Since 2016, 31 Democratic incumbents lost to Republicans—nearly all moderates. Meanwhile, Bernie, AOC, and Warren have built a fundraising machine that rivals the DCCC. They just won't use it together
Nice critique! Finally, we have someone who has their sh*t together and is explaining what has been going wrong within our political system. Thank you so much! I’ve seen this also but have gotten nowhere.
It’s a terrible situation, because the people I know in it genuinely want to do the right thing. But there’s a real fear that one wrong move could cost the party—or the country—and hand Republicans even bigger majorities. A lot of folks have bought into that framing, and it terrifies them.
Right on, Corbin! I've been waiting forever for someone to make the argument, forcefully and articulately. You've done it!
You're well enough connected within the progressive ranks to convene the meeting that would get the ball rolling. If you need some funding to make it happen, I'd love to help.
Yes to you. I'd like to help, too. Who comes to the meeting? That's what I wonder. Who are "the Democrats" at the level of making decisions? I always vote Democrat so I'm a Democrat, but voting is all I do. Nothing where what I think could be received. How does policy-crafting work?
..."It's time to stop apologizing for having a vision and start fighting for it." I agree heartily, and hope Bernie, AOC, Elizabeth Warren, the Squad--among others, are listening to you. We need to pool our resources and stop being so hesitant. I often find progressives who seem to apologize for their forward thinking vision, and become defensive, rather than forging ahead.
The message has got to be simple: Lower Taxes on Workers and Raise Taxes on Wealth Hoarders, to fund Universal Health Care, Child Care, Education, and Housing.
I would like to see a shorter version of this as an advertisement in a whole page of the New York Times, and Washington Post. And a letter version of it sent to every elected non-Republican official. Corbin is talking about "getting on the same page." We need to move, not stay. MOVE...will be uncomfortable...but can be a lot of fun with the comraderie of building the future (that we are now)
Instead of writing fiction, I think the progressive movement needs its own “Project 2030s” document. Outline a decade long, multi election platform that fixes American democracy, and then builds on that for the next decade, then the next 100 years. “The great reset.” I get the point of trying to inspire people toward a greater future, but do it via policy action and planning, so those visions are IMPLEMENTABLE not just a “someday” thing. Project 2025 is abhorrent, but it was the right approach to how to get policy changed.
I think you’re right that we need a long-term governing plan, not just inspiration. That’s why I keep pointing to Saikat Chakrabarti’s Mission for America—it’s a concrete 10-year vision that starts with good jobs and prosperity for all, makes America a wealth creator again, and accelerates the clean energy transition. He’s also actively recruiting candidates to run alongside him, which is exactly how you turn policy into power.
We already have the raw materials—$300–500M/year in grassroots fundraising, massive media reach, and a deep bench of popular progressive leaders. If that infrastructure was coordinated into a Project 2030s–style document and paired with a national slate for House, Senate, and the presidency, we could actually win on it. That’s the missing piece.
We need to have any and all candidates that have taken Israeli AIPAC FUNDS (Warren, AOC, etc) return their Israeli PAC contributions back to AIPAC and campaign on not allowing Israel to starve and slaughter for land - that if we look away and don't solve their problem, America will be Gaza where Trump gives MAGA the American houses of non Christian families that live there - as Israel has done in the West Bank and Gaza to non-Jews since their rescue turned into an invasion into Palestine.
Warren and AOC need to announce publicly the amount they've received from Israel's AIPAC, the amount they've returned, AND use the word Genocide when returning it. The videos of the horrors are out there for the world to see. American media is the only one that is now prohibiting it's realease (because of who owns our media) and yes, they do.
American green beret Veterans have brought back the saddest images from the Gaza "food distribution centers" - which are truly just the Israeli killing fields with audio so it's clear what's happening to the intentionally starved at the American taxpayer expense of billions annually.
Let Netanyahu release the Epstein videos. We don't give a shit. His extortion of our politicians has cost the American taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars and we know the suicides of the women raped as children and of Epstein - so let's not let the genocide in Gaza continue nor the pedophilia by our govt officials and our billionaires in the US continue and ask our politicians to be representatives of the people instead of bribed by outside organizations to shut the F up.
Spill the beans, return the money, and step aside so that people OF the people and FOR the people, not for Israel and covering up child rape videos, can get to work.
Mahon is either a bot or a MAGA plant or very ignorant. Bernie and AOC and most progressive do not take AIPAC or any corporate money. Her comment is pure lies and defamation to weaken the progressive movement. When Bernie and AOC were going to purple and light red states to give people the real facts about the problems in our country they were encouraging local people to runs for office at all levels of government and when some new progressives emerged Bernie has endorsed them which helps them raise money. There are several things wrong with this article and I only have time today to bring up what I have. Do not assume all of the post is factually correct or political going in the right direction.
Amen. Also good to know: AOC and Bernie Sanders have taken exactly 0 dollars from AIPAC. Elizabeth Warren, according to the Internet, has received donations in an unspecified amount, but has -since 2019-begun speaking out against the US support of Israel’s policies, and has begun to work with different organizations for funding. As a result, she has been in direct conflict with AIPAC who have begun to remove their support of her and candidates she endorses.
Thank you, Corbin. This is an idea that might work. It seems much more feasible than many others I've heard. Bernie, AOC, and Warren are already onboard with the policies. They just need to be convinced that this strategy makes sense. Bernie is my Senator and you can bet that he will be hearing from me on this as well as my House Rep., Becca Balint and from everyone I know around here that knows either of them that I can inspire with this idea of yours.
The machine runs on money/power and, second to that, energy, still mostly fossil fuel energy. Your explanation of the problems and corruption is spot on. I'll be really interested to see what you envision replacing this system. The base problem is ideological.
Greed, envy, money, power, these are the motivations in this system, really in all systems. But our system has evolved to the point that the other motivations--generosity, caring about a place, or a craft, or a profession, or a ideals, like justice, or healthy food, or education for the sake of being educated and knowledgeable about the world, all of these other motivations and many more, which in times past may have taken the edge off greed and money motivations--have been obliterated by the financialization of everything. This system is destroying itself and that's what you are describing.
But what can replace it? This is where you get when you make money the objective of your culture. And yet making something else the objective of your culture means you need a different ideology. Usually, in the past, that different ideology was a religion and the form of government was a theocracy which, anyway, pretty quickly seems to become all about money and power with a fake veneer of being about God.
There needs to be a non-religious ideology to use as a basis and guide for limiting the power of money. And lots of people have to sign on.
Capitalism can replace what we have now. Capitalism was always sold as the individual being rewarded for building a better mousetrap, making life better for his fellow man by dint of his own energy, ingenuity, imagination, etc. The perfect combination of altruism and greed.
I agree in the sense that we certainly don't have capitalism anymore, except for small businesses. Big businesses are not about innovation or good products and services and competition any more (maybe with a few exceptions), they are instead all about monopolies and capturing customers and extracting rents. This is why the tech companies spend vast sums to buy up tiny competitors and prevent them from becoming a threat. So I believe in capitalism when it has some common sense regulations and monopolies are agressively broken up, but I think even that is getting to be a tough sell these days. When I talk to young people they look at the state of the world, the impossible cost of housing, the crappy products you need and have to buy, they terrible customer service, they see that as capitalism and they don't like it.
I’m with you on the urgency — this is the moment. We’ve got the leaders, the money, and the message. What’s missing is exactly what you’re saying: the willingness to step into that fight without flinching.
AOC taking on Schumer, Jasmine taking on Cruz — those kinds of races would force the fight into the open. Pair that with a coordinated slate and a unified message, and we could actually flip the balance of power inside the party and in the country.
It’s not just “now or never.” It’s “lead or lose.”
"Since 2016, 31 Democratic incumbents have lost to Republicans—nearly every single one was a moderate. ... Meanwhile, every Squad member keeps winning their races."
Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman were both considered members of The Squad. They both lost their primaries to AIPAC $ in 2024. A big loss for progressives. So...not exactly true.
I agree—money in politics and corporate personhood are massive obstacles. But if we make “fix this first” the only way out, we’re stuck in a loop. We can’t pass HJR-54 without the power to do it, and we can’t get that power without winning elections under the rules we have now.
That’s why I focus on building a coordinated movement that can actually win those elections. Once you have the seats, then you can go after the constitutional amendments and big systemic reforms. Otherwise, it’s just waiting for a moment that never comes.
This is the old ‘you can’t govern unless you have an elected majority’ argument, and while it’s a ‘well, duh’ fact, it leads to electing dozens and dozens of corporate-owned representatives that hinder the movement we all long for.
What I’m saying is for progressive candidates to use the constitutional amendment push as a core piece of their messaging; and connect it to the ability to fix what ails us, issue by issue.
And part of that messaging should be directed towards independent and GOP voters in order to put pressure on their preferred candidates as well.
The constitutional amendment argument is a tool to get the congressional majorities you seek, and because it resonates with majorities of all voters, and potential voters, who know the game rigged and requires the ‘big systemic reforms’ you seek, it is much less susceptible than things like M4A or the GND of being labeled socialist by monied interest propaganda.
Your whole thrust here, it seems to me, is to get the Democrats to quit bringing muffins to gun fights. Support for HJR-54 is a howitzer, and will quickly separate the real ‘system reform’ candidates from the posers.
You talk the talk, but we are tired of talk and no action. We see our country drowning in a cesspool, and our leaders hiding. Why isn't the country rebelling? Why aren't the Unions striking? If I were younger I would take up arms to stop the traitors.
The problem now is there’s nothing clear to rebel towards. In the civil rights era, people weren’t just fighting against Jim Crow and segregation—they had concrete demands and a vision of what to build in their place. Today, the rallying point is missing, and the social mechanisms for standing up to tyranny are convoluted and confusing. Even massive demonstrations—like the record-setting No Kings protest—have little lasting impact, because there’s no big ask, no clear victory to work toward.
Being on the Left means that you support egalitarianism and oppose centralized power. It's maddening that there are 10 million different uncoordinated organizations on the Left but it is just not in our nature to rally around a single power center.
I think we agree with on this being a weakness of the "left" its almost allergic reaction to rallying behind a central power. It does make coordination harder and makes electoral wins more complicated. But I think that’s exactly why we can’t avoid it. You can’t take on entrenched power without hierarchy—not privilege, but real leadership and structure.
Part of why Americans rally around presidential politics every four years is because a centralized figure gives focus and direction. We need that kind of focal point—something strong enough to set aside internal differences and unify the message. That’s why I think a campaign should emerge that not only runs its own presidential candidate, but also recruits and endorses aligned House and Senate candidates along the way.
If we keep trying to slowly stitch together every local WFP, DSA, or state group, we’ll never get the kind of coordinated force it takes to win. Leadership’s job is to inspire people to join your cause, not endlessly chase theirs.
Greetings from Holmes County, poorest and reddist in Florida.
Part 1 hits the right note: a coordinated Progressive movement is what this 93 year old hopes to see. Rather than giving to organizations that merely put out petitions, I'm devoting my slender resources to David Hogg's Leaders We Deserve.
The top issue for me is food security and nutrition through regenerative agriculture. We need plans for meeting a stampede of climate refugees after the Thwaites glacier hits the open waters, busting through borders, and putting everyone at risk.
The God whom I trust wants us to work for global security, to be hospitable (not hostile), and to commit to nurturing all forms of life on earth.
Nice critique! Finally, we have someone who has their sh*t together and is explaining what has been going wrong within our political system. Thank you so much! I’ve seen this also but have gotten nowhere.
It’s a terrible situation, because the people I know in it genuinely want to do the right thing. But there’s a real fear that one wrong move could cost the party—or the country—and hand Republicans even bigger majorities. A lot of folks have bought into that framing, and it terrifies them.
Indeed, it’s true.
Right on, Corbin! I've been waiting forever for someone to make the argument, forcefully and articulately. You've done it!
You're well enough connected within the progressive ranks to convene the meeting that would get the ball rolling. If you need some funding to make it happen, I'd love to help.
Let's go! Time is short!
Yes to you. I'd like to help, too. Who comes to the meeting? That's what I wonder. Who are "the Democrats" at the level of making decisions? I always vote Democrat so I'm a Democrat, but voting is all I do. Nothing where what I think could be received. How does policy-crafting work?
..."It's time to stop apologizing for having a vision and start fighting for it." I agree heartily, and hope Bernie, AOC, Elizabeth Warren, the Squad--among others, are listening to you. We need to pool our resources and stop being so hesitant. I often find progressives who seem to apologize for their forward thinking vision, and become defensive, rather than forging ahead.
The message has got to be simple: Lower Taxes on Workers and Raise Taxes on Wealth Hoarders, to fund Universal Health Care, Child Care, Education, and Housing.
Agreed
I would like to see a shorter version of this as an advertisement in a whole page of the New York Times, and Washington Post. And a letter version of it sent to every elected non-Republican official. Corbin is talking about "getting on the same page." We need to move, not stay. MOVE...will be uncomfortable...but can be a lot of fun with the comraderie of building the future (that we are now)
Totally AGREE!
Instead of writing fiction, I think the progressive movement needs its own “Project 2030s” document. Outline a decade long, multi election platform that fixes American democracy, and then builds on that for the next decade, then the next 100 years. “The great reset.” I get the point of trying to inspire people toward a greater future, but do it via policy action and planning, so those visions are IMPLEMENTABLE not just a “someday” thing. Project 2025 is abhorrent, but it was the right approach to how to get policy changed.
I think you’re right that we need a long-term governing plan, not just inspiration. That’s why I keep pointing to Saikat Chakrabarti’s Mission for America—it’s a concrete 10-year vision that starts with good jobs and prosperity for all, makes America a wealth creator again, and accelerates the clean energy transition. He’s also actively recruiting candidates to run alongside him, which is exactly how you turn policy into power.
We already have the raw materials—$300–500M/year in grassroots fundraising, massive media reach, and a deep bench of popular progressive leaders. If that infrastructure was coordinated into a Project 2030s–style document and paired with a national slate for House, Senate, and the presidency, we could actually win on it. That’s the missing piece.
We need to have any and all candidates that have taken Israeli AIPAC FUNDS (Warren, AOC, etc) return their Israeli PAC contributions back to AIPAC and campaign on not allowing Israel to starve and slaughter for land - that if we look away and don't solve their problem, America will be Gaza where Trump gives MAGA the American houses of non Christian families that live there - as Israel has done in the West Bank and Gaza to non-Jews since their rescue turned into an invasion into Palestine.
Warren and AOC need to announce publicly the amount they've received from Israel's AIPAC, the amount they've returned, AND use the word Genocide when returning it. The videos of the horrors are out there for the world to see. American media is the only one that is now prohibiting it's realease (because of who owns our media) and yes, they do.
American green beret Veterans have brought back the saddest images from the Gaza "food distribution centers" - which are truly just the Israeli killing fields with audio so it's clear what's happening to the intentionally starved at the American taxpayer expense of billions annually.
Let Netanyahu release the Epstein videos. We don't give a shit. His extortion of our politicians has cost the American taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars and we know the suicides of the women raped as children and of Epstein - so let's not let the genocide in Gaza continue nor the pedophilia by our govt officials and our billionaires in the US continue and ask our politicians to be representatives of the people instead of bribed by outside organizations to shut the F up.
Spill the beans, return the money, and step aside so that people OF the people and FOR the people, not for Israel and covering up child rape videos, can get to work.
Mahon is either a bot or a MAGA plant or very ignorant. Bernie and AOC and most progressive do not take AIPAC or any corporate money. Her comment is pure lies and defamation to weaken the progressive movement. When Bernie and AOC were going to purple and light red states to give people the real facts about the problems in our country they were encouraging local people to runs for office at all levels of government and when some new progressives emerged Bernie has endorsed them which helps them raise money. There are several things wrong with this article and I only have time today to bring up what I have. Do not assume all of the post is factually correct or political going in the right direction.
Yup
Amen. Also good to know: AOC and Bernie Sanders have taken exactly 0 dollars from AIPAC. Elizabeth Warren, according to the Internet, has received donations in an unspecified amount, but has -since 2019-begun speaking out against the US support of Israel’s policies, and has begun to work with different organizations for funding. As a result, she has been in direct conflict with AIPAC who have begun to remove their support of her and candidates she endorses.
Thank you, Corbin. This is an idea that might work. It seems much more feasible than many others I've heard. Bernie, AOC, and Warren are already onboard with the policies. They just need to be convinced that this strategy makes sense. Bernie is my Senator and you can bet that he will be hearing from me on this as well as my House Rep., Becca Balint and from everyone I know around here that knows either of them that I can inspire with this idea of yours.
The machine runs on money/power and, second to that, energy, still mostly fossil fuel energy. Your explanation of the problems and corruption is spot on. I'll be really interested to see what you envision replacing this system. The base problem is ideological.
Greed, envy, money, power, these are the motivations in this system, really in all systems. But our system has evolved to the point that the other motivations--generosity, caring about a place, or a craft, or a profession, or a ideals, like justice, or healthy food, or education for the sake of being educated and knowledgeable about the world, all of these other motivations and many more, which in times past may have taken the edge off greed and money motivations--have been obliterated by the financialization of everything. This system is destroying itself and that's what you are describing.
But what can replace it? This is where you get when you make money the objective of your culture. And yet making something else the objective of your culture means you need a different ideology. Usually, in the past, that different ideology was a religion and the form of government was a theocracy which, anyway, pretty quickly seems to become all about money and power with a fake veneer of being about God.
There needs to be a non-religious ideology to use as a basis and guide for limiting the power of money. And lots of people have to sign on.
Capitalism can replace what we have now. Capitalism was always sold as the individual being rewarded for building a better mousetrap, making life better for his fellow man by dint of his own energy, ingenuity, imagination, etc. The perfect combination of altruism and greed.
I agree in the sense that we certainly don't have capitalism anymore, except for small businesses. Big businesses are not about innovation or good products and services and competition any more (maybe with a few exceptions), they are instead all about monopolies and capturing customers and extracting rents. This is why the tech companies spend vast sums to buy up tiny competitors and prevent them from becoming a threat. So I believe in capitalism when it has some common sense regulations and monopolies are agressively broken up, but I think even that is getting to be a tough sell these days. When I talk to young people they look at the state of the world, the impossible cost of housing, the crappy products you need and have to buy, they terrible customer service, they see that as capitalism and they don't like it.
NOW is the time -- > to quote MLK.
If not now, WHEN? -- > to quote Rabbi Hillel in the Talmud.
The only thing we have to fear is the death of America itself -- > to paraphrase FDR.
Leaders are people who TELL people who they are.
First things first: AOC needs to primary Schumer, and Jasmine Crockett take it to Ted Cruz.
So let's go, Bernie, AOC, Jasmine -- > it's now or never.
Corbin: Thank you for your attention to this matter.
I’m with you on the urgency — this is the moment. We’ve got the leaders, the money, and the message. What’s missing is exactly what you’re saying: the willingness to step into that fight without flinching.
AOC taking on Schumer, Jasmine taking on Cruz — those kinds of races would force the fight into the open. Pair that with a coordinated slate and a unified message, and we could actually flip the balance of power inside the party and in the country.
It’s not just “now or never.” It’s “lead or lose.”
You are welcome Joel
"Since 2016, 31 Democratic incumbents have lost to Republicans—nearly every single one was a moderate. ... Meanwhile, every Squad member keeps winning their races."
Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman were both considered members of The Squad. They both lost their primaries to AIPAC $ in 2024. A big loss for progressives. So...not exactly true.
Fair point. Those are the kinds of race where where what I am describing would have been useful. Also Greg Casar will be another.
HJR-54. Constitutional Amendment to eliminate the twin concepts of corporate personhood and money as speech.
Only way out of this mess. Don’t vote for candidates who will not aggressively support it.
I agree—money in politics and corporate personhood are massive obstacles. But if we make “fix this first” the only way out, we’re stuck in a loop. We can’t pass HJR-54 without the power to do it, and we can’t get that power without winning elections under the rules we have now.
That’s why I focus on building a coordinated movement that can actually win those elections. Once you have the seats, then you can go after the constitutional amendments and big systemic reforms. Otherwise, it’s just waiting for a moment that never comes.
This is the old ‘you can’t govern unless you have an elected majority’ argument, and while it’s a ‘well, duh’ fact, it leads to electing dozens and dozens of corporate-owned representatives that hinder the movement we all long for.
What I’m saying is for progressive candidates to use the constitutional amendment push as a core piece of their messaging; and connect it to the ability to fix what ails us, issue by issue.
And part of that messaging should be directed towards independent and GOP voters in order to put pressure on their preferred candidates as well.
The constitutional amendment argument is a tool to get the congressional majorities you seek, and because it resonates with majorities of all voters, and potential voters, who know the game rigged and requires the ‘big systemic reforms’ you seek, it is much less susceptible than things like M4A or the GND of being labeled socialist by monied interest propaganda.
Your whole thrust here, it seems to me, is to get the Democrats to quit bringing muffins to gun fights. Support for HJR-54 is a howitzer, and will quickly separate the real ‘system reform’ candidates from the posers.
Yes you are right
You talk the talk, but we are tired of talk and no action. We see our country drowning in a cesspool, and our leaders hiding. Why isn't the country rebelling? Why aren't the Unions striking? If I were younger I would take up arms to stop the traitors.
The problem now is there’s nothing clear to rebel towards. In the civil rights era, people weren’t just fighting against Jim Crow and segregation—they had concrete demands and a vision of what to build in their place. Today, the rallying point is missing, and the social mechanisms for standing up to tyranny are convoluted and confusing. Even massive demonstrations—like the record-setting No Kings protest—have little lasting impact, because there’s no big ask, no clear victory to work toward.
Saving our Democracy is not a viable cause? If not, we are doomed!
Being on the Left means that you support egalitarianism and oppose centralized power. It's maddening that there are 10 million different uncoordinated organizations on the Left but it is just not in our nature to rally around a single power center.
I think we agree with on this being a weakness of the "left" its almost allergic reaction to rallying behind a central power. It does make coordination harder and makes electoral wins more complicated. But I think that’s exactly why we can’t avoid it. You can’t take on entrenched power without hierarchy—not privilege, but real leadership and structure.
Part of why Americans rally around presidential politics every four years is because a centralized figure gives focus and direction. We need that kind of focal point—something strong enough to set aside internal differences and unify the message. That’s why I think a campaign should emerge that not only runs its own presidential candidate, but also recruits and endorses aligned House and Senate candidates along the way.
If we keep trying to slowly stitch together every local WFP, DSA, or state group, we’ll never get the kind of coordinated force it takes to win. Leadership’s job is to inspire people to join your cause, not endlessly chase theirs.
Greetings from Holmes County, poorest and reddist in Florida.
Part 1 hits the right note: a coordinated Progressive movement is what this 93 year old hopes to see. Rather than giving to organizations that merely put out petitions, I'm devoting my slender resources to David Hogg's Leaders We Deserve.
The top issue for me is food security and nutrition through regenerative agriculture. We need plans for meeting a stampede of climate refugees after the Thwaites glacier hits the open waters, busting through borders, and putting everyone at risk.
The God whom I trust wants us to work for global security, to be hospitable (not hostile), and to commit to nurturing all forms of life on earth.
Looking forward to parts 2-3,
Robert Allenson / Westville FL 32464