By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Political maneuvering and strategic choices are impacting Democratic chances in key districts. While some Democrats are opposing weapons shipments to Israel, others, like Stevens, are supported by AIPAC, a position likely to be unpopular with Arab American voters in Michigan. Furthermore, in California, despite the viability of a progressive candidate, Randy Villegas, the DCCC is backing Jasmeet Bains, a more conservative figure, potentially sacrificing a promising campaign for perceived strategic advantage. This indicates the Democratic party is at times prioritizing backing candidates based on factors like political alignment instead of local alignment.
Read the original article here
Establishment Democrats Are Going to Torpedo the 2026 Midterms
The rumblings are already starting, and the feeling is palpable: the 2026 midterm elections could be a disaster for the Democratic Party, and many believe the fault will lie squarely with the establishment. It’s a story we’ve heard before, a familiar tale of corporate interests, out-of-touch leadership, and a disconnect from the grassroots energy that fuels any successful political movement.
The core complaint is this: instead of backing candidates who resonate with the public and can actually win, establishment Democrats are choosing to prop up uninspiring, donor-friendly figures. These are the same folks, the argument goes, who have already led the party into its current predicament. Why? Because they’re more concerned with maintaining the status quo and pleasing their corporate sponsors than they are with building a winning coalition. It’s a cynical strategy, and one that many believe is destined to fail.
The frustration is evident. The feeling among many is that the party leadership, from figures like Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand on down, is simply out of touch with the realities on the ground. They’re seen as prioritizing their own power and the interests of their donors over the needs of the voters. The push for term limits, a sentiment often expressed, highlights a deep desire for change and a sense that the current leadership has become stale and ineffective.
This isn’t just a gripe about ideology. It’s a hard-nosed assessment of electability. The argument is that in many districts, a progressive candidate might have the best shot at winning, while in others, a more centrist approach is the key. What’s missing is a willingness to listen to the people doing the actual work of organizing and campaigning, rather than the donors who write the checks. It’s a dynamic that can be jarring to witness firsthand, a disconnect between the aspirations of the base and the priorities of the leadership.
The fear is that this pattern will repeat itself in 2026. The focus on fundraising, the tendency to favor candidates who are seen as safe bets, and the reluctance to embrace the populist energy that’s brewing on the left will all contribute to losses. The push to get a third party is a reflection of the desperation that many are feeling.
The concern goes beyond just losing elections. The establishment is seen as actively working with Republicans. With a potential fascist threat, the establishment Democrats are too worried about maintaining their position and keeping their donors happy.
The irony is that the voters themselves are often blamed for the failures of the party. If the chosen candidate isn’t perfect, or if they don’t align with every single voter’s ideal, the voters are the problem, not the party. It’s a self-defeating cycle, a refusal to acknowledge the failures of the establishment and the need for real change. The people are speaking, and if ignored, the party will pay the price.
The potential for this is huge. As the people who want the Democrats to win are growing angrier and more disillusioned. The outcome is a high likelihood of a very bad outcome for the Democratic Party in the 2026 midterm elections.