heart of that struggle”.

Democrats of all stripes were quick to recognise him as an ascendant force within the party, likely to wield influence on the national stage.

Bill Galston, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution thinktank in Washington, said: “Up until Tuesday night, Mamdani might have been dismissed as a fluke – an extraordinarily talented, energetic and personable young candidate, who was able to take advantage of extraordinary weakness in other quarters of the Democratic party to power his way to victory, but that it would be difficult to replicate him.

“As a result of Tuesday night, we have to say that – at least in the bluest parts of blue America – he represents a structural force, and not just a personal talent. I view this result as increasing the already substantial odds that there will be a credible leftwing candidate for president in the 2028 Democratic primary.”

#mamdani #trump #democrats #populist #jewish

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

🔤🔤🔤🔤➖

Like Obama and Trump, Mamdani inspires hope in some, and fear in others. Progressives see in him an overdue course correction, and a vital infusion of energy required to combat the US president’s authoritarianism. Many believe that top Democratic congressional leaders such as Jeffries, a New Yorker who endorsed Espaillat and Goldman, and Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, have failed to raise their game.

For Democratic party leadership, this result was entirely avoidable. They’re reaping what they sowed.”

Republicans, facing a hostile climate in November’s midterms, believe Mamdani’s rise has thrown them a lifeline and could give them a unifying cause.

Mike Johnson, the House speaker, said: “The Democratic party, the socialists, the Marxists, have nominated some of the most radical candidates to ever run for office, and they’re running for Congress. The insurgent left is on the rise.”

Trump weighed in, as he so often does, on social media on Thursday. “The Communists are finally making their move. I’ve been waiting and preparing for this a long time,” the president wrote.

“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. Over thousands of years, that Ideology has not worked once. The game is on. Enjoy watching!”

Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution, a group born out of democratic socialist Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign, said: “In this particular moment, the label is no longer a scarlet letter. Socialism is no longer an albatross to hang around your opponent’s neck. People are hungry for change, and looking beyond the labels to see what people are willing to fight for – and who they’re willing to fight against.”

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which recently surpassed 100,000 members across chapters in almost all 50 states, has spent years methodically laying the ground for this moment.

Ashik Siddique, the group’s co-chair, said: “A big part of our task is diffusing many decades of propaganda from the cold war and red scares in the United States that created a stigma against socialism. We’re helping recover the American roots of socialism.”

Young people’s frustrations with the military industrial complex, the hypocrisy of US foreign policy, and the influence of money in politics, has reached a head with US support for Israel’s war in Gaza.

In a dramatic shift, about 60% of Americans now view Israel unfavorably, including 80% of Democrats and 57% of Republicans under 50, according to Pew Research.

Progressive leaders argue that funding from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has become “toxic” for many Democratic voters, particularly younger demographics.

In the primary between Lander and Goldman, for example – two Jewish politicians running in one of the most heavily Jewish districts in the US – Lander called for an end to US military aid to Israel. He won in a landslide.

Once the midterms are complete, attention will shift to the race for the White House. Mamdani, born in Uganda, is not eligible to run. But he could again play the role of kingmaker.

Speculation is already swirling around progressive figures such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the representative of New York, and Ro Khanna, representative of California, both of whom have built national profiles.

#mamdani #trump #democrats #populist #jewish

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

Israel, Iran and the Two-Party Crack-Up

Israel and Iran have become the perfect stress test for America’s two ruling brands: they show how much both parties fear their own bases — and how desperate they are to hide it.

On the Democratic side, Gaza and the Iran war turned into a live primary weapon. In New York, two sitting House Democrats just got taken out by challengers who ran on being more anti‑Israel, more openly pro‑Palestinian, and less interested in donor‑friendly “balance,” in districts that will stay blue either way.

Party operatives call it a freakout, not a victory: they’re terrified of the optics — democratic socialists cheering for sanctions on Israel while the national party clings to “ironclad pro‑Israel but troubled.”

The nightmare is simple: a “Squad on steroids” model leaking into real swing states, where Gaza is low on voters’ issue lists and hands Trump free ads about “Hamas Democrats” in November.

Republicans, meanwhile, are choking on their own “America First” slogan. Trump ran as the guy who wouldn’t start Middle East wars, then gave Netanyahu a blank check in Gaza and launched a U.S.–Israel war on Iran anyway — with inflation as a bonus.

The MAGA base that liked tariffs and hating NATO did not sign up for higher prices and a multi‑front air war.

So you have right‑wing celebrities walking out over Iran, younger Republicans telling pollsters they disapprove of Trump’s handling of the war, and conservative media figures calling the pivot to negotiations with Tehran one of the most shocking U‑turns in recent foreign policy.

The same crowd that screamed “warmonger” at neocons now has to decide whether they were fine with regime‑change fantasies, as long as Trump signed the orders.

Inside both parties, elites are trying to stuff the genie back into a memo. Democratic leaders want Gaza to be a “moral concern” that somehow doesn’t touch donors, swing voters or their pro‑Israel credentials, while progressive challengers say out loud that U.S. money is paying for the killing and you can’t sell “kitchen‑table issues” while writing blank checks for bombs.

On the right, Trump wants to keep the populist, anti‑interventionist vibe while also being the most pro‑Israel wartime president in decades, then pivot to cutting peace deals with the same Iran he just finished bombing. Hawks call that appeasement; anti‑war populists call it betrayal.

In the short term, the result is chaos in primaries and weird turnout patterns. Centrist Democrats risk losing nominations in safe blue seats for being “not anti‑Israel enough,” while party brass prays that model doesn’t spread to places like Michigan where voters care more about prices than Rafah.

Trump‑endorsed Republicans mostly still win, but pockets of MAGA fatigue appear where young or working‑class voters decide that higher prices and endless conflict aren’t worth owning the libs.

Israel and Iran have cracked open a shared taboo. They’ve made Americans from different tribes ask whether permanent military commitments, automatic aid to “allies,” and presidents who can flip from bombing to hugging a regime in months are compatible with the stories both parties tell about democracy and sovereignty.

The MAGA non‑interventionists and the progressive anti‑war left will never vote together — but on this, they already sound like they’re reading from the same script. The one thing truly uniting the parties right now is that both leaderships are terrified their own voters might notice.

#USA #Trump #Biden #Israel #Iran #Gaza #MAGA #Democrats #Republicans #midterms #war #AmericaFirst #fakeDemocracy

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

Mamdani’s Franchise Model: Socialism, Inc.

Zohran Mamdani didn’t just win a mayor’s race; he opened a chain. Now the New York democratic socialist model is being rolled out like a political Starbucks — same brand, new ZIP codes.

In New York, Mamdani‑backed candidates just proved the concept: Darializa Avila Chevalier knocked out Adriano Espaillat, the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and Claire Valdez beat an establishment favorite — both running on hard‑left economics and an unapologetically anti‑Israel line that would have been radioactive in a Democratic primary a decade ago.

The message to incumbents in safe blue seats is simple: your real opponent isn’t Trump, it’s the guy with a Mamdani selfie and a DSA mailing list.

Now the brand is scaling. In Denver, Melat Kiros — who lost her job after criticizing Israel — is taking that same playbook to a district Joe Biden’s vice president carried by 56 points, with backing from DSA and Justice Democrats. In Michigan, Abdul El‑Sayed is trying to turn a Senate primary into a referendum on Gaza and corporate money.

In Wisconsin, Francesca Hong is saying the quiet part out loud: “It’s a great day to be a democratic socialist. Wisconsin is next.” The bet is that in a cost‑of‑living crisis, economic populism plus rage over foreign policy will beat a 30‑year incumbent and a safe, reassuring résumé.

The establishment knows exactly how dangerous this is — and how limited. Center‑left strategists openly admit the far left has “enormous energy” in deep‑blue urban pockets, while also pointing out that the entire movement has yet to flip a single red seat to blue.

In Manhattan, a Nadler‑aligned moderate won. In a key swing district north of the city, Democrats picked an Army veteran to take on a Republican incumbent.

In Utah and Maryland, more conventional Democrats beat progressive challengers in newly competitive seats. The people who actually have to win in purple America are quietly voting for boring.

Republicans, of course, love every minute of it. Mamdani is now a walking attack ad: a socialist New York mayor used as a cudgel against every Democrat from Staten Island to South Carolina.

GOP strategists are already recycling the “defund the police” playbook: tie swing‑district moderates to Brooklyn socialists, scream about “communists,” and hope voters never notice that the far left mostly wins in places Democrats were already carrying by 30 points.

The irony is that both sides get what they want: DSA gets a bigger megaphone and more blue‑on‑blue scalps; Republicans get fresh footage for “this is the real Democratic Party” ads.

The deeper story is uglier for everyone. The only people talking seriously about economic pain are the ones the establishment calls “too extreme,” and the only people truly thrilled about Mamdani’s rise are Fox bookers and far‑left organizers. The center keeps winning the seats that matter, but losing the narrative war.

The left keeps winning the narrative, but almost never the districts that decide who governs. And in that gap — between who runs the party and who defines it — you get a country where voters are told they must choose between Mamdani’s America and Trump’s America, while both machines quietly agree on one thing: whatever happens, incumbents get paid first.

#USA #Democrats #DSA #Mamdani #socialism #midterms #Squad #Israel #Gaza #Bernie #Republicans #fakeDemocracy

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

Colorado’s Revolt Against the “Permanent Class”

Colorado just gave Washington a focus group from hell: a sitting senator and a 30‑year House incumbent both lost to candidates selling one message — we’re not them.

In the governor’s primary, Attorney General Phil Weiser beat Sen. Michael Bennet by turning his own lawsuits against Trump into a badge of honor and Bennet’s 18 years in the Senate into dead weight.

Bennet’s ads, cash and seniority couldn’t erase the fact that Trump moved Space Command out of the state and shut down a flagship climate center while Colorado’s “man in Washington” mostly stayed on script. Voters let him keep the D.C. office — and took away the promotion.

In Denver, Melat Kiros finished what New York’s democratic socialists started. She toppled Diana DeGette, a Medicare‑for‑all liberal with three decades in Congress, by running to her left on economics and to her critics’ horror on Israel.

Kiros is 29, a fired associate who refused to retract an anti‑Israel letter, and a DSA‑aligned, Bernie‑endorsed candidate whose pitch was simple: DeGette became the establishment, took corporate money, and stopped fighting for people who can’t pay the rent. In a safe blue seat, voters decided they’d rather send a grenade than another committee veteran.

But the New York “commie corridor” storyline doesn’t fully fit Colorado. In the state’s swingiest district, Manny Rutinel — one of the legislature’s most progressive members — deliberately walked away from the DSA line. He dropped Medicare‑for‑all for a public option, stopped calling for a fracking ban, backed off wiping out student debt wholesale.

Denver’s DSA chapter refused to endorse him; he won his primary anyway and now faces a Republican incumbent in a district that will be flooded with money by November. It’s the same anger at Washington — just disciplined enough not to scare suburban voters who hate Trump but like their paychecks.

Redistricting losses were supposed to cage Democrats until 2028. The Colorado Supreme Court blocked an effort to sideline the independent commission and redraw maps in their favor. On paper, the state stays 4–4.

On the ground, a surge in Democratic primary turnout is already tempting strategists to believe they can flip seats this year, the old‑fashioned way: by winning elections instead of maps.

Put it all together and Colorado’s message is nasty in both directions. Voters are furious at Trump and at Washington — and they’re happy to aim that rage at anyone who looks like they’ve been in office too long, even if that person votes the “right” way.

The left can clearly kill off veteran liberals in deep‑blue districts; the center can still win where the map is purple, as long as it looks more like a lawsuit than a lecture.

The one constant is what both parties’ insiders fear most: the base isn’t loyal to résumés anymore. It’s shopping for weapons.

#USA #Colorado #primaries #Democrats #DSA #Trump #Congress #midterms #fakeDemocracy

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

The TRUMP Rally vs. the American Dream

Trump turned the 250th anniversary into a branded spectacle — “the most spectacular TRUMP RALLY of them all” — and forced Democrats into the least glamorous job in American politics: explaining patriotism while he sells it like merch.

In Washington, patriotism now looks like tanks, flyovers, fireworks and a giant fair on the National Mall patrolled by National Guard troops, with the president literally on the marquee.

Anyone who skips it risks looking anti‑American by definition. Trump ties love of country to loyalty to himself, then dares Democrats to say no.

Wes Moore, Josh Shapiro, Rosie Rios and a crop of candidates like Rebecca Bennett are busy building a parallel Fourth of July: museum exhibits, naturalization ceremonies, community service projects, state‑house speeches in Annapolis instead of on the Mall.

Moore explicitly says it’s time to “stop ceding the flag,” while Shapiro calls Trump’s version “whitewashing history” and stripping rights. Bennett talks about patriotism as ROTC, the GI Bill, a VA loan — not a stadium chant.

They’re all trying to hack the definition. One camp pushes “patriotism = defending democracy from Trump’s agenda.” Another leans into reckoning with slavery and inequality. A third sells patriotism as economic security and a shot at the American Dream, because voters now say they feel more betrayed by broken finances than by whether someone wears a flag pin.

Only 18 percent of Americans see Democrats as “very patriotic,” versus 31 percent for Republicans. You don’t flip that with one speech.

Republicans, predictably, play the same old card with a new face. Nixon did it in Vietnam, Reagan in the Cold War, Bush Sr. with flag‑waving in 1988. Now Trump wraps the entire semiquincentennial in his own persona and accuses critics of hating the country, not him.

GOP operatives sneer that Democrats would be “beating their chest” about unity if Kamala Harris were president, and that boycotting the Mall fair is just taking their ball and going home.

Underneath the noise, something more basic is breaking. For decades, the fight was over symbols: flags, anthems, pins. Now, polarization means accusations of corruption, authoritarianism or historical denial bounce off because each side hears only that “their guy” is under attack.

Trump is explicit about it: “I found out that nobody cared.” If nobody cares, then the guardrails that used to separate patriotism from personality cult become just another trench in the same culture war.

Democrats are trying to sell a version of patriotism that doesn’t require saluting Trump’s stage — rights, institutions, service, a country that can be loved and criticized at the same time. Trump is trying to sell one that does. On the 250th anniversary, the flag hasn’t changed. The ownership claim has.

#USA #Trump #FourthOfJuly #patriotism #Democrats #Republicans #AmericanDream #fakeDemocracy

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

Goldwater’s Ghosts: America’s Virtue Porn Industry

David French writes a long, earnest sermon about how ideology doesn’t make you good, cruelty isn’t a virtue, and humility might save American politics. Cute. Meanwhile, the country is busy proving the opposite in real time.

On the right, Trump is found liable for sex abuse and buried in indictments, and Republicans answer by turning him into a saint with better merch.

Ken Paxton swims in corruption and adultery, crushes a scandal‑free John Cornyn by almost 30 points, and Texas Christians “crawl over broken glass” to vote for him because he fights the right enemies.

On the left, Graham Platner rolls out the full set: Nazi‑adjacent ink, sexting, assault allegations, and still gets defended as the “authentic” alternative to smooth, plastic “student council” politicians.

Only a rape allegation finally forces Democrats to remember they supposedly care about character — but only when the scandal becomes too embarrassing to spin.

French’s point is simple and correct: in today’s politics, your ideology is your character card.

If you hate “wokeness,” you can be a corrupt alley cat and still be “God’s warrior.”

If you defend Gaza, universal health care, and abortion rights, you can sext, tattoo Nazis, and still be “on the right side of history.”

Theology and ideology are supposed to be contested, fragile, humble things — “seeing through a glass, darkly,” as French reminds his fellow Christians. Instead, both camps turned them into loyalty oaths that excuse anything, as long as the sinner is screaming at the correct enemies.

French wants to amend Goldwater: humility in defense of liberty is no vice, cruelty in pursuit of justice is no virtue.

America, meanwhile, quietly updates it in practice: extremism in defense of our team is the only virtue; moderation, self‑doubt, and basic decency are for “smoothgroins” and losers.

The race to the bottom isn’t an accident. It’s the business model.

#usa #politics #culturewar #trump #democrats #republicans #fakeDemocracy

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

Midterms: Democrats Don’t Lead by Much — But They Care More

A new Washington Post–Ipsos poll says Democrats only barely lead Republicans in the 2026 midterms — but the people who want Democrats to win are much more likely to show up.

Among registered voters, Democrats hold a slim 48–45 edge on the generic House ballot, exactly the three‑to‑four‑point margin analysts say they need to overcome GOP‑friendly maps and take the House.

That advantage jumps to 53–45 among voters “absolutely certain” to vote, giving Democrats an eight‑point lead inside the only electorate that matters: the one that actually turns out.

The paradox is brutal for Republicans. Trump’s approval is stuck in the high 30s, with majorities disapproving of his handling of the economy, Iran and immigration, yet the country is basically split over which party it trusts more on key issues.

Republicans hold a narrow edge on the economy; Democrats hold a similar edge on “cares about people like you.”

But enthusiasm breaks hard in one direction: more than 7 in 10 Democrats say voting in 2026 is “more important” than in past midterms; just over half of Republicans say the same.

The economy dominates everything. Forty percent of registered voters say they’re worse off than when Trump returned to office, and 54 percent name the economy among their top concerns, with nearly one in five explicitly citing prices and affordability.

About one‑fifth of voters say they trust neither party on the economy — which is exactly the sort of angry, disengaged block that stays home unless something forces them out.

Trump himself is pure turnout gasoline. About 45 percent of Republicans “strongly approve” of him, and 83 percent of Democrats “strongly disapprove”; both groups are overwhelmingly certain to vote.

But Republicans who only “somewhat” approve, or quietly disapprove, are much less likely to bother, while the anti‑Trump bloc on the left treats voting as a form of revenge.

That makes the midterms less about policy and more about which side’s intense minority drags the rest to the polls.

If Trump can cheaply calm a few visible pain points — gas prices, maybe some kind of “mission accomplished” moment on Iran — the GOP’s redistricting gains could still save their House majority.

If not, this map becomes a stress test of a simple rule: in a country that hates everyone, the angrier team wins.

#usa #midterms #Democrats #Republicans #Trump #polls #fakeDemocracy

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

DSA Wants to Nuke the Constitution. House Dems Pretend They’ve Never Heard of It.

Fox just handed House Democrats a live grenade: the new Democratic Socialists of America platform openly calls for abolishing the Senate, the presidency, and ICE — and their first reaction on camera was “I haven’t read it” and “I’m not a member.”

The DSA program “Workers Deserve More” doesn’t nibble at the edges. It demands a unicameral legislature, scrapping the Senate entirely; a parliamentary system, meaning no independently elected president; and an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.

On top of that, it calls for abolishing ICE, ending all deportations, pardoning all immigrants (including those with criminal convictions), defunding the “Department of War,” extending full voting rights to non‑citizens and people with criminal records, and easing cross‑border controls.

This isn’t fringe Tumblr; it’s the formal platform of an organization that’s already putting candidates into office.

Asked about it, Ro Khanna’s line is: “I don’t support that. I haven’t read the proposal.” Ilhan Omar dodges completely.

Pete Aguilar shrugs: “I’m not a member of the DSA, so I can’t comment on any documents that they put out,” and says he’s “not at all” worried about far‑left candidates complicating the Democratic agenda.

Meanwhile, DSA’s own magazine spells out that this platform will have a formal role in national endorsements; candidates seeking that stamp are “expected to accept and promote” the program and align their campaigns with it “to the best of their ability.” In other words, it’s not a think‑piece; it’s a checklist.

The contradiction is obvious even without Fox spinning it. On the ground, democratic socialists and self‑described socialists are beating moderates in primaries and dragging the Overton window left.

On TV, senior House Dems pretend the platform is either unknown, irrelevant, or someone else’s problem. They want DSA energy, volunteers and votes — but they don’t want to be caught owning “abolish the presidency, abolish the Senate, abolish ICE” when the clip gets played in a swing district. So they play dumb and hope no one reads the fine print.

DSA, for its part, insists this is serious: “Workers Deserve More” is now formally plugged into whom they endorse for 2028 and beyond.

Candidates are expected to campaign on this agenda while Democratic leadership does the “who, me?” routine in front of Fox’s camera. It’s the perfect snapshot of the party’s split: one wing writing a blueprint to blow up the constitutional architecture; the other wing trying to keep donors, suburban voters and the Pentagon calm by pretending that blueprint is just a student pamphlet.

In a system already shredding its own credibility, nothing screams “late‑empire politics” louder than a major faction calling for the abolition of key institutions while the party supposedly in charge claims it hasn’t bothered to read the plan.

#usa #Democrats #DSA #socialism #ICE #Congress #media #fakeDemocracy

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

#vote #republican #democrats

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

The Lobby That Buys Elections, Cheaper Every Cycle

Two years ago Cori Bush stood in front of AIPAC and promised to "tear your kingdom down." On Tuesday, the kingdom sent the bill again — just a smaller one this time. It still cashed the check.

Wesley Bell, the man who unseated her in 2024, beat her again in their rematch — this time by roughly 45 points. Not a nail-biter. A rout.

Here's the arithmetic of that rout. In 2024, AIPAC's super PAC spent about $9 million tearing Bush down. This time, roughly $2 to $3 million did the job. Same outcome. A third of the price. Someone in that lobby's finance department deserves a bonus for efficiency.

Bush had genuine tailwind this cycle. She was one of the first members of Congress to call Israel's war in Gaza a "genocide", and Democratic voters have been drifting toward exactly that framing.

In June, Democratic Socialists of America-backed challengers ousted three sitting Democrats, including Adriano Espaillat, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, who lost to a 32-year-old community organizer by three points. The socialist wave was real. It just broke somewhere else.

Missouri's 1st District is safely Democratic. Bell's actual November opponent doesn't exist yet in any meaningful sense — he's already won the only election that counted. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and the Congressional Black Caucus PAC lined up behind him anyway, because nothing says "grassroots energy" like the entire party leadership showing up to make sure a safe seat stays exactly as safe as it already was.

Bush's allies spent under $200,000 total. AIPAC's people alone outspent her tenfold on advertising and still had budget left for coffee.

So which is the actual story here — that a progressive movement is rising inside the Democratic Party, or that it's rising everywhere except the districts a well-funded lobby has decided to keep?

#AIPAC #Democrats #Missouri #primary

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

Michigan Primary: Democratic Party's Hostile Takeover

Two candidates, one Senate seat, zero grown-ups in the room. Michigan Democrats spent Tuesday picking between the establishment's chosen suit and the progressive left's populist mascot — and somehow the debate over health care and genocide accusations got less airtime than a fight over who has better "authentic" vibes.

Meet the contestants: Haley Stevens, the AIPAC-backed centrist who flipped a red district once and never lets you forget it. And Abdul El-Sayed, the Bernie-and-AOC-endorsed Medicare-for-all evangelist who apparently moonlights as a debate-stage insult comic.

His pitch on Stevens: she's "a suit with a large AIPAC bank account, that's it. I hope maybe they find some way to teach her how to string together two coherent sentences." Class act.

Her comeback: she's "the only one on this stage who doesn't have a talent agent trying to pitch me for paid speeches" — followed by an X post accusing him of wanting to blame "all of your problems on Jewish Americans." Meanwhile the pro-Israel lobby quietly wired $30 million into her campaign, which is presumably just democracy doing its thing.

Then there's the accent scandal — Stevens promising to fight "with a little bit of joy, a little bit of enthusiasm, a little bit of energy and a little bit of stick it to 'em," which somehow became a bigger national conversation than either candidate's actual Gaza policy.

El-Sayed, ever the statesman, told supporters to knock it off and focus on "things that have nothing to do with her policies or politics" — right after calling her illiterate on live television.

So here's the merger memo: one side has the AIPAC checkbook, the other has the moral high ground and a Twitter following. Both insist they're fighting for Michigan. Neither has explained how insulting each other's grammar or accent flips a swing state.


As of 12 a.m. Eastern Wednesday — three hours after polls closed — El-Sayed led 49.7 to 46.3 with about 60% counted. But his lead was built on Election Day ballots, and what's left to count is mail, which Stevens is winning by roughly the same margin he's winning the walk-ins.

Most of it sits in Wayne County, half-tabulated, breaking eight points her way. Mallory McMorrow, who quit on July 5 and stayed on the ballot anyway, was outpolling the gap between them.

Whoever wins gets to face a Trump-backed Republican in November. Genuinely unclear which primary loss would hurt less.

Who's really running this race — the voters, or the super PACs and talent agents standing just off camera?

#michigan #democrats #israel #gaza #primaryelections

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

Building the File, Not the Impeachment

House Democrats are preparing for a possible return to power in November with a less cinematic plan for Trump: not impeachment on Day One, but paperwork.

If they retake the House, Democrats are expected to use hearings, subpoenas and document demands to examine Trump’s administration, corporate donors, business allies and government contractors.

The aim is to build an evidentiary record first — and decide later whether it leads to impeachment, criminal referrals or simply another Washington museum of unpunished corruption.

Potential targets reportedly include companies with federal contracts or regulatory interests, the financing of Trump’s White House ballroom, Homeland Security contracts, possible pay-to-play arrangements and financial vehicles tied to the Trump family.

No final target list exists, and no formal inquiries have begun.

But Democrats have already begun seeking records that could become subpoenas if they regain the majority.

It is a lesson from the last round. Impeachment gave Trump a political spectacle. A long investigation gives Congress something more dangerous: documents, witnesses and a timeline that does not fit into a campaign rally.

Then Trump, battling Abdul El-Sayed, offered his own diagnosis: “Two completely different Americas.”

He is right. One America believes the presidency should be investigated. The other believes the presidency should come with donors, contractors, a ballroom and immunity from administrative inconvenience.

The election will decide which version gets the subpoena power.

#Trump #USA #Congress #Democrats #elections #corruption #fakeDemocracy

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

🏦🌴 Florida Democrats Buy a Message, Not the Candidate

Angie Nixon, a democratic socialist in the Florida legislature, beat Alex Vindman in the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate.

Vindman raised more than $16 million. Nixon raised about $975,000. He spent roughly $2.2 million on ads; she spent about $60,000. Nixon still won 56 percent to 44 percent.

Vindman had the national donor network, a national security résumé, and the institutional support that usually comes with both. Nixon had a ground campaign, progressive backing, and a record of saying openly what many Democratic candidates try to reduce to a carefully reviewed statement.

A month after October 7, Nixon introduced a Florida resolution calling for a ceasefire in Israel and occupied Palestine. She has called for an end to U.S. military aid to Israel and made a point of saying she did not take AIPAC support.

She was backed by progressive Democrats and allied groups, though the Democratic Socialists of America did not formally endorse her.

Her victory does not mean Florida is about to elect a Democratic senator. Nixon now faces Republican Sen. Ashley Moody in a state where Democrats have not won a Senate race since 2012. Moody remains the clear favorite.

But the primary offered a more immediate result: Democratic voters rejected the candidate assembled by donors and party networks in favor of one who ran against the party’s preferred position on Gaza.

Vindman’s money was real. The endorsement machine was real. So was Nixon’s 56 percent.

The Democratic establishment keeps treating its left flank as a messaging problem. Florida just showed that it can also become a ballot problem.

#Florida #Democrats #AngieNixon #AlexVindman #Gaza #Israel #AIPAC #USPolitics

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

What happens when Trump is gone?

This is the question hanging over Washington. Trump's presidency may eventually end in the ordinary way that every presidency does. The White House will change occupants, the photographs on the walls will change, and a new administration will inherit the Oval Office.

But the institutional memory of what happened during the Trump years will remain.

Future presidents will know which emergency powers survived judicial challenges. They will know which executive orders were blocked and which became permanent policy. They will know how far a president can pressure federal agencies before Congress or the courts intervene. They will have a map of the territory. That may prove to be Trump's most enduring legacy.

The danger, in the eyes of Democratic reformers, is not that the next president will necessarily imitate Trump. It is that the next president will have fewer reasons to believe that the old limits still exist.

And once a limit disappears from political practice, restoring it becomes much harder than defending it ever was.

The choice waiting after Trump

The coming struggle, therefore, is unlikely to be settled by a single election or one sweeping piece of legislation.

It will unfold through a succession of decisions about emergency powers, federal employees, presidential conflicts of interest, law enforcement and the authority of Congress. Courts will play a central role, but so will bureaucrats whose names most Americans will never know.

The fight may be quiet, technical and almost invisible to the public. Its consequences will not be.

Washington is approaching a moment in which Democrats must decide whether they want simply to reverse Trump's policies or to reverse the expansion of presidential power that accompanied them. Those are very different missions.

The first can be accomplished by winning elections. The second requires politicians to accept restraints that could one day be used against themselves.

That is the test awaiting the post-Trump Democratic Party, and perhaps the American political system itself. If the old guardrails can be reconstructed, the Trump years may ultimately become a warning about what happens when presidential power is pushed too far.

If they cannot, Trump may prove to have changed something much more permanent than the occupant of the White House.

He may have changed the definition of what an American president believes he is allowed to do.

#Trump #Democrats #WhiteHouse #AmericanDemocracy

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events🇺🇸

Trump’s Approval Hits a New Low as Democrats Gain Ground Ahead of the Midterms


Trump is facing a growing political challenge just two weeks before the November midterm elections.

His approval rating has fallen to a record low, economic anxiety is weighing on voters, and Democrats have opened a significant lead in the race for control of Congress, according to a new Washington Post–ABC News–Ipsos poll published October 18.

The numbers paint a difficult picture for the White House. Just 33% of Americans approve of Trump’s performance as president, while 66% disapprove. More than half of all adults surveyed, 52%, say they strongly disapprove of his leadership.

The president’s approval rating has dropped four percentage points since July and eight points compared with the same period last year. Among likely voters, his approval stands at 38%, with 62% expressing disapproval.

For Democrats, the findings offer a potential opening ahead of the November 3 elections, when control of Congress will be at stake. The party leads Republicans by eight percentage points among likely voters in the congressional contest, with 52% supporting Democratic candidates compared with 44% backing Republicans.

The gap has widened since the previous Washington Post poll in July, when Democrats held a three-point advantage among registered voters. Economic dissatisfaction appears to be one of the central factors behind the shift in public opinion.

Rising gasoline prices, increasingly expensive groceries and mounting health care costs are putting pressure on household budgets. For many Americans, the economy is not an abstract political debate but a daily calculation about how to pay bills, fill the refrigerator and cover medical expenses.The poll also reveals a significant change in which party voters trust to manage the economy.

For the first time in more than a decade, Democrats have moved ahead of Republicans on this issue. That shift could complicate the Republican campaign, which has traditionally relied on its reputation for economic management and fiscal discipline.

Foreign policy is adding another layer of uncertainty. Trump’s handling of the war with Iran has become a source of public dissatisfaction, with voters concerned about the consequences of the conflict and its impact on energy prices.

The combination of military tensions and rising living costs is creating a difficult environment for an administration seeking to convince Americans that its policies are working.The broader mood is equally troubling for the president.

According to the survey, 72% of Americans believe the country is heading in the wrong direction, a five-point increase since April. Meanwhile, 63% of respondents hold an unfavorable view of the Republican Party. These figures suggest that dissatisfaction extends beyond the president himself and could affect Republican candidates in competitive congressional districts.

Trump’s political image is also facing scrutiny. A majority of Americans surveyed consider him too extreme, while 66% believe he is using the presidency to benefit himself financially. Such perceptions could further weaken the administration’s appeal among independent voters and some Americans who supported Trump in 2024.

Still, national polling does not determine the outcome of individual races. Congressional elections are decided district by district, and the Senate map presents a different set of challenges from the House of Representatives.

For Republicans, the immediate challenge is to persuade voters that the administration can address the cost of living and restore confidence in its leadership.

Democrats, meanwhile, must turn their polling advantage into actual votes and demonstrate that their own economic proposals can deliver tangible improvements.

Whether that discontent translates into a major shift in congressional power will become clear on November 3.

#Trump #MidtermElections #Democrats #USPoliticsSource

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events🇺🇸

Alaska’s Ballot Bombshell: Democrats Under Fire


A behind-the-scenes political operation in Alaska is raising fresh questions about how far campaigns will go to gain an edge in one of the country’s most closely watched Senate races.

According to some current reports, operatives aligned with Democratic Senate candidate Mary Peltola reportedly explored recruiting candidates who could draw votes away from Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan.

The effort allegedly included seeking out another Alaskan named Dan Sullivan, whose name on the ballot could potentially confuse voters and weaken the incumbent’s support. The report also examines alleged links between the effort, Peltola’s political network and Democratic campaign operatives.

The allegations have put the spotlight on a little-known feature of American election strategy: recruiting third-party or independent candidates who may draw votes from an opponent. Such tactics can matter in close races, particularly when voters recognize a name but pay less attention to party affiliation or a candidate’s background.

Election-law experts have raised broader concerns about election disputes and voter protections. The controversy highlights a fundamental tension in American politics: protecting voters from confusion while ensuring that political disagreements do not undermine established election procedures.

The allegations also present a political challenge for Democrats, raising questions about transparency, coordination and the role party organizations play in shaping the ballot before Election Day.

Even when a campaign tactic does not violate election law, critics may question whether it undermines public confidence in the democratic process.

For Alaska voters, the central issue is whether another candidate with the same name could complicate an already consequential Senate race.

For both parties, the episode underscores how campaigns compete not only over policy and persuasion, but also over the structure of the ballot itself.

The allegations mostly stem from reporting by the NYT and should not be, however, treated as a formal finding of wrongdoing.

#AlaskaPolitics #SenateRace #Democrats #Election2026

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events🇺🇸