James Carville rips Democrats for lack of unity, warns party is ‘steamrolling' toward a civil war
By Rachel del Guidice
Published July 21, 2025
Democratic strategist James Carville ripped Democrats for their lack of unity and warned that the party is "steamrolling toward a civilized civil war" in a new essay.
"Constipated. Leaderless. Confused. A cracked-out clown car. Divided," Carville wrote in a Monday guest essay published in The New York Times. "These are the words I hear my fellow Democrats using to describe our party as of late. The truth is they're not wrong: The Democratic Party is in shambles."
Carville said that New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani's win in the city's primary "represents an undeniable fissure in our political soul."
CARVILLE CALLS SOCIALIST'S VICTORY IN NYC MAYORAL PRIMARY A 'POTENTIALLY DAMAGING EVENT' FOR DEMOCRATIC PARTY
He pointed to Mamdani's economic policies, which include government-run grocery stores and plans to tax the top 1% of New Yorkers, admitting that he is concerned that they will actually be able to be executed.
"We are divided along generational lines: Candidates like Mr. Mamdani are impatient for an economic future that folks my age are skeptical can actually be delivered," Carville said.
"We are divided along ideological lines," he added. "A party that is historically allegiant to the state of Israel is at odds with a growing faction that will not look past the abuses in Palestine. From Medicare for All purists to Affordable Care Act reformists, the list goes on and on."
He said that Democrats must "demand" a repeal of President Donald Trump 's cuts to Medicaid in the 47th president's "big, beautiful bill."
CARVILLE SHREDS DEM STATE CHAIR, TELLS PROGRESSIVES TO START THEIR OWN 'PRONOUN' PARTY
The legislation requires able-bodied adults without children to work 80 hours a month, amounting to 20 hours each week, in order to receive Medicaid benefits.
He also said that Democrats must "demand a repeal to end the endless wars, because the bill boosts military spending to $1 trillion for the very first time," as well as saying Democrats should "demand a repeal" for "students who are losing loan protections, or who may no longer be eligible for Pell Grants."
Democrats must also "demand a repeal" of the cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Carville said.
Trump's "big, beautiful bill" includes work requirements for able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 64 years old, and for parents with children who are over 7 years old.
"We've never had a simpler, more unifying oppositional message," Carville said. "Soon it will no longer be possible to avoid a brawl between the factions ignited back in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary. But for now, whether you're the progressive Mr. Mamdani, the centrist former Rep. Abigail Spanberger running for the Virginia governorship or even Elon Musk, we can all agree on one thing: We demand a repeal. Onward to the midterms."
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Print Close
URL
https://www.foxnews.com/media/james-carville-rips-democrats-lack-unity-warns-party-steamrolling-toward-civilized-civil-war
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen states remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The states have argued Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement the administration looked forward to "being vindicated on appeal.' New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who helped lead the lawsuit before Sorokin, said in a statement he was 'thrilled the district court again barred President Trump's flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship order from taking effect anywhere.' "American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history,' he added. "The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen.' Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, saying it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.' Sorokin said a patchwork approach to the birthright order would not protect the states in part because a substantial number of people move between states. He also blasted the Trump administration, saying it had failed to explain how a narrower injunction would work. 'That is, they have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable, how the defendant agencies might implement it without imposing material administrative or financial burdens on the plaintiffs, or how it squares with other relevant federal statutes,' the judge wrote. 'In fact, they have characterized such questions as irrelevant to the task the Court is now undertaking. The defendants' position in this regard defies both law and logic.' Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Trump and his administration 'are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,' Sorokin wrote. 'But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.' The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Trump's efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed, his order went into effect. On Wednesday, a San Francisco-based appeals court found the president's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block. A Maryland-based judge said last week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off. The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional. Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is 'enshrined in the Constitution,' and that Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a 'flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.' They also argue that Trump's order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost states funding they rely on to 'provide essential services' — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to 'early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.' At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn't a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship. 'These courts are misinterpreting the purpose and the text of the 14th Amendment,' Jackson, the White House spokeswoman, said in her statement. ____ Associated Press reporter Mark Sherman in Washington contributed.
USA Today
36 minutes ago
- USA Today
Men don't like how Trump treats the economy. Democrats must cash in on that.
Democrats are being given an opportunity to fix their messaging with Americans who are quickly turning on President Donald Trump. According to new polling, American men are beginning to lose faith in President Donald Trump. It took them long enough, but I'm glad they're here with the rest of us. A CBS News/YouGov poll showed that the president's approval rating among men had dropped to 47%, while 53% disapproved of the job he was doing. It's a stark contrast from the November election, when Trump won male voters by 55%. It's a troubling sign for Republicans, but an opportunity for Democrats to gain ground with male voters before 2026. While men tend to go for the GOP, there is a possibility that Trump continues to alienate them by continuing to torpedo the economy and making irrational decisions when it comes to foreign policy and immigration. Can Democrats fix their messaging? The big issue for men? How Trump handles the economy. Men are particularly upset by Trump's handling of the economy. According to the CBS News/YouGov poll, 49% of men say the economy is getting worse, and 59% disapprove of how he's handling inflation. Sixty percent of men think he's focusing too much on tariffs, while 65% say he isn't doing enough to lower the cost of goods and services. Opinion: MAGA, I feel bad Trump lied to you about the Epstein list. Who saw this coming? Democrats, who tend to have weaker messaging on the economy, should take these criticisms and run with them. The cost of tariffs is likely to be passed on to the consumer. The nation's gross domestic product just declined for the first time in three years. Inflation may be cooling, but prices aren't falling. By putting the blame on Trump for the economic strife Americans are feeling, the Democratic Party could potentially show men that Republican lawmakers may not be the ones to rely on when it comes to their finances. When the rest of us know that was always the case. Men are also dissatisfied with the conflict in Gaza, and immigration While 55% of men say the economy and inflation are critical in how they view the president, there are some issues where Trump is also beginning to lose favor. For example, 53% of men say they are dissatisfied with the Trump administration's handling of the Israel-Hamas war, which the president said he'd end on the campaign trail. Fifty-one percent disapprove of his interactions with Iran. Fifty percent of men disapprove of how Trump is handling immigration, with 47% saying the administration is deporting more immigrants than they believed it would, according to that same poll. All of these concerns are corroborated by other polls that show Trump is widely disliked. This should be a wake-up call that Democrats need to strengthen their message on the Israel-Hamas war, at least advocating for peace talks. They could also combine immigration with economic issues, and stress how Trump's deportation agenda could negatively affect the GDP and increase the cost of food. Opinion: Trump keeps brutalizing immigrants because he's failing at everything else Gen Z is particularly unhappy Generation Z, born between 1997 to 2012, also seems to have woken up to Trump's failures. The CBS News/YouGov poll found that his approval rating among 18- to 29-year-olds plummeted to 28% in July. Seventy-one percent of those under 30 disapprove of Trump's handling of the economy, and 73% disapprove of how he's handling inflation. As with men, it's a far cry from how Gen Z felt about Trump in the 2024 election, when voters ages 18-29 supported Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris by a much smaller margin than they supported former President Joe Biden in 2020. Among this age group, 56% of males voted for Trump, 1 percentage point more than among all male voters. Opinion: Trump is unpopular, polls show, and he's building an America most Americans hate It's telling that the generation whose perception of the Republican Party is entirely shaped by the rise of Trump is suddenly souring on him. Perhaps people around my age are finally realizing that targeting marginalized communities won't actually improve their quality of life, or that Trump made promises he couldn't keep. They might also be realizing that the positive emotions they felt during the first Trump administration can be chalked up to childhood nostalgia. For those of us in the generation who were old enough to vote in 2016, the negatives of Trump's first presidency were unavoidable. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. If the Democrats are clever, they'll consider this polling and begin brainstorming ways to further drive a wedge between Trump and male voters, particularly those in Gen Z. Yet I'm not sure Democrats are prepared to pick up the young voters Republicans are siphoning off. Their solution now seems to be doing nothing – Democratic leadership essentially disappeared after the 2024 election, and no one seems to know how to get the party back on track. Ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, they need to focus on more than podcasts and memes. They need to be working on crafting a populist message and focusing on economic issues, because that seems to be the deciding factor in whether or not a president is doing well. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
Bloomberg
37 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
How a US Trade War With China Could Become a Hot War
Listen to Odd Lots on Apple Podcasts Listen to Odd Lots on Spotify Tension between the US and China has been building for some time. But so far this has been limited to issues of trade. The US has imposed tariffs on China. It's imposed restrictions on technology exports. In turn, China has imposed some of its own tariffs, and also limited the export of things like rare earths. But historically speaking, many hot wars have their roots in some kind of trade-related tensions between nations. So the risk exists that a trade war one day becomes a hot war. So how does this happen, and how can it be avoided? On this episode, we speak with Dale Copeland, a professor of international relations at the University of Virginia. He discusses his theories of trade, and we discuss his most recent book, A World Safe for Commerce: American Foreign Policy From the Revolution to the Rise of China, which specifically discusses the prospect for an outright US-China confrontation.
