2 stories credited to nomoremister.blogspot.com
Latest story Apr 17, 2026 · on ChamberLight since Apr 2026 · on blogspot.com
A story can appear as several articles (copies of the same piece), so counts of stories and of articles differ.
Scores for nomoremister.blogspot.com
Writing quality not enough rated stories yet: 2 of 10. How it is measured
Scores last checked Sep 25, 2026.
Stories ChamberLight collected, by month
Stories credited to nomoremister.blogspot.com, by publication date. ChamberLight collects articles that mention the officials it tracks, so this shows its own coverage of this source, not how much the source publishes.
- Stories from nomoremister.blogspot.com
- Shaded: ChamberLight collected no stories, or almost none, from any outlet (a gap in its collection, not in the outlet’s publishing)
Show as a table
| Month | Stories | All outlets |
|---|---|---|
| April 2026 | 2 | 2,921 |
| May 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| June 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| July 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| August 2026 | 0 | 1 (collection gap) |
| September 2026 | 0 | 1,320 |
Top topics
Share of this source’s stories tagged with each topic. A story can carry several topics, so the shares do not add up to 100%.
- Economy2
100% of 2 stories · 26% across all outlets
- Ethics/Corruption1
50% of 2 stories · 58% across all outlets
- Immigration1
50% of 2 stories · 13% across all outlets
- Taxes1
50% of 2 stories · 5% across all outlets
- Voting Rights1
50% of 2 stories · 19% across all outlets
The thin mark on each bar is the topic’s share across all outlets.
Who they cover
Party of the officials these stories are mainly about, across all 3 officials named. A story counts once for each official it is mainly about, so the split is over 3 story–official pairs, from 2 stories.
- Democrat67% · 2 pairs
- Party not recorded33% · 1 pair
Most covered
Stories mainly about each official, and their share of the source’s 2 stories.
Article tone
ChamberLight’s article analysis assigns each story a tone toward the official it covers. It describes the coverage of that official, not nomoremister.blogspot.com’s stance, and reader votes do not change it. 2 stories.
- Good Look
- 2 (100%)
- Mixed
- 0 (0%)
- Informational
- 0 (0%)
- Bad Look
- 0 (0%)
Challenges to these scores
No one has challenged a score on this page yet. Anyone can; editors publish every outcome here.
Articles served from nomoremister.blogspot.com
3WHY WE PROBABLY CAN'T REPLICATE WHAT JUST HAPPENED IN HUNGARY
Alan Elrod of Liberal Currents understands the assignment for Tryump opponents in 2026 and 2028: The goal must be to sweep the Republican Party out of power and to do so thoroughly that a new political project can begin to emerge in the aftermath. Failing to understand this is failing to meet the moment on a world historical scale. That’s because dislodging a competitive authoritarian regime takes significant effort, especially in a system as skewed as the United States is by the Electoral College and our chronic underrepresentation in the House. In Hungary, Péter Magyar's Tisza Party just demonstrated what needs to be done in America. Not only did Tisza defeat Viktor Orbán's Fidesz Party, it won a two-thirds legislative majority that will allow the party to rewrite Hungary's constitution and unwind changes that empowered Orbán. How do Donald Trump's opponents replicate that? Elrod writes: This time, the opposition [in Hungary] refused to let factionalism threaten their mission. Rather than let a crowded field enable Orbán to retain power, parties stood down their candidate to maximize the vote behind Magyar and his Tisza party. This matters because Magyar, while a pro-EU and a pro-democracy small-l liberal, is ... center-right.... As speculation about the 2028 election heats up, we’re already being subjected to debates about who various constituencies will and won’t support against a future Trumpist or MAGA candidate. The biggest kerfuffle so far kicked up around Hasan Piker’s declaration that he wouldn’t support Gavin Newsom in a hypothetical matchup against JD Vance. This is the wrong position. It’s politically and morally simple-minded and short-sighted. But it isn’t so hard to imagine that some more conservative-minded folks might raise a similar opposition to a nominee like, say, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. This would also be wrong. I'm optimistic about the 2026 midterms, but I'm doomy about 2028. This is the main reason. I don't think there'll be a united front in 2028. I'm sure there'll be defections. There might not be enough defections to elect Vance (or whoever the GOP nominee is), but the opposition won't be fully united the way it was in Hungary this year. In part, that's for an obvious reason: Trump won't be on the ballot in 2028. He's effectively on the ballot this year, which is the main reason Democrats are winning special elections and appear ready to win the midterms (at least in the House). But Democrats have never managed to persuade more than a small handful of the electorate that the Republican Party is the problem. Mainstream Democrats don't try because they fear alienating swing voters. Progressive Democrats don't try because they think mainstream Democrats are problematic as well, even if, like AOC, they align themselves with the Democratic Party and endorse some Democrats who are more mainstream. Magyar and Tisza were intensely focused on one clear goal: removing Orbán and Fidesz from power. The country was ready to dump Orbán and his party. In 2028, however, our Orbán won't be on the ballot, and our Fidesz, in all likelihood, won't be seen as the source of the country's problems. One reason America won't be able to generate the same level of frustration and disgust is that Trump will have been in power for only four years. Orbán had been in power for 16 years. Beyond that, it seems very hard to get Americans to change their minds about the GOP if they've been amenable to it in the recent past. Texas, for instance, hasn't elected a Democrat in a statewide election in this century. At a time when the overwhelming majority of voters believe the country is on the wrong track, you'd imagine -- if you didn't know any better -- that this would give Democrats in Texas the potential for a Tisza-style sweep. But while James Talarico might win the Senate race, it's unimaginable that Democrats can dominate the midterms in Texas. The same is true in states like Florida, Missouri, Iowa, and Ohio, all of which used to be swing states: Democrats might do better than usual this year, but there's no chance that they'll wipe out the GOP. I keep thinking about this piece by Politico's Alexander Burns: ... Orbán’s ouster represents a new triumph for a particular brand of disruptive politics: one defined by reformist candidates who launch new parties and blow up old ones, winning elections by rendering traditional political structures obsolete. Hungary’s Peter Magyar, the leader of the anti-Orbán Tisza party, is the latest victor in this mold.... It would be difficult but not impossible to do what Magyar did in America: The American party system is heavily armored against disruption. It would be all but impossible to replicate here what Magyar has done in Hungary — or what France’s Emmanuel Macron and Argentina’s Javier Milei did before him — and turn a fledgling political organization into a personal vehicle and bring it to national power in a flash. We do not have secondary political parties that can surge to prominence in a single campaign, like Giorgia Meloni’s Fratelli d’Italia or Rob Jetten’s D66 in the Netherlands. Yet as Trump himself has shown, it is possible to devour a major party from the inside — commandeering an old institution with grassroots support, casting aside its entrenched leaders, remaking it in a new image and earning a fresh look from voters who didn’t like the old version. Mark Carney has done something similar in Canada, with a very different political agenda. So has Lee Jae Myung in South Korea. I think a billionaire like Mark Cuban could mount a viable third-party campaign. Widespread dissatisfaction with both parties might carry him to victory. But it's also quite possible that Fox and other GOP propaganda outfits would succeed in keeping Republican voters loyal to the party, while Democrats and the Cuban party split the anti-Republican vote. Could someone who isn't an insider take control of the Democratic Party, the way Trump took control of the GOP? Burns writes: If Democrats want to take the hint, they’ll give a closer look to the leaders frustrating their peers in Washington and defying their home-state political bosses, and less time measuring the applause meter at various special-interest conventions and donor retreats. I'm sure he's referring to crypto-Republicans like John Fetterman and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, even though his words could just as easily apply to many progressives. But a Fetterman presidential campaign wouldn't tap into Americans' frustration. To do that, Fetterman would have to say that the whole system sucks. But Fetterman clearly believes that only Democrats suck. He's fine with Republicans. In 2028, the Democrats will run a mainstream pol. The Republicans will run either Vance or Marco Rubio. And maybe the Democrat will win because the Republican won't distance himself from the current president, the way John McCain refused to distance himself from George W. Bush's widely reviled Iraq War in 2008. But a race like that won't lead to a Tisza-sized blowout. And we could just as easily have a repeat of 1988, when George H.W. Bush overcame Reagan fatigue and his own Vance-ish lack of charisma by viciously portraying his Democratic opponent as a dangerous freak, with the media's eager assistance.
WHY WE PROBABLY CAN'T REPLICATE WHAT JUST HAPPENED IN HUNGARY
Alan Elrod of Liberal Currents understands the assignment for Tryump opponents in 2026 and 2028: The goal must be to sweep the Republican Party out of power and to do so thoroughly that a new political project can begin to emerge in the aftermath. Failing to understand this is failing to meet the moment on a world historical scale. That’s because dislodging a competitive authoritarian regime takes significant effort, especially in a system as skewed as the United States is by the Electoral College and our chronic underrepresentation in the House. In Hungary, Péter Magyar's Tisza Party just demonstrated what needs to be done in America. Not only did Tisza defeat Viktor Orbán's Fidesz Party, it won a two-thirds legislative majority that will allow the party to rewrite Hungary's constitution and unwind changes that empowered Orbán. How do Donald Trump's opponents replicate that? Elrod writes: This time, the opposition [in Hungary] refused to let factionalism threaten their mission. Rather than let a crowded field enable Orbán to retain power, parties stood down their candidate to maximize the vote behind Magyar and his Tisza party. This matters because Magyar, while a pro-EU and a pro-democracy small-l liberal, is ... center-right.... As speculation about the 2028 election heats up, we’re already being subjected to debates about who various constituencies will and won’t support against a future Trumpist or MAGA candidate. The biggest kerfuffle so far kicked up around Hasan Piker’s declaration that he wouldn’t support Gavin Newsom in a hypothetical matchup against JD Vance. This is the wrong position. It’s politically and morally simple-minded and short-sighted. But it isn’t so hard to imagine that some more conservative-minded folks might raise a similar opposition to a nominee like, say, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. This would also be wrong. I'm optimistic about the 2026 midterms, but I'm doomy about 2028. This is the main reason. I don't think there'll be a united front in 2028. I'm sure there'll be defections. There might not be enough defections to elect Vance (or whoever the GOP nominee is), but the opposition won't be fully united the way it was in Hungary this year. In part, that's for an obvious reason: Trump won't be on the ballot in 2028. He's effectively on the ballot this year, which is the main reason Democrats are winning special elections and appear ready to win the midterms (at least in the House). But Democrats have never managed to persuade more than a small handful of the electorate that the Republican Party is the problem. Mainstream Democrats don't try because they fear alienating swing voters. Progressive Democrats don't try because they think mainstream Democrats are problematic as well, even if, like AOC, they align themselves with the Democratic Party and endorse some Democrats who are more mainstream. Magyar and Tisza were intensely focused on one clear goal: removing Orbán and Fidesz from power. The country was ready to dump Orbán and his party. In 2028, however, our Orbán won't be on the ballot, and our Fidesz, in all likelihood, won't be seen as the source of the country's problems. One reason America won't be able to generate the same level of frustration and disgust is that Trump will have been in power for only four years. Orbán had been in power for 16 years. Beyond that, it seems very hard to get Americans to change their minds about the GOP if they've been amenable to it in the recent past. Texas, for instance, hasn't elected a Democrat in a statewide election in this century. At a time when the overwhelming majority of voters believe the country is on the wrong track, you'd imagine -- if you didn't know any better -- that this would give Democrats in Texas the potential for a Tisza-style sweep. But while James Talarico might win the Senate race, it's unimaginable that Democrats can dominate the midterms in Texas. The same is true in states like Florida, Missouri, Iowa, and Ohio, all of which used to be swing states: Democrats might do better than usual this year, but there's no chance that they'll wipe out the GOP. I keep thinking about this piece by Politico's Alexander Burns: ... Orbán’s ouster represents a new triumph for a particular brand of disruptive politics: one defined by reformist candidates who launch new parties and blow up old ones, winning elections by rendering traditional political structures obsolete. Hungary’s Peter Magyar, the leader of the anti-Orbán Tisza party, is the latest victor in this mold.... It would be difficult but not impossible to do what Magyar did in America: The American party system is heavily armored against disruption. It would be all but impossible to replicate here what Magyar has done in Hungary — or what France’s Emmanuel Macron and Argentina’s Javier Milei did before him — and turn a fledgling political organization into a personal vehicle and bring it to national power in a flash. We do not have secondary political parties that can surge to prominence in a single campaign, like Giorgia Meloni’s Fratelli d’Italia or Rob Jetten’s D66 in the Netherlands. Yet as Trump himself has shown, it is possible to devour a major party from the inside — commandeering an old institution with grassroots support, casting aside its entrenched leaders, remaking it in a new image and earning a fresh look from voters who didn’t like the old version. Mark Carney has done something similar in Canada, with a very different political agenda. So has Lee Jae Myung in South Korea. I think a billionaire like Mark Cuban could mount a viable third-party campaign. Widespread dissatisfaction with both parties might carry him to victory. But it's also quite possible that Fox and other GOP propaganda outfits would succeed in keeping Republican voters loyal to the party, while Democrats and the Cuban party split the anti-Republican vote. Could someone who isn't an insider take control of the Democratic Party, the way Trump took control of the GOP? Burns writes: If Democrats want to take the hint, they’ll give a closer look to the leaders frustrating their peers in Washington and defying their home-state political bosses, and less time measuring the applause meter at various special-interest conventions and donor retreats. I'm sure he's referring to crypto-Republicans like John Fetterman and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, even though his words could just as easily apply to many progressives. But a Fetterman presidential campaign wouldn't tap into Americans' frustration. To do that, Fetterman would have to say that the whole system sucks. But Fetterman clearly believes that only Democrats suck. He's fine with Republicans. In 2028, the Democrats will run a mainstream pol. The Republicans will run either Vance or Marco Rubio. And maybe the Democrat will win because the Republican won't distance himself from the current president, the way John McCain refused to distance himself from George W. Bush's widely reviled Iraq War in 2008. But a race like that won't lead to a Tisza-sized blowout. And we could just as easily have a repeat of 1988, when George H.W. Bush overcame Reagan fatigue and his own Vance-ish lack of charisma by viciously portraying his Democratic opponent as a dangerous freak, with the media's eager assistance.
DID THE NEW YORK TIMES ED BOARD JUST SAY DEMOCRATS SHOULD RUN ON BERNIENOMICS?
The editorial board of The New York Times responds to the victory of Peter Magyar's Tisza Party in Hungary by telling us that Democrats should take notes: Hungary is obviously a very different country from the United States. But Mr. Orban’s rise and his use of power were long models for Mr. Trump. Now, Mr. Orban’s demise can be a model for the Democratic Party and any other party that is trying to defeat an authoritarian right-wing threat. How exactly? First, [Magyar] focused on the bread-and-butter issues that often guide the decisions of swing voters, and not just in Hungary. And what did he propose? The campaign platform of the party Mr. Magyar leads, Tisza, was titled “Foundations of a Functional and Humane Hungary.” It criticized the inefficiency of government services. Its agenda included tax cuts for working-class families, expanded health care, increased pensions, larger child benefits and a pay increase for support staff members at schools. It said it would help pay for these programs through both a wealth tax on the very rich and the recovery of European Union transfer payments reduced because of Mr. Orban’s anti-democratic policies. Yes, you read that correctly: An overseas politician endorsed a wealth tax on billionaires and the ed board of The New York Times said "Bravo!" What else? Crucially, Mr. Magyar made corruption a core campaign issue.... On the campaign trail, he linked Mr. Orban’s corruption to Hungarians’ frustration with their stagnant living standards. In his victory speech on Sunday night, Mr. Magyar promised a country where citizens could rely on their government to help provide good medical care, a decent family life and a dignified retirement. What should matter, he said, was not political connections but the kind of person somebody was. So you're saying that Magyar denounced oligarchy? You mean, like these guys? Obviously, this can't be mainstream political commentary without a swipe at the left. It's a familiar one: The second lesson may be harder for Democrats — and center-left parties in Europe — to absorb. Mr. Magyar, who identifies as center right, won partly by avoiding the social progressivism that dominates elite left-leaning circles and alienates many voters. He ran as an economic progressive and a cultural moderate if not conservative. And what are some of the things he said and did that the dogmatic lefties in America's Democratic Party won't do? He used patriotic symbols like the flag.... Have you seen the invocations of the flag, the Statue of Liberty, and the Constitution at No Kings rallies? He campaigned in rural areas that Mr. Orban’s previous challengers had overlooked. Many Democratic politicians don't do this, but do any Democrats object to it? Hell, even Chuck Schumer visits every county in New York State annually, even the red ones. He declined to attend a Pride march in Budapest, making it harder for Mr. Orban to paint him as captive to L.G.B.T.Q. activists. Okay, now we're talking: The Times ed board wants us to understand that Magyar's party won in part by throwing LGBTQ people under the bus. But some 2028 Democratic aspirants are already throwing trans people under the bus, and it's not helping them break from the pack. Note that J.D. Vance beat Gavin Newsom in a recent UMass-Lowell/YouGov poll. On immigration, which has shaped recent elections around the world, Mr. Magyar called for even tighter restrictions than the Orban had government imposed. He said he would keep a border fence, repeal a guest-worker program and allow no guest workers from outside the European Union. This is a tougher one. Polls show that Americans don't like the heavy-handed and brutal way Trump is handling immigration, but they're in favor of at least some deportations. I think Democrats could start reframing the issue by saying that Americans want immigrant criminals prioritized for deportation, and the Trump administration has prioritized the most law-abiding immigrants, because it's easier and less dangerous to round them up. Democrats can also talk about an immigration system that prioritizes the rule of law rather than warfare in the streets. The implication of this editorial is that Democrats lost in 2024 because they didn't campaign this way. But to a large extent they did. Kamala Harris didn't campaign on social issues. Democrats had supported an immigration reform bill that accepted many of the GOP's ideas. And it didn't help. But in the area of economics, Democrats campaigned on incremental change. Would a platform of serious economic populism have changed the outcome? The Times ed board seems to be implying as much. Okay, fine -- let's try that.