Newsletter Subject

Democracy lives to fight another day, but...

From

motherjones.com

Email Address

newsletters@motherjones.com

Sent On

Thu, Nov 10, 2022 12:35 AM

Email Preheader Text

Processing what we know today. ? MoJo Reader, Democracy lives to fight another day—but it

Processing what we know today.   [Mother Jones]( MoJo Reader, Democracy lives to fight another day—but it’s got a few bruises, a black eye, and there are still many rounds to go. I’m no good at sports metaphors (I know, you could tell), but that’s what I came away with from yesterday’s midterms, when the most notable defeats went to those campaigning against democracy itself. At a moment when the deck seemed stacked in favor of election deniers, conspiracy theorists, and straight-up meanies—on top of inflation and the shellacking first-term president's normally take—Americans showed up and surprised the pollsters. But while that may be enough for small-d democrats to breathe a sigh of relief, it’s not a full reprieve. Just like so much of life these days (and, cough, just like our fall fundraising push that ends today). So I wanted to share some of our team's reporting with you, as we all try to wrap our heads around what we know and what it means, and for [my final ask for the donations it takes to keep Mother Jones charging hard]( if you haven't pitched in yet—all gifts from this email will be matched and go twice a far, and they are [very much]( needed. First off, the tough news: Thanks to [a slew of election deniers]( winning election (irony is dead) to Congress, we now know that, as my colleague David Corn [writes](, “a party fueled by anti-democratic election denialism and extremism can fare well in congressional districts and, with the help of gerrymandering, amass a slim majority of seats in the lower chamber. This means the Trumper extremists in the House are close to achieving a form of minority rule.” A dispassionate observer might point out that election deniers won in safely gerrymandered red districts, and that in contested races (with a few [possible exceptions]() the Big Lie did not play well. But in a caucus where most anyone who dared defy Donald Trump has been [hounded out of office](, it’s not rational to expect dispassionate observation. Instead, we can brace for two years of chaos, as a radicalized House majority delivers red meat to a rageful base. They can and will, David writes, take last night’s result as a validation of the “lying, cheating, sabotaging elections, whipping up groundless conspiracy theories, and arousing hatred and violence” of the past two years. We can even begin to imagine what sort of post-election havoc they might wreak in 2024. And we can expect them to conclude that they should double down on some of the strategies that allowed them to hold on to power. Take Wisconsin, where my colleague Ari Berman has been [spending a lot of time]( the past few years: “Democrat Tony Evers [won the governor’s race]( by nearly 3.5 points—practically a landslide by Wisconsin standards—but Republicans are projected to win a two-thirds [supermajority]( in the state Senate and come just short of similar margins in the state assembly, which would’ve allowed them to override Evers’ vetoes, because of the [rigged maps]( they passed in 2021.” Translation: so long as you can draw the lines your way, it doesn’t matter much what the voters think. But there were, too, examples of how differently things could go, as Ari writes: “Contrast that with Michigan, where a nonpartisan [citizens commission]( created by voters through a ballot referendum drew new state legislative districts after the 2020 census, creating significantly fairer and more competitive maps that allowed Democrats to retake [both chambers]( of the legislature and control state politics for the first time since 1984.” I’ve heard it said that for Democrats to champion independent redistricting is a mistake—that they should fight fire with fire and gerrymander as undemocratically as Republicans do when they are in control. That’s the tack they took in New York, [to no avail](. Maybe if you’re going to fight for small-d democracy, you have to actually mean it. One more group that lost out last night: the pundits. Women’s rights to make their own decisions, they claimed, had nowhere near the motivating power that crime or economic fears did. Independent voters would not mind an attack on fundamental rights, so long as it came with a promise to bring down the price of gas. As Madison Pauly [writes](: "If anyone thought Kansas’s abortion referendum was a fluke this summer—when voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposed constitutional amendment saying there was no right to an abortion in the state—Tuesday’s results should make them bite their lip. In every state with an abortion-related measure on the ballot, supporters of reproductive rights won the day." I know it’s been said that “no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people,” and [people who make their living saying things on TV]( often look like Exhibit A for that. But the truth is that, even as we struggle to make sense of a chaotic and challenging time, Americans are a lot less ready to give up on democracy and human rights than many believed. Even when it comes to crime, such an easily demagogued topic, Eamon Whalon shows that endless scare ads [were not enough]( to beat back thoughtful criminal justice reform in George Floyd’s home town. Last night was a powerful reminder that while democracy is on the ropes, it is not down for the count. A lie-fueled movement of resentment and revenge has captivated the core base of a major party, and thanks to the undemocratic nature of many of our institutions, that’s a group that can command a lot of power. But it’s not (yet) a majority across the nation, by any stretch. The fight is still on, and you can bet that Mother Jones will be in it with all the tools of rigorous, fact-checked—and lazy punditry-free—journalism at our disposal. Our biggest strength in that fight is you: Our community of readers who take our work out into the world and do something with it, and who know that "team reality" is not ready to give up. Thanks for turning to MoJo to help you make sense of days like today, and for bearing with me during our [hard-won]( fundraising push this last month. Like the election itself, a few weeks ago it looked pretty grim. And just like the election, it didn’t turn out as badly as it might have. We're going to come up well short of our goal, which is rough, but I'm hoping that we can finish it off the best we can: Our matching gift deadline is today, but [any and all donations from this email will be matched dollar for dollar]( whenever they come in. [Monika] Monika Bauerlein, CEO Mother Jones [Donate](   [Mother Jones]( [Donate]( [Donate Monthly]( [Subscribe]( This message was sent to {EMAIL}. To change the messages you receive from us, you can [edit your email preferences]( or [unsubscribe from all mailings.]( For advertising opportunities see our online [media kit.]( Were you forwarded this email? [Sign up for Mother Jones' newsletters today.]( [www.MotherJones.com]( PO Box 8539, Big Sandy, TX 75755

Marketing emails from motherjones.com

View More
Sent On

09/11/2024

Sent On

08/11/2024

Sent On

07/11/2024

Sent On

05/11/2024

Sent On

29/10/2024

Sent On

27/10/2024

Email Content Statistics

Subscribe Now

Subject Line Length

Data shows that subject lines with 6 to 10 words generated 21 percent higher open rate.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Number of Words

The more words in the content, the more time the user will need to spend reading. Get straight to the point with catchy short phrases and interesting photos and graphics.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Number of Images

More images or large images might cause the email to load slower. Aim for a balance of words and images.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Time to Read

Longer reading time requires more attention and patience from users. Aim for short phrases and catchy keywords.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Predicted open rate

Subscribe Now

Spam Score

Spam score is determined by a large number of checks performed on the content of the email. For the best delivery results, it is advised to lower your spam score as much as possible.

Subscribe Now

Flesch reading score

Flesch reading score measures how complex a text is. The lower the score, the more difficult the text is to read. The Flesch readability score uses the average length of your sentences (measured by the number of words) and the average number of syllables per word in an equation to calculate the reading ease. Text with a very high Flesch reading ease score (about 100) is straightforward and easy to read, with short sentences and no words of more than two syllables. Usually, a reading ease score of 60-70 is considered acceptable/normal for web copy.

Subscribe Now

Technologies

What powers this email? Every email we receive is parsed to determine the sending ESP and any additional email technologies used.

Subscribe Now

Email Size (not include images)

Font Used

No. Font Name
Subscribe Now

Copyright © 2019–2025 SimilarMail.