Ben-Meir makes fair points about the Democrats needing new blood and a sharper agenda, but the “last stand” language does him no favours. That kind of framing is exactly what the right thrives on - endless doom-casting and slogans about “existential threats.”

Democrats lowering themselves to that level just blurs the distinction.

Midterms are high-stakes, yes, but not extinction events. Politics is cyclical, and voters can shift quickly when one side overreaches. Treating 2026 like the final battle for democracy sounds more like Murdoch clickbait than strategy.

The real issue isn’t whether Gavin Newsom or Zohran Mamdani is charismatic enough to fight Trump, it’s whether Democrats can reconnect with voters on everyday concerns - jobs, housing, cost of living - while also defending democratic norms. Unless you’re Trump - the only politician who can brag about sexual assault, sneer at norms, and still be rewarded with incumbency - that takes patient persuasion.

If the Democrats want to look like the adults in the room, they shouldn’t mirror Trump’s melodrama. They should project competence, steadiness, and trust. That’s often what wins back disaffected voters, far more than grand “do-or-die” narratives.

Dearest chatbot John (premium) .

#…Democrats LOWERING themselves to that level just blurs the distinction…#

Democrats are unable to “lower” themselves any further; they are morally destitute, cast out, living permanently in outer darkness…in their own State of goodnight Dick. Hi ho.

Here’s my first vomit for the day, with what is becoming an habitual encounter with a domestic terrorist, this sicko author.

Get back to the Harbour Bridge where you belong; under the banner of Ayatollah Khomeini and other assortments of terrorist flags…and of course the selection of like minded thinkers such as Bob Carr, the squeamish small minded homosexual and the further collection of brain dead fags!

Diver dan,

Your whole reply is just bile and slurs. Not a word about tariffs, housing, or anything I actually wrote.

If that’s the best counter the right can muster, I’ll take it as confirmation my post landed.

I’ll take it as confirmation my post landed.
John Daysh,
Lol, the only real reason you et al get replies from those with more foresight & integrity than you is to hopefully prevent some gullible youngsters falling for your idealistic rhetoric. Don't confuse your good command of jargon with good sense !

This author is not Australian.
He is not in Australia.
He doesn't write about Australia.

Why Australians would be interested in his opinion on matters nothing to do with Australia, particularly his whining about Donald Trump, when our biggest worry is Anthony Albanese's wrecking of our own country ... well it's beyond me.

Geez, the snowflakes certainly have been triggered on this one. It seems the panic is really setting in now.

Good. Go-o-o-o-od.

Indy,

Thank you, too, for confirming my point. If the best rebuttal you have is that I use too many words, then I’ll live with that. It's quite the self-own, when you think about it.

And it's a bit rich to attack my foresight and integrity when - ironically - your side is the only one needing to resort to personal attacks.
_____

ttbn,

I can help you out there. Australians talk about US politics because US politics affects us - and because, like you, we’ve always talked about it.

Upon checking, I found one example that was particularly amusing:

"Obama got a prize for something even he didn't know about. Trump wouldn't want such nonsense..."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=21067#371897

That certainly didn’t age well, did it?

your side is the only one needing to resort to personal attacks.
John Daysh,
It might look like personal attack to you in actual fact however, it is prevention for the harm your side can do if not challenging your misleading & proven failed so-called alternative.
What your side is pushing is an unaffordable fairytale the next Generation will be lumped with !

But it’s not challenging anything, Indyvidual.

//…it is prevention for the harm your side can do if not challenging your misleading & proven failed so-called alternative.//

That’s the point of highlighting the personal attacks. It’s not some wounded-deer act, it’s simply noting that you’re not actually engaging the argument.

Personally, I like when ad hominems are aimed my way because they discredit themselves. They show that you couldn’t find a substantive counter, so you went for the person instead. They signal to bystanders that you can’t rebut the point on its merits.

If your goal is to "inoculate gullible youngsters," as you put it, then the only effective prevention is evidence and reasoning. Otherwise, you’ve just modelled the very thing you accuse others of: idealistic rhetoric without substance.

//What your side is pushing is an unaffordable fairytale the next Generation will be lumped with !//

I've heard a lot of scaremongering coming from the right over what a win for the Democrats would mean, but an "unaffordable fairytale" is not one of them.

I'll have to remember that one.

Dear John, (and his parables). oh how I hate to write…

Arguing with the guards is not wise while locked in a prison cell, is the conclusion of a parable.

So who are the guards and who are the prisoners?

You tell me!

Dear Dan, you’ve inspired me.

A man once sat in a debate and, when pressed for evidence, produced only insults.

When asked for clarity, he replied with riddles. And when challenged on substance, he would only wave his arms.

"Parable-teller!" he cried.

The bystanders scratched their heads.

"Who is the prisoner here?" they asked. "The one stuck in his own circular logic, or the one who calmly points it out?"

I think there's something in that for all of us. Don't you?