On this “The Weekly Show” podcast with Jon Stewart, they write, “As populist energy continues to reshape both parties, Jon is joined by Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti, co-hosts of ‘Breaking Points.’ Together, they explore how both the left and right have grown disillusioned with the establishment, discuss what new media gets right that legacy outlets miss, and consider what it would take for real economic populism to break through. Plus, Jon answers listeners’ questions about Trump’s great escape, the weave, and fries or onion rings?
top of page
Aug 14
Updated: Aug 14
As I’ve mentioned, I’m not a particular fan of The Voice or American Idol, and haven’t watched them in many years. But I’ve found that I do like special, individual performances for (most especially) the international editions of The Voice, which I’ve come across on YouTube, because the coaches tend to be particularly nice. That said, although this here below is still another video from The Voice: Australia – my favorite of the versions, because of how the kindness and nurturing of the coaches is at another level -- it’s different from the others. I had seen this “Blind Audition” by a woman named Tarryn Stokes, and was blown away by it. In fact, she may be my favorite singer I've seen on all videos of the various versions of the show. And loved this video for several other reasons, as well, beyond just her utterly superb performance of the song. But then a few months later, I saw a much longer video of that – a full montage of her performances throughout the show…because it turned out that my reaction to that first song was on the mark, as she ended up winning the 2023 competition!
What made that first video so special was not just her performance, which was absolutely great – but also because earlier in her life, she’d actually sung with two of the judges. (And two of my favorites. Watch their reactions during the Blind Audition when they realize who's singing) But the story is even better. She’d largely been a background singer, and was happy with being in the background because there was no pressure, and she didn’t have the confidence to be out front. She then left the music industry and raised a family, with two little kids. But going through growth of life, she felt music was something she very much wanted to get back to. And so, at age 40, she decided to take a chance.
This is 35 minutes, following her journey from the Blind Auditions through the Grand Finale. It’s all worth it, but if that’s too long for some people, just jump from each of her performances to the next. She’s so terrific. (How much so? At one point, a judge says, “Your voice is a combination of Mariah Carey and Baby Jesus.”) And the song selections for her are wonderful, as well – to my amazement, I actually knew four of the six songs she sings. But even if that’s too much to watch (and really, it will be a treat to check them all out), at least listen to the first two. “She Used to Be Mine,” from the musical Waitress, written by Sara Barreilles, and ABBA’s song, “The Winner Takes It All.” (I dearly love her performance in the first song, but in the second she hits a note emotionally that is stunning and even shocks her coach. Really. Watch for it.) And honestly, after listening to those two, I suspect many people will decide to keep listening…
But there’s one other thing to watch, as well: and that’s how supportive and happy the other judges are for her throughout her run, even though she’s on a competitor’s team. Because, as I keep saying, the Australian coaches on their version of The Voice are the absolute nicest.
BONUS: If you watched that full video, you’ll note that at one point as the other coaches were enthusing about Taryn Stokes, Guy Sebastian – who had performed with her several years earlier – lets them in on a ‘secret’ of sort and says, “You didn’t hear it all. She has more in the bag.” Well, for readers who didn’t hear enough of her in the video above, it turns out that that video was not all her performances in the show, so here is an additional 22 minutes of amazing music. Some of it is a repeat – so you can scroll past that, or revel in it again – but the majority of it are new treasures.
Aug 14
Updated: Aug 15
The past couple of weeks, so many news analysts have been seemingly stumped in their reporting as they try to find conflict in primaries. And what is bewildering to me is that it just doesn't strike me me as perplexing as they do.
I'm referring to how baffled they are with what they describe as seeming confusion in the Democratic Party as a progressive Senate candidate in Minnesota won the party's primary, while the moderate candidate for governor in next-door neighbor Wisconsin won the governor's primary -- and their Midwestern neighbor Michigan's far-left Senate candidate won, even though a moderate won California's Democratic nomination for governor, and a Democratic Socialist won the election for New York City Mayor.
Let me see if I can help explain to clear up their confusion. Though Wisconsin and Minnesota are next-door neighbors and have cows, farms and lakes, and all three with Michigan are in the Midwest, they are all three different states. The people who live in them are different. Their interests and needs are different. And also, the needs that people want for governor and senator are, in fact, different. I've spent a lot of time in Wisconsin, and some time in Minnesota. My brother lived in both. Wisconsin has a very progressive base -- and an extremely conservative one, as well. (It's the home base of Joe McCarthy.) Minnesota is fairly liberal. In fact, they don't even actually have a Democratic Party in Minnesota! It's called the Democratic-Farm Labor Party. California is a totally different state (indeed, from most of the universe), 2,000 miles and often light-years away. It's fairly liberal. But they have an open "jungle" primary system, and this year eight major Democratic candidates ran in the Senate primary, but only two major MAGOPs were on the ballot. The top two finishers, whatever their party, would be the nominees in the General Election -- so conceivably both MAGOPs could have been the nominees in the very Democratic states, as Democrats split votes. All of that impacted results.
And New York is 3,000 miles away from that. And the race everyone has focused on there wasn't even for the state at all, but it was a city election. And New York City is much more liberal than many other parts of the state, and has city issues it's most concerned with (public transit, street cleaning, garbage pickup, rental housing), which tend to be totally different from state issues and all the more so than national issues. Sometimes they do overlap. Often they don't.
I'll make it simpler. Each state is different, even if they're neighbors. Illinois is fairly liberal, Indiana is pretty conservative. Oregon is very liberal, Idaho is extremely conservative. North Caroline is purple, leans Red. South Carolina deep Red, Virginia is purple, West Virginia is deep Red. (In fact, even within a state, there can be huge differences. People think of my home state Illinois as being liberal, Chicago, northern and urban -- but just 30 minutes west of downtown Chicago is farmland. And even more, there actually is a Southern Illinois. And it's shocking to most people to learn that the southern tip of Illinois...is south of almost the entire state of Kentucky!) And governor, U.S. senator and mayor are completely different political offices. Georgia leans Red, they have a MAGOP governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state and attorney general -- and two Democratic senators.
But most of all, the Democratic Party is made up of liberals, moderates and conservatives. It's a wide-ranging party of very diverse political views, often contradictory. Will Rogers famously said in 1933 -- "I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." That was 93 years ago! It hasn't changed much. Today, Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Zohran Mamdani are Democrats. So, too, are Joe Manchin, Jon Tester and John Fetterman. In fairness, the MAGOP has political differences, as well, although only if you consider conservative and very conservative to be differences. The party does have moderates, though those are better known as "former Republicans." Ronald Regan famously said in 1966 that the 11th Commandment of the Republican Party was "Though shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."
To be clear, there are differences within the Democratic Party -- just not for the reasons the press seems to think. That's because there always are differences in the Democratic Party. It always has had wide-ranging edges. If a group of local Democrats got together for lunch, there would be differences. Down to what's on the menu.
It's very basic.
Don't confuse states, even if they're next door.
Don't confuse national, state and city elections.
And most of all, don't confuse the two parties.
This site is an Amazon Affiliate and gets a small commission if you click this button or any product link before shopping on Amazon.
To make a comment, click on an article's title. A comment box will be at the bottom of the page.
Author
Robert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting.
Elisberg is a two-time recipient of the Lucille Ball Award for comedy screenwriting. He's written for film, TV, the stage, has two sort-of best-selling novels, and was a regular columnist for the Writers Guild of America and Huffington Post. Among his other writing, he's had a long-time column on technology (which he sometimes understands), and co-wrote a book on world travel. As a lyricist, he is a member of ASCAP, and has contributed to numerous publications.
Feedspot Badge of Honor
bottom of page