The Dictatorship
Here’s how Democrats can build a winning media message
Donald Trump’s victory — after he undertook a podcast blitz during the campaign — has sparked a conversation among Democrats about the need to build a liberal equivalent to the giant conservative media machine that has now expanded to the podcast and streaming sphere. But they’re not going to “create their own Joe Rogan” out of thin air, and Rogan didn’t amass legions of devoted followers by serving as a partisan political mouthpiece in the first place. (He was actually once a Bernie Sanders supporter.)
The history of Democrats trying to grapple with conservative talk radio suggests that a grand strategy for liberal media will have two key prongs: first, a steady stream of Democratic guests on the types of male-focused podcasts that Trump targeted, and second, the creation of well-funded liberal shows that focus on entertainment, not advancing political goals — which is what has made conservative media so potent.
Rogan didn’t amass legions of devoted followers by serving as a partisan political mouthpiece in the first place.
In many ways, Rogan is to podcasts what the late Rush Limbaugh was to talk radio — though their styles and politics differ significantly. Limbaugh rapidly shot to stardom after debuting nationally in 1988. His show was entertaining and engaging. He used parodies, barbed nicknames and hijinks to have fun on the air. He discussed everything from politics to the NFL, and while his conservative values shaped the show, his goal was to entertain, not to get Republicans elected.
The first Democrat to recognize the importance and potential of talk radio was Bill Clinton, who used the medium to great effect during his 1992 campaign. Once he entered office, Clinton built a talk radio outreach operation. Over time, its initiatives included inviting hosts to broadcast from the White House lawn as Clinton tried to sell his health care plan, and a presidential radio blitz before the 1994 midterm elections.
It was those historic elections that clued in the rest of Clinton’s party to the essential nature of engaging talk radio. Republicans captured the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years, and many of them credited radio hosts for the victory. The new freshman Republican class even made Limbaugh an honorary member.
After their loss, congressional Democrats quickly constructed talk radio outreach operations. House Democrats hired radio producer Fred Clarke, who set up facilities where hosts could broadcast from the Capitol at key moments, while also supplying them with Democratic guests. Senate Democrats undertook similar efforts.
Yet increasingly over time, the staffers tasked with getting Democrats onto talk radio encountered resistance from members for two reasons: First, many simply had no desire to take part in contentious conversions. They didn’t understand that hosts treated Democrats who appeared on their shows far better than they did those who dodged talk radio. Secondly, because talk radio was not embedded in the liberal culture like it was on the right, many Democrats didn’t grasp its growing importance.
Eventually, as Democrats lost faith in their ability to disseminate a message via commercial talk radio in the late 1990s and early 2000s, they entered into growing conversations around creating a liberal alternative.
These discussions (which went far beyond the political world) led to two key liberal radio initiatives that debuted in 2004: the Air America radio network and Democracy Radio.
These efforts had their successes — Democracy Radio brought popular liberal radio hosts Thom Hartmann and Stephanie Miller to a national audience, while Air America, though a major flop, served as a launching pad for media stars Rachel Maddow and Marc Maron.
Yet, if the goal was building something with the political and cultural influence and profitability of conservative radio, they came nowhere close.
There was a plethora of reasons for this mediocre record, but two overriding factors plagued these attempts: a lack of funding and hosts who didn’t grasp that good radio required prioritizing putting on a top-notch show, not achieving political goals.
If the goal was building something with the political and cultural influence and profitability of conservative radio, [liberals] came nowhere close.
Air America did bring in entertainers like comedians Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo. Yet they saw their radio programs as fundamentally different from the work that made them famous. Garofalo proclaimed that she wanted to “give voice to the millions of Americans that are left out of national conservation.” Franken’s producer Billy Kimball admitted that they saw themselves as creating liberal talk radio, not an entertainment network, which, “would have been a radically different project.”
This orientation resulted in shows that simply weren’t that engaging, and left Air America General Counsel David Goodfriend screaming at his radio, “Be funny, Al. Be funny, Janeane.”
Air America suffered from mismanagement and a score of other problems during its six years of existence. But like other liberal radio initiatives, it struggled financially.
Most left-leaning groups and organizations didn’t invest heavily in advertising on liberal radio, unlike their counterparts on the right. Further, liberal donors resisted calls to invest in liberal radio initiatives. There were myriad reasons why, including an inability to understand the potential long-term payoff of such an investment — both politically and monetarily — a focus on their own operations and goals, and because many saw talk radio as vacuous and poisonous, antithetical to the civility and good government the donors believed in.
Once the internet blossomed, it offered many more ways for Democrats to reach target audiences. As a result, efforts at building liberal radio and getting Democrats onto talk shows largely faded away.
Now, they might be back, though the medium is different.
The history of these initiatives offers several lessons that should shape what comes next.
By abstaining from these shows, Democrats lose a chance to counter what the audience hears from the hosts and conservative guests.
First, it’s time for Democrats to play in the conservative sandbox. Some, like Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, who appeared with Rogan, and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who regularly goes on Fox News, already do this. Yet too many Democrats see right-of-center media as a propaganda apparatus and find hosts like Rogan offensive. They worry about hostile receptions or confronting a firehose of lies.
And while there is truth to such charges and fears, conservative media — especially if one includes the male-focused podcasts that Trump targeted — has a huge audience. By abstaining from these shows, Democrats lose a chance to counter what the audience hears from the hosts and conservative guests. They also forgo an opportunity to demonstrate to voters that they can shine in hostile interviews and engage with people with whom they disagree.
Further, judging from the mixed ideological leanings of the hosts who interviewed Trump and polling of young votersmany young men in the podcast audience probably have at least some left-leaning political positions or have voted for Democrats in the past. Appearing on their favorite shows would enable Democrats to make a case for why they should return to the fold.
The second pillar of a liberal media strategy is creating appealing left-of-center shows.
Podcasts and streaming programs avoid two issues that hampered liberal radio: a limited number of strong-signaled stations and radio executives committed to “format purity.” When big media companies dabbled in liberal radio early in the 2000s, many placed the shows on weak-signaled stations with small listening radiuses. Additionally, many program directors wouldn’t put liberal and conservative hosts on the same talk station, viewing it as being akin to a station playing both country and classical music. Given that conservative talk radio was established on the best stations and liberal radio was the upstart, this reduced opportunities for liberal talkers.
Yet liberals will squander the potential of this new media if they produce shows driven by political goals. Instead, hosts should focus on creating engaging, authentic, entertaining programs. Their liberal values will still shine through.
Additionally, liberal donors need to buy into these efforts. Podcasting is cheaper to break into than radio, but the current moment calls for providing seed funding for a variety of shows, and then investing seriously in the ones that display promise organically.
This recipe will enable liberals to successfully fight back on the airwaves.
The Dictatorship
Mullin pushes states to comply with election demands, echoing Trump’s claims about midterm risks
WASHINGTON (AP) — Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin on Friday warned that state officials could lose funding or face investigations if they fail to go along with President Donald Trump’s election security demands, part of the Republican president’s longstanding attempt to undermine Americans’ confidence in the vote.
Experts said the threats — issued just months before midterm elections that will determine control of Congress — were likely hollow because Trump’s voting initiatives have been stalled by judges and the Constitution gives states control over how elections are run.
Nevertheless, Mullin’s remarks, delivered from the White House complex one day after Trump’s primetime address on the topiccould further doubts about election processes and create headaches for states as they prepare for November.
“We absolutely can build confidence in the American people, but the states have to do their part,” Mullin said.
AP AUDIO: Mullin pushes states to comply with election demands, echoing Trump’s claims about midterm risks
AP correspondent Ed Donahue reports a member of President Trump’s cabinet says he is ready to go after voter fraud.
Trump continues to falsely claim that Democrat Joe Biden won only because of fraud in 2020, and he’s tried to marshal the powers of the federal government to rewrite that history since he returned to office last year — even though judges and his own attorney general in his first term concluded the election was legitimate.
Mullin insisted that the president was not relitigating the 2020 election, “although he definitely could at this point.”
“This is just about exposing what took place and making sure it never happens again,” he said.
Mullin’s claims of noncitizen voters rely on incomplete data
During his remarks, Mullin advanced an unsubstantiated claim Trump made Thursday that the federal government had found 250,000 noncitizen voters on the rolls in California, Nevada, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. He said the Department of Homeland Security’s investigation was conducted using public data, which election experts say is insufficiently detailed and updated to properly identify whether a registered voter is a noncitizen.
Election officials in California and Pennsylvania said they would review the Trump administration’s findings but noted that they conduct their own voter list maintenance and noncitizen voting is exceedingly rare. Research has supported that finding.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, responded to Mullin’s threats with a post on social media.
“California has free, fair, and secure elections and we will fight for them,” he wrote. “Try us.”
In Nevada, Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, also a Democrat, said he was confident in the integrity of the state’s voter file.
“We are constantly looking at the information to figure out how many registered voters in Nevada don’t have a Social Security number on file,” he said. “We have done significant work to make sure our voter rolls are as clean as possible.”
Mullin also pledged to aggressively monitor public voter lists to pursue potential voter fraud cases before and after the 2026 election.
“If you are an illegal or you are voting illegally, we will hunt you down, we will find you and we will prosecute you,” he said.
He urged states to participate in DHS’ recently overhauled SAVE program, a federal tool central to the Trump administration’s efforts to nationalize elections. At least 25 states have used it to check their voter rolls since April 2025, after the Trump administration significantly expanded its search abilities, and the Trump administration has demanded that states submit their sensitive voter data to the program to fully audit their voter lists.
Mullin said if state officials don’t participate in SAVE, they could face fines, penalties or prison time.
But the overhauled program’s use was recently blocked by a federal judge over concerns about privacy and wrongful purges of eligible voters. The case included voters whose registrations were wrongly flagged by the program, temporarily threatening their place on the rolls.
David Becker, the executive director of the nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research, said Mullin was making empty threats.
“Every court to consider the DOJ’s demands — 15 of them to date, six of those judges appointed by President Trump — have confirmed that the federal government cannot legally demand access to states’ sensitive voter data,” he said. “What he’s suggesting is illegal.”
In addition, Trump’s efforts to pass the SAVE Act, federal legislation that would require proof of citizenship for voter registration, has stalled in the Senate. Republicans don’t have enough votes to change the filibuster rules and pass it without Democratic support.
Cybersecurity support for election officials has been diminished in Trump’s second term
Mullin also elevated Trump’s concerns about vulnerabilities in electronic voting machines — which voting experts have long acknowledged. While Trump suggested Thursday that these risks make it possible to “rig” the vote, election officials say there are numerous safeguards in place to prevent that, including physical security, voting machine tests, postelection reviews and paper ballot backups in most of the country.
To address the concerns, Mullin said the nation’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which sits under DHS, would release an updated election infrastructure plan within 30 days and provide cyber threat resources to election officials if they participate in SAVE.
However, Trump has broadly dismantled the agency’s election security operation.
CISA was largely absent from its long-held role assisting states in last year’s elections after the Trump administration conducted a review of its election work, placed more than a dozen election-focused staffers on administrative leave and slashed $10 million from two cybersecurity initiatives, including one dedicated to helping state and local election officials. The agency is also still without a Senate-confirmed director and has cycled through a series of acting leaders.
Aguilar said his state has stepped up and will protect its own elections in the absence of federal help.
“The fact that they think they’re going to come in prior to the general election in November and provide us infrastructure, that’s nuts,” he said. “Actions speak louder than words, and in their case, it’s all been talk.”
___
Swenson reported from New York.
The Dictatorship
Trump joins Republicans calling to punish Canada for hazardous wildfire smoke in the U.S.
President Donald Trump is threatening to increase tariffs on Canada over wildfire smoke that has blanketed large swaths of the Midwest and Mid-Atlanticjoining several Republicans who have called for the U.S. ally to be punished for the intense air pollution.
“We are holding Canada responsible for the fact that they are not properly maintaining their Forests, and Brush therein, and the United States is being unnecessarily invaded by filthy, polluted, and unhealthy air, the quality of which is dangerous, and totally unacceptable!” Trump wrote on Truth Socialon Friday, adding: “This is Willful Negligence, and becoming a yearly occurrence, costing the United States Billions of Dollars, which cost of this pollution must of necessity be added to the TARIFFS Canada is currently paying.”
Trump did not elaborate on his tariffs threat.
Smoke from hundreds of Canadian wildfires has caused air quality from Detroit to Washington, D.C., to plummet to unhealthy levels in recent days.
There are dozens of active wildfires in the U.S. as well. A Canadian helicopter pilot was was killed last week in a crash while fighting a fire in Colorado.
Trump is not the only Republican who has criticized Canada over the wildfire smoke. Earlier this week, four House Republicans from Michigan wrote a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney with a warning that appeared to allude to Trump’s threat to annex Canada.
“Sovereignty comes with responsibility,” the lawmakers wrote.
“This is the third consecutive year we have had to write to Canadian officials about a crisis that Canada has the tools to prevent and has chosen not to,” they wrote, later adding: “If Canada will not manage its forests to prevent these fires, the United States will look elsewhere, and act on our own, to protect our people.”
Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, has also said he intends to introduce a bill “to sanction Canada and the responsible Canadian government officials for this atrocity.”
In a statementMoreno’s office said: “Canada’s government failed to invest in wildfire prevention methods including forest thinning, fuel reduction, prescribed burns, and stronger enforcement against arson.”
Hotter temperatures and drier conditions as a result of the climate crisis have been major drivers of recent wildfires in North America. The Trump administration has cut funding for climate science, withdrawn the U.S. from global bodies and agreements aimed at tackling climate change and promoted the fossil fuel industry while rolling back renewable energy initiatives.
In response to the GOP complaints, some Canadian officials have noted that their country has helped with firefighting support in the U.S. during recent wildfires.
“If there’s some politicians out there chirping away, well, maybe what you should do rather than complain is send support, send help,” Ontario Premier Doug Ford said on Friday, “because we have done the exact same thing for our American friends.”
Doug Ford on American complaints over wildfire smoke: “If there’s some politicians out there chirping away, well, maybe what you should do rather than complain is send support, send help. Because we have done the exact same thing for our American friends.” pic.twitter.com/9e2TCVbqxC
— Scott Robertson (@sarobertson_)”https://x.com/sarobertson_/status/2078166329811460324?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw”>July 17, 2026
Clarissa-Jan Lim is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW. She was previously a senior reporter and editor at BuzzFeed News.
Nothing has absorbed Maine politics like the candidacy of Graham Platner. Almost from the moment he announced his run for the U.S. Senate in mid-August 2025, he drew big crowds and lots of attention. His strongest backers stuck with him through controversy after controversy until Jenny Racicot publicly accused him of sexual assault. Platner denied the allegation, but his support collapsed.
Yet even after Platner officially withdrew as the nominee on July 10 and the Maine Democratic Party began the process of replacing himit seemed like Mainers were going to keep talking about him for a while. Many of his committed voters were deeply disappointed about what they learned; others were very angry that the news had been revealed. Some suggested they might write in Platner’s name or not vote at all in the fall.
Then came an awful event that starkly shifted Mainers’ attention, and moved the focus of the Maine Senate race from Platner to Sen. Susan Collins.
The killing of 26-year-old Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero in Biddeford, Maine, on Monday was a real shock in the state. Maine often has the lowest rate of violent crime nationally and homicides are rare, with only 21 in 2025.
Maine, like Minnesota, is a highly participatory state, and both places responded similarly to ICE incursions this past winter.
Of course, it wasn’t just Guerrero’s death that was the story, but also who shot him — an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer — and the circumstances of his killing. For one, unlike other shootings by ICE officers, the Department of Homeland Security did not even claim that Guerrero posed any sort of imminent threat or that the shooter feared for their life. Rather, DHS said that Guerrero’s “vehicle attempted to flee the scene and, fearing for public safety, an officer discharged his weapon.”
Moreover, Guerrero was legally in the country, according to local immigrant rights groups. And Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, said Guerrero wasn’t even the person ICE was seeking.
Witnesses were shaken by what they saw. One bystander, Daniel Boucher, “choked up” recounting his experience, reported The Associated Press. “His face was bloody. His head was bloody,” Boucher said of the victim. “I clearly heard the victim say, ‘I tried to stop.’” In Akerleyanother neighbor who heard the shots and looked out the window to see some of what happened, told a local news station, “You know, it shatters the illusion that Maine is safe … I don’t know what he did, but he didn’t deserve to be executed in the street.”
Mainers quickly mobilized, with demonstrations in BiddefordPortlandBangor and Scarborough. “This is a land for people who want to be here,” said one rallygoer. “It doesn’t matter who you are, where you came from, what color your skin is. That’s what America is about.”
Both Senate candidates and members of the public criticized Collins. Protesters in Biddeford crowded the doorway at the senator’s local officeshouting, “Vote her out!” Senate candidate Shenna Bellows argued that she had already acted when, as secretary of state, she blocked ICE from getting undercover license plates and proclaimed, “There should be no secret police in our state.” Another contender, Troy Jackson, referred to “ICE’s rogue actions” and blasted Collins for voting “to send $70 billion dollars to ICE with no reforms.” A third potential Democratic nominee, Nirav Shahcontended, “There is a straight line from Sen. Collins to the lawlessness we saw yesterday.”
While, as I’ve noted, some Platner supporters were deeply unhappy that he wasn’t going to be the Democratic nominee, his absence in the aftermath of the shooting didn’t seem to matter in the least.
And why should it have? Maine, like Minnesota, is a highly participatory state, and both places responded similarly to ICE incursions this past winter.
Collins tried to claim credit for ending the winter surge. But Democrats and immigrant rights leaders were skeptical and pointed to her support for increased ICE funding without any reforms.
In both places, ICE showed up with face masks and randomly detained people, including those in the country legally. Agents smashed in the car windows of a University of Maine-trained civil engineer, Juan Sebastián Carvajal-Muñozand took him away with the car still running. He had a valid permit to work, an engineering job and no criminal record. A man training to be a corrections officer in southern Maine suffered the same fate, and as did others, including asylum seekers.
Then, as now, Mainers came togethersometimes via social media and sometimes through various groups, to try to counteract ICE.
As in Minnesota, ICE was heavy-handed and showed disrespect for civil rights. Two Maine women observing ICE were told they would be put on a domestic terrorist watch list and sued. “Only 11 of the nearly 200 people detained in Maine during a massive January immigration enforcement surge were recorded as having a criminal record,” the Bangor Daily News reportedmaking ICE look even more abusive.
At the time, Collins tried to claim credit for ending the winter surge. But Democrats and immigrant rights leaders were skeptical and pointed to her support for increased ICE funding without any reforms.
Now, Collins is again responding in her classic both-sides way. On the one hand, the incumbent urged DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin “to cease all non-urgent vehicle stops” and tepidly acknowledged that the lack of a recording device on the shooter was “extremely unfortunate.” On the other hand, Collins blamed Democrats for a delay in body cameras and contended that eliminating ICE “would make our country less safe.”
Platner’s fall upended the state’s biggest race for a time. But there are plenty of ICE critics, both political leaders and not, who are taking charge of the response to Collins and the agency.
And, though the Democratic Senate nominee is unknown again, Mainers are rising up, speaking out and moving on.
Amy Fried is professor emerita of political science at the University of Maine. She also has a Substack, Political Sightlines.
- Mullin pushes states to comply with election demands, echoing Trump’s claims about midterm risks
- Senators bullish on chances for a July vote on college sports bill
- Troy Jackson jumps out to big lead in race to replace Graham Platner in Maine
- Senators bullish on chances for a July vote on college sports bill
- Democrats dismiss our constitutional traditions as ‘nostalgia’
- Trump basks in World Cup spotlight, says US should host alone next time
- Epstein survivor says Blanche meeting left her ‘disappointed, disturbed and undaunted’
- Most of Congress backs this bill to support breast cancer patients. Why isn’t it law?
- GLP-1 insurance change impacts millions of Americans: What to know, how to tell if you’re covered
- AIPAC drops online donations to Dems who backed Israel aid cut
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship10 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words