Carville: Ilhan Omar Should Leave Democratic Party, Do Her Own Thing
Democratic political strategist James Carville reiterated previous criticism of Ilhan Omar during a recent podcast appearance, again suggesting the progressive lawmaker should consider leaving the Democratic Party.
Carville made the remarks during an interview on Straight Shooter, hosted by Stephen A. Smith. Smith asked Carville about comments he made in May 2025 on his podcast, Politics War Room, in which he sharply criticized Omar, a member of the progressive group of lawmakers often referred to as “the Squad.”
Carville, who made a name for himself as an adviser to then-President Bill Clinton, indicated his views had not changed since the earlier remarks and again questioned Omar’s role within the Democratic Party.
Trump Gets Historic Support From Voting Base: Report
Read More
His comments reflect ongoing divisions among Democrats over the party’s ideological direction and the influence of progressive lawmakers in Congress.
“Lady, why don’t you just get out of the Democratic Party,” Carville said about Omar. “Honestly, start your own movement.”
His initial calls for Omar to leave the party were in response to a 2018 interview she gave to Middle East outlet Al Jazeera. Omar, who is married to a white man, falsely said “our country should be more fearful of white men because they’re causing most of the deaths within this country.”
According to 2023 FBI and Justice Department crime statistics, while whites commit the most murders in terms of raw numbers, black males are six times more likely to victimize other blacks.
Carville stated that Omar was a “very, attractive, soft-spoken lady,” he didn’t agree on her attacks on white men, explicitly calling her to “stop.”
“About 33% of the people that are gonna vote are gonna be white males,” Carville said. “Well, it’s stupid to attack 33% of the voters!”
“And so what I would say to Congresswoman Omar, ‘Why don’t you be a Democratic Socialist of America?’ Do what AOC did, and then if they win, the truth of that is, I share a lot of ideological issues in common with Congressman Omar, but maybe you should do like a parliamentary government. We’ll let you in the governing coalition, but not the electoral coalition,” Carville said.
“But we cannot- we have to get this mentality out that we can win national elections [without] White people, because you can’t,” Carville continued. “That we can somehow or another win an election without white males. It’s just insanity. It’s literally mathematical insanity, cultural insanity.”
“All white people are not the same. All black people are not the same. All Hispanic people are not the same, all right? ” Carville added. “And I don’t like generalizing about someone’s gender or their race or their sexual preference or anything else. All gay people are not the same. They’re very different personalities. They’re very different values, very different everything.”
Omar faced backlash after falsely claiming the United States deliberately targets Muslim nations during Ramadan. “Iraq was attacked by the US during Ramadan and it is sickening to know that the US is again going to attack Iran during Ramadan,” Omar wrote on X as tensions escalated ahead of a U.S. strike on Iran.
“The US apparently loves to strike Muslim countries during Ramadan and I am convinced it isn’t what these countries have done to violate international law but about who they worship,” she added.
But critics noted what she said was categorically incorrect. Also, they argued that such rhetoric, delivered during an active military standoff, risks giving adversaries propaganda they can weaponize.
Under the Constitution, treason is narrowly defined as levying war against the United States or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Legal scholars have long noted that the “aid and comfort” standard requires intent and tangible support, not merely controversial speech.
Va. Judge Rules Dem-Led Redistricting Plan Violates State Law
A Virginia judge on Tuesday ruled that a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow state Democrats to redraw the commonwealth’s congressional maps was illegal, a decision that dealt a setback to efforts to reshape district boundaries ahead of the 2026 U.S. House elections.
Tazewell County Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley Jr. found that lawmakers failed to follow several procedural and constitutional requirements when advancing the amendment, including not meeting the required notice and publication deadlines and attempting to take up the measure during a legislative session not properly authorized for constitutional changes. As a result, he declared the amendment void.
The amendment, passed by both chambers of the Democrat-controlled Virginia General Assembly in January, would have put a mid-decade redistricting plan before voters that could have significantly increased Democratic representation in Congress. Opponents argued the process violated state law and constitutionally required procedures for amending the charter.
Supporters of the amendment said Republicans were seeking a favorable ruling by filing the lawsuit in a more conservative jurisdiction and vowed to continue fighting the decision. Both sides have indicated plans to appeal the judge’s ruling.
Virginians for Fair Elections, a campaign supporting the redistricting resolution, stated that an appeal is anticipated, the Washington Times reported.
“Republicans court-shopped for a ruling because litigation and misinformation are the only tools they have left,” campaign manager Keren Charles Dongo said. “We’re prepared for what comes next, and Virginians deserve both the right to vote and the chance to level the playing field.”
The ruling comes amid a broader, nationwide struggle over redistricting and mid-decade map changes in multiple states, with both parties using litigation and legislative strategies to influence the balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives.
In a separate development, the Virginia Supreme Court has temporarily allowed a statewide referendum on an updated redistricting proposal to proceed in April while the legal battle over the measure continues, underscoring the ongoing uncertainty over how and when new maps will be adopted.
The court’s order reverses a lower-court decision that had previously blocked the plan on procedural grounds. By allowing the referendum to go forward, the high court has set the stage for voters to decide on whether to amend the state constitution to permit lawmakers to redraw the state’s congressional map.
Under the proposed plan, Democratic leaders say the new map could significantly increase their party’s share of Virginia’s 11 U.S. House seats, potentially flipping up to four Republican-held districts. Republicans have criticized the initiative as a partisan effort to undercut GOP representation and distort electoral outcomes.
The referendum is scheduled for April 21, and while the decision allows the vote to proceed, the broader legal challenge to the redistricting measure remains active. Opponents could continue to pursue appeals after the referendum.
The ruling underscores the intensifying national battle over congressional maps ahead of the midterm elections, where control of the U.S. House of Representatives is in close contention.
President Donald Trump in December celebrated the Indiana House’s redistricting vote and increased public pressure on several state senators to approve a new congressional map that could give Republicans two additional seats in the 2026 midterm elections.
Trump called the updated map “much fairer” and “improved,” congratulating Republican leaders in the Indiana General Assembly for passing the proposal earlier in the day, The Hill reported.
“It was my Honor to win Indiana six times, including Primaries, in 2016, 2020, and 2024, and this new Map would give the incredible people of Indiana the opportunity to elect TWO additional Republicans in the 2026 Midterm Elections,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
“The Indiana Senate must now pass this Map, AS IS, and get it to Governor Mike Braun’s desk, ASAP, to deliver a gigantic Victory for Republicans in the ‘Hoosier State,’ and across the Country,” he said.
However, a handful of Indiana Senate Republicans refused to support the measure and it failed to garner enough votes to pass in January.
Spencer Pratt EXPOSED LA’s Biggest Problem LIVE ON AIR… and The View Completely LOST IT! What was supposed to be another harmless celebrity interview on The View suddenly turned into one of the most uncomfortable political moments television has seen in months. Spencer Pratt walked onto the stage as a former reality TV star, but by the time the segment ended, viewers across the country were asking why he sounded more connected to everyday life in Los Angeles than the people challenging him. The conversation quickly shifted away from celebrity gossip and exploded into arguments about homelessness, drugs, crime, media narratives, and the visible collapse many residents say they experience daily in California cities. Then came the AI ad controversy, the viral comments about human waste in LA, and the moment even the hosts appeared caught off guard by how strongly audiences were reacting online. Now people are wondering whether this interview accidentally exposed something much bigger than one mayoral race. Read the full story below in the comments. - Trends.newsonline.biz
Spencer Pratt walked onto The View looking like exactly the kind of guest the hosts assumed they could easily handle.
A former reality television personality from The Hills running for mayor of Los Angeles sounded, on paper, like the perfect lighthearted daytime television segment.
A few jokes, some playful skepticism, maybe a quick conversation about celebrity culture, and then everybody moves on.
That was clearly the expectation. Instead, the interview spiraled into something completely different. Because within minutes, the atmosphere shifted from entertainment to genuine political discomfort.
The hosts initially approached Pratt with the familiar mixture of amusement and disbelief often reserved for celebrities entering politics.
Questions about his financial struggles, reality television fame, and lack of political experience came quickly.
But Pratt never tried to present himself as a polished politician. That changed the dynamic immediately.
Instead of sounding scripted, he sounded frustrated. Not celebrity frustrated. Citizen frustrated. And that emotional difference mattered far more than many people expected.
Pratt explained that he never intended to become politically active. For years, he largely avoided public political battles entirely.
According to him, the turning point came after wildfires devastated parts of Los Angeles, including the loss of his own home.
That transformed the conversation emotionally. Because suddenly this was no longer a reality TV personality playing politics for attention.
This became someone speaking from personal anger after watching what he believed was catastrophic government failure.
And viewers connected with that instantly. Pratt repeatedly framed his campaign around what he described as “common sense” issues facing ordinary Los Angeles residents.
Crime, homelessness, drug addiction, public disorder, deteriorating infrastructure, and basic safety concerns became the focus of nearly everything he discussed.
Then the conversation intensified. Pratt began describing conditions throughout parts of Los Angeles in blunt detail.
Human waste on sidewalks. Fentanyl needles near parks. Drug addicts roaming around schools. Public disorder becoming normalized in neighborhoods where families once felt safe.
The room noticeably tightened. Because regardless of political ideology, millions of Americans have already seen similar footage circulating online for years.
Videos of open drug use, theft, homeless encampments, and collapsing public order have dominated social media discussions surrounding California cities.
Pratt simply described those realities directly on national television. And emotionally, that landed much harder than many expected.
The hosts attempted pushing back by questioning his qualifications and political experience. But Pratt immediately flipped the criticism back toward establishment leadership.
When questioned about lacking a law degree or city management experience, Pratt sarcastically joked about earning legal credentials online before pointing out that Karen Bass herself had never previously managed a city before becoming mayor.
The exchange resonated online because Pratt did not sound like a polished political strategist trying to win an argument.
He sounded authentic. Messy at times, certainly. But authentic. And in modern politics, authenticity often matters more emotionally than perfect credentials.
That became increasingly obvious as the interview continued. The biggest turning point may have come when Pratt discussed how ordinary residents are reacting to conditions in Los Angeles.
He described even lifelong Democrats becoming frustrated after personally experiencing the city’s visible decline. One story in particular exploded online afterward.
Pratt described his sister accidentally driving through human waste in Los Angeles and being unable to remove the smell from her car despite repeated cleanings.
The story sounded absurd enough to become instantly memorable. But that was exactly why it spread so rapidly.
Pratt communicated through vivid personal imagery rather than policy jargon. People could immediately picture the situation because many viewers had already experienced similar moments themselves or seen comparable footage online.
That emotional relatability made his comments far more powerful than traditional political talking points. Meanwhile, the hosts appeared increasingly uncomfortable as the audience reaction online grew stronger.
At several moments, the panel attempted balancing criticism of Pratt while simultaneously acknowledging public frustration with conditions in Los Angeles.
That contradiction became noticeable. One moment Pratt was dismissed as a reality TV celebrity lacking qualifications.
The next moment, hosts admitted many residents genuinely feel unsafe or frustrated with visible deterioration across parts of California cities.
Viewers immediately noticed the inconsistency. And that inconsistency fueled much of the viral reaction afterward.
The interview escalated even further once discussion turned toward artificial intelligence campaign advertisements Pratt had shared online.
The ads used AI-generated comic-book imagery featuring political figures and exaggerated dystopian themes criticizing California leadership.
Critics labeled the ads dangerous, misleading, and inflammatory. But many viewers reacted very differently. Online audiences began mocking what they perceived as establishment media becoming more emotionally disturbed by AI-generated memes than by actual urban decline visible across major cities.
That comparison quickly spiraled into broader criticism of media credibility itself. People began reposting old clips from 2020 showing reporters standing in front of burning buildings during riots while describing events as “mostly peaceful.”
Those comparisons intensified accusations of media double standards. To many viewers, establishment media figures appeared willing to minimize real-world disorder while simultaneously treating exaggerated political memes as major threats.
Whether fair or unfair, that perception deeply shaped online reaction to the interview. And perception matters enormously in modern politics.
Because once audiences begin believing media institutions selectively frame outrage depending on ideological convenience, trust erodes rapidly.
That erosion of trust became one of the central emotional themes surrounding Pratt’s appearance. At multiple points, even the hosts themselves seemed unsure how aggressively to challenge him without appearing disconnected from realities many viewers already believe exiSt.
That tension became visible. And the more visible it became, the stronger Pratt’s anti-establishment image grew online.
Ironically, attempts to portray him as unserious often strengthened his appeal instead. Especially among frustrated voters exhausted by carefully scripted political language and media narratives they no longer trust completely.
Pratt also benefited from sounding unusually direct compared to traditional politicians. He criticized leaders for prioritizing press conferences, rhetoric, and ideological branding while ordinary residents increasingly worry about basic quality-of-life issues.
His argument was simple. People want safe parks. Functioning streets. Clean neighborhoods. Responsive emergency services.
And many feel local governments have failed to provide those basics despite enormous tax burdens.
That message cuts across ideological lines more effectively than many traditional partisan arguments. Which explains why the interview spread far beyond normal celebrity gossip audiences.
This stopped being about Spencer Pratt specifically. Instead, he increasingly became a symbol for something much larger: frustration with political institutions, distrust toward media narratives, anger over visible urban decline, and exhaustion with ideological battles replacing practical governance.
That emotional undercurrent explains why the segment resonated so strongly online. Millions of viewers did not suddenly become passionate Spencer Pratt supporters overnight.
But many recognized something emotionally familiar in what he described. And perhaps most importantly, many viewers believed he was speaking honestly rather than strategically.
That distinction matters tremendously in modern political culture. Especially during a time when large portions of the public increasingly view politicians, media personalities, and institutions as scripted, artificial, or disconnected from ordinary life.
By the end of the interview, the original premise had completely collapsed. What was supposed to be a harmless celebrity segment accidentally became one of the most viral political media moments of the year.
Not because Spencer Pratt dominated through traditional political skill. But because millions of Americans quietly saw pieces of their own frustrations reflected in what he said.
And judging by the reaction afterward, establishment media figures may have underestimated just how powerful that frustration has become.
