Well, that’s certainly not a small sample, unlike the other one that had her up big. The Latino numbers are kind of hard to believe though. Who knows. It would be a shame to blow a great opportunity in Talarico. Of course, if Cornyn manages to win the runoff, I think he’ll beat either one.
That sample size consists of the whole sample, not just the people in the Democratic primary. That number is closer to 400-500, which is only a bit larger than the one in the UT Austin poll.
I don't see any reason to take the pro-Crockett polls more seriously than the pro-Talarico ones right now.
Yeah, the issue is TX is too expensive to poll, let alone in English and Spanish, and there's not enough money going toward quality pollsters anymore. So instead of two separate polls with representative samples above 500 to 1000 for each primary, they get some franken-mix trying to poll both at once and may guess is that it's skewing but sides' polls.
Interesting to me is that while net effect of various polls points towards a close result, the individual polls themselves are largely hovering around opposing clear-wins for each candidate. We're seeing polls with +5 to even +20 point wins for either candidate, not a bunch clustering around +/- 5 points. Based on the polls, a close call is both the weirdest result and the most expected, simultaneously.
It's really unclear who will win based on a surface analysis of the polls. Maybe aggregating them together could yield something useful, but I don't think anyone is doing that anymore as it's fallen a bit out of fashion.
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.
Well, that’s certainly not a small sample, unlike the other one that had her up big. The Latino numbers are kind of hard to believe though. Who knows. It would be a shame to blow a great opportunity in Talarico. Of course, if Cornyn manages to win the runoff, I think he’ll beat either one.
That sample size consists of the whole sample, not just the people in the Democratic primary. That number is closer to 400-500, which is only a bit larger than the one in the UT Austin poll.
I don't see any reason to take the pro-Crockett polls more seriously than the pro-Talarico ones right now.
Yeah, the issue is TX is too expensive to poll, let alone in English and Spanish, and there's not enough money going toward quality pollsters anymore. So instead of two separate polls with representative samples above 500 to 1000 for each primary, they get some franken-mix trying to poll both at once and may guess is that it's skewing but sides' polls.
Brb, Imma ask my wife to push me down the stairs and put me in a coma until March 4th. Better yet, June 10th.
Hmm which pollsters should we believe?
Interesting to me is that while net effect of various polls points towards a close result, the individual polls themselves are largely hovering around opposing clear-wins for each candidate. We're seeing polls with +5 to even +20 point wins for either candidate, not a bunch clustering around +/- 5 points. Based on the polls, a close call is both the weirdest result and the most expected, simultaneously.
It's really unclear who will win based on a surface analysis of the polls. Maybe aggregating them together could yield something useful, but I don't think anyone is doing that anymore as it's fallen a bit out of fashion.
Well, the GA GOP did it to themselves!
And fine with me. Keep those numbers coming for the Democratic Party!
What’s the generic US Senate poll? Hehe
Judging from the link, it is a sample of very likely primary voters. The 4th table, only 11% don’t plan to vote in the primary.
Not much value even for Nov, not to mention 2028.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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