Cannot understand Sliwa's polling. What do his voters see in him that's different than Cuomo or Adams? It's not like he's some fresh face; the Guardian Angels started in 1979. He's a loudmouth vigilante and hustler who couldn't possibly manage something as complex as NYC government.
He's a real Republican. Adams is a conservative Democrat and Cuomo was very disliked by NY Republicans (though upstate ones most of all because of his gun legislation).
That would probably explain why Sliwa is at 11% instead of 20-30%. Trump got ~30% of the vote in NYC in 2024, ~23% in 2020, and ~18% in 2016. Sliwa got 27% of the vote in 2021.
If Sliwa gets 11% in the final results it would mean he's losing somewhere between one half and two thirds of the expected republican vote.
Yes, but there are more than enough old-school (i.e. non-MAGA) Republicans in NYC to support 11%, particularly when you factor in the people who will vote for whoever has an R next to their name no matter what.
I hope so, but do not underestimate how much damage he can do in the right-wing education group he is joining. Most of the destructive Republican ideas originate in these kind of non-think tanks.
It’s nonsense imo. I have a Samsung TV (they’re generally garbage) and Movie Hub Action comes on as a channel. I very much doubt it’s showing full frontal nudity, but especially when it never shows a full film (now, the Deal or No Deal channel that just plays that show all day does in fact have full episodes lol and I’m embarrassed that that’s my guilty pleasure)
Nexstar is actively trying to get the Trump Administration to approve an acquisition of rival company TEGNA, which would require gutting what few concentration of ownership regulations still exist in broadcast media.
Nexstar owns WPIX-TV in NYC; I don't know if they own a station in the Philadelphia market.
Nexstar's monopolistic attitude has been known for many years (I live in a DMA where Nexstar has owned a station since 2000), but it's getting more attention with the Jimmy Kimmel controversy and the fact that they own both a ton of ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC affiliates while also owning a competitor to those networks, CW.
Examples of Emerson bias? Hmm . . . well . . . let me think just a hot second which compendium of evidence to consult. BTW they're a wing of Nexstar and The Hill.
This is a race where we really need an over performance by Sherrill vs. Kamala numbers in order to combat the narrative that Jersey has shifted right.
Imo, anything less than ~8-10% margin for Sherrill is not a good sign for the State.
I'm deeply concerned not that NJ will be competitive for national Republicans going forward but that Trump has in fact permanently shifted the state's electorate to the right. This race will tell a narrative one way or the other as to if 2024 was a huge underperformance or something more lasting. My concern level is 7/10 regarding anti-Democratic narratives in Nov.
Keep in mind that in the 2013 NJ Senate Special Election Cory Booker won by 10.7% points whereas Andy Kim got elected to the Senate last year by nearly 10% points. Highly unlikely when Booker runs for re-election in 2026 will he be faced with a closer than expected race.
The main reason why the NJ-GOV race this time around suggests it is closer is because of Jack Cittarelli being the GOP Gubernatorial Nominee as he cut the margin of Gov. Phil Murphy re-election to 3.2% points. Mikie Sherrill certainly hasn’t been perceived as strong of a Democratic gubernatorial nominee.
Yeah, NJ is a weird state. At the gubernatorial level, it can be a bit swingy but at the federal level not so much as no Republican presidential candidate since Bush Sr. has been able to win the state.
Even going back to the mid 90's there's been a series of governors serving as follows:
Christine Todd Whitman - Serving from 1994-2001. Last Republican Governor to be elected two terms before Chris Christie although her 2nd term was cut short a bit because of being nominated for EPA Secretary by President Bush.
Donald DiFrancesco - Took over Whitman as Acting Governor from 2001-2002 but dropped out of the subsequent gubernatorial race early on.
John Farmer Jr - Took over DiFrancesco as Acting Governor from Noon to 1:30 pm on January 8th, 2002.
John Bennett - Took over Farmer Jr. as Acting Governor from January 8th to 12th, 2002.
Richard Codey - The 4th acting Governor after three-in-a-row since 2001 but this time a Democrat. Served from January 12 - January 15th 2002.
Jim McGreevey - First elected Governor since Whitman but a Democrat this time around. Served from 2002-2004 when he resigned due to coming out as gay and going through serious life changes.
Richard Codey - Acting Governor yet again from November 15th 2004 to January 17th 2006.
Jon Corzine - First elected Governor since McGreevey and elected after Bush Jr's 2nd term as POTUS was becoming a lame duck presidency for him. Served from 2006-2010.
Chris Christie - Unseated Corzine in 2009 due to low turnout and Corzine having lower approval ratings over time (so I remember). First GOP Governor since Whitman and the first Governor in a long time to completely serve two terms from 2010 to 2018.
Phil Murphy - Was originally elected Governor in 2017 in part due to Trump overshadowing NJ and the rest of the country. Higher turnout and is on track to being the 2nd Governor since Christie to completely serve 2nd terms.
Even California doesn't have this strange gubernatorial history! I mean, four acting governors in a row?
The poll had 49% of NJ voters wanting whoever gets elected governor wanting to work with the Trump Administration, which seems extremely high for New Jersey (I would expect this figure to be in the mid-40s at most).
And Trump job disapproval of -10, when it's on average -7 to -11 nationally, in a state where Trump did 8 points worse than his national margin, does not add up.
I do think it's possible that Trump would lose less off his margin in NJ than in some other states, particularly if Latino affinity for him holds even a little bit steady. That said, I don't buy the gubernatorial poll for a second. I'd be surprised if Sherrill wins by less than 5.
I am from MA. Ed Markey is a dinosaur who --- like Biden --- needs to acknowledge his age and expiration date. The DEMS continue to make the same mistakes over and over and over. People other than Old White Men can lead and legislate.
Markey is a fighting progressive. He shouldn't be tossed in the scrap heap merely because of his age. As long as he physically and mentally sharp, there's no reason he should be replaced.
Yes he should and so should Bernie. We can't just take issue with politicians who can't give up power just because we agree more with them ideologically.
Any politician over 80 should not run for re-election anywhere.
And for Democrats right now every vote matters. It's irresponsible.
I do wish Bernie had retired last year, but that's more because his state has a Republican governor. It also would give him more time and energy to conduct his fighting oligarchy tour.
I think there's some truth to the statement it's not about your age it's about the age of your ideas. I would much rather have Markey in the Senate than Moulton because Markey is actually progressive, still seems "with it" mentally, and is in a state with a Democratic governor. But, if Markey decided to retire, endorse Pressley, and continue his progressive advocacy outside of the Senate, I wouldn't be upset with that. That may even be my preferred option, but still I'm fine with him remaining in the Senate
Yeah Bernie should have retired so that he would not have any voice in the Senate and so that centrist and neoliberals would make mincemeat of the left. This is such a short-signed take. In these times, we need Bernie more than EVER.
Bernie...isn't the only progressive in the Senate? Also, when's the last time a Senate speech from Bernie made the rounds? Most of what we hear from him comes from his fighting oligarchy tour, not from the Senate floor. We don't need Bernie in the Senate specifically.
Also, I find it laughable to call my take shortsighted when you're the one advocating for an 84 year old to start a new 6-year term from a state with a Republican governor because, in your words, we need him in the Senate "in these times". What happens after these times? What happens if Bernie is around now, but not later? What happens if we somehow manage to get a Senate majority, and then lose it because of a Republican Senator in VERMONT of all places? We shouldn't risk Vermont becoming a repeat of Massachusetts 2010, when we lost our filibuster-proof majority because Scott Brown replaced Ted Kennedy.
Vermont's Governor is a Hillary-Biden-Harris pro trans and pro-choice Republican who would appoint a Democrat so your Scott Brown-esque assertion isn't true. And Bernie's groomed successor Jewish progressive Becca Balint had been in Congress for just one term. Bernie's speeches don't need to go viral, him being a Senator, giving speeches, grilling Trumpers and introducing symbolic legislation as well as resolutions matters. Why would someone go to his rallies if he held no power?
Republicans cannot be trusted. Any promises Scott makes are not binding. My guess is he would pick a moderate republican, or a moderate "independent" that is de facto a republican.
At the end of the day he could appoint someone that would theoretically work with us on legislation, but it wouldn't matter because that person would caucus with republicans and work to stop our legislation from reaching the floor.
FYI, Phil Scott voted for Biden in 2020 and Harris in 2024 and supported the impeachment against Trump before the 2020 election. Unless he knows a few moderate Republicans, don’t be surprised if he nominates another Independent like Sanders or a Democrat.
I don't see how anyone can be sure of that in this day and age. RBG, Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, etc. In quirky electorates sometimes bad things happen. Better to never take the risk.
Scott has been elected five times and will presumably be reelected a 6th time next year, barring a surprise retirement or an incredible upset.
At the point of serving 10-12+ years in office, in his late 60s or early 70s, the threat of not being reelected is a hollow one. He could resign tomorrow to enjoy retirement in peace and will have already cemented his legacy and career.
I thought it was fine when Manhattan DA Mortenthau kept serving into his early 90s or so. It helped that his terms were 2 years and had he died, I'm sure his deputy could have taken over right away. But as a general rule, I'd tend to agree, especially for men, as women live longer.
Since Rep. Becca Balint is the most likely successor in the Senate, it will probably also make for an interesting House race for the seat Balint vacated.
Yeah Bernie should have retired so that he would not have any voice in the Senate and so that centrist and neoliberals would make mincemeat of the left. This is such a short-signed take. In these times, we need Bernie more than EVER.
Reposting this reply here because you also reposted your comment above:
Bernie...isn't the only progressive in the Senate? Also, when's the last time a Senate speech from Bernie made the rounds? Most of what we hear from him comes from his fighting oligarchy tour, not from the Senate floor. We don't need Bernie in the Senate specifically.
Also, I find it laughable to call my take shortsighted when you're the one advocating for an 84 year old to start a new 6-year term from a state with a Republican governor because, in your words, we need him in the Senate "in these times". What happens after these times? What happens if Bernie is around now, but not later? What happens if we somehow manage to get a Senate majority, and then lose it because of a Republican Senator in VERMONT of all places? We shouldn't risk Vermont becoming a repeat of Massachusetts 2010, when we lost our filibuster-proof majority because Scott Brown replaced Ted Kennedy.
Mortality has a way of creeping up on you. Politicians over 70 need to reflect whether they're actually too important to cede power or if it's just their ego.
At 70, a healthy male can be expected to live until 85 and a female to 87. To me the questions should be are they healthy and are they effective. We don't need repeats of Ginsberg who was a cancer survivor, Feinstein who obviously was in mental decline when reelected, or Biden or Trump.
I believe age/health because more important for the president or SCOTUS justice because of the importance of the position and senator because of the long term
Taking pot shots at any 70 year old comes across as ageism.
If you start attacking every candidate because of age, you are also going to lose some older vote. While I agree that we have a lot of old dead wood that needs replaced, I don't want age to be the only factor.
We don't want the Democratic party to become the party of discriminatory ageism.
I think he's suggesting that older incumbents voluntarily step aside for the younger generation, not be forced out.
Also, I see this threat a lot but have older voters ever turned against a younger candidate for suggesting an older candidate step aside? If anything odler voters *like* younger candidates.
If he is really concerned with his legacy, he will step aside and endorse Ayanna Pressley as his successor rather than trying to serve until he is 86 years old.
As we repeatedly discover, when one is in their 80s, there's no way to ensure their cognitive sharpness six years down the road. Or what Governor will be on deck to fill their shoes when age takes its toll.
Clint Eastwood is in the silent generation, in his mid 90’s and has had no notable health scares or cancer risks. He sticks with a lean protein diet with lots of fruits and vegetables, exercise and meditation. He’s also planning on directing a new film after Juror #2.
Of course, he served as Mayor of Carmel, CA in the late 80’s when he was in his 50’s so a much different time. Also, being Mayor for Carmel is nothing compared to being mayor of a big city like Los Angeles.
I'd love to see Markey step aside, but I would never support Moulton as the person to replace him. A downgrade as significant as Moulton is unacceptable.
Between Markey and Moulton, the choice is easily Markey. And I say that as a very strong proponent of old incumbents being replaced.
And I don’t wanna hear any Dems complaining that this is gonna make other Dem seats more vulnerable. MD-07 can easily pick up all of Harford county from MD-01 in exchange for a chunk of Baltimore. MD-06 can drop the rural parts of Frederick county to MD-08 in exchange for more of Montgomery county. That’s pretty much all that needs to be done to move MD-06 up to a double digit Harris district and make MD-01 a at least a mid single digit Harris district.
We can agree to disagree. And who said I pushing for a progressive? Seth Moulton would be fine. He is young, smart and able. My point was -- like with businesses -- there needs to be a succession plan that isn't a mad scramble when the person dies in office and/or lose their marbles. Perfect example: Diane Feinstein.
Moulton has problems beyond ideology — his attempted Pelosi ouster and failed presidential campaign don’t exactly speak to good political instincts or possibly being a reliable vote in the Senate.
Look. I don't disagree. My point was, regardless of ideology, there are qualified people on the bench who should be allowed to lead (whomever people vote in). And yes. Nancy Pelosi did a lot of good for a long time and was amazing when she stood up to Trump. But be honest. She, too, is a dinosaur. And she needs to let go of the reins. Hakeem Jeffries is a eunuch because she is still there undermining him. Look what she did to AOC - and that guy died in office! Yet another one past their prime.
I'm not sure Pelosi is a problem for Jefferies, but maybe poor leadership skills and political judgment. I don't really understand what he thought he would get in having 100 of his caucus help Republicans canonize fascist Kirk, but doing so makes attacking Trump on fascism weaker when he went along to get along. Oh, maybe it'll make Trump like me?
What did Pelosi (I assume) do to AOC? And who died in office?
I don't think that Pelosi is exactly standing in Jeffries' way or pulling his strings behind the scenes. (Regarding the current budget stalemate, if she encouraged Jeffries to tell Trump, Vought, etc. to piss off then good for her.) But while she's always a valuable resource she can't stay around forever.
Don't know. I remember that she was public with her support for Connolly and may have moved some members. She still has substantial campaign funds that she doesn't need to win her own re-election.
Not to put words in their mouth, but I read it as her undermining him not through intent but merely through still being around. As a generation long leader sticking around she will have better connections and relationships with a lot of the caucus who will indirectly look to her for some level of leadership.
It's not her actively undermining Jeffries but just her presence in congress does so to an extent, even if she does her best to prevent that.
It is imo if the person doing so has never introduced articles of impeachment on anyone before. She’s not a rock the boat Democrat. That she’s doing this in my opinion means she thinks either she’s ahead and losing ground fast or she’s behind and needs a boost.
The character of the person and previous actions not matching what she’s doing now to me only has one explanation, but definitely feel free to disagree! This is where I’m coming from though.
I think both can be true at the same time and I never said she wasn’t doing the right thing. Nor did I imply that. All I said is that this move feels like desperation. A political move can be desperate and the right thing to do. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
I also stand by my statement that this isn’t a move you make if you think you’ve got the primary locked up and I find it extremely hard to argue against that.
I don't know of any names, but Moulton's seat is focused on the North Shore area. Biggest city in MA-06 is Lynn, I think. Salem, Gloucester, Peabody, Beverly are all there too. The biggest cities in the northeast of MA is specifically excluded from the district: Lowell and Lawrence are right on the border and are in the neighbor, MA-03. This is a predominantly white district.
Pressley's district, MA-07, is centered around Boston but is a bit of a mess geographically. It includes a lot of southern Boston — which is NOT the same as South Boston, which is the easternmost part of the city, not to be confused with East Boston, which is the northernmost part of the city. Somervile, Everett, and Chelsea are entirely in the district, along with southern Cambridge. This is a very diverse district.
I think geography, economics, and visibility will cause there to be more people with ambition and the means to be able to run for Pressley's seat if she vacates it.
Cambridge huh. Don't know a lot about MA political dynamics but isn't State Rep. Mike Connolly there? He's a pretty high profile progressive from what I've heard -- maybe he'd be interested. (I remember when the DSA kicked him out over some stupid bullshit and Ryan fucking Grim wrote a piece in The Intercept telling them to knock it off. He's apparently done a lot of work for housing too.)
I don't know Mike Connolly, but his state house district, 26th Middlesex, has substantial overlap with MA-07. It depends on where exactly he lives but he could be in the district. If not he could move easily enough (well, apart from housing prices) if he desired.
She lobbied against AOC on the down low. And the guy who got it (late 70s) died a few months later. All to block AOC and keep power with the old guard.
So we've got two GOP firms releasing polls in Virginia just today and about half of the polls for the whole race are from GOP pollsters.
It has got me thinking as to why in seemingly every race we get dozens of Republican internals & polls released but nothing from Dem aligned groups? What happened to PPP? I just don't get Dem campaigns not wanting to release their internals to stifle some of the 'Dems in disarray' narratives from forming.
OnMessage, which is one of the dozens of Republican firms that I am aware of along with coefficient, cygnal, Quantus. They also have partisan pollsters that pretend to be 'independent' like Insider Advantage and Trafalgar to help drive narratives.
The only Democratic pollster I'm familiar with is PPP, Navigator, and Data for Progress. There are clearly Dem pollsters out there but they prefer to be more discreet for some reason.
State Senate asshole Phil Berger wants to redraw the congressional map in North Carolina AGAIN (which they already rigged two years ago), but lies that he hadn’t talked to TACO about it.
Berger has been shamelessly corrupt the last 15 years he’s been in power. Nothing would make me happier than to see him lose his primary next year and then his nepo baby son Junior ousted from SCONC in 2028.
Berger is the NC equivalent of Mitch McConnell here. Absolutely awful.
At this point Pritzker needs to tell the house delegation in Illinois to fall in line and take tougher seats for the greater good. Jeffries needs to show leadership here if he wants the gavel next year. Its shameful Cali is the only blue state to have any kind of response to this.
A branch of the National Archives released a mostly unredacted version of Democratic Rep. Mikie Sherrill's military records to Nicholas De Gregorio, an ally of Jack Ciattarelli, her GOP opponent in the New Jersey governor's race. The disclosure potentially violates the Privacy Act of 1974 and exemptions established under the Freedom of Information Act.
The right is pushing the fact that she was "involved" in a cheating scandal really hard on Twitter right now (of course, she didn't cheat--she just failed to report others she'd somehow heard were cheating, and then went on to win commendations in the Navy).
But as of my last check, the tweets saying Jack Ciattarelli leaked Sherrill's private info in pursuit of oppo research are getting much more views and attention, and a lot of high profile Democrats are tweeting about it critically.
It's hard to tell how anything is being received on Twitter these days as you can no longer see a "blind" version of the platform by logging out. However, it does seem Sherrill's messaging is traveling farther.
It would have been far more appropriate karma if they held a press conference where they say they can't build a sturdy case against Comey so won't move to indict him. However, they then go on a 30 minute tear about how much of a stupid, naughty boy he is.
I mean, really. Comey’s had a long and distinctive career working for the Justice Department. He even resisted pressure to reauthorize the domestic surveillance program under pressure by Alberto Gonzales and WH Chief of Staff Andrew Card back in 2004.
There’s simply no comparison between ethics Comey has vs Trump and his whiny antics.
I would agree with you, but then I remember this Supreme Court. I feel like they'll find a way to get involved and make sure it doesn't get thrown out and leads to a trial of some type (which will probably still result in a Not Guilty verdict).
Possible, but it is actually far more difficult for the Supreme Court to meddle in criminal cases than in civil cases. You might still be right, though, given the naked partisanship of Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch. But this is an astoundingly flimsy case, to say the least.
NYC Mayor Fox LVs:
Mamdani 47
Cuomo 29
Sliwa 11
Adams 7
https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2025/09/fox_september-18-22-2025_nyc-mayor_topline_september-24-release.pdf
Cannot understand Sliwa's polling. What do his voters see in him that's different than Cuomo or Adams? It's not like he's some fresh face; the Guardian Angels started in 1979. He's a loudmouth vigilante and hustler who couldn't possibly manage something as complex as NYC government.
Probably that he’s the only actual Republican on the ballot. There are enough actual Republicans in NYC to get him 11%, right?
He got 28% in the general against Adams in 2021
He's a real Republican. Adams is a conservative Democrat and Cuomo was very disliked by NY Republicans (though upstate ones most of all because of his gun legislation).
But Sliwa has called Trump a "screwball" and a "crackpot." He has not endeared himself to MAGA Republicans.
He has? What an oddball, but credit where it's due.
That would probably explain why Sliwa is at 11% instead of 20-30%. Trump got ~30% of the vote in NYC in 2024, ~23% in 2020, and ~18% in 2016. Sliwa got 27% of the vote in 2021.
If Sliwa gets 11% in the final results it would mean he's losing somewhere between one half and two thirds of the expected republican vote.
But who knows that.. for most R voters he's just the real R on the ballot.
Yes, but there are more than enough old-school (i.e. non-MAGA) Republicans in NYC to support 11%, particularly when you factor in the people who will vote for whoever has an R next to their name no matter what.
Good!
Silwa should stay in the race then. He should be thanked for his service in preventing both Adams and Cuomo from getting elected as mayor.
There are still significant amounts of Republican voters in NYC, and they will support Republican candidates.
People who remain Republicans in NYC tend to be very partisan
Close to 50%!
Probably the worst state public official in the country:
State Superintendent Ryan Walters announced Wednesday that he will resign from office and take a job in the private sector.
https://www.koco.com/article/ryan-walters-resigns-oklahoma-state-superintendent-teacher-freedom-alliance/68044078
State's AG rejoices:
https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgeidner.bsky.social/post/3lzn2m2yxp224
Update: Just noticed that it's in the digest.
Great news for Oklahoma and America
I hope so, but do not underestimate how much damage he can do in the right-wing education group he is joining. Most of the destructive Republican ideas originate in these kind of non-think tanks.
Yeah but is he crazier than the people already at that group..I doubt it...
Looks like the "exoneration" from the Jackie Chan Movie Scandal didn't play as well as hoped.
It’s nonsense imo. I have a Samsung TV (they’re generally garbage) and Movie Hub Action comes on as a channel. I very much doubt it’s showing full frontal nudity, but especially when it never shows a full film (now, the Deal or No Deal channel that just plays that show all day does in fact have full episodes lol and I’m embarrassed that that’s my guilty pleasure)
NJ Gov Emerson: Tied at 43.
https://emersoncollegepolling.com/new-jersey-2025-poll/
Don't buy the poll for a minute. 50-43 Sherrill would be more like it. But Emerson continues its Republican friendly polling.
"the survey was funded by Nexstar media" lol
Nexstar is actively trying to get the Trump Administration to approve an acquisition of rival company TEGNA, which would require gutting what few concentration of ownership regulations still exist in broadcast media.
Nexstar owns WPIX-TV in NYC; I don't know if they own a station in the Philadelphia market.
Nexstar's monopolistic attitude has been known for many years (I live in a DMA where Nexstar has owned a station since 2000), but it's getting more attention with the Jimmy Kimmel controversy and the fact that they own both a ton of ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC affiliates while also owning a competitor to those networks, CW.
Hope you’re right Paleo - do you have other examples of Emerson bias?
Last poll had Trump approval at only -2. That's Rasmussen territory.
Examples of Emerson bias? Hmm . . . well . . . let me think just a hot second which compendium of evidence to consult. BTW they're a wing of Nexstar and The Hill.
Good feedback - any other examples so I can stop getting palpitations ??
This is a race where we really need an over performance by Sherrill vs. Kamala numbers in order to combat the narrative that Jersey has shifted right.
Imo, anything less than ~8-10% margin for Sherrill is not a good sign for the State.
I'm deeply concerned not that NJ will be competitive for national Republicans going forward but that Trump has in fact permanently shifted the state's electorate to the right. This race will tell a narrative one way or the other as to if 2024 was a huge underperformance or something more lasting. My concern level is 7/10 regarding anti-Democratic narratives in Nov.
Keep in mind that in the 2013 NJ Senate Special Election Cory Booker won by 10.7% points whereas Andy Kim got elected to the Senate last year by nearly 10% points. Highly unlikely when Booker runs for re-election in 2026 will he be faced with a closer than expected race.
The main reason why the NJ-GOV race this time around suggests it is closer is because of Jack Cittarelli being the GOP Gubernatorial Nominee as he cut the margin of Gov. Phil Murphy re-election to 3.2% points. Mikie Sherrill certainly hasn’t been perceived as strong of a Democratic gubernatorial nominee.
Also need to factor in that no party has won three consecutive terms for Governor in NJ in over 60 years.
Yeah, NJ is a weird state. At the gubernatorial level, it can be a bit swingy but at the federal level not so much as no Republican presidential candidate since Bush Sr. has been able to win the state.
Even going back to the mid 90's there's been a series of governors serving as follows:
Christine Todd Whitman - Serving from 1994-2001. Last Republican Governor to be elected two terms before Chris Christie although her 2nd term was cut short a bit because of being nominated for EPA Secretary by President Bush.
Donald DiFrancesco - Took over Whitman as Acting Governor from 2001-2002 but dropped out of the subsequent gubernatorial race early on.
John Farmer Jr - Took over DiFrancesco as Acting Governor from Noon to 1:30 pm on January 8th, 2002.
John Bennett - Took over Farmer Jr. as Acting Governor from January 8th to 12th, 2002.
Richard Codey - The 4th acting Governor after three-in-a-row since 2001 but this time a Democrat. Served from January 12 - January 15th 2002.
Jim McGreevey - First elected Governor since Whitman but a Democrat this time around. Served from 2002-2004 when he resigned due to coming out as gay and going through serious life changes.
Richard Codey - Acting Governor yet again from November 15th 2004 to January 17th 2006.
Jon Corzine - First elected Governor since McGreevey and elected after Bush Jr's 2nd term as POTUS was becoming a lame duck presidency for him. Served from 2006-2010.
Chris Christie - Unseated Corzine in 2009 due to low turnout and Corzine having lower approval ratings over time (so I remember). First GOP Governor since Whitman and the first Governor in a long time to completely serve two terms from 2010 to 2018.
Phil Murphy - Was originally elected Governor in 2017 in part due to Trump overshadowing NJ and the rest of the country. Higher turnout and is on track to being the 2nd Governor since Christie to completely serve 2nd terms.
Even California doesn't have this strange gubernatorial history! I mean, four acting governors in a row?
The poll had 49% of NJ voters wanting whoever gets elected governor wanting to work with the Trump Administration, which seems extremely high for New Jersey (I would expect this figure to be in the mid-40s at most).
And Trump job disapproval of -10, when it's on average -7 to -11 nationally, in a state where Trump did 8 points worse than his national margin, does not add up.
I do think it's possible that Trump would lose less off his margin in NJ than in some other states, particularly if Latino affinity for him holds even a little bit steady. That said, I don't buy the gubernatorial poll for a second. I'd be surprised if Sherrill wins by less than 5.
New Clear Insights poll just released - Sherrill up 7 points
Quinnipiac Poll last week had high single digits. This poll has higher undecideds, but those undecided lean D at least.
Emerson typically has higher undecided than other polls.
The betting markets still have Sherrill over 80% (but down from close to 90% earlier in the month)
My guess is that different polling companies are modeling different electorates. In theory, either could be correct.
A poll for a pro-school voucher group has her up 48-41, but we don't know the exact pollster: https://newjerseyglobe.com/governor/poll-from-education-non-profit-shows-sherrill-leading-by-7/
I am from MA. Ed Markey is a dinosaur who --- like Biden --- needs to acknowledge his age and expiration date. The DEMS continue to make the same mistakes over and over and over. People other than Old White Men can lead and legislate.
Markey is a fighting progressive. He shouldn't be tossed in the scrap heap merely because of his age. As long as he physically and mentally sharp, there's no reason he should be replaced.
Yes he should and so should Bernie. We can't just take issue with politicians who can't give up power just because we agree more with them ideologically.
Any politician over 80 should not run for re-election anywhere.
And for Democrats right now every vote matters. It's irresponsible.
I do wish Bernie had retired last year, but that's more because his state has a Republican governor. It also would give him more time and energy to conduct his fighting oligarchy tour.
I think there's some truth to the statement it's not about your age it's about the age of your ideas. I would much rather have Markey in the Senate than Moulton because Markey is actually progressive, still seems "with it" mentally, and is in a state with a Democratic governor. But, if Markey decided to retire, endorse Pressley, and continue his progressive advocacy outside of the Senate, I wouldn't be upset with that. That may even be my preferred option, but still I'm fine with him remaining in the Senate
Yeah Bernie should have retired so that he would not have any voice in the Senate and so that centrist and neoliberals would make mincemeat of the left. This is such a short-signed take. In these times, we need Bernie more than EVER.
Bernie...isn't the only progressive in the Senate? Also, when's the last time a Senate speech from Bernie made the rounds? Most of what we hear from him comes from his fighting oligarchy tour, not from the Senate floor. We don't need Bernie in the Senate specifically.
Also, I find it laughable to call my take shortsighted when you're the one advocating for an 84 year old to start a new 6-year term from a state with a Republican governor because, in your words, we need him in the Senate "in these times". What happens after these times? What happens if Bernie is around now, but not later? What happens if we somehow manage to get a Senate majority, and then lose it because of a Republican Senator in VERMONT of all places? We shouldn't risk Vermont becoming a repeat of Massachusetts 2010, when we lost our filibuster-proof majority because Scott Brown replaced Ted Kennedy.
Vermont's Governor is a Hillary-Biden-Harris pro trans and pro-choice Republican who would appoint a Democrat so your Scott Brown-esque assertion isn't true. And Bernie's groomed successor Jewish progressive Becca Balint had been in Congress for just one term. Bernie's speeches don't need to go viral, him being a Senator, giving speeches, grilling Trumpers and introducing symbolic legislation as well as resolutions matters. Why would someone go to his rallies if he held no power?
I'm not sure what the concern is here as far as votes when we have nothing to worry about in states like MA and VT, which are deep blue states.
If Markey and Sanders leave office for any reason, before they are up for re-election the seats will have acting Senators who will be Democrats.
Would Phil Scott appoint a Democrat?
He said he would appoint an Independent if the need arose, though this was in 2020 when Bernie was running for President.
https://www.sevendaysvt.com/news/scott-says-he-would-appoint-an-independent-to-succeed-sanders-29770965/
Republicans cannot be trusted. Any promises Scott makes are not binding. My guess is he would pick a moderate republican, or a moderate "independent" that is de facto a republican.
At the end of the day he could appoint someone that would theoretically work with us on legislation, but it wouldn't matter because that person would caucus with republicans and work to stop our legislation from reaching the floor.
FYI, Phil Scott voted for Biden in 2020 and Harris in 2024 and supported the impeachment against Trump before the 2020 election. Unless he knows a few moderate Republicans, don’t be surprised if he nominates another Independent like Sanders or a Democrat.
I don't see how anyone can be sure of that in this day and age. RBG, Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, etc. In quirky electorates sometimes bad things happen. Better to never take the risk.
If Phil Scott appoints a Republican to the Senate, he’ll hand off the next gubernatorial race to Democrats.
Scott is a moderate Republican and more liberal by contrast than most of today’s GOP. He’s got a difficult needle to thread in this situation.
Scott has been elected five times and will presumably be reelected a 6th time next year, barring a surprise retirement or an incredible upset.
At the point of serving 10-12+ years in office, in his late 60s or early 70s, the threat of not being reelected is a hollow one. He could resign tomorrow to enjoy retirement in peace and will have already cemented his legacy and career.
I thought it was fine when Manhattan DA Mortenthau kept serving into his early 90s or so. It helped that his terms were 2 years and had he died, I'm sure his deputy could have taken over right away. But as a general rule, I'd tend to agree, especially for men, as women live longer.
If it means anything, Bernie has said this term will most likely be his last.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/12/10/bernie-sanders-senate-term-00193608
Since Rep. Becca Balint is the most likely successor in the Senate, it will probably also make for an interesting House race for the seat Balint vacated.
Yeah Bernie should have retired so that he would not have any voice in the Senate and so that centrist and neoliberals would make mincemeat of the left. This is such a short-signed take. In these times, we need Bernie more than EVER.
Reposting this reply here because you also reposted your comment above:
Bernie...isn't the only progressive in the Senate? Also, when's the last time a Senate speech from Bernie made the rounds? Most of what we hear from him comes from his fighting oligarchy tour, not from the Senate floor. We don't need Bernie in the Senate specifically.
Also, I find it laughable to call my take shortsighted when you're the one advocating for an 84 year old to start a new 6-year term from a state with a Republican governor because, in your words, we need him in the Senate "in these times". What happens after these times? What happens if Bernie is around now, but not later? What happens if we somehow manage to get a Senate majority, and then lose it because of a Republican Senator in VERMONT of all places? We shouldn't risk Vermont becoming a repeat of Massachusetts 2010, when we lost our filibuster-proof majority because Scott Brown replaced Ted Kennedy.
Mortality has a way of creeping up on you. Politicians over 70 need to reflect whether they're actually too important to cede power or if it's just their ego.
At 70, a healthy male can be expected to live until 85 and a female to 87. To me the questions should be are they healthy and are they effective. We don't need repeats of Ginsberg who was a cancer survivor, Feinstein who obviously was in mental decline when reelected, or Biden or Trump.
I believe age/health because more important for the president or SCOTUS justice because of the importance of the position and senator because of the long term
Taking pot shots at any 70 year old comes across as ageism.
Life expectancy doesn't mean you have to be working until death, my guy.
If you start attacking every candidate because of age, you are also going to lose some older vote. While I agree that we have a lot of old dead wood that needs replaced, I don't want age to be the only factor.
We don't want the Democratic party to become the party of discriminatory ageism.
Who said it should be the only factor? Seems like you're making assumptions about what I'm saying and attacking a strawman.
I think he's suggesting that older incumbents voluntarily step aside for the younger generation, not be forced out.
Also, I see this threat a lot but have older voters ever turned against a younger candidate for suggesting an older candidate step aside? If anything odler voters *like* younger candidates.
If he is really concerned with his legacy, he will step aside and endorse Ayanna Pressley as his successor rather than trying to serve until he is 86 years old.
There is, if he can be replaced by another fighting progressive.
As we repeatedly discover, when one is in their 80s, there's no way to ensure their cognitive sharpness six years down the road. Or what Governor will be on deck to fill their shoes when age takes its toll.
Clint Eastwood is in the silent generation, in his mid 90’s and has had no notable health scares or cancer risks. He sticks with a lean protein diet with lots of fruits and vegetables, exercise and meditation. He’s also planning on directing a new film after Juror #2.
Of course, he served as Mayor of Carmel, CA in the late 80’s when he was in his 50’s so a much different time. Also, being Mayor for Carmel is nothing compared to being mayor of a big city like Los Angeles.
I'd love to see Markey step aside, but I would never support Moulton as the person to replace him. A downgrade as significant as Moulton is unacceptable.
Between Markey and Moulton, the choice is easily Markey. And I say that as a very strong proponent of old incumbents being replaced.
Haven't heard much about Republicans interested in Michael McCaul's old seat, which is interesting. Anyone else heard anything? Just curious.
Maryland: Moore seems to be pushing redistricting.
https://bsky.app/profile/carlquintanilla.bsky.social/post/3lzobd2ebds2j
And I don’t wanna hear any Dems complaining that this is gonna make other Dem seats more vulnerable. MD-07 can easily pick up all of Harford county from MD-01 in exchange for a chunk of Baltimore. MD-06 can drop the rural parts of Frederick county to MD-08 in exchange for more of Montgomery county. That’s pretty much all that needs to be done to move MD-06 up to a double digit Harris district and make MD-01 a at least a mid single digit Harris district.
We can agree to disagree. And who said I pushing for a progressive? Seth Moulton would be fine. He is young, smart and able. My point was -- like with businesses -- there needs to be a succession plan that isn't a mad scramble when the person dies in office and/or lose their marbles. Perfect example: Diane Feinstein.
Moulton has problems beyond ideology — his attempted Pelosi ouster and failed presidential campaign don’t exactly speak to good political instincts or possibly being a reliable vote in the Senate.
Look. I don't disagree. My point was, regardless of ideology, there are qualified people on the bench who should be allowed to lead (whomever people vote in). And yes. Nancy Pelosi did a lot of good for a long time and was amazing when she stood up to Trump. But be honest. She, too, is a dinosaur. And she needs to let go of the reins. Hakeem Jeffries is a eunuch because she is still there undermining him. Look what she did to AOC - and that guy died in office! Yet another one past their prime.
I'm not sure Pelosi is a problem for Jefferies, but maybe poor leadership skills and political judgment. I don't really understand what he thought he would get in having 100 of his caucus help Republicans canonize fascist Kirk, but doing so makes attacking Trump on fascism weaker when he went along to get along. Oh, maybe it'll make Trump like me?
What did Pelosi (I assume) do to AOC? And who died in office?
I don't think that Pelosi is exactly standing in Jeffries' way or pulling his strings behind the scenes. (Regarding the current budget stalemate, if she encouraged Jeffries to tell Trump, Vought, etc. to piss off then good for her.) But while she's always a valuable resource she can't stay around forever.
Pelosi blocked AOC from being the ranking member on an Oversight subcommittee in favor of Gerry Connolly, who dieed in office soon thereafter.
Was her pressure necessary to achieve the result of seniority winning out?
Don't know. I remember that she was public with her support for Connolly and may have moved some members. She still has substantial campaign funds that she doesn't need to win her own re-election.
Evidence that Pelosi is undermining Jeffries? I'd support her retirement, but I don't think we should throw around casual slights like that.
Not to put words in their mouth, but I read it as her undermining him not through intent but merely through still being around. As a generation long leader sticking around she will have better connections and relationships with a lot of the caucus who will indirectly look to her for some level of leadership.
It's not her actively undermining Jeffries but just her presence in congress does so to an extent, even if she does her best to prevent that.
Haley Stevens has introduced articles of impeachment against RFK Jr.
https://michiganadvance.com/briefs/haley-stevens-files-articles-of-impeachment-against-rfk-jr/
Sounds like she’s worried about her primary chances in MI.
Still, good work.
This is not a move you make if you feel you’re winning the primary race as it stands right now. Feels kind of like desperation honestly from her.
Eh, something right and politically obvious is not mere desperation.
It is imo if the person doing so has never introduced articles of impeachment on anyone before. She’s not a rock the boat Democrat. That she’s doing this in my opinion means she thinks either she’s ahead and losing ground fast or she’s behind and needs a boost.
The character of the person and previous actions not matching what she’s doing now to me only has one explanation, but definitely feel free to disagree! This is where I’m coming from though.
I get where you're coming from, and your points are well made, but regardless of her motives, she's doing the right thing, so credit where it's due.
I think both can be true at the same time and I never said she wasn’t doing the right thing. Nor did I imply that. All I said is that this move feels like desperation. A political move can be desperate and the right thing to do. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
I also stand by my statement that this isn’t a move you make if you think you’ve got the primary locked up and I find it extremely hard to argue against that.
You felt that I was still disagreeing with you, but instead, I simply have a different focus in this situation. As I said, your points are well made.
Farage can't even come up with original lying anti-immigrant smears. He has to copy Trump and Vance.
The Royal Parks have rejected Nigel Farage’s claims that migrants are killing and eating swans from their grounds.
https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/nigel-farage-greenwich-park-richmond-park-hyde-park-lbc-b2832708.html
Farage should just join OANN as a commentator where he can get paid more than he ever did in serving in the Parliment.
Question for those in the know — if Moulton and Pressley both end up running, who might be interested in the open seats they leave behind?
Approximately 1,000 people :-) Chances to climb the ladder in MA are so rare.
I don't know of any names, but Moulton's seat is focused on the North Shore area. Biggest city in MA-06 is Lynn, I think. Salem, Gloucester, Peabody, Beverly are all there too. The biggest cities in the northeast of MA is specifically excluded from the district: Lowell and Lawrence are right on the border and are in the neighbor, MA-03. This is a predominantly white district.
Pressley's district, MA-07, is centered around Boston but is a bit of a mess geographically. It includes a lot of southern Boston — which is NOT the same as South Boston, which is the easternmost part of the city, not to be confused with East Boston, which is the northernmost part of the city. Somervile, Everett, and Chelsea are entirely in the district, along with southern Cambridge. This is a very diverse district.
I think geography, economics, and visibility will cause there to be more people with ambition and the means to be able to run for Pressley's seat if she vacates it.
Cambridge huh. Don't know a lot about MA political dynamics but isn't State Rep. Mike Connolly there? He's a pretty high profile progressive from what I've heard -- maybe he'd be interested. (I remember when the DSA kicked him out over some stupid bullshit and Ryan fucking Grim wrote a piece in The Intercept telling them to knock it off. He's apparently done a lot of work for housing too.)
I don't know Mike Connolly, but his state house district, 26th Middlesex, has substantial overlap with MA-07. It depends on where exactly he lives but he could be in the district. If not he could move easily enough (well, apart from housing prices) if he desired.
https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-loses-oversight-gerry-connolly-2002263
She lobbied against AOC on the down low. And the guy who got it (late 70s) died a few months later. All to block AOC and keep power with the old guard.
Didn't we always know this?
So we've got two GOP firms releasing polls in Virginia just today and about half of the polls for the whole race are from GOP pollsters.
It has got me thinking as to why in seemingly every race we get dozens of Republican internals & polls released but nothing from Dem aligned groups? What happened to PPP? I just don't get Dem campaigns not wanting to release their internals to stifle some of the 'Dems in disarray' narratives from forming.
It’s been a problem for several cycles now. Clearly Republicans are funding this pollsters while Democrats are not spending.
I saw the co-efficient one. What was the other?
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/1971315048514715860
OnMessage, which is one of the dozens of Republican firms that I am aware of along with coefficient, cygnal, Quantus. They also have partisan pollsters that pretend to be 'independent' like Insider Advantage and Trafalgar to help drive narratives.
The only Democratic pollster I'm familiar with is PPP, Navigator, and Data for Progress. There are clearly Dem pollsters out there but they prefer to be more discreet for some reason.
Then maybe OnMessage should be rebranded to OnPartisanMessage instead.
State Senate asshole Phil Berger wants to redraw the congressional map in North Carolina AGAIN (which they already rigged two years ago), but lies that he hadn’t talked to TACO about it.
https://www.wral.com/story/berger-threatens-to-redraw-congressional-districts-but-denies-talking-to-trump-about-it/22174473/
“I’ve been watching what’s going on in California with Gavin Newsom trying to steal the Republican majority in Congress,” Berger wrote.
Shameless. Unsurprisingly
Berger has been shamelessly corrupt the last 15 years he’s been in power. Nothing would make me happier than to see him lose his primary next year and then his nepo baby son Junior ousted from SCONC in 2028.
Berger is the NC equivalent of Mitch McConnell here. Absolutely awful.
If republicans are going to redraw the already horribly disfigured NC map, dems in Illinois should do the same.
Only if they can avoid a dumnymander.
They’re trying to gerrymander Rep Davis out of his congressional seat (which they made the only swing seat).
Josh Stein should run into their chamber and shut their computers and power off if they try this.
At this point Pritzker needs to tell the house delegation in Illinois to fall in line and take tougher seats for the greater good. Jeffries needs to show leadership here if he wants the gavel next year. Its shameful Cali is the only blue state to have any kind of response to this.
A branch of the National Archives released a mostly unredacted version of Democratic Rep. Mikie Sherrill's military records to Nicholas De Gregorio, an ally of Jack Ciattarelli, her GOP opponent in the New Jersey governor's race. The disclosure potentially violates the Privacy Act of 1974 and exemptions established under the Freedom of Information Act.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/national-archives-mikie-sherrill-military-record-jack-ciattarelli/
The right is pushing the fact that she was "involved" in a cheating scandal really hard on Twitter right now (of course, she didn't cheat--she just failed to report others she'd somehow heard were cheating, and then went on to win commendations in the Navy).
But as of my last check, the tweets saying Jack Ciattarelli leaked Sherrill's private info in pursuit of oppo research are getting much more views and attention, and a lot of high profile Democrats are tweeting about it critically.
It's hard to tell how anything is being received on Twitter these days as you can no longer see a "blind" version of the platform by logging out. However, it does seem Sherrill's messaging is traveling farther.
Yeah, I see a lot of blow back. Some examples:
https://x.com/GavinNewsom/status/1971349250157215961
https://x.com/jamie_raskin/status/1971306438606950741
I know this will more likely than not be dismissed and I disagree with this, but part of me feel this is comeuppance for James Comey: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/09/25/james-comey-indicted-fbi-trump.html
It would have been far more appropriate karma if they held a press conference where they say they can't build a sturdy case against Comey so won't move to indict him. However, they then go on a 30 minute tear about how much of a stupid, naughty boy he is.
If I ever saw a case with a chance to have the indictment thrown out on selective prosecution grounds it’s this one.
I mean, really. Comey’s had a long and distinctive career working for the Justice Department. He even resisted pressure to reauthorize the domestic surveillance program under pressure by Alberto Gonzales and WH Chief of Staff Andrew Card back in 2004.
There’s simply no comparison between ethics Comey has vs Trump and his whiny antics.
Trump’s inability to keep his mouth shut alone should see this tossed
I would agree with you, but then I remember this Supreme Court. I feel like they'll find a way to get involved and make sure it doesn't get thrown out and leads to a trial of some type (which will probably still result in a Not Guilty verdict).
Possible, but it is actually far more difficult for the Supreme Court to meddle in criminal cases than in civil cases. You might still be right, though, given the naked partisanship of Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch. But this is an astoundingly flimsy case, to say the least.
Chuck Schumer says "even though Democrats' numbers are low," that's fine because they're still higher than that of Republicans.
"In a couple of the races where we have the two candidates, we win!"
https://x.com/kenklippenstein/status/1970861731133133008