Left Turns.

I’m going to use the term “left” very loosely to describe anyone who isn’t a ‘right red Republican.’ Independents who vote blue sometimes or all the time, establishment liberals who vote blue no matter who, progressives, true leftists, etc. It will just make things easier.

Two recent events highlight both tactical and ideological divides on the left. The first is the Taylor Lorenz piece in Wired that erupted mostly in online spaces. The other is the battle over Texas and California redistricting. Generally there are two camps. One that believes it’s time to fight fire with fire and another that sees the Democratic Party sacrificing what’s left of its principles in an effort to hold power.

Regardless of which camp you’re in, we need to talk this out.

Dark Money and Strings Attached

Okay, let’s start with the Wired article.

A high profile journalist with a history of divisive exposés named Taylor Lorenz just published an article about dark money funding for left-leaning influencers. To some it was a hit piece. To others, a revelation. And to still others it confirmed their suspicions about certain creators.

I encourage you to read the article and draw your own conclusions, but the larger theme I want to unpack is the widening divide on the left. In some ways, this is obviously nothing new; division among leftists is so deeply rooted as to be a natural characteristic.

The article is about an organization named Chorus attempting to unite online influencers around specific ideals and principles to fight the coordinated efforts of the right. One of its founders is Bryan Tyler Cohen, who is probably one of the largest left influencers though very much a Democratic Party booster.

Chorus is up front about what it’s trying to accomplish. It’s essentially trying to unite the left, because it’s notoriously difficult to get people on the left to collaborate (let alone agree). There are camps and tribal instincts with liberals accusing leftists of purity tests, leftists accusing liberals of selling out, and everything in between.

So the idea behind Chorus is to say, ‘we agree more than we disagree and we’re stronger together.’ It does so by encouraging resource sharing, cross promotion and mentoring among creators. All good. But the article also reveals that the primary funding source for Chorus is a dark money PAC that has coordinated closely with the DNC.

Few would argue the idea that money flowing to creators on the left is a bad thing because the right is so heavily funded and the comparison between the two isn’t even close. So the idea is that if the left is going to win it has to fight fire with fire. (A theme we’ll revisit in part two.)

This isn’t the first time recently that the argument boiled over on the online left. The Young Turks network (TYT) has come under fire with the clear pivot of its main hosts into what they refer to as “economic populism” in an attempt to appeal to disaffected right-wingers. But in doing so, they’re catching strays for playing footsie with figures like Tucker Carlson and Charlie Kirk while simultaneously excising leftists from their platform for disagreeing with them.

Another criticism is that TYT takes in money from corporate sponsors such as Polymarket, which drew heavy criticism from the left because Peter Thiel is an investor. And it felt funny when TYT hosts Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian were making appearances on right wing platforms that are also funded by people like Thiel, among other nefarious actors.

But it’s not the appearances that chaffed people on the left, it was the attempt to find common ground rather than standing their ground across the board, and taking the opportunity to call them out for their roles in shaping the alt-right narrative in this country. It didn’t help that they were silencing voices on their own networks like Francesca Fiorentini, when she contradicted a few of TYT’s new stances.

It’s all a bit of a mess, but Lorenz has done us all a favor by bringing the issue to light. It’s just the nature of this online ecosystem that we’re going to have this out in a very public way. Since I first recorded a video addressing this, the fight between creators has exploded.

David Pakman, one of the most high profile members of Chorus, put out a video saying he contacted defamation attorneys, though it’s unclear what the basis of a lawsuit would be. Many of the smaller creators have taken to their own platforms and streams to take Lorenz to task saying her primary claims are false. The Vanguard boys have been all over this, the Majority Report, Hasan Piker and Brian Tyler Cohen himself. Everyone is weighing in on this fight but I haven’t yet seen anyone—on either side to be fair— reveal the details of the contract that are in dispute.

So here’s where the contention lies.

Chorus creators were purportedly given anywhere from hundreds of dollars to $8,000 per month to be part of the program. Something akin to a fellowship or stipend. Smaller creators would receive mentorship from larger creators as well. All well and good. I can tell you as an independent creator that this is not a fruitful endeavor. Hundreds of dollars per month and promotion from bigger creators could be very meaningful. $8,000 a month is life changing money, though it’s unclear how compensation is determined.

Even still, the opportunity to collaborate with high profile figures like David Pakman and Brian Tyler Cohen is a dream for small creators, because cross promotion factors heavily into the algorithm’s decision to serve a creator on YouTube.

Now here’s where it gets funky.

According to Lorenz, the contract purportedly came with the stipulation that creators are not to speak of the financial arrangement, or that the primary funding for Chorus comes from a dark money PAC called the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which funneled more than $400 million into the effort to defeat Donald Trump this past election. That’s problem one.

Problem two is that there are apparently prohibitions on certain topics and guidelines for others. Now we’re in right-wing territory. So it makes sense why creators and shows like Hasan Piker and Majority Report weren’t approached while others like Pakman and Cohen, who very much tow the line when it comes to Democratic Party talking points, are front and center.

Trying to align online leftists is fine. Obscuring the funding sources behind the attempt is not.

Trying to appeal to disaffected Republicans is fine. Doing it by cozying up to hatemongers, racists and misogynists while casting aside dissenting figures you traditionally align with is not.

As we’ll talk about in the next section, standing up bureaucratic tyranny like gerrymandering is fine. Doing it by further eroding the democratic rights of anyone is not.

To me, these seem pretty fundamental. The fact that they’re working to convince liberals that this is the path forward shines a light on the fact that the Democratic Party is resigned to countermaneuvers and responses rather than actually standing for something. Anything.

Some creators have said these claims are demonstrably false. Lorenz and other creators have stood by their sourcing and that the contracts were verified and vetted by Wired editors, but not published to protect the creators that supplied them.

Bryan Tyler Cohen and David Pakman, as the biggest names—with Cohen as a Chorus founder - have pointed out that the Sixteen Thirty Fund also funds a program that counts Lorenz as a fellow and that she is the one who takes $8,000 per month. Lorenz countered with the fact that she has fully disclosed the sum and her participation in the fellowship program and that it has nothing to do with her sourcing and reporting. My journalistic instincts tell me that there’s no way Wired runs with this story if the claims cannot be verified. My eyes and ears tell me that the bigger names involved in Chorus are silent on issues like the genocide in Palestine.

At some point, contracts will leak and the full story will be very visible to everyone.

The downside of this whole affair is that it’s further fracturing the proverbial left. The upside is that we need to have this discussion to get our shit together.

I extend grace to the small creators who saw the money and that it came from Democratic boosters and said, hell yeah. Whether it’s $500 a month or $8,000, getting creators paid is a good thing. I’m not saying every creator is great and deserves a ton of money, and the content itself is beyond reproach. I’m just saying that I get it.

My criticism is reserved for anyone in the Chorus network that doesn’t need the money. Those who are padding the stats. If you want to provide mentorship to small creators because you believe we’re stronger together, then do it. That’s called volunteering.

To be completely honest, I don’t care as much about the ties to a dark money PAC. At some point, money does come out in the wash. The biggest issue that we need to know is whether or not there were explicit or even implicit restrictions on content and topics.

Look, we all know the right cheats. But the bottom line is that I truly believe coordinating around ideas rather than parties leads to a better outcome. Imagine if all the left commentators with juice had rolled up on the Biden administration to decry the war on Gaza and insist that we defund the military campaign in Israel. Agreeing to remain silent on the genocide—whether by signing a piece of paper and being remunerated or tacitly so to participate in access journalism—equals complicity.

Either way, I get it. The funding just ain’t there on the left. And the right is willing to break the rules and write new ones. But history has shown time and again that ideas are more powerful than fear, and collective action moves policy. I promise the young creators out there that if you’re good at what you do, are tireless in your efforts, and speak truth to power, there’s a living to be made on the right side of history. But if you sacrifice your integrity in the process, it’s a hard thing to restore.

Fighting Fire with Fire

Now let’s get to a related story when it comes to left versus right tactics. The redistricting war between Texas and California. But first, let me bore you with a bit of history.

It’s 1964. Lyndon Baines Johnson obliterates Barry Goldwater in one of the most decisive presidential victories in American history. 486 electoral votes to 52. LBJ didn’t just win, he beat Goldwater like a fucking drum. And what did Americans vote for? Progress. The Civil Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act. The Great Society programs. Medicare. The war on poverty. The greatest economic expansion in human history.

Sixty years later, here we are. The Republican Party—the same party that got absolutely demolished for opposing civil rights and social progress—has somehow reversed the trend. They’ve clawed their way back from that electoral apocalypse and now Democrats are playing defense on their own turf.

And the latest battleground? Redistricting. Two iconic states, Texas and California—the avatars of Red and Blue—with two of the most divisive governors in America, battling it out in the headlines and backrooms over congressional maps. Greg Abbott versus Gavin Newsom.

Let’s go back to that electoral victory from 1964 and what it represented. LBJ’s platform was crystal fucking clear: federal activism. The Great Society. Expand Social Security. Create Medicare. Fund education. Fight poverty. Build infrastructure. Support civil rights with the full force of the federal government.

Barry Goldwater? He stood for the opposite. Limited government. Slash federal spending. Oppose social programs. States’ rights over civil rights. He actually opposed the Civil Rights Act on constitutional grounds, even though he personally wasn’t a segregationist. But here’s the thing: Goldwater wasn’t some fringe lunatic. He was a moderate, well-respected conservative. But he represented yesterday while LBJ represented tomorrow.

And Americans chose tomorrow. Overwhelmingly.

But that landslide victory kicked off something we’re still dealing with today—the coordinated conservative backlash. Religious fundamentalists, reactionary political factions, wealthy libertarians, and straight-up bigots who saw civil rights and the feminist movement as the end of America as they knew it. And you know what? They were right about that part. It was the end of their America.

This is the terrain we’ve covered since starting UNFTR. How they spent more than half a century chipping away at progressive institutions, shifting the Overton window so far right that today’s Democratic Party would be considered moderate Republicans in 1964. We won’t rehash all of that now, but keep that image of LBJ’s electoral victory margins in your head. Keep thinking about what Democrats actually stood for back then.

Fast forward to today. Democrats are finally debating actual measures to beat back Republican gains in electoral politics and Trump’s death grip on the GOP. The party apparently removed its collective head from its own ass when Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced plans to redraw congressional districts this year.

This is huge. Redistricting typically happens after the census, once a decade. But Abbott’s doing a mid-decade gerrymander—a bold maneuver designed to secure more House seats before the 2026 midterms. It’s part of a larger GOP strategy to buck the historical trend where the incumbent president’s party gets hammered in the midterms.

Enter Gavin Newsom, the new self-appointed poster boy of the Democratic Part, announcing California’s plan to do the exact same thing: redraw their congressional maps to neutralize any Republican House seat pickups from Texas.

And before I dive into my thoughts, let’s be clear about the differences here, because they matter.

Texas is running their redistricting like a backroom deal in a smoke-filled room (which, let’s be honest, is exactly what it is). The Republican-controlled legislature called a special session, held some token public hearings that critics say were basically theater with limited transparency, and restricted public access to draft maps. They passed new congressional maps along party lines, Abbott signed them into law, and boom, done deal.

Civil rights groups are already challenging the maps in court for racial bias and gerrymandering, but that’s Democrats’ only recourse. They had zero meaningful participation in the process.

California’s approach is different, though not exactly pristine. Since 2010, California has used an independent citizens commission for redistricting—extensive public hearings, transparency, nonpartisan safeguards. The works. But in August 2025, in direct response to Texas’s maneuver, the Democratic-dominated legislature and governor authorized a temporary override.

Here’s the key difference: California’s new maps have to be approved by voters in a statewide referendum this November. They’re circumventing their own redistricting safeguards, sure, but at least they’re putting it to a vote. It’s temporary, lasting only until the next census.

So we have Texas doing backroom deals versus California doing backroom deals but at least asking voters to approve them. Not exactly inspiring, but there is a difference.

Here’s my problem.

This is the sum total of the Democratic Party’s idea to fight fire with fire, and it has a lot of support because most of us are sick of watching Dems play dead while the GOP runs roughshod over the left.

But is this the way forward?

According to recent New York Times research, Democrats have a much bigger problem on their hands. Maybe the biggest difference between 1964 and today: the erosion of registered Democrats.

Get this: In the 30 states that track voter registration by political party, Democrats lost ground to Republicans in every single one between 2020 and 2024. Every. Single. One. That’s a 4.5 million voter swing toward Republicans.

For the first time since 2018, more new voters nationwide chose to register as Republicans than Democrats last year. Democrats lost about 2.1 million registered voters in those 30 states, while Republicans gained 2.4 million.

This isn’t polling data that can shift with the news cycle. This is people actively choosing to disaffiliate from the Democratic Party or choosing Republicans when they register for the first time. These are the new facts on the ground, and redistricting sure as shit isn’t going to reverse this trend.

LBJ—love him or hate him—stood for progress. Even during the greatest economic expansion in human history, he understood that some Americans were still being left behind, and government had a role to play in fixing that.

Today, Democrats are hemorrhaging registered voters, but they still outnumber Republicans by millions nationally. These new young voters registering with parties don’t have the same loyalty older generations did. They’re not dyed-in-the-wool anything. Independent voters, more than ever before, are up for grabs every single election.

You want to make redistricting a non-issue? Here’s a novel fucking approach: Have a platform. Stand for something.

Republicans control 23 states with the governor’s seat and both legislative chambers. Democrats only control 15. Is some of this gerrymandering? Sure. But mostly it’s because Democrats don’t have a coherent message and we’ve lost the middle of this country; we helped ship their jobs overseas and failed to fill the gaps, leaving us vulnerable to the inevitable shift in our politics from the coordinated efforts of the GOP to blame immigrants, wokeness, DEI—anything but their repressive and regressive agenda that the Democrats have tried to adopt themselves for some reason.

Consider this. In the proverbial “person on the street” interview, if people were asked to describe what the Republican Party stands for, this is likely what you’d hear:

“Republicans stand for free markets, liberty, closed borders, strong military, jobs.”

It’s mostly bullshit, but they repeat it so often that everyone knows it. Ask anyone what Democrats actually stand for—if you can get past stupid responses like “wokeness”—and they’ll probably tell you “Democrats stand for NOT Trump.”

That’s not an ideology, let alone a platform.

I’m happy to support California’s redistricting effort because it’s going to voters and it’s temporary. But the current Democratic leadership doesn’t exactly inspire confidence. Every single one of the establishment Democrats has got to go. From AIPAC Shakur Hakeem Jeffries to Nancy “How’s My Portfolio” Pelosi.

Look at the attention Graham Platner is getting in Maine. I think every single resident of Maine showed up to hear him speak at Bernie’s oligarchy rally. Or Zohran Mamdani in New York City. He’s not just an awesome candidate - he has actual ideas. These people are tapping into the economic precarity that nearly every American is experiencing and saying, “I got you.” And then they tell you how.

It’s so outrageously simple.

So yeah, California, redistrict to your heart’s content. You’re the big electoral dog and we couldn’t do it without you. Just know that less democracy isn’t what we need, nor is it what will turn the electoral map of the country from red to blue. Because those 23 states they control can just do the same thing and then we’re really fucked. Be careful what you wish for.

Here endeth the lesson.