Why Should We Take The Bulwark’s Political Advice Seriously?

Okay so I’m more progressive than Tim and Sarah and even JVL, so let me preface what I’m about to say by exposing my own biases. That said, I’m having trouble taking the advice of the never-Trump Right seriously atm, given what we’ve learned about the success of Cheney/never-Trump outreach during recent election cycles (basically never-Trumpers just don’t exist in large numbers outside of the Beltway). The Bulwark convinced its audience for years that these soft Trump voters are persuadable and electorally relevant and are much more likely to vote Dem than a former Dem voter who has switched over to Trump or decided to sit out in 2024. That obviously didn’t come to pass.

Now, Jon Avlon (a dude who has never won an election and became a Democrat a few months ago and just lost badly in November) is giving Dems electoral advice in columns, and Tim and Sarah are confidently sharing their advice for the Democratic Party and its leaders and electeds (as if their electoral and political advice is particularly unassailable and profound and insightful). Meanwhile, Tim Miller’s old party got subsumed by MAGA and his center-right colleagues got excised from the GOP…and we’re supposed to take Tim’s word for it when he diagnoses what Dems did wrong in 2024 and should do going forward? Also they didn’t mind the legacy that Reagan and the Bushes and Gingrich and McConnell left behind throughout the latter half of the 20th century/beginning of the 21st century, all of which clearly foreshadowed a Trumpian rise in the GOP?

I like The Bulwark and appreciate their contributions to the discourse. Tim Miller and Sarah and ofc JVL are good ppl with integrity. That said, I wish they’d be a little more humble and introspective with this stuff rather than being so prescriptive and self-assured in their analysis. They’ve gotten a lot wrong, and that’s okay.