Former Rep. Cori Bush is considering running for her old seat, challenging incumbent Rep. Wesley Bell (D-MO) (who primaried her) in the primary in the process -- although she apparently "isn't giving herself a public timeframe" per the story. I know Bush is not popular with some posters here (although I personally love her) so make of that what you will.
MN State Rep. Andy Smith filed FEC paperwork to run for MN-01, currently held by Republican Rep. Brad Finstad. Judging by his State House re-election page, he appears to be a progressive -- given MN-01's red lean a win (particularly as a progressive) is unlikely but in this strongly anti-GOP political environment, never say never.
Also might as well add that, in addition to Buffalo and NYC, mayoral elections are being held in Albany, Rochester, and Syracuse. I don't know enough about them to add details so I'll just link Primary School's analysis of those + the NYC races today -- do note that Primary School writes from a left-wing perspective (and is paywalled), so if you're not of that wing of the Democratic Party there is some bias here:
I can speak a little about Rochester's mayoral race where the incumbent, Malik Evans, is being challenged by city councillor Mary Lupien and a random businessman who's self-funding his campaign. Evans is your classic status quo, machine-backed candidate who's been doing a very mediocre job and IMHO desperately needs to be replaced. Rochester has too many problems for a lackluster, unaccountable hack like him. Lupien would be a fantastic mayor, running on practical, progressive issues like rent stabilization programs and taking control of the public utility, but she's raised little money and I don't expect her to even come close. It's been a low turnout affair so far and she just hasn't caught fire the way she needs to. I love my hometown, but our politics are on life support because the Democratic machine has a virtual death grip all the levers of power and we haven't developed a fully functional opposition wing of the party.
Sharon Owens won the primary in Syracuse. She is currently deputy mayor and is running to replace her termed out center-left independent boss, essentially a status quo vote. I didn't vote for her, more out of a concern for inertia and wanting "change" than any huge red flags. She will almost certainly win the general election.
From a Syracuse perspective, the bias wasn't so much "left wing perspective", it was anti Democratic establishment bias. Sharon Owens is the actual "establishment", she's running to replace her centrist boss who is the son of a former Republican Congressman and grandson of a former Republican mayor.
I’ve never really heard of him until now. I just googled him to see what district he represents and it’s downtown Rochester, which is probably the bluest state house seat in MN-1. Rochester went from two state house seats to three in the last redistricting so my lack of knowledge is due to him being only in his second term. He looks cute, though, lol.
Probably realized running for re-election is smarter than a nearly impossible to win Congressional run. It’d take quite the blue wave for us to win MN-1. But, someone should try. It’s the most flippable of the GOP seats in MN so having a good candidate at the ready is needed.
My only bit of positivity for winning the district is that Iowa is seemingly weak for the GOP right now. MN-1 is a big farming district that borders all of Iowa so we’d need to win over more farmers due to tariffs. And then, we’d have to run up the score in the college towns and win huge in Rochester, a city and economy built around one of the best hospitals in the world. The coalition to win is there, it’s just can it overcome how red rural America has become.
This is why I hate the establishment, they had an experienced and qualified candidate ready but chose to rally behind a sex pest since the start. I was not a bit surprised by Clyburn and Clinton's endorsements.
Zach Nunn and Ashley Hinson should also be vulnerable to losing. Honestly given the overall lean of these districts and even the state, outside of Iowa's 4th, all of these districts should be well within striking distance in this environment. Of course, that could and should be said of many districts and races. Hopefully, the Democrats don't screw up with nomination and fundraising again like they did for Sarah Corkery in the 2nd in 2024 with abysmal fundraising for her. That was an inexcusable blunder.
How much is this due to sexism? I love that Iowa seems to be turning on Republicans but they’re all female Republicans. It’s gross but I am more than happy to take advantage of it. Makes me think that the MAGA cult is still somewhat squishy and based on machismo and bullshit, which is not surprising at all. Dems run a woman for POTUS, we lose. Run an old white man who isn’t inspiring, we win. We run another woman, we lose. We ran a black guy who seemed way ahead of his time and he crushed it. I’d rather win than feel good about losing.
There is a lot of talk about the age of our Democratic lawmakers. David Hogg has raised a huge outcry by leading a PAC to defeat "ineffective" Democratic incumbents in the next election – which was especially controversial as Hogg was also serving as DNC Vice Chair. (He no longer is.)
Undeniably, both age and ageism are major problems.
But it can get tricky once we get specific. Senator Bernie Sanders is 83. He has already filed to run for reelection in 2030 – at the age of 89. So let me ask:
– Do you think Bernie should instead announce his retirement, in plenty of time to let another Deomcratic candidate prepare?
– Do you think Bernie should have retired, instead of running for reelection in 2024, at the age of 82?
– Or do you think Bernie should have already retired at the age of 76, instead of running for reelection in 2018?
NB. These are three Yes-or-No questions, but feel free to add explanations.
Yes to all three. There's no reason Vermont can't elect someone younger and as progressive as Bernie.
Bernie's part of the old Democratic dinosaur problem, where safe incumbents like the outgoing Durbin or the late Gerry Connolly stay WAY too long because their area won't elect someone of the opposite party.
More younger Democratic representatives like AOC, Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock please! I want more people my age or younger representing the federal government.
He’s an asshole. Period. And, he gives tons of cover to other assholes with good morales that are all, “I’m above politics and above picking a political side.” But, they all do pick a side when it comes to policy. It’s ours! That fucker gives them so much cover to be stupid annoying assholes that think they are above us bc they’re soooooooo liberal and smart. They don’t even care that they’re a bunch of fucking losers bc their moral superiority dominates their psyche.
I can sort of cut some slack for running again in 2018. But 2024 was unconscionable.
Too many old incumbents refuse to retire on the argument that they’re “irreplaceable”. Problem is they aren’t immortal and will be replaced eventually, with or without their cooperation. Sanders seriously risks destroying his legacy as things are. VT has a republican governor and any senate majority we can hope for in the future will be knife edge. We could trivially lose the opportunity to govern for months (or entirely) after winning a trifecta.
The best thing he could have done was prepare someone to be his successor and then retired in 2018, or 2024 at the latest.
This is a problem cutting across the full ideological spectrum of the party.
I agree. The easiest way to destroy a legacy in my view is to just let someone with a completely opposite ideology take your place due to your own stubbornness and ego. I'm not talking about someone losing reelection -- they actually try to prevent this scenario of being replaced from occurring, so their legacy isn't destroyed for me. I'm talking about staying so long that you die and allow someone of a differnet party to choose your replacement.
I fear that Bernie thinks his support has grown so much that his legacy couldn't be hurt in this manner, but I absolutely think it can. I'm nervous for the possibility that the progressive-left will become split on how to remember Bernie's legacy, and progressive politicians will have to navigate this split.
I had the thought of the VT General Assembly passing a law similar to Kentucky stating that a replacement Senator has to come from the same party, but Phil Scott would likely veto and Dems don't hold veto-proof majorities in either chamber.
Yeah I think people overestimate how blue Vermont is at the state level. I just learned that the Dem-led coalition holds a 17-13 majority in the Senate and a 94-56 majority in the House
No, people don't overestimate how liberal Vermont is. Vermont Republicans are very liberal compared to national GOP, they are pro trans, pro abortion rights, but fiscally and environmentally moderate.
A point to note is that all seats in Vermont's House and the Senate are up for reelection every 2 years. Democrats lost a lot of seats in 2024 because of Scott's 90 percent approval and the coattail effect and because they went too left and didn't loosen far left environmental rules enough for allowing housing construction which is extremely unaffordable there.
I'll bet that Vermont never elects Republican Senator in my lifetime. Vermont is the most liberal American state numerically.
Part of me wants to see actual Liberal Republicans elected again, but I'm not sure they still exist. I guess Phil Scott counts and probably Bill Weld. I guess I just miss Jim Jeffords and David Souter.
Sanders should announce his retirement at the end of this term. He will be 95 at the end of his next term. The chances of death, serious illness, or mental decline are just too high to embark on a 6-year term.
I think the two hardest cases are Sanders and Pelosi. In their own ways both are extraordinary and it’s unlikely that their skills and leadership can be replaced by another Democrat. And I’m still glad that Pelosi finally conceded power.
So with Sanders I’m glad he ran again in 2024 and definitely in 2018.
However, if in 2021, the Democratic Party leadership (Schumer, Biden, Pelosi, and more) made a commitment to not running anyone over 72 then it would have been worth losing Sanders’s unique voice.
People have finite lifespans and there's a point where even a healthy person will be at major risk of sudden and major health issues appearing simply due to age.
People said that age isn't in and of itself an issue with RBG too, and that left us with a 6-3 SCOTUS that it's entirely possible will result in me spending my entire life under a conservative controlled supreme court. A lot of people said the same about Feinstein too, for that matter.
I'm not going to support keeping someone around well past the point of health becoming a real worry simply because they are ideologically closer to me than most of the rest of the party. Sanders is not irreplaceable, and to the extent that he is in VT it would be in no small part his own fault for not preparing a successor.
Sanders is 83. A sudden health issue like, or even worse than, cancer can appear at any time. That's a consequence of advanced age. There's no avoiding it.
If we hold a senate majority come Jan 2029 we cannot realistically hope for much better than 51-49. Maybe maybe 52-48, but I think that's on the outer edges of plausibility. A 50-50 tied senate is, I would argue, the most likely scenario that involves us holding a trifecta.
Being 1 of 100 isn't much of a distinction if our entire caucus can be the decisive vote against anything and everything.
Did we not forget that Bernie had a heart attack 6 years ago? It's fairly likely that he'll have another one and it could be fatal. Don't get me wrong. I very much align with Bernie politically but to discount this concern is at our own risk.
I believe Sanders ended up moving to a primarily vegan oriented diet as a result of this but don’t remember all the details.
That said, politics is most certainly not for the faint of heart. I commend Sanders for his service but think he should ensure he take care of himself.
I also don't think age should be determinative, but I do think it should be informative. The thing with getting older is that things like health can change VERY quickly, and are more likely to change quickly as one gets older. Bernie may feel fine and perfectly able to do his job now (and as far as I have seen I would agree -- he's been doing a national tour at age 83), but partway through his current term things may change. Of course, this isn't guaranteed -- he also may live to be fully healthy for another 6 years -- but the reality is that things are more likely to change quickly for someone of his age. Bernie shouldn't let his age be the sole determinant for whether he wants to keep serving in the Senate, but he should let his age inform his decision, and after a certain age (which I think he has reached) I think it should play a greater (and even predominant) role in informing his decision.
Why can age be determinative on the younger end but not the older end? I am sure there are plenty of mature 16- and 17-year-olds the same way there are perfectly healthy 85-year-olds. But I wouldn't want to bet our democracy on it
I don't think age should be determinative on the younger end either. This may be an unpopular position, but I'm fine with anyone old enough to vote running for office (okay so still determinative, but determined based on the voting age which is equivalent to the age of majority, not some number that ranges from 25-35 depending on the office). I just think the candidate should use age to inform their decision to run, and voters should use age to inform whether they vote for that person.
1. Yes absolutely. He should absolutely not be running at 89 for another six year term (nor should Republicans like Grassley). We can’t afford another Feinstein
2. Maybe/probably, with the ideological impact he’s had on the party having been considerable over 8 years and the risk of issues at his age as well as the budding backlash to old Democrats
3. Nah. 2018 was fine. I’m not really a Bernie guy but the context of that race makes sense why he’d give it another six
Experience, judgment, and ability should be the criteria for choosing political leaders. Age in itself is irrelevant, as long as it does not affect ability. The Constitution sets minimum ages for certain positions, because the very young often lack experience and judgment.
At this point I really don't care about experience, especially when the experience is grounded in a Congress that no longer exists. We need people who will think outside the box.
AOC but here's the thing: Bernie is going to pass away sooner rather than later. We need more people who think like him and not just cling to one person. Just IMO.
No, Bernie should not announce retirement if a Democrat doesn't win in 2028. His voice is valuable and would be better than any replacement especially from a small state like Vermont.
No, he is a leading voice in resisting Trump and more importantly, is still active and effective. The left would have fallen apart without him rallying after the 2024 loss.
When the actuarial tables suggest you have a greater than 50% death rate over the next 6 years, and control of the Senate is hanging by a thread, and you're reasonably sure someone who generally supports the same policies you do (D) vs the alternative (R), then it's time to go.
Doesn't mean you have to quit helping. Pelosi had modeled that with leadership, she could take the next step and not run for reelection and then become a special advisor to the D caucus or something, guiding House rules strategy.
My Granddad was on a city council in Indiana back the 1980s when he was in his late 60s-70s. He ran at large twice and then declined to run again. Top vote getter both times. Ran as a Dem because "both parties had good people but they asked first." Lived into late 90s and could have run like 4-5 more times in hindsight, but at 75ish he said there were plenty of other good, younger people who could do the job and there comes a point when you are too old, even if you feel fine. So he traveled with Gramma and hung out with his grandkids.
I think he probably should have retired last year, but running at 89 is silly, even keeping in mind the rare exception of Mahathir Mohammed coming out of retirement in his 90s and saving Malaysia from the corruption of his predecessor.
Yes to all three. I love Bernie's positions but he is not excluded from this conversation. He needs to pass the torch to the next generation and if his replacement ends up being to his Right, it'll be his own fault.
It’s also a golden opportunity to test how timely, transparent and effective New York’s vote-counting is. (Yes, I realize RCV is complex and that it takes a little more time to tabulate results.)
All the reasons I've heard for it seem to be vacuous, basically, "I can't decide between chocolate and strawberry."
Study up on the candidates. Find one who aligns with your positions. Fight like hell for them and get out your vote.
RCV is like, "Gosh, I don't know. I don't know the difference between a candidate who wants single-payer and a candidate who wants to just save the existing system. Maybe I'll choose both."
And the most irritating argument of all is that it produces "centrist" candidates that everyone can agree on. There's no way I'm going to be satisfied by my fourth choice getting the nomination; there were reasons I picked someone else first. I don't want a candidate who says "well, we can probably reduce poverty a little bit," which makes conservatives and moderates happy, rather than a candidate who says we need to get at the root causes.
We all have to choose. Coke or Pepsi. Sometimes you might want one, sometimes the other. But rarely do you want both at the same time.
But that's the thing--RCV supporters are always saying "I can't decide between the candidates." It's not Coke v. sulphuric acid--if it was, lots of people would vote for only a first-choice candidate. But most people don't--they rank a bunch of them because they can't be bothered to learn more about the candidates' positions and their various character flaws.
I have never in my life heard someone defend RCV on the basis of it enabling voters who cannot make up their mind. I think you're arguing a strawman there.
Ultimately in RCV you do need to make up your mind. Coke or Pepsi still need to be ranked 1st and 2nd between them in a ranked system.
But the techbro/neolib dream behind RCV is that the ultimate nominee is everyone's 3rd or 4th choice.
If a voter can make up their mind, why vote for more than one? Vote for the candidate most closely aligned with your values/principles/interests. The rest is performance art.
RCV is not the invention of techbros and neolibs, nor are they the primary advocates.
RCV is desirable because it enables people to take a chance on candidates that they think are unlikely to win while still maintaining a say in the final showdown. If we had RCV in the 2000 presidential election in NH or Florida, Al Gore would have won. Full stop. If we had RCV in the 2020 dem primary for MA-04, we'd almost certainly have Mermell in the house instead of Auchincloss.
RCV removes most/all of the need for strategic voting: not voting for the candidate you actually want, because you're afraid of throwing your vote away.
RCV is not and never has been about "making up your mind."
One of the arguments for RCV is usually that it produces less ideologically committed candidates, in favor of centrists. "We need to move away from extremist candidates" is a frequent argument, although RCV is usually only implemented where the Left candidates will be disadvantaged, not the Right, which is where neolibs come in.
It's actually much harder to pick up to 5 people or decide who should not be ranked than to pick 1 person. I've had to do much more research about the candidates and their positions since ranked choice was introduced.
The issue with your examples is that you are only providing two candidates in each of your examples. The point of RCV is to allow for multiple candidates to run and people don't have to worry about strategic voting or spoiler votes. I'd rather have someone win that I can guarantee the majority of people are content with, as opposed to someone winning with 40, 30, maybe even 25% of the vote and not actually know for certain if a majority of people are content with that person winning. Even if I don't personally like the person who wins in RCV, it is objectively more democratic
If you don't think there is strategic voting in RCV, especially in where a candidate ranks their votes, then you may be the next owner of the Brooklyn Bridge.
The example you give is wrong on its face. Under RCV, you don't get a person who is the choice of the majority of voters unless someone gets 50%+1 on the first ballot. You're saying that a 5th place vote is the same as a 1st place vote, and it's simply not.
I never said the winner in RCV is the top choice for a majority of voters. I said the winner is someone a majority of voters is content with. Of course a 5th place vote is different from a 1st place vote. That difference is precisely why someone choses to rank one person 1st and another person 5th
As for strategic voting, sure there might be some. But RCV minimizes the impacts of strategic voting, therefore people don't have to worry about it as much. They can choose to vote 1st place for their favorite candidate, and then also vote for candidates they would prefer to win over others
I kind of hope we can aspire to politics where "someone really good gets elected" is the goal, rather than "someone a majority of voters is content with." Seems like we're aiming kind of low there.
And, of course, the ranking of candidates is the definition of strategic voting, not something that "might" happen sometime.
I consider RCV to be a huge positive! In fact, I would like to see it implemented far and wide, at all election levels. For one, it means people can vote for third parties without wasting their vote. Second, it eliminates the risk of third-party candidates becoming spoilers.
It should be sufficient to remember Ralph Nader and Jill Stein With RCV, Al Gore would almost certainly have won by a wide margin in 2000, and Hillary would probably have defeated Trump in 2016, killing the MAGA movement in its infancy.
Moreover, with RCV, Maine would never have had to endure the vile buffoonery of Governor Paul LePage.
Also if anything RCV is the only reason Adams could have lost in 2021 and the only reason Cuomo might lose this year.
Adams was ahead by 10 points on the first round, 30-20. Cuomo has consistent and large leads on all the first round votes for today's primary. RCV wasn't enough to enable Garcia to beat Adams, and the jury is still out for if it will enable Mamdani to beat Cuomo. But without it there was effectively no chance of either happening.
"Could have" and "might" are exactly the reasons I'm against it.
You win or you lose. Getting close to defeating Adams gave NYC Adams for 4 years. Without RCV, candidates in 2021 might have dropped out and the opposition consolidated around one anti-Adams candidate.
If the problem is "might", it's not convincing to counter with an argument that relies on what candidates "might" have done without RCV...
The last NYC dem primary without an incumbent before RCV was in 2013. There were nine democrats in that primary, seven of which got at least 1% of the vote, and three of which got at least 10% of the vote.
There's also plenty of other places where lots of democrats stick in a plurality primary through to the bitter end. Including a certain forbidden topic in 2020. Kenyatta and Khalil stayed in the 2022 PA primary long after it was clear that it was either going to be Fetterman or Lamb. There's ultimately little incentive to drop out of a primary, even with little/no chance of winning, after the candidate has already gone through 80% of the primary time table. At that stage they have paid most of the political and personal cost to having run and cannot get a refund. RCV might change that around the edges but the core scenario there exists regardless of the primary system.
Would some of the also-rans have dropped out this year without RCV? Probably. Would enough of them to enable Lander to win have done so? Absolutely not.
Suffice it to say, I disagree about the "forbidden topic," as he did eventually get out and give a strong endorsement to the nominee. So why did you bring it up?
RCV would help us a LOT in North Carolina, because this state is very purple instead of the gerrymandered Republican majority. We'd get more moderates instead of just MAGA Republicans from rural red areas.
I was thinking more about independent and third-party voters. If they're in a red district, have their third-party candidate on the ballot and there's RCV -- their vote is not wasted. And there's potential for an upset, like in the Alaska House race where RCV made Mary Peltola the first Democratic House member from that state in decades!
Speaking of Alaska: Murkowski relying heavily on non-republican voters in prior elections has undoubtedly helped convince her she is safe to go against republican leadership when she wants to do so.
Australia has been using ranked choice for their House seats for over a hundred years (since 1919). I don't know how accurate their polling is, but I assume they must have developed some decent methods in that time
Polling in Australia seems pretty good but I suspect it is helped by compulsory voting (so having to take less into account whether people will vote or not though a percentage don't) and most candidates belong to different political parties that are known entities rather than multiple candidates from the same party (except for Hare-Clarke system of voting in Tasmania).
So, if Bernie Sanders dies in office, what are the rules around the governor appointing his successor. He is a registered independent so anyone could be appointed? Bernie is unique in that even when he retires, he could still travel the country speaking out on issues etc., he doesn't need to be in the senate to do this, he's Bernie.
Per congress.gov, in Vermont "[t]he governor appoints a replacement and orders a special election, which is held within six months of the vacancy, unless it occurs within six months of a general election, in which case the special election is held concurrently with the regular general election."
I don't think Sanders's ego will ever allow him to retire, FWIW.
Thanks Brad. I agree about ego, Sander's and others. The reason our party is having trouble defining itself is because this entire generation of 80 year olds is sitting and maintaining the status quo. They don't want any new ideas. I hope David Hogg is able to shed light on this, it's crippling our party.
I don't think a resistance to "new ideas" is a problem for Sanders, though what's wrong with him continuing to advocate for the same good ideas he worked for for decades? Note that I don't think he should run for another term.
In common political discussion it's weird to describe Sanders as opposing new ideas, but in the spirit of what was meant I'd say that's largely true. Sanders' policy positions are consistent and largely unchanged over the years. In a broad sense that speaks well of him and does a lot to reinforce his popularity — people like consistency and see such as authentic.
I don't believe he's changed his views on methods or systems either though. E.g. as I recall he has long opposed removing the filibuster.
As an aside, your mention of him advocating for his ideas got me thinking. How much of his current influence for advocacy relies on his staying a senator? Could be that with a cleared up schedule he'd be able to do more now retired than in office. Comes down to if he could still get people to listen to him and I suspect his influence has gotten high enough that this would be the case. Similar to Pelosi: dems in the house would still answer her phone calls even if she retired from elected office.
Amid calls to choose someone younger and more assertive, House Democrats today chose a replacement for the late Gerald Connolly as ranking member of the House Oversight Committee. After Jasmine Crockett, 44, and Kweisi Mfume, 76, dropped out, Robert Garcia, 47, and Stephen Lynch, 70, remained in contention. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA) was chosen to lead Democrats on the Oversight Committee.
A question related to the above discussions on Bernie: would him dying in office and allowing Phil Scott (a Republican) to replace him tarnish his legacy in your view? Why or why not? Some follow up questions:
- Do you already align with/have a positive view towards Bernie?
- Were other politicians' legacies tarnished after their deaths (for example: Ginsburg, Feinstein, Turner, Grijalva, Connolly)? Why or why not? If this differs from your answer regarding Bernie, why does it differ?
My answer is yes for all questions. I am able to isolate/separate the things they championed and think positively of them for those things. But that doesn't change the fact that their legacies are tarnished because they couldn't step away, and ultimately made it easier for Republicans. The same would be true for Bernie.
Yes, because he certainly knows the facts on aging and would be replaced by a Republican.
Sometimes, depends on issue.
Yes in every case except Turner because all the others had clear medical issues and still kept running/serving. Iirc, Turner was only 72 and had no health issues, but if that's no right then him too. Feinstein at least was replaced by a Dem, but her performance in her last term was awful. Poster child for David Hogg replacement theory.
But who knows if he keeps that pledge, or if he leaves for some reason and the GOP LG doesn't agree to it, or the Democrat he appoints is a DINO, or something important happens within that 6 months. The RBG fiasco means we take 0 chances.
It's also not impossible that we could lose the special election either. Not likely at all, but Ted Kennedy's replacement was Scott Brown up until Warren won in 2012, and we even won a senate election in Alabama in 2017...
Ted Kennedy was "the lion of the senate" and his death killed Obama's legislative agenda halfway through. If he had retired in 2006 instead we might have gotten some kind of climate change and/or immigration reform through instead of having our agenda stopped in its tracks.
Imagine the MAGA / Trump pressure on Governor Scott if a Democratic replacement means a Dem Senate majority, whereas a Republican Replacement means 50/50 with JD Vance as a tiebreaker? While I respect Phil Scott’s integrity, I am not sure he would be able to resist the pressure – and the outright death threats against himself and his family that would be sure to come.
Phil Scott would be a moderate Democrat in any other state and there's no way Vermont elects a Republican in 6 months or Scott caucuses with Republicans.
I wouldn't call Welch or Leahy before him as "very left-wing." Same for Balint. Or Shumlin. As I recall same for Dean, but it's been a while. They're certainly further left than the median democrat, but not at the leftmost portion of the party ideologically.
If the VT dem party is "very left-wing" shouldn't they consistently be producing officials at most coveted statewide positions that represent that?
Vermont dems are pretty left, but not at all so far left as to make it so moderate democrats feel more at home as republicans.
No on Grijalva and Connolly, both in their 70s, and remember that Grijalva performed the service of chasing Sinema out of the Senate. Remind me who Turner was and what the circumstances of their death were. Yes on Ginsburg for sure and also yes on Feinstein, who unfortunately made a spectacle of herself.
What did Grijalva do regarding Sinema? I haven't heard of that. Either way, as I stated in my above post, I can separate out good things that they did. So if Grijalva helped get Sinema out of the Senate then I absolutey commend him for that. In my mind, that is separate from the fact that he chose to run for re-election last year after announcing he had lung cancer in April 2024.
Turner was the representative from Texas who succeeded Sheila Jackson Lee, he died suddenly in March at age 70. I'm not sure what the cause of death was, so maybe his legacy isn't tarnished for me
Fluke death? I think I'm confused about Grijalva, sorry. Lung cancer is hard to beat, so I don't know how to judge whether he had a good reason to believe he'd beat it.
Feinstein already was tarnished before her death. The aging issues and death just made her seem even worse.
If Bernie dies in office and is replaced by a Republican, it will not only tarnish Bernie's legacy, but also the legacy of Vermont voters who had many, MANY chances to replace Phil Scott with an actual Democrat--even some good Democrats--and chose not to do so.
That's an interesting point. The governorship is up next year so I wonder if that will become a campaign point for the Democratic nominee. Basically telling voters to vote for them because then they can replace Bernie with a Dem if the situation arises
If dems aren't willing to vote out Scott, the least they could do is require a same-party appointment via legislation. If Scott doesn't intend to stealthily appoint a republican he should nominally be fine with such a requirement.
Admittedly hard in this specific case but the language can be tweaked to make it make sense. Someone of the same party as the senator caucused with or some such.
Perhaps the system employed by Wyoming and Hawaii (and probably other states as well): the governor chooses the appointee from a list provided by the party of the vacating senator.
(This is how John Barrasso and Brian Schatz were appointed, the former by a governor of the opposite party.)
That's what I was thinking of. The only issue being that Sanders isn't officially in a party. So the language would need to account for that. Not sure if it'd work well but that was what I was getting at with the party caucus idea.
Huizenga running for Mich Senate would open up his house district, which includes Kalamazoo. There have been rumors (but I can't find link now) that State Sen Sean McCann (D, Kalamazoo) may be interested. Redistricting made the seat less conservative, and likely competitive by end of decade. 2026 would be a good time to flip it! (Following theme on this thread, McCann is in his mid-50s.)
The 2006 election was the cycle that first got me hooked on politics (though, in hindsight, there were signs that I was inclined that way before then). I was 21, and followed the polls and returns from my dorm room in what was then Dennis Kucinich's House district. At the time, I didn't appreciate what a rare, political-earthquake event it truly was.
I knew him when he was in college. He was a good guy then. Haven't seen him in ~35 years so I can't add any recent perspective, but I'd have voted for him then.
very very conservative ancestral democratic region. really hard to explain given i never understood anyone's explanation of the south jersey phenomana until moving here. Area that will elect democrats at the county and state level (in several counties of his district) but federally not so much. Van Drew passed on the seat once or twice ifirc but took the plunge and got the incumbent at the time to retire. However, he ran against a republican nominee that was an open white nationalist and won by less than ten points. He was the democratic ideal nominee, conservadem but slightly left of center economically and only beat an open bigot by ten. I think he saw the writing on the wall even before the first impeachment of trump
Sometimes I wonder if someone like Jim Traficant would have gone MAGA if he were still in politics (and alive) in the post-Trump era.
As someone who spent a lot of time in Youngstown and grew up just over the line in Pennsylvania, it's been tough—though not particularly surprising—to watch the region become a Trump-fluffing hellhole.
The area is very closely tied to the South Jersey political machines, which are historically Dem but quite conservative. A lot of the folks in that operation have morphed into MAGA.
Jeff Van Drew likely saw the signs among his constituents, but also he's not a smart or principled person. The main reason he switched, if background reports are to believed, is that he feared Trump's first impeachment would cause a backlash. In his defense, he probably wouldn't have won reelection as a Democrat in 2020 but for entirely unrelated reasons.
Long time readers of SSP/DKE/DB have known his name for a long time. He was always our candidate in waiting to win what was a blue South Jersey district with a GOP incumbent. But, he never pulled the trigger until the time was 100% right for him, not us, which was 2018. He got his promotion and then promptly switched parties as his district was turning. It’s not an asshole move to follow your district and he seemed acutely aware of Trump’s appeal in Jersey. I will give him some grace to being a no morals jerk because we built that expectation on him and then we gerrymandered it. Huge huge huge disappointment, nonetheless. He’s a quite conservative at this point. We built him up and then he let us down.
I mean, he was always understood to be a conservative Democrat, it was completely unsurprising when he switched parties. I don't hold anything against him at all.
It's really pathetic. I never expected to see the Democratic Caucus in both the House and Senate behave like the Center Party in 1933 Germany. I really wonder and fear what will become of us.
Symbolism is important. Especially now, when voters have such a poor opinion of our party, we can benefit from making big media splashes even if the effort behind them is futile.
These kind of efforts, even if all but certain to fail, can help in other indirect ways. Maybe if we had engaged the first Trump term more aggressively he wouldn't have been able to recover his popularity enough to win in 2024? It's not that much of a stretch.
I feel like we engaged the first Trump term fairly aggressively, more so than this one actually. And the outcome is that we probably would have lost if not for covid. Do I want Dems to be more aggressive? Sure. Do I think it will work?
What does an impotent attempt at impeachment do? Voters don't like when we try things and fail. Maybe it's a catch 22.
The idiotic thing is voting for an impeachment resolution that has no chance of succeeding. If you think our country is going to a dictatorship, how does trying to get an impeachment through a GOP-controlled house stop this?
We know impeachment will go nowhere but they shouldn't have tabled it. Something to raise hell about at the town halls for sure. If I'm holding a town hall, I make sure their constituents understood that impeachment wouldn't go anywhere in this congress but it still needs to be done. Doesn't matter if it comes off as performative. It gets Republicans on the record.
One could argue is that performative bullshit is all the voters have left us with and why not use it. I don't know if I agree with that argument though. Impeaching Trump last time certainly didn't do much.
It's a good thing McConnell is retiring because he's really out of touch with where things are these days, especially since's not up for re-election anymore.
That said, as long as Tillis is unseated next year by a Democrat then fine with me. He can be crying uncle and we'll fundraise and GOTV like hell to get him out.
We have a special election for school board in 2 weeks in the precinct I run. The Rec Center AC went out last week. County says it'll be fixed by election day. Of course, the wifi has been out for 2 years, so we'll see.
However, although we have about 8500 registered voters for that school district, and about 7500 are in my precinct, I doubt we'll see more than 300 that day, 100 in the other precinct. And another 300-400 will have early voted at the county office.
At least there's a race. Last fall it was unopposed (and winner already resigned to trigger the special).
I just voted. Decent turnout at my polling place. The 3rd page of the ballot was confusing because it was for delegates and alternate delegates to pick judicial candidates, I think, and no-one seemed to understand why each of those sets of candidates was put into 2 "group"s. I'm disappointed that when I looked for a sample ballot online, I wasn't shown that page. I just voted for one candidate for delegate that I know and like and left the rest of that page blank.
He only calls people with dark skin “low IQ.” Unless I missed something, I’ve yet to see the CBC call him out on it. They never would have done that in the “old days.” But most of the members of the current CBC couldn’t carry their shoes.
Couple of other election stories that were missed:
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/mo/st-louis/news/2025/06/20/cori-bush-2026-pplans
Former Rep. Cori Bush is considering running for her old seat, challenging incumbent Rep. Wesley Bell (D-MO) (who primaried her) in the primary in the process -- although she apparently "isn't giving herself a public timeframe" per the story. I know Bush is not popular with some posters here (although I personally love her) so make of that what you will.
https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/H6MN01208/
MN State Rep. Andy Smith filed FEC paperwork to run for MN-01, currently held by Republican Rep. Brad Finstad. Judging by his State House re-election page, he appears to be a progressive -- given MN-01's red lean a win (particularly as a progressive) is unlikely but in this strongly anti-GOP political environment, never say never.
Also might as well add that, in addition to Buffalo and NYC, mayoral elections are being held in Albany, Rochester, and Syracuse. I don't know enough about them to add details so I'll just link Primary School's analysis of those + the NYC races today -- do note that Primary School writes from a left-wing perspective (and is paywalled), so if you're not of that wing of the Democratic Party there is some bias here:
https://primaryschool.ghost.io/ny-primary-preview-citywide-and-boroughwide/
I can speak a little about Rochester's mayoral race where the incumbent, Malik Evans, is being challenged by city councillor Mary Lupien and a random businessman who's self-funding his campaign. Evans is your classic status quo, machine-backed candidate who's been doing a very mediocre job and IMHO desperately needs to be replaced. Rochester has too many problems for a lackluster, unaccountable hack like him. Lupien would be a fantastic mayor, running on practical, progressive issues like rent stabilization programs and taking control of the public utility, but she's raised little money and I don't expect her to even come close. It's been a low turnout affair so far and she just hasn't caught fire the way she needs to. I love my hometown, but our politics are on life support because the Democratic machine has a virtual death grip all the levers of power and we haven't developed a fully functional opposition wing of the party.
Sharon Owens won the primary in Syracuse. She is currently deputy mayor and is running to replace her termed out center-left independent boss, essentially a status quo vote. I didn't vote for her, more out of a concern for inertia and wanting "change" than any huge red flags. She will almost certainly win the general election.
From a Syracuse perspective, the bias wasn't so much "left wing perspective", it was anti Democratic establishment bias. Sharon Owens is the actual "establishment", she's running to replace her centrist boss who is the son of a former Republican Congressman and grandson of a former Republican mayor.
Hope Bush does and wins.
Andy Smith seems to have a conservative, religious background. He might be a good fit for Tim Walz's old turf, but I'm not the one to ask.
I’ve never really heard of him until now. I just googled him to see what district he represents and it’s downtown Rochester, which is probably the bluest state house seat in MN-1. Rochester went from two state house seats to three in the last redistricting so my lack of knowledge is due to him being only in his second term. He looks cute, though, lol.
Thank you for sharing these! From what I can tell, Andy Smith filed in April but terminated his campaign a short time late without ever announcing. https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00902932/1891530/
Huh, interesting. Wonder what happened.
Probably realized running for re-election is smarter than a nearly impossible to win Congressional run. It’d take quite the blue wave for us to win MN-1. But, someone should try. It’s the most flippable of the GOP seats in MN so having a good candidate at the ready is needed.
My only bit of positivity for winning the district is that Iowa is seemingly weak for the GOP right now. MN-1 is a big farming district that borders all of Iowa so we’d need to win over more farmers due to tariffs. And then, we’d have to run up the score in the college towns and win huge in Rochester, a city and economy built around one of the best hospitals in the world. The coalition to win is there, it’s just can it overcome how red rural America has become.
I wish Brad Lander had a chance. He seems like the best option.
Absolutely! I lament the likelihood of Cuomo or Mamdani being the Democratic candidate.
NY politics disappoints once again. One of the most consistent things there is in current American politics.
If Cuomo hadn't run, Lander probably would have won.
This is why I hate the establishment, they had an experienced and qualified candidate ready but chose to rally behind a sex pest since the start. I was not a bit surprised by Clyburn and Clinton's endorsements.
good point
Marianne Miller-Meeks is likely to lose her election if she doesn't veer to the middle.
It might be a little too late even if she tries.
I know that Mariannette is a puppet of special interests, but I forgot which group is pulling her strings.
Have Dems tried to advertise/campaign on the Mariannette/marionette connection?
That name is a tragedeigh...
Mahreighaignhett Myller-Meighx
C’mon now she’s in Iowa not Utah
How meekly are they pulling those strings?
Zach Nunn and Ashley Hinson should also be vulnerable to losing. Honestly given the overall lean of these districts and even the state, outside of Iowa's 4th, all of these districts should be well within striking distance in this environment. Of course, that could and should be said of many districts and races. Hopefully, the Democrats don't screw up with nomination and fundraising again like they did for Sarah Corkery in the 2nd in 2024 with abysmal fundraising for her. That was an inexcusable blunder.
How much is this due to sexism? I love that Iowa seems to be turning on Republicans but they’re all female Republicans. It’s gross but I am more than happy to take advantage of it. Makes me think that the MAGA cult is still somewhat squishy and based on machismo and bullshit, which is not surprising at all. Dems run a woman for POTUS, we lose. Run an old white man who isn’t inspiring, we win. We run another woman, we lose. We ran a black guy who seemed way ahead of his time and he crushed it. I’d rather win than feel good about losing.
There is a lot of talk about the age of our Democratic lawmakers. David Hogg has raised a huge outcry by leading a PAC to defeat "ineffective" Democratic incumbents in the next election – which was especially controversial as Hogg was also serving as DNC Vice Chair. (He no longer is.)
Undeniably, both age and ageism are major problems.
But it can get tricky once we get specific. Senator Bernie Sanders is 83. He has already filed to run for reelection in 2030 – at the age of 89. So let me ask:
– Do you think Bernie should instead announce his retirement, in plenty of time to let another Deomcratic candidate prepare?
– Do you think Bernie should have retired, instead of running for reelection in 2024, at the age of 82?
– Or do you think Bernie should have already retired at the age of 76, instead of running for reelection in 2018?
NB. These are three Yes-or-No questions, but feel free to add explanations.
Yes to all three. There's no reason Vermont can't elect someone younger and as progressive as Bernie.
Bernie's part of the old Democratic dinosaur problem, where safe incumbents like the outgoing Durbin or the late Gerry Connolly stay WAY too long because their area won't elect someone of the opposite party.
More younger Democratic representatives like AOC, Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock please! I want more people my age or younger representing the federal government.
It's also irritating that Sanders never formally joined the Democratic Party. He could easily have done so ages ago.
It's his ego. Sanders is a Democratic politician that doesn't want the affiliation because he thinks he's above that.
He’s an asshole. Period. And, he gives tons of cover to other assholes with good morales that are all, “I’m above politics and above picking a political side.” But, they all do pick a side when it comes to policy. It’s ours! That fucker gives them so much cover to be stupid annoying assholes that think they are above us bc they’re soooooooo liberal and smart. They don’t even care that they’re a bunch of fucking losers bc their moral superiority dominates their psyche.
End rant.
I didn’t mean “fucking losers” as a personal attack on anyone, fyi. I mean literally check the numbers. They lose elections. All the time.
Yes to all of them.
I can sort of cut some slack for running again in 2018. But 2024 was unconscionable.
Too many old incumbents refuse to retire on the argument that they’re “irreplaceable”. Problem is they aren’t immortal and will be replaced eventually, with or without their cooperation. Sanders seriously risks destroying his legacy as things are. VT has a republican governor and any senate majority we can hope for in the future will be knife edge. We could trivially lose the opportunity to govern for months (or entirely) after winning a trifecta.
The best thing he could have done was prepare someone to be his successor and then retired in 2018, or 2024 at the latest.
This is a problem cutting across the full ideological spectrum of the party.
I agree. The easiest way to destroy a legacy in my view is to just let someone with a completely opposite ideology take your place due to your own stubbornness and ego. I'm not talking about someone losing reelection -- they actually try to prevent this scenario of being replaced from occurring, so their legacy isn't destroyed for me. I'm talking about staying so long that you die and allow someone of a differnet party to choose your replacement.
I fear that Bernie thinks his support has grown so much that his legacy couldn't be hurt in this manner, but I absolutely think it can. I'm nervous for the possibility that the progressive-left will become split on how to remember Bernie's legacy, and progressive politicians will have to navigate this split.
I had the thought of the VT General Assembly passing a law similar to Kentucky stating that a replacement Senator has to come from the same party, but Phil Scott would likely veto and Dems don't hold veto-proof majorities in either chamber.
Especially now that Vermont's new Republican lieutenant governor (John Rodgers) is someone I could easily see succeeding Phil Scott.
Yeah I think people overestimate how blue Vermont is at the state level. I just learned that the Dem-led coalition holds a 17-13 majority in the Senate and a 94-56 majority in the House
Yep, plus it seems like a place that likes to elect a governor of the opposite party to "check" the legislature, à la Massachusetts and Kansas.
No, people don't overestimate how liberal Vermont is. Vermont Republicans are very liberal compared to national GOP, they are pro trans, pro abortion rights, but fiscally and environmentally moderate.
A point to note is that all seats in Vermont's House and the Senate are up for reelection every 2 years. Democrats lost a lot of seats in 2024 because of Scott's 90 percent approval and the coattail effect and because they went too left and didn't loosen far left environmental rules enough for allowing housing construction which is extremely unaffordable there.
I'll bet that Vermont never elects Republican Senator in my lifetime. Vermont is the most liberal American state numerically.
Part of me wants to see actual Liberal Republicans elected again, but I'm not sure they still exist. I guess Phil Scott counts and probably Bill Weld. I guess I just miss Jim Jeffords and David Souter.
I see you and raise you Jacob Javits, Mac Mathias and Lowell Weicker.
And Ed Brooke
Sanders should announce his retirement at the end of this term. He will be 95 at the end of his next term. The chances of death, serious illness, or mental decline are just too high to embark on a 6-year term.
I think the two hardest cases are Sanders and Pelosi. In their own ways both are extraordinary and it’s unlikely that their skills and leadership can be replaced by another Democrat. And I’m still glad that Pelosi finally conceded power.
So with Sanders I’m glad he ran again in 2024 and definitely in 2018.
However, if in 2021, the Democratic Party leadership (Schumer, Biden, Pelosi, and more) made a commitment to not running anyone over 72 then it would have been worth losing Sanders’s unique voice.
No to all three. As I've said, age by itself shouldn't be determinative.
People have finite lifespans and there's a point where even a healthy person will be at major risk of sudden and major health issues appearing simply due to age.
People said that age isn't in and of itself an issue with RBG too, and that left us with a 6-3 SCOTUS that it's entirely possible will result in me spending my entire life under a conservative controlled supreme court. A lot of people said the same about Feinstein too, for that matter.
I'm not going to support keeping someone around well past the point of health becoming a real worry simply because they are ideologically closer to me than most of the rest of the party. Sanders is not irreplaceable, and to the extent that he is in VT it would be in no small part his own fault for not preparing a successor.
RBG has cancer. Totally different.
And a senator is one of 100, not 1 of 9.
Sanders is 83. A sudden health issue like, or even worse than, cancer can appear at any time. That's a consequence of advanced age. There's no avoiding it.
If we hold a senate majority come Jan 2029 we cannot realistically hope for much better than 51-49. Maybe maybe 52-48, but I think that's on the outer edges of plausibility. A 50-50 tied senate is, I would argue, the most likely scenario that involves us holding a trifecta.
Being 1 of 100 isn't much of a distinction if our entire caucus can be the decisive vote against anything and everything.
Did we not forget that Bernie had a heart attack 6 years ago? It's fairly likely that he'll have another one and it could be fatal. Don't get me wrong. I very much align with Bernie politically but to discount this concern is at our own risk.
I believe Sanders ended up moving to a primarily vegan oriented diet as a result of this but don’t remember all the details.
That said, politics is most certainly not for the faint of heart. I commend Sanders for his service but think he should ensure he take care of himself.
I also don't think age should be determinative, but I do think it should be informative. The thing with getting older is that things like health can change VERY quickly, and are more likely to change quickly as one gets older. Bernie may feel fine and perfectly able to do his job now (and as far as I have seen I would agree -- he's been doing a national tour at age 83), but partway through his current term things may change. Of course, this isn't guaranteed -- he also may live to be fully healthy for another 6 years -- but the reality is that things are more likely to change quickly for someone of his age. Bernie shouldn't let his age be the sole determinant for whether he wants to keep serving in the Senate, but he should let his age inform his decision, and after a certain age (which I think he has reached) I think it should play a greater (and even predominant) role in informing his decision.
Why can age be determinative on the younger end but not the older end? I am sure there are plenty of mature 16- and 17-year-olds the same way there are perfectly healthy 85-year-olds. But I wouldn't want to bet our democracy on it
I don't think age should be determinative on the younger end either. This may be an unpopular position, but I'm fine with anyone old enough to vote running for office (okay so still determinative, but determined based on the voting age which is equivalent to the age of majority, not some number that ranges from 25-35 depending on the office). I just think the candidate should use age to inform their decision to run, and voters should use age to inform whether they vote for that person.
1. Yes absolutely. He should absolutely not be running at 89 for another six year term (nor should Republicans like Grassley). We can’t afford another Feinstein
2. Maybe/probably, with the ideological impact he’s had on the party having been considerable over 8 years and the risk of issues at his age as well as the budding backlash to old Democrats
3. Nah. 2018 was fine. I’m not really a Bernie guy but the context of that race makes sense why he’d give it another six
Dianne Feinstein, not Feingold.
Experience, judgment, and ability should be the criteria for choosing political leaders. Age in itself is irrelevant, as long as it does not affect ability. The Constitution sets minimum ages for certain positions, because the very young often lack experience and judgment.
At this point I really don't care about experience, especially when the experience is grounded in a Congress that no longer exists. We need people who will think outside the box.
It is hard to think of any member of Congress who thinks further outside the box than 83-year-old Bernie Sanders.
AOC but here's the thing: Bernie is going to pass away sooner rather than later. We need more people who think like him and not just cling to one person. Just IMO.
No, Bernie should not announce retirement if a Democrat doesn't win in 2028. His voice is valuable and would be better than any replacement especially from a small state like Vermont.
No, he is a leading voice in resisting Trump and more importantly, is still active and effective. The left would have fallen apart without him rallying after the 2024 loss.
No for many reasons.
Yes for the reason we may temporarily lose a Senate majority, which is the only reason that matters.
Phil Scott has said that he will appoint a Democrat. He is a Republican in name only.
Willing to bet a Supreme Court seat on that?
Yes. Yes. No.
When the actuarial tables suggest you have a greater than 50% death rate over the next 6 years, and control of the Senate is hanging by a thread, and you're reasonably sure someone who generally supports the same policies you do (D) vs the alternative (R), then it's time to go.
Doesn't mean you have to quit helping. Pelosi had modeled that with leadership, she could take the next step and not run for reelection and then become a special advisor to the D caucus or something, guiding House rules strategy.
My Granddad was on a city council in Indiana back the 1980s when he was in his late 60s-70s. He ran at large twice and then declined to run again. Top vote getter both times. Ran as a Dem because "both parties had good people but they asked first." Lived into late 90s and could have run like 4-5 more times in hindsight, but at 75ish he said there were plenty of other good, younger people who could do the job and there comes a point when you are too old, even if you feel fine. So he traveled with Gramma and hung out with his grandkids.
Great story about a great Granddad! Thanks for sharing.
I think he probably should have retired last year, but running at 89 is silly, even keeping in mind the rare exception of Mahathir Mohammed coming out of retirement in his 90s and saving Malaysia from the corruption of his predecessor.
Yes to all three. I love Bernie's positions but he is not excluded from this conversation. He needs to pass the torch to the next generation and if his replacement ends up being to his Right, it'll be his own fault.
The NY mayoral race if anything will be a decent exercise to gauge the state of polling circa summer 2025.
It’s also a golden opportunity to test how timely, transparent and effective New York’s vote-counting is. (Yes, I realize RCV is complex and that it takes a little more time to tabulate results.)
Hopefully it drives a stake into the heart of RCV and stops it from spreading any further.
What's wrong with RCV?
All the reasons I've heard for it seem to be vacuous, basically, "I can't decide between chocolate and strawberry."
Study up on the candidates. Find one who aligns with your positions. Fight like hell for them and get out your vote.
RCV is like, "Gosh, I don't know. I don't know the difference between a candidate who wants single-payer and a candidate who wants to just save the existing system. Maybe I'll choose both."
And the most irritating argument of all is that it produces "centrist" candidates that everyone can agree on. There's no way I'm going to be satisfied by my fourth choice getting the nomination; there were reasons I picked someone else first. I don't want a candidate who says "well, we can probably reduce poverty a little bit," which makes conservatives and moderates happy, rather than a candidate who says we need to get at the root causes.
We all have to choose. Coke or Pepsi. Sometimes you might want one, sometimes the other. But rarely do you want both at the same time.
You do if sulfuric acid is the other choice!
But that's the thing--RCV supporters are always saying "I can't decide between the candidates." It's not Coke v. sulphuric acid--if it was, lots of people would vote for only a first-choice candidate. But most people don't--they rank a bunch of them because they can't be bothered to learn more about the candidates' positions and their various character flaws.
I have never in my life heard someone defend RCV on the basis of it enabling voters who cannot make up their mind. I think you're arguing a strawman there.
Ultimately in RCV you do need to make up your mind. Coke or Pepsi still need to be ranked 1st and 2nd between them in a ranked system.
I am not. I'd find it way harder to vote for Mamdani if I had only one vote. This way, I can rank him 4th because Cuomo is crap.
But the techbro/neolib dream behind RCV is that the ultimate nominee is everyone's 3rd or 4th choice.
If a voter can make up their mind, why vote for more than one? Vote for the candidate most closely aligned with your values/principles/interests. The rest is performance art.
RCV is not the invention of techbros and neolibs, nor are they the primary advocates.
RCV is desirable because it enables people to take a chance on candidates that they think are unlikely to win while still maintaining a say in the final showdown. If we had RCV in the 2000 presidential election in NH or Florida, Al Gore would have won. Full stop. If we had RCV in the 2020 dem primary for MA-04, we'd almost certainly have Mermell in the house instead of Auchincloss.
RCV removes most/all of the need for strategic voting: not voting for the candidate you actually want, because you're afraid of throwing your vote away.
RCV is not and never has been about "making up your mind."
We agree--RCV is not about "making up your mind." It's the exact opposite.
One of the arguments for RCV is usually that it produces less ideologically committed candidates, in favor of centrists. "We need to move away from extremist candidates" is a frequent argument, although RCV is usually only implemented where the Left candidates will be disadvantaged, not the Right, which is where neolibs come in.
It's actually much harder to pick up to 5 people or decide who should not be ranked than to pick 1 person. I've had to do much more research about the candidates and their positions since ranked choice was introduced.
The issue with your examples is that you are only providing two candidates in each of your examples. The point of RCV is to allow for multiple candidates to run and people don't have to worry about strategic voting or spoiler votes. I'd rather have someone win that I can guarantee the majority of people are content with, as opposed to someone winning with 40, 30, maybe even 25% of the vote and not actually know for certain if a majority of people are content with that person winning. Even if I don't personally like the person who wins in RCV, it is objectively more democratic
If you don't think there is strategic voting in RCV, especially in where a candidate ranks their votes, then you may be the next owner of the Brooklyn Bridge.
The example you give is wrong on its face. Under RCV, you don't get a person who is the choice of the majority of voters unless someone gets 50%+1 on the first ballot. You're saying that a 5th place vote is the same as a 1st place vote, and it's simply not.
I never said the winner in RCV is the top choice for a majority of voters. I said the winner is someone a majority of voters is content with. Of course a 5th place vote is different from a 1st place vote. That difference is precisely why someone choses to rank one person 1st and another person 5th
As for strategic voting, sure there might be some. But RCV minimizes the impacts of strategic voting, therefore people don't have to worry about it as much. They can choose to vote 1st place for their favorite candidate, and then also vote for candidates they would prefer to win over others
I kind of hope we can aspire to politics where "someone really good gets elected" is the goal, rather than "someone a majority of voters is content with." Seems like we're aiming kind of low there.
And, of course, the ranking of candidates is the definition of strategic voting, not something that "might" happen sometime.
I consider RCV to be a huge positive! In fact, I would like to see it implemented far and wide, at all election levels. For one, it means people can vote for third parties without wasting their vote. Second, it eliminates the risk of third-party candidates becoming spoilers.
It should be sufficient to remember Ralph Nader and Jill Stein With RCV, Al Gore would almost certainly have won by a wide margin in 2000, and Hillary would probably have defeated Trump in 2016, killing the MAGA movement in its infancy.
Moreover, with RCV, Maine would never have had to endure the vile buffoonery of Governor Paul LePage.
Also if anything RCV is the only reason Adams could have lost in 2021 and the only reason Cuomo might lose this year.
Adams was ahead by 10 points on the first round, 30-20. Cuomo has consistent and large leads on all the first round votes for today's primary. RCV wasn't enough to enable Garcia to beat Adams, and the jury is still out for if it will enable Mamdani to beat Cuomo. But without it there was effectively no chance of either happening.
"Could have" and "might" are exactly the reasons I'm against it.
You win or you lose. Getting close to defeating Adams gave NYC Adams for 4 years. Without RCV, candidates in 2021 might have dropped out and the opposition consolidated around one anti-Adams candidate.
If the problem is "might", it's not convincing to counter with an argument that relies on what candidates "might" have done without RCV...
The last NYC dem primary without an incumbent before RCV was in 2013. There were nine democrats in that primary, seven of which got at least 1% of the vote, and three of which got at least 10% of the vote.
There's also plenty of other places where lots of democrats stick in a plurality primary through to the bitter end. Including a certain forbidden topic in 2020. Kenyatta and Khalil stayed in the 2022 PA primary long after it was clear that it was either going to be Fetterman or Lamb. There's ultimately little incentive to drop out of a primary, even with little/no chance of winning, after the candidate has already gone through 80% of the primary time table. At that stage they have paid most of the political and personal cost to having run and cannot get a refund. RCV might change that around the edges but the core scenario there exists regardless of the primary system.
Would some of the also-rans have dropped out this year without RCV? Probably. Would enough of them to enable Lander to win have done so? Absolutely not.
Suffice it to say, I disagree about the "forbidden topic," as he did eventually get out and give a strong endorsement to the nominee. So why did you bring it up?
That wasn't about any one candidate. It truly wasn't. It was about the size of the field and the time delays in it narrowing.
RCV would help us a LOT in North Carolina, because this state is very purple instead of the gerrymandered Republican majority. We'd get more moderates instead of just MAGA Republicans from rural red areas.
How? Are you assuming there would be moderate candidates who'd run, and that MAGA voters will mark them 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.?
I was thinking more about independent and third-party voters. If they're in a red district, have their third-party candidate on the ballot and there's RCV -- their vote is not wasted. And there's potential for an upset, like in the Alaska House race where RCV made Mary Peltola the first Democratic House member from that state in decades!
Speaking of Alaska: Murkowski relying heavily on non-republican voters in prior elections has undoubtedly helped convince her she is safe to go against republican leadership when she wants to do so.
I think ranked choice voting must be really hard to poll.
Australia has been using ranked choice for their House seats for over a hundred years (since 1919). I don't know how accurate their polling is, but I assume they must have developed some decent methods in that time
Polling in Australia seems pretty good but I suspect it is helped by compulsory voting (so having to take less into account whether people will vote or not though a percentage don't) and most candidates belong to different political parties that are known entities rather than multiple candidates from the same party (except for Hare-Clarke system of voting in Tasmania).
So, if Bernie Sanders dies in office, what are the rules around the governor appointing his successor. He is a registered independent so anyone could be appointed? Bernie is unique in that even when he retires, he could still travel the country speaking out on issues etc., he doesn't need to be in the senate to do this, he's Bernie.
Per congress.gov, in Vermont "[t]he governor appoints a replacement and orders a special election, which is held within six months of the vacancy, unless it occurs within six months of a general election, in which case the special election is held concurrently with the regular general election."
I don't think Sanders's ego will ever allow him to retire, FWIW.
Thanks Brad. I agree about ego, Sander's and others. The reason our party is having trouble defining itself is because this entire generation of 80 year olds is sitting and maintaining the status quo. They don't want any new ideas. I hope David Hogg is able to shed light on this, it's crippling our party.
I don't think a resistance to "new ideas" is a problem for Sanders, though what's wrong with him continuing to advocate for the same good ideas he worked for for decades? Note that I don't think he should run for another term.
In common political discussion it's weird to describe Sanders as opposing new ideas, but in the spirit of what was meant I'd say that's largely true. Sanders' policy positions are consistent and largely unchanged over the years. In a broad sense that speaks well of him and does a lot to reinforce his popularity — people like consistency and see such as authentic.
I don't believe he's changed his views on methods or systems either though. E.g. as I recall he has long opposed removing the filibuster.
As an aside, your mention of him advocating for his ideas got me thinking. How much of his current influence for advocacy relies on his staying a senator? Could be that with a cleared up schedule he'd be able to do more now retired than in office. Comes down to if he could still get people to listen to him and I suspect his influence has gotten high enough that this would be the case. Similar to Pelosi: dems in the house would still answer her phone calls even if she retired from elected office.
I tend to agree with this. I'm shocked that Sanders supports the filibuster! That sucks and is anti-democratic!
Proof positive that we all have our blind spots.
Not really. It's an obvious thing for any democrat to oppose.
Amid calls to choose someone younger and more assertive, House Democrats today chose a replacement for the late Gerald Connolly as ranking member of the House Oversight Committee. After Jasmine Crockett, 44, and Kweisi Mfume, 76, dropped out, Robert Garcia, 47, and Stephen Lynch, 70, remained in contention. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA) was chosen to lead Democrats on the Oversight Committee.
Garcia is a fine choice
I like Garcia. Glad he was selected.
Sorry about the multiple posts yesterday folks. No one wants to read that much about Nancy Mace. I'll refresh and/or ignore error messages next time.
Substack app on android, if anyone cares to troubleshoot.
A question related to the above discussions on Bernie: would him dying in office and allowing Phil Scott (a Republican) to replace him tarnish his legacy in your view? Why or why not? Some follow up questions:
- Do you already align with/have a positive view towards Bernie?
- Were other politicians' legacies tarnished after their deaths (for example: Ginsburg, Feinstein, Turner, Grijalva, Connolly)? Why or why not? If this differs from your answer regarding Bernie, why does it differ?
My answer is yes for all questions. I am able to isolate/separate the things they championed and think positively of them for those things. But that doesn't change the fact that their legacies are tarnished because they couldn't step away, and ultimately made it easier for Republicans. The same would be true for Bernie.
Yes, because he certainly knows the facts on aging and would be replaced by a Republican.
Sometimes, depends on issue.
Yes in every case except Turner because all the others had clear medical issues and still kept running/serving. Iirc, Turner was only 72 and had no health issues, but if that's no right then him too. Feinstein at least was replaced by a Dem, but her performance in her last term was awful. Poster child for David Hogg replacement theory.
Scott has said that he would replace Sanders with a Democrat. And a special election would take place within 6 months.
But who knows if he keeps that pledge, or if he leaves for some reason and the GOP LG doesn't agree to it, or the Democrat he appoints is a DINO, or something important happens within that 6 months. The RBG fiasco means we take 0 chances.
It's also not impossible that we could lose the special election either. Not likely at all, but Ted Kennedy's replacement was Scott Brown up until Warren won in 2012, and we even won a senate election in Alabama in 2017...
Ted Kennedy was "the lion of the senate" and his death killed Obama's legislative agenda halfway through. If he had retired in 2006 instead we might have gotten some kind of climate change and/or immigration reform through instead of having our agenda stopped in its tracks.
I would actually say that losing the special election if it were to happen is basically a given-it will happen if there is a special election.
Imagine the MAGA / Trump pressure on Governor Scott if a Democratic replacement means a Dem Senate majority, whereas a Republican Replacement means 50/50 with JD Vance as a tiebreaker? While I respect Phil Scott’s integrity, I am not sure he would be able to resist the pressure – and the outright death threats against himself and his family that would be sure to come.
He's probably already faced plenty of death threats. Didn't he support Trump's conviction in both impeachment trials?
Phil Scott would be a moderate Democrat in any other state and there's no way Vermont elects a Republican in 6 months or Scott caucuses with Republicans.
Why isn't he a moderate Democrat, then?
Vermont Democratic party is very left-wing. Like John Rogers, a moderate Democrat switched his party to run for Lt. Gov.
So basically, they run as Republicans because the Democratic Party is too left-wing for them to have a chance in a primary.
I wouldn't call Welch or Leahy before him as "very left-wing." Same for Balint. Or Shumlin. As I recall same for Dean, but it's been a while. They're certainly further left than the median democrat, but not at the leftmost portion of the party ideologically.
If the VT dem party is "very left-wing" shouldn't they consistently be producing officials at most coveted statewide positions that represent that?
Vermont dems are pretty left, but not at all so far left as to make it so moderate democrats feel more at home as republicans.
No on Grijalva and Connolly, both in their 70s, and remember that Grijalva performed the service of chasing Sinema out of the Senate. Remind me who Turner was and what the circumstances of their death were. Yes on Ginsburg for sure and also yes on Feinstein, who unfortunately made a spectacle of herself.
What did Grijalva do regarding Sinema? I haven't heard of that. Either way, as I stated in my above post, I can separate out good things that they did. So if Grijalva helped get Sinema out of the Senate then I absolutey commend him for that. In my mind, that is separate from the fact that he chose to run for re-election last year after announcing he had lung cancer in April 2024.
Turner was the representative from Texas who succeeded Sheila Jackson Lee, he died suddenly in March at age 70. I'm not sure what the cause of death was, so maybe his legacy isn't tarnished for me
Fluke death? I think I'm confused about Grijalva, sorry. Lung cancer is hard to beat, so I don't know how to judge whether he had a good reason to believe he'd beat it.
Yeah might just be a fluke death
I align with and have positive views towards Bernie.
I think in the case of Feinstein her legacy was tarnished way before her death. I think it would tarnish his legacy.
I support Bernie's point of view on almost every issue, but that's not really the question.
Feinstein already was tarnished before her death. The aging issues and death just made her seem even worse.
If Bernie dies in office and is replaced by a Republican, it will not only tarnish Bernie's legacy, but also the legacy of Vermont voters who had many, MANY chances to replace Phil Scott with an actual Democrat--even some good Democrats--and chose not to do so.
That's an interesting point. The governorship is up next year so I wonder if that will become a campaign point for the Democratic nominee. Basically telling voters to vote for them because then they can replace Bernie with a Dem if the situation arises
If dems aren't willing to vote out Scott, the least they could do is require a same-party appointment via legislation. If Scott doesn't intend to stealthily appoint a republican he should nominally be fine with such a requirement.
Admittedly hard in this specific case but the language can be tweaked to make it make sense. Someone of the same party as the senator caucused with or some such.
Perhaps the system employed by Wyoming and Hawaii (and probably other states as well): the governor chooses the appointee from a list provided by the party of the vacating senator.
(This is how John Barrasso and Brian Schatz were appointed, the former by a governor of the opposite party.)
That's what I was thinking of. The only issue being that Sanders isn't officially in a party. So the language would need to account for that. Not sure if it'd work well but that was what I was getting at with the party caucus idea.
Huizenga running for Mich Senate would open up his house district, which includes Kalamazoo. There have been rumors (but I can't find link now) that State Sen Sean McCann (D, Kalamazoo) may be interested. Redistricting made the seat less conservative, and likely competitive by end of decade. 2026 would be a good time to flip it! (Following theme on this thread, McCann is in his mid-50s.)
really like as a pickup if this ends up being a 2006 style environment, don't think its gettable in "only" a 2018 style wave environment
The 2006 election was the cycle that first got me hooked on politics (though, in hindsight, there were signs that I was inclined that way before then). I was 21, and followed the polls and returns from my dorm room in what was then Dennis Kucinich's House district. At the time, I didn't appreciate what a rare, political-earthquake event it truly was.
McCann is all but in the race. He’s been lining things up for awhile.
I knew him when he was in college. He was a good guy then. Haven't seen him in ~35 years so I can't add any recent perspective, but I'd have voted for him then.
How did Jeff Van Drew get elected and then switch?
very very conservative ancestral democratic region. really hard to explain given i never understood anyone's explanation of the south jersey phenomana until moving here. Area that will elect democrats at the county and state level (in several counties of his district) but federally not so much. Van Drew passed on the seat once or twice ifirc but took the plunge and got the incumbent at the time to retire. However, he ran against a republican nominee that was an open white nationalist and won by less than ten points. He was the democratic ideal nominee, conservadem but slightly left of center economically and only beat an open bigot by ten. I think he saw the writing on the wall even before the first impeachment of trump
Could it be because of the Orthodox Jewish voting bloc?
They’re not in his district.
Sometimes I wonder if someone like Jim Traficant would have gone MAGA if he were still in politics (and alive) in the post-Trump era.
As someone who spent a lot of time in Youngstown and grew up just over the line in Pennsylvania, it's been tough—though not particularly surprising—to watch the region become a Trump-fluffing hellhole.
I'm sure he would have.
The area is very closely tied to the South Jersey political machines, which are historically Dem but quite conservative. A lot of the folks in that operation have morphed into MAGA.
Jeff Van Drew likely saw the signs among his constituents, but also he's not a smart or principled person. The main reason he switched, if background reports are to believed, is that he feared Trump's first impeachment would cause a backlash. In his defense, he probably wouldn't have won reelection as a Democrat in 2020 but for entirely unrelated reasons.
I think he would have. He’s always been a strong vote getter.
Trump won his district by 4 points in 2020. I do think he would have lost.
4 points is nothing for someone like Van Drew to overcome.
Long time readers of SSP/DKE/DB have known his name for a long time. He was always our candidate in waiting to win what was a blue South Jersey district with a GOP incumbent. But, he never pulled the trigger until the time was 100% right for him, not us, which was 2018. He got his promotion and then promptly switched parties as his district was turning. It’s not an asshole move to follow your district and he seemed acutely aware of Trump’s appeal in Jersey. I will give him some grace to being a no morals jerk because we built that expectation on him and then we gerrymandered it. Huge huge huge disappointment, nonetheless. He’s a quite conservative at this point. We built him up and then he let us down.
I mean, he was always understood to be a conservative Democrat, it was completely unsurprising when he switched parties. I don't hold anything against him at all.
You two are very forgiving, and I don't see why any of us should forgive an opportunist who chose to collaborate with lying fascists.
If only, there were liberal Republicans who switched parties but liberal republicans don't exist no more.
SSB/DKE full form?
128 House Democrats voted to table Al Green’s impeachment resolution. 79 voted to proceed.
https://bsky.app/profile/citizensimpeachment.com/post/3lseppnll6k2p
Any indication why?
They're cowards. They can't even do the bare minimum of being an opposition party.
It's really pathetic. I never expected to see the Democratic Caucus in both the House and Senate behave like the Center Party in 1933 Germany. I really wonder and fear what will become of us.
It's really shocking to me that they're just rolling over. Primary all of the ones who voted against it. I'm tired of this weak group of non-leaders.
They are not rolling over. Voting for an impeacehment that is going to go nowhere doesn’t do anything.
Right. Another strongly worded letter is gonna do it.
Symbolism is important. Especially now, when voters have such a poor opinion of our party, we can benefit from making big media splashes even if the effort behind them is futile.
These kind of efforts, even if all but certain to fail, can help in other indirect ways. Maybe if we had engaged the first Trump term more aggressively he wouldn't have been able to recover his popularity enough to win in 2024? It's not that much of a stretch.
I feel like we engaged the first Trump term fairly aggressively, more so than this one actually. And the outcome is that we probably would have lost if not for covid. Do I want Dems to be more aggressive? Sure. Do I think it will work?
What does an impotent attempt at impeachment do? Voters don't like when we try things and fail. Maybe it's a catch 22.
Rolling over and playing dead has no chance of being effective at anything. Opposition parties oppose!
Right . . like what disengaged voter will be inspired by a failed impeachment attempt? This reality doesn't exist.
Idiots. They're staring at dictatorship and blinking.
The idiotic thing is voting for an impeachment resolution that has no chance of succeeding. If you think our country is going to a dictatorship, how does trying to get an impeachment through a GOP-controlled house stop this?
Because anything to stand up and publicize his abuse needs to be done.
Marketing and publicity. I think this isn’t the time for impeachment talk. We can’t cry wolf but it helps Dems win primaries if they’re for it.
We know impeachment will go nowhere but they shouldn't have tabled it. Something to raise hell about at the town halls for sure. If I'm holding a town hall, I make sure their constituents understood that impeachment wouldn't go anywhere in this congress but it still needs to be done. Doesn't matter if it comes off as performative. It gets Republicans on the record.
Good. It's performative bullshit.
One could argue is that performative bullshit is all the voters have left us with and why not use it. I don't know if I agree with that argument though. Impeaching Trump last time certainly didn't do much.
I don't know what I believe about a lot of things these days!
I'm sure another strongly worded letter will get the job done. "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas"
Yes. They need to get back to doing nothing and saying as little as possible.
NC-Sen, McConnell assures a scared shitless Tillis that voters will "get over the medicaid cuts". https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/6/24/2329887/-NC-Sen-McConnell-Assures-A-Scared-Sh-tless-Tillis-R-That-Voters-Will-Get-Over-The-Medicaid-Cuts?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=latest_community&pm_medium=web
It's a good thing McConnell is retiring because he's really out of touch with where things are these days, especially since's not up for re-election anymore.
That said, as long as Tillis is unseated next year by a Democrat then fine with me. He can be crying uncle and we'll fundraise and GOTV like hell to get him out.
I’m hoping Roy Cooper runs against Tillis if that’s what Anderson Clayton was hinting at last week.
That would be great!
The Larry David Law: https://forward.com/fast-forward/731686/new-york-water-law-election-larry-david-curb-your-enthusiasm/?utm_source=Mailchimp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=afternoonedition_20250624&utm_source=The+Forward+Association&utm_campaign=41d1e08dce-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_04_25_04_22_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-9a85c28f87-288536776
My polling place lacked air conditioning and didn't even have adequate fans in ~97-degree heat, definitely rough for the poll workers.
Ugh that's terrible! Hard to overstate how brutal the heat is today.
We have a special election for school board in 2 weeks in the precinct I run. The Rec Center AC went out last week. County says it'll be fixed by election day. Of course, the wifi has been out for 2 years, so we'll see.
However, although we have about 8500 registered voters for that school district, and about 7500 are in my precinct, I doubt we'll see more than 300 that day, 100 in the other precinct. And another 300-400 will have early voted at the county office.
At least there's a race. Last fall it was unopposed (and winner already resigned to trigger the special).
I just voted. Decent turnout at my polling place. The 3rd page of the ballot was confusing because it was for delegates and alternate delegates to pick judicial candidates, I think, and no-one seemed to understand why each of those sets of candidates was put into 2 "group"s. I'm disappointed that when I looked for a sample ballot online, I wasn't shown that page. I just voted for one candidate for delegate that I know and like and left the rest of that page blank.
https://x.com/yashar/status/1937511761789485245
One of the most unhinged and racist tweets I've ever read in my life.
He only calls people with dark skin “low IQ.” Unless I missed something, I’ve yet to see the CBC call him out on it. They never would have done that in the “old days.” But most of the members of the current CBC couldn’t carry their shoes.
Lol, is there any minority community whom he not disparage in this?