· If you took a step back and looked at the Democratic Party for what it really is and what it has been, you would have to take off your rose-colored glasses and recognize that we are in a toxic relationship, and we are past due for leaving

I have been a Democrat for the majority of my life because, well, that's what you do when you want to fight the Republican Party. But I want this generation to do more than just fight. I want them to thrive.

The Democratic Party has done a good job of creating the illusion that it is on the side of justice. And to be fair, at the grassroots level, local organizers and everyday Democrats have done tremendous work. But we cannot keep romanticizing the narcissist who throws us breadcrumbs, gets jealous when we want to improve ourselves, financially withholds support, and cries when we finally call out the abuse.

Let's look at those breadcrumbs.

Cory Booker's filibuster, which many of us viewed as a symbolic gesture that ultimately accomplished little. Our desire to improve the party by supporting candidates like Bernie Sanders, only to be told we had to fall in line behind Hillary Clinton. Or the resistance and lack of support faced by candidates like Zohran Mamdani, the mayor of New York City. And let's not forget the financial manipulation: withholding money and resources from candidates we actually want to see win while expecting us to continue funding the same establishment.

But this narcissistic relationship goes much deeper.

We know something is wrong. We know that the Democratic Party, particularly at the national leadership level, has repeatedly failed to put working Americans first. We see the influence of corporate interests, Big Pharma, defense contractors, private military companies like Blackwater, and the pro-Israel lobby. Put your money behind the right interests, and you can gain access, influence, and political support.

We watch politicians trade their principles for political and financial gain. We watch our resources disappear while ordinary Americans struggle. But perhaps one of the most painful things to witness has been the willingness of Democratic leaders to continue supporting policies and military assistance to Israel while Palestinians, including thousands of children, have been killed in Gaza.

We watched Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic House leader and a leading contender for Speaker, repeat his unwavering support for Israel with statements along the lines of "Israel today, Israel tomorrow," while American tax dollars continued flowing toward military assistance.

And to make matters worse, when asked whether he would pursue accountability for actions taken by the Trump administration, Jeffries suggested that Americans weren't interested in that.

LIKE HELL WE AREN'T!

So what did we do?

We organized. We gathered more than a million signatures in an effort to prevent Jeffries from becoming Speaker. We put pressure on Democratic leadership. We demanded change from Chuck Schumer and the establishment.

And what did they do?

They played in our faces and made it clear that they weren't interested in changing course.

It's the same dysfunction you see in a family dealing with a narcissistic relationship. Everyone recognizes the abuse, everyone talks about it behind closed doors, but somehow everyone keeps protecting the person responsible.

For years, we've been told to grit our teeth and bear it. We've heard the same excuse over and over:

"This is not the time to support a third party."

Well, I say THIS IS EXACTLY THE TIME.

This is the time to organize, build something new, and consider breaking away from the Democratic Party establishment. And honestly, I hope Republicans begin questioning their own party structure, too.

Imagine a country with four viable political parties instead of two. Four parties that have to compete for the people's support. Four parties that create checks and balances through genuine political competition rather than forcing Americans to choose between two establishments that often put their own interests first.

It won't be easy. Breaking away from an abusive relationship never is. There will be growing pains, uncertainty, and plenty of people telling us we're making a mistake.

But we cannot continue confusing loyalty with progress. We cannot keep giving our allegiance to a political party simply because the alternative scares us.

At some point, we have to ask ourselves whether we're fighting for a party or fighting for the future of this country.

I don't want the next generation to spend their lives choosing the lesser of two evils. I want them to have choices. I want them to thrive. I want them to have political representation that actually reflects their values.

It's time to stop settling for breadcrumbs. It's time to stop making excuses. It's time to stop protecting a relationship that isn't working.

LET'S LEAVE.

And let's build something better.

See less

"RECEIPTS DON'T LIE": Sen. Whitehouse Goes Head-to-Head with the President of JCN — The Room Freezes!

 

When Carrie Severino, President of the Judicial Crisis Network, was smoothly defending a conservative Supreme Court nominee using polished academic arguments about "constitutional originalism," Senator Sheldon Whitehouse quietly pulled his microphone close.

He didn’t ask about legal theory. He signaled his aide to unveil his massive financial poster board, pointing directly at a web of shell companies.

"Ms. Severino," Whitehouse began, his voice ice-cold. "Your organization spent tens of millions in dark money smear campaigns to block a Democratic nominee, and then tens of millions more to buy the seat for a Republican one. But here’s the kicker: Your organization doesn't have real grassroots members. All of that money came from a handful of secretive billionaires."

Severino attempted a sharp smile and fired back with her usual defense: "Senator, we are protecting our donors' free speech and their right to privacy from left-wing harassment campaigns."

Whitehouse instantly wiped the smile from the room: "Do not call buying the Supreme Court 'free speech.' You are not sitting here as a legal scholar. You are sitting here as the paid spokesperson for a billion-dollar dark money operation that has captured America’s highest court. And the receipts don't lie."

The moment Whitehouse completely stripped away JCN's academic facade and branded them as political influence-peddlers left the hearing room in stunned silence. The clip instantly blew up online: Progressives are hailing Whitehouse for exposing the "final boss" of dark money, while conservatives are furiously accusing him of badgering the witness and peddling conspiracy theories.

See less

 

 CHRIS BENNETT

Will the Democratic Establishment Do Another “Bernie Betrayal” Like 2016 and Shoe In Schumer and Jeffries?

After a midterm wave driven by progressive energy, party leaders face resistance over unpopularity, donor ties, and the politics of continuity.

Democrats just delivered a sweeping midterm victory, taking the House and Senate with comfortable margins. Hakeem Jeffries is widely expected to become Speaker of the House—the first Black person in that role—and Chuck Schumer is positioned to return as Senate Majority Leader. Progressive groups and some incoming lawmakers are calling this a continuation of establishment power, drawing explicit parallels to the 2016 Democratic primary and the DNC’s treatment of Bernie Sanders.

The comparison is emotionally potent for many on the left. It is also structurally imperfect.

What Happened in 2016

In July 2016, WikiLeaks released roughly 19,000 emails from DNC officials. They showed clear institutional hostility toward Sanders and favoritism toward Hillary Clinton. Staffers discussed using Sanders’ religion against him with Southern voters, mocked his campaign as disorganized, and explored media narratives to undermine him. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, then DNC chair, resigned amid the fallout. The DNC issued a formal apology to Sanders and his supporters for “inexcusable remarks.”

There was no documented evidence that the DNC altered vote counts or directly rigged primary results. What the emails revealed was a party apparatus that viewed Sanders as an outsider and preferred the establishment candidate. Sanders himself stated there was “no question” the DNC had supported Clinton over him. The episode confirmed long-standing progressive suspicions about party neutrality and damaged trust that has never fully recovered.

The 2026 Landscape

The current fight is different in key ways. Congressional party leaders are not chosen by the DNC. They are elected by the members of each chamber’s party caucus, typically by secret ballot in organizational meetings after the election but before the new Congress begins in January. The Speaker is then formally elected by the full House. Jeffries and Schumer are the existing leaders; continuity is the default path unless a challenger consolidates support inside the caucus.

That said, the pushback is real. Progressive organization Indivisible has called for new Senate leadership, arguing voters wanted “a new generation of Democratic fighters,” not a return to the status quo. Several incoming Democratic senators—including Abdul El-Sayed (Michigan), Troy Jackson (Maine), Peggy Flanagan (Minnesota), and others—have publicly declined to back Schumer or called for new leadership. A 'Change' petition urging House Democrats to reject Jeffries as Speaker has gathered over eight hundred thousand signatures. Some progressive polling before the election suggested limited enthusiasm for both men among Democratic voters in key districts.

Schumer and Jeffries have framed the results as a mandate to govern on affordability and deliver results against a Republican White House, with allies arguing the party won big under their existing structures. Yet both leaders remain deeply unpopular—Schumer’s leadership has drawn positive ratings as low as 13% in some polls, and both men rank among the least favorably viewed national political figures. In key primaries, candidates they backed or preferred often lost to more progressive challengers: Jeffries endorsed incumbents Dan Goldman and Adriano Espaillat in New York, both of whom were defeated by progressive and DSA-aligned candidates, while Schumer’s preferred moderates were also beaten in several races. By contrast, progressive Democrats entered the general election with clear momentum—figures such as Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan and Troy Jackson in Maine won competitive Senate seats after running against the establishment, and left-aligned House candidates scored upsets that expanded the progressive wing heading into the new Congress.

These tensions are compounded by specific policy and political choices that have fueled progressive distrust. Both Schumer and Jeffries have long received substantial funding from pro-Israel political action committees and related groups; AIPAC publicly congratulated them by name after the midterms, and critics have highlighted Jeffries’ consistent support for U.S. military aid to Israel alongside Schumer’s past statements about keeping the party’s left flank “pro-Israel.” On the Iran war, both leaders have since the election publicly called for it to end and pointed to Congress’s power of the purse, yet many progressives remain skeptical of how forcefully they will confront the conflict given their broader relationships. Jeffries’ private meeting with Jared Kushner earlier this year—where the two discussed potential areas of cooperation on housing, immigration, and costs of living—drew sharp progressive criticism as evidence of too much willingness to seek common ground with the Trump orbit rather than pursue aggressive oversight or “retribution.” Combined with the sense that neither leader prioritizes more expansive policies such as Medicare for All that animated progressive primary winners, these factors have left a significant portion of the Democratic base wary that the new majorities will be led by figures more inclined toward continuity and accommodation than the sharper break many voters appear to want.

Is This the Same Kind of “Betrayal”?

The 2016 episode centered on the national party apparatus and its leadership appearing to tilt the field in a presidential primary where voters themselves were choosing the nominee. The present situation is different in form: elected House and Senate Democrats will select their own leaders in closed caucus votes. There is no formal primary, no superdelegate system, and no national party committee that can directly install Schumer or Jeffries.

Even so, progressive critics treat the distinction as largely procedural. They argue that the Democratic establishment—through donor networks, institutional endorsements, leadership PACs, and the simple inertia of incumbency—has already shaped the outcome long before any caucus ballot is cast. From this perspective, the near-certain elevation of two long-serving New York leaders who remain deeply unpopular with the party’s activist base, who backed multiple candidates who lost in competitive primaries, and who maintain close ties to traditional fundraising and foreign-policy constituencies, functions as another form of top-down continuity. It is less a single act of committee intervention and more the predictable result of an establishment that prioritizes experience, fundraising capacity, and legislative continuity over the economic-populist and anti-war message that energized much of the midterm electorate.

Defenders respond that caucus members, not outside activists or the national party, ultimately decide, and that experienced leaders who can hold a majority together and negotiate are what governing requires. Leadership elections remain ahead—House Democrats are expected to formalize their choices in mid-November, Senate Democrats later. Whether progressive opposition is strong enough to produce a genuine contest, or remains a vocal but minority view that the majority of members can absorb, will be settled by the elected Democrats themselves. The question is whether that internal process still feels, to a large part of the party’s base, like another establishment outcome imposed rather than earned.

The Larger Pattern

Parties on both sides repeatedly face the same dynamic after strong performances: the people who held power when the victory arrived tend to keep it, while the base that supplied the energy wants different priorities or faces. The 2016 emails were unusually explicit because they were private. Most internal power struggles stay quieter. What is public now is a progressive effort to treat the midterm mandate as a demand for leadership turnover, and an establishment preference for stability.

Whether that preference constitutes a “betrayal” depends on what one believes the Democratic Party is for and whom it is accountable to. The institutional mechanisms differ from 2016. The political grievance does not.

See less