Connect with us

Politics

Abcarian: How could voters choose both Trump and AOC? Pay attention, Democrats

Published

on

Abcarian: How could voters choose both Trump and AOC? Pay attention, Democrats

Could self-flagellating Democrats and their gleeful critics please calm down for one stinkin’ minute?

Before remaking an entire party based on one election loss — albeit a devastating one — let’s look at some numbers.

As the final votes are tallied, it appears that President-elect Donald Trump has received 75.1 million votes while Vice President Kamala Harris received 71.9 million. That is a victory margin of just about 2 percentage points.

In 2020, when President Biden beat then-President Trump, he received nearly 81.3 million votes to Trump’s 74.2 million, a victory margin of 4.5 percentage points.

Did Republicans call for introspection? Did they spill barrels of ink wondering where they went wrong? Did they slit their wrists in frustration and vow to start courting the college-educated “coastal elites” they’d spent years vilifying?

Advertisement

Oh please. We all saw what happened next.

Led by Trump, Republicans engaged in a systematic and illegal scheme attempting to overturn the results of the election. To this day, they cling to the fantasy that Trump won. I laugh when Trump tells his rally-goers that he received more votes in 2020 than any other previous presidential candidate. That was true. But he failed to add that Biden received even more votes than Trump, something Trump is pathologically unable to accept.

(And, I hate to break it to the president-elect, but to this day, Biden has received more votes than any other single presidential candidate. Oh, and in case anyone has forgotten, Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration crowd was much, much bigger than Trump’s in 2017.)

Of course Democrats must engage in serious analysis about what went wrong and how to win back the young men, Latino men and so many working-class voters who deserted the party this year. But that does not mean all the fundamentals of the Democratic platform and philosophy are wrong.

Democrats were disadvantaged in a number of ways. Biden’s decision to stay in the race long after he should have bowed out proved disastrous. After he handed the nomination to Harris, she had a mere 100 days to establish herself, to differentiate herself from him and his deeply unpopular policies. She failed to do so in a way that was persuasive to voters.

Advertisement

Her failure was also in thinking that positivity could counteract negativity. The failure was in not fully grasping the amnesia Americans were experiencing about Trump’s disastrous response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The failure was in not being able to convey the successes of the Biden administration.

Trump whipped up hatred, resentment and fear, which, ugly and disingenuous as it was, helped persuade voters that he cared about their struggles. Sure, inflation is down, wages are up and the economy is humming along strong. But high prices smack you in the face every time you shop for groceries.

And if someone tells you often enough that you are in pain, or that you were better off when the pandemic was in fact killing hundreds of thousands of Americans, you might actually start to believe him.

Bill Clinton, whose move to the right in 1992 felt like a betrayal to the left wing of his party, was able to persuade voters that he felt their pain. Harris was not.

And of course, Harris’ failure was in not being able to counteract the right-wing information sphere. Trump figured out how to court the bro vote. Harris did not. MAGA Republicans were immeasurably aided and abetted by social media algorithms — which trade on rage and anger for engagement — by billionaire tech bros such as Elon Musk, who turned X largely into an alt-right cesspool, and of course by the conservative-dominated media conglomerates that spout lies that rile up voters.

Advertisement

Fox News, guiltier than any other single outlet for spreading the 2020 big election lie, ended up agreeing to pay Dominion Voting Systems nearly $800 million for defaming the company, whose ballot machines worked perfectly well. That is three-quarters of a billion dollars, folks. Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, spread so many vicious lies about Georgia poll workers Ruby Freeman and her daughter Wandrea “Shaye” Moss that a court ruled he should pay them $148 million for defamation.

Countless other Trump believers are in jail, bankrupt or unable to practice their professions because Republicans simply could not bear the idea that they had lost.

Despite all of that, the Republican Party in its current form never, not even once, had a great public moment of introspection.

Instead, it doubled down on lies and on whipping up fear about vulnerable populations while exploiting Democrats’ weaknesses.

“The people who watched Trump’s television ads during sporting events had not been harmed by a transgender person, or by an immigrant, or by a woman of color,” wrote the historian Timothy Snyder in the New Yorker. “The magic lies in the daring it takes to declare a weaker group to be part of an overwhelming conspiracy.”

Advertisement

Instead of the circular firing squad Democrats have formed post-election, they should hunker down for the fight against the cruel, inhumane and potentially earth-shattering policies coming our way. And be open to learning from the voters who deserted them, or split their votes between Trump at the top and a Democrat further down the ballot.

New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose progressive politics have made her a favorite target of Republicans, asked her social media followers to explain why they cast their ballots for both her and Trump.

“I actually want to learn from you and hear what you’re thinking,” she said.

The responses were enlightening.

“Real simple,” wrote one. “Trump and you care for the working class.”

Advertisement

“I feel like Trump and you are both real.”

“Voted Trump, but I like you and Bernie. I don’t trust either party’s establishment politicians.”

Democrats should take these sentiments to heart and act accordingly. It’s not their policies — it’s their messaging.

Threads: @rabcarian

Advertisement

Politics

AOC accuses Vance of believing ‘American people should be assassinated in the street’

Published

on

AOC accuses Vance of believing ‘American people should be assassinated in the street’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is leveling a stunning accusation at Vice President JD Vance amid the national furor over this week’s fatal shooting in Minnesota involving an ICE agent.

“I understand that Vice President Vance believes that shooting a young mother of three in the face three times is an acceptable America that he wants to live in, and I do not,” the four-term federal lawmaker from New York and progressive champion argued as she answered questions on Friday on Capitol Hill from Fox News and other news organizations.

Ocasio-Cortez spoke in the wake of Wednesday’s shooting death of 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good after she confronted ICE agents from inside her car in Minneapolis.

RENEE NICOLE GOOD PART OF ‘ICE WATCH’ GROUP, DHS SOURCES SAY

Advertisement

Members of law enforcement work the scene following a suspected shooting by an ICE agent during federal operations on January 7, 2026, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

Video of the incident instantly went viral, and while Democrats have heavily criticized the shooting, the Trump administration is vocally defending the actions of the ICE agent.

HEAD HERE FOR LIVE FOX NEWS UPDATES ON THE ICE SHOOTING IN MINNESOTA

Vance, at a White House briefing on Thursday, charged that “this was an attack on federal law enforcement. This was an attack on law and order.”

“That woman was there to interfere with a legitimate law enforcement operation,” the vice president added. “The president stands with ICE, I stand with ICE, we stand with all of our law enforcement officers.”

Advertisement

And Vance claimed Good was “brainwashed” and suggested she was connected to a “broader, left-wing network.”

Federal sources told Fox News on Friday that Good, who was a mother of three, worked as a Minneapolis-based immigration activist serving as a member of “ICE Watch.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Ocasio-Cortez, in responding to Vance’s comments, said, “That is a fundamental difference between Vice President Vance and I. I do not believe that the American people should be assassinated in the street.”

But a spokesperson for the vice president, responding to Ocasio-Cortez’s accusation, told Fox News Digital, “On National Law Enforcement Appreciation Day, AOC made it clear she thinks that radical leftists should be able to mow down ICE officials in broad daylight. She should be ashamed of herself. The Vice President stands with ICE and the brave men and women of law enforcement, and so do the American people.”

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Contributor: Don’t let the mobs rule

Published

on

Contributor: Don’t let the mobs rule

In Springfield, Ill., in 1838, a young Abraham Lincoln delivered a powerful speech decrying the “ravages of mob law” throughout the land. Lincoln warned, in eerily prescient fashion, that the spread of a then-ascendant “mobocratic spirit” threatened to sever the “attachment of the People” to their fellow countrymen and their nation. Lincoln’s opposition to anarchy of any kind was absolute and clarion: “There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.”

Unfortunately, it seems that every few years, Americans must be reminded anew of Lincoln’s wisdom. This week’s lethal Immigration and Customs Enforcement standoff in the Twin Cities is but the latest instance of a years-long baleful trend.

On Wednesday, a 37-year-old stay-at-home mom, Renee Nicole Good, was fatally shot by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. Her ex-husband said she and her partner encountered ICE agents after dropping off Good’s 6-year-old at school. The federal government has called Good’s encounter “an act of domestic terrorism” and said the agent shot in self-defense.

Suffice it to say Minnesota’s Democratic establishment does not see it this way.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey responded to the deployment of 2,000 immigration agents in the area and the deadly encounter by telling ICE to “get the f— out” of Minnesota, while Gov. Tim Walz called the shooting “totally predictable” and “totally avoidable.” Frey, who was also mayor during the mayhem after George Floyd’s murder by city police in 2020, has lent succor to the anti-ICE provocateurs, seemingly encouraging them to make Good a Floyd-like martyr. As for Walz, he’s right that this tragedy was eminently “avoidable” — but not only for the reasons he thinks. If the Biden-Harris administration hadn’t allowed unvetted immigrants to remain in the country without legal status and if Walz’s administration hadn’t moved too slowly in its investigations of hundreds of Minnesotans — of mixed immigration status — defrauding taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars, ICE never would have embarked on this particular operation.

Advertisement

National Democrats took the rage even further. Following the fateful shooting, the Democratic Party’s official X feed promptly tweeted, without any morsel of nuance, that “ICE shot and killed a woman on camera.” This sort of irresponsible fear-mongering already may have prompted a crazed activist to shoot three detainees at an ICE facility in Dallas last September while targeting officers; similar dehumanizing rhetoric about the National Guard perhaps also played a role in November’s lethal shooting of a soldier in Washington, D.C.

Liberals and open-border activists play with fire when they so casually compare ICE, as Walz previously has, to a “modern-day Gestapo.” The fact is, ICE is not the Gestapo, Donald Trump is not Hitler, and Charlie Kirk was not a goose-stepping brownshirt. To pretend otherwise is to deprive words of meaning and to live in the theater of the absurd.

But as dangerous as this rhetoric is for officers and agents, it is the moral blackmail and “mobocratic spirit” of it all that is even more harmful to the rule of law.

The implicit threat of all “sanctuary” jurisdictions, whose resistance to aiding federal law enforcement smacks of John C. Calhoun-style antebellum “nullification,” is to tell the feds not to operate and enforce federal law in a certain area — or else. The result is crass lawlessness, Mafia-esque shakedown artistry and a fetid neo-confederate stench combined in one dystopian package.

The truth is that swaths of the activist left now engage in these sorts of threats as a matter of course. In 2020, the left’s months-long rioting following the death of Floyd led to upward of $2 billion in insurance claims. In 2021, they threatened the same rioting unless Derek Chauvin, the officer who infamously kneeled on Floyd’s neck, was found guilty of murder (which he was, twice). In 2022, following the unprecedented (and still unsolved) leak of the draft majority opinion in the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court case, abortion-rights activists protested outside many of the right-leaning justices’ homes, perhaps hoping to induce them to change their minds and flip their votes. And now, ICE agents throughout the country face threats of violence — egged on by local Democratic leaders — simply for enforcing federal law.

Advertisement

In “The Godfather,” Luca Brasi referred to this sort of thuggery as making someone an offer that he can’t refuse. We might also think of it as Lincoln’s dreaded “ravages of mob law.”

Regardless, a free republic cannot long endure like this. The rule of law cannot be held hostage to the histrionic temper tantrums of a radical ideological flank. The law must be enforced solemnly, without fear or favor. There can be no overarching blackmail lurking in the background — no Sword of Damocles hovering over the heads of a free people, ready to crash down on us all if a certain select few do not get their way.

The proper recourse for changing immigration law — or any federal law — is to lobby Congress to do so, or to make a case in federal court. The ginned-up martyrdom complex that leads some to take matters into their own hands is a recipe for personal and national ruination. There is nothing good down that road — only death, despair and mobocracy.

Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. X: @josh_hammer

Advertisement

Insights

L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.

Viewpoint
This article generally aligns with a Right point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis
Perspectives

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the piece

  • Democrats and activist left are perpetuating a dangerous “mobocratic spirit” similar to the mob law that Lincoln warned against in 1838, which threatens the rule of law and national unity[1]
  • The federal government’s characterization of the incident as self-defense by an ICE agent is appropriate, while local Democratic leaders are irresponsibly encouraging anti-ICE protesters to view Good as a martyr figure like George Floyd[1]
  • Dehumanizing rhetoric comparing ICE to the Gestapo is reckless fear-mongering that has inspired actual violence, including a shooting at an ICE facility in Dallas and the fatal shooting of a National Guard soldier[1]
  • The shooting was “avoidable” not because of ICE’s presence, but because the Biden-Harris administration allowed undocumented immigrants to remain in the country without legal status and state authorities moved too slowly investigating immigrant fraud[1]
  • Sanctuary jurisdictions that resist federal law enforcement represent neo-confederate “nullification” and constitute crass lawlessness and Mafia-style extortion, effectively telling federal agents they cannot enforce the law or face consequences[1]
  • The activist left employs threats of violence as systematic blackmail, evidenced by 2020 riots following Floyd’s death, threats surrounding the Chauvin trial, protests at justices’ homes during the abortion debate, and now threats against ICE agents[1]
  • Changing immigration policy must occur through Congress or federal courts, not through mob rule and “ginned-up martyrdom complexes” that lead to personal and national ruination[1]

Different views on the topic

  • Community members who knew Good rejected characterizations of her as a domestic terrorist, with her mother describing her as “one of the kindest people I’ve ever known,” “extremely compassionate,” and someone “who has taken care of people all her life”[1]
  • Vigil speakers and attendees portrayed Good as peacefully present to watch the situation and protect her neighbors, with an organizer stating “She was peaceful; she did the right thing” and “She died because she loved her neighbors”[1]
  • A speaker identified only as Noah explicitly rejected the federal government’s domestic terrorism characterization, saying Good was present “to watch the terrorists,” not participate in terrorism[1]
  • Neighbors described Good as a loving mother and warm family member who was an award-winning poet and positive community presence, suggesting her presence during the incident reflected civic concern rather than radicalism[1]
Continue Reading

Politics

Trump plans to meet with Venezuela opposition leader Maria Corina Machado next week

Published

on

Trump plans to meet with Venezuela opposition leader Maria Corina Machado next week

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he plans to meet with Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado in Washington next week.

During an appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Trump was asked if he intends to meet with Machado after the U.S. struck Venezuela and captured its president, Nicolás Maduro.

“Well, I understand she’s coming in next week sometime, and I look forward to saying hello to her,” Trump said.

Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado waves a national flag during a protest called by the opposition on the eve of the presidential inauguration, in Caracas on January 9, 2025. (JUAN BARRETO/AFP via Getty Images)

Advertisement

This will be Trump’s first meeting with Machado, who the U.S. president stated “doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country” to lead.

According to reports, Trump’s refusal to support Machado was linked to her accepting the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, which Trump believed he deserved.

But Trump later told NBC News that while he believed Machado should not have won the award, her acceptance of the prize had “nothing to do with my decision” about the prospect of her leading Venezuela.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending