I hate wasting money primarying Dems that could better be used defeating Rs.
& I looked at MS Dem politics a bit when deciding whether to donate to Mike Espy when he recently ran for Senate (I think it was senate).
The MS Dem party & MS Dems in state offices need to do a LOT of work. MS is almost a minority-majority state, & Dems can't do better than they do? (And yes, national Dems are putting money into the state party. Under Jamie Harrison, & whoever now, DNC funding to states has increased. Funding to red states increased even more.)
MS Dems successfully broke the state Senate GOP supermajority last month, so they're heading in the right direction. What really hurts MS Dems is how there is zero in-person early voting and excuse-only absentee by mail (which helps GOP suppression efforts).
You think Democrats will be short on money in a Trump midterm and wave election? This is perhaps the best time in Democratic history to primary incumbents due to the intensity of anti-establishment and left-wing sentiment. Let the best survive and new fighters emerge.
Furthermore, many of the Dems who are elected are doing stupid things like voting to condemn socialism, reinstating Henry Cuellar to leadership after Trump pardoned him, and even voting for Trump nominees in some cases.
For what it’s worth, I do donate to Dems fighting Republicans too. Hell, I live in a swing district (NY-17), I’m planning to try to volunteer for Cait Conley at some point.
Davidson does not have the energy and is behind in polling to boot. I saw Conley at a rally and I really think she could pull it off. That, and I’m pretty sure Davidson is to Conley’s right, though I don’t know 100%.
The 2016 confusion never ends. The DNC is just a figurehead who set the primary cycle. The people who recruit, fund and run campaigns plus meddle in primaries are the DCCC and DSCC.
Southern non-minority voters are VERY hardened. And MS is VERY rural.
You can get to 45% or so in a good year. That last 5% is really hard. Last Dem only got 37% vs Wicker.
MS is 36% black.
GOP wins southern rural whites at at or near the rate at which Dems win southern blacks. Especially with Trump making inroads amongs males & younger voters..
I don't see the problem with primary challengers, especially in solidly blue seats. They allow the party to settle ideological differences and put pressure on incumbents who otherwise wouldn't face a competitive race.
I think if Mike Espy served as an advisor or as MS Democratic Party Chair, he would do a lot of good for Democrats and their ability to get traction in the state.
Goldman definitely. I'm not a huge fan of Thanedar either, since he basically bought his seat. And Hillary is a good person but unfortunately not such a great campaigner.
Haley Stevens and Angie Craig are certainly not perfect by any means, and are probably not the best candidates in their races next year, but are also not worthy of the amount and severity of vitriol you have hurled at them.
Not sure if this was you or someone else here, but Adam Schiff is a perfectly good Democrat who at least one person here repeatedly criticizes.
Like many here, I was wary of Jake Auchincloss when he first ran for Congress, but he's settled in well and hasn't taken any bad votes. But again, someone here, not sure whether it's you, likes to criticize him and suggest that he be primaried.
Those are the people who come to mind right now. It's not an exhaustive or final list.
Stevens was a good fit for the original Republican-leaning district she won in 2018. She hasn't moved to the left as much as she should have considering that her 2020s district is bluer, though.
Like I said, she's probably not the best candidate for the Michigan Senate seat next year (I prefer McMorrow). It's the amount and severity of the vitriol toward her that I object to.
Many of those Democrats have differing views on foreign policy, crypto, healthcare, and campaign finance than others in the party. Many of them also routinely vote for GOP funding & messaging bills as well as pointless censures against Dems. I think those are absolutely fair grounds for criticism.
The Downballot does not explicitly align with any particular wing of the Democratic Party. This is a Democratic site that supports Democratic candidates from all wings of the party depending on where they are running.
Also, you can criticize someone's views on crypto (for example) without hating them personally. I'm strongly anti-crypto and I do that quite regularly.
I've not criticized Schiff here. He is a fine mainstream liberal like Klobuchar.
Auchincloss and Craig are ideologues who explicitly are against progressivism, populism and want to turn Democrats neoliberal, more hawkish, pro-crypto and corporate friendly and have even created a billionaire backed "Majority Democrats" project for that. I stand by my criticism directed at them but I've not suggested wanting to fund a primary against Auchincloss like someone else here or would agree that I "hate" him.
Stevens is definitely worse than them and is a puppet of Schumer and special interests whom she can't even criticize when questioned multiple times.
Thanedar mass-killed monkeys in his business and didn't even know which party to join in 2017 according to Vox and other websites.
I think for people like Goldman, credit where it's due. He makes very good arguments against Trump. I didn't vote for him in the primary last time and won't vote for him in the primary this time, but while I'm certainly to his left and have disagreements with him, I think he's a useful person to have in the party and certainly don't hate him.
In addition to "County [Executive] Judge", there's the "Railroad Commission" which was established in the 1890s to regulate railroads but now oversees oil, gas, pipelines, and other energy related issues.
It no longer has anything to do with railroad regulation (the state and federal Departments of Transportation do that) but yet the name remains.
There's also "Governor" which was established in 1845 to serve executive functions for the state but now is just a conspiracy theorist with a fancy office.
Don't forget the executive County Judges in Arkansas, and the executive County Judge/Executive in the Commonwealth of Kentucky counties. At least Tennessee renamed their executive County Judges as County Mayors, and Missouri also abandoned the practice sometime in the mid-20th century.
34 state House districts voted for the Democratic PSC candidates while currently represented by Republicans. Of those, 18 voted for the Democratic PSC candidates by more than 10%, while 9 voted for the Democratic PSC candidates by more than 20%. Democrats need a net gain of 10 seats to win control of the chamber.
In the state Senate, there are 13 Republican-held districts that voted for the Democratic PSC candidates this year. Of those, 6 voted for the Democratic PSC candidates by more than 10%, however due to the larger size of the districts, Republicans were able to gerrymander them more effectively and none of them voted for the Democratic PSC candidates by more than 20%. Dems need a net gain of 6 seats to win control, so we'd need to win all six of those districts. Five of them combine Atlanta suburbs with exurban areas and voted for Trump by between 4 and 14 percent, while the sixth is part of Athens along with a lot of deep-red rural areas nearby.
So winning control of the Georgia Legislature is quite a long shot but not completely impossible.
That’s good, I thought that winning the governorship in Georgia would be the only way to stop new gerrymanders if the supreme court weakens the VRA. Winning the state house would also effectively block new gerrymanders.
Winning the governorship of Georgia is still definitely the best way to stop new gerrymanders, since it's considerably more likely than winning control of the legislature (and holding it in 2030).
Yeah holding the GA governorship in 2030 basically assures fair maps for the legislature and Congress for the 2030s. Would likely automatically flip 2 House seats to Dems and give them a a better than 50/50 chance at winning the legislature.
With all the mid-decade redistricting this year, I’m not convinced a 2030 governor win would ensure fair maps for the whole decade. If republicans won a trifecta later I could see them trying to gerrymander again. Luckily the trends in Georgia are pretty good for dems.
A Dem Governor that wins in 2026 and 2030 breaks the R legislative gerrymanders for at least 2032 and 2034. A fair map of the legislature could be easier lifts next decade. Republicans have their own self-packing problem in rural Georgia.
"A Dem Governor that wins in 2026 and 2030 breaks the R legislative gerrymanders for at least 2032 and 2034"
HOW?
If the State Legislature is still involved in the redistricting of Congressional and State Legislative Districts, they could very well pass "gerrymandered" maps, which the Governor vetoes. However, the State Legislature could OVER-RIDE the Governor's veto and enact those maps.
Well one way to have insurance against that would be to pass an independent redistricting commission. Dems should be doing this in WI and PA the second they get control there and stop idiotically fighting it in NV (where a GOP trifecta could limit Dems to just 1 seat).
Georgia is the one swing state where the trendline is pretty horrendous for the GOP. There's no real incentive for Dems to input an independent commission if they win the trifecta. It'd be as stupid as the Virginia Dems doing it in 2018-2020.
Maybe I'm being naive, but I am assuming that if Dems have any sort of trifecta in 2028, gerrymandering reform will be priority #1 and hopefully mid-decade redistricting will be done with.
Yes, but then they'd have to win it again in 2030 in order to keep control in time for redistricting.
Unless you're proposing that Dems do a mid-decade redistricting of Georgia's legislative districts if we win a trifecta next year. Which would be quite audacious, but of course I would completely support it.
If Dems somehow win a trifecta in GA in 2026 on the current gerrymandered maps, the legislative majorities almost certainly won’t survive a more neutral or Republican cycle in 2028 (most likely 2030 under a Presidem). Same thing with the NC legislature. In both states, they’d need to rush to get an independent commission enacted to prevent getting locked out of a seat at the redistricting table in a future cycle.
While I love to think of the possibility, we should absolutely not count on the PSC races lining up for federal races. PSC was a specific issue: Utility rates increasing a ton over the last 4 years and the PSC green lighting every single increase. These are definitely the districts that Democrats should be trying to win or at least cut the loss margin down in, but if we use the 2025 PSC vote to set our expectations for the 2026 midterms, we’re going to be extremely disappointed.
Federal vs state elections and more Republicans will obviously be turning out to support MAGA/Trump against those evil Demonrats trying to ruin the country. Fear is a powerful motivator to vote and Trump has used it effectively to always have his base loudly behind him and voting. Obviously it’s a Trump midterm, so Trump 2024 voters will stay home more than Democrats, but it’s not going to be 63-37 D at the top of the ticket, more like 52-48/53-47. We should realize that and adjust accordingly, understanding most seats we won in 2025, we won’t win in 2026.
Doesn’t mean we don’t try and fight for every vote everywhere, just be realistic about what’s possible in a lean red, newly turning purple state. If we can cut their majorities down to a margin of 5-10 seats in the State House (currently 99-81 R) and 5 in the State Senate (currently 33-23 R), we should consider that a big win for us.
Republicans are now pushing mail voting for the 2026 midterms in defiance of the demented orange fool trying to do away with it (even though VBM helped him win PA and flip the Senate seat last year).
Oakland City Councilmember Gets Backlash for Obscene Gesture During City Council Meeting
It’s no secret that if you spend enough time in Oakland, East Oakland is not only the largest neighborhood in the city but the most distant.
On the other hand, you have City Councilmember Ken Houston who while having been effective in getting things done in his first year in office, isn’t one with the most civil tone and conduct.
Not a fan of his, he’s an apologist for the Russian government.
Sadly the Epstein thing spans ideological lines, David Brooks was in it too apparently and we all know Trump, Clinton, Dershowitz, Bannon, etc. were in it.
From what I have seen in the article you referenced, there isn’t exactly any incriminating evidence to throw against Noam Chomsky.
But his association with Jeffrey Epstein is just bad optics and makes him look like he didn’t have the foggiest idea what he was doing associating with Epstein. I mean, writing a letter of recommendation to a wealthy financer and investor? That’s a major fail for Chomsky.
That may be so and that also probably goes for his cordial relationship with Woody Allen. However, he deserves all the heat. It took him almost 10 years after the Khmer Rouge was driven from power before he could admit they committed a genocide, yet he still couldn't choke out that he was wrong to deny it in 1977 and 1980. Also, he bellyached over semantics in the Kosovo Crisis where he said the US and NATO acting proactively to prevent full-bore genocide was terrible because Milosevic had yet to go all out. As if NATO's action there was illegitimate unless Milosevic was allowed to fully scourge Kosovo. Then again, it would probably take him several years to concede something horrible was done by the Serbs, and he probably still would excuse it under "Good Tsar, Bad Boyars" reasoning.
Not quite the whole story. Chomsky had stated those who didn’t vote or voted against Clinton were making a big mistake. He was particularly referring to the youth vote.
Nevertheless, otherwise agree with everything you have said about Chomsky. I get more inspired by Robert Reich instead of him.
The guy has been around for nearly a century now. He has, at times, in certain decades, made some very poignant critiques of the modern world, as well as presented interesting, if not agreeable theories about a whole range of things. There is some merit to his work. But if, like Stephen Hawking, Woody Allen and others who have created work of real note, he is involved with Epstein in any way, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Speaking of which, I think at some point, the Democrats are going to have to have an Epstein reckoning with Bill Clinton.
Quite honestly, seeing Chomsky on this flight and having a history with Epstein makes me sick to my stomach. I can’t tell if Epstein was a master manipulator or if Chomsky and others were incredibly stupid.
On the other hand, per Chomsky, Epstein did make multiple donations to MIT, where Chomsky had been a professor for decades.
Thankfully, in growing up in Berkeley, many of my fellow liberals and influencers have high ethics and a big BS detector.
Dems will almost certainly consolidate around one or two candidates. If it still looks like this a month or two after everyone is on the air, that could be a cause for concern.
NC-03: Allison Jaslow, an Iraq War veteran and former DCCC chair under Cheri Bustos, will file as a Democratic candidate for North Carolina’s new 3rd Congressional District.
I accidentally posted this as a reply yesterday and was asked to repost it today, so for whatever it's worth:
The beginning of an unsolicited email from Graham Platner:
"Nothing pisses me off more than getting a fundraising text from Democrats talking about how they’re fighting fascism… Because it’s such B.S. We’re not idiots. Everyone knows most of them aren’t doing jack right now to fight back."
I suppose this is Platner’s way of communicating to his base of supporters but this would be better suited to say this on the campaign trail.
Fundraising solicitations really ought not to be too divisive besides what the real mission is. Platner should focus on Susan Collins, not her and Democrats at the same It makes his messaging off balance.
I mean, he’s running as a Democrat. Shouldn’t he be in support of the Democratic Party’s agenda?
To be clear, in my 1st paragraph I am not referring to Platner saying exactly in this fundraising email as what he said. That would be crazy.
But if he’s going to criticize the Democratic Party leadership on the campaign trail, it has to be productive and not divisive. For instance, saying “leadership has failed. It’s time for new leaders to stand up” is better than flat out criticizing the Democratic Party.
Really odd focus for him considering his tattoo issues… Of all the ways for him to contrast himself with a do-nothing establishment, this might be the single worst option.
I don't support Graham Platner but agree that the Democratic party is doing the bare minimum when it comes to fighting the usurpations of power the current administration is making. I think the national figureheads need to continue to listen to the American public. Why is it a problem to criticize your party when A. your criticism has merit and B. most people don't like baseless partisanship?
I've lambasted Schumer and the Senate Democrats who've rolled over on budget votes, and to a lesser extent Jeffries, but if you're bashing the whole party as not doing anything against fascism, you're wrong and you shouldn't be running to represent the party.
This news comes the same day that former NASCAR driver Greg Biffle, his wife, and two children were among a total of seven people killed in a plane crash at Statesville airport in Iredell County, NC, so this has been a terrible day for North Carolina. Hunt's death was unrelated to the plane crash.
I wish he had implemented in the state constitution allowing the governor to veto state and congressional map drawing, because we wouldn't be in the situation now where Phil Berger and Destin Hall keep gleefully rigging our maps -- and the Republican majority judiciary is allowing them to do so.
Somehow Dems were stupid enough in NC to think they could never lose the legislature in a state that not even Bill Clinton could ever carry and where they actually DID lose the state house in 1994 and 1996.
If NC Dems actually win back the majority next year (which is a long shot) before control of the state Supreme Court does -- they're going to have a LOT of stuff to do. Namely, drive hard bargains with the GOP minority and start some overdue payback.
I don't know if Republicans would backtrack then and support a constitutional amendment for independent redistricting and allowing the governor to veto gerrymandered maps. (Probably not.)
I hate wasting money primarying Dems that could better be used defeating Rs.
& I looked at MS Dem politics a bit when deciding whether to donate to Mike Espy when he recently ran for Senate (I think it was senate).
The MS Dem party & MS Dems in state offices need to do a LOT of work. MS is almost a minority-majority state, & Dems can't do better than they do? (And yes, national Dems are putting money into the state party. Under Jamie Harrison, & whoever now, DNC funding to states has increased. Funding to red states increased even more.)
MS Dems successfully broke the state Senate GOP supermajority last month, so they're heading in the right direction. What really hurts MS Dems is how there is zero in-person early voting and excuse-only absentee by mail (which helps GOP suppression efforts).
You think Democrats will be short on money in a Trump midterm and wave election? This is perhaps the best time in Democratic history to primary incumbents due to the intensity of anti-establishment and left-wing sentiment. Let the best survive and new fighters emerge.
Furthermore, many of the Dems who are elected are doing stupid things like voting to condemn socialism, reinstating Henry Cuellar to leadership after Trump pardoned him, and even voting for Trump nominees in some cases.
For what it’s worth, I do donate to Dems fighting Republicans too. Hell, I live in a swing district (NY-17), I’m planning to try to volunteer for Cait Conley at some point.
Why not Beth Davidson?
Conley has more energy, is polling better, is fundraising better, and to me is just the strongest candidate.
Doesn't Davidson have more roots in the area and backing from the local establishment unlike Conley who was recruited by the DCCC and Jason Crow.
Davidson does not have the energy and is behind in polling to boot. I saw Conley at a rally and I really think she could pull it off. That, and I’m pretty sure Davidson is to Conley’s right, though I don’t know 100%.
Isn't the DNC basically bankrupt?
The 2016 confusion never ends. The DNC is just a figurehead who set the primary cycle. The people who recruit, fund and run campaigns plus meddle in primaries are the DCCC and DSCC.
Ok. And how does their financial situation look?
I think they are fundraising fine, especially since the November elections.
Southern non-minority voters are VERY hardened. And MS is VERY rural.
You can get to 45% or so in a good year. That last 5% is really hard. Last Dem only got 37% vs Wicker.
MS is 36% black.
GOP wins southern rural whites at at or near the rate at which Dems win southern blacks. Especially with Trump making inroads amongs males & younger voters..
I don't see the problem with primary challengers, especially in solidly blue seats. They allow the party to settle ideological differences and put pressure on incumbents who otherwise wouldn't face a competitive race.
I think if Mike Espy served as an advisor or as MS Democratic Party Chair, he would do a lot of good for Democrats and their ability to get traction in the state.
Justice Democrats is backing Junaid Ahmed in the open Il-8:
https://x.com/justicedems/status/2001655273019072785
Damon Lynch IV, the son & grandson of civil rights activists, is considering challenging Greg Landsman in the Democratic primary for Oh-1:
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2025/12/17/damon-lynch-iv-son-of-cincinnati-activist-mulls-run-for-congress/87792878007
This doesn’t seem like a good idea. Didn’t the seat get redder recently?
Yes, it is now a district Trump narrowly won in 2024.
Remind me, how narrowly leaning to Trump is it now?
Trump +2.5
Not a fan of Landsman but this seems foolish.
I find it bizarre how many perfectly good Democrats you hate.
How come?
Check DM.
I don't hate Landsman. I am just don't like him.
Who are the other "perfectly good" Dems, according to you, that I hate, other than Stevens, Goldman, Hillary, and Thanedar?
Goldman definitely. I'm not a huge fan of Thanedar either, since he basically bought his seat. And Hillary is a good person but unfortunately not such a great campaigner.
Haley Stevens and Angie Craig are certainly not perfect by any means, and are probably not the best candidates in their races next year, but are also not worthy of the amount and severity of vitriol you have hurled at them.
Not sure if this was you or someone else here, but Adam Schiff is a perfectly good Democrat who at least one person here repeatedly criticizes.
Like many here, I was wary of Jake Auchincloss when he first ran for Congress, but he's settled in well and hasn't taken any bad votes. But again, someone here, not sure whether it's you, likes to criticize him and suggest that he be primaried.
Those are the people who come to mind right now. It's not an exhaustive or final list.
Stevens personally pisses me off because she explicitly supports corporate money in politics.
Stevens was a good fit for the original Republican-leaning district she won in 2018. She hasn't moved to the left as much as she should have considering that her 2020s district is bluer, though.
Like I said, she's probably not the best candidate for the Michigan Senate seat next year (I prefer McMorrow). It's the amount and severity of the vitriol toward her that I object to.
Many of those Democrats have differing views on foreign policy, crypto, healthcare, and campaign finance than others in the party. Many of them also routinely vote for GOP funding & messaging bills as well as pointless censures against Dems. I think those are absolutely fair grounds for criticism.
The Downballot does not explicitly align with any particular wing of the Democratic Party. This is a Democratic site that supports Democratic candidates from all wings of the party depending on where they are running.
Also, you can criticize someone's views on crypto (for example) without hating them personally. I'm strongly anti-crypto and I do that quite regularly.
I've not criticized Schiff here. He is a fine mainstream liberal like Klobuchar.
Auchincloss and Craig are ideologues who explicitly are against progressivism, populism and want to turn Democrats neoliberal, more hawkish, pro-crypto and corporate friendly and have even created a billionaire backed "Majority Democrats" project for that. I stand by my criticism directed at them but I've not suggested wanting to fund a primary against Auchincloss like someone else here or would agree that I "hate" him.
Stevens is definitely worse than them and is a puppet of Schumer and special interests whom she can't even criticize when questioned multiple times.
Thanedar mass-killed monkeys in his business and didn't even know which party to join in 2017 according to Vox and other websites.
Hi. You're probably talking about me when it comes to Schiff. "perfectly good" isn't what we need representing California.
I think for people like Goldman, credit where it's due. He makes very good arguments against Trump. I didn't vote for him in the primary last time and won't vote for him in the primary this time, but while I'm certainly to his left and have disagreements with him, I think he's a useful person to have in the party and certainly don't hate him.
We don't know how many.
I don't think 5 or 6 politicians are too many.
I don't know if you've given an exhaustive list.
How much does the Downballot team love writing "a post that’s executive rather than judicial" or the like in so many digests recently? :D
Hahaha! About as much as Texas loves giving confusing titles to elected officials!
In addition to "County [Executive] Judge", there's the "Railroad Commission" which was established in the 1890s to regulate railroads but now oversees oil, gas, pipelines, and other energy related issues.
It no longer has anything to do with railroad regulation (the state and federal Departments of Transportation do that) but yet the name remains.
There's also "Governor" which was established in 1845 to serve executive functions for the state but now is just a conspiracy theorist with a fancy office.
Don't forget the executive County Judges in Arkansas, and the executive County Judge/Executive in the Commonwealth of Kentucky counties. At least Tennessee renamed their executive County Judges as County Mayors, and Missouri also abandoned the practice sometime in the mid-20th century.
It's up there with confusing names that need to be explained like the New York Supreme Court, the not-remotely highest court in the state.
Some interesting notes about Georgia:
34 state House districts voted for the Democratic PSC candidates while currently represented by Republicans. Of those, 18 voted for the Democratic PSC candidates by more than 10%, while 9 voted for the Democratic PSC candidates by more than 20%. Democrats need a net gain of 10 seats to win control of the chamber.
In the state Senate, there are 13 Republican-held districts that voted for the Democratic PSC candidates this year. Of those, 6 voted for the Democratic PSC candidates by more than 10%, however due to the larger size of the districts, Republicans were able to gerrymander them more effectively and none of them voted for the Democratic PSC candidates by more than 20%. Dems need a net gain of 6 seats to win control, so we'd need to win all six of those districts. Five of them combine Atlanta suburbs with exurban areas and voted for Trump by between 4 and 14 percent, while the sixth is part of Athens along with a lot of deep-red rural areas nearby.
So winning control of the Georgia Legislature is quite a long shot but not completely impossible.
That’s good, I thought that winning the governorship in Georgia would be the only way to stop new gerrymanders if the supreme court weakens the VRA. Winning the state house would also effectively block new gerrymanders.
Winning the governorship of Georgia is still definitely the best way to stop new gerrymanders, since it's considerably more likely than winning control of the legislature (and holding it in 2030).
Yeah holding the GA governorship in 2030 basically assures fair maps for the legislature and Congress for the 2030s. Would likely automatically flip 2 House seats to Dems and give them a a better than 50/50 chance at winning the legislature.
With all the mid-decade redistricting this year, I’m not convinced a 2030 governor win would ensure fair maps for the whole decade. If republicans won a trifecta later I could see them trying to gerrymander again. Luckily the trends in Georgia are pretty good for dems.
A Dem Governor that wins in 2026 and 2030 breaks the R legislative gerrymanders for at least 2032 and 2034. A fair map of the legislature could be easier lifts next decade. Republicans have their own self-packing problem in rural Georgia.
"A Dem Governor that wins in 2026 and 2030 breaks the R legislative gerrymanders for at least 2032 and 2034"
HOW?
If the State Legislature is still involved in the redistricting of Congressional and State Legislative Districts, they could very well pass "gerrymandered" maps, which the Governor vetoes. However, the State Legislature could OVER-RIDE the Governor's veto and enact those maps.
Well one way to have insurance against that would be to pass an independent redistricting commission. Dems should be doing this in WI and PA the second they get control there and stop idiotically fighting it in NV (where a GOP trifecta could limit Dems to just 1 seat).
Georgia is the one swing state where the trendline is pretty horrendous for the GOP. There's no real incentive for Dems to input an independent commission if they win the trifecta. It'd be as stupid as the Virginia Dems doing it in 2018-2020.
Maybe I'm being naive, but I am assuming that if Dems have any sort of trifecta in 2028, gerrymandering reform will be priority #1 and hopefully mid-decade redistricting will be done with.
If Dems get a trifecta and don’t pass federal anti-gerrymandering legislation, they are far more braindead than I ever could have imagined.
If Democrats win the Lt. Gov office in 2026, don't Dems only need a net gain of 5 state senate seats to win control of the chamber?
Yes, but then they'd have to win it again in 2030 in order to keep control in time for redistricting.
Unless you're proposing that Dems do a mid-decade redistricting of Georgia's legislative districts if we win a trifecta next year. Which would be quite audacious, but of course I would completely support it.
If Dems somehow win a trifecta in GA in 2026 on the current gerrymandered maps, the legislative majorities almost certainly won’t survive a more neutral or Republican cycle in 2028 (most likely 2030 under a Presidem). Same thing with the NC legislature. In both states, they’d need to rush to get an independent commission enacted to prevent getting locked out of a seat at the redistricting table in a future cycle.
They could pass new anti-gerrymandering rules that apply to 2030 and thereafter and hope we keep at least one leg of the trifecta in those midterms.
While I love to think of the possibility, we should absolutely not count on the PSC races lining up for federal races. PSC was a specific issue: Utility rates increasing a ton over the last 4 years and the PSC green lighting every single increase. These are definitely the districts that Democrats should be trying to win or at least cut the loss margin down in, but if we use the 2025 PSC vote to set our expectations for the 2026 midterms, we’re going to be extremely disappointed.
Federal vs state elections and more Republicans will obviously be turning out to support MAGA/Trump against those evil Demonrats trying to ruin the country. Fear is a powerful motivator to vote and Trump has used it effectively to always have his base loudly behind him and voting. Obviously it’s a Trump midterm, so Trump 2024 voters will stay home more than Democrats, but it’s not going to be 63-37 D at the top of the ticket, more like 52-48/53-47. We should realize that and adjust accordingly, understanding most seats we won in 2025, we won’t win in 2026.
Doesn’t mean we don’t try and fight for every vote everywhere, just be realistic about what’s possible in a lean red, newly turning purple state. If we can cut their majorities down to a margin of 5-10 seats in the State House (currently 99-81 R) and 5 in the State Senate (currently 33-23 R), we should consider that a big win for us.
It’s time.
?
It's time.
Republicans are now pushing mail voting for the 2026 midterms in defiance of the demented orange fool trying to do away with it (even though VBM helped him win PA and flip the Senate seat last year).
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/17/republicans-midterms-mail-in-voting-00693867?nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&nname=playbook&nrid=0000014e-f109-dd93-ad7f-f90d0def0000
This has always been the case. Trump pushes conspiracy theories about mail votes, while the actual operatives of the party still promote it.
Oakland City Councilmember Gets Backlash for Obscene Gesture During City Council Meeting
It’s no secret that if you spend enough time in Oakland, East Oakland is not only the largest neighborhood in the city but the most distant.
On the other hand, you have City Councilmember Ken Houston who while having been effective in getting things done in his first year in office, isn’t one with the most civil tone and conduct.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sanfrancisco/news/oakland-councilmember-ken-houston-contentious-city-council-meeting/
Yeeesh, Noam Chomsky sure knows how to bet on the wrong horse: https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/18/politics/epstein-estate-photos-released?Date=20251218&Profile=cnnbrk&utm_content=1766077535&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
Granted Epstein is no Pol Pot or Milosevic, but I guess he's too old for that level of edgy contrarianism anymore.
Not a fan of his, he’s an apologist for the Russian government.
Sadly the Epstein thing spans ideological lines, David Brooks was in it too apparently and we all know Trump, Clinton, Dershowitz, Bannon, etc. were in it.
That isn't that much ideological spanning, mostly conservatives, a tankie, and one Dem.
What I’m saying is, it isn’t just one group.
From what I have seen in the article you referenced, there isn’t exactly any incriminating evidence to throw against Noam Chomsky.
But his association with Jeffrey Epstein is just bad optics and makes him look like he didn’t have the foggiest idea what he was doing associating with Epstein. I mean, writing a letter of recommendation to a wealthy financer and investor? That’s a major fail for Chomsky.
That may be so and that also probably goes for his cordial relationship with Woody Allen. However, he deserves all the heat. It took him almost 10 years after the Khmer Rouge was driven from power before he could admit they committed a genocide, yet he still couldn't choke out that he was wrong to deny it in 1977 and 1980. Also, he bellyached over semantics in the Kosovo Crisis where he said the US and NATO acting proactively to prevent full-bore genocide was terrible because Milosevic had yet to go all out. As if NATO's action there was illegitimate unless Milosevic was allowed to fully scourge Kosovo. Then again, it would probably take him several years to concede something horrible was done by the Serbs, and he probably still would excuse it under "Good Tsar, Bad Boyars" reasoning.
Chomsky was right on one thing:
Voting for Hillary Clinton in 2016 was essential.
He said he'd only vote for her if he lived a swing state, which he does not.
Not quite the whole story. Chomsky had stated those who didn’t vote or voted against Clinton were making a big mistake. He was particularly referring to the youth vote.
Nevertheless, otherwise agree with everything you have said about Chomsky. I get more inspired by Robert Reich instead of him.
The guy has been around for nearly a century now. He has, at times, in certain decades, made some very poignant critiques of the modern world, as well as presented interesting, if not agreeable theories about a whole range of things. There is some merit to his work. But if, like Stephen Hawking, Woody Allen and others who have created work of real note, he is involved with Epstein in any way, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Speaking of which, I think at some point, the Democrats are going to have to have an Epstein reckoning with Bill Clinton.
Quite honestly, seeing Chomsky on this flight and having a history with Epstein makes me sick to my stomach. I can’t tell if Epstein was a master manipulator or if Chomsky and others were incredibly stupid.
On the other hand, per Chomsky, Epstein did make multiple donations to MIT, where Chomsky had been a professor for decades.
Thankfully, in growing up in Berkeley, many of my fellow liberals and influencers have high ethics and a big BS detector.
Michelle Morrow, the MAGA clown that lost the superintendent race last year has filed to run in the Republican Senate primary here in North Carolina.
https://www.wral.com/news/local/michele-morrow-republican-primary-nc-us-senate-2026/
Hilarious. Hope it's an expensive primary for the NRSC
Let em duke it out. They don’t have Roy Cooper’s record of winning when Trump is running for POTUS.
It would be hilarious if Whatley lost the primary and Morrow got it. She’d be DOA in a general election.
MR Research poll | 11/30-12/7 LV
California Governor jungle primary (top 2 advance to the general in November)
 🟥Steve Hilton 18%
 🟥Chad Bianco 17%
 🟦Eric Swalwell 17%
 🟦Katie Porter 13%
 🟦Tom Steyer 6%
 🟦Xavier Becerra 3%
 🟦Antonio Villaraigosa 3%
 🟦Tony Thurmond 1%
 🟦Betty Yee 1%
Presumably the undecideds lean D, since the party totals are only 44-35. Still concerning though.
I've never heard of this pollster.
What's its record?
How did it do its poll?
Dems will almost certainly consolidate around one or two candidates. If it still looks like this a month or two after everyone is on the air, that could be a cause for concern.
It’s going to be a Porter, Swalwell and Steyer race, with it likely to be a Porter vs Swalwell race closer to the primary.
If the other Democratic candidate drop out sooner, any votes cast for them won’t be significant enough to cause concern.
Not so sure. Steyer has been blasting ads for a few weeks now (and was on the air with his personal Prop 50 ads) and has barely budged.
Then just Porter and Swalwell.
Like AnthonySF, I doubt Steyer is going to go too far in this. He's got a ton of money, but not a ton of supporters.
I was just running with polling but I doubt Steyer had a strong base of operations and GOTV ground game.
I cannot find this poll anywhere online. Please reveal your source.
Everyone: Please stop liking and discussing polls that may be fake.
NC-03: Allison Jaslow, an Iraq War veteran and former DCCC chair under Cheri Bustos, will file as a Democratic candidate for North Carolina’s new 3rd Congressional District.
https://x.com/nathanlgonzales/status/2001695065480269890?s=20
The district picked up more Democrats after redistricting to make NC-01 redder, though it's still R+10 PVI.
Seems to explain some of DCCC's motivation to put the seat on their target list a week ago: https://dccc.org/dccc-adds-nc-03-to-districts-in-play-as-democrats-expand-battlefield-for-2026-midterms/
(DCCC ED during Bustos's term as chair.)
I think some of the targeting might be bravado to discourage more regerrymanders. Essentially "Go ahead, make more R+10s, we think we can win them!"
I think we will win a few districts like this next year.
I do too, but turning a marginal D district and a safe R district into two of them is still likely a net loss for us.
Thanks to the GOP gerrymander, it seems plausible that Dems could pick up 2 or even 3 seats.
NC-03, NC-07, and NC-11 are all in the range of a 13 point shift toward Dems. However, I don't think we have a strong recruit yet for NC-07.
I accidentally posted this as a reply yesterday and was asked to repost it today, so for whatever it's worth:
The beginning of an unsolicited email from Graham Platner:
"Nothing pisses me off more than getting a fundraising text from Democrats talking about how they’re fighting fascism… Because it’s such B.S. We’re not idiots. Everyone knows most of them aren’t doing jack right now to fight back."
He annoys me so much.
I suppose this is Platner’s way of communicating to his base of supporters but this would be better suited to say this on the campaign trail.
Fundraising solicitations really ought not to be too divisive besides what the real mission is. Platner should focus on Susan Collins, not her and Democrats at the same It makes his messaging off balance.
I mean, he’s running as a Democrat. Shouldn’t he be in support of the Democratic Party’s agenda?
Yes, exactly on your last 2 paragraphs.
To be clear, in my 1st paragraph I am not referring to Platner saying exactly in this fundraising email as what he said. That would be crazy.
But if he’s going to criticize the Democratic Party leadership on the campaign trail, it has to be productive and not divisive. For instance, saying “leadership has failed. It’s time for new leaders to stand up” is better than flat out criticizing the Democratic Party.
100%!
Really odd focus for him considering his tattoo issues… Of all the ways for him to contrast himself with a do-nothing establishment, this might be the single worst option.
I'm fully in "head-in-the-sand" mode until the primary is done, then let's focus on beating Collins. What a mess.
I don’t see the problem. He’s not off base.
He's bashing the party he seeks to represent. I have a problem with that.
I don't support Graham Platner but agree that the Democratic party is doing the bare minimum when it comes to fighting the usurpations of power the current administration is making. I think the national figureheads need to continue to listen to the American public. Why is it a problem to criticize your party when A. your criticism has merit and B. most people don't like baseless partisanship?
I'm not going to answer that repeatedly, so look for my reply to Paleo.
A lot of Democrats have said the same thing. And in many cases it’s true.
What should they be doing? Fist fights?
Gavin Newsom is an example.
Newsom doesn't bash the Democratic Party.
I've lambasted Schumer and the Senate Democrats who've rolled over on budget votes, and to a lesser extent Jeffries, but if you're bashing the whole party as not doing anything against fascism, you're wrong and you shouldn't be running to represent the party.
He didn’t say the whole party.
Yes he did and does.
I would love if he could explain what he would do if he were in office otherwise it's a worthless critique.
Good. Prune the dead wood
What's this in reaction to?
Some trees in the backyard
Smart Alec, it's not clear which people Markie is thinking of. But whatever. Enjoy your yard work.
Presumably the main story of the morning digest about the primary challenge
I think there's a difference between old and dead wood, if we're talking about the House seat in Mississippi.
FL-23:
https://www.wpbf.com/article/florida-boca-raton-mayor-scott-singer-congress-bid-2026-election/69810467
Another GOP opponent for Dem Rep. Jared Moskowitz. This one’s Scott Singer, the mayor of Boca Raton.
How is the mayor of Boca Raton a Republican? I assume this is a pretty Dem leaning city?
Trump won Boca by ~12 points in 2024 and it was within a point in 2016 and 2020. Obama barely won it in 2008, so it's been pretty purple for a while.
Former North Carolina Governor Jim Hunt has died at the age of 88:
https://apnews.com/article/north-carolina-gov-jim-hunt-obit-0edf223c7e614acab5d3a76cb2d9c1f3
This news comes the same day that former NASCAR driver Greg Biffle, his wife, and two children were among a total of seven people killed in a plane crash at Statesville airport in Iredell County, NC, so this has been a terrible day for North Carolina. Hunt's death was unrelated to the plane crash.
He is the reason NC is still competitive and not solidly red. Props to him and RIP
I wish he had implemented in the state constitution allowing the governor to veto state and congressional map drawing, because we wouldn't be in the situation now where Phil Berger and Destin Hall keep gleefully rigging our maps -- and the Republican majority judiciary is allowing them to do so.
Somehow Dems were stupid enough in NC to think they could never lose the legislature in a state that not even Bill Clinton could ever carry and where they actually DID lose the state house in 1994 and 1996.
If NC Dems actually win back the majority next year (which is a long shot) before control of the state Supreme Court does -- they're going to have a LOT of stuff to do. Namely, drive hard bargains with the GOP minority and start some overdue payback.
I don't know if Republicans would backtrack then and support a constitutional amendment for independent redistricting and allowing the governor to veto gerrymandered maps. (Probably not.)
Elected governor four times. Strong supporter of education. RIP.