Articles & Videos

“A museum about women, fought for and supported by women, should not be controlled by one man,” a group of Reps. said in response to the changes to H.R. 1329.

I started reading the Democratic autopsy of their 2024 loss that was belatedly released Thursday, but I stopped on page eight, when I got to this sentence: “In 1989, after losing three straight presidential campaigns, our party refocused the conversation around policy and purpose to reclaim the vital center of American discourse.” The second I saw that indefensible sentence, I clicked away.Why? I’ve written this a few times, but I’ll write it again: There is no comparison whatsoever to be made between the Democrats’ situation after the 1988 election and their situation now, post-2024. In 1989, the Democrats had been absolutely pasted in three elections in a row. In 1980, Jimmy Carter lost to Ronald Reagan by nearly 10 points and 440 electoral votes; in 1984, Walter Mondale lost to Reagan by 18 points and 512 electoral votes; in 1988, Michael Dukakis lost to George H.W. Bush by 8 points and 315 electoral votes.Meanwhile, the last three presidential elections have been decided by razor-thin margins. Hillary Clinton lost narrowly, though she won the popular vote by a fairly substantial margin (2.8 million); Joe Biden won; and Kamala Harris lost by a combined 230,000 votes in three states. There is no parallel to 1989.So why would someone write this? I can think of only two reasons. The first is a combination of historical ignorance and allowing emotion to push aside facts. Democrats were so crushed by 2024 that it kinda felt like 1988. But feeling that without looking at the actual numbers is either dumb or lazy.The second reason someone might write that sentence is ideological. That is, they are firmly committed to the view that the Democratic Party needs to “move to the center” or even “to the right,” and so they invoke the anemic ghost of 1988 to help them make their case. And if they did happen to stop and look at the numbers from the 1980s and wrote the sentence anyway, well, that would make the writing of it a deeply cynical exercise as well, because the writer would know there’s no truth to the analogy.That “someone,” by the way, was Democratic consultant Paul Rivera. The Democratic National Committee hired him on a pro bono, part-time basis to conduct the autopsy even though he hadn’t worked on a presidential campaign in more than two decades. Apparently, he never finished the job, as the document released on Thursday was shockingly incomplete. “For full transparency, I am releasing the report as we received it, in its entirety, unedited and unabridged,” DNC chair Ken Martin said. “It does not meet my standards, and it won’t meet your standards, but I am doing this because people need to be able to trust the Democratic Party and trust our word.”No wonder I couldn’t read it any further. Lazy and inapt historical analogies, and indeed carrying on a detailed argument about why Harris lost, is irrelevant to what’s needed most in this moment: a discussion of how the Democrats can win in 2028. But before doing that, let me quickly offer three broad reasons why Harris lost:1. Joe Biden didn’t exit the race in time.2. Harris didn’t do an adequate job of reminding voters of Trump’s incompetence on a range of fronts in his first term (this is a point the autopsy apparently does make, in fairness).3. Harris didn’t make a compelling or aggressive enough economic case.Always in presidential campaigns, there are dozens of factors, but I would hope about 97 percent of us can agree that if Biden had exited in the spring and the Harris campaign had done a better job of 2 and 3, she’d likely have won those 230,000 votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and more. OK? And that’s all the autopsy that’s really needed. (There are separate questions of the ground game and spending and things like that, but those topics are for insiders only.)The same day the autopsy was released, The New York Times published a poll looking at Democrats’ beliefs and attitudes right now. The poll does say that in some ways, Democrats and “potential Democratic supporters” want the party to move to the center; 52 percent said the party should nominate a centrist in 2028, and 25 percent said it should nominate a more progressive candidate. Respondents thought Democrats should moderate their positions on immigration (specifically the border) and crime. And I think it’s clear to most people, for example, that the 2028 Democratic standard bearer does have to take a pretty stern line on border security. It’s the one promise Donald Trump made that he’s actually delivered on, and the only issue on which he’s above water in polls (this does not include, mind you, wanton deportations by ICE thugs—just the actual border).So there were things, surprise surprise, that Democrats disagree on. But there was one thing they seemed to agree on: “Still, the economic populism pushed by a growing number of Democratic midterm candidates has found a receptive audience. More than 80 percent of the party’s backers thought the political and economic system should be torn down entirely or needed major changes, and nearly 90 percent called the economic system unfair.”That’s the secret sauce, right there. That’s the answer. There was one question in the poll that to me was more important than all the others. It was wordy, so bear with me: “Now I’m going to describe two hypothetical Democrats. Tell me which of the two you would be more likely to support in the next Democratic primary for president. A candidate who promises to lower prices by going after corporate monopolies and price gouging. [Or] a candidate who promises to lower prices by making it easier to build housing and expand energy production.”I’m not quite sure why housing and energy were considered the opposite of monopoly power and price gouging, but hey, I didn’t write it. Anyway: Going after monopolies and price gougers won 67 to 30 percent. It won massive majorities from every category in the cross-tabs. Young people, 75 percent; old people, 68 percent. Men, 65 percent; women, 69 percent. Whites, 70 percent; nonwhites, 65 percent. Oh. And among which subcategory was the result most lopsided? White noncollege, by 76 to 22 percent. In other words, those magic white working-class voters the Democrats have hemorrhaged, and the media can never stop talking and writing about. The result among nonwhite noncollege respondents was not as extreme as that, but was still a whopping 64 to 34 percent. The lesson here is obvious. Democrats have to make it crystal clear, unmissably clear, that they are on the side of working people struggling to get by and getting nickel-and-dimed by shifty corporations every day of their lives. That means taking certain policy positions, but it means much more.“Positions” are close to worthless in campaigns today. What’s needed today is to create emotionally gripping narratives and make them go viral. On this issue, that means calling out the bad actors by name. It means naming villains. It means educating the American public about why they’re paying higher prices for prescription drugs and other forms of medical care, and who’s responsible. Watch this five-minute clip of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez just ever so deftly ripping the eyeballs out of David Joyner, the CEO of CVS Health, earlier this year. Much more of that, please, Democrats.In the superficial lexicon the political media uses, I suppose this means “moving to the left” on economics. Fine. So be it. But I’d argue it isn’t even “to the left.” It’s moving to where the people are. The people are furious about getting ripped off by corporate actors whom a rigged system will never hold to account. If virtually every demographic in that poll prefers a nominee who goes after monopolists and price gougers by 30-plus points, well, polling doesn’t ever get any clearer than that.There’s this endless and often boring debate about whether to energize the base or reach out to moderates. As the above poll numbers show, a populist economics that targets bad actors can energize both. It’s only elite moderates who are against this, because they accept money from those sources for their campaigns or their organizations. They don’t actually represent anybody, or they represent a share of the electorate that is shrinking at a lightning pace. They, too, need to get with the program. This is where the people are.So autopsy, schmautopsy. Stop arguing about 2024, Democrats. Talk about the future. And talk about the bad guys who are making working people’s lives harder. That’s where today’s “vital center” is—they’re sick and tired of getting screwed—and that way lies victory.This article first appeared in Fighting Words, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by editor Michael Tomasky. Sign up here.

For more than a decade, Stephen Colbert entertained Americans as CBS’s Late Show host, leading more than 1,800 episodes. On Thursday, he hosted his last one, a decision that CBS executives chalked up to financial reasons.But the longtime comedian did not go out quietly. Instead, Colbert capped his exit with an eyebrow-raising copyright joke by ramping up the tunes—licensed tunes, to be exact.The Late Show host was in the midst of running through the headlines during his “Meanwhile” segment when he mentioned that the owner of the Peanuts catalog had recently sued several entities—including the U.S. Department of the Interior—over the unlicensed use of the show’s iconic music, written by American jazz pianist Vince Guaraldi.Cue the music: “Linus and Lucy.”“Is the band right now playing the same Peanuts music that I just said people are being sued for for using without permission? Is that what they’re doing?” asked Colbert.“Yeah,” Louis Cato, the show’s band leader, responded with a shrug.“Oh no, I hope this doesn’t cost CBS any money,” Colbert deadpanned.LOL Stephen Colbert is making his band play licensed music during his final show so CBS – who fired him – will get sued and have to pay millions"Anyone illegally using that music is gonna have to pay through the nose--"[band starts playing]"Oh no! I hope this doesn't cost… pic.twitter.com/mOeZMXEZpv— Spencer Althouse (@SpencerAlthouse) May 22, 2026Colbert’s show—the most popular in its time slot—was canceled in August, three days after the comedian criticized Paramount’s $16 million settlement with Donald Trump. He claimed that the company’s payout to quell the president’s groundless lawsuit targeting Kamala Harris’s 60 Minutes interview looked like a “big, fat bribe.” The copyright gag will likely do no damage, however. Networks like CBS typically use broad blanket music licenses prearranged through entities such as ASCAP and BMI, which allow them to legally broadcast any copyrighted material within the catalog. The Peanuts tune that Colbert’s band played is within that fold.Despite the bedlam consuming Trump—so much so that he has to miss his son’s wedding this weekend—he was quick to celebrate Colbert’s end, jeering on Truth Social that “Colbert is finally finished at CBS.”“Amazing that he lasted so long! No talent, no ratings, no life. He was like a dead person,” wrote the president after Colbert’s final episode ended.“You could take any person off of the street and they would be better than this total jerk,” Trump added. “Thank goodness he’s finally gone!”Trump further insinuated that Colbert’s pink slip was anything but a coincidence. In another post Friday morning, Trump claimed that Colbert’s firing would be the “beginning of the end” for “untalented, nasty, highly overpaid, not funny, and very poorly rated Late Night Television Hosts.” “Others, of even less talent, to soon follow. May they all Rest in Peace!” he wrote.

Donald Trump Jr. will no doubt be intensely relieved if this means his father the POTUS is nowhere near the dance floor at the event.

Through “Just in Case Abortion Pills,” people in Hawaii and Washington can order medication abortions—including mifepristone and misoprostol—ahead of an unwanted pregnancy.

Resins from African rainforests were likely traded alongside other commodities from sub-Saharan Africa via the Red Sea, researchers said.

The forceful clearance of migrant workers has been condemned by rights groups.

The energy crisis sparked by the Iran war has fueled global demand for renewable energy.