Was she really ever? After the 2018 results it became pretty clear that it was would basically take something close to a miracle for Dems to actually win a senate or governor race there.
Are you serious? Nelson lost the senate race by 0.2%. Gillum lost the Gov race by 0.4%. Expert testimony in a case over the order by which candidates are listed on the ballot (R's first everywhere) was that this gave the R's an advantage of something like .25% meaning that random listing probably would have given Nelson the win.
Further, 64.5% of Florida voters voted "yes" on Amendment 4, to restore voting rights for most convicted felons upon completion of their sentences, including prison terms, parole and probation.
True that 2018 was a great year for Dems generally, but the 2018 results did not show doom for Dems.
Thank you! The only races we’re guaranteed to lose are those we fail to contest. The only states we’re sure to lose are those we’ve written off. It’s imperative that the Democratic Party purse not just a 50-State Strategy but a 3143-County Strategy!
That's a bit hyperbolic. There is no point in contesting super-red counties in the West Texas desert with less than 1,000 registered voters, and the party shouldn't concentrate on state-wide Federal races in places like Wyoming.
I mean, we shouldn't be dropping big national money on every totally unwinnable seat, but we should absolutely be empowering locals to at least try for something. The conservatives got to where they are, partly, by focusing on the small and growing from there.
Gillum and Nelson lost in an election that was by far the best midterm environment for Dems since 2006. I can write off Gillum due to the FBI investigation but Nelson was a long time incumbent.
"Photos shared on Twitter of the ballot used in Broward show the races for Senate and the county’s congressional districts in the lower left corner of the paper ballot, below lengthy instructions on how to vote. The candidates for governor were listed more prominently to the right of the instructions.
In neighboring Miami-Dade, where a sample ballot posted online suggests the Senate race appeared at the top, there were more votes cast for Senate than there were for governor. Across all 67 counties in the state, Broward’s is the largest difference in votes cast between the two races, by more than 23,000 votes."
It just showed Florida was about 8-9pt to the right of the country by that time. Since many people thought Biden could win the countrywide popular vote by that much, 2020 was deemed as a toss up. It wasn’t.
These days, it is over 10-11pt to the right of country.
Hard disagree. An incumbent Senator with no scandals in a swing state in a blue wave year should have won the race (especially against someone like Rick Scott, who is disliked and has scandals). The fact that Nelson did not win that race to me was a major sign that the state should not be classified as an "either party can win" type of state like PA, WI, MI, NV, etc. Assume the Republican will win and assume you will need an extraordinary circumstance to change that.
Scott was also the sitting governor, having been elected twice. His scandals have never seemed to hurt him in FL. Also a billionaire who has a knack for spending as much of his own money as needed to win. He has been proven tough to beat.
And while Nelson was the incumbent, he was also old and looked and acted it. In 2018, he was 76 and had been in for Congress 46 years. Think of him as Biden in 2020.
Not to say the wave should not have helped any Dem that year. But what the original post argued, that after losing in 2018 we would need something close to a miracle to win in FL, was just not true.
I think the topic is shifting. I agree with what you wrote above that after 2018, FL was not a toss-up state but Tilt-R or Lean R. But the original comment I responded to said that the 2018 results made it very clear that FL was almost impossible to win. That's what I disagreed with.
Thanks for that. The author did a great job both defending his profession, and dissing the buffoon-in-chief.
I dropped my Bezos media subscription awhile ago, when things got tight it was an easy decision, since he was micromanaging his editors. Wapo must really want folks back, since they offered 75% off their annual subscription. Tempting.
I cancelled my WaPo subscription a few months ago, utterly disgusted with what Jeff Bezos has done to a once-proud and brave newspaper. WaPo gave me a better offer, which I ignored; another, which I again ignored – before finally accepting their offer of a 99 cents per month subscription.
For that price I can read the good columnists still raising their voices, read the worthwhile journalism still finding its way into the online edition – and write Comments criticizing Bezos and his favorite authoritarian, as well as to raise my voice to support the resistance.
I cancelled my Baltimore Sun subscription this week. A once excellent local paper with some good national coverage has especially over the last year and a half declined markedly, with the opinion page a shitshow (no surprise under the ownership of Sinclair Broadcasting) and the news coverage mediocre at best. There are a number of superior sources for Baltimore and Maryland-based news, including the Baltimore Banner and even the relevant parts of the Washington Post (which I've come close to abandoning at times as well, but so far have stayed since it's more local to me.)
I tried to cancel online but couldn't. I had to talk to a customer service rep on the phone, but they at least sounded sympathetic to my explanation of what I think was wrong with it and didn't push me to reconsider even after I refused their offer of a discounted extension.
I still subscribe to my local *print* paper. It isn't much, but I feel the need to support it for as long as it's around (probably not much longer to be brutally honest).
Online, I subscribe to the Downballot and one opinion writer I discovered on pre-Musk Twitter. I'd love to subscribe to everything, but I just don't have the funds or the time.
I got a yearly one a while back but I don't think you're missing much. Highlights yesterday were Marc Thiessen arguing Trump will pull through for Ukraine and some National Review fool complaining about the strike in Philly.
A lot of folks thought Biden would win Florida in 2020 (polls showed him slightly ahead)and that 2018 was an aberration. Recall in 2016 Hilary's numbers with Hispanics were the best ever for a Dem in the modern era. It wasn't until after 2020 it became standard to write-off Florida.
The swing in Florida outside Dade was tiny. Trump would have still won the state by a DeSantis 2018 margin had Biden held his ground in Dade and Osceola.
But the fact that Biden did so poorly in Miami and among Hispanic voters in other parts of the state (which was Hillary's strength despite her loss) was a major flag that the state was majorly slipping. Also, that 3 point loss was despite Biden doing better than Hillary nationally (who only lost the state by 1).
Patrick's fundraising numbers for Ga Gov suggest he isn't a serious candidate, no?
Couple good intro vids for Dem House candidates. Too bad we don't have campaign reform laws in place so they could work on legislation rather than constant fundraising.
Oxman's intro reaffirms my stand that ALL health care systems and health insurance should be non-profit. Undecided on Pharma because of drug decelopment, but maybe could remain for-profit as long as the feds can negotiate all drug prices.
I can’t wait for Trump and Republicans to argue in court that babies lack the rights of having standing to challenge the law. Or in other words to argue that babies don’t have the same rights as people do while also arguing a baby is a person when it comes to abortion.
It obviously won’t matter at all because the GOP is a cult of personality and will twist however they need to in order to defend their dear leader. Hypocrisy is a mainstay of Republicans these days, so another instance won’t change much, but at least it would be out in the open then and impossible for journalists, pundits and the media to ignore.
This is why I’ve never liked Dean Phillips. He comes across as sanctimonious—though perhaps less so than Fetterman—and constantly tries to scold Democrats over protests, Iran, and similar issues. Now, he says that all Democratic Socialists should be excluded from the Democratic Party. He primaried Biden from the right actually, preaching austerity, and then complained about not gaining any traction.
Running democratic socialists out of the Democratic Party would guarantee that a left-wing third-party with a lot more traction than Jill Stein's grifting operation would be present at every election, which would mean large Republican majorities and perpetual GOP control of the White House. The Democratic base is less of a monolith than the Republican base is.
No one should be run out of the Democratic party. However anyone openly referring to themself as a Socialist is guilty of political malpractice and needs to be called out on it.
She could call herself a populist or a progressive. Calling yourself a socialist is a loaded term that will hurt you and will hurt your party in most of the country.
Of course it matters, but you might as well piss in the wind. Expecting avowed socialists like AOC to stop calling themselves socialists because of whatever argument you want them to consider is a total waste of time better served by just accepting that some members of the Democratic Party's left wing will continue to call themselves that and some of them will continue to win elections while others will naturally lose.
Hear, hear! This is one of my main gripes against Bernie Sanders – especially since, by any objective measure, he is a Social Democrat, not a Democratic Socialist. Throwing around the term "Socialist" does a lot of damage to Democrats.
I’ve never been more glad he ran for president in 2024. These are the people who have wrecked our party. These are the kind of people still in office right now that need the boot from voters in upcoming primaries. At this point I’m basically coming down to the opinion of primarying everybody except swing seat reps. The good ones will survive, the bad ones won’t.
Part of the reason Trump won in 2024 was how well he did in deep blue districts and some of that is because our reps there aren’t representing the people effectively or running real campaigns. Our voters stayed home in 2024 or voted for Trump in dark blue seats. If that isn’t a clear signal that safe seat Democrats aren’t pulling their weight and that we need to change that dynamic, I don’t know what is.
2024? The good thing about Dean Phillips' campaign then is that he made an ass of himself for the whole country to see, then didn't seek reelection so that we don't have to take him seriously or rely on his vote for anything.
Thanks for the catch, fixed it. Absolutely, the problem is there are more Dean Phillips Democrats in office right now. Who they are can be left entirely up for debate, but not whether they exist. They’re there right now and need to go.
It’s not even policy disagreements either, so it’s not always a left vs moderate battle because there have been progressive Democrats with this exact attitude problem too while in office. Phillips was a down the line Democratic Party vote in office.
It’s this attitude that no one else other than those who think like them should be included in and lead the party. That is what needs erasing and is toxic irrespective of what wing/ideology they come from. We need to win more votes from people who don’t think like us (from the left, right or middle), not less!
If you can’t even acknowledge that basic truth, you’re hurting our party’s ability to win elections and need to be replaced.
Is he really the one who came off looking like an ass though? My take is that Phillips running for president was by far the most noble thing that he’s done during his political career. He spent a long time trying to convince more prominent party members that Biden couldn’t be reelected and that they should challenge him, and only when they all turned him down did he run himself. It’s not like he covered himself in glory during that candidacy, but he was absolutely right on his main point: Biden wasn’t fit to run for another term. So many in the party knew that and did nothing.
I don’t like what Phillips is saying now. I don’t think we’re any worse off without him in The House. I don’t think he’s distinguished himself as particularly intelligent or charismatic.
But I do really admire his willingness to throw away his political career on a hopeless race, because he felt that someone had to challenge Biden.
Yeah, you can’t really take anything he says seriously anymore, if you ever did. People talking about or themselves actively sowing division within the Democratic Party will always find a friendly microphone, because the Dems in Disarray narrative is the always and forever friend of those who want the party to lose.
It's not just here that sane people of all shades of lefty...realize the importance and value of having everyone in the tent. Sure feels that way sometimes, though (and the social media algorithms are feeding it like mad).
Less voters is not the path to victory, unless I really have forgotten all the maths I used to know (I have frequent nightmares where I've forgotten Differential Equations concepts ahead of the test),
I genuinely appreciate everyone's contributions here, be they centre-left full-blown socialist, or wherever else y'all might land. We need each other, this is all hands on deck.
Lucy McBath's gesture of returning to donors the $80,000 she won't need now that she has decided not to run for governor of Georgia offers a stark contrast to Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s criminal appropriation of $750,000 in campaign funds for personal use.
And honestly thousands of politicians who do similar things on a much smaller scale. I remember one time looking at the Somerville, MA campaign finance reports and seeing that then Rep Mike Capuano, who was mayor of Somerville back in the 90s, had something like $170,000 just sitting there. Which is a vast sum of money for a small city local political scene. As far as I know he never misappropriated it, but dragon hoarding money that he couldn't spend in his current office and was highly unlikely to use again was rather unseemly to me.
I wonder if Capuano ever regrets passing on a Senate bid (along with the entire Massachusetts Dem establishment) in 2012. He would almost certainly have beaten Scott Brown by at least the margin Warren got, and would probably still be there today.
If you look at the "hypothetical polling" section of the Wikipedia article on the race, you can see why he (and everyone else) declined. Capuano was polling 20 points behind Brown with Brown solidly over 50%. Warren was able to turn that around obviously, but the early numbers suggested that Brown was well positioned for reelection.
Zach Nunn initially considered switching districts to run in the ruby red #IA04 (since Rep Randy Feenstra is running for gov) but White House shot that down
Unclear if WH will be supportive of a Nunn gov bid & that could determine whether he actually does.
Democratic Leadership Council 2.0 (Bill Clinton, Gore and Kerry's former gang) just dropped! Most of the members of this group are backed by either AIPAC or Big Crypto (including Andreessen/tech right) or both, but they claim, "Organizers declined to share its budget but said the group would not accept corporate PAC money."
The NYT, as usual, dishonestly name-drops James Talarico despite him having zero connection to this corporate group.
I’ve been saying this for a long time: Centrists believe that the more they bash the Democratic brand (the constant "Dems in disarray" slop by centrist outlets), the better their chances are of recreating the political climate of 1992. They really dislike Biden not for his age or the border but for moving the party to the left economically imo.
Obviously, some politicians in this group are great like Rep. Sherill and Rep. Spanberger but not sure about the rest. Atleast that we've not lost some prominent Democrats like Ossoff, Warnock, Buttigieg or Beshear to this group yet. Yglesias wrote last month (in anger) that "the [liberal] groups" were reaching out to these guys to stop them from considering this Council.
NYT redirects to : Insider Memo Envisions a New DLC
A former venture capitalist and fundraiser has a bold idea: market-friendly moderation.
The DLC is strongly associated with Robert Rubin’s view of international economics, emphasizing unfettered free trade, financial deregulation, faith in markets to solve societal problems, privatization, military escalation and intervention, and austerity budgeting. Historian Nelson Lichtenstein painstakingly documented this era as “a fabulous failure” in a recent book.
A 1.5 percent loss (and a one-seat gain in the House) is not a landslide. Yet London is reintroducing the DLC banner at a moment when the Democratic Party is leaderless and the opportunity to capture influence is high.
It also incorporates ideas laid out after the 2024 elections in a memo by Seth London, an adviser to major Democratic donors, especially his recommendation to establish a “leadership committee.” Mr. London is involved in the Majority Democrats initiative. In some ways, the group’s structure resembles that of the Democratic Leadership Council, the once-influential group that successfully pushed the party to the middle in the Clinton era.
As the American Prospect article, NYT redirects to notes: London maintains that he doesn’t seek to replicate the policies of the DLC, but rather the organizational model, shaped by elected leaders working across election cycles to reshape the party brand. But the ideas and personalities London affiliates with in the memo make perfectly clear that he wants to build a DLC for the 21st century, with the same enemies to its left and the same comfort with business interests at its core.
"A venture capitalist, corporate lobbyist, and high-level fundraiser thinks he has the secret formula for Democrats to reconnect with ordinary people."
Might not be as bad as the DLC. Have to see how things develop.
Ryan might be exaggerating a bit, and the blame should mostly go to Biden’s inner circle, but there continues to be a lack of accountability:
Mr. Ryan of New York said he still heard from voters about the party establishment’s insistence that Mr. Biden was well equipped to serve as the Democratic nominee, until a disastrous debate made clear to the country that he was not.
“He was not up to this essential task of beating” President Trump, Mr. Ryan said. “The fact that no one, or very few people, would call that out is at the heart of the break in trust between the people and the Democratic Party. Until we reckon with that, I think it just makes it that much harder to rebuild the trust.”
It's worse. I've updated the write-up and read this:
As the American Prospect article, NYT redirects to notes: London maintains that he doesn’t seek to replicate the policies of the DLC, but rather the organizational model, shaped by elected leaders working across election cycles to reshape the party brand. But the ideas and personalities London affiliates with in the memo make perfectly clear that he wants to build a DLC for the 21st century, with the same enemies to its left and the same comfort with business interests at its core.
"A venture capitalist, corporate lobbyist, and high-level fundraiser thinks he has the secret formula for Democrats to reconnect with ordinary people."
Plus, they are calling it a “leadership council" internally, I don't know any other leadership council and NYT also doesn't. It's filled with the most ideological centrists too except a few.
And Biden's economic and trade policies have been the biggest target by the thinkers of this faction in writings, in the Welcomefest and as stated by Atlantic's writers. It has been nicknamed "pseudonomics" especially the IRA even though we had the best recovery from inflation compared to any other nation.
Aftab Pureval says exactly what other Democrats should be doing in regards to Mamdani.
“We are either a big tent or we’re not,” Mr. Pureval, the Cincinnati mayor, said. “You know how you lose elections? Turn on talented young candidates who are actually winning.”
This group is exactly what’s needed to better compete for swing seats/states and I wish them the best of luck getting candidates nominated from their wing of the party. We need more and better Democrats, not just one or the other. It’s both and they have credibility to argue that these candidates are the most electable in purple districts.
I have a lot of doubt this will sell in any blue district if they try, but we need all hands on deck, so if they keep to their lane, we should all be supportive of their goals even if we may not ideologically align perfectly with who they back in upcoming swing seat primaries. The voters in the end will make their choices of who they want to lead them though, it’s entirely in their hands, not anyone else’s.
You're naive, Bill Clinton and the DLC didn't make the party "big tent", they purged progressives and liberals once in power which stopped in 2016. "Ignore the base, they'll vote for you anyways" motto comes from the DLC. They replaced the liberal establishment with the neoliberal one.
I don't know anything about Pureval though. This is the Rahm Emanuel wing, be careful what you wish for.
And why should this group's nominees win in blue districts? Wouldn't that make our tent smaller and this group more powerful? And we don't run progressives in competitive districts for obvious reasons anyways.
Are you tired of losing swing seats to Republicans or not? And are you welcoming of people to the right of you ideologically wise? If the answer is no, then you aren’t actually a real big tent supporter (which is fine, I’d disagree with you strongly, but you’re welcome to your opinion of course).
Big tent means people to the LEFT of you AND to the RIGHT of you. You can’t just say the words and not take the action needed in a way that you don’t personally align with or only take it one way. I’m a progressive, I welcome all Democrats, even conservative ones I strongly disagree with on some issues.
So you’re either for all of us in the tent or your complaints about the Clinton council not actually being big tent ring extremely hollow. It suggests a narrative you want to be true, not your actual own beliefs of being a big tent supporter and that you’re upset Clinton made the tent smaller as you’ve clearly implied.
I’d further suggest you read what I actually wrote, because I literally said that they’re unlikely to succeed in blue districts and should stay in their lane in the swing seats. So how you came away with me saying the exact opposite baffles me entirely.
Yes, I do. I think there will obviously be moderate candidates who run in blue seats, just like there will be progressives who run in purple seats. But I don’t think this organization will spend resources to get their candidates elected in blue areas and if they do, the second they start doing so I will immediately go from supporting their group and goals to not supporting their group and goals.
If the end goal of this new DLC 2.0 faction is to consolidate power and impose a narrow, elite-driven neoliberal vision on the Democratic Party, then let’s stop pretending it’s about building a big tent. You can’t say "everyone’s welcome" and then work to purge progressives and sideline economic populists the moment you gain institutional influence. That’s not coalition-building — that’s gatekeeping. It happened after 1992 and may well happen again.
Yes, I strongly disagree with the politics of the 1992 Clinton era. He may have been the right figure for his time, given where the party stood, but that approach isn’t suited to the challenges we face today. Trying to replicate that model now — one that hollowed out communities in the name of market solutions and technocratic expertise, gave way to Trump— is a recipe for political failure and moral irrelevance.
A genuine big tent means welcoming people to your left and to your right — including conservatives or former Trump voters who are culturally moderate or conservative but believe in economic populism and support a government that actually improves people’s lives. These voters are not looking for more market-worship dressed up as pragmatism. They want real material change — and ironically, they often have more in common with liberals on economic issues than with neoliberal centrists. Polls show that a lot of Trump voters actually don't agree with Republican party's economic platform.
So no, “big tent” doesn’t mean the country should be governed by whatever a handful of centrist insiders deem acceptable. It means creating space for all voices — especially the liberals and progressives whose ideas, organizing, and energy have kept the Democratic Party alive at the grassroots. We've got to remain the party of Big Government, efficient government and not go back to small government. Every big tent needs to have a pole and I believe that pole should be economic populism and the abundance agenda.
As the American Prospect article notes: London maintains that he doesn’t seek to replicate the policies of the DLC, but rather the organizational model, shaped by elected leaders working across election cycles to reshape the party brand. But the ideas and personalities London affiliates with in the memo make perfectly clear that he wants to build a DLC for the 21st century, with the same enemies to its left and the same comfort with business interests at its core.
"A venture capitalist, corporate lobbyist, and high-level fundraiser thinks he has the secret formula for Democrats to reconnect with ordinary people."
Well said. I'm a moderate Democrat who, while in disagreement with the far progressive end of our party, 1) respects what they're trying to accomplish and 2) recognizes them as part of my team.
I believe that neoliberalism is not the right way to enlarge our tent. This group is the prime example of what's wrong with Democrats.
NYT redirects here:
Insider Memo Envisions a New DLC
A former venture capitalist and fundraiser has a bold idea: market-friendly moderation.
The DLC is strongly associated with Robert Rubin’s view of international economics, emphasizing unfettered free trade, financial deregulation, faith in markets to solve societal problems, privatization, military escalation and intervention, and austerity budgeting. Historian Nelson Lichtenstein painstakingly documented this era as “a fabulous failure” in a recent book.
A 1.5 percent loss (and a one-seat gain in the House) is not a landslide. Yet London is reintroducing the DLC banner at a moment when the Democratic Party is leaderless and the opportunity to capture influence is high.
The group builds on some earlier initiatives, including the Democratic Future Fund, a modest effort to support some House members in 2024. It also incorporates ideas laid out after the 2024 elections in a memo by Seth London, an adviser to major Democratic donors, especially his recommendation to establish a “leadership committee.” Mr. London is involved in the Majority Democrats initiative. In some ways, the group’s structure resembles that of the Democratic Leadership Council, the once-influential group that successfully pushed the party to the middle in the Clinton era.
This sounds like another attempt to push trickle-down economics, which has repeatedly been proven to be a failure under Republican administrations, within the Democratic Party.
She's totally retiring. Her bad remarks came way too early in the cycle, unfortunately. If she made them in July 2026 it would be different. Without her we have no shot at the seat.
Maybe "no shot" was too extreme, but even with serious flaws, tough to see a Republican lose an open seat in Iowa. (For example, I think Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock would win those races today.)
Disagree on this one for sure. The entire race would've been on how Ernst doesn't care about her constituents, and I think it wouild've worked.
Much easier to beat a damaged incumbent in this state than an open-seat. Do you think Jon Tester would've won in 2006 if he was running against some generic GOP legislator than the walking gaffe & scandal machine Conrad Burns? No way (and I worked on that race).
I really thought Tester had no shot against Denny Rehberg—who had won something like seven statewide elections. I was pleasantly surprised. (The 2012 cycle turned out to be a bad night for Big Sky Republican Senate candidates with "berg" in their names...)
Republicans lost a Trump+25 state Senate seat in a special election in Iowa earlier this year. Of course there are tons of differences, but lots of crazy shit happens in a wave year, so I don't think Akin and Mourdock are apposite comps because 2012 was not a wave year.
To be clear, I'm not predicting a wave (I'm not that foolhardy). But if one *does* materialize, I think Iowa would very much be in play. And there's always a chance Republicans will shoot themselves in the foot in the primary.
I think that if Pou could win an open seat in 2024 she's probably OK for future reelection unless she personally screws up, and if she does she's probably more vulnerable in the primary than the general.
If Billy Prempah had pulled off a GOP upset last year, he'd probably, but not certainly, be "one and done".
Josh Cowen, a professor at Michigan State University, is running for the Democratic nomination for the swing seat currently occupied by Republican Rep. Tom Barrett. He is running primarily on education, and said the school voucher/charter school programs pushed by Republicans in Michigan were a particular inspiration.
Mike Cortese, a Nashville Metro Council member, is seeking the Democratic nomination to take on incumbent Republican Rep. Andy Ogles. While the seat is quite red, making it an exceptionally tough race to pull off, it's worth noting that Ogles has long been embroiled in controversy (including allegations he lied about his background), so who knows.
Another generational primary challenger. Longtime incumbent Rep. Rosa DeLauro is being challenged by attorney Damjan DeNoble. While not criticizing DeLauro specifically, DeNoble did say he is unhappy with the current state of the Democratic Party and its responses to younger candidates.
Another paywalled article I can't access, but apparently DNC member Mark Robert Gordon has entered the Democratic primary to take on incumbent Republican Rep. David Schweikert. Don't know much about him and I can't read the article so we'll see.
Chad McKenna, who works for the Minnesota Nurses Association, is running as a Democrat against Republican Rep. Pete Stauber. A very long shot campaign, given how red MN-8 is, but who knows.
Eric Flores, a prosecutor and Army veteran, is planning to seek the GOP nomination against incumbent Democratic Rep. Vicente Gonzalez. I recall this seat being really close before, so we'll see how this goes.
It appears former State Rep. Eric Descheenie (a member of the Navajo Nation) is running for the Democratic nomination to take on Republican Rep. Eli Crane. If I'm remembering right, Jonathan Nez had already filed paperwork, and he'd probably be a stronger candidate as far as I know, but I could be wrong. We'll see.
Merkley is 68 and a good senator, so as long as his health is good, running again is fine. Rosa DeLauro is 82. She's had a great career. Isn't it time to hang it up?
I remember when it seemed Murphy was destined for the Senate or at least Governor. Ds have fallen in Florida so fast.
Was she really ever? After the 2018 results it became pretty clear that it was would basically take something close to a miracle for Dems to actually win a senate or governor race there.
How did it become clear in 2018?
In 2020, Biden campaigned and spent a lot on Florida, and lost it by only 3 points.
Are you serious? Nelson lost the senate race by 0.2%. Gillum lost the Gov race by 0.4%. Expert testimony in a case over the order by which candidates are listed on the ballot (R's first everywhere) was that this gave the R's an advantage of something like .25% meaning that random listing probably would have given Nelson the win.
Further, 64.5% of Florida voters voted "yes" on Amendment 4, to restore voting rights for most convicted felons upon completion of their sentences, including prison terms, parole and probation.
True that 2018 was a great year for Dems generally, but the 2018 results did not show doom for Dems.
Thank you! The only races we’re guaranteed to lose are those we fail to contest. The only states we’re sure to lose are those we’ve written off. It’s imperative that the Democratic Party purse not just a 50-State Strategy but a 3143-County Strategy!
That's a bit hyperbolic. There is no point in contesting super-red counties in the West Texas desert with less than 1,000 registered voters, and the party shouldn't concentrate on state-wide Federal races in places like Wyoming.
I mean, we shouldn't be dropping big national money on every totally unwinnable seat, but we should absolutely be empowering locals to at least try for something. The conservatives got to where they are, partly, by focusing on the small and growing from there.
Of course. No disagreement with that.
There’s a big difference between concentrating resources on races we’re unlikely to win, and not contesting them at all.
If people are willing to put in the effort even though they'll lose 70-30 or worse and possibly risk their lives, wonderful.
Gillum and Nelson lost in an election that was by far the best midterm environment for Dems since 2006. I can write off Gillum due to the FBI investigation but Nelson was a long time incumbent.
But they had such charming challengers!
Nelson was also tripped up because of poor ballot design in Broward county.
From what I've heard, Scott would have still narrowly eked it out had the Broward ballots been counted correctly.
Wait, what happened? I don't remember this.
There were some badly designed ballots in Broward County.
Gambling in Casablanca?
"Photos shared on Twitter of the ballot used in Broward show the races for Senate and the county’s congressional districts in the lower left corner of the paper ballot, below lengthy instructions on how to vote. The candidates for governor were listed more prominently to the right of the instructions.
In neighboring Miami-Dade, where a sample ballot posted online suggests the Senate race appeared at the top, there were more votes cast for Senate than there were for governor. Across all 67 counties in the state, Broward’s is the largest difference in votes cast between the two races, by more than 23,000 votes."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/09/politics/broward-county-ballot-difference
It just showed Florida was about 8-9pt to the right of the country by that time. Since many people thought Biden could win the countrywide popular vote by that much, 2020 was deemed as a toss up. It wasn’t.
These days, it is over 10-11pt to the right of country.
I never thought Biden would win by 8-9; even 2008 Obama couldn't do that.
Hard disagree. An incumbent Senator with no scandals in a swing state in a blue wave year should have won the race (especially against someone like Rick Scott, who is disliked and has scandals). The fact that Nelson did not win that race to me was a major sign that the state should not be classified as an "either party can win" type of state like PA, WI, MI, NV, etc. Assume the Republican will win and assume you will need an extraordinary circumstance to change that.
Scott was also the sitting governor, having been elected twice. His scandals have never seemed to hurt him in FL. Also a billionaire who has a knack for spending as much of his own money as needed to win. He has been proven tough to beat.
And while Nelson was the incumbent, he was also old and looked and acted it. In 2018, he was 76 and had been in for Congress 46 years. Think of him as Biden in 2020.
Not to say the wave should not have helped any Dem that year. But what the original post argued, that after losing in 2018 we would need something close to a miracle to win in FL, was just not true.
But Biden in 2020 won. I just feel that in 2018, if FL was a true swing state, a scandal-free and generally liked incumbent should have won.
I think the topic is shifting. I agree with what you wrote above that after 2018, FL was not a toss-up state but Tilt-R or Lean R. But the original comment I responded to said that the 2018 results made it very clear that FL was almost impossible to win. That's what I disagreed with.
Spot on.
I think of Nelson more as 2024 Biden.
I wouldn't say that was entirely clear until 2022.
She's only 46. If she becomes County Exec for Florida's 5th largest county, in four years, she easily could run for something else.
And now for something completely different: A real clown responds to Trump.
"I’m a clown. Donald Trump is not one of us. Real clowns bring joy to the world, not chaos to Washington."
Gift link. Enjoy!
https://wapo.st/4lr83Ue
Thanks for that. The author did a great job both defending his profession, and dissing the buffoon-in-chief.
I dropped my Bezos media subscription awhile ago, when things got tight it was an easy decision, since he was micromanaging his editors. Wapo must really want folks back, since they offered 75% off their annual subscription. Tempting.
I cancelled my WaPo subscription a few months ago, utterly disgusted with what Jeff Bezos has done to a once-proud and brave newspaper. WaPo gave me a better offer, which I ignored; another, which I again ignored – before finally accepting their offer of a 99 cents per month subscription.
For that price I can read the good columnists still raising their voices, read the worthwhile journalism still finding its way into the online edition – and write Comments criticizing Bezos and his favorite authoritarian, as well as to raise my voice to support the resistance.
That's a good perspective on why to re-subscribe. Too bad click-to-cancel just got canned in the courts. I'm terrible at noting auto-renews.
I didn't hear about that court decision. On what grounds?
Apparently the FCC or FTC didn't follow proper procedure because they underestimated economic impact up front.
So not on merit, on bureaucratic rule procedure, which is still fair.
Understood. But now, those agencies won't try again, because Trump and his people hate consumers.
I cancelled my Baltimore Sun subscription this week. A once excellent local paper with some good national coverage has especially over the last year and a half declined markedly, with the opinion page a shitshow (no surprise under the ownership of Sinclair Broadcasting) and the news coverage mediocre at best. There are a number of superior sources for Baltimore and Maryland-based news, including the Baltimore Banner and even the relevant parts of the Washington Post (which I've come close to abandoning at times as well, but so far have stayed since it's more local to me.)
I tried to cancel online but couldn't. I had to talk to a customer service rep on the phone, but they at least sounded sympathetic to my explanation of what I think was wrong with it and didn't push me to reconsider even after I refused their offer of a discounted extension.
TPM, The Downballot, Bulwark. That'll suffice for me.
Considering The Atlantic, too.
The Atlantic is my go-to news source, along with the NYT.
I still subscribe to my local *print* paper. It isn't much, but I feel the need to support it for as long as it's around (probably not much longer to be brutally honest).
Online, I subscribe to the Downballot and one opinion writer I discovered on pre-Musk Twitter. I'd love to subscribe to everything, but I just don't have the funds or the time.
I got a yearly one a while back but I don't think you're missing much. Highlights yesterday were Marc Thiessen arguing Trump will pull through for Ukraine and some National Review fool complaining about the strike in Philly.
A lot of folks thought Biden would win Florida in 2020 (polls showed him slightly ahead)and that 2018 was an aberration. Recall in 2016 Hilary's numbers with Hispanics were the best ever for a Dem in the modern era. It wasn't until after 2020 it became standard to write-off Florida.
There was only a 3 point margin in Florida in 2020. It was after the 2022 debacle that Florida was written off.
Yeah Biden actually made some decent inroads in central and north FL the collapse in Dade is what gave Trump the extra points.
Obama won Dade County 62-38 in 2012.
A "return to normalcy" only if "normalcy" was the Miami-Dade numbers from 1992.
Lol, you're exaggerating it now. I was off by 8 years. The margins were similar to 2000 and 2004.
The swing in Florida outside Dade was tiny. Trump would have still won the state by a DeSantis 2018 margin had Biden held his ground in Dade and Osceola.
But the fact that Biden did so poorly in Miami and among Hispanic voters in other parts of the state (which was Hillary's strength despite her loss) was a major flag that the state was majorly slipping. Also, that 3 point loss was despite Biden doing better than Hillary nationally (who only lost the state by 1).
Agreed, but it wasn't enough to show that the state was never going to bounce back.
After 2016 I really thought the Miami-Dade vote was swinging hard toward Democrats. Hell, even Donna Shalalalalalala managed to win in 2018.
The whiplash is just astounding.
Yes it is.
Patrick's fundraising numbers for Ga Gov suggest he isn't a serious candidate, no?
Couple good intro vids for Dem House candidates. Too bad we don't have campaign reform laws in place so they could work on legislation rather than constant fundraising.
Oxman's intro reaffirms my stand that ALL health care systems and health insurance should be non-profit. Undecided on Pharma because of drug decelopment, but maybe could remain for-profit as long as the feds can negotiate all drug prices.
Now this is creative https://x.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1943313025949135243
I can’t wait for Trump and Republicans to argue in court that babies lack the rights of having standing to challenge the law. Or in other words to argue that babies don’t have the same rights as people do while also arguing a baby is a person when it comes to abortion.
It obviously won’t matter at all because the GOP is a cult of personality and will twist however they need to in order to defend their dear leader. Hypocrisy is a mainstay of Republicans these days, so another instance won’t change much, but at least it would be out in the open then and impossible for journalists, pundits and the media to ignore.
https://x.com/_rotimia/status/1943309009236156896
This is why I’ve never liked Dean Phillips. He comes across as sanctimonious—though perhaps less so than Fetterman—and constantly tries to scold Democrats over protests, Iran, and similar issues. Now, he says that all Democratic Socialists should be excluded from the Democratic Party. He primaried Biden from the right actually, preaching austerity, and then complained about not gaining any traction.
Running democratic socialists out of the Democratic Party would guarantee that a left-wing third-party with a lot more traction than Jill Stein's grifting operation would be present at every election, which would mean large Republican majorities and perpetual GOP control of the White House. The Democratic base is less of a monolith than the Republican base is.
No one should be run out of the Democratic party. However anyone openly referring to themself as a Socialist is guilty of political malpractice and needs to be called out on it.
And how do you expect articulate folks like AOC to respond to it? Waste of time in very progressive districts.
She could call herself a populist or a progressive. Calling yourself a socialist is a loaded term that will hurt you and will hurt your party in most of the country.
You can think she should call herself whatever you like, but that won't change anything.
It changes the discourse – and in this age of sloganeering, that matters.
Of course it matters, but you might as well piss in the wind. Expecting avowed socialists like AOC to stop calling themselves socialists because of whatever argument you want them to consider is a total waste of time better served by just accepting that some members of the Democratic Party's left wing will continue to call themselves that and some of them will continue to win elections while others will naturally lose.
Hear, hear! This is one of my main gripes against Bernie Sanders – especially since, by any objective measure, he is a Social Democrat, not a Democratic Socialist. Throwing around the term "Socialist" does a lot of damage to Democrats.
I’ve never been more glad he ran for president in 2024. These are the people who have wrecked our party. These are the kind of people still in office right now that need the boot from voters in upcoming primaries. At this point I’m basically coming down to the opinion of primarying everybody except swing seat reps. The good ones will survive, the bad ones won’t.
Part of the reason Trump won in 2024 was how well he did in deep blue districts and some of that is because our reps there aren’t representing the people effectively or running real campaigns. Our voters stayed home in 2024 or voted for Trump in dark blue seats. If that isn’t a clear signal that safe seat Democrats aren’t pulling their weight and that we need to change that dynamic, I don’t know what is.
2024? The good thing about Dean Phillips' campaign then is that he made an ass of himself for the whole country to see, then didn't seek reelection so that we don't have to take him seriously or rely on his vote for anything.
Thanks for the catch, fixed it. Absolutely, the problem is there are more Dean Phillips Democrats in office right now. Who they are can be left entirely up for debate, but not whether they exist. They’re there right now and need to go.
It’s not even policy disagreements either, so it’s not always a left vs moderate battle because there have been progressive Democrats with this exact attitude problem too while in office. Phillips was a down the line Democratic Party vote in office.
It’s this attitude that no one else other than those who think like them should be included in and lead the party. That is what needs erasing and is toxic irrespective of what wing/ideology they come from. We need to win more votes from people who don’t think like us (from the left, right or middle), not less!
If you can’t even acknowledge that basic truth, you’re hurting our party’s ability to win elections and need to be replaced.
Is he really the one who came off looking like an ass though? My take is that Phillips running for president was by far the most noble thing that he’s done during his political career. He spent a long time trying to convince more prominent party members that Biden couldn’t be reelected and that they should challenge him, and only when they all turned him down did he run himself. It’s not like he covered himself in glory during that candidacy, but he was absolutely right on his main point: Biden wasn’t fit to run for another term. So many in the party knew that and did nothing.
I don’t like what Phillips is saying now. I don’t think we’re any worse off without him in The House. I don’t think he’s distinguished himself as particularly intelligent or charismatic.
But I do really admire his willingness to throw away his political career on a hopeless race, because he felt that someone had to challenge Biden.
Agreed on all counts.
He is part of the grift circuit now.
Yeah, you can’t really take anything he says seriously anymore, if you ever did. People talking about or themselves actively sowing division within the Democratic Party will always find a friendly microphone, because the Dems in Disarray narrative is the always and forever friend of those who want the party to lose.
It's not just here that sane people of all shades of lefty...realize the importance and value of having everyone in the tent. Sure feels that way sometimes, though (and the social media algorithms are feeding it like mad).
Less voters is not the path to victory, unless I really have forgotten all the maths I used to know (I have frequent nightmares where I've forgotten Differential Equations concepts ahead of the test),
I genuinely appreciate everyone's contributions here, be they centre-left full-blown socialist, or wherever else y'all might land. We need each other, this is all hands on deck.
Agreed. "United we stand, divided we fall."
Lucy McBath's gesture of returning to donors the $80,000 she won't need now that she has decided not to run for governor of Georgia offers a stark contrast to Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s criminal appropriation of $750,000 in campaign funds for personal use.
And honestly thousands of politicians who do similar things on a much smaller scale. I remember one time looking at the Somerville, MA campaign finance reports and seeing that then Rep Mike Capuano, who was mayor of Somerville back in the 90s, had something like $170,000 just sitting there. Which is a vast sum of money for a small city local political scene. As far as I know he never misappropriated it, but dragon hoarding money that he couldn't spend in his current office and was highly unlikely to use again was rather unseemly to me.
Was he able to transfer the funds to his Congressional campaign?
As far as I know, no. But he could have refunded the money or donated to charity.
I wonder if Capuano ever regrets passing on a Senate bid (along with the entire Massachusetts Dem establishment) in 2012. He would almost certainly have beaten Scott Brown by at least the margin Warren got, and would probably still be there today.
If you look at the "hypothetical polling" section of the Wikipedia article on the race, you can see why he (and everyone else) declined. Capuano was polling 20 points behind Brown with Brown solidly over 50%. Warren was able to turn that around obviously, but the early numbers suggested that Brown was well positioned for reelection.
Zach Nunn initially considered switching districts to run in the ruby red #IA04 (since Rep Randy Feenstra is running for gov) but White House shot that down
Unclear if WH will be supportive of a Nunn gov bid & that could determine whether he actually does.
https://x.com/allymutnick/status/1943064283123978685
Democratic Leadership Council 2.0 (Bill Clinton, Gore and Kerry's former gang) just dropped! Most of the members of this group are backed by either AIPAC or Big Crypto (including Andreessen/tech right) or both, but they claim, "Organizers declined to share its budget but said the group would not accept corporate PAC money."
The NYT, as usual, dishonestly name-drops James Talarico despite him having zero connection to this corporate group.
I’ve been saying this for a long time: Centrists believe that the more they bash the Democratic brand (the constant "Dems in disarray" slop by centrist outlets), the better their chances are of recreating the political climate of 1992. They really dislike Biden not for his age or the border but for moving the party to the left economically imo.
Obviously, some politicians in this group are great like Rep. Sherill and Rep. Spanberger but not sure about the rest. Atleast that we've not lost some prominent Democrats like Ossoff, Warnock, Buttigieg or Beshear to this group yet. Yglesias wrote last month (in anger) that "the [liberal] groups" were reaching out to these guys to stop them from considering this Council.
NYT redirects to : Insider Memo Envisions a New DLC
A former venture capitalist and fundraiser has a bold idea: market-friendly moderation.
The DLC is strongly associated with Robert Rubin’s view of international economics, emphasizing unfettered free trade, financial deregulation, faith in markets to solve societal problems, privatization, military escalation and intervention, and austerity budgeting. Historian Nelson Lichtenstein painstakingly documented this era as “a fabulous failure” in a recent book.
A 1.5 percent loss (and a one-seat gain in the House) is not a landslide. Yet London is reintroducing the DLC banner at a moment when the Democratic Party is leaderless and the opportunity to capture influence is high.
https://prospect.org/politics/2024-12-02-insider-memo-envisions-new-dlc/ from:
It also incorporates ideas laid out after the 2024 elections in a memo by Seth London, an adviser to major Democratic donors, especially his recommendation to establish a “leadership committee.” Mr. London is involved in the Majority Democrats initiative. In some ways, the group’s structure resembles that of the Democratic Leadership Council, the once-influential group that successfully pushed the party to the middle in the Clinton era.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/10/us/politics/majority-democrats.html
Thanks for the writeup. It's clearly established that Talarico has no association with these folks?
He is a progressive who's against purity tests since a long time. He's not a part of this faction afaik.
I love the classic strategy "we need to play by a different playbook" and then continue to play by the same playbook just under a different name /s
As the American Prospect article, NYT redirects to notes: London maintains that he doesn’t seek to replicate the policies of the DLC, but rather the organizational model, shaped by elected leaders working across election cycles to reshape the party brand. But the ideas and personalities London affiliates with in the memo make perfectly clear that he wants to build a DLC for the 21st century, with the same enemies to its left and the same comfort with business interests at its core.
"A venture capitalist, corporate lobbyist, and high-level fundraiser thinks he has the secret formula for Democrats to reconnect with ordinary people."
Might not be as bad as the DLC. Have to see how things develop.
Ryan might be exaggerating a bit, and the blame should mostly go to Biden’s inner circle, but there continues to be a lack of accountability:
Mr. Ryan of New York said he still heard from voters about the party establishment’s insistence that Mr. Biden was well equipped to serve as the Democratic nominee, until a disastrous debate made clear to the country that he was not.
“He was not up to this essential task of beating” President Trump, Mr. Ryan said. “The fact that no one, or very few people, would call that out is at the heart of the break in trust between the people and the Democratic Party. Until we reckon with that, I think it just makes it that much harder to rebuild the trust.”
It's worse. I've updated the write-up and read this:
As the American Prospect article, NYT redirects to notes: London maintains that he doesn’t seek to replicate the policies of the DLC, but rather the organizational model, shaped by elected leaders working across election cycles to reshape the party brand. But the ideas and personalities London affiliates with in the memo make perfectly clear that he wants to build a DLC for the 21st century, with the same enemies to its left and the same comfort with business interests at its core.
"A venture capitalist, corporate lobbyist, and high-level fundraiser thinks he has the secret formula for Democrats to reconnect with ordinary people."
Plus, they are calling it a “leadership council" internally, I don't know any other leadership council and NYT also doesn't. It's filled with the most ideological centrists too except a few.
And Biden's economic and trade policies have been the biggest target by the thinkers of this faction in writings, in the Welcomefest and as stated by Atlantic's writers. It has been nicknamed "pseudonomics" especially the IRA even though we had the best recovery from inflation compared to any other nation.
Aftab Pureval says exactly what other Democrats should be doing in regards to Mamdani.
“We are either a big tent or we’re not,” Mr. Pureval, the Cincinnati mayor, said. “You know how you lose elections? Turn on talented young candidates who are actually winning.”
This group is exactly what’s needed to better compete for swing seats/states and I wish them the best of luck getting candidates nominated from their wing of the party. We need more and better Democrats, not just one or the other. It’s both and they have credibility to argue that these candidates are the most electable in purple districts.
I have a lot of doubt this will sell in any blue district if they try, but we need all hands on deck, so if they keep to their lane, we should all be supportive of their goals even if we may not ideologically align perfectly with who they back in upcoming swing seat primaries. The voters in the end will make their choices of who they want to lead them though, it’s entirely in their hands, not anyone else’s.
You're naive, Bill Clinton and the DLC didn't make the party "big tent", they purged progressives and liberals once in power which stopped in 2016. "Ignore the base, they'll vote for you anyways" motto comes from the DLC. They replaced the liberal establishment with the neoliberal one.
I don't know anything about Pureval though. This is the Rahm Emanuel wing, be careful what you wish for.
And why should this group's nominees win in blue districts? Wouldn't that make our tent smaller and this group more powerful? And we don't run progressives in competitive districts for obvious reasons anyways.
Are you tired of losing swing seats to Republicans or not? And are you welcoming of people to the right of you ideologically wise? If the answer is no, then you aren’t actually a real big tent supporter (which is fine, I’d disagree with you strongly, but you’re welcome to your opinion of course).
Big tent means people to the LEFT of you AND to the RIGHT of you. You can’t just say the words and not take the action needed in a way that you don’t personally align with or only take it one way. I’m a progressive, I welcome all Democrats, even conservative ones I strongly disagree with on some issues.
So you’re either for all of us in the tent or your complaints about the Clinton council not actually being big tent ring extremely hollow. It suggests a narrative you want to be true, not your actual own beliefs of being a big tent supporter and that you’re upset Clinton made the tent smaller as you’ve clearly implied.
I’d further suggest you read what I actually wrote, because I literally said that they’re unlikely to succeed in blue districts and should stay in their lane in the swing seats. So how you came away with me saying the exact opposite baffles me entirely.
They _should_ stay in their own lane, but PollJunkie doesn't believe they _will_. Do you?
Yes, I do. I think there will obviously be moderate candidates who run in blue seats, just like there will be progressives who run in purple seats. But I don’t think this organization will spend resources to get their candidates elected in blue areas and if they do, the second they start doing so I will immediately go from supporting their group and goals to not supporting their group and goals.
If the end goal of this new DLC 2.0 faction is to consolidate power and impose a narrow, elite-driven neoliberal vision on the Democratic Party, then let’s stop pretending it’s about building a big tent. You can’t say "everyone’s welcome" and then work to purge progressives and sideline economic populists the moment you gain institutional influence. That’s not coalition-building — that’s gatekeeping. It happened after 1992 and may well happen again.
Yes, I strongly disagree with the politics of the 1992 Clinton era. He may have been the right figure for his time, given where the party stood, but that approach isn’t suited to the challenges we face today. Trying to replicate that model now — one that hollowed out communities in the name of market solutions and technocratic expertise, gave way to Trump— is a recipe for political failure and moral irrelevance.
A genuine big tent means welcoming people to your left and to your right — including conservatives or former Trump voters who are culturally moderate or conservative but believe in economic populism and support a government that actually improves people’s lives. These voters are not looking for more market-worship dressed up as pragmatism. They want real material change — and ironically, they often have more in common with liberals on economic issues than with neoliberal centrists. Polls show that a lot of Trump voters actually don't agree with Republican party's economic platform.
So no, “big tent” doesn’t mean the country should be governed by whatever a handful of centrist insiders deem acceptable. It means creating space for all voices — especially the liberals and progressives whose ideas, organizing, and energy have kept the Democratic Party alive at the grassroots. We've got to remain the party of Big Government, efficient government and not go back to small government. Every big tent needs to have a pole and I believe that pole should be economic populism and the abundance agenda.
As the American Prospect article notes: London maintains that he doesn’t seek to replicate the policies of the DLC, but rather the organizational model, shaped by elected leaders working across election cycles to reshape the party brand. But the ideas and personalities London affiliates with in the memo make perfectly clear that he wants to build a DLC for the 21st century, with the same enemies to its left and the same comfort with business interests at its core.
"A venture capitalist, corporate lobbyist, and high-level fundraiser thinks he has the secret formula for Democrats to reconnect with ordinary people."
Well said. I'm a moderate Democrat who, while in disagreement with the far progressive end of our party, 1) respects what they're trying to accomplish and 2) recognizes them as part of my team.
“Are you tired of losing swing seats to Republicans or not?”
Isn’t interesting that the Republicans never talk about a big tent. And practice it even less.
I believe that neoliberalism is not the right way to enlarge our tent. This group is the prime example of what's wrong with Democrats.
NYT redirects here:
Insider Memo Envisions a New DLC
A former venture capitalist and fundraiser has a bold idea: market-friendly moderation.
The DLC is strongly associated with Robert Rubin’s view of international economics, emphasizing unfettered free trade, financial deregulation, faith in markets to solve societal problems, privatization, military escalation and intervention, and austerity budgeting. Historian Nelson Lichtenstein painstakingly documented this era as “a fabulous failure” in a recent book.
A 1.5 percent loss (and a one-seat gain in the House) is not a landslide. Yet London is reintroducing the DLC banner at a moment when the Democratic Party is leaderless and the opportunity to capture influence is high.
https://prospect.org/politics/2024-12-02-insider-memo-envisions-new-dlc/ from:
The group builds on some earlier initiatives, including the Democratic Future Fund, a modest effort to support some House members in 2024. It also incorporates ideas laid out after the 2024 elections in a memo by Seth London, an adviser to major Democratic donors, especially his recommendation to establish a “leadership committee.” Mr. London is involved in the Majority Democrats initiative. In some ways, the group’s structure resembles that of the Democratic Leadership Council, the once-influential group that successfully pushed the party to the middle in the Clinton era.
This sounds like another attempt to push trickle-down economics, which has repeatedly been proven to be a failure under Republican administrations, within the Democratic Party.
Trouble is paradise. The Senator is married to the TX AG who is running for TX SEnate aganst Cornyn. https://x.com/AngelaPaxtonTX/status/1943366217479393512
I think that they were separated for a long time, Paxton covered up his affairs which was a point of contention in his impeachment.
and here is the confirmation https://x.com/lmcgaughy/status/1943376827742826502
Just as I suspected.
GOPers seem to think the risk Joni Ernst retires in Iowa is fairly real:
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/10/joni-ernst-retirement-watch-iowa-senate-seat-00447670?sid=sms
Hinson seems to have a clear lane if that’s the case and she’d be a formidable opponent
She's totally retiring. Her bad remarks came way too early in the cycle, unfortunately. If she made them in July 2026 it would be different. Without her we have no shot at the seat.
No shot?
No shot at an open seat in a potential wave year?
Maybe "no shot" was too extreme, but even with serious flaws, tough to see a Republican lose an open seat in Iowa. (For example, I think Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock would win those races today.)
Even weakened incumbents have a lot of advantages. An open seat is a better chance for us than Ernst sticking around.
Disagree on this one for sure. The entire race would've been on how Ernst doesn't care about her constituents, and I think it wouild've worked.
Much easier to beat a damaged incumbent in this state than an open-seat. Do you think Jon Tester would've won in 2006 if he was running against some generic GOP legislator than the walking gaffe & scandal machine Conrad Burns? No way (and I worked on that race).
I really thought Tester had no shot against Denny Rehberg—who had won something like seven statewide elections. I was pleasantly surprised. (The 2012 cycle turned out to be a bad night for Big Sky Republican Senate candidates with "berg" in their names...)
I wouldn't underestimate their ability to find someone less likeable who makes Ernst's "we're all going to die" comments seem tame.
Akin and Mourdock would absolutely win those races today (with room to spare). In fact, their scandals seem almost quaint now.
How far we've fallen.
Republicans lost a Trump+25 state Senate seat in a special election in Iowa earlier this year. Of course there are tons of differences, but lots of crazy shit happens in a wave year, so I don't think Akin and Mourdock are apposite comps because 2012 was not a wave year.
To be clear, I'm not predicting a wave (I'm not that foolhardy). But if one *does* materialize, I think Iowa would very much be in play. And there's always a chance Republicans will shoot themselves in the foot in the primary.
NJ CD-9. Clifton City Councilwoman Rosie Pino (R) launches run vs US Rep Nellie Pou (D)
This will be an interesting race to watch. I sure hope to see some movement back toward Democrats in this district.
I think that if Pou could win an open seat in 2024 she's probably OK for future reelection unless she personally screws up, and if she does she's probably more vulnerable in the primary than the general.
If Billy Prempah had pulled off a GOP upset last year, he'd probably, but not certainly, be "one and done".
News dump for tonight.
MI-7:
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/10/josh-cowen-launch-michigan-07-congress-00446166
Josh Cowen, a professor at Michigan State University, is running for the Democratic nomination for the swing seat currently occupied by Republican Rep. Tom Barrett. He is running primarily on education, and said the school voucher/charter school programs pushed by Republicans in Michigan were a particular inspiration.
TN-5:
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/elections/2025/07/10/nashville-council-mike-cortese-andy-ogles/84538101007/
Mike Cortese, a Nashville Metro Council member, is seeking the Democratic nomination to take on incumbent Republican Rep. Andy Ogles. While the seat is quite red, making it an exceptionally tough race to pull off, it's worth noting that Ogles has long been embroiled in controversy (including allegations he lied about his background), so who knows.
CT-3:
https://www.ctpublic.org/news/2025-07-10/rosa-delauro-primary-damjan-denoble-ct-democrats
Another generational primary challenger. Longtime incumbent Rep. Rosa DeLauro is being challenged by attorney Damjan DeNoble. While not criticizing DeLauro specifically, DeNoble did say he is unhappy with the current state of the Democratic Party and its responses to younger candidates.
AZ-1:
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2025/07/10/democrat-mark-robert-gordon-running-for-congress/84522994007/
Another paywalled article I can't access, but apparently DNC member Mark Robert Gordon has entered the Democratic primary to take on incumbent Republican Rep. David Schweikert. Don't know much about him and I can't read the article so we'll see.
VA-2:
https://www.pilotonline.com/2025/07/10/campaign-unseat-jen-kiggans/
James Osyf, the Navy veteran and Lockheed Martin executive who was mentioned as a Democratic challenger to Rep. Jen Kiggans, is officially in.
MN-8:
https://www.wdio.com/front-page/top-stories/chad-mckenna-files-to-run-for-congress-in-8th-congressional-district/
Chad McKenna, who works for the Minnesota Nurses Association, is running as a Democrat against Republican Rep. Pete Stauber. A very long shot campaign, given how red MN-8 is, but who knows.
TX-34:
https://punchbowl.news/article/campaigns/army-vet-preps-texas-run/
Eric Flores, a prosecutor and Army veteran, is planning to seek the GOP nomination against incumbent Democratic Rep. Vicente Gonzalez. I recall this seat being really close before, so we'll see how this goes.
OR-SEN:
https://www.opb.org/article/2025/07/10/jeff-merkley-seeking-4th-term/
It appears Sen. Jeff Merkley is running for re-election after all. There had been rumors he'd retire, but it doesn't appear that will happen.
Unknown district:
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5395801-former-trump-nasa-nominee-open-to-run-for-congress/
Apparently Jared Isaacman, the failed Trump NASA nominee, wants to run for Congress. He did not specify where.
AZ-2:
https://www.descheenieforcongress.com/
It appears former State Rep. Eric Descheenie (a member of the Navajo Nation) is running for the Democratic nomination to take on Republican Rep. Eli Crane. If I'm remembering right, Jonathan Nez had already filed paperwork, and he'd probably be a stronger candidate as far as I know, but I could be wrong. We'll see.
Merkley is 68 and a good senator, so as long as his health is good, running again is fine. Rosa DeLauro is 82. She's had a great career. Isn't it time to hang it up?
https://substack.com/@scnorthstarconservatives/note/p-168046960?r=5r0rr7&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
https://substack.com/@scnorthstarconservatives/note/p-168046960?r=5r0rr7&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action