Agreed, though for whatever it's worth, intentional or not, I feel like the journalism side of the house at WSJ is often writing in direct contradiction to the editorial board.

As a physical newspaper guy, I can attest the NYT and WSJ remain excellent physical newspapers with high quality journalism. That said, the WSJ editorial section is such a ridiculous clown show that it might as well be written by an AI trained exclusively on a corpus of Tucker Carlson's diaries.

Oh hi Mark!

Oh hi Mark!

Same, but for me it's Kate Nash, and that's just because I only recently learned they are different people.

Stop acting like the national party platform best operates as a monolithic proscriptive entity. Listen to your voters, and build your coalition around that.

But in Montpelier or Minneapolis or Denver or Long Beach, a Democratic candidate who hopes to galvanize turnout like Mamdani has would almost certainly have to run on a vastly different set of policies.

In a city like New York that relies more upon public infrastructure for its day-to-day existence than any other city in the country, the platform of a Democratic socialist is quite likely to speak to people's needs.

As far as what his victory "means" for the Democratic establishment, it prescribes no policies, but rather practices. Listen to your voters. That's it.

This was specific parody directed at Fox News. During the '08 campaign, Barack and Michelle were were speaking at a campaign event. After a speech, they fist bumped and smiled at each other. The next day, a Fox News anchor questioned whether the gesture was a "terrorist fist jab". I'm not kidding.

What's the brand?