We need to get honest about what money does (and doesn't) accomplish in elections

During an appearance on the Shawn Ryan Show, Cenk Uygur said something monumentally stupid. And of course, the right wing site RealClearPolitics immediately picked up on it. 

"By the time you get to the general election, it’s robot A versus robot B, and they’ve robbed you of all your choices," he said. "It’s actually the same way it works in China and Iran."

"The Chinese have a Politburo like the Soviets used to, and they vote within themselves — this very small group — and give you two options that both serve the Politburo, and then they have fake elections," he explained. "Iran does the same thing. The mullahs vote internally, give you two fake options that both serve the ayatollah and the mullahs, and then people have a fake election."

"Here in America, the donors select who is going to win the primaries by giving them all the money. Once you’ve got $5 million in a primary, good night, Irene."

"In fact, in America, the person with more money wins the election 95% of the time," he said.

There you have it. A guy who claims to be a liberal just compared U.S. elections to those in China and Iran. Holy cow!!!! Way to undermine our democracy Cenk. 

The issue of money in political campaigns is something that extreme leftists have been exploiting for years now. So let me take a moment to unpack it once again. 

According to current law, corporations cannot donate directly to a political campaign and individuals are limited to no more than $3,500. Where the big money comes into play is with donations to SuperPacs, because there are no limits. But campaign finance law also says that SuperPacs are not allowed to coordinate with campaigns (although that line in the sand is being muddied quite a bit). 

With that said, Uygur is mostly correct in suggesting that "the person with more money wins the election 95% of the time."  But in order to draw any conclusions about that it is important to know the source of the funds. 

As an example, we could look at the recent election of Zohran Mamdani. Due to the mayor's ability to raise small dollar donations, which are matched by the city's public campaign finance system, the Mamdani campaign was able raise significantly more money than Andrew Cuomo's campaign. 

Where big money donors came into play is that billionaires contributed $40 million to SuperPacs supporting Cuomo - giving him a big edge in the total amount raised. Nevertheless, Cuomo lost. 

I am reminded of the fact that Elon Musk gave over $20 million to his SuperPac in order to buy a seat on Wisconsin's Supreme Court. It didn't work. The effectiveness of that kind of money is a risk...one that a lot of billionaires seem willing to take.

It's also important to keep in mind that money donated directly to a campaign is not only WAY more effective, it is an important signal that the candidate on the receiving end has broad grassroots support. As Wesley Lowery put it: "A candidate who is compelling enough to get you to open your wallet should, in theory, also be able to get you to head to the ballot box for him or her." So a candidate who raises more money from those donors signals that they are likely to win. 

All of that is playing out in Michigan's Democratic Senate primary between Mallory McMorrow, Abdul El-Sayed, and Haley Stevens. According to the most recent FEC report, McMorrow is outraising her opponents. But even more importantly, over half of the donations to her campaign came from people who gave less than $200. For El-Sayed and Stevens it was 26% and 14% respectively. In other words, grassroots donors are breaking heavily for McMorrow. If that trend continues, she will likely win the primary. 

I'll say it once again: those who are suggesting that Democratic primaries are rigged, or that they resemble elections in China/Iran, are lying to you. In doing to, they are undermining our democracy every bit as much as Donald Trump. 

So get out and vote in the upcoming primaries - and donate when/where you can. 

I'll leave you with a piece of advice from Molly Ivins that has always guided my vote: "In the primaries vote with your heart. In the general, go with your head."

Democrats have a chance to demonstrate what democracy should look like

It's primary season for the 2024 midterm elections. Here's a helpful list of when those elections will take place over the coming months.

In almost every state, there are races (local, state, and/or national) where Democrats are running against Democrats. That presents an opportunity for the party to engage in what former President Obama called, "a better politics."

Imagine if we broke out of these tired old patterns. Imagine if we did something different. Understand, a better politics isn’t one where Democrats progressives abandon their agenda or Republicans centrists simply embrace mine. A better politics is one where we appeal to each other’s basic decency instead of our basest fears. A better politics is one where we debate without demonizing each other; where we talk issues and values, and principles and facts, rather than “gotcha” moments, or trivial gaffes, or fake controversies that have nothing to do with people’s daily lives...

If we’re going to have arguments, let’s have arguments, but let’s make them debates worthy... of this country.

In these days when our democratic republic is at risk, Democrats have an opportunity to show the country what our politics could look like. Candidates could "debate their ideas without demonizing each other; talk issues and values and principles and facts." I suspect that, with the constant demonization and dehumanization coming from the right, most voters would welcome a refreshing change. 

I've been thinking about that a lot after I decided that it was time to educate myself about a social media influencer named Hasan Piker. While I'd seen his name occasionally, I hadn't paid much attention and, like most Democrats didn't really know who he was.

Then a few weeks ago, a clip of Piker being interviewed by Jon Favreau showed up on my Facebook timeline. So I watched it. Favreau was questioning Piker's statement that he wouldn't vote for Gavin Newsom in a 2028 presidential race against J.D. Vance. As if that wasn't bad enough, Piker went on to suggest that the "Democratic Party" needs to find a "good candidate" that can appeal to him. 

What I would have asked Piker at that point is "who is the Democratic Party?" In the comments, I wrote, "If Gavin Newsom were the 2028 nominee, it would be because Democratic voters chose him in the primary." A lot of the responses claimed that the Democratic Party rigged primaries. Current candidate Graham Platner recently affirmed that idea in this conversation with a former Trump supporter (at the 2:50 minute mark).

I sat down with a Republican who voted for Trump three times.

We had a lot more in common than you would think. pic.twitter.com/ZUVtqk2CQQ

— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) May 4, 2026

Former Trump voter: "Bernie [Sanders] had the nomination and just got replaced."

Platner: "Agreed. Yep, the powers that be wouldn't let him have it so they did what they do."

Need I point out that there is no difference between that statement and Trump's big lie about the 2020 election being rigged? Both of them are not only lies. They are designed to undermine our confidence in elections - the basis of a democratic republic. 

One of the ways that productive debate is silenced is when a candidate is accused to taking a position simply because of corporate and/or PAC contributions. As an example, in the comment section of the Facebook post I referred to up above, I mentioned that I had contributed to Peggy Flanagan's campaign for Senate. I was told that she was simply a "corporate shill." Nevermind that she has been endorsed by Senators Tina Smith, Elizabeth Warren, Ed Markey, Bernie Sanders, etc. because of her record as an independent and progressive politician. These folks simply throw around terms like that to shut down conversations/debates about issues. 

As an example of the way that is playing out in the 2026 primaries, Hasan Piker and the candidate he supports - Chris Rabb - in Pennsylvania's 3rd Congressional District primary, are accusing his opponents of being secretly funded by AIPAC and therefore in support of Israel's genocide in Gaza. Here's a good summary of why that is not true. 

As Democrats, candidates should have vigorous debates on the issues where they agree and disagree. Then we all go to the polls and vote for the person we think will do the best job of representing us. As we watch that process come under assault by Republicans, we have a chance to demonstrate what real democracy should look like. Let's not blow it! 

What the anti-Zionists miss about the war with Iran

Due to a report from April 7th in the New York Times, conventional wisdom has focused on the fact that Bibi Netanyahu is the one who talked Trump into attacking Iran. Anti-Zionists from both the extreme left and right have zeroed in on that reporting to make the case that Israel is to blame for the current state of affairs in the Middle East. Of course, they're not completely wrong about that. As former Secretary of State John Kerry recently said, Netanyahu made the same pitch to President's Bush, Obama, and Biden. However, the only one who ever bought it was Trump. 

But a month before that New York Times article was published, a headline in the Washington Post read: "Push from Saudis, Israel helped move Trump to attack Iran."

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman made multiple private phone calls to Trump over the past month advocating a U.S. attack...In his discussions with U.S. officials...the Saudi leader warned that Iran would come away stronger and more dangerous if the United States did not strike now...

Then in March, the New York Times published an article stating that "Saudi Arabia’s de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, has been pushing President Trump to continue the war against Iran, arguing that the U.S.-Israeli military campaign presents a “historic opportunity” to remake the Middle East."

So Netanyahu isn't the only leader in the Middle East who's pushing this war against Iran. The reason that is important is because Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is one of the lead negotiators with Iran. He obviously has a vested interest in what Saudi Arabia wants out of this conflict as he seeks billions of additional dollars from that government. 

One of the only people talking about that is Senator John Ossoff.

Referring to the "Mar-a-Lago Mafia," Ossoff said that "Never before have we seen so little effort to hide so much corruption." And yet, an obsession with Israel has blinded a lot of people to the Kushner/Saudi Arabia side of this conflict. 

Global affairs are often a mixture of complex factors. This one is no different. Forces that led to the war with Iran include Netanyahu and Christian nationalists who want to bring on Armageddon. But a corrupt son-in-law seeking billions of dollars from Saudi Arabia's Mohammed bin Salman has to be included in the mix.  

Not-Breaking News: Trump Threatens Obama

Donald Trump went on a bit of a bender on social media last night - as is the case more often these days. This is one of the themes that emerged: 

President Donald Trump shared and reposted a series of messages via Truth Social after midnight on Friday (April 24), accusing former President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton of treason, while appearing to once again suggest Obama should be arrested.

As an example, Trump reposted someone who wrote: "Hillary Clinton funded, approved, and created the Steele Dossier, Barack Obama called the shots, and Brennan's CIA did the dirty work. The evidence is clear, TREASON was committed, and now they must pay or they will do it again. Americans demand it."

It's been nine months since Trump threatened to arrest Obama. So it's worth asking what sparked this renewed interest in the former president. There are two possibilities - which aren't mutually exclusive.

First of all, the video of Obama and Mamdani visiting a child care center went viral. It reminded a lot of people what it was like to have a president who enjoyed the presence of children while lifting them up. We've all seen how Obama lives rent-free in Trump's head as the biggest irritant to his narcissistic ego. The more people remember how much they admire the former president, the more the current occupant of the White House is likely to lash out in anger.

Recent events in the Justice Department have also riled up the president and his MAGA base. Prosecutors in Miami have been attempting to pull together a case charging people in the Obama administration over their involvement in the so-called "Russia hoax." Last week, the lead federal prosecutor, Maria Medetis Long, who was overseeing the criminal investigation of John Brennan, was pulled off the case. Sources familiar with the matter said it was because she informed her superiors that there was not enough evidence to make the case.

The next day it was announced that Joe DiGenova would be in charge of leading the investigation. In case you've forgotten, DiGenova and his wife Victoria Toensing were deeply involved in Rudolph Giuliani's extortion racket that led to Trump's first impeachment. Part of their work involved feeding lies to John Solomon, who was then working as a "reporter" for The Hill. It shouldn't come as surprise that Solomon immediately jumped on the bandwagon by forecasting a "grand conspiracy case" against Obama administration officials. 

None of these conmen/women have ever had anything but lies - which they use to juice up a delusional president and his MAGA enablers. When they fail, they'll do what they've always done: blame the "deep state," corrupt judges, and/or the "radical left." 

The facts remain: Russia tried to interfere in the 2016 election to help Trump and the lot of them tried to extort Zelensky to fabricate dirt against Biden in the 2020 election. In the end, as Nancy Pelosi once said, "With Trump, all roads lead to Putin."

- The US leaving NATO
- Zelenskyy being humiliated in the Oval Office
- The US turning on Europe

Is it Donald Trump’s foreign policy or Vladimir Putin’s 'Christmas wishlist'? James O’Brien can’t tell. pic.twitter.com/anW8AYupSc

— LBC (@LBC) April 24, 2026

A question for Vance about morality

Given Viktor Orban's loss in Hungary and the failed negotiations with Iran, it's clear that J.D. Vance had a bad week. But as an avowed Catholic, he's also having to justify his boss's attack on the Pope. 

One of the things he said in that context stood out to me. During an interview with Bret Baier on Fox News, the vice president said that "it would be best for the Vatican to stick to matters of morality."

That struck me because conservative Christians have typically narrowed the definition of "morals" to rules about sexual behavior. I suspect that is how Vance was using the term in this context. 

But I'd challenge him to answer whether the Bible's 10 commandments address "matters of morality." If so, I'd like to talk about two of them: (1) you shall not kill, and (2) you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (ie, you shall not lie). 

In light of those, I'd ask the vice president whether his rhetoric/actions on immigration are "matters of morality." For example, is it moral to justify the murder of two American citizens by ICE officers? How about the  46 people who have died in ICE custody during this administration. Do their deaths raise a moral question?

Of course, Vance admitted that he lied about Haitian immigrants eating our cats and dogs. But pretty much every time he opens his mouth about immigration he lies - accusing immigrants of causing all of our problems with health care, housing, education, etc. According to the Bible, lying is a matter of morality. 

In the end, the Pope is doing exactly as Vance has suggested. He regularly calls out those who behave immorally when it comes to the way they treat immigrants. Even as a non-Catholic, I understand that's his job.

Right wing influencers try to convince MAGA that the glass is half full

Trump approval among 2024 voters from The Economist 

While the entire MAGA movement is motivated by fear, I have always been fascinated that - when it comes to electoral politics - Republicans have consistently promoted a message that "the glass is half full." For example, even as it is clear that they'll lose the 2026 midterms, right wing commentators regularly celebrate the fact that voters in blue states are migrating to red states, demonstrating that they're desperate to promote good news to the troops.

Recently I've seen two examples of this:

"Democrats 'lost the plot.' Now they're losing voters" by Ingrid Jacques, and

"5.4 Million People Have Migrated To Pro-Trump Counties Since 2020 As The Great Divorce Continues" by the Editorial Board at Issues and Insights.

The conclusion from the folks at Issues and Insights is simply absurd.

We keep hearing how unpopular Trump and his policies are....While that might be what people tell pollsters, their own actions – picking up and moving to a new county or a different state – speak much louder.

Millions of Americans would rather live among Trump supporters than those voting for the likes of Kamala Harris.

The reasons people move from one state to another are complex. But I doubt that anyone ever said that it was primarily because "I don't want to live among people who voted for Kamala Harris." 

It's also quite likely that these commentators are badly misinterpreting the data. Jacques points out that the "red states" people are moving to include Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Texas. Georgia is already a "purple state," while North Carolina and Texas have been (albeit slowly) moving in that direction. To give your some idea of how MAGA is doing in those states right now, Trump's job approval among 2024 voters is -5 points in Texas, -9 in North Carolina, and a whopping -17 in Georgia. 

The question I would have for these commentators is whether they've considered the possibility that perhaps the voters who are moving to those states are bringing their "blue values" with them.

Instead of analyzing data from states, the editors at Issues and Insights researched county data. Of the ten counties experiencing the largest influx, five of them are in Texas, and all of those are suburban counties in the metro areas of Dallas, Houston, or Austin. While cities have consistently been blue and rural areas red, over the last decade or so, suburban counties are increasingly moving from Republican to Democratic. It's at least worth wondering if that trend is being impacted by migrants from blue states.

I am reminded of a story a friend of mine told about her white parents moving from Minnesota to North Carolina for retirement. When her mother went in to get a driver's license, she registered to vote. The African American clerk asked whether she wanted to register as a Republican or Democrat. When the answer was the latter, the clerk put her hands together, looked up, and mouthed "thank you."

If you're a MAGA influencer watching people move from blue states to red states, you just might want to consider if the glass is half empty (and draining fast).

The lesson Trump is incapable of learning

On Easter morning the current President of the United States posted this on social media:

Trump followed that up by telling a Fox News correspondent that he'll "take Iranian oil if they are unwilling to make an agreement." By Tuesday morning. the president was posting that "a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again" if they don't agree to his demands.

Much of the discussion about this escalation has focused on how it demonstrates that Trump's mental health is decompensating. I agree. But he's doing so in a way that simply amplifies the mental health disorders that have been evident for decades.

Trump has always believed that the only way to exert power is via dominance over someone he perceives to be weak. In other words, the only tool in his toolbox is bullying. In that world, there's no such thing as negotiations. The only outcome is capitulation. 

I was reminded of this when I listened to a discussion on NPR about why the Witkoff/Kushner negotiations with Iran failed prior to Trump's decision to start this war. Much has been made of the fact that Witkoff/Kushner went into those negotiations without any expertise in nuclear power and might not have even understood the offer put on the table by Iran. 

But towards the end of the discussion someone mentioned that, going into the negotiations, the only outcome acceptable to the Trump administration was Iran's total capitulation. Given that wasn't going to happen, the talks were doomed from the start. War was inevitable. 

Now - much like Trump and his enablers were baffled by the fact that the people of Minnesota refused to back down - they seem confused about why Iran isn't capitulating to their demands in light of the threats the president is unleashing. They actually think that sh*t works. 

All of this reminds me of why the Obama administration was able to be successful in negotiating a nuclear agreement with Iran. It was a highly complex effort, but here are a few high points:

1. They were able to get not only our allies, but Russia and China to join the U.S. in applying sanctions to Iran.

2. The sanctions worked. In 2013, Iran came to the table to negotiate.

3. Negotiations weren't conducted bilaterally between the U.S. and Iran. They also included China, France, Germany, Russia, the U.K., and the European Union.

4. Obama knew the importance of understanding our history with Iran, telling Thomas Friedman that, "part of the psychology of Iran is rooted in past experiences, the sense that their country was undermined, that the United States or the West meddled in first their democracy and then in supporting the Shah and then in supporting Iraq and Saddam during that extremely brutal war. So part of what I’ve told my team is we have to distinguish between the ideologically driven, offensive Iran and the defensive Iran that feels vulnerable and sometimes may be reacting because they perceive that as the only way that they can avoid repeats of the past."

Those were all critical elements to the success of negotiations, demonstrating what President Obama pointed out during his 2009 speech in Cairo.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

And this is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes -- and, yes, religions -- subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; our progress must be shared.

Unfortunately, that is a lesson that Donald Trump is incapable of learning.