With a fixture (Clyburn) of both the Dem establishment that keeps losing elections and the party's gerontocracy in the news, worth coming back to this @adambonica.bsky.social piece. A better party is possible. data4democracy.substack.com/p/the-democr...
I can’t stop thinking about this.
These two are always the real deal on data
This tracks closely with the argument I’ve made about the U.S.: scarcity is litigated, not regulated.
Civil law countries have much more regulation but far fewer lawsuits. The housing crisis isn’t about too many rules; it’s about who can afford to sue over them.
Matthew Yglesias & @mattyglesias X.com 1-2 percentage points is a small number but it's a very big deal. bostonreview.net/forum/how-not-... Adam Bonica and Jake Grumbach claim to find only "small" electoral benefits of moderation, on the order of one to two percentage points. Their subtext is, who could possibly care about an effect of this size? In fact, campaign professionals emphasize to me that this is an enormous effect compared to what you get from spending on campaign ads or mounting field programs to mobilize and turn out voters. A swing of one to two percentage points would have been enough for Hillary Clinton to win in 2016 or for Kamala Harris to win in 2024. Two is a small number, but I don't think that's small change for the world. It's a little bit hard for me to understand what this debate is even supposed to be about given that the skeptics of moderation are willing to concede that both of Trump's election wins were within the bounds of what they say can be plausibly achieved by moderating. To underscore the point: since 2012 there have been seventeen Senate races decided by less than the Bonica-Grumbach margin of moderation. 7:29 AM • 2/3/26 • 14K Views
To begin with, Yglesias is way off in claiming that moderation increases a candidate's vote share by "one to two percentage points.' We don't know where he got these numbers, but they aren't in our essay; as our cited graphic shows, the best estimate is less than half a percentage point. He also need not speculate that moderating would have flipped important congressional races — we ran the numbers ourselves and found that moderation would have flipped none of the close House races in 2024. But we're used to seeing incorrect numbers on this subject. In any case, Yglesias's incorrect numbers are not as important as missing the central failures of popularism in recent years. Consider how it has hindered Democrats' leadership on public opinion. G. Elliott Morris is exactly right that trajectories are far more important than what polls say at any given moment. Throughout 2025, as Yglesias was arguing that Democrats shouldn't talk about immigration, the public turned dramatically against Trump on the issue in part due to the leadership of some Democratic leaders like Senator Chris Van Hollen. Now even Trump himself is reportedly "looking to change the subject to his economic agenda as his administration faces growing backlash over his
We have no idea where Yglesias got his numbers but they’re wrong. This debate has for so long been plagued by numbers basically pulled out of thin air
Right pic is from my and @adambonica.bsky.social’s response essay: www.bostonreview.net/forum/how-no...
This @bostonreview.bsky.social piece by @adambonica.bsky.social and @jakemgrumbach.bsky.social is an absolute must-read, as are many of the responses to it.
Spread this one far and wide.
Senator Chuck Schumer conducts a news conference in the U.S. Capitol in May 2025. Image: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP Images FORUM How Not to Defeat Authoritarianism Moderation used to help Democrats win, but its advantages now have been greatly exaggerated. Adam Bonica, Jake Grumbach With responses from → Cori Bush, Amanda Litman, Matthew Yglesias, G. Elliott Morris, Julia Serano, Eric Rauchway, Suzanne Mettler & Trevor E. Brown, Thomas Ferguson, Timothy Shenk, Jared Abbott & Milan Loewer, Jenifer Fernandez Ancona, Lily Geismer, Danielle Wiggins, William A. Galston, and Henry Burke
We have a Boston Review Forum out today on the Democratic Party in a time of authoritarianism
www.bostonreview.net/forum/how-no...
This woman died of heart failure because she couldn't receive treatment while pregnant, and couldn't access an abortion.
President Roosevelt signing the Social Security Act into law on August 14, 1935, with Perkins among those witnessing the signing (third from right) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Signing_Of_The_Social_Security_Act.jpg
1/ I recently wrote about Frances Perkins—FDR’s Labor Secretary and first woman cabinet member. She is best known as the architect of the New Deal but she had a lesser-known achievement:
She dismantled her era’s version of ICE.🧵
over the course of 1871, congress held seven months of hearings on ku klux klan and other white vigilante violence in the south, they took detailed testimony from hundreds of black men and women attesting to klan terror. (1/?)
"The wall looks permanent until the day it comes down."
data4democracy.substack.com/p/the-wall-l...
Several people I know have used the word "beautiful" for this piece, and that's exactly right. A beautifully phrased essay on the bind we're in— until we aren't.
Recommended, in an extreme way.
Screenshot of a data visualization titled “The Cost of American Exceptionalism,” subtitled “What would change if the U.S. matched the OECD average?” The page explains that each card shows how outcomes would change if the U.S. matched the average of 31 peer democracies. Below, a section labeled “Economy & Inequality” displays eight cards comparing U.S. figures to OECD averages. Highlights include: +$19K per household per year in redistributed income and +$96K in redistributed wealth if the top 1% matched OECD shares; a 71% lower CEO-to-worker pay ratio (from 354× to 101×); 50 million more workers with union coverage; 26 million more people with health insurance; $2.1 trillion saved annually in healthcare spending; $691 less per person per year in prescription drug costs; and intergenerational economic mobility being twice as high. Each card shows the U.S. value alongside the OECD average.
If there's one empirical insight I'd want everyone to understand about American politics, it's this:
America's problems are solved problems. Just not here.
What would change if the US simply matched the average of 31 peer democracies? Not Denmark or Norway. Just the middle of the pack. 🧵
Economy and inequality: Each household would gain $19,000 per year from a fairer income distribution and $96,000 overall from a fairer wealth distribution. 50 million more workers would have union coverage. Intergenerational economic mobility--the core of the American Dream--would be doubled.
Healthcare: 26 million more Americans would have health coverage. We'd save $2.1 trillion annually on healthcare ($16K per household). Prescription drugs would cost $691 less per person. Medical bankruptcy—a term that puzzles citizens of other wealthy nations—would essentially disappear.
Screenshot of a data visualization section titled “Family & Livelihood,” showing what would change if the United States matched the OECD average. Eight cards compare U.S. outcomes to OECD norms. They show: +25 weeks of guaranteed paid parental leave (U.S. 0 vs OECD ~25); +27 days of guaranteed paid time off (U.S. 0 vs OECD 27); 231 fewer annual hours worked per worker (U.S. 1811 vs OECD 1580); childcare costs 60% lower as a share of wages (U.S. 32% vs OECD 13%); 5 million fewer children living in poverty; 15 million fewer workers in poverty-wage jobs; 180,000 fewer unsheltered homeless people; and 500,000 fewer medical bankruptcies per year (common in the U.S., effectively zero in peer countries). Each card lists the U.S. figure alongside the OECD average.
Family and work: Parents would get 25 weeks of paid parental leave. Workers would get 27 days of guaranteed paid time off per year. We'd work 231 fewer hours per year—nearly six fewer weeks. Net childcare costs would fall by 60%.
Poverty: 5 million fewer children would live in poverty. 15 million fewer workers would be trapped in poverty-wage jobs. 180,000 fewer people would be sleeping on the streets.
Screenshot of a data visualization section titled “Survival & Safety,” showing how outcomes would change if the United States matched the OECD average. Eight cards compare U.S. figures to peer democracies. They indicate: life expectancy at birth would increase by 4.1 years (U.S. 78.4 vs OECD 82.5); about 10,000 fewer infant deaths per year (roughly a 45% reduction); maternal deaths in childbirth would fall by 76%; opioid overdose deaths would drop by about 85,000 per year; gun deaths would fall by roughly 35,000 annually (an 81% reduction); school shooting incidents would decline by 99%, effectively disappearing compared to peers; traffic fatalities would decrease by about 25,000 per year; and deaths from police use of force would drop by about 1,000 annually. Each card shows the U.S. rate alongside the OECD average.
Survival and safety: Americans would live 4 years longer. 10,000 fewer babies would die each year from reduced infant mortality rates. Maternal deaths would drop by three-quarters. 85,000 fewer people would die from opioid overdoses.
Violence: 35,000 fewer gun deaths per year. School shootings virtually eliminated. 25,000 fewer traffic fatalities. 1,000 fewer deaths from police violence.
Screenshot of a data visualization section titled “Institutions & Justice,” showing how outcomes would change if the United States matched the OECD average. Eight cards compare U.S. figures to peer democracies. They show: 51 million more Americans participating in elections (U.S. voting-age participation about 51% vs OECD 70%); $14.9 billion less spent per election cycle, with U.S. elections costing far more per vote than peers; public trust in government increasing by 15 percentage points; 60 more women serving in Congress, making it more representative of the population; the average age of elected leaders falling by 12 years (U.S. average about 59 vs OECD 47); 1.4 million fewer Americans behind bars; $300 billion less in annual litigation costs; and per capita carbon emissions reduced by 47%, nearly cut in half. Each card lists the U.S. value alongside the OECD average.
Institutions and justice: 51 million more Americans voting. Elections would cost $14.9 billion less per cycle. Our elected leaders would be 12 years younger. 60 more women in Congress. 1.4 million fewer Americans would be behind bars. Per capita carbon emissions would be cut nearly in half.
This looks like an indictment. It is. But I see it as a reason for optimism.
We don’t need to be exceptional to transform Americans' lives. We need to become average. The solutions exist. We see them working. We have to choose them. And that means fixing our democracy so that it delivers.
Here’s the full piece on why I’m optimistic, even in dark times:
open.substack.com/pub/data4dem...
This is a thread that everyone should read
From Adam Bonica's On Data and Democracy: "The old playbook was caution: promise little, deliver less, call it pragmatism. A new cohort of leaders is done with that. You can hear it in how they speak. When Zohran Mamdani was inaugurated as mayor of New York City, he promised to govern audaciously. “We may not always succeed,” he said, “but never will we be accused of lacking the courage to try.” Political pragmatism is not about fighting only the battles you expect to win. It is the refusal to let probable failure dictate what you attempt. This is the Perkins disposition. She did not know the Depression would come. She did not know Roosevelt would call. She prepared anyway, because preparation is itself a form of politics—a way of insisting that the world you are ready for is a world that could exist. My deepest fear is not that we fail to survive this moment—it’s that we survive it only to return to the status quo that made it possible. That we exhale, declare victory, and leave in place the Electoral College, the filibuster, the gerrymandered maps, the money-soaked elections that allowed a minoritarian movement to capture the state in the first place. The point is not to get back to normal. Normal is how we got here. The wall looks permanent until the day it comes down. So it goes with all institutions. They are not immutable fixtures but human creations, designed to solve the problems of one era and replaceable when they fail the next."
Adam always reminds me that there is hope. And for that, I am grateful. But now, let's do the groundwork to prepare.
Read this fantastic piece: data4democracy.substack.com/p/the-wall-l...
This beautifully written piece by my pal @adambonica.bsky.social is worth your time today.
A bit of light amid the darkness.
open.substack.com/pub/data4dem...
All of this—everyone deserves to live, to have joy, to be able to rest
I am begging Democratic leadership to recognize that funding and legitimizing your authoritarian opponent’s secret police is a bad idea.
This should not be a difficult concept.
Many scholars of authoritarianism saw ICE & CBP as a likely source of secret police if Trump returned to power.
Biden responded by increasing their funding and ranks.
Pro tip for ruling parties facing authoritarian opposition: don’t fund your opponent’s secret police while they’re out of power.
The “prosecute the former regime at every level” candidate has my vote in 2028.
Line chart showing Trump's attacks on windmills from 2012 to 2025. Activity starts at 6 attacks in 2012, drops to near zero in the mid-2010s, rises slightly around 2019, then spikes to over 23 attacks in 2025.
This is my first (and likely only) thread combining data and literary analysis of a 17th Century satire. When Trump rages against windmills, it’s deeply weird but even more so that it parallels Don Quixote. I've been tracking data on his windmill statements. Lately, he's really been tilting. 🧵
