As things look right now, the best path the UK has to a government that isn't rightwing with a rightwing opposition is if Labour falls by the wayside and is eclipsed by Greens and/or LibDems. In that context, this is a good outcome: it shows electoral viability for Greens. Though I will note that the chance of a good outcome in their next general election is still low.
Good riddance to New Labor. Can't say I will miss Starmer and his ilk when they're defeated, even with Reform rising from the ashes of the Tories. You can hardly call yourself "labor" when you've become so pro corporate and pro elites. Congrats to the Green candidate elect, Hannah Spencer. This is probably the best outcome that could have happened.
Chicago resident here. Thanks for the mention of Fairshake's involvement in an anti-Stratton ad. I was amazed by a large, glossy, vitriolic ad I got in the mail from Fairshake aimed at Robert Peters, who I met a dozen or so years ago when he was canvassing for a state legislature seat. He who impressed the hell out of me. For one thing, I've lived overseas, and he knew more about European politics than I did. (Turns out I taught his sister; he's adopted.) I think the Fairshake ad is factually false, and I guess the crypto people are scorching the earth to defeat anyone who might be anti-crypto. Peters is now running to fill Robin Kelly's seat; she's the third in the Senate campaign (and by far the least likely to win). Either Krishnamoorthi or Stratton; I favor the latter.
It’s pretty freaking clear to this reader what Fairshake’s beef with Stratton is - her name is not Raja Krishnamoorthi! The crypto industry has already spent millions securing a candidate who’s totally in the bag for them, and now they’re just trying to ensure a win
I’m afraid you’re incorrect, as we explained in great detail in the post. Stations are literally immune from defamation claims for candidate ads. SCOTUS said so itself.
You referenced a Supreme Court case about candidate speeches being covered in station programming to explain why stations are immune.
Ads are not subject to the same 1st amendment protections as station programming. If candidates could just blatantly lie in their paid ads about their opponents, of course many would happily do so.
Stations cannot pull, and are not liable for airing, false ads from a candidate’s campaign.
Stations CAN pull, and CAN be liable for, false ads from third parties/PACs.
That distinction is probably the cause of the confusion, since we see every cycle stations refusing to air ads due to a false claim; those rejected ads are always from PACs or other groups.
Because we have a two-party system, but—as in every nation—people hold more than two ideologies, primaries are the way to resolve internal differences and unite behind the winner against the opposition party. Primaries are how voters decide which direction the party should take.
We’ve been the benefactor of the Republicans making dozens of stupid decisions in primaries over the past 16 years. There’s a number of senate and gubernatorial races that we would never have won were it not for their stupid decisions. The risk in a primary is that voters driven by emotion and rage nominate problematic candidates. Democrats are not immune to that.
Primaries are good for some things like engagement, registration, contact, and early messaging. There are very real downsides to them sometimes though.
It is absolutely going to be an incredibly anti-Trump midterm. Collins is also more closely associated with him than ever, having just announced her support for the SAVE Act.
She's pretty close to screwed, especially with Rs having to spend money to defend just about everywhere else (NC, AK, OH, IA, TX, maybe FL, NE)
and i think janet's alienation of organized labor and record setting vetos of bills from her own party-controlled state legislature has her struggle to turn out base voters, hence the reason unh has her back by 40 points to Platner. Maine is a weird state
I don’t think base voters will be a problem. Trump and his goons are enough motivator for our base to vote. It’s the swing voters I worry about in these races. Mills might have an issue with some labor defections, but I think that pales in comparison to the defections we’d see in a potential Platner vs. Collins race. We’ll know more once he’s faced negative ads and how his standing looks in primary and general polling after.
then why is platner leading collins by more in almost every independent poll we have, including the UNH one?
I think you're mythologizing a specific kind of swing voter. "Swing voter" can also be 'Dem-identified voter deciding between voting and staying home', especially in a state like Maine, which is reliably blue locally and presidentially.
hard to rule out a scenario where Platner activates the part of the electorate in the general polls seem to be claiming he could. It's probably *likely* inside the Democratic primary, because Mills is a deeply flawed candidate and is barely trying.
Platner has not been leading Collins by more than Mills in the few independent polls we have. Ignoring the Platner internal, one showed Mills doing better, this one showed Platner doing better, and two showed no significant difference. This poll may have more weight as it's the newest, but still.
I go back and forth between worrying he loses the general and worrying he wins and ends up being horrible. I think the median outcome if he wins is that he's a normal bad senator who is in way over his head, but there are some tail probabilities that are really awful. Hoping that Mills can still pull it out and wish this seat wasn't so crucial to getting a majority.
That’s almost exactly where I’m at. Seems like such a pointless thing to have to stress about when we can just get a solid D vote for six years and have a purity test primary in 2032.
Mostly agree, Platner seems like a very risky candidate. If this were a neutral or red-leaning year I might be more inclined to roll the dice on him, but it's shaping up as a blue wave and I'd rather have Mills who has less baggage that could be exploited in a general election.
If Platner wins, I could see him taking cues from Angus King, Bernie Sanders, and Ruben Gallego on various things and growing into the job. I could also see him thinking he doesn't have to listen to anybody, and being a headache.
Curious how you think he’ll be a bad senator? My worry is that a senator Mills will effectively be the same as a senator Collins because she doesn’t support ending the filibuster. With either of them as a senator, dems won’t be able to pass voting reform, healthcare reform, immigration reform etc. Unless the senate majority is bigger than 50 or 51, which I doubt it will be.
Being a senator is hard work. We are closer in time to some of his dumb and/or bigoted Reddit posts than to the end of the Senate term. So part of me is worried he hasn't really changed as much he says and we'll see that when it comes to votes and then I'm also worried he'll be in over his head. I could absolutely see a Jim Webb scenario where he flames out after a term when he sees what the job actually entails.
"Being a senator is hard work" yeah, I think any 40 year old would be better than any 79 year old, who is way too old to be making a 6-year commitment to a Senate seat.
It would be a miracle if this guy were a good Senator. He said he joined the military because he wanted to kill people. He was a mercenary. He has had trouble holding down a consistent job. He has no consistent beliefs. He has shown serious lack of judgement in things he writes, says, tattoos on his body and in how he responds to criticism and adversity. He is a creation of consultants and no one has any idea how he would act once in office. I would put odds of him being a good senator at about 20 to 1.
I don't think voters will care about Platner's history any more than they cared about Trump's history. The era where these things mattered, if it ever existed, is over. Partisanship is more important.
Yeah, this article definitely sours me on Jasmine Crockett. If you can't handle press coverage of your run for Senate, then you shouldn't be running period.
There is this point in the Altantic article that makes me believe Talarico is the real progressive here, channeling Bernie Sanders in a way.
.
.
.
Her primary opponent, 36-year-old James Talarico, is responding to that moment very differently. On the campaign trail, the state lawmaker and Presbyterian seminarian bypasses Trump roasts in favor of quotes from the Gospel of Luke. Like Crockett, Talarico appears to be channeling the anger of millions of Democrats, but the target of his ire is not necessarily the president—it’s the billionaires who, he asserts, are rigging America’s economic system and rending its social fabric.
the only reason people believe Crockett is the more progressive candidate is because the political press covers black women candidates as more radical than they are, and people accept this without challenging their internal biases. this isn't Crockett's fault, far from it, but it doesn't change how inaccurate that assumption is in this case.
I agree. Kamala Harris is example A of this - progressives were no fan of hers as AG, yet the public perception of her was as an extreme liberal and there's only one obvious reason. That said, I object vehemently to Crockett as our nominee on electability grounds, not ideological ones.
You're onto something here. I'll confess to my own bias here thinking Crockett was the further left of the two until I looked into it and discovered she isn't.
Has anyone else seen the Republican businessman Gavin Solomon from New York, he has filed paperwork for 52 federal offices nationwide (including filing multiple times in four states), really displaying the problems with the filing and election issues with candidates in the U.S. Furthermore, what would happen if he won multiple primaries or in the very unlikely scenario he wins multiple federal elections?
In all seriousness, why do people like Gavin Solomon waste their time with this charade? Is there a greater cause in doing this or do these fools just too bored out of their minds to do anything else?
Depends on what you define as "wimps". Representatives unwilling to directly criticize Trump/the Republicans and pass meaningful reforms? Sure. Representatives unwilling to spend all their time breathing fire and ignoring pragmatics? Count me out.
I thought that was a super helpful and interesting way of looking at things. And there have been lots of anecdotes to back that up over the last couple of years; the focus group description of Dems like deers in headlights that went viral; Gavin Newsom's rise based on the perception that he's fight-y. Time to fight, Dems.
Problem for democrats is they want to build a government that helps the American people, Republicans just want to tear it down. It's way easier to tear down.
“We are doomed,” one staffer said. “We are f**ked,” said another. “Everybody is reeling about the obvious things,” said a third. “The panic at CNN right now is off the charts,” one insider told Status of the larger mood that had arrested the network"
Considering the major impact Netflix would have made on Hollywood if it acquired Warner Bros Discovery, Paramount Skydance acquiring the company may be more of a relief for now.
But I would push the next Democratic POTUS to break up everything with Paramount Skydance with the following:
Take Lina Khan’s leash off. If the very little she was able to do under Biden is what scared all the billionaires into Trump’s camp then she was barking up the right tree
Well, for starters anti-trust laws are severely out of date. They need to have more teeth and take into account a healthy competitive economy with a lot of technological change, which in turn has disrupted equality and equity.
Take for instance the streaming film market. Alyssa Milano made a statement recently that GoFundMe campaigns for the late Eric Dane and James Van Der Beek were done because actors aren’t getting the same kind of residuals in streaming as they used to with traditional television format. Streaming has contributed to this but the big media companies have become more massively more corporate as a result.
I originally was on your side regarding Netflix but the company also has made the film culture worse starting with video stores, eliminating it’s own DVD rental business (which defeats the purpose of why Netflix was Netflix in the first place) and catering to stupidity with the push to streaming only then to not really offer much of a selection compared to what the video stores actually had.
The name “Netflix” is such an oxymoron these days.
Until we can do something about it legislatively the best things we can do are 1) relentlessly disinfect with sunlight and 2) fight fire with fire the best we can consistent with our values
The GOP oligarchial billionaire/corporate/media/political project is the threat. Trump, Vance, or whomever can head it.
This isn't a head of the snake situation, it is gardening. Gotta pull the roots & stems out or it just comes back.
Dems that are against making the necessary changes to get the $$ out (filibuster reform and SCROTUS expansion) should be non-starters in most instances.
In 2020, a Democratic Maricopa County recorder, a semi rational Republican Board of Supervisors, and Arizona courts saved us from disaster. They bucked Trump. Unfortunately, the composition has changed. Heap, an election denier, was elected to the Recorder's office, and the two most normal supervisors have been replaced, one being Debbie Lesko.
Under Arizona law, the election duties are divided between the Recorder and BOS, and they generally agree on a power sharing agreement. For 2026, they haven't, and the Republicans are attacking each other. It can be assumed there's a problem when Debbie Lesko starts looking like the adult in the room.
Democrats in Arizona are going to have their work cut out for them to make sure there isn't massive voter suppression in Arizona's largest county.
Updated TX-Sen GOP primary thoughts. Looks like Wesley Hunt is petering out, rather than being the spoiler I thoguht he might. Real chance Paxton gets close to 50% now; the GOP establishment has spent tens (hundreds?) of millions to boost Cornyn and it hasn't budged him an inch. Since it all has to add up to 100, here's my new predix:
50% - Paxton
36% - Cornyn
14% - Hunt
Would be hilarious if both party primaries are decided Tuesday. Ideally Dems would have a nominee and Republicans would drag on for a couple more months.
Pretty obvious Cornyn and Paxton will be headed to a runoff but with Hunt not being a fan of Cornyn, his supporters are likely to move to Paxton. That will make Cornyn’s case in the runoff all the more challenging.
Is it pretty obvious? Right now the average at fiftyplusone has it at 36% Paxton, 31% Cornyn, Hunt 19%. That adds up to 86%. Where is the other 14% going? My argument is that I don't think we can just scatter the remainder to all the candidates equally. Cornyn is a universally known quantity, so I just don't see him going any higher than he is now. Previously I thought maybe Hunt might scoop up some extra votes as a common-ground middle option, but not sure if that's likely anymore. Definitely think Paxton could crawl up into the high 40s.
Any percentage of Hunt voters could go either way in the runoff. However, I am mainly arguing that because Hunt has had beef with Cornyn for some time, it doesn’t seem like Cornyn would be able to do enough to win much of the percentage of these voters.
Of course, Hunt voters could decide to sit out from voting for either Cornyn or Paxton in the runoff. I was mainly arguing that it would be logical for Paxton to get Hunt voters simply because both groups would be United in that Cornyn has to go as he’s too much apart of the establishment and not MAGA.
Yes. That’s a fair assessment. A less flawed candidate in Paxton’s shoes could possibly get over 50% but the GOP doesn’t have that candidate in the race.
The ideal scenario is Paxton gets in the high 40s and leads Cornyn solidly while Talarico wins with a majority. Trump wouldn’t endorse cornyn in a runoff if Cornyn is shown to be that weak. But we’ll have probably $50 million of negative ads against Paxton spent by the NRSC to avert disaster.
Meanwhile Talarico can bask in not being dragged into a nearly three month-long runoff and make his pitch to center-right voters.
I do think that Mamdani has some advantages in appealing to Trump that few share: young, male, handsome, New Yorker, outsider vs establishment. And Mamdani clearly has extraordinary interpersonal skills.
Stuart Stevens said Mamdani's skill is that he really wants to be likeable by everyone in the room, so his politics would be more flexible which is useful when governing a major American city in 2025 where ideology goes out the window when the tire meets the road.
Yeah he knows how to tickle Trump's love of being a developer who builds things. Mamdani talked with Trump about building 12,000 units of housing on top of the Amtrak/NJ Transit yard in Sunnyside which seems to have intrigued Trump.
[quote]A Democratic lawmaker in New York City, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the mayor, voiced unease about Mamdani’s budding relationship with the Republican president. “However much social media may swoon over their meetings, the real question remains: What exactly is New York City getting out of Zohran’s bromance with a racist tyrant?” the lawmaker said.[unquote]
That's the flip side, and it's troubling. Whether it's worth 12,000 units of housing, etc. is the question.
If handing trump a fake piece of paper is what gets some movement on getting some freakin housing built in this country, I'd say that's a darn good governance and politics.
Over a million units of housing are built in this country every year, and tens of thousands in NY but I'm sure Trump will be the one to solve the affordability problem with this project.
It will take decades of building for NYC to solve the housing affordability crisis, but at least Mamdani is trying hard to get as much as possible done as quickly as possible.
The affordability crisis will not be solved by decades of building. It would require a corresponding limitation to the number of people moving to NY. Which would probably only occur if NY went back to the seedy times of the 70's and 80's.
what % of those units are affordable/accessible to the bottom 50% of income distribution. Willing to bet sub 10% of the units built. and that's the point. All the new housing being built is for the upper middle class with six figure incomes, or close to it. The bastard is in power for another 3 years, Mamdani won't get anything built alone. This is the definition of prudence.
He got investments for thousands of housing units and got a student released from ICE custody. Also, ICE hasn't targeted NYC like Minneapolis. That’s a pretty good deal.
I sort of think their bromance is really more "game recognize game" and I don't mean that in a positive way. They are both fully post-modern, internet-celebrity driven candidates that spend far too much time making content. I'm not shocked they get along.
That may be but is kind of besides the point. Trump is also doing a lot of "real things". My point was more that both are really celebrity politicians.
What does this mean? I'm not exactly excited if the UK is headed for a reform government
As things look right now, the best path the UK has to a government that isn't rightwing with a rightwing opposition is if Labour falls by the wayside and is eclipsed by Greens and/or LibDems. In that context, this is a good outcome: it shows electoral viability for Greens. Though I will note that the chance of a good outcome in their next general election is still low.
It means Reform was defeated by a truly progressive party.
Good riddance to New Labor. Can't say I will miss Starmer and his ilk when they're defeated, even with Reform rising from the ashes of the Tories. You can hardly call yourself "labor" when you've become so pro corporate and pro elites. Congrats to the Green candidate elect, Hannah Spencer. This is probably the best outcome that could have happened.
If only we could do the same for the Dems (at least in blue seats).
Unfortunately, the U.S. corporate environment is more pervasive than what’s in the UK.
But we’re getting there in primary challenges!
Chicago resident here. Thanks for the mention of Fairshake's involvement in an anti-Stratton ad. I was amazed by a large, glossy, vitriolic ad I got in the mail from Fairshake aimed at Robert Peters, who I met a dozen or so years ago when he was canvassing for a state legislature seat. He who impressed the hell out of me. For one thing, I've lived overseas, and he knew more about European politics than I did. (Turns out I taught his sister; he's adopted.) I think the Fairshake ad is factually false, and I guess the crypto people are scorching the earth to defeat anyone who might be anti-crypto. Peters is now running to fill Robin Kelly's seat; she's the third in the Senate campaign (and by far the least likely to win). Either Krishnamoorthi or Stratton; I favor the latter.
It’s pretty freaking clear to this reader what Fairshake’s beef with Stratton is - her name is not Raja Krishnamoorthi! The crypto industry has already spent millions securing a candidate who’s totally in the bag for them, and now they’re just trying to ensure a win
There's a misunderstanding of broadcast law here.
If a claim made in the ad is factually false (as Foushee's claim was), the station cannot air it without opening up liability for themselves.
FCC regulations don't supersede defamation laws. All the stations have taken down that version of the ad.
I’m afraid you’re incorrect, as we explained in great detail in the post. Stations are literally immune from defamation claims for candidate ads. SCOTUS said so itself.
This is not an FCC regulation. It’s federal law.
I'm afraid you are mistaken, David.
You referenced a Supreme Court case about candidate speeches being covered in station programming to explain why stations are immune.
Ads are not subject to the same 1st amendment protections as station programming. If candidates could just blatantly lie in their paid ads about their opponents, of course many would happily do so.
Please show me one example of a TV station pulling a candidate ad for alleged defamation, apart from the example in this post.
Stations cannot pull, and are not liable for airing, false ads from a candidate’s campaign.
Stations CAN pull, and CAN be liable for, false ads from third parties/PACs.
That distinction is probably the cause of the confusion, since we see every cycle stations refusing to air ads due to a false claim; those rejected ads are always from PACs or other groups.
I can’t wait for primary season to be over.
I'm ready for it to be over after Tuesday, but there's 48 more states!
Yeah, but I'll be so glad the TX primary will be over.
Yeah, I've never understood why so many people here are obsessed with primaries.
I want to beat Republicans, not Democrats.
Yeah, but sometimes primary voters screw over the party by voting for someone who's toxic in the general election against a Republican.
Because we have a two-party system, but—as in every nation—people hold more than two ideologies, primaries are the way to resolve internal differences and unite behind the winner against the opposition party. Primaries are how voters decide which direction the party should take.
Yes, nomination contests are part of the game. Sometimes they can get rough.
We’ve been the benefactor of the Republicans making dozens of stupid decisions in primaries over the past 16 years. There’s a number of senate and gubernatorial races that we would never have won were it not for their stupid decisions. The risk in a primary is that voters driven by emotion and rage nominate problematic candidates. Democrats are not immune to that.
Primaries are good for some things like engagement, registration, contact, and early messaging. There are very real downsides to them sometimes though.
Agreed. GOP's 2010 and 2022 candidates were dogshit and blew many races.
A lot of places are so red/blue that the primary functions as the election but I hear ya.
one is kind of determinative for the the other.
Brother, if you think the Texas discourse was bad, wait til the Maine primary.
I think Collins will win re-election if Platner wins the ME primary. I would be shocked if she loses to him, considering his history.
I don’t think people are ready for the onslaught of negative ads coming his way, yes.
It would have to be a real anti-Trump midterm for someone as flawed as Platner to win against her.
Mills should've jumped in MUCH earlier and not complement Collins.
Luckily it looks like it's going to be a very anti-Trump midterm.
It is absolutely going to be an incredibly anti-Trump midterm. Collins is also more closely associated with him than ever, having just announced her support for the SAVE Act.
She's pretty close to screwed, especially with Rs having to spend money to defend just about everywhere else (NC, AK, OH, IA, TX, maybe FL, NE)
and i think janet's alienation of organized labor and record setting vetos of bills from her own party-controlled state legislature has her struggle to turn out base voters, hence the reason unh has her back by 40 points to Platner. Maine is a weird state
I don’t think base voters will be a problem. Trump and his goons are enough motivator for our base to vote. It’s the swing voters I worry about in these races. Mills might have an issue with some labor defections, but I think that pales in comparison to the defections we’d see in a potential Platner vs. Collins race. We’ll know more once he’s faced negative ads and how his standing looks in primary and general polling after.
then why is platner leading collins by more in almost every independent poll we have, including the UNH one?
I think you're mythologizing a specific kind of swing voter. "Swing voter" can also be 'Dem-identified voter deciding between voting and staying home', especially in a state like Maine, which is reliably blue locally and presidentially.
hard to rule out a scenario where Platner activates the part of the electorate in the general polls seem to be claiming he could. It's probably *likely* inside the Democratic primary, because Mills is a deeply flawed candidate and is barely trying.
Platner has not been leading Collins by more than Mills in the few independent polls we have. Ignoring the Platner internal, one showed Mills doing better, this one showed Platner doing better, and two showed no significant difference. This poll may have more weight as it's the newest, but still.
I go back and forth between worrying he loses the general and worrying he wins and ends up being horrible. I think the median outcome if he wins is that he's a normal bad senator who is in way over his head, but there are some tail probabilities that are really awful. Hoping that Mills can still pull it out and wish this seat wasn't so crucial to getting a majority.
That’s almost exactly where I’m at. Seems like such a pointless thing to have to stress about when we can just get a solid D vote for six years and have a purity test primary in 2032.
Mostly agree, Platner seems like a very risky candidate. If this were a neutral or red-leaning year I might be more inclined to roll the dice on him, but it's shaping up as a blue wave and I'd rather have Mills who has less baggage that could be exploited in a general election.
If Platner wins, I could see him taking cues from Angus King, Bernie Sanders, and Ruben Gallego on various things and growing into the job. I could also see him thinking he doesn't have to listen to anybody, and being a headache.
Curious how you think he’ll be a bad senator? My worry is that a senator Mills will effectively be the same as a senator Collins because she doesn’t support ending the filibuster. With either of them as a senator, dems won’t be able to pass voting reform, healthcare reform, immigration reform etc. Unless the senate majority is bigger than 50 or 51, which I doubt it will be.
Being a senator is hard work. We are closer in time to some of his dumb and/or bigoted Reddit posts than to the end of the Senate term. So part of me is worried he hasn't really changed as much he says and we'll see that when it comes to votes and then I'm also worried he'll be in over his head. I could absolutely see a Jim Webb scenario where he flames out after a term when he sees what the job actually entails.
"Being a senator is hard work" yeah, I think any 40 year old would be better than any 79 year old, who is way too old to be making a 6-year commitment to a Senate seat.
It would be a miracle if this guy were a good Senator. He said he joined the military because he wanted to kill people. He was a mercenary. He has had trouble holding down a consistent job. He has no consistent beliefs. He has shown serious lack of judgement in things he writes, says, tattoos on his body and in how he responds to criticism and adversity. He is a creation of consultants and no one has any idea how he would act once in office. I would put odds of him being a good senator at about 20 to 1.
No, I think the environment bails out Platner.
Maybe. Time may tell.
This would pretty much contradict all available pieces of evidence except for "but wait, his scandals"
I don't think voters will care about Platner's history any more than they cared about Trump's history. The era where these things mattered, if it ever existed, is over. Partisanship is more important.
Yeah, this article definitely sours me on Jasmine Crockett. If you can't handle press coverage of your run for Senate, then you shouldn't be running period.
https://archive.ph/aj4hm
Seems to have a bit of Trump in her. But as the article points out, a lot of voters like that.
There is this point in the Altantic article that makes me believe Talarico is the real progressive here, channeling Bernie Sanders in a way.
.
.
.
Her primary opponent, 36-year-old James Talarico, is responding to that moment very differently. On the campaign trail, the state lawmaker and Presbyterian seminarian bypasses Trump roasts in favor of quotes from the Gospel of Luke. Like Crockett, Talarico appears to be channeling the anger of millions of Democrats, but the target of his ire is not necessarily the president—it’s the billionaires who, he asserts, are rigging America’s economic system and rending its social fabric.
Talarico reminds me of Cory Booker. Idealistic with hippie-preacher-type rhetoric.
the only reason people believe Crockett is the more progressive candidate is because the political press covers black women candidates as more radical than they are, and people accept this without challenging their internal biases. this isn't Crockett's fault, far from it, but it doesn't change how inaccurate that assumption is in this case.
I agree. Kamala Harris is example A of this - progressives were no fan of hers as AG, yet the public perception of her was as an extreme liberal and there's only one obvious reason. That said, I object vehemently to Crockett as our nominee on electability grounds, not ideological ones.
Harris is a bad example as she branded herself very progressive for the 2020 primary.
You're onto something here. I'll confess to my own bias here thinking Crockett was the further left of the two until I looked into it and discovered she isn't.
It's probably more of a matter of rhetoric than anything at the core of the agenda.
Nope. there's plenty of objectionable policy differences between the two.
What in particular is different from a policy sense between Crockett and Talarico?
As far as the rhetoric, it could mean a different thing than what policy actually shows.
Has anyone else seen the Republican businessman Gavin Solomon from New York, he has filed paperwork for 52 federal offices nationwide (including filing multiple times in four states), really displaying the problems with the filing and election issues with candidates in the U.S. Furthermore, what would happen if he won multiple primaries or in the very unlikely scenario he wins multiple federal elections?
Looks like we have our next Rocky De La Fuente!
In all seriousness, why do people like Gavin Solomon waste their time with this charade? Is there a greater cause in doing this or do these fools just too bored out of their minds to do anything else?
could be doing it to raise awareness on how bad the filing laws are, then again he’s filing as a Republican so I doubt it.
The difference is that De La Fuente wanted to be on ballots, I'm not sure Solomon has made a single ballot yet.
Only primary ballots.
"New poll: Democrats' real problem isn't being too liberal — it's being seen as too weak
Americans, including swing voters, see the Republican Party as 20 points more extreme than Democrats — and the Democrats as weak and ineffective."
https://www.gelliottmorris.com/p/new-poll-democrats-real-problem-isnt
Can’t imagine how they got that impression.
Solution: No more wimps in the Democratic Party. Primary the wimps.
And the AIPAC/AI/Crypto anti-labor too pro-corporate crowd.
I put Mills in that category latter category.
Depends on what you define as "wimps". Representatives unwilling to directly criticize Trump/the Republicans and pass meaningful reforms? Sure. Representatives unwilling to spend all their time breathing fire and ignoring pragmatics? Count me out.
Yes, that explains perfectly what I'm referring to.
I thought that was a super helpful and interesting way of looking at things. And there have been lots of anecdotes to back that up over the last couple of years; the focus group description of Dems like deers in headlights that went viral; Gavin Newsom's rise based on the perception that he's fight-y. Time to fight, Dems.
Anyone can be fight-y on social media
I am not a Newsom fan but Proposition 50 was his idea and it nets us House seats. It also kickstarted a wave of counter-redistricting.
Not some people.
Problem for democrats is they want to build a government that helps the American people, Republicans just want to tear it down. It's way easier to tear down.
Correct. To quote Spock, "As a matter of cosmic history, it is always easier to destroy than to create."
“We are doomed,” one staffer said. “We are f**ked,” said another. “Everybody is reeling about the obvious things,” said a third. “The panic at CNN right now is off the charts,” one insider told Status of the larger mood that had arrested the network"
https://status.news/p/cnn-david-ellison-trump-paramount-wbd-netflix-deal?utm_source=www.status.news&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=cnn-braces-for-ellison-s-control&_bhlid=6f8fc6dcb9ecf714165b33957f3e6353e576ed76
For profit military (mercenaries).
For profit health care.
For profit news.
All bad ideas.
Considering the major impact Netflix would have made on Hollywood if it acquired Warner Bros Discovery, Paramount Skydance acquiring the company may be more of a relief for now.
But I would push the next Democratic POTUS to break up everything with Paramount Skydance with the following:
-Break up Paramount Skydance itself
-Warner Bros and Discovery
-And any ownership Paramount has over CNN
They need to do anti-trust on steroids
I do think it will resonate, there is a belief that a few companies own everything.
Take Lina Khan’s leash off. If the very little she was able to do under Biden is what scared all the billionaires into Trump’s camp then she was barking up the right tree
Lina Khan accomplished quite a bit under Biden. That said, I agree with your sentiment. Reappoint Lina Khan and give her expanded powers!
who does? Our best shot at that was Lina Khan, and I fear we will never get someone like that again
Well, for starters anti-trust laws are severely out of date. They need to have more teeth and take into account a healthy competitive economy with a lot of technological change, which in turn has disrupted equality and equity.
Take for instance the streaming film market. Alyssa Milano made a statement recently that GoFundMe campaigns for the late Eric Dane and James Van Der Beek were done because actors aren’t getting the same kind of residuals in streaming as they used to with traditional television format. Streaming has contributed to this but the big media companies have become more massively more corporate as a result.
I was cheering for Netflix, which I consider far preferable than father-and-son Ellison. Trump already made sure TikTok is controlled by his allies.
Democrats gave them that one.
I originally was on your side regarding Netflix but the company also has made the film culture worse starting with video stores, eliminating it’s own DVD rental business (which defeats the purpose of why Netflix was Netflix in the first place) and catering to stupidity with the push to streaming only then to not really offer much of a selection compared to what the video stores actually had.
The name “Netflix” is such an oxymoron these days.
Crypto, AI and AIPAC spending millions to try and influence democratic (small- and big-D) elections, I'm so fucking over all this.
You can thank John Roberts and Co. for that.
I certainly do.
Super PAC spending is so out of control. I don't know why we accept this.
Until we can do something about it legislatively the best things we can do are 1) relentlessly disinfect with sunlight and 2) fight fire with fire the best we can consistent with our values
Gotta get the $$ out.
The GOP oligarchial billionaire/corporate/media/political project is the threat. Trump, Vance, or whomever can head it.
This isn't a head of the snake situation, it is gardening. Gotta pull the roots & stems out or it just comes back.
Dems that are against making the necessary changes to get the $$ out (filibuster reform and SCROTUS expansion) should be non-starters in most instances.
"Republicans are boosting Jasmine Crockett ahead of critical Senate primary"
https://archive.ph/vXxDh
They've launched a text campaign.
This is more clever and sophisticated than the Abbott ad. But it might be too late at this point.
It didn't work with MJ Hegar in 2020, though.
If Foushee is taking money from Anthropic, she must be defeated.
I live in her district and think Allam is going to win, but I haven't seen any polls.
https://ktar.com/arizona-election-news/heap-in-person-voting/5828023/
In 2020, a Democratic Maricopa County recorder, a semi rational Republican Board of Supervisors, and Arizona courts saved us from disaster. They bucked Trump. Unfortunately, the composition has changed. Heap, an election denier, was elected to the Recorder's office, and the two most normal supervisors have been replaced, one being Debbie Lesko.
Under Arizona law, the election duties are divided between the Recorder and BOS, and they generally agree on a power sharing agreement. For 2026, they haven't, and the Republicans are attacking each other. It can be assumed there's a problem when Debbie Lesko starts looking like the adult in the room.
Democrats in Arizona are going to have their work cut out for them to make sure there isn't massive voter suppression in Arizona's largest county.
https://www.votebeat.org/arizona/2024/12/03/new-republican-leaders-maricopa-county-elections-justin-heap-mark-stewart-debbie-lesko-kate-brophy-mcgee/#:~:text=Lesko%2C%20Brophy%20McGee%2C%20and%20Stewart,colleagues%20will%20oversee%20the%20process.
Additional background information on the potential problem brewing.
NH-Gov:
https://www.wmur.com/article/mceachern-decides-not-running-for-governor-2026/70524300
Portsmouth Mayor Deaglan McEachern is not running here.
Is Donovan Fenton not exploring a run anymore? He hasn't been mentioned in a while.
He didn't express interest; he was just courted as a potential candidate
Updated TX-Sen GOP primary thoughts. Looks like Wesley Hunt is petering out, rather than being the spoiler I thoguht he might. Real chance Paxton gets close to 50% now; the GOP establishment has spent tens (hundreds?) of millions to boost Cornyn and it hasn't budged him an inch. Since it all has to add up to 100, here's my new predix:
50% - Paxton
36% - Cornyn
14% - Hunt
Would be hilarious if both party primaries are decided Tuesday. Ideally Dems would have a nominee and Republicans would drag on for a couple more months.
Pretty obvious Cornyn and Paxton will be headed to a runoff but with Hunt not being a fan of Cornyn, his supporters are likely to move to Paxton. That will make Cornyn’s case in the runoff all the more challenging.
Is it pretty obvious? Right now the average at fiftyplusone has it at 36% Paxton, 31% Cornyn, Hunt 19%. That adds up to 86%. Where is the other 14% going? My argument is that I don't think we can just scatter the remainder to all the candidates equally. Cornyn is a universally known quantity, so I just don't see him going any higher than he is now. Previously I thought maybe Hunt might scoop up some extra votes as a common-ground middle option, but not sure if that's likely anymore. Definitely think Paxton could crawl up into the high 40s.
Any percentage of Hunt voters could go either way in the runoff. However, I am mainly arguing that because Hunt has had beef with Cornyn for some time, it doesn’t seem like Cornyn would be able to do enough to win much of the percentage of these voters.
Of course, Hunt voters could decide to sit out from voting for either Cornyn or Paxton in the runoff. I was mainly arguing that it would be logical for Paxton to get Hunt voters simply because both groups would be United in that Cornyn has to go as he’s too much apart of the establishment and not MAGA.
There will be a runoff, there's too many concerns about Paxtons electability for him to get over 50% in the first round.
Yes. That’s a fair assessment. A less flawed candidate in Paxton’s shoes could possibly get over 50% but the GOP doesn’t have that candidate in the race.
The ideal scenario is Paxton gets in the high 40s and leads Cornyn solidly while Talarico wins with a majority. Trump wouldn’t endorse cornyn in a runoff if Cornyn is shown to be that weak. But we’ll have probably $50 million of negative ads against Paxton spent by the NRSC to avert disaster.
Meanwhile Talarico can bask in not being dragged into a nearly three month-long runoff and make his pitch to center-right voters.
“Trump's not the only one who gets the vapors around Mamdani.
Mamdani's net favorable rating is up to +48 pts in NYC (up from +14 in Sept).
Mamdani's the most popular Dem statewide in NY too.
GOP had wanted to run against Mamdani in the midterms, but they can't right now.”
https://x.com/ForecasterEnten/status/2027403228459966864
Mamdani knows how to play TACO like a master violinist. It's hilarious.
Mamdani delivered another masterclass on how to work that clown - the fake newspaper was a brilliant idea!
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/26/mamdani-heads-to-white-house-for-meeting-with-trump-on-housing-00801450
The fake newspaper ad was brilliant.
I do think that Mamdani has some advantages in appealing to Trump that few share: young, male, handsome, New Yorker, outsider vs establishment. And Mamdani clearly has extraordinary interpersonal skills.
Stuart Stevens said Mamdani's skill is that he really wants to be likeable by everyone in the room, so his politics would be more flexible which is useful when governing a major American city in 2025 where ideology goes out the window when the tire meets the road.
That may be true, but it doesn’t seem like he’s made any policy or politics concessions to Trump.
Yeah he knows how to tickle Trump's love of being a developer who builds things. Mamdani talked with Trump about building 12,000 units of housing on top of the Amtrak/NJ Transit yard in Sunnyside which seems to have intrigued Trump.
Isn't he just sucking up to him? That's the master class?
So you agree with this from the article:
[quote]A Democratic lawmaker in New York City, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the mayor, voiced unease about Mamdani’s budding relationship with the Republican president. “However much social media may swoon over their meetings, the real question remains: What exactly is New York City getting out of Zohran’s bromance with a racist tyrant?” the lawmaker said.[unquote]
That's the flip side, and it's troubling. Whether it's worth 12,000 units of housing, etc. is the question.
I'm not sure I have a strong enough opinion at the moment to agree with whoever that guy is, but let's just say that I have my doubts.
I agree. I suppose Zohran thinks he'll get something from it, if so good for him. I doubt Trumps underlings allow anything significant.
Trump is caving to Mamdani's position, so... no?
Trump is caving to Mamdani'a position of giving money to developers? I can't believe it.
If handing trump a fake piece of paper is what gets some movement on getting some freakin housing built in this country, I'd say that's a darn good governance and politics.
Over a million units of housing are built in this country every year, and tens of thousands in NY but I'm sure Trump will be the one to solve the affordability problem with this project.
It will take decades of building for NYC to solve the housing affordability crisis, but at least Mamdani is trying hard to get as much as possible done as quickly as possible.
The affordability crisis will not be solved by decades of building. It would require a corresponding limitation to the number of people moving to NY. Which would probably only occur if NY went back to the seedy times of the 70's and 80's.
what % of those units are affordable/accessible to the bottom 50% of income distribution. Willing to bet sub 10% of the units built. and that's the point. All the new housing being built is for the upper middle class with six figure incomes, or close to it. The bastard is in power for another 3 years, Mamdani won't get anything built alone. This is the definition of prudence.
He got investments for thousands of housing units and got a student released from ICE custody. Also, ICE hasn't targeted NYC like Minneapolis. That’s a pretty good deal.
I sort of think their bromance is really more "game recognize game" and I don't mean that in a positive way. They are both fully post-modern, internet-celebrity driven candidates that spend far too much time making content. I'm not shocked they get along.
I think Mamdani is very substantive and doing a lot of real things to help people.
That may be but is kind of besides the point. Trump is also doing a lot of "real things". My point was more that both are really celebrity politicians.
Mamdani was unknown a few months ago. Are you claiming he's suddenly an empty celebrity?
I am reserving judgement on the "empty" part, but I can't imagine there are too many objections to the idea of him as a celebrity...
Oh trust, scary muslim still works in many parts of the country. It's not about what he does or doesn't do or NYC's opinion of him
Not that it matters too much, but that poll is a month old.