I saw a thing in HuffPost today with Robert Reich arguing Trump could invoke the Insurrection Act and effectively declare martial law, courts be damned.
I get that. I just think we all have to be vigilant now. If South Korea could stop their attempt, we can stop ours. And they’ve only been a democracy since 1988.
Pressure Democrats in Washington to respond more strongly. Non-violent demonstrations and resistance. Protest days including at main sources of disinformation like Fox.
Trump admin considering selling off high performing federally backed student loans sometime next year. Ignoring that this will create a student debt securities crisis, psa to anyone that has a few extra hundred socked away to apply to student debt now rather than later, as these monsters in the White house only have a marketable asset if they mark up interest rates, contracts be damned.
(It could help us electorally, especially with zillenials that were used to biden's much more forgiving repayment options).
I'm delighted that Beau Bayh has announced a run for Secretary of State in Indiana. I think that there is a good chance that he could win if Democrats start reaching out to all the people who do not vote. (Indiana is 50th in voter turnout, according to one source, and Republicans like it that way.) Too many Democrats in Indiana speak only to Democrats. Destiny Wells pulled in 40% of the vote against Morales in 2022, and it is important to build upon that showing.
New Hampshire probably benefits from being a) small, both geographically and population-wise and b) capital-I Important(tm) for so many years in the presidential nominating process
I usually find this red state voter turnout argument cope. If votes are really being suppressed or people are not coming out to vote for Democrats disproportionally then there must be some evidence for it. High turnout modelling doesn't show any meaningful difference in results neither do polls of all registered voters or residents of voting age in those states. Those states cannot be won without significant crossover voting.
I moved here eight years ago, as my husband wanted to retire here, and Indiana is a state with much to offer. However, I have found the Democratic party here to be rather parochial. Most meetings of my local Democrats have at least one person proclaiming that he or she is a lifelong Democrat and the family as far back as they can remember were Democrats. They preach to the choir they have rather than expanding the number of members, some of whom who might not have started as Democrats (I became a Democrat in 1998 and came from a Republican family) but who have come to realize that the party embodies their values. Also, in a county like mine, in which 40% of people have incomes below the poverty line and half the students qualified for free meals, people want to hear some practical solutions.
We don’t really know that - extrapolation is methodologically weak to begin with and when you apply it to somewhat un-reliable data like public polling then it only compounds the weaknesses of extrapolation. So we can’t say with high degree of accuracy what would happen if non-voters showed up to vote.
It is pretentious and erroneous for Ken Paxton to refer to himself as "General Paxton." In the phrase "attorney general," the word "general" is an adjective, not a noun. He is the general attorney for the state. Making his title sound like an exalted military position is an example of stolen valor.
Wrong. They are not and should not be addressed that way. You should address an Attorney General as the "Attorney General" or "The Honorable [First Name] [Last Name]" for formal occasions, not "General". While "General" is a component of the title, it does not function as the proper form of address, similar to how "President" is used for the President and not just "President."
Here are some ways to address the Attorney General:
Formal: The Honorable [First Name] [Last Name] (e.g., The Honorable Merrick Garland)
Informal: Attorney General [Last Name] (e.g., Attorney General Garland)
Neutral: The Attorney General (e.g., "Can the Attorney General provide clarification?")
Why "General" is incorrect
Incorrect usage:
"General" is a military rank, not a professional title in the way Attorney General is.
Misleading:
Calling an Attorney General just "General" could lead to confusion with a military general.
Examples of proper usage
"The Attorney General released a statement on the new policy."
"We await the decision of the Honorable Attorney General."
"Could you please forward my question to Attorney General Smith?"
It is quite common for people to refer to AGs or SGs as "General". In SCOTUS oral arguments, public appearances, etc. I too find it annoying, but it would be incorrect to say it doesn't happen.
It happens, but a lot of language misuse happens. According to Wikipedia: "The title Attorney General is an example of a noun (attorney) followed by a postpositive adjective (general). 'General' is a description of the type of attorney, not a title or rank in itself (as it would be in the military). Even though the attorney general (and the similarly titled solicitor general) is occasionally referred to as 'General' or 'General [last name]' by senior government officials, this is considered incorrect in standard American English usage. For the same reason, the correct American English plural form is 'attorneys general' rather than 'attorney generals.'"
I'm not disagreeing with you that it's grammatically unsound, but you said "they are not addressed that way" which, as a function of what is happening in the real world, is completely incorrect.
No, sorry, you're wrong, and listening to a single oral argument with a solicitor general shows that. And like this famous clip of Kamala and Maya Harris kikiing: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C9s0bTlRp5w/
And more famously: “I tell you frankly I don't need this title because I [could] be called General, I understand, for the rest of my life. And I don't need the money and I don't need the office space.” - Robert F. Kennedy on his 1964 senate run
When you're at a disadvantage on almost all issues, and further have the burden of an unpopular federal government of your party, I really can't blame Earle-Sears for grabbing the straw of "this worked before, so let's try it again". Never mind that whatever worked for the VA GOP in 2021 did so in a totally different national environment, and even Youngkin's win wasn't exactly a landslide.
And Youngkin himself hasn't always exactly been politically masterful in office; some Republicans in 2023 weren't happy with his late-campaign emphasis on abortion, proposing a 15 week limit for most abortions that he probably viewed as a good compromise but just called more attention to one of the party's leading liabilities. And speaking of the GOP's leading liabilities, Youngkin's cozying up to Trump and dismissive (at best) attitude toward federal workers is hardly helping Earle-Sears.
To the point of your last sentence, Earle-Sears isn’t just not being helped by Trump and Youngkin. She herself is being dismissive and showing she doesn’t care.
I think the fact that the Democrats are +13 on transgender issues means that people think the GOP has gone to the well too often with this issue and that they have gone too far.
The sports thing is obviously losing ground for us but the weirdo bathroom monitoring or even more extreme things like total bans on transition treatments (sometimes even for adults!!) is clearly very, very losing ground for the GOP
I don't see why it has to be losing ground for us. Just turn it right back on them. Logistically what does a world look like where they ensure that every sports participant is the right gender? Ask the question. Why does your Republican Congressman want to inspect your teenage daughter's genitals?
It’s also a relatively simple solution - the rules of every game are about creating an equal playing field - so that neither team or individual competitors are given an unfair advantage. If it is determined that trans athletes have a competitive advantage the governing bodies of sports can adjust the rules to account for this. In some sports it would be like a golf handicap. Anyone that has played, coached, officiated, or is an engaged observer of sports would understand this approach.
i just hope she drags jay jones over the line. what he said was gross, but not disqualifying and National rethugs just dumped another 1.5 million into the state.
With Lecornu’s government seeming to have collapsed within hours of the Cabinet being revealed and France doing its best to imitate Italian political stability (or lack thereof), is this the final push needed for Macron to accept reality and form a government of the left, or does he gamble on another snap election?
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert here, but I think Macron will continue exploring every alternative option. That's considering Macron's refusal to consider a left PM from the very start, and how he's gone to ridiculous levels to avoid it.
If he continues to do this could it help the candidates on the left in the 2027 presidential election?
Maybe. The problem is that the left is pretty disunited in France (go figure, plus ca change, etc) and are more so than they were immediately after the July 2024 polls. I’m not even sure what kind of coherent left-led government he could even stitch together.
Absolutely. He's from the opposite wing of the party that you and I are in, and it's really excellent to see him standing up for good government and against misrule.
If more of the moderate/establishment wing of the party was talking like this, our wing of the party would be doing a lot worse I reckon.
Gotta give him credit for not just saying that but also how he said it. He didn't coax it in bullshit. It's a direct, undeniable critique in plain language that doesn't try to soften the problems.
Matt Mahan looking to run for Governor by shitting on Newsom's social media campaign and the Election Rigging Response Act regularly. I thought he was a genuine good governance pragmatist, but he turned out to be just another annoying and performative anti-Democrat centrist.
I can understand Newsom's imitating of Trump's social media style on social media being annoying (although the rapid response aspects of Newsom's social media operation are top-notch), but Mahan's only chance of getting elected governor is to somehow get into the top two with some kind of coalition of centrist/center-right voters, and for someone like Katie Porter to be the other candidate in the top two. Even then, I don't think Mahan has much of a chance.
The second Trump presidency is the worst time to be a weak-style moderate/establishment Democrat like Mahan; strong-style Democrats of both the progressive and moderate varieties are in vogue right now.
Does trump really think his having a UFC night at the WH for his birthday in 2026 will endear him to the voters a few months later? What a complete fool!
She’s also on record defending Collins and is 79 to boot. She strikes me as quite weak as far as candidacy goes and age is a concern in the event of a sudden death — see Sylvester Turner as an example.
Meanwhile Platner has a blue collar image, is unabashedly progressive (which means he’ll be at least a mostly reliable vote), has raised massive amounts of money, and provides a clear contrast to Collins in terms of ideology and direction. I keep seeing Fetterman comparisons but Fetterman had a stroke, he’s a totally different person now. I think Platner’s the real deal. Go Platner!
She waited too long and since she outright defended Collins on the record she also does not have the mindset for this. We cannot beat Collins if the voters Maine continue to think of her as a reasonable republican, and that's a persona that Mills has worked to reinforce. That's not even touching on her age. But now Schumer and Gillibrand will push all the institutional levers in her advantage and we'll have a messy primary regardless of the winner.
G. Elliott Morris on how most polls overstate support for political violence in the U.S. and how inaccurate reporting about the degree of approval of such violence by one side prompts more support for it from the other side, thereby actually making it more likely.
WI-GOV: Josh Kaul is OUT and running for re-election as AG. He would've been the strongest candidate hands down so its pretty disappointing to see him not run.
Now, Mandela Barnes is 'strongly considering' running. I think Barnes would be the weakest possible candidate we could run here. If you paid any attention to his run against Johnson in 2022, the ads and oppo dumps against him were brutal. He was on record advocating for defunding the police/abolishing ICE along with some tax issues. Barnes lost an electorate that elected Evers by 4 points and where Dems won almost every statewide office. Maybe Barnes has better strategies this time but the unfavorable oppo is still out there.
Barnes was also abandoned by the national Dem leadership who did not invest in a race he just barely lost. Wisconsin has also elected progressives before — Baldwin, Feingold, if you want to go really far back La Follette.
I still think Barnes had other issues (race, sadly, was likely one) but don’t act like ideology alone sunk him.
Still, progressives have won before in WI. Feingold and Baldwin have been/were quite left-wing, no? Baldwin even won re election in 2024, a horrible year for Dems.
I really think race was the issue, Baldwin and Feingold were white and Barnes is black. Unfortunately that’s an issue in conservative areas like parts of Wisconsin.
Obama won Wisconsin twice comfortably so I don't think race is the issue here. Barnes gave the GOP plenty of material to attack him over and couldn't respond effectively to it.
Why, then, did Feingold and Baldwin pull off what Barnes couldn’t? I’m just confused now. They’re all progressives, but Barnes did worse. Maybe Barnes was to Feingold/Baldwin’s left?
Because Barnes had baggage that Baldwin didn't. He made some comments in the past about reducing police funding and getting rid of ICE which hit like a thud in 2022.
Of our competitive senate candidates of 2022, Barnes was by far the one with the least amount of fundraising+third party spending on his behalf. He outraised Johnson but not by much. Whereas candidates who were absolutely crushed did better, like Demings in Florida ($80m raised to Rubio's $50m). In Ohio Ryan raised $56m to Vance's $15m. Barnes' advantage was downright paltry in comparison: $42m to $36m. And Johnson had the advantage in outside spending, with $77m in his favor vs $50m in Barnes' favor.
That's enough of a gap that Johnson probably had a net advantage in spending, if not it was close to a tie. Barnes and maybe Beasley was the only one of our serious senate candidates that didn't have an overwhelming financial edge that cycle.
Also, it's working now. It seems to intermittently not work and sometimes gives me that message, then later works, all the while sort of complaining that I'm not using their app.
For all it shows, it probably is still fake. Mic checks gotta do a dry run of portions of the script to test for feedback, popping, and audio peaking. Audio prep work is a real job.
Crowd could be behind the camera - don’t hear anyone though. It’s odd. Phil Skaggs is a popular state rep in Grand Rapids so I doubt there was no one there - just bad advance work in terms of people and cameras. All that said - Go McMorrow
Several pro-voting groups asked a court Monday to block Utah Republican’s audacious new GOP law designed to make it harder to strike down the state’s new gerrymander, arguing it violates the state constitution.
Just weeks before the 2024 primary election between Cori Bush and Wesley Bell, Bell used over $35,000 in campaign funds to buy his friend's Dodge Durango, which the friend had failed to sell two years earlier.
Extremely close Democratic primary in the TN-7 special election: less than 250 votes separates leader Darden Copeland from third-place Aftyn Behn, with Bo Mitchell in second place. Davidson County hasn't reported anything yet; Behn is leading in Montgomery (Clarksville area) and Williamson (Franklin area).
Much of the Davidson vote came in; Behn took the lead; top three are Behn, Mitchell, and Vincent Dixie, ga between first and third is 214 votes with about five-sevenths of the vote in.
Bo Mitchell took the lead after the rest of the rural early vote came in, he leads Behn by less than 100 votes, Dixie by less than 400 votes, and Copeland by less than 1,000 votes.
“Donald Trump is going to win the election and democracy will be just fine.”
Okay then.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/07/opinion/trump-miller-kirk-aftermath.html?unlocked_article_code=1.rk8.5vGT.i_dImH62kyq4&smid=url-share
NYT is a fucking joke. And the comment section in that op-ed is overrun with MAGA Republicans spouting anti-trans nonsense.
Don't know what you're talking about.
He is referring to Golden's op-ed.
That was from the Bangor Daily News.
Your comment links to a NYTs piece, not Golden's op-ed in the Bangor Daily News just FYI.
Which includes a link to the Bangor piece.
I saw a thing in HuffPost today with Robert Reich arguing Trump could invoke the Insurrection Act and effectively declare martial law, courts be damned.
I sincerely hope it does not come to that.
It would still be subject to court challenge.
Reich argued Trump wouldn’t care.
If South Korea could stop their version, I guess we could come together and stop ours, but I worry the energy isn’t there.
There's always that possibility. I just meant that it's not like invoking the Insurrection Act means that's it.
I get that. I just think we all have to be vigilant now. If South Korea could stop their attempt, we can stop ours. And they’ve only been a democracy since 1988.
Which doesn't mean they value democracy less: rather, probably the opposite is true.
The way to stop it is to not give Trump the violent response he wants. That’s why he backed off the Insurrection Act when he went into LA.
That in itself won't necessarily save us.
Republicans post fake image of Oregon protest – using photos of South America.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/06/oregon-republicans-protest-photo-south-america
What do you propose we do then? Or is there nothing we can do?
Pressure Democrats in Washington to respond more strongly. Non-violent demonstrations and resistance. Protest days including at main sources of disinformation like Fox.
Some general strikes would help if Americans would ever do something like that...
Jon Stewart more or less said that too. Still stuck in his Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear period.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/07/trump-administration-selling-federal-student-loan-portfolio-00595456
Trump admin considering selling off high performing federally backed student loans sometime next year. Ignoring that this will create a student debt securities crisis, psa to anyone that has a few extra hundred socked away to apply to student debt now rather than later, as these monsters in the White house only have a marketable asset if they mark up interest rates, contracts be damned.
(It could help us electorally, especially with zillenials that were used to biden's much more forgiving repayment options).
I'm delighted that Beau Bayh has announced a run for Secretary of State in Indiana. I think that there is a good chance that he could win if Democrats start reaching out to all the people who do not vote. (Indiana is 50th in voter turnout, according to one source, and Republicans like it that way.) Too many Democrats in Indiana speak only to Democrats. Destiny Wells pulled in 40% of the vote against Morales in 2022, and it is important to build upon that showing.
Keeping polls open later would be a good start. 6pm is unconscionably early closing time.
(Btw, it looks like Indiana is more like 43rd, but still not good. Hawaii consistently scores worst in this.) https://election.lab.ufl.edu/2024-general-election-turnout/
We also offer 30 days of no-excuse early voting, which is better than some blue states.
Yeah, New Hampshire has some pretty terrible voting laws - no early voting, absentee requires an excuse, voter ID is required, etc.
And yet, our voter turnout is still pretty good - 5th highest according to the link above. Voting laws aren't destiny.
New Hampshire probably benefits from being a) small, both geographically and population-wise and b) capital-I Important(tm) for so many years in the presidential nominating process
I expect education and income play a big part too. NH is ranked 4th by median income and 9th by bachelors or higher.
Voters in competitive areas with high education and income tend to care more about voting.
Unlike other states, you can vote at midnight on election day in (some precincts in) NH, lol. Can't do that elsewhere!
Beau Bayh is with you on keeping the polls open longer:
https://indianacapitalchronicle.com/2025/10/06/democrat-beau-bayh-to-run-for-indiana-secretary-of-state/?emci=e21b1dcb-d9a2-f011-8e61-6045bded8ba4&emdi=e9efe0f5-70a3-f011-8e61-6045bded8ba4&ceid=630426
I usually find this red state voter turnout argument cope. If votes are really being suppressed or people are not coming out to vote for Democrats disproportionally then there must be some evidence for it. High turnout modelling doesn't show any meaningful difference in results neither do polls of all registered voters or residents of voting age in those states. Those states cannot be won without significant crossover voting.
One such study: https://split-ticket.org/2024/09/26/would-voter-turnout-be-enough-to-flip-texas-blue/
I moved here eight years ago, as my husband wanted to retire here, and Indiana is a state with much to offer. However, I have found the Democratic party here to be rather parochial. Most meetings of my local Democrats have at least one person proclaiming that he or she is a lifelong Democrat and the family as far back as they can remember were Democrats. They preach to the choir they have rather than expanding the number of members, some of whom who might not have started as Democrats (I became a Democrat in 1998 and came from a Republican family) but who have come to realize that the party embodies their values. Also, in a county like mine, in which 40% of people have incomes below the poverty line and half the students qualified for free meals, people want to hear some practical solutions.
We don’t really know that - extrapolation is methodologically weak to begin with and when you apply it to somewhat un-reliable data like public polling then it only compounds the weaknesses of extrapolation. So we can’t say with high degree of accuracy what would happen if non-voters showed up to vote.
It is pretentious and erroneous for Ken Paxton to refer to himself as "General Paxton." In the phrase "attorney general," the word "general" is an adjective, not a noun. He is the general attorney for the state. Making his title sound like an exalted military position is an example of stolen valor.
I mean, no, all attorneys general and solicitors general are called "General ___"
Wrong. They are not and should not be addressed that way. You should address an Attorney General as the "Attorney General" or "The Honorable [First Name] [Last Name]" for formal occasions, not "General". While "General" is a component of the title, it does not function as the proper form of address, similar to how "President" is used for the President and not just "President."
Here are some ways to address the Attorney General:
Formal: The Honorable [First Name] [Last Name] (e.g., The Honorable Merrick Garland)
Informal: Attorney General [Last Name] (e.g., Attorney General Garland)
Neutral: The Attorney General (e.g., "Can the Attorney General provide clarification?")
Why "General" is incorrect
Incorrect usage:
"General" is a military rank, not a professional title in the way Attorney General is.
Misleading:
Calling an Attorney General just "General" could lead to confusion with a military general.
Examples of proper usage
"The Attorney General released a statement on the new policy."
"We await the decision of the Honorable Attorney General."
"Could you please forward my question to Attorney General Smith?"
It is quite common for people to refer to AGs or SGs as "General". In SCOTUS oral arguments, public appearances, etc. I too find it annoying, but it would be incorrect to say it doesn't happen.
It happens, but a lot of language misuse happens. According to Wikipedia: "The title Attorney General is an example of a noun (attorney) followed by a postpositive adjective (general). 'General' is a description of the type of attorney, not a title or rank in itself (as it would be in the military). Even though the attorney general (and the similarly titled solicitor general) is occasionally referred to as 'General' or 'General [last name]' by senior government officials, this is considered incorrect in standard American English usage. For the same reason, the correct American English plural form is 'attorneys general' rather than 'attorney generals.'"
Every federal judge is "considered incorrect" using Wikipedia as your source is just a weird pedantic hill to die on.
Who is dying? "Every federal judge" is a bit hyperbolic, isn't it?
I'm not disagreeing with you that it's grammatically unsound, but you said "they are not addressed that way" which, as a function of what is happening in the real world, is completely incorrect.
No, sorry, you're wrong, and listening to a single oral argument with a solicitor general shows that. And like this famous clip of Kamala and Maya Harris kikiing: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C9s0bTlRp5w/
And more famously: “I tell you frankly I don't need this title because I [could] be called General, I understand, for the rest of my life. And I don't need the money and I don't need the office space.” - Robert F. Kennedy on his 1964 senate run
Seems like we should call Paxton, "Solicitor" like we do DAs and other lawyers in SC.
VA GOV: Spanberger (D) vs Earle-Sears (R) - who would do a better job handling...
🔵 Healthcare: D+18
🔵 Transgender policy: D+13
🔵 Fed. workforce reduction: D+12
🔵 Threats to Democracy: D+10
🔵 Inflation: D+9
🔵 Fed. Workforce reduction: D+8
🔵 Immigration: D+6
🔵 Taxes: D+4
🔵 Crime: D+2
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/1975301099247534200
Yes, but Earle-Sears would make a better bathroom monitor.
Her entire strategy is : noun + verb +transgender/illegal/both
When you're at a disadvantage on almost all issues, and further have the burden of an unpopular federal government of your party, I really can't blame Earle-Sears for grabbing the straw of "this worked before, so let's try it again". Never mind that whatever worked for the VA GOP in 2021 did so in a totally different national environment, and even Youngkin's win wasn't exactly a landslide.
And Youngkin himself hasn't always exactly been politically masterful in office; some Republicans in 2023 weren't happy with his late-campaign emphasis on abortion, proposing a 15 week limit for most abortions that he probably viewed as a good compromise but just called more attention to one of the party's leading liabilities. And speaking of the GOP's leading liabilities, Youngkin's cozying up to Trump and dismissive (at best) attitude toward federal workers is hardly helping Earle-Sears.
To the point of your last sentence, Earle-Sears isn’t just not being helped by Trump and Youngkin. She herself is being dismissive and showing she doesn’t care.
I always blame people for campaigning to people's prejudices. That's why the U.S. sucks!
TBF, that's not exactly unique to the US.
It isn't, but it's what's been wrong with the U.S. for 250 years!
+I don’t give a damn
GOP, keep up the good work!
I think the fact that the Democrats are +13 on transgender issues means that people think the GOP has gone to the well too often with this issue and that they have gone too far.
The sports thing is obviously losing ground for us but the weirdo bathroom monitoring or even more extreme things like total bans on transition treatments (sometimes even for adults!!) is clearly very, very losing ground for the GOP
I don't see why it has to be losing ground for us. Just turn it right back on them. Logistically what does a world look like where they ensure that every sports participant is the right gender? Ask the question. Why does your Republican Congressman want to inspect your teenage daughter's genitals?
It’s also a relatively simple solution - the rules of every game are about creating an equal playing field - so that neither team or individual competitors are given an unfair advantage. If it is determined that trans athletes have a competitive advantage the governing bodies of sports can adjust the rules to account for this. In some sports it would be like a golf handicap. Anyone that has played, coached, officiated, or is an engaged observer of sports would understand this approach.
And what you are describing means there still can be common ground on ensuring anyone can compete in sports, including trans people of any kind.
Spanberger is also taking the Buttigieg line on sports and others which works.
just like they did a few years back over same-sex marriage issue!
i just hope she drags jay jones over the line. what he said was gross, but not disqualifying and National rethugs just dumped another 1.5 million into the state.
Education isn't on the list?
A lot of issues get coded by party. That a republican is losing the optics of taxes and crime is a great sign for us.
"Explainer
What does ‘Boriswave’ mean and what is its political significance?
Use by Nigel Farage is latest example of terms coined by the ‘extremely online right’ entering political mainstream"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/23/what-does-boriswave-mean-nigel-farage-reform-uk-immigration
https://www.politico.eu/article/boris-johnson-uk-conservative-party-nigel-farage/
https://x.com/60sJapanfan/status/1970847041002905684
With Lecornu’s government seeming to have collapsed within hours of the Cabinet being revealed and France doing its best to imitate Italian political stability (or lack thereof), is this the final push needed for Macron to accept reality and form a government of the left, or does he gamble on another snap election?
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert here, but I think Macron will continue exploring every alternative option. That's considering Macron's refusal to consider a left PM from the very start, and how he's gone to ridiculous levels to avoid it.
If he continues to do this could it help the candidates on the left in the 2027 presidential election?
Maybe. The problem is that the left is pretty disunited in France (go figure, plus ca change, etc) and are more so than they were immediately after the July 2024 polls. I’m not even sure what kind of coherent left-led government he could even stitch together.
Kudos to Stephen Lynch.
https://bsky.app/profile/newscurrentnow.com/post/3m2mugblsjs2h
Absolutely. He's from the opposite wing of the party that you and I are in, and it's really excellent to see him standing up for good government and against misrule.
If more of the moderate/establishment wing of the party was talking like this, our wing of the party would be doing a lot worse I reckon.
Gotta give him credit for not just saying that but also how he said it. He didn't coax it in bullshit. It's a direct, undeniable critique in plain language that doesn't try to soften the problems.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/07/gavin-newsoms-new-headache-a-democrat-from-silicon-valley-00595618
Matt Mahan looking to run for Governor by shitting on Newsom's social media campaign and the Election Rigging Response Act regularly. I thought he was a genuine good governance pragmatist, but he turned out to be just another annoying and performative anti-Democrat centrist.
I can understand Newsom's imitating of Trump's social media style on social media being annoying (although the rapid response aspects of Newsom's social media operation are top-notch), but Mahan's only chance of getting elected governor is to somehow get into the top two with some kind of coalition of centrist/center-right voters, and for someone like Katie Porter to be the other candidate in the top two. Even then, I don't think Mahan has much of a chance.
The second Trump presidency is the worst time to be a weak-style moderate/establishment Democrat like Mahan; strong-style Democrats of both the progressive and moderate varieties are in vogue right now.
I think you're spot-on with your prediction of his electoral strategy.
Does trump really think his having a UFC night at the WH for his birthday in 2026 will endear him to the voters a few months later? What a complete fool!
I just came up with a brilliant idea: Pam Bondi vs. Kristi Noem
Maine Gov. Janet Mills will announce she is running for senate as soon as next week per Axios. https://www.axios.com/2025/10/07/maine-janet-mills-poised-senate-race-announcement
I may be wrong, but I don't feel happy about that at this point.
She should’ve announced earlier before Platner made a splash with his campaign. Now she’s going to look like a Johnny come lately.
She’s also on record defending Collins and is 79 to boot. She strikes me as quite weak as far as candidacy goes and age is a concern in the event of a sudden death — see Sylvester Turner as an example.
Meanwhile Platner has a blue collar image, is unabashedly progressive (which means he’ll be at least a mostly reliable vote), has raised massive amounts of money, and provides a clear contrast to Collins in terms of ideology and direction. I keep seeing Fetterman comparisons but Fetterman had a stroke, he’s a totally different person now. I think Platner’s the real deal. Go Platner!
I really don’t think the stroke had anything to do with it. The real Fetterman was there all along. We just didn’t look hard enough.
I think I'm gonna donate to Platner when she announces. We can do better.
Ugh.
She waited too long and since she outright defended Collins on the record she also does not have the mindset for this. We cannot beat Collins if the voters Maine continue to think of her as a reasonable republican, and that's a persona that Mills has worked to reinforce. That's not even touching on her age. But now Schumer and Gillibrand will push all the institutional levers in her advantage and we'll have a messy primary regardless of the winner.
https://open.substack.com/pub/gelliottmorris/p/most-polls-overstate-support-for?r=17bef&utm_medium=ios
G. Elliott Morris on how most polls overstate support for political violence in the U.S. and how inaccurate reporting about the degree of approval of such violence by one side prompts more support for it from the other side, thereby actually making it more likely.
WI-GOV: Josh Kaul is OUT and running for re-election as AG. He would've been the strongest candidate hands down so its pretty disappointing to see him not run.
Now, Mandela Barnes is 'strongly considering' running. I think Barnes would be the weakest possible candidate we could run here. If you paid any attention to his run against Johnson in 2022, the ads and oppo dumps against him were brutal. He was on record advocating for defunding the police/abolishing ICE along with some tax issues. Barnes lost an electorate that elected Evers by 4 points and where Dems won almost every statewide office. Maybe Barnes has better strategies this time but the unfavorable oppo is still out there.
https://www.wpr.org/news/josh-kaul-governor-reelection-attorney-general
https://www.tmj4.com/news/national-politics/america-votes/strongly-considering-will-mandela-barnes-enter-race-for-governor-as-josh-kaul-opts-out
Barnes was also abandoned by the national Dem leadership who did not invest in a race he just barely lost. Wisconsin has also elected progressives before — Baldwin, Feingold, if you want to go really far back La Follette.
I still think Barnes had other issues (race, sadly, was likely one) but don’t act like ideology alone sunk him.
Barnes was not 'abandoned' he had $50 million in PAC spending supporting him and actually outraised Johnson during the campaign.
https://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary?cycle=2022&id=WIS2
We already had this debate a few days back, didn't we? Can someone copypaste the consensus answer?
Still, progressives have won before in WI. Feingold and Baldwin have been/were quite left-wing, no? Baldwin even won re election in 2024, a horrible year for Dems.
I really think race was the issue, Baldwin and Feingold were white and Barnes is black. Unfortunately that’s an issue in conservative areas like parts of Wisconsin.
Obama won Wisconsin twice comfortably so I don't think race is the issue here. Barnes gave the GOP plenty of material to attack him over and couldn't respond effectively to it.
Why, then, did Feingold and Baldwin pull off what Barnes couldn’t? I’m just confused now. They’re all progressives, but Barnes did worse. Maybe Barnes was to Feingold/Baldwin’s left?
Because Barnes had baggage that Baldwin didn't. He made some comments in the past about reducing police funding and getting rid of ICE which hit like a thud in 2022.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/07/politics/kfile-mandela-barnes-signaled-support-abolish-ice
Feingold only pulled it off for so long. He was chucked out of office and then couldn't win the next time he ran.
How much was spent on him after the primary?
Of our competitive senate candidates of 2022, Barnes was by far the one with the least amount of fundraising+third party spending on his behalf. He outraised Johnson but not by much. Whereas candidates who were absolutely crushed did better, like Demings in Florida ($80m raised to Rubio's $50m). In Ohio Ryan raised $56m to Vance's $15m. Barnes' advantage was downright paltry in comparison: $42m to $36m. And Johnson had the advantage in outside spending, with $77m in his favor vs $50m in Barnes' favor.
That's enough of a gap that Johnson probably had a net advantage in spending, if not it was close to a tie. Barnes and maybe Beasley was the only one of our serious senate candidates that didn't have an overwhelming financial edge that cycle.
If Barnes enters, he'd have a candidate running to his left, Francesca Hong, who is an AOC-type progressive.
An interesting fact about Hong is that she doesn't have a college degree. Who was the last Democratic governor to not have a college degree?
Senate Republicans
@NRSC
🚨 BREAKING: Major crowd turns out to hear Haley Stevens speak in Michigan!
https://x.com/NRSC/status/1975330285387661572 Video
https://x.com/joma_gc/status/1975565878310961435
So it wasn't fake news after all ig.
Mallory really, really needs to win.
Yes.
Why is x saying "You are rate limited" and not showing me anything? Is that happening to any of you?
No, you are shadow-banned.
What is that? I never post or even log in to X.
Also, it's working now. It seems to intermittently not work and sometimes gives me that message, then later works, all the while sort of complaining that I'm not using their app.
For all it shows, it probably is still fake. Mic checks gotta do a dry run of portions of the script to test for feedback, popping, and audio peaking. Audio prep work is a real job.
Why would she hug that guy then? and why isn't she dispelling the days long rumor with some video? McMorrow and AES posted clips from the same event.
This isn't the Zapruder film.
Crowd could be behind the camera - don’t hear anyone though. It’s odd. Phil Skaggs is a popular state rep in Grand Rapids so I doubt there was no one there - just bad advance work in terms of people and cameras. All that said - Go McMorrow
Yeah, I’m not a fan of Stevens, but this is nonsense,
Tell me you never worked in campaigns and specifically advance - looks like bad advance work to me and my years of experience working advance
How do we know that because Republicans posted it, it's not fake news?!
Several pro-voting groups asked a court Monday to block Utah Republican’s audacious new GOP law designed to make it harder to strike down the state’s new gerrymander, arguing it violates the state constitution.
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/utah-map-unduly-favors-republicans-claims-new-filing-challenging-gops-two-pronged-gerrymander-scheme/
Very odd SCOOP:
Just weeks before the 2024 primary election between Cori Bush and Wesley Bell, Bell used over $35,000 in campaign funds to buy his friend's Dodge Durango, which the friend had failed to sell two years earlier.
He then hired the friend, who now drives the car.
https://x.com/ryangrim/status/1975592197568319681
Bush and Bell competing over who can be more corrupt!
Real race to the bottom here. Is there a way for both of them to lose?
Unfortunately no.
Extremely close Democratic primary in the TN-7 special election: less than 250 votes separates leader Darden Copeland from third-place Aftyn Behn, with Bo Mitchell in second place. Davidson County hasn't reported anything yet; Behn is leading in Montgomery (Clarksville area) and Williamson (Franklin area).
Much of the Davidson vote came in; Behn took the lead; top three are Behn, Mitchell, and Vincent Dixie, ga between first and third is 214 votes with about five-sevenths of the vote in.
Behn is the progressive, I believe.
So probably more unlikely to win the general election.
Bo Mitchell took the lead after the rest of the rural early vote came in, he leads Behn by less than 100 votes, Dixie by less than 400 votes, and Copeland by less than 1,000 votes.