I’m not sure whether the author of the article, EJ Dionne, actually wrote the headline, because it seems pretty incongruent with the nuanced premise(s) of the text body. The first hint comes in the second and third paragraphs:
> When a New York Times reporter asked Abdul El-Sayed, the Democrats’ left-wing Senate nominee in Michigan, to describe Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, in one or two words, he said “pragmatic.” This is the same Dr. El-Sayed who had said earlier this summer, “If you’re Chuck Schumer, I’m pretty damn dangerous.”
>
> It seems that two can work the pragmatic side of the street. For Democrats who hope for a truce in the factional warfare that has engulfed the party since the June victories of democratic socialists in primaries in New York and Colorado, Dr. El-Sayed’s single conciliatory word had the ring of high poetry.
Perhaps the editor meant it as somewhat of a bait-and-switch from the Wisconsin primary upset to the discussion of Democratic unity across ideological lines — in some cases exaggerated by pundits and always by the campaigns themselves — despite the divisions.
I’ve pinged DEMS twice in the past 24 hours already, so I’ll abstain from doing so here, unless anyone else finds it sufficiently significant.
> The ideologically split Midwest verdict may have the salutary effect of pushing back against the sometimes hysterical (and also inaccurate) commentary about a Democratic electorate in the thrall of a Bastille Day showdown. The shrewdest politicians on both sides of the left-versus-center (or, if you prefer, insurgent-versus-establishment) barricades understand that the only hope Republicans have of avoiding a devastating defeat this fall is to keep voters from focusing on President Trump and their complicity in his deeply unpopular failures. They want to make it instead about Democratic “radicalism” and — ah, that hallowed shibboleth — “disarray.”
3 Comments
I’m not sure whether the author of the article, EJ Dionne, actually wrote the headline, because it seems pretty incongruent with the nuanced premise(s) of the text body. The first hint comes in the second and third paragraphs:
> When a New York Times reporter asked Abdul El-Sayed, the Democrats’ left-wing Senate nominee in Michigan, to describe Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, in one or two words, he said “pragmatic.” This is the same Dr. El-Sayed who had said earlier this summer, “If you’re Chuck Schumer, I’m pretty damn dangerous.”
>
> It seems that two can work the pragmatic side of the street. For Democrats who hope for a truce in the factional warfare that has engulfed the party since the June victories of democratic socialists in primaries in New York and Colorado, Dr. El-Sayed’s single conciliatory word had the ring of high poetry.
Perhaps the editor meant it as somewhat of a bait-and-switch from the Wisconsin primary upset to the discussion of Democratic unity across ideological lines — in some cases exaggerated by pundits and always by the campaigns themselves — despite the divisions.
I’ve pinged DEMS twice in the past 24 hours already, so I’ll abstain from doing so here, unless anyone else finds it sufficiently significant.
https://preview.redd.it/4xyb7vh7m0jh1.png?width=563&format=png&auto=webp&s=508690fd18af7b73117a1dadeda6f4901d277b89
Every day r/neoliberal struggles against the DSA
> The ideologically split Midwest verdict may have the salutary effect of pushing back against the sometimes hysterical (and also inaccurate) commentary about a Democratic electorate in the thrall of a Bastille Day showdown. The shrewdest politicians on both sides of the left-versus-center (or, if you prefer, insurgent-versus-establishment) barricades understand that the only hope Republicans have of avoiding a devastating defeat this fall is to keep voters from focusing on President Trump and their complicity in his deeply unpopular failures. They want to make it instead about Democratic “radicalism” and — ah, that hallowed shibboleth — “disarray.”
arr slash nl mentioned.