Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Second Debate, Round 2: Anyone care about democracy reform?

Second Debate, Round 2: Anyone care about democracy reform?

Democratic presidential candidates rarely mentioned democracy reform on night two of the July debates.

Scott Olson/Getty Images

The Democratic debates so far have hardly been a robust forum for democracy reform discussions, but Wednesday night's session was a new low. The topic was almost entirely ignored.

At the three previous debates this summer, the party's presidential candidates have called for expanding voting rights, getting money out of politics and cleaning up government ethics. This time, the 10 candidates used their time on stage in Detroit to hash out their differences on health care, immigration, crime and climate change policies for more than two hours – spending minimal time on anything else.

Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington had the only clear mention of a topic dear to the hearts of government reformers when he proposed fundamentally changing how the Senate works in order to end this extended period of congressional gridlock.

Even if the Democrats win the presidency, hold the House and take a majority of Senate seats next year, he warned, Republicans look certain to retain more than enough seats (41 or more) to block whatever legislation comes their way. And so, Inslee said, "We've got to get rid of the filibuster so we can govern the United States" with simple majorities on both sides of Capitol Hill.


Ahead of the second round of debates, seven of the candidates signed the "Reform First" pledge by End Citizens United, an advocacy group that is mainly interested in shrinking big money's sway over campaigns and governing. By signing, these candidates vowed to make democracy reform legislation the first thing they would pursue after taking office.

Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York were among the signatories. But both kept mum on proposals for fixing the political and governing systems throughout Wednesday's debate.

Rather than talk about any of those topics, Bennet, Gillibrand and the others instead chose to focus almost all of their time on confronting the front-runner, former Vice President Joe Biden. And since Biden has been quieter than anyone else in the top half of the field on matters of democracy reform – he hasn't taken a stand on nine of the 17 leading proposals – there was minimal material on this front for his rivals to bring up and then attack.

It's also the case that CNN's moderators didn't ask anything related to reform on either night, just as NBC's questioners avoided the topic on both debate nights in June.

"Our media must do better. In 2016, moderators asked endlessly about Hillary Clinton's emails. This year, Democratic candidates have been asked whether nominating a socialist would re-elect Donald Trump," the political reform author David Daley wrote this week in Salon. But so far "no one has asked about how we end partisan gerrymandering, about the impact of voter ID on communities of color, or about whether we should rethink the Electoral College."

"It's long past time for them to do their jobs," he said of the political press corps. "It's only representative democracy that hangs in the balance.

Here's a look at how (little) democracy reform fit into Wednesday debate.

1 and 13 — Hour and minutes, until the first mention of anything related to democracy reform. The debate was nearly halfway over when Inslee came out against the filibuster.

16 — 'Reform' references. The word was popular — just not on democracy-related issues like voting rights, access to the polls, campaign finance or the revolving door between government and K Street. All the mentions were tied to health care, immigration or the criminal justice system.

8 — Candidates who said nothing on the topic. Only Inslee and Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey had anything to say on reforming the structure of elections or government, which at last tally, a majority of Americans aren't too fond of.

1 — Nod at voting rights. Most candidates have championed a revival of the Voting Rights Act and talked of other ways to eliminate barriers to the ballot box. Yet, only Booker mentioned voting rights, saying he would "fight against voter suppression."

Reform quotes of note

Booker: "I will be a person that tries to fight against voter suppression and to activate and engage the kind of voters and coalitions who are going to win states like Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."

Inslee: "But if we get a majority in the U.S. Senate, because of the position of these senators, not a damn thing is going to get done. And I'll tell you why. With all their good intentions — and I know they're very sincere and passionate and I respect them enormously — but because they embraced this antediluvian super-majority thing called the filibuster, Mitch McConnell is going to run the U.S. Senate even if we take a majority. We've got to get rid of the filibuster so we can govern the United States."


Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less