BBernie Sanders is out with a victory lap, and he's naming names: oligarchy.
BOf course he is. The ink's barely dry on the House majority.
BAl Jazeera English posted his statement on X. Quote: voters "rejected oligarchy" and "backed the working class."
BThat's one way to read a punishing midterm for the president's party.
BIt's not just spin, Brian. Some progressives argue they won swing districts by hammering grocery prices.
BAnd a lot of Democrats won by running as far from the national brand as they could.
BThat's exactly my point. The party's center of gravity moved toward kitchen-table economics.
BNo, no, wait— you can't claim a mandate for Sanders when the winners weren't running on his platform.
BHe's not claiming he won those races. He's saying voters rejected rule by billionaires.
BWhat voters rejected was chaos and infighting. They didn't sign up for a revolution.
BYou keep saying that, but by most accounts the number one issue was the cost of living.
BFine. The cost of living. Not class warfare.
BA Republican account put it bluntly. LadyBuckeye posted: "Candidate quality matters."
BThat part I actually agree with.
BShe said loyalty to Trump as a litmus test "does not mean electable in the general election."
BSo now you're quoting Republican infighting as proof of a progressive wave?
BI'm quoting it as proof that the GOP ran bad candidates.
BBut that's what I've been saying! Candidate quality, not some ideological turn.
BCandidate quality and message can't be separated. Voters punished both.
BHere's what I think happened. Turnout. Democrats were angrier, Republicans stayed home.
BAngry about what?
BThe cost of living, sure. But also the chaos. You're both right.
BI'll take it. But Sanders gets to crow a little.
BHe always gets to crow. That's his brand.
BDifferent world entirely: the same election is being read from Kyiv.
BI saw a post on Bluesky from Angelica Shalagina, a Ukrainian account. She wrote: "I have one wish after America's election."
BThat this political change will also bring something good for Ukraine.
BExactly. We've been waiting for good news for so long.
BThat's the reality. Kyiv is watching Washington more closely than any capital.
BI think a Democratic Congress is the more reliably pro-Ukraine outcome.
BI'd push back. Ukraine aid has always been bipartisan. The wildcard is the White House.
BBut now you have a House with subpoena power. That changes oversight.
BOversight, not necessarily policy. The president still controls the weapons packages.
BSo you don't think committee chairs matter?
BThey matter for speed and accountability. They don't rewrite foreign policy.
BFair. But speed matters. Ask a soldier in Donbas.
BThat's exactly why Ukraine needed to hear something hopeful last night.
BAnd they did. This is the first time in a while the response wasn't silence.
BOne more from the immigration side, and it's a human one.
BReuters is reporting that the mother of a Ghanaian teenager killed in New York has been granted a visa to attend his funeral.
BThat's the headline. Trump approved it, per Reuters.
BIf that's accurate, it's the right call. A mother should bury her son.
BI want to flag we don't have independent confirmation from the White House yet.
BUnderstood. But I'll say it anyway: this is what immigration discretion should look like.
BEven from an administration that's been tough on visas?
BEspecially because of that. It shows the system can still be human.
BOne visa doesn't change policy, but it's a small decency.
BIt shouldn't be remarkable. But here we are.