The Virginia statute requires him to call a special election but like so many of these state statutes it doesn’t provide a time period. He’ll probably schedule it in conjunction with the November election
Scheduling the special election for November would be a mixed bag. On the one hand, it'll help us win the elections for Governor, LG, AG, etc. by increasing turnout in VA-11. On the other hand, it'll mean one less vote in Congress against Republican legislation, such as the "big, beautiful bill", in the mean time.
Third Dem vacancy in the first four months of this congress. The others being Raul Grijalva (77) & Sylvester Turner (70). I hope this doesn't give the Republicans the room they need to pass their "BBB".
They’ll probably pass it eventually anyway, but it could give cover to some swing district Republicans who could vote against it without actually preventing it from passing.
Something Republicans seem to not have as big of an issue with? I mean sure they have their Kay Granger and Chuck Grassley but it feels like a bigger issue on our side.
Democratic committee assignments and leadership favors seniority more. I think that plays a part.
If a democrat has to stick around for 20-30 years to get a level of influence, and will get to keep that influence until they leave... Well, in that case you're going to see them more likely to stick around as long as they can.
Let members of the house accomplish something earlier in their career and they might feel less like they need to stick around into their 70s and 80s because they finally "earned" some power.
The secret ballot effectively made independence within the caucus verboten and placed loyalty to the caucus above all other factors for members seeking power (so, the vast majority). The term limits had the effect of turning said power-hungry members' tool of choice from a chisel to a jackhammer in order to accomplish their agenda in a condensed timeframe. Together, these laid the foundation that allowed GOP members to be well to the right of their median voter, which became increasingly apparent throughout the 2000s and exploded in 2010.
As for Fox, its impact was minimal before 2000, and throughout the Dubya years it at least tried to present the facade of a right-leaning news organization. Then, the nearly 80-year old Murdoch decided his time was running out, chose to become the TV equivalent of the Limbaugh show, and helped Beck capitalize on the groundwork laid by congressional GOPers for the previous 15 years and gave us the Tea Party.
They work hand in hand, but the empowerment of the far right by the congressional leadership structure was a prerequisite for the fringe-ification we've seen since.
I’d say the threat of primary voters is the main reason for rightward shift of the GOP. They’re all afraid of losing their primary and Trump amplified by being a voice to encourage primaries when he wants to.
The threat of being primaried is pretty miniscule, and they tend to be more worried about a few particular individuals running than they do about their constituents discovering/caring about anything in DC beyond a few key votes. The past 30 years have seen a mere 12 GOPers lose a primary that didn't involve redistricting, a first termer, a party switcher, or a crime (so, less than 1% chance). There are more losses among those 12 due to personality flaws (Merrill Cook, Tim Huelskamp, Steve King, Bob Good) than notably insufficient conservatism (Wayne Gilchrest, Bob Inglis). It certainly rewards those like Chris Smith who easily adapt to whatever's on the party's agenda.
Hi to the folks at THE DOWNBALLOT. Having grown up in a small town in WI, I enjoy reading about all of the other small towns trying to win the hearts and minds of their constituents. I have a suggestion for you and your followers if I may... I'd suggest you follow criticalresistance@substack.com. Particularly their post today regarding Russ Vought who currently enjoys unfettered power at OMB and is reshaping the Federal Government in ways you might not have imagined. It appears that all of us can have an impact to stop the reshaping of the Federal Government into Russ Vought's and his Christian Nationalist image. It is well worth your time to read and to share with other organizations that can help grind his religious takeover to a halt. Separation of church and state is one of our founding principles, but won't be the longer we let him stay in our government. Thanks for your work and please share the information about Russ Vought however you can.
I think Rebecca Bradley is history. Midterms while FDJT is running rampant isn't going to favor her re-election prospects and whomever replaces Wikler as state WI Dem party chair will follow his strategies. I expect angry voters to give her the boot next April -- notice how WI voters seem to be booting out Walker appointees like Kelly and Schimel?
He's leaving at the end of his term in June when the party will nominate and vote for his successor -- he's leaving on good terms BTW. I don't think he's angling to run for statewide office in WI (not yet anyway) but maybe take a break for a bit.
The candidates who are running to replace Wikler want to continue to build on what he's done with GOTV efforts, digital infrastructure and raising money. I'm sure whomever is chosen will consult with him while they're getting situated.
I do agree that Bradley is in big trouble. Her actions on election night when Crawford won displayed all her fears in the open. She has a tough race next year.
Bottoms's actual WH job (that she only had for less than a year) was director of the Office of Public Engagement; "senior advisor" was just a rank to bestowed on some assistants to the president to distinguish them more/make them feel special.
I'm not sure how I feel about the decision voters made in my home town of Pittsburgh, PA last night. I hate the press pushing "progressives keep losing" narrative because they can cite the mayoral primaries in Oakland and San Francisco. I get that O'Connor made the city's budget a central issue and I know Gainey had a lot of change ups with the Chief of Police. But I am concerned about the GOP donors that donated to O'Connor's campaign. I'm not worried about O'Connor losing the general election against Tony Moreno but I am worried about how he will govern with city hall. I've been living in Los Angeles since 2007 and I know our city is facing a huge budget crisis. Yes, California has had some prolonged budget issues but the fires, Trump's tariffs and mass deportations have poured the most salt in that wound and Los Angeles is really hurting hard. Newsom and Bass are going back and forth with each other on getting more funding for the city. So I can get O'Connor's message resonating with folks. It also sounds like Gainey didn't kick off his campaign emphasizing his record and instead kicked things off attacking O'Connor. That sounds like a campaign malpractice. It worked when Gainey was challenging Bill Peduto but when you're the incumbent, you have to make your record the priority to voters first to offer a clear contrast. Kicking your re-election campaign by attacking your primary opponent first isn't the clever way to go about it. Gainey has had success as mayor but it's hard to say that if he had started his re-election campaign differently by emphasizing his record first, he might have held on. Thoughts?
If anything, Bass is more pro corporate and pro elite than O'Conner. She wrote an EO for stylistic purposes but it accidentally unlocked cheap streamlined affordable housing for the first time in LA but in face of all kinds of NIMBY, "environmentalist", "preservationist" opposition, she severely pared back parts of it with other EOs and signed an ordinance championed by an old stock councilwoman restricting it from application in many neighborhoods. You can search about the entire conundrun. Housing is also a social justice issue.
Me too. However, most of the Democratic establishment supported Barbara Lee as well such as Former Mayor Libby Schaaf, who originally supported Loren Taylor in his run for Mayor against Sheng Thao back in 2022.
It was clear experience and an outsider from Oakland City Government was needed. I think that’s what compelled Schaaf, Brown and others to support Lee’s candidacy.
You can't extrapolate anything from an election or two or three, but I think that preponderance of primary voted over the past 5 ish years suggests that there is limited appetite for progressivism/leftism/whatever amongst those who choose to vote.
The other problem with the narrative of "progressives losing" is that it's a simplistic way of looking at elections. For starters, Larry Krasner, one of the first big reform DAs, just won re-election the same night Gainey lost (by 64.4-35.6, if NYT is anything to go by), and I know I saw some other winning candidates from last night on progressive endorsement lists (Vogel in Erie was on the Working Families Party's, for example). Furthermore, a referendum vote to prevent the privatization of Pittsburgh's water also was overwhelmingly approved -- by over 78% actually, according to triblive.com.
To me, this says that there's something deeper happening here. Perhaps Pittsburgh (and Philly, for that matter) had local issues that influenced how races go? Local issues play a huge role in why a race can go one way or another. I don't live in Pittsburgh, but maybe Gainey did something that pissed off a lot of voters. Or there were specific policies people were and were not in favor of in the race. Or there were other local issues at play. Or Gainey was a poor candidate/O'Connor a good one. These things can be big issues in individual races.
I personally think people are more likely to vote on issues than ideology. To illustrate my point, I live in a very blue town in Westchester County, NY (NY-17). We just had a board of education race in my town. Local Democrats are upset because two of their officially-endorsed candidates lost. Here's the thing though -- a major issue in the race (and last year's failed budget) was a proposal to put school resource officers in the schools. A lot of people in town (myself included) were not happy about this, and the two endorsed candidates supported the SROs -- a factor in why they lost. People weren't voting for one ideology/party or another, people were voting because of individual issues that affected them. I'm of the mind that that's how a lot of voters vote, whether or not it was the right thing to do. I don't think a lot of elections can be cleanly put into "progressive vs. moderate" -- there's a lot at play. Local issues, candidate quality, scandals, etc. A lot can happen. That's just how I see it.
It also helps that Mayor Cherelle Parker has stepped up as the tougher-on-crime counterpart to Krasner in city government. She finally ripped the bandaid on bringing the hammer down on Kensington (Philly's equivalent of SF's Tenderloin district) junkies and dealers.
Yes, I remember that. I'm just pointing out the benefit of having Mayor Parker get results. Philly's crime rate is back down to the pre-Trump years. You can't argue with results. Besides, Krasner more or less does his job, unlike Chesa Boudin, who let dealers and muggers off the hook.
Maybe this is a quibble, but the recall of George Gascon failed to make the ballot. He lost in a regular election running for re-election, not a recall. Maybe you are thinking of Chesa Boudin? San Francisco and Los Angeles are not the same place.
Yeah, it's a quibble. I originally wrote Price who was recalled but then included Gascon without changing "recalled" to "ousted". Obviously, SF and LA are not the same place.
What you said in your first sentence immediately makes Price lose any qualifications she had as a progressive.
I’m sorry but progressives need to do a better job at articulating what makes them truly progressive. You can’t be progressive and then have the issue like crime be thrown against your face. Liberals believe in progressive ideals but it actually has to give positive progress to society, not the other way around.
Also, I voted against Prop 36 because I thought it was better dealt with legislatively at the State Level, even though I completely understand why those arguing for common sense and safety voted for it.
In fairness to Price, the recall ballot against her was submitted what 9 months into her tenure? Not sure how much time she actually had to perform - or not - on that timeline.
There are valid reasons why progressives fight against housing if it means gentrifying lower income paying tenants out of their homes. If we’re talking about housing that is not affordable and is more likely to attract wealthy tenants, this can have ripple effects on the community if there isn’t any middle ground.
But that isn't how supply and demand works. If there isn't enough market rate housing or so called luxury condos, affordable housing will become luxury housing. Market rate housing as well as affordable middle housing needs to be built and built fast. Even luxury housing proposed in low density areas is more cheaper than the surrounding. If it worked that way, rents wouldn't be down in Austin despite a massive influx of residents.
All of what you describe would work fine in CA by principle if it didn’t have the Costa Hawkins Act and the Ellis Act. I can’t comment on other states but these acts really rile up tenants, especially the tenant unions.
These acts have given landlords greater power over tenants and no middle ground in discussion with tenants. Eviction attorneys like a the late father of a colleague of mine have dealt with a lot of such eviction cases where landlords have no interest in negotiating with tenants. Until both acts are repealed and there’s a real law that gives common ground, there is a risk in building market rate housing and redeveloping communities if lower income residents get pushed out and have nowhere to go. Landlords see such opportunities as kicking out tenants to go for higher paying tenants. It’s really a sick system.
The problem is, while it is important to build housing anywhere you get a chance, you still need to listen to neighborhood residents at the same time. Not all of them are wealthy, conservative NIMBYs and want to be able to get input in how their communities are affected.
Until market rate housing is substantially lower than the tenant’s salary, no one not in the upper middle class or upper class will care so long as it’s out of reach.
There was already enough baggage Price got on the job in the beginning, especially including her preferential treatment towards black people as far reducing their sentences irrespective of the severity of the crime. Price also created a toxic environment for attorneys where ideology on criminal justice reform was more important than following the law. When the majority of population Alameda County (like San Francisco County) is white and Asian and a DA like Price has done this, she’s out.
She did it to herself and the voters caught it early on. It’s much harder to remain as a DA instead of being in legislative office.
Both Price and Chesa Boudin should have run for state legislative office if they wanted to really make a difference in criminal Justice reform.
Brandon Johnson beat out the "pro-cop" guy in Chicago. I don't think Barbara Lee is in the "moderate" wing either. Air quotes for all of these wings since they are relative and made up terms. Eric Adams is the only high profile name that comes to mind for the "moderate" wing and that was a 50.5-49.5 win after five IRV rounds and he ended up being a corrupt criminal who will likely leave office in disgrace and hopefully will get to spend time with some of the people he demonized in prison when a normal administration takes over so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. I don't see the "progressive" wing as dominate in cities either but not as weak as some of the commentary would make it seem.
Brandon Johnson is currently slightly less popular than lung cancer. That cop guy might be back. Cuomo, who is not as moderate as people here likely think (but is more moderate than anyone else in the primary) is likely going to be the next NYC mayor.
Yeah I think Cuomo is more likely to win just on name ID and splintered opposition then for ideological reasons but fair point and if I remember right you are in the NYC area and would know more then me if that is the case. You'd think/hope sexually harassing the staff would be a deal breaker but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Eh, not so much. He's making people pine for someone who is not Brandon Johnson, true, but not necessarily for someone who covered up the murder of an unarmed Black teenager and closed 50 public schools.
Also Michelle Wu in Boston. Has only an unqualified rich guy and a handful of nobodies as opponents this year, after winning handily four years ago.
I'd argue the progressive / moderate ideological divide is harder to pin down on municipal governments. That's not to deny that it exists: it's hard to miss the ideological gap between someone like Johnson in Chicago and Adams in NYC.
At the same time, most of the issues that get put into the "progressive" bin for ideology in our party are issues that do not map easily to municipal governments. Mayors cannot institute universal healthcare. Outside of homeless housing the vast majority of the social safety net is outside of their control. Their impact on taxes are largely tied to property taxes, with maybe a smaller local sales tax on top of a statewide one. They do not make regulations on financial institutions or the like. Their largest impact on immigration policy is being able to tell police to not help ICE, which in many jurisdictions the police have enough political clout that they can de facto ignore those instructions if they want.
City policy has a lot of impact on people's lives but there's less room for someone to be progressive by the common perceptions of what that means.
I would state again that London Breed was NOT a progressive Mayor of San Francisco and was looked at as more moderate compared to liberals alike city wide.
Sheng Thao ran as a progressive but was corrupt to the core and still today doesn’t keep her mouth shut on social media even while she is on trial. She got replaced by Barbara Lee.
I think this touches on the difference. Lee is plenty progressive, but doesn't have that "look at me" social media vibe that Thao (and others) have. Dems (smartly) seem to more frequently choose the worker bee over the show horse.
Lee has a big BS detector and also is very focused. Besides being anti-war, she also voted for both the original Infrastructure bill and Inflation Reduction Act. The squad voted against the first Infrastructure bill.
She’s also got decades of experience and has always been a team player.
I think people need to not do so much black and white political orientation aka progressive = good rep, moderate = bad rep. Or the inverse progressive = bad rep, moderate = good rep. Regardless of where you personally stand on the issues, because elections aren’t solely fought on those topics.
Instead running, executing and implementing a successful campaign plan is what it takes and even those successful may not be the very next election for so many possible reasons. There are effective progressive leaders and ineffective ones. There are effective moderates and ineffective ones. We elect real actual people to power, not a set of ideals that must be adhered to. Heck some even shift from left to right or right to left while in office.
So this binary looking at “progressives win, progressives lose” narrative that the press LOVES to do doesn’t show us the full picture. That’s why you can get a pretty far left Democrat overperform and underperform on the same ticket for an election held at the same time at the same level of office. Same goes for moderate or conservative Democrats!
Do better than the horse race obsessed 24/7 media journalism culture that feels it should turn every election result into two sides, winners and losers so they can pretend to be fair and unbiased. As another poster so eloquently wrote above, local factors matter, people matter, a ton of things matter, but it’s never just 1 single factor that decides any election ever held, so try not to fall for it when the media does that.
Oh my god, the press has ZERO clue what being progressive is.
They throw out the term “progressive” towards certain Democrats running for office based on hoopla rather than actual substantive conversations. Drives me nuts.
Congressional Leadership Fund (GOP) poll shows Jared Golden behind Paul LePage. I know it's a GOP poll, but God help us if people actually want LePage as their Rep.
If the DCCC adds Jared Golden to it’s endangered House Democrats lineup, this could help him get a boost.
However, since Governor Janet Mills defeated Paul LePage in her re-election bid by 13.3% points, her endorsement and campaigning for Golden would be a boost for him.
If they don’t add him to that list by fall, they’re not doing their jobs properly. He will always be at risk because of how conservative a district he holds and is ripe for a potential “against the grain” election loss if Democrats have a good 2026 midterm cycle. Or any cycle for that matter. He will always be the top tier of endangered.
I imagine the DCCC will because of how important Maine is these days in fighting back against Trump and his administration.
Governor Janet Mills has already won battles against Trump. Keeping Jared Golden in office is more affirmation that it’s important to keep Democrats in power in the state, especially in a less blue ME-02.
Maine is done with Paul LePage. Mainers underscored that by humiliating him with a double-digit loss to Janet Mills. Yes, I realize ME-02 is the most conservative of Maine’s two congressional districts, and in fact quite Red. The things that we find exasperating about Golden give him cred in his district. Unless Congressman Jared Golden commits some grave act of self-sabotage, I don’t for a minute believe that LePage can beat him.
They want to unite behind Ms. Taylor & hopefully get her on the court, hence the unity. Hopefully after that in April 2027, the second Karen, Ms. Annette Ziegler, gets the boot.
I think the shock of Trump's first win demoralized WI Dems going into late 2016 and early 2017 -- that's why Ziegler didn't get an opponent. Had she did, she would've been the first Walker appointee to get the boot.
Instead, it took Rebecca Dallet running in 2018 for Dems to start winning more WI Supreme Court races.
This is more evidence why CA State Government needs new leadership and why the next Governor needs to do a lot better than Governor Newsom. If this means pushing CA State Government to act more quickly, so be it.
Just yesterday, BART shut down a good portion of its lines due to an electrical fire.
A week ago it had a major system outage that shut down access for hours.
And just earlier today it had delays due to equipment problems.
California needs CEQA and zoning reform, the root of most of its problems. The problem is that a powerful Frankenstein coalition of right-left NIMBYs, tenant unions, suburban groups, environmentalists, established business competitors and labor unions love it and use it as a hammer for their own ends using the "impact" clause. If I drill while constructing something and that makes a noise, it's an impact and you can sue even if you live in another part of the state. If student housing is planned, you can ridiculously sue by claiming that the students will increase noise pollution which will impact the environment.
It's the third rail of California politics and what's ailing it by adding costs to every single asset related to economic activity that requires a permit and will affect the environment in some way or the other and also reduces supply. The prices won't come down until you increase the supply to ease the demand in California. No wonder why Texas leads in renewable energy production. All Governors promise to reform it but none have the guts.
You are correct. I think it was when he was governor there was some issue over state protection of the Redwoods but that was almost 60 years ago so not sure. Also, he convinced Nixon to kill the proposed Trans-Sierra highway and protect the John Muir trail. So quite possibly better as Gov. than Pres.
Governor Reagan also signed gun control into law, specifically the Mulford Act. The background is fascinating. Here’s a concise description from Wikipedia:
"The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill that prohibited public carrying of loaded firearms without a permit. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford and signed into law by governor of California Ronald Reagan, the bill was crafted with the goal of disarming members of the Black Panther Party, which was conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods in what would later be termed copwatching."
And the fastest way to get Republicans to enact gun control today is if women were to arm themselves, en masse, and "stand their ground" in defense of their reproductive rights!
Agreed on the zoning problems although BART’s problems go beyond what you have even described and have been decades in the making. It’s BART Management incompetence as well.
We have had to deal with public funding and ballot measures for a long time besides the regular state funding CA State Government has given BART. We’ve got all new fleets of trains but the system itself is still old. That has nothing to do with zoning.
My main issue is that CA State Government, like the issue of PG&E, is not being proactive in ensuring both it and transit agencies like BART are fixing their problems in a timely fashion and doing proper risk assessment.
South African President’s Approval Rating Expected to Soar After Trump Acts Like a Dick
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—The approval rating of South African President Cyril Ramaphosa is poised to skyrocket after he visited the Oval Office on Wednesday and was subjected to Donald J. Trump acting like a dick.
Ramaphosa, who was struggling with 35 percent approval before Trump’s tantrum, should see that rating surge to 75 or higher, experts predict.
Moments after the meeting, Ramaphosa received congratulatory calls from Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Canada’s Mark Carney, both of whom saw their fortunes soar thanks to Trump’s dickish antics.
For his part, Trump took pride in standing up for “the horribly oppressed white South Africans,” noting, “These poor farmers can’t enjoy white supremacy in their own country, so they have to move here for it.”
I get the feeling the head honchos at the White House think the revanchist EFF is in the South African government coalition when in fact they are in the opposition. The white-dominated DA party actually is allied with the ruling ANC party interestingly enough.
US Representative Gerry Connolly (D-VA) has died. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gerry-connolly-dead-age-75-virginia-democrat/
These announcements of elderly/sick Democrats who are dying in office this year are getting alarmingly frequent. Tragic and very sad.
Can Youngkin drag out the special election to replace Connolly like Abbott did in Texas?
The Virginia statute requires him to call a special election but like so many of these state statutes it doesn’t provide a time period. He’ll probably schedule it in conjunction with the November election
If that means greater Democratic Party turnout here in NOVA in November, fine by me.
Scheduling the special election for November would be a mixed bag. On the one hand, it'll help us win the elections for Governor, LG, AG, etc. by increasing turnout in VA-11. On the other hand, it'll mean one less vote in Congress against Republican legislation, such as the "big, beautiful bill", in the mean time.
If this becomes the difference between stopping Trump’s insane budget and being unable to do so, then I am definitely not ok with this!
The budget will get through even if the Democrats had their full contingent of 215.
Unfortunate and wish well for his family and friends
Third Dem vacancy in the first four months of this congress. The others being Raul Grijalva (77) & Sylvester Turner (70). I hope this doesn't give the Republicans the room they need to pass their "BBB".
They’ll probably pass it eventually anyway, but it could give cover to some swing district Republicans who could vote against it without actually preventing it from passing.
I just saw that 8 out of the last 10 members to die in Congress were Dems. Just absolutely nuts.
too many politicians are convinced the world can't get along without them...they are obviously wrong.
The RBG legacy
Something Republicans seem to not have as big of an issue with? I mean sure they have their Kay Granger and Chuck Grassley but it feels like a bigger issue on our side.
Democratic committee assignments and leadership favors seniority more. I think that plays a part.
If a democrat has to stick around for 20-30 years to get a level of influence, and will get to keep that influence until they leave... Well, in that case you're going to see them more likely to stick around as long as they can.
Let members of the house accomplish something earlier in their career and they might feel less like they need to stick around into their 70s and 80s because they finally "earned" some power.
The Republican alterations of their committee chair selections in 1995 are the #1 reason we have the unhinged GOP we have today.
Not commenting on if the system itself is any good.. I don't think I can agree with that in a world with Fox News in it.
The secret ballot effectively made independence within the caucus verboten and placed loyalty to the caucus above all other factors for members seeking power (so, the vast majority). The term limits had the effect of turning said power-hungry members' tool of choice from a chisel to a jackhammer in order to accomplish their agenda in a condensed timeframe. Together, these laid the foundation that allowed GOP members to be well to the right of their median voter, which became increasingly apparent throughout the 2000s and exploded in 2010.
As for Fox, its impact was minimal before 2000, and throughout the Dubya years it at least tried to present the facade of a right-leaning news organization. Then, the nearly 80-year old Murdoch decided his time was running out, chose to become the TV equivalent of the Limbaugh show, and helped Beck capitalize on the groundwork laid by congressional GOPers for the previous 15 years and gave us the Tea Party.
They work hand in hand, but the empowerment of the far right by the congressional leadership structure was a prerequisite for the fringe-ification we've seen since.
I’d say the threat of primary voters is the main reason for rightward shift of the GOP. They’re all afraid of losing their primary and Trump amplified by being a voice to encourage primaries when he wants to.
The threat of being primaried is pretty miniscule, and they tend to be more worried about a few particular individuals running than they do about their constituents discovering/caring about anything in DC beyond a few key votes. The past 30 years have seen a mere 12 GOPers lose a primary that didn't involve redistricting, a first termer, a party switcher, or a crime (so, less than 1% chance). There are more losses among those 12 due to personality flaws (Merrill Cook, Tim Huelskamp, Steve King, Bob Good) than notably insufficient conservatism (Wayne Gilchrest, Bob Inglis). It certainly rewards those like Chris Smith who easily adapt to whatever's on the party's agenda.
And the bill passes by a single vote.
Hi to the folks at THE DOWNBALLOT. Having grown up in a small town in WI, I enjoy reading about all of the other small towns trying to win the hearts and minds of their constituents. I have a suggestion for you and your followers if I may... I'd suggest you follow criticalresistance@substack.com. Particularly their post today regarding Russ Vought who currently enjoys unfettered power at OMB and is reshaping the Federal Government in ways you might not have imagined. It appears that all of us can have an impact to stop the reshaping of the Federal Government into Russ Vought's and his Christian Nationalist image. It is well worth your time to read and to share with other organizations that can help grind his religious takeover to a halt. Separation of church and state is one of our founding principles, but won't be the longer we let him stay in our government. Thanks for your work and please share the information about Russ Vought however you can.
I think Rebecca Bradley is history. Midterms while FDJT is running rampant isn't going to favor her re-election prospects and whomever replaces Wikler as state WI Dem party chair will follow his strategies. I expect angry voters to give her the boot next April -- notice how WI voters seem to be booting out Walker appointees like Kelly and Schimel?
Wickler will leave his position? When and why?
He may be angling to run statewide. He has done good work in Wisconsin and resurrected Dems there.
Maybe he knows if Evers is running for a third term or not. Hmmmmmm.
He's leaving at the end of his term in June when the party will nominate and vote for his successor -- he's leaving on good terms BTW. I don't think he's angling to run for statewide office in WI (not yet anyway) but maybe take a break for a bit.
https://www.wpr.org/news/ben-wikler-wisconsin-democratic-party-stepping-down
Thanks for the link. He will be missed as head of the Wisconsin Democratic Party, but it sounds like we'll be hearing from him later.
The candidates who are running to replace Wikler want to continue to build on what he's done with GOTV efforts, digital infrastructure and raising money. I'm sure whomever is chosen will consult with him while they're getting situated.
Sure, but we don't know they'll be as effective.
I do agree that Bradley is in big trouble. Her actions on election night when Crawford won displayed all her fears in the open. She has a tough race next year.
Bottoms's actual WH job (that she only had for less than a year) was director of the Office of Public Engagement; "senior advisor" was just a rank to bestowed on some assistants to the president to distinguish them more/make them feel special.
I'm not sure how I feel about the decision voters made in my home town of Pittsburgh, PA last night. I hate the press pushing "progressives keep losing" narrative because they can cite the mayoral primaries in Oakland and San Francisco. I get that O'Connor made the city's budget a central issue and I know Gainey had a lot of change ups with the Chief of Police. But I am concerned about the GOP donors that donated to O'Connor's campaign. I'm not worried about O'Connor losing the general election against Tony Moreno but I am worried about how he will govern with city hall. I've been living in Los Angeles since 2007 and I know our city is facing a huge budget crisis. Yes, California has had some prolonged budget issues but the fires, Trump's tariffs and mass deportations have poured the most salt in that wound and Los Angeles is really hurting hard. Newsom and Bass are going back and forth with each other on getting more funding for the city. So I can get O'Connor's message resonating with folks. It also sounds like Gainey didn't kick off his campaign emphasizing his record and instead kicked things off attacking O'Connor. That sounds like a campaign malpractice. It worked when Gainey was challenging Bill Peduto but when you're the incumbent, you have to make your record the priority to voters first to offer a clear contrast. Kicking your re-election campaign by attacking your primary opponent first isn't the clever way to go about it. Gainey has had success as mayor but it's hard to say that if he had started his re-election campaign differently by emphasizing his record first, he might have held on. Thoughts?
If anything, Bass is more pro corporate and pro elite than O'Conner. She wrote an EO for stylistic purposes but it accidentally unlocked cheap streamlined affordable housing for the first time in LA but in face of all kinds of NIMBY, "environmentalist", "preservationist" opposition, she severely pared back parts of it with other EOs and signed an ordinance championed by an old stock councilwoman restricting it from application in many neighborhoods. You can search about the entire conundrun. Housing is also a social justice issue.
Barbara Lee won in Oakland if that’s what you)re referring to.
In other words, Oakland does not think progressives like the legendary anti-war Barbara Lee are toxic.
I was surprised that Jerry Brown endorsed her.
Me too. However, most of the Democratic establishment supported Barbara Lee as well such as Former Mayor Libby Schaaf, who originally supported Loren Taylor in his run for Mayor against Sheng Thao back in 2022.
It was clear experience and an outsider from Oakland City Government was needed. I think that’s what compelled Schaaf, Brown and others to support Lee’s candidacy.
https://barbaralee4oakland.com/endorsements
You can't extrapolate anything from an election or two or three, but I think that preponderance of primary voted over the past 5 ish years suggests that there is limited appetite for progressivism/leftism/whatever amongst those who choose to vote.
Even in deep blue cities.
The other problem with the narrative of "progressives losing" is that it's a simplistic way of looking at elections. For starters, Larry Krasner, one of the first big reform DAs, just won re-election the same night Gainey lost (by 64.4-35.6, if NYT is anything to go by), and I know I saw some other winning candidates from last night on progressive endorsement lists (Vogel in Erie was on the Working Families Party's, for example). Furthermore, a referendum vote to prevent the privatization of Pittsburgh's water also was overwhelmingly approved -- by over 78% actually, according to triblive.com.
To me, this says that there's something deeper happening here. Perhaps Pittsburgh (and Philly, for that matter) had local issues that influenced how races go? Local issues play a huge role in why a race can go one way or another. I don't live in Pittsburgh, but maybe Gainey did something that pissed off a lot of voters. Or there were specific policies people were and were not in favor of in the race. Or there were other local issues at play. Or Gainey was a poor candidate/O'Connor a good one. These things can be big issues in individual races.
I personally think people are more likely to vote on issues than ideology. To illustrate my point, I live in a very blue town in Westchester County, NY (NY-17). We just had a board of education race in my town. Local Democrats are upset because two of their officially-endorsed candidates lost. Here's the thing though -- a major issue in the race (and last year's failed budget) was a proposal to put school resource officers in the schools. A lot of people in town (myself included) were not happy about this, and the two endorsed candidates supported the SROs -- a factor in why they lost. People weren't voting for one ideology/party or another, people were voting because of individual issues that affected them. I'm of the mind that that's how a lot of voters vote, whether or not it was the right thing to do. I don't think a lot of elections can be cleanly put into "progressive vs. moderate" -- there's a lot at play. Local issues, candidate quality, scandals, etc. A lot can happen. That's just how I see it.
It also helps that Mayor Cherelle Parker has stepped up as the tougher-on-crime counterpart to Krasner in city government. She finally ripped the bandaid on bringing the hammer down on Kensington (Philly's equivalent of SF's Tenderloin district) junkies and dealers.
Krasner was re-elected 4 years ago without Parker in office despite the “crime wave” lie and demagoguery
Yes, I remember that. I'm just pointing out the benefit of having Mayor Parker get results. Philly's crime rate is back down to the pre-Trump years. You can't argue with results. Besides, Krasner more or less does his job, unlike Chesa Boudin, who let dealers and muggers off the hook.
The problem with the narrative is that it’s really BS to begin with.
Those people who got recalled or voted out of office were likely not progressive or gave being progressive a bad name.
You cannot be progressive and weak on crime and prosecution at the same time.
California ousted DAs Gascon and Price were progressives and notably very weak on crime. California Prop 36 was also opposed by Progressives.
Maybe this is a quibble, but the recall of George Gascon failed to make the ballot. He lost in a regular election running for re-election, not a recall. Maybe you are thinking of Chesa Boudin? San Francisco and Los Angeles are not the same place.
Yeah, it's a quibble. I originally wrote Price who was recalled but then included Gascon without changing "recalled" to "ousted". Obviously, SF and LA are not the same place.
What you said in your first sentence immediately makes Price lose any qualifications she had as a progressive.
I’m sorry but progressives need to do a better job at articulating what makes them truly progressive. You can’t be progressive and then have the issue like crime be thrown against your face. Liberals believe in progressive ideals but it actually has to give positive progress to society, not the other way around.
Also, I voted against Prop 36 because I thought it was better dealt with legislatively at the State Level, even though I completely understand why those arguing for common sense and safety voted for it.
Exactly.
In fairness to Price, the recall ballot against her was submitted what 9 months into her tenure? Not sure how much time she actually had to perform - or not - on that timeline.
But if you're against prosecuting felonies and against housing, you shouldn't call yourself a progressive.
Against housing? What do you mean?
There are valid reasons why progressives fight against housing if it means gentrifying lower income paying tenants out of their homes. If we’re talking about housing that is not affordable and is more likely to attract wealthy tenants, this can have ripple effects on the community if there isn’t any middle ground.
Otherwise, I agree with the principle.
But that isn't how supply and demand works. If there isn't enough market rate housing or so called luxury condos, affordable housing will become luxury housing. Market rate housing as well as affordable middle housing needs to be built and built fast. Even luxury housing proposed in low density areas is more cheaper than the surrounding. If it worked that way, rents wouldn't be down in Austin despite a massive influx of residents.
All of what you describe would work fine in CA by principle if it didn’t have the Costa Hawkins Act and the Ellis Act. I can’t comment on other states but these acts really rile up tenants, especially the tenant unions.
These acts have given landlords greater power over tenants and no middle ground in discussion with tenants. Eviction attorneys like a the late father of a colleague of mine have dealt with a lot of such eviction cases where landlords have no interest in negotiating with tenants. Until both acts are repealed and there’s a real law that gives common ground, there is a risk in building market rate housing and redeveloping communities if lower income residents get pushed out and have nowhere to go. Landlords see such opportunities as kicking out tenants to go for higher paying tenants. It’s really a sick system.
The problem is, while it is important to build housing anywhere you get a chance, you still need to listen to neighborhood residents at the same time. Not all of them are wealthy, conservative NIMBYs and want to be able to get input in how their communities are affected.
Until market rate housing is substantially lower than the tenant’s salary, no one not in the upper middle class or upper class will care so long as it’s out of reach.
There was already enough baggage Price got on the job in the beginning, especially including her preferential treatment towards black people as far reducing their sentences irrespective of the severity of the crime. Price also created a toxic environment for attorneys where ideology on criminal justice reform was more important than following the law. When the majority of population Alameda County (like San Francisco County) is white and Asian and a DA like Price has done this, she’s out.
She did it to herself and the voters caught it early on. It’s much harder to remain as a DA instead of being in legislative office.
Both Price and Chesa Boudin should have run for state legislative office if they wanted to really make a difference in criminal Justice reform.
Brandon Johnson beat out the "pro-cop" guy in Chicago. I don't think Barbara Lee is in the "moderate" wing either. Air quotes for all of these wings since they are relative and made up terms. Eric Adams is the only high profile name that comes to mind for the "moderate" wing and that was a 50.5-49.5 win after five IRV rounds and he ended up being a corrupt criminal who will likely leave office in disgrace and hopefully will get to spend time with some of the people he demonized in prison when a normal administration takes over so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. I don't see the "progressive" wing as dominate in cities either but not as weak as some of the commentary would make it seem.
Brandon Johnson is currently slightly less popular than lung cancer. That cop guy might be back. Cuomo, who is not as moderate as people here likely think (but is more moderate than anyone else in the primary) is likely going to be the next NYC mayor.
Yeah I think Cuomo is more likely to win just on name ID and splintered opposition then for ideological reasons but fair point and if I remember right you are in the NYC area and would know more then me if that is the case. You'd think/hope sexually harassing the staff would be a deal breaker but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Yeah, Johnson has been horrifically bad. He made people pine for Rahm Emmanuel.
Eh, not so much. He's making people pine for someone who is not Brandon Johnson, true, but not necessarily for someone who covered up the murder of an unarmed Black teenager and closed 50 public schools.
Also Michelle Wu in Boston. Has only an unqualified rich guy and a handful of nobodies as opponents this year, after winning handily four years ago.
I'd argue the progressive / moderate ideological divide is harder to pin down on municipal governments. That's not to deny that it exists: it's hard to miss the ideological gap between someone like Johnson in Chicago and Adams in NYC.
At the same time, most of the issues that get put into the "progressive" bin for ideology in our party are issues that do not map easily to municipal governments. Mayors cannot institute universal healthcare. Outside of homeless housing the vast majority of the social safety net is outside of their control. Their impact on taxes are largely tied to property taxes, with maybe a smaller local sales tax on top of a statewide one. They do not make regulations on financial institutions or the like. Their largest impact on immigration policy is being able to tell police to not help ICE, which in many jurisdictions the police have enough political clout that they can de facto ignore those instructions if they want.
City policy has a lot of impact on people's lives but there's less room for someone to be progressive by the common perceptions of what that means.
I have no idea how things are in Pittsburgh. I guess crime is up or something?
I would state again that London Breed was NOT a progressive Mayor of San Francisco and was looked at as more moderate compared to liberals alike city wide.
Sheng Thao ran as a progressive but was corrupt to the core and still today doesn’t keep her mouth shut on social media even while she is on trial. She got replaced by Barbara Lee.
Democrats need to fight back against this BS.
She was a progressive but swung to the right after being elected.
Disagree. Breed was always notoriously moderate as Supervisor and remained that way when she was Mayor.
On the issue of housing, sure, she was to the left of it. However, anyone who is staunchly liberal in SF that I know knows Breed is no progressive.
I think this touches on the difference. Lee is plenty progressive, but doesn't have that "look at me" social media vibe that Thao (and others) have. Dems (smartly) seem to more frequently choose the worker bee over the show horse.
Lee has a big BS detector and also is very focused. Besides being anti-war, she also voted for both the original Infrastructure bill and Inflation Reduction Act. The squad voted against the first Infrastructure bill.
She’s also got decades of experience and has always been a team player.
I think people need to not do so much black and white political orientation aka progressive = good rep, moderate = bad rep. Or the inverse progressive = bad rep, moderate = good rep. Regardless of where you personally stand on the issues, because elections aren’t solely fought on those topics.
Instead running, executing and implementing a successful campaign plan is what it takes and even those successful may not be the very next election for so many possible reasons. There are effective progressive leaders and ineffective ones. There are effective moderates and ineffective ones. We elect real actual people to power, not a set of ideals that must be adhered to. Heck some even shift from left to right or right to left while in office.
So this binary looking at “progressives win, progressives lose” narrative that the press LOVES to do doesn’t show us the full picture. That’s why you can get a pretty far left Democrat overperform and underperform on the same ticket for an election held at the same time at the same level of office. Same goes for moderate or conservative Democrats!
Do better than the horse race obsessed 24/7 media journalism culture that feels it should turn every election result into two sides, winners and losers so they can pretend to be fair and unbiased. As another poster so eloquently wrote above, local factors matter, people matter, a ton of things matter, but it’s never just 1 single factor that decides any election ever held, so try not to fall for it when the media does that.
Oh my god, the press has ZERO clue what being progressive is.
They throw out the term “progressive” towards certain Democrats running for office based on hoopla rather than actual substantive conversations. Drives me nuts.
Poland’s presidential election in charts
Notes From Poland
https://notesfrompoland.com/2025/05/20/polands-presidential-election-in-charts/
Race for Poland’s presidency blows wide open
POLITICO.eu
https://www.politico.eu/article/poland-president-election-trzaskowski-nawrocki/
Polish Presidential election explained
Thank you! That data is extremely interesting.
Very interesting!
https://www.notus.org/2026-election/jared-golden-paul-lepage-poll-maine-congressional-leadership-fund
Congressional Leadership Fund (GOP) poll shows Jared Golden behind Paul LePage. I know it's a GOP poll, but God help us if people actually want LePage as their Rep.
If the DCCC adds Jared Golden to it’s endangered House Democrats lineup, this could help him get a boost.
However, since Governor Janet Mills defeated Paul LePage in her re-election bid by 13.3% points, her endorsement and campaigning for Golden would be a boost for him.
Of course the DCCC will. If polling shows it close the whole time, should be a $10m+ race.
Yeah, I can see the ME-02 race coming to fundraising on par with what you are suggesting.
Golden needs all the help he can get at holding the seat. If he wins re-election in 2026 and 2028, he’ll be in better shape than he was before.
If they don’t add him to that list by fall, they’re not doing their jobs properly. He will always be at risk because of how conservative a district he holds and is ripe for a potential “against the grain” election loss if Democrats have a good 2026 midterm cycle. Or any cycle for that matter. He will always be the top tier of endangered.
I imagine the DCCC will because of how important Maine is these days in fighting back against Trump and his administration.
Governor Janet Mills has already won battles against Trump. Keeping Jared Golden in office is more affirmation that it’s important to keep Democrats in power in the state, especially in a less blue ME-02.
LePage will need to get over 50% to win. A new experience for him.
Let him try!
Maine is done with Paul LePage. Mainers underscored that by humiliating him with a double-digit loss to Janet Mills. Yes, I realize ME-02 is the most conservative of Maine’s two congressional districts, and in fact quite Red. The things that we find exasperating about Golden give him cred in his district. Unless Congressman Jared Golden commits some grave act of self-sabotage, I don’t for a minute believe that LePage can beat him.
Guess everybody has made a decision in next year’s WI SCT race on the D side. All of the liberals on the Court have endorsed Chis Taylor https://x.com/tobymgdata/status/1925260628765077864?s=61&t=5copDbz1aPl7ASsRCUclLg
They want to unite behind Ms. Taylor & hopefully get her on the court, hence the unity. Hopefully after that in April 2027, the second Karen, Ms. Annette Ziegler, gets the boot.
Yes. They're both repulsive, loud, indecorous right-wing hacks.
In 2017 Ziegler was re-elected without an opponent. Why the hell was that allowed to happen?
I think the shock of Trump's first win demoralized WI Dems going into late 2016 and early 2017 -- that's why Ziegler didn't get an opponent. Had she did, she would've been the first Walker appointee to get the boot.
Instead, it took Rebecca Dallet running in 2018 for Dems to start winning more WI Supreme Court races.
This is more evidence why CA State Government needs new leadership and why the next Governor needs to do a lot better than Governor Newsom. If this means pushing CA State Government to act more quickly, so be it.
Just yesterday, BART shut down a good portion of its lines due to an electrical fire.
A week ago it had a major system outage that shut down access for hours.
And just earlier today it had delays due to equipment problems.
https://www.ktvu.com/news/fire-near-bart-station-san-leandro-stops-service.amp
California needs CEQA and zoning reform, the root of most of its problems. The problem is that a powerful Frankenstein coalition of right-left NIMBYs, tenant unions, suburban groups, environmentalists, established business competitors and labor unions love it and use it as a hammer for their own ends using the "impact" clause. If I drill while constructing something and that makes a noise, it's an impact and you can sue even if you live in another part of the state. If student housing is planned, you can ridiculously sue by claiming that the students will increase noise pollution which will impact the environment.
It's the third rail of California politics and what's ailing it by adding costs to every single asset related to economic activity that requires a permit and will affect the environment in some way or the other and also reduces supply. The prices won't come down until you increase the supply to ease the demand in California. No wonder why Texas leads in renewable energy production. All Governors promise to reform it but none have the guts.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/27/california-abundance-craze-00253159
CEQA=Californja Environmental Quality Act. Now you all don't have to do a web search on it. :-)
Signed into law by .......Reagan! though it's opposed by conservatives now.
I'm shocked Reagan signed it! Was he an environmentalist as Governor?
He once said trees cause smog!. Draw you own conclusion. :-)
Yes, he said that as president, but that's not the question.
You are correct. I think it was when he was governor there was some issue over state protection of the Redwoods but that was almost 60 years ago so not sure. Also, he convinced Nixon to kill the proposed Trans-Sierra highway and protect the John Muir trail. So quite possibly better as Gov. than Pres.
Governor Reagan also signed gun control into law, specifically the Mulford Act. The background is fascinating. Here’s a concise description from Wikipedia:
"The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill that prohibited public carrying of loaded firearms without a permit. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford and signed into law by governor of California Ronald Reagan, the bill was crafted with the goal of disarming members of the Black Panther Party, which was conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods in what would later be termed copwatching."
Yeah, of course we can't have Black men bearing arms...
And the fastest way to get Republicans to enact gun control today is if women were to arm themselves, en masse, and "stand their ground" in defense of their reproductive rights!
Or even against abusive men.
Agreed on the zoning problems although BART’s problems go beyond what you have even described and have been decades in the making. It’s BART Management incompetence as well.
We have had to deal with public funding and ballot measures for a long time besides the regular state funding CA State Government has given BART. We’ve got all new fleets of trains but the system itself is still old. That has nothing to do with zoning.
My main issue is that CA State Government, like the issue of PG&E, is not being proactive in ensuring both it and transit agencies like BART are fixing their problems in a timely fashion and doing proper risk assessment.
Another priceless Borowitz:
South African President’s Approval Rating Expected to Soar After Trump Acts Like a Dick
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—The approval rating of South African President Cyril Ramaphosa is poised to skyrocket after he visited the Oval Office on Wednesday and was subjected to Donald J. Trump acting like a dick.
Ramaphosa, who was struggling with 35 percent approval before Trump’s tantrum, should see that rating surge to 75 or higher, experts predict.
Moments after the meeting, Ramaphosa received congratulatory calls from Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Canada’s Mark Carney, both of whom saw their fortunes soar thanks to Trump’s dickish antics.
For his part, Trump took pride in standing up for “the horribly oppressed white South Africans,” noting, “These poor farmers can’t enjoy white supremacy in their own country, so they have to move here for it.”
https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/south-african-presidents-approval
I get the feeling the head honchos at the White House think the revanchist EFF is in the South African government coalition when in fact they are in the opposition. The white-dominated DA party actually is allied with the ruling ANC party interestingly enough.
Elon's obsessed with the EFF guy on Xitter, he'll get a stroke if Malema wins someday.
I hope that they never win. Revenge politics would be a massive betrayal of Mandela's legacy.
It would also be economical suicide.