Archives for category: Elections

Ohio’s public schools have been victimized repeatedly by its Republican legislatures and governors. Charter schools, online schools, and vouchers have ripped off taxpayers and siphoned funds from public schools.

Last week, public school voters said enough.

At the national level, the 31 candidates field by the rightwing Moms for Liberty were defeated. Every one of them.

In Ohio, voters ousted rightwing culture warriors in most school board races.

In cities large and small around Ohio, conservative incumbents who ran for school boards on culture war agendas lost re-election. Outside candidates struggled as well. While off-year elections are quirky, some see ebbing political strength in anti-LGBTQ+ politics. 

It was a very good day for public schools in Ohio!

Josh Cowen is a prominent scholar of education policy. He spent 20 years as a voucher researcher and eventually concluded that vouchers are a failure. In every state that adopted and expanded vouchers, he found, the overwhelming majority of vouchers were claimed by parents whose children were already enrolled in private and religious schools or home-schooled. The small proportion of students who transferred from public schools to nonpublic schools experienced academic decline.

In his new Substack newsletter, Josh interviewed Gina Hinojosa, who is running for Governor of Texas in the Democratic primary. She has broad support in the party. Whoever wins will face Greg Abbott, who is running for an unprecedented fourth term. Abbott is a Trump man whose only goal is to cut taxes and enrich his billionaire pals, while ignoring the general welfare of the state’s people.

Here is the interview.

Today we’re launching a special feature of this newsletter—a series of spotlight interviews with political candidates, authors, and other public figures across the country. These interviews are going to be in a short, 5-Question format that I hope lets you get to know each person in a way that makes you want to know more. 

First up: Gina Hinojosa. Rep. Hinojosa is a five-term state legislator in Texas, and the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination to take on Governor Greg Abbott. 

I’m doing this interview just after Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill won huge margins in their race for the governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, respectively. Both—and especially Spanberger—made renewing and reinvesting in public schools a central piece of their campaigns, to go alongside affordability and health care as major issues in their states.

A recent poll by the Texas Politics Project at UT-Austin, shows Gina Hinojosa poised to join them: Governor Abbott’s approval ratings are at a dismal 32%, with 36% of Texas saying the state is headed in the wrong direction. 

Rep. Hinojosa took the national stage this spring, first in the school voucher fight against Abbott, who took in tens of millions in out-of-state funding from billionaires—including $12 million alone from Pennsylvania’s Jeff Yass. Then, she helped lead the fight against Abbott’s redistricting scheme, which at one point meant leaving the state to deny Abbott a legislative quorum.

Over the weekend, Gina appeared with California Governor Gavin Newsom at a Houston rally to celebrate the passage of Proposition 50 in Newsom’s state—a direct response to Abbott’s redistricting scheme in Texas.

Rep. Hinojosa has been endorsed by a vast array of Democrats and other community leaders across Texas, including both her colleague Rep. James Talarico and former Congressman Colin Allred, who are competing against each other for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate. 

Here’s why Gina Hinojosa is running to reverse three decades of GOP control in Texas, and why 2026 is the year for her to do it.

State Rep. Gina Hinojosa (D) is running for governor in Texas (photo: Rep. GinaHinojosa).

1.) Hi Rep. Hinojosa. Thanks for taking a few minutes here. You’re running for governor of Texas. Obviously you’re running to serve Texans, but what do think people everywhere ought to know about who you are and why you’re running?

I never wanted to run for office. In fact, I made my husband promise to never run for office before we got married. But when my son was in kindergarten, his school was threatened for closure. I got angry. Several other inner-city schools were also on the chopping block. As part of a movement to save our schools, I ran for my local school board and won. We saved our schools for the moment. On the school board, I realized that schools would be under constant threat of closure so long as the state kept withholding funding from our neighborhood schools. So I ran for the Texas House, and I won. Once there, I was able to lead on negotiations to win a substantial increase in school funding–but that happened only because Governor Abbott was forced to focus on the real needs of Texans after a 2018 wave election for Democrats. After the 2020 election when Democrats underperformed, the priorities shifted back to the monied interests and schools came under increased pressure, culminating with the passage of a $1 billion school voucher bill this year. It’s no coincidence that Governor Abbott received a $6 million campaign contribution from an out-of-state billionaire who supports privatization. I realized that we would never have the Texas we deserve so long as we have a governor who can be bought. Texas needs a Governor who is for the people, not the billionaire class.

2.) You and I met when I came to Texas during the voucher fight—Governor Abbott took a bunch of money from out-of-state billionaires to ram school vouchers into your state. You were a leader in the fight to stop him, and although they were able to finally force voucher onto Texas families, I think there’s a lot for political candidates to learn from the success you did have standing up to Abbott and those billionaires for so long. What lessons did you take away from that fight?

We beat back Governor Abbott’s voucher scam in 2023 and that fight taught me that we can have powerful cross-party alliances when we focus on what is most important, our kids. I was proud to work with Texans from all parts of the state, both Democrats and Republicans, to beat back Governor Abbott’s voucher scam. We formed strong alliances that persist to this day. One night in a meeting that went late, I was talking to a Republican woman who had travelled to Washington on January 6th in support of President Trump. We came to the realization that we were being divided by culture wars and social issues that were a distraction from the real issue: the taking of our taxpayer dollars to line the pockets of the well-connected, rich elite. Once you see this, you can’t unsee it.

3.) Folks across Texas and all over the country also know your name from the redistricting fight—which Abbott started almost as soon as he was done pushing vouchers through. You and your colleagues had to leave the state at one point to try to stop him. Was there ever a point you wanted to just give up, go home, leave the fight to someone else?

I will admit feeling a certain frustration and exhaustion after 5 terms in the Texas House and in the trenches on every big, state fight that has mattered in the last 10 years. But rather than give up, I have shifted my focus and my fight to this run for governor. For me it’s not about giving up, but about finding my place. In this moment in history, many of us are trying to find our highest, best use. Once you find it, I believe the work gives energy rather than depletes.

4.) Like we do in my home state of Michigan, Texas has a big governor’s race and key campaigns like a tough Senate contest. I worry that there’s kind of an information overload right now for ordinary folks. How do you want voters—and frankly, donors—to think about which campaigns they should be paying attention to, and why the Texas governor’s race is one of them?

Great question. Here’s why our race for governor in Texas in 2026 should be the priority for every American. By the end of this decade, in a little more than 4 years, the Brennan Center predicts that Texas will gain 4-5 new congressional seats because of population growth that is expected to be reflected in the 2030 Census. Texas will be taking those congressional seats from Democratic-majority states like California. What this means is if Texas doesn’t flip blue by the end of the decade, there will not be Democratic control of Congress for a generation. And because congressional seats equate to electoral votes, the same is true for the presidency. If Texas does not flip blue before the end of the decade, there will not be a Democratic United States President for a generation. That’s just math. A Democratic governor of Texas can insist on fair maps and veto any maps aimed to silence the will of the voters. Recent history tells us that this midterm after Trump’s re-election is our best chance to make gains for Democrats. The 2018 midterm after Trump was elected the first time, Democrats swept in Texas. Democrats won 12 seats in the Texas House and made additional gains across the state without national “battleground” funding. This time we must be ready. The fate of the Union depends on it.

5.) What didn’t I ask about you, or your campaign, that you’d like folks in Texas and across the country to know heading into 2026?

We are in a moment in history. Not of our choosing, but it chose us. This moment doesn’t care that we are tired or scared. What happens in our country at this moment will determine whether or not our children inherit a country where they will live free and be able to pursue their dreams and happiness. The stakes couldn’t be higher and there is no escaping from that reality. What we can do is find and join collective efforts dedicated to meeting the moment. We can find support and camaraderie in these efforts. We are very fortunate that there are so many dedicated to doing what is good and right. In fact, I still believe that most Americans are committed to the greater good. (Ignore social media!) Get out there! Meet each other. There is power when we come together and there is peace of mind in asserting that power.

Bonus question: I don’t know any candidates with time to watch TV these days, but give this a shot: which show have you seen or streamed lately that you’re excited about—or can’t wait to check out one day ?

I love The Diplomat on Netflix! My favorite character is Hal.

For the record: I also love The Diplomat, though my favorite character is Todd. 

You can chip in to Rep. Gina Hinojosa’s campaign right here.

Over the weekend, Hinojosa joined CA Governor Gavin Newsom at a Houston rally.

Paula Noonan of Colorado Capitol Watch reported on a nearly statewide sweep of school board elections by pro-public school parents. This vote of confidence in public schools is even more remarkable in light of the heavy spending by pro-charter school advocacy groups.

In addition, Colorado’s Governor Jared Polis is an enthusiastic supporter of charter schools, having opened two himself. Michael Bennett, one of the state’s U.S. Senators, is also a champion of charters, a former superintendent of the Denver public schools, and plans to run for governor. The mayor of Denver, Mike Johnston, is a former Teach for America activist and state legislator, who supports charter schools and authored a harsh teacher evaluation bill.

Mike DeGuire, former principal in Denver Public Schools, uncovered the dark money supporting the “reform” candidates. They include billionaires Philip Anschutz, the richest man in Colorado, Reed Hastings of Netflix, and John Arnold, former Enron trader.

Despite this lineup of big money and political heavyweights, the public in key districts chose their public schools.

She writes:

Swoosh — that’s the sound of money flushed down the toilet by Denver Families Action on their expensive-but-weak candidates for Denver Public Schools Board of Education. Bravo — that’s the sound of praise from Denver voters for Denver’s public-school teachers.

The mission of Denver Families Action led by Clarence Burton and Pat Donovan was to flip the Denver Board to a pro-choice, pro-charter majority. Many experts in the public-education sector see pro-choice advocacy as a lead-in to school vouchers.

In Denver, charter schools essentially serve the purposes of private school voucher programs. These schools and networks get tax dollars to operate their schools but have private, unelected school governance. The oversight of hundreds of millions of public dollars spent by these charters is at stake. Wealthy elite donors plunk down additional millions of dollars to support these education programs with accompanying tax write-offs.

Meanwhile, DPS had to close neighborhood schools recently due to low population and dropping revenues. The disruption from these school closures played out in Xochitl Gaytán’s southwest District 2. Gaytán was the only incumbent endorsed by the Denver Classroom Teachers Association. She is on record as rejecting future neighborhood school closures. She defeated her Denver Families’ opponent 57% to 42%, a big number with a big message.

Amy Klein-Molk ran against former district employee Alex Magaña in a head-to-head for the at-large board seat. Magaña had an ongoing dispute with DPS Superintendent Alex Marrero over the administration of Beacon innovation network of middle schools. Marrero found mismanagement and acted to dissolve the network. Beacon sued the district and lost. Klein-Molk crushed Magaña 55% to 44%, a nice 11-point spread.

Further confounding school district elections, Douglas County voters turned out its conservative majority. The “community not chaos” slate will seek to refocus the district away from contentious political issues, of which there are many and good luck with that. The slate emphasized teacher recruitment and retention based on a stable, positive work environment. Like other metro area districts, declining enrollment in older neighborhoods and increasing populations in newer neighborhoods create important, bottom-line challenges around opening and closing schools.

Pueblo County put up a split decision in its hotly contested school board races pitting public teacher-backed, public school-supporting candidates against parents rights, Christian education-oriented conservatives. In District 60, one candidate from each side won. In District 70, two public-school supporting candidates won and one non-aligned candidate took a seat.

In resounding support for providing good nutrition for school children, voters across the state supported propositions LL and MM. State residents on the high end of income, $300,000-plus, will contribute more tax dollars to the food-for-all school meals program by reducing state income tax deductions. This change will produce $95 million to fill the funding gap in the nutrition program.

What’s interesting about this result is 785,000 voters said NO to the tax increase in MM, or 35%. About 8% of Colorado taxpayers earn more than $300,000 per year, so quite a few people voted to allow wealthier individuals to keep their charitable contributions at the higher level. That’s the base of people against any tax increases for any reason.

Based on these overall results, several implications emerge where public education connects with taxation and the 2026 governor election connects to public education policy.

Great Ed Colorado and other groups will seek to offer a tax initiative of some sort to bring more money into the state’s school finance budget. The school nutrition vote put 65% of voters into the “we will nourish the kids with food” camp. It’s unknown whether nourishing kids with food also extends to nourishing kids with learning.

The governor’s race between U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet and Attorney General Phil Weiser contains the public education and tax increase intersection. The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, TABOR, creates much of Colorado’s taxation and state finance problems. The federal government’s animus to our state politics puts another kink into how Colorado can fund Medicaid, public schools, and an array of other needs adequately.

Sen. Bennet has received gobs of campaign money from wealthy east coast and west coast money-people who support school choice, charters and probably vouchers. Their preference is for public schools to turn charter or, better yet, private. Sen. Bennet will have to explain exactly how that will work in Colorado. Does he want more than $10 billion in public tax dollars to move to oversight by unelected charter boards with schools presenting curriculum that doesn’t meet state standards? Will he support changes to TABOR to bring in more tax dollars for school finance?

Attorney General Weiser will have to address the same questions with concrete offers. Right now, he supports a “livable wage” for teachers and down-payment assistance for teachers to live where the teach. He will “stand strong” for public schools and against privatizing. But will he go after TABOR reform and counter lack of transparency in charter-school governance?

This election gives hints. Voters supported the public in public schools and providing students with nourishment to flourish in school. The next election will decide whether public schools will flourish in teaching and learning as well.

Paula Noonan owns Colorado Capitol Watch, the state’s premier legislature tracking platform.

To get a sense of the infighting, extremism, and partisanship that shaped many of Colorado’s school board races, read Logan M. Davis’ account of the outcomes in many other districts. His account appeared in the progressive Colorado Times Recorder..

I love and admire Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum. She recently retired as the leader of the nation’s largest LGBT synagogue. She looks 16, but she’s not. She is one of the wisest people I know. She is a fighter for justice and kindness. She is fearless.

You will enjoy this interview. And you will learn by listening.

In Pennsylvania school board races, extremists who provoked battles over culture war issues were ousted. One winner said that parents looked forward to the days when school board meetings were “boring,” not divisive.

Pittsburgh’s NPR station WESA reported:

A slate of Democratic candidates won four seats on the Pine-Richland school board last night and unseated one incumbent with ties to a statewide movement of conservative education leaders.

The sweep capped an Election Day marked by Democratic victories in school board races statewide.

Pine-Richland electee Randy Augustine and his peers on the Together for PR slate won over voters with slogans like “excellence over extremism.”

“School board positions are theoretically supposed to be non-partisan, non-political positions,” Augustine said. “A number of the school board members were trying to push a political agenda, focusing on culture war issues, not focusing on the students.”

The Republican-led school board initiated policies that gave board members the final say over which books were included in school libraries and challenged books with LGBTQ characters. The district’s teachers union issued a vote of no confidence in the majority of school board members this spring.

“ It was becoming toxic, and the turmoil, I think, was spreading,” said fellow Together for PR winner Melissa Vecchi. “People just wanted to see it back to boring.”

On election night, Zohran Mamdani gave the following speech, celebrating his victory and also the multicultural coalition that made his victory possible. He is now the Mayor-elect of New York City. He is 34 years old, the youngest Mayor in more than a century. He was born in Uganda to Indian parents. His father is a professor of African Studies at Columbia Unicersity, his mother is a noted film-maker. He is a graduate of the Bronx High School of Sciebce–a selective public high school–and Bowdoin College. He was elected to the State Assembly in 2032, representing the Astoria district of Queens

This transcript was published by The Guardian..

The sun may have set over our city this evening, but as Eugene Debs once said: “I can see the dawn of a better day for humanity.”

For as long as we can remember, the working people of New York have been told by the wealthy and the well-connected that power does not belong in their hands.

Fingers bruised from lifting boxes on the warehouse floor, palms calloused from delivery bike handlebars, knuckles scarred with kitchen burns: these are not hands that have been allowed to hold power. And yet, over the last 12 months, you have dared to reach for something greater.

Tonight, against all odds, we have grasped it. The future is in our hands. My friends, we have toppled a political dynasty.

I wish Andrew Cuomo only the best in private life. But let tonight be the final time I utter his name, as we turn the page on a politics that abandons the many and answers only to the few. New York, tonight you have delivered. A mandate for change. A mandate for a new kind of politics. A mandate for a city we can afford. And a mandate for a government that delivers exactly that.

On 1 January, I will be sworn in as the mayor of New York City. And that is because of you. So before I say anything else, I must say this: thank you. Thank you to the next generation of New Yorkers who refuse to accept that the promise of a better future was a relic of the past.

You showed that when politics speaks to you without condescension, we can usher in a new era of leadership. We will fight for you, because we are you.

Or, as we say on Steinway, ana minkum wa alaikum.

Thank you to those so often forgotten by the politics of our city, who made this movement their own. I speak of Yemeni bodega owners and Mexican abuelas. Senegalese taxi drivers and Uzbek nurses. Trinidadian line cooks and Ethiopian aunties. Yes, aunties.

To every New Yorker in Kensington and Midwood and Hunts Point, know this: this city is your city, and this democracy is yours too. This campaign is about people like Wesley, an 1199 organizer I met outside of Elmhurst hospital on Thursday night. A New Yorker who lives elsewhere, who commutes two hours each way from Pennsylvania because rent is too expensive in this city.

It’s about people like the woman I met on the Bx33 years ago who said to me: “I used to love New York, but now it’s just where I live.” And it’s about people like Richard, the taxi driver I went on a 15-day hunger strike with outside of City Hall, who still has to drive his cab seven days a week. My brother, we are in City Hall now.

This victory is for all of them. And it’s for all of you, the more than 100,000 volunteers who built this campaign into an unstoppable force. Because of you, we will make this city one that working people can love and live in again. With every door knocked, every petition signature earned, and every hard-earned conversation, you eroded the cynicism that has come to define our politics.

Now, I know that I have asked for much from you over this last year. Time and again, you have answered my calls – but I have one final request. New York City, breathe this moment in. We have held our breath for longer than we know.

We have held it in anticipation of defeat, held it because the air has been knocked out of our lungs too many times to count, held it because we cannot afford to exhale. Thanks to all of those who sacrificed so much. We are breathing in the air of a city that has been reborn.

To my campaign team, who believed when no one else did and who took an electoral project and turned it into so much more: I will never be able to express the depth of my gratitude. You can sleep now.

To my parents, mama and baba: You have made me into the man I am today. I am so proud to be your son. And to my incredible wife, Rama, hayati: There is no one I would rather have by my side in this moment, and in every moment.

To every New Yorker – whether you voted for me, for one of my opponents or felt too disappointed by politics to vote at all – thank you for the opportunity to prove myself worthy of your trust. I will wake each morning with a singular purpose: to make this city better for you than it was the day before.

There are many who thought this day would never come, who feared that we would be condemned only to a future of less, with every election consigning us simply to more of the same.

And there are others who see politics today as too cruel for the flame of hope to still burn. New York, we have answered those fears.

Tonight we have spoken in a clear voice. Hope is alive. Hope is a decision that tens of thousands of New Yorkers made day after day, volunteer shift after volunteer shift, despite attack ad after attack ad. More than a million of us stood in our churches, in gymnasiums, in community centers, as we filled in the ledger of democracy.

And while we cast our ballots alone, we chose hope together. Hope over tyranny. Hope over big money and small ideas. Hope over despair. We won because New Yorkers allowed themselves to hope that the impossible could be made possible. And we won because we insisted that no longer would politics be something that is done to us. Now, it is something that we do.

Standing before you, I think of the words of Jawaharlal Nehru: “A moment comes, but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance.”

Tonight we have stepped out from the old into the new. So let us speak now, with clarity and conviction that cannot be misunderstood, about what this new age will deliver, and for whom.

This will be an age where New Yorkers expect from their leaders a bold vision of what we will achieve, rather than a list of excuses for what we are too timid to attempt. Central to that vision will be the most ambitious agenda to tackle the cost-of-living crisis that this city has seen since the days of Fiorello La Guardia: an agenda that will freeze the rents for more than 2 million rent-stabilized tenants, make buses fast and free, and deliver universal childcare across our city.

Years from now, may our only regret be that this day took so long to come. This new age will be one of relentless improvement. We will hire thousands more teachers. We will cut waste from a bloated bureaucracy. We will work tirelessly to make lights shine again in the hallways of NYCHA developments where they have long flickered.

Safety and justice will go hand in hand as we work with police officers to reduce crime and create a department of community safety that tackles the mental health crisis and homelessness crises head on. Excellence will become the expectation across government, not the exception. In this new age we make for ourselves, we will refuse to allow those who traffic in division and hate to pit us against one another.

In this moment of political darkness, New York will be the light. Here, we believe in standing up for those we love, whether you are an immigrant, a member of the trans community, one of the many Black women that Donald Trump has fired from a federal job, a single mom still waiting for the cost of groceries to go down, or anyone else with their back against the wall. Your struggle is ours, too.

And we will build a City Hall that stands steadfast alongside Jewish New Yorkers and does not waver in the fight against the scourge of antisemitism. Where the more than 1 million Muslims know that they belong – not just in the five boroughs of this city, but in the halls of power.

No more will New York be a city where you can traffic in Islamophobia and win an election. This new age will be defined by a competence and a compassion that have too long been placed at odds with one another. We will prove that there is no problem too large for government to solve, and no concern too small for it to care about.

For years, those in City Hall have only helped those who can help them. But on 1 January, we will usher in a city government that helps everyone.

Now, I know that many have heard our message only through the prism of misinformation. Tens of millions of dollars have been spent to redefine reality and to convince our neighbors that this new age is something that should frighten them. As has so often occurred, the billionaire class has sought to convince those making $30 an hour that their enemies are those earning $20 an hour.

They want the people to fight amongst ourselves so that we remain distracted from the work of remaking a long-broken system. We refuse to let them dictate the rules of the game any more. They can play by the same rules as the rest of us.

Together, we will usher in a generation of change. And if we embrace this brave new course, rather than fleeing from it, we can respond to oligarchy and authoritarianism with the strength it fears, not the appeasement it craves.

After all, if anyone can show a nation betrayed by Donald Trump how to defeat him, it is the city that gave rise to him. And if there is any way to terrify a despot, it is by dismantling the very conditions that allowed him to accumulate power.

This is not only how we stop Trump; it’s how we stop the next one. So, Donald Trump, since I know you’re watching, I have four words for you: Turn the volume up.

We will hold bad landlords to account because the Donald Trumps of our city have grown far too comfortable taking advantage of their tenants. We will put an end to the culture of corruption that has allowed billionaires like Trump to evade taxation and exploit tax breaks. We will stand alongside unions and expand labor protections because we know, just as Donald Trump does, that when working people have ironclad rights, the bosses who seek to extort them become very small indeed.

New York will remain a city of immigrants: a city built by immigrants, powered by immigrants and, as of tonight, led by an immigrant.

So hear me, President Trump, when I say this: to get to any of us, you will have to get through all of us. When we enter City Hall in 58 days, expectations will be high. We will meet them. A great New Yorker once said that while you campaign in poetry, you govern in prose.

If that must be true, let the prose we write still rhyme, and let us build a shining city for all. And we must chart a new path, as bold as the one we have already traveled. After all, the conventional wisdom would tell you that I am far from the perfect candidate.

I am young, despite my best efforts to grow older. I am Muslim. I am a democratic socialist. And most damning of all, I refuse to apologize for any of this.

And yet, if tonight teaches us anything, it is that convention has held us back. We have bowed at the altar of caution, and we have paid a mighty price. Too many working people cannot recognize themselves in our party, and too many among us have turned to the right for answers to why they’ve been left behind.

We will leave mediocrity in our past. No longer will we have to open a history book for proof that Democrats can dare to be great.

Our greatness will be anything but abstract. It will be felt by every rent-stabilized tenant who wakes up on the first of every month knowing the amount they’re going to pay hasn’t soared since the month before. It will be felt by each grandparent who can afford to stay in the home they have worked for, and whose grandchildren live nearby because the cost of childcare didn’t send them to Long Island.

It will be felt by the single mother who is safe on her commute and whose bus runs fast enough that she doesn’t have to rush school drop-off to make it to work on time. And it will be felt when New Yorkers open their newspapers in the morning and read headlines of success, not scandal.

Most of all, it will be felt by each New Yorker when the city they love finally loves them back.

Together, New York, we’re going to freeze the rent together, New York, we’re going to make buses fast and free together, New York, we’re going to deliver universal childcare.

Let the words we’ve spoken together, the dreams we’ve dreamt together, become the agenda we deliver together. New York, this power, it’s yours. This city belongs to you.

I decided after Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic primary that I would vote for him. I was concerned about his lack of managerial experience, but impressed by his energy, his enthusiasm, his ever-present smile, and his willingness to try bold policies on behalf of working-class and low-income New Yorkers. I was repulsed by the billionaire-funded hate campaign against him as a Muslim.

But at some point before the general election, I wavered. I read article after article about his hard-and-fast views on Israel, the BDS movement, and other third-rail topics. I am not a Zionist but I believe that Israel should not have to justify its right to exist. And I condemn the rightwing cabal in Israel that has supported the genocidal war in Gaza, as well as settler terrorism against Palestinians who live on the West Bank.

I decided not to vote, which I have never done. Voting is a precious right, which I have always exercised.

Then I read this article in the New York Times, in which David Leonhardt interviewed Senator Bernie Sanders, and it resolved all my doubt and hesitation. After reading this, I went to my polling place and very happily voted for Zohran Mamdani.

Of course, I was thrilled to see a Democratic sweep in Virginia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania (where the state GOP proposed to remove three Democratic judges from the state’s Supreme Court), and California, where Prop. 50 passed easily, allowing a redistricting intended to produce an additional 5 Democratic seats in Congress. Prop 50 was a response to the Texas GOP’s redistricting that will eliminate 5 Democratic seats. Joke of the day: California Republicans are suing to block the Prop 50 gerrymandering because it favors one race over another. I didn’t hear similar concerns about gerrymanders by Republicans in Texas, Missouri, and other states that are creating new Republican seats, eliminating Black representation.

The article linked above is a gift article, so you can read it in full without a subscription.

Here is a sample:

David Leonhardt: Senator Bernie Sanders started talking about income inequality nearly 40 years ago.

Archived clip of Bernie Sanders in 1988:In our nation today, we have extreme disparity between the rich and the poor, that elections are bought and sold by people who have huge sums of money.

He railed against oligarchs before Elon Musk made his first million.

Archived clip of Sanders in 1991: To a very great extent, the United States of America today is increasingly becoming an oligarchy.

Sanders started out as a political oddity. But his focus on inequality has made him one of the most influential politicians in America. I wanted to know where he thinks we’re headed next. So I asked him to join me for “America’s Next Story,” a Times Opinion series about the ideas that once held our country together, and those that might do so again.

Senator Bernie Sanders, thank you for being here.

Bernie Sanders: My pleasure….

Leonhardt: OK, let’s get into it. I want to go back to the pre-Trump era and think about the fact that a lot of Democrats during that time — I’m thinking about the Clintons and Obama — felt more positively toward the market economy than you did.

They were positive toward trade. They didn’t worry that much about corporate power. They didn’t pay that much attention to labor unions. And if I’m being totally honest, a lot of people outside of the Democratic Party, like New York Times columnists, had many of those same attitudes.

Sanders: Yes, I recall that. Vaguely, yes. Some of them actually weren’t supportive of my candidacy for president.

Leonhardt: That is fair. I assume you would agree that the consensus has shifted in your direction over the last decade or so?

Sanders: I think that’s fair to say.

Leonhardt: And I’m curious: Why do you think those other Democrats and progressives missed what you saw?

Sanders: In the 1970s — the early ’70s — some of the leaders in the Democratic Party had this brilliant idea. They said: Hey, Republicans are getting all of this money from the wealthy and the corporations. Why don’t we hitch a ride, as well? And they started doing that. Throughout the history of this country — certainly the modern history of this country, from F.D.R. to Truman to Kennedy, even — the Democratic Party was the party of the working class. Period. That’s all your working class. Most people were Democrats.

But from the ’70s on, for a variety of reasons — like the attraction of big money — the party began to pay more attention to the needs of the corporate world and the wealthy rather than working-class people. And I think, in my view, that has been a total disaster, not only politically, but for our country as a whole.

Leonhardt: I agree, certainly, that corporate money played a role within the party. But I also think a lot of people genuinely believed things like trade would help workers. When I think about —

Sanders: Hmm, no.

Leonhardt: You think it’s all about money?

Sanders: No. What I think is, if you talked to working-class people during that period, as I did, if you talked to the union movement during that period, as I did, you said: Guys, do you think it’s a great idea that we have a free-trade agreement with China? No worker in America thought that was a good idea. The corporate world thought it was a good idea. The Washington Post thought it was a great idea. I don’t know what The New York Times thought.

But every one of us who talked to unions, who talked to workers, understood that the result of that would be the collapse of manufacturing in America and the loss of millions of good-paying jobs. Because corporations understood: If I could pay people 30 cents an hour in China, why the hell am I going to pay a worker in America a living wage? We understood that.

Leonhardt: I think that’s fair. I guess I’m interested in why you think that members of the Democratic Party — not workers, but members — and other progressives ignored workers back then but have come more closely to listen to workers. I mean, if you look at the Biden administration’s policy, if you look at the way Senator Schumer talks about his own views shifting, I do think there’s been this meaningful shift in the Democratic Party toward your views. Not all the way.

Sanders: Well, what we will have to see is to what degree people are just seeing where the wind is blowing as to whether or not they mean it.

In my view, working-class Americans did not vote for Donald Trump because they wanted to see the top 1 percent get a trillion dollars in tax breaks. They did not want to see 15 million people, including many of them, being thrown off the health care they had or their health care premiums double, etc. They voted for Trump because he said: I am going to do something. The system is broken. I’m going to do something.

What did the Democrats say? Well, in 13 years, if you’re making $40,000, $48,000, we may be able to help your kid get to college. But if you’re making a penny more, we can’t quite do that. The system is OK — we’re going to nibble around the edges. Trump smashed the system. Of course, everything he’s doing is disastrous. Democrats? Eh, system is OK — let’s nibble around the edges.

Democrats lost the election. All right? They abdicated. They came up with no alternative. Because you know what? They, even today, don’t acknowledge the economic crises facing the working class of this country. Now you tell me, how many Democrats are going around saying: You know what? We have a health care system that is broken, completely. We are the only major country on Earth not to guarantee health care to all people I’ve introduced Medicare for All. You know how many Democrats in the Senate I have on board?

Leonhardt: How many?

Sanders: Fifteen — out of a caucus of 47.

Leonhardt: And you think Medicare for All is both good policy and good politics?

Sanders: Of course, it’s good policy! Health care is a human right! I feel very strongly about that. And I think the function of our health care system should not make the drug companies and the insurance companies phenomenally rich. We guarantee health care to all people — that’s what most Americans think. Where’s the leader?

I think that at a time when we have more income and wealth inequality, you know what the American people think? Maybe we really levy some heavy duty taxes on the billionaire class. I believe that. I think most Americans, including a number of Republicans, believe that. Hmm, not quite so sure where the Democrats are. I believe that you don’t keep funding a war criminal like Netanyahu to starve the children of Gaza. That’s what I believe. It’s what most Americans believe. An overwhelming majority in the Democratic world believes it. Hmm, Democratic leadership, maybe not quite so much.

The point is that, right now, 60 percent of our people have been paycheck to paycheck. I don’t know that the Democratic leadership understands that there are good, decent people out there working as hard as they can, having a hard time paying their rent. Because the cost of housing is off the charts, health care is off the charts, child care is off the charts. The campaign finance system is completely broken. When Musk can spend $270 million to elect Trump, you’ve got a broken system. Our job is to create an economy and a political system that works for working people, not just billionaires.

PLEASE OPEN THE LINK AND READ THE REST OF THIS AMAZING INTERVIEW.

Jamelle Bouie is a columnist for The New York Times. He is my favorite. He has a broad and deep knowledge of politics and history. He writes about what he’s reading and what he’s cooking.

In this column, he explains that the Constitution prohibits any President from serving a third term. Since Trump loves to scoff at the Constitution, he’s been dropping hints that he will run again or maybe be president for life.

The polls are not encouraging. He currently is at 42% approval, and 52% disapproval. Polls can change, of course. But Trump is as impulsive, arrogant, and vengeful as ever.

Jamelle Bouie reminds us that it was Republicans who insisted on a two-term limit for the Presdency:

It does not come as a great surprise to see that less than a year into his second term in office, President Trump is already thinking about a third.

“I would love to do it,” he told reporters on Air Force One this week.

He has, in fact, been thinking about a third term for years.

“We’re going to win four more years in the White House,” he said in 2020. “And then after that, we’ll negotiate, right? Because we’re probably — based on the way we were treated — we are probably entitled to another four after that.”

And earlier this year, he told NBC News that he wasn’t “joking” about serving a third term. “There are methods which you could do it,” he said.

The obvious response to Trump’s musings is that the Constitution limits each president to two full terms. “No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice, and no person who has held the office of president, or acted as president, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected president shall be elected to the office of the president more than once,” reads the 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951.

But allies of the president insist that there is a plan — a loophole — that might allow Trump to circumvent the Constitution and serve another four years or more.

“Trump is going to be president in ’28, and people just ought to get accommodated with that,” said Steve Bannon last week. “At the appropriate time, we’ll lay out what the plan is.”

This sounds plausible, but it is wrong. First, it treats the Constitution as a language game whose meaning depends less on the text, structure, history and purpose of the document and more on whether you can use the fundamental indeterminacy of language to brute-force your preferred outcome.

But that is not how you should read the Constitution, which isn’t a rigid set of instructions to be gamed by clever lawyers, but a political document meant to structure the rules of self-government in the United States. The 22nd Amendment was written to change one of those rules and limit the president’s term of office, regardless of the circumstances. Any apparent “loophole” is a mirage produced by a basic misunderstanding of what it is that the Constitution set out to accomplish. A quick look at the history and debate behind the amendment makes this clear.

Two terms in office had been the norm for American presidents since George Washington declined to stand for a third in 1796, instead handing the reins to his vice president, John Adams. In 1940, Franklin Roosevelt became the first president to run for and win a third term of office. He continued the streak in 1944, winning another term but dying in office just a few months after he delivered his fourth Inaugural Address.

In the following midterm elections, Republicans won a House and a Senate majority for the first time since the early 1930s. And at the top of the agenda for the 80th Congress was a constitutional amendment to make the two-term tradition a formal rule of American politics. Although this was a clear response to Roosevelt, congressional arguments in favor of the two-term limit emphasized the vast scope of presidential power and the threat it might pose to American democracy if left in the hands of one man over an extended period of time.

“If long tenure of office of the president was a threat to our republican form of government as stated by President Jefferson nearly 140 years ago, with his limited powers, small disbursements, small Army and Navy and a small number of appointees, how much greater must that threat be to our republican form of government and to the liberties of the American people today?” asked Representative John Marshall Robsion of Kentucky during floor debates over the amendment in 1947.

“I favor this proposed amendment,” said Representative John Jennings Jr. of Tennessee. “Only by its adoption can the people be assured that we shall never have a dictator in this land. Without such a limit on the number of terms a man may serve in the presidency, the time may come when a man of vaulting ambition becomes president.” Backed by a “subservient Congress,” continued Jennings, such a man “could well name to the Supreme Court of the United States men of his political faith and economic thinking” who could “sweep aside and overthrow the safeguards of the Constitution” and “overrule the settled states of law that have been declared and recognized for a hundred years.”

“Almost all of the rest of the world has slipped away from the foundations of freedom and skidded dangerously close to the shoals of executive domination, one-man rule, dictatorship and ruthless tyranny,” declared Representative Karl Earl Mundt of South Dakota. “Let us consolidate our gains in self-government by passing this resolution to prevent any president hereafter — Republican or Democratic — from perpetuating himself in office.”

The overriding concern among congressional supporters of the 22nd Amendment was to limit the president’s overall tenure of office. They did not parse the difference between service and election; they did not intend to create some special scenario by which, if a president followed the right steps, he could circumvent the restriction. They meant, simply, to restrict the president to two full terms for fear of what might be if presidential power fell into the wrong hands.

“To grant extended power to any one man would be a definite step in the direction of autocracy, regardless of the name given the office, whether it be president, king, dictator, emperor or whatever title the office may carry,” Senator Chapman Revercomb of West Virginia said during his chamber’s debate over the proposed amendment. “It would be a definite step toward the destruction of real freedom of the people.”

Don’t lose hope! Don’t give up, no matter how bad it looks today.

That’s the advice of Ian Bassin, the co-founder and executive director of Protect Democracy. In this essay, he explains that the enemies of democracy cultivate despair. They flood the zone with cruel policies. They want us to believe that resistance is futile.

It is not. Don’t help them achieve their goals!

He writes:

Let’s not mince words. It’s a dark time.

If you’re reading this, you feel it. You see federal troops on American streets as a political tool. You see a multi-front assault on our elections. You see the machinery of government — from a supercharged ICE to a weaponized Department of Justice — being wielded against those the regime dislikes. You see courts wavering, Congress cowering, and other institutions choosing accommodation over confrontation. The danger is real, and the exhaustion is profound.

But it’s not just the individual threats that weigh on us. It’s the sheer volume. The autocrat’s playbook isn’t just about single acts of repression; it’s about creating a dozen crises at once. This is not incompetence; it is a strategy. As strategists from Sun Tzu onward have counseled, stretch an opponent’s defenses, exhaust them, and strike where they are then unprepared. By flooding the zone with outrages, they keep us perpetually reactive, divided, and off-balance. Our attention is their battleground, and they are winning by forcing us to fight on a thousand fronts at once.

The goal of this chaos is twofold. First, to spread us thinly so our responses are less effective. Second, to exhaust us and make the defense of democracy feel so futile that its defenders simply give up. Despair is a political weapon.

I’m not writing to tell you that you’re wrong to feel this way. I’m writing to tell you that this feeling is a designed part of the assault we’re facing. And I’m writing to tell you that we are not the first to stand in this spot, staring into what looks like an abyss. In the history of those who came before us, we can find a map not for a specific strategy but for a resilient mindset.

The long defeat as enduring hope

The phrase “the long defeat” comes from J.R.R. Tolkien, who has Galadriel speak of “fighting the long defeat” in The Lord of the Rings. That evil may never be fully vanquished and therefore that even victories against it are temporary. For Tolkien, a devout Catholic, it carried a tragic but defiant realism: History is a process of entropy, yet the fight for beauty, justice, and truth is still worth waging.

Over time, the idea that even in a period of decline doing the right thing remains a strategic and moral imperative has migrated from literature into political and theological commentary. Dissidents under Soviet rule, activists resisting authoritarianism, and modern democratic leaders have invoked versions of this concept to capture the paradox of resistance.

Victory may lie invisibly over some horizon, or may never be final. Setbacks are inevitable, and yet the very act of persevering is itself a form of hope.

To “fight the long defeat” is not to surrender to futility but to locate dignity and meaning in the struggle itself — and to recognize that what feels like defeat in one moment may seed the victories of another. Indeed history is replete with examples.

Lessons from a Polish winter

Consider Poland in the winter of 1981. The vibrant Solidarity movement was met with martial law. (If you don’t know the history of Solidarity, we’re planning to write about it later this week — stay tuned.) Its leaders were jailed; its organization shattered.

The pro-democracy cause appeared utterly defeated by the full weight of a Soviet-backed state.

What did they do when open confrontation became impossible? They didn’t stop. They began a patient, underground campaign — sustained organizing, covert communications, and cultural work that kept civic life alive. They understood that when you cannot win on the state’s terms, you must refuse to let the state define the terms of reality. They focused on keeping the idea of a free Poland alive. Through underground publishing and clandestine lectures — continuing traditions like the “Flying University” — they maintained a shared understanding of truth in the face of a regime dedicated to lies.

For roughly eight years they persisted. They were not just an opposition; they were the custodians of a democratic ideal. When a crack in the regime appeared in 1989 — with the Round Table Talks and semi-free elections — they were ready because they had never surrendered the moral and intellectual foundations of a free society.

Their lesson for us is this: When the machinery of the state is captured, the most critical ground to defend is our shared commitment to truth and democratic values. Doing so is necessary to be ready to seize the opening when it inevitably comes.

Clarity in our own history

We can find a similar lesson in our own history. Think of the lawyers and activists of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and ’60s. They faced a legal and political system built to exclude them. The courts, the police, and the law itself were instruments of a brutal racial hierarchy.

Every institution that was supposed to deliver justice was instead architected to deny it.
Their response was not to meet every injustice with a scattered, reactive defense

It was to maintain an unwavering focus on the core principle at stake: the moral and constitutional bankruptcy of segregation. They possessed profound strategic patience, persistence, and powerful moral clarity. Their fight reminds us that in an environment of institutional failure and constant attack, the most potent weapon is a disciplined focus on the fundamental principles being violated.

But history also shows that change can come with surprising speed. Consider the movement for marriage equality in the immediate aftermath of the 2004 election. Voters approved bans in 11 states that year, amending constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage, and President George W. Bush — who supported a federal marriage amendment — was reelected. The political consensus was so strong that even in 2008, the Democratic nominee for president recanted his previous support for marriage equality. Yet within just a few years, everything shifted: in 2011 the Obama administration stopped defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court; in 2012 the president endorsed marriage equality; and public opinion moved rapidly until marriage equality was recognized in the Constitution. While we know that victory is now facing its own backlash, that moment is a powerful reminder that political winds can shift with breathtaking speed.

A moment of seeming hopelessness can be the prelude to a breakthrough.

A mindset for a hard moment

The history of these movements does not offer us an easy comfort or a simple to-do list. It offers us a way to think, a framework for how to situate ourselves and endure.

  1. Find the signal in the noise — We must resist the autocrat’s strategy of distraction. We cannot respond en masse to every fire. Instead, we must anchor our work in the foundational principles at stake: the rule of law, the integrity of elections, and the ultimate sovereignty of a free people. By focusing on the core pillars of democracy, we refuse to have our attention fragmented and our energy dissipated.
  2. Cultivate strategic readiness — This isn’t just about passively enduring a long winter. It is about actively preparing for a change in the weather and doing what we can to bring it about. We cannot ultimately control when the political winds will shift or when an unexpected event will create an opportunity. But we can control our readiness. The work of a hard moment is to get the sails ready. It is the time to lay the legal groundwork, build the coalitions, refine the strategies, and organize the resources. Our task is to be so prepared that when a crack of daylight appears, we are ready to sail through it with maximum force and not be caught scrambling.
  3. Uphold a common truth — In an era of rampant disinformation, the simple act of insisting on objective reality is a profound form of resistance. The authoritarian project depends on breaking our collective understanding of facts. By committing ourselves to defending the institutions and norms that discern truth — in journalism, in science, in law — we are defending the very possibility of a self-governing society.
  4. Bolster each other — In moments that feel like we’re spiraling backwards, when the forces of unfreedom are on the march, a common tendency is for the forces of freedom to fall into infighting. Rather than gaining strength from each other, our fears and anxieties and anger lead us to turn on each other. But in that reaction are the seeds of ultimate defeat; whereas movements that come together in times of adversity water the seeds of renewal.

There is no question we are being tested — as a country, as a movement, and as individuals.
But we are not the first to have faced such tests and we will not be the last. Many who preceded us faced tests like this and even harder ones, and we have their example to remind us that whatever happens, no matter how dark the night, the world keeps turning and eventually comes the dawn.

Personally, I’m more optimistic than Tolkien. I don’t think human history bends towards decay. I’m partial to Martin Luther King’s vision that it bends towards justice. But what’s powerful about the idea of the long defeat is that it is agnostic about one’s optimism or pessimism — it simply reminds us that the task of being human (or elf) is to do right and to do good and to embrace beauty where we can find it.

And if I can play my small role in lifting you up in this difficult moment, it’s to remind us all to remember that. And to act on it.

Veteran educator Mike DeGuire scoured through the public list of campaign contributions to the Denver school board elections.

The pro-charter funders are made up of billionaires, charter school operators, and big-money privatizers.

Among the donors to school board elections are billionaire Philip Anschutz, the richest man in Colorado; he was also a funder of the anti-public school documentary titled “Waiting for Superman,” which claimed falsely that charter schools are the answer to all the problems of public schools.

Other billionaire donors include Netflix founder Reed Hastings and John Arnold, a former trader at Enron.

Then there’s an alphabet series of organizations, some of which use fancy names–the equivalent of Parents for Public Schools– to hide the fact that they are pro-charter.

It’s hard for the average voter to make sense of the election with so many groups endorsing certain candidates.

Tto cut through the hype and propaganda of the charter lobby requires a wise ally.

Mike DeGuire has the experience and wisdom to sort out the charter groups from the true friends of students, teachers and public schools.

And he does it in this article.