Like many of my friends here at the DownBallot, I stayed up late last night to watch the Canadian vote count. Perhaps the best election summary comes from satirist Andy Borowitz:
CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER THANKS TRUMP FOR ELECTION VICTORY
. In an emotional victory speech late Monday night, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney thanked Donald J. Trump for his stunning election win.
“I don’t deserve credit for this victory,” Carney, choking back tears, told his supporters. “Donald, I couldn’t have done it without you.”
Carney received congratulatory calls from dozens of other world leaders whose political careers have been boosted by Trump, including Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo and Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
“It’s like I told you, man,” Zelenskyy reportedly told the Canadian. “Trump is magic.”
As long as the Liberal Party has strong leadership, it will simply be hard for the NDP to find a relevant voice. They don't have Tommy Douglas or Jack Layton to carry them anymore.
Sure, but after two disappointing election cycles it was obviously time to move on.
And it's hard to think of a worse profile than Singh's to prop up the Trudeau government, his whole stock in trade was being the anti-nepo baby alternative to Trudeau.
And then Singh kept keeping the Liberals alive to the point the Tories rightfully or wrongly said Singh and the NDP were keeping Trudeau way past his expiration date so Singh can qualify for his parliamentary pension.
It's funny, I was going to use the phrase "past his expiration date" because Singh's brand is "fresh". Running in a third election after doing grubby deals with the insiders doesn't make you seem so "fresh" anymore.
If Singh had passed a no confidence motion while Trudeau was still the PM, sure the conservatives would win a supermajority but even his party would have benefited a lot i.e in December before the pension attacks started.
Yes. He was a mistake from the start. As was Mulcair. If they want to bounce back, they are going to need to find a leader who is left-populist to more distinguish themselves from the Liberals.
Also the Liberal Party is going to have to completely collapse a la 2011. As long as Canada keeps FPTP, there will really only be two parties that dominate.
(I’m quoting this fascinating update in full. Link to election blog at bottom.)
The CBC Decision Desk is watching 11 ridings in particular before making a call on a majority or minority government. They are all ridings where the Liberals are currently in second place. Last night, they went from 163 projected seats to 168 as advance and special ballots were counted, in some cases making up several hundred or even 1,000-vote deficits — so these could flip. The Liberals need four of the following 11 ridings to do that.
– Terrebonne in Quebec: It is the closest race in the country right now, where the Bloc is leading the Liberals by 28 votes. Two polls are left to report, which could be 880 votes.
– Nunavut: There is a 54-vote margin with at least 647 votes to come.
– Vancouver Kingsway: The NDP's Don Davies is leading the Liberals by 308 votes.
– Windsor-Tecumseh-Lakeshore (Ontario): The Liberals are trailing by 359 votes and we are expecting at least 3,500 special ballots there.
– Miramichi Grand Lake (New Brunswick): There is a 394-vote margin here. One of the two special ballot polls has reported, where at least 2,700 special ballots were cast.
– Milton East Halton Hills South (Ontario): Former Ontario Progressive Conservative cabinet minister Parm Gill is leading the Liberal candidate by 556 votes. Again, one of the two special ballot polls reported and at least 2,800 special ballots were cast.
– Shefford (Quebec): Here, there is a 651-vote margin for the Bloc. The Liberals were in the lead for part of last night. Again, one of the two special ballot polls reported and there were at least 1,800 special ballots cast.
– Cloverdale Langley City (B.C.): This is a large margin, at 923 votes. But neither of the special polls have reported and there are at least 5,500 votes in those polls.
– Kitchener South Hespeler (Ontario): Conservatives are leading the Liberals by a little more than 1,100 votes with one of the special polls having reported — and 3,000 special ballots were cast.
– Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge (B.C.): Right now the Liberals are trailing by 1,400 votes, but they were trailing by 2,500 votes last night and there are still eight polls yet to report.
– Hamilton East Stoney Creek (Ontario): The incumbent Liberal is trailing right now by 1,500 votes. At one point last night, the Liberals were trailing by 3,000 votes. They've now cut that in half, and there are still six polls left to report, including a minimum of 4,800 special ballots.
The Liberals also need to hold the two races where they have a close lead — Kelowna and Terra Nova The Peninsulas, in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I could see IA being one of the Senate seats that could be swingy if the hypothetical you are describing would happen.
MT on the other hand would be more challenging in today’s environment vs back in 2006. Senator Steve Daines is running for his third term, not his first or 2nd. If this were an open race and Daines wasn’t in the Senate, I’d say maybe.
However, in 2020 Steve Bullock didn’t cut down the margin enough in his Senate election to make me believe unseating an incumbent GOP Senator in MT would be promising.
Bullock running in a blue wave, open seat, non-presidential year could've been interesting.. more swing voters in MT than, say, TN. But tis not to be..
The vote % is closer than I'd have expected. Currently at 43.6% vs 41.4%. Granted I wasn't following this super closely, but the surface level details I got made it seem like Liberals were a bit further ahead on the popular vote.
Meanwhile, in 2021 the Liberals won 160 to the Conservatives 119.
I smell a Conservative win in the next election. Five terms is a lot to ask for one party and Trump won't be front and center. All those lefty voters who went for a centrist like Carney are inevitably going to get annoyed with him and the Conservative base is still strong. Ford just won reelection easily as premier of Ontario.
The federal Conservatives are in such a bind because if they moderate too much the conservative voters in the prairie provinces already demonstrated they will basically secede from the federal party.
Ironic, considering Mr Ford was simply acting in the traditional manner of Ontario Progressive Conservative Party leadership. The PC Party of Ontario has traditionally been of the "red Tory" manner. The question is will he face attempts to be ousted by his own intraprovince political enemies?
I was going to post over the weekend I had dinner with a high up political friend who said they think Rep. Craig was going to run but it was a smidge too speculative as evidence. (Craig asked people to be in a political ad but wouldn’t tell them for what office.)
Main reasoning I was told is she now has grandkids and if she’s a Senator, she only has to run every six years. Per 2024 results, MN is overall redder than her district so going for a safer constituency isn’t the calculus.
Compared to Lt Gov Flanagan, Craig seems more like a slam dunk candidate where we don’t have to worry about anything. Wins at Amy Klobuchar levels and will be a great fundraiser with her LGBTQ+ connections. The GOP will struggle regardless of who our nominee is, especially in what could be a tough midterm election for them.
The DFL endorsement process is going to be wild this season! It’s almost why I hate participating in it. I feel loyalties to both candidates I’ve mentioned so I’m pretty neutral as of now.
Yeah, MN-Sen is one where I don't have negative feelings about either primary candidate. That said, I would probably vote for Craig if I were a Minnesotan just because of the strong electoral track record.
We don't need to worry about anything in Minnesota with any candidate especially in a midterm. I don't even remember when the last time was that Minnesota elected either a Republican President or Senator.
In a midterm with an already unpopular Republican president and Congress Minnesota Dems should be fine in most races, including holding on to Craig's House seat.
It would be disastrous if this moment of potential revolution for Dems is harnessed by a conservative (or 'moderate' if you prefer) like Craig to win a Senate seat. Don't let the rhetoric of campaign talk trick you - she is not going to be fighting fascism.
Voted yes on the Laken Riley Act, yes to sanction the ICC, yes on the nonprofit killer bill (HR 9495). Craig is one of the worst House Dems in terms of # of votes with Republicans, just barely a step above Cuellar/Golden/Perez.
Sinema is the worst example you could give lol. Before her Arizona was voting Republican for Senate majority leader and after they are voting Democrat.
Harris only won by five points with the sitting governor as her running mate. This complacency about Minnesota being an automatic lock for Democrats seems misguided to me.
In Peggy Flanagan’s case, she’s already been building up a decent list of endorsements. She’s even quoted the late Paul Wellstone on her campaign website.
In my opinion Omar is a great rep, though hypothetically I think it would be fair to question her chances of winning statewide. But that's a moot point because Omar has already announced she's not running for Senate.
MN already has a very solid candidate in Peggy Flanagan, who has actually won statewide! Lopez Franzen would be much preferable to Craig as well.
I don't believe Lieutenant Governor in Minnesota is a standalone office so I wouldn't count that as winning statewide. People weren't really voting for her they were voting for Tim Walz.
Wait, my comment may seem flippant. Complete opposite. We love Flanagan. I was ready to vote for Walz and him picking her made it a no brainer for me back in 2018. And, their primary opponents for Gov/Lt Gov were the first candidate I ever volunteered for and a friend from college. Should’ve been a tough choice but it wasn’t. 2016 was scary af and I wanted Tim Walz as my candidate for Gov. Dude is a safety blanket.
I am no fan of Omar's and would love for her to get clobbered in a primary, but what's the basis for calling her "corrupt"? I don't like to see that term get thrown around without reason...
"The complaint cited a June story in the Minnesota Reformer on how Omar's husband, Tim Mynett, and his business partner, Will Hailer, are being accused of fraud and breach of contract in connection to their marijuana and wine ventures, which collapsed.
Omar, over the last three years, has not disclosed to Congress the value of these troubled business ventures, NLPC said in the complaint, pointing to a reported $300,000 investment from a Washington, D.C., business owner, Naeem Mohd, in the wine business — eStCru."
And there's this:
"Omar marries political consultant, months after affair claim"
"Filings with the Federal Election Commission show Omar’s campaign paid Tim Mynett or his firm nearly $600,000 since July 2018. Though it may raise eyebrows, family members, including spouses, can be on the campaign payroll as long as the family member provides services at a fair market value. "
This seems like a nothingburger and there are MANY other things I'd object to her over before this. That said, perception becomes reality on these things I suppose. Regardless, you and I are aligned that she is unelectable statewide. Good news is that, unlike Republicans, our crazies don't tend to win primaries...
I think it's premature to make that assumption that she has the primary wrapped up. Maybe she thinks she could be a stronger choice in the general than Flanagan. Also, I pointed out that she voted against censuring Al Green. That commentor was wrong and the spreadsheet he provided disproved that she voted Yes for censuring Al Green. Criticizing the party and the nominees is one thing and I don't doubt that Craig has her share of criticisms. But making false claims about the votes they made is a whole different beast.
The guy did make a factual error on the Al Green censure vote, but he may have been mistaken, otherwise he wouldn't have provided the spreadsheet. Let's not start a fight here.
She voted No on censuring Al Green. Even your spreadsheet says that. I know she has taken some shitty votes before because she is in a swing district but I wouldn't go as far as comparing here to Cuellar, Golden or Perez with your analysis or even comparing her to Sinema. She'll have to answer for some of those votes in the primary but if she proves to be a strong campaigner that convinces primary voters she is the strongest candidate in the general election, then so be it. I have a feeling as Senator she would vote more along the lines of the state's blue lean. I know we are all rooting for a Democratic version of a Tea Party movement this cycle but usually a candidate who proves they will do everything to win over Democratic base, despite their voting records, will be come the nominee. I'm not saying there will be successful primary challengers in races this cycle, but if Craig makes the case that she would be a stronger choice for Team Fight, then she can win the nominee. It's now on Peggy Flanagan to decide how she's going to run her primary campaign. I expect it to get heated but if it gets too negative and toxic for either Craig or Flanagan, then that's what might cost either of them their shot. What I am more concerned about is finding a candidate to hold onto Craig's district.
If you mean betraying minority rights, no, that's not something Democrats should consider doing. But they have to be better at using their own strong framing and not parroting Republican framing.
Right. That's the conundrum. FDR held his coalition by appeasing Southern segregationists. If progressives don't make those kinds of cultural bargains, they lose power to those who will. It's why I don't see much hope for any kind of durable progressive governance. The culture is changing too quickly to avoid giving the bad guys the ammunition needed to quickly blow apart coalitions. That and I just don't see where the money's gonna come from to finance durable progressive governance with so much of the population aging out of their taxpaying years.
As long as the U.S. dollar remains the primary world currency, money can be borrowed for that purpose, but once it's dropped, the U.S. is likely to be in deep trouble. And I agree that the capacity of numerous American voters to vote for criminal, incompetent racist extremists shows that expecting durable progressive governance in this country is probably a lost cause. They'll vote for progressives when Republicans preside over economic disasters they don't give them a pass for like Trump's deadly mishandling of COVID, but they won't do so consistently because too many of them are ignorant, stupid, bigoted, or believe in demonstrably false religions (by which I mean they refuse to accept scientific facts in favor of religious fantasies, not things like believing in an eventual apocalypse, Second Coming, etc.) and ministers and therefore are easy prey for conspiracy lies and con men.
Your argument on Angie Craig doesn’t add up as her record is far more liberal than Cuellar, Golden and Perez. For starters, Craig sponsored DC statehood and has been consistent on impeaching Trump from the beginning.
I don’t think Craig is a perfect House Democrat either but if anyone here were to actually call her a conservative, facts wouldn’t back them up.
I think it's very cringey when progressives call anyone who isn't as far left as them "conservatives". Criticize their votes, sure, but let's be accurate.
Other than some of the squad, Progressives aren't really far left rather just left-wing Social Democrats. The guy did make a factual error on the Al Green censure vote, but he may have been mistaken, otherwise he wouldn't have provided the spreadsheet. I personally agree with Progressives on some issues and New Democrats on some others.
Sure. I believe in accurately describing a Democrat regardless of how liberal, moderate or conservative they may be compared to others. Being honest with facts is important.
That said, criticizing a House Democrat or Democratic U.S. Senator because of votes is fair game.
My take is that Craig would be fine but Flanagan would be good/great. I wouldn't be disappointed to have Craig end up senator ipso facto, but I would be disappointed to see us miss the opportunity to get someone who I'd expect would be great.
Kind of like Porter vs Schiff. It's not that Schiff was inherently awful but that Porter presented the chance to get more of the type of strong communicators and real policy wonks the party could benefit from.
Craig will shift to the left if she is elected as MN's next Senator. Having said that, I personally try to reward ideological consistency over politicking where and when it makes sense (this is MN after all, not WV/MT/OH). In the case of MN, while Craig is a great Democrat and a fantastic rep for her seat and her part of the state, there is no reason to not select a more liberal but still very solid candidate, which in this case is LG Flanagan.
Like Gillibrand shifted to the left? But there are those occasional big votes when she can't be counted on, like the vote for the Republican budget. She's still pretending to fight for all of the things she voted to cut and not reminding her constituents about that vote in her mass emails...
We should never bank on a candidate shifting in any direction when going statewide instead of their district specifically. There's one famous example of someone moving left when becoming senator (Gillibrand) and one equally famous example of someone moving right when becoming senator (Sinema).
Fact is we do not know. Right now it's only an assumption. Craig could move left. She might not.
Putting aside the silliness of calling Craig a "Conservative", don't we think she is likely to be more like Kristen Gillibrand? Holding positions more aligned with her district and then moving to the left (where she probably really is) after winning statewide? For the record, I have no real preference between her and Flanagan. I think they'd both be overwhelming GE favorites and would be perfectly fine senators.
I would think so. The votes referenced above all were going to pass, anyway. It’s not like she stands in the way of progress - she’s just voting like a moderate when it’s convenient for her winning reelection.
Even though the move statewide is actually a redder constituency, the Democrats she’s aiming to win over are heavily based in Minneapolis/St. Paul. If she wants to win and stay a winner, she now has to convince us and keep it that way.
The censure Al Green vote is a good example of why she’s fine. Votes that are going to pass anyway and help her look moderate so she can win by bigger margins are going to happen in a swing district. Shitting on fellow Democrats is a no. Actually standing in our way or being a deciding vote has never happened.
Let’s also remember she’s a lesbian representing some pretty red rural turf. She has a big hill to overcome and she’s done it beautifully in flannel. Her winning by a huge margin in 2024 shows she’s positioned herself to be another Senator the blue team doesn’t have to worry about.
Ugh, how to choose. I’m gay so I’ve got a leaning. But I’m ready for campaigns and will make a careful decision.
Question: are we allowed to talk about the dispute going on between DNC Chair Ken Martin and Vice Chair David Hogg on neutrality in primaries? I wanted to make sure this doesn't violate the presidential primary discussion rule but at the same time it does center on congressional primaries. If it's ok, I have some thoughts and would love folks perspective.
Hogg shouldn't be on the DNC payroll while primarying "DINO" or "establishment" incumbents. I get where Hogg is coming from, but primarying red district Dems mostly leads to Republican wins in those areas.
Again, not really his job as a DNC vice chair to decide who's the better candidate. Doesn't really make it better if it's a "safe" district. He's not helping democrats, he's hurting, and he should be removed.
Last interview I heard with Hogg, he said that wasn't the plan. Only primarying Dems in safe Dem seats that don't more progressive or are ineffective. Like Scott in Georgia, for example. Trying to get "better Dems" and also generally younger Dems.
Exactly. The debate here is should he be doing that while serving as a vice chair for the DNC. I agree with what Hogg is going for but I also agree with Martin's call for neutrality in the DNC. But at the same time, it's really the DCCC and DSCC that should be pressured to stay neutral in primaries in open races. Both men are right to degrees in their arguments but it's a matter of technicalities. Now Hogg was the vice chair that didn't sign the pledge to stay neutral and the rules votes are coming up in August so my guess is Hogg is trying to make his case more public and demand the party really put pressure on all of it's members to be on Team Fight. However, I don't know yet what he hopes to achieve when it comes to the rules change votes. Martin also said he doesn't want to push Hogg out but he has to decide if he wants to run the Super PAC or stay on as vice chair. Under the current rules, what Hogg is doing doesn't violate anything as vice chair but that's ahead of any potential rules changes that take place in August. So he has a window of time to use it and he might just be doing that to raise money, field candidates and potentially find someone to run the Super PAC for him if he is faced with the decision to have to choose between one or the other. Personally, I think he should stay with the DNC and put someone in charge he can trust to run the PAC but maybe his PAC is only effective when he is the face of it.
I mean, why don't we have competitive primaries in every safe seat every cycle? I'm absolutely against legislative term limits, but you should have to actually prove yourself at the ballot box.
Yes, absolutely, no one should be guaranteed office, they need to earn it. On the flip side, that faction of the party should stop kicking and screaming and declaring everything "rigged" every time the voters reject them.
I agree. My impression of AOC and Pressley wasn't that they were whining about the establishment (yes, that's always part of running against an incumbent) as much as making a proactive case for themselves. If Hogg is capable of finding candidates like that, I'm ok with it.
I do think AOC and Pressley have handled themselves much better than others. The old man, not so much at times. Hogg needs to step down if he wants to play favorites.
That could also apply to primaries for Congress, or other offices. (And MAGAts of course do that every time voters reject them in the general election.)
Sure, but the argument is that the DNC shouldn't be the organization that tries to primary people out. Do members of Congress pay dues to the DNC or only the DCCC?
I think having a vice chair at war with their own party is kind of dumb. He was an obviously stupid pick from the beginning and a pretty good indicator of how out of touch our party can be. That said, I also expect for his primaries to go more or less nowhere and to just be a waste of money. The only way these primaries work is for three factors to come together - 1) A weak incumbent who barely campaigns against a strong challenger. 2) A very blue district. 3) Low turnout. It's hard to get those three factors working in synch.
I'm unconvinced that's the only way to win a primary. We'll see. But it's definitely not likely for most primaries of incumbents to succeed. That's historically true.
Hogg's literally destroying any chance to remain relevant outside of his gun control operations-that said the rule in question should not exist to begin with.
I'd say Hogg is far more effective as a gun control and social justice advocate. However, I wouldn't consider him to be an effective operative or leader in the Democratic Party to the extent where he should even be in such a role at the DNC.
MOST AMERICANS SEE TRUMP as "DANGEROUS DICTATOR," poll says
A majority of Americans say President Trump is a "dangerous dictator" who poses a threat to democracy and believe he's overstepped his authority by actions such as the mass firing of federal employees, a new survey says.
Why it matters: The wide-ranging poll released Tuesday, on Trump's 100th day in office, is the latest sign of him losing support for his immigration and economic policies — the two issues that largely fueled his election.
Zoom in: Only four in 10 Americans expressed favorable views of Trump after his first 100 days in office, according to the survey by the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI).
Why Americans never care about Trump’s policy promises until after he’s elected is one of the most frustrating aspects of the 2016 and 2024 campaigns. He told you exactly what he was going to do and you voted for him thinking (regardless of what he said he would do) that he would be better for the economy from some mystery magical illogical thinking not once, but twice. The stupidity hurts and now America will suffer.
One other note on this poll: If (key word) Trump and Republicans get only 51% (those who approve of his actions) of the white vote in 2026 (long way off I know), Democrats need to be thinking again about and planning right now about competing in states that’ve moved away from them since Obama was elected (and in some cases far away): Florida, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Ohio and add in Alaska and Texas as seats moving towards Democrats slowly for good measure. In addition of course to the usual swing states.
It’s also possible these numbers get worse or that they get better. Regardless, best to prep now so if it does actually happen, Democrats can ride the blue wave to not only a House Majority, but a possible Senate Majority as well.
On MN-02, I was at a local fundraiser and Sen Matt Klein and former Sen Matt Little were both there. Don't be surprised if both announce for the seat soon.
I don't ask for much, just one midterm cycle when Beto and Stacey don't run!
2026 might just be the perfect storm for us to turn Georgia and Texas blue but they might blow it. They were great candidates, but their time is gone, and Politics is a cruel sport. We could potentially have an unpopular president who has seriously bled support among Independents, Latinos and Gen Z. Texas Republicans also have their own version of Mastriano/Walker/Oz ready i.e the radical right Ken Paxton for Senate.
We already have a decent lineup of potential candidates in Texas like Allred, Nathan Johnson, James Talarico, San Antonio Mayor Nirenberg, Astronaut Virts so I don't really see the need for Beto to join the fray.
Agreed, they need to be behind the scenes helping our candidates where their incredible organization skills work best. Some people just aren’t able to be successful politicians because their messaging/persona doesn’t work on the real world stage, but every elected candidate has a talented team behind them. That’s where they fit best and make the most difference.
If Beto runs, he starts looking like a perennial candidate. I agree with you and would add former Atlanta Mayor Bottoms to the list of people I'd prefer not to run.
I have heard a lot of negative stuff bout Bottoms and many say that they want anyone but her and Abrams. Why is it? I don't know much about her other than that she was considered to be Biden's running mate because Kamala had attacked Biden in a debate.
The Wikipedia article about her paints a mixed picture, but she ended up unpopular, and it's best not to have this kind of baggage when running statewide in a state that usually elects Republicans:
Bottoms was investigated during the mayoral election for several lump payments to campaign staff totaling more than $180,000 that were not reported properly.[17] In October 2017, she voluntarily returned $25,700 in campaign contributions she had received from PRAD Group, an engineering contractor whose office had been raided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation the previous month.[18]
Big city mayors are not always the best candidate statewide since they govern deep blue areas and often are in tension with at least some parts of the coalition. As an example I think Michael Hancock former Denver mayor is the one CO Dem that could lose a statewide race in a stars align wrong year.
Well worth investing in this seat, even though Hinson is strongly favored for 2026. I believe she will likely run for Chuck Grassley's Senate seat in 2028, leaving IA-02 open.
Trump threatens Amazon to not give a breakup of the tariff costs while checking out, and the company backs down. Centrally planned MAGA Maoism in full display. "Free speech absolutists".
I wanna be sure, but I think the implication is that they (Amazon storefronts) will raise costs, it just won't be as transparent as they were thinking of being.
Which is very predictable considering the ways these companies bend the knee at the very notion of Dump retaliation. I guess it's up to democrats to remind folks, and i'd adivse using republican tariffs to describe them and not just Trump.
They really should. When you buy things in European countries like Italy and Germany, you never get blindsided by the VAT. It's always included in the tagged price.
It looks like it's just about a wrap for Canada. Liberals win 169 seats (or 170 if that final seat somehow breaks their way), just short the 172 needed for a majority. Though I don't imagine they'll have trouble governing, as they've had this arrangement for a while now.
Would've liked Sullivan to be a target in Alaska. Democrats need to go on offense in as many states as possible. Alyse Galvin ran twice as an Independent against Don Young in 2018 & 2020 and done quite well, considering. Maybe she could run and caucus with Democrats if she wins. Or Mark Begich comeback bid to avenge 2014?! 💙🇺🇲
Not so long shot, Alaska politics is quite moderate and bipartisan and is distinct to that of lower 48. They have a united legislature. You'd need a Democrat liberal on social issues, moderate on economics and conservative on guns to be competitive just like Peltola showed us. They have a libertarian leaning culture due to the geography.
All of this is true, but it's been a while since they had a Democratic U.S. senator, although their House members are also at large. But it would help if they have a great Democratic candidate .
Seems way too early for someone to be giving that answer with 100% sincerity. He's probably leaning towards it but saying it so his fundraising doesn't dry up. Since he'll be 79 on election day I hope he reconsiders and opts to retire then.
usually but not nearly always...just today I bought a case of a special size water bottles (great for hiking) 65% of the price on AMZN...bought at a chain grocery store...happens all the time if you try...problem is people are too much into "get it on amazon" mind set.
Really important to distinguish what exactly you are buying and comparing from Amazon to in person stores. The categories differ. Groceries are obviously cheaper at grocery stores, but electronics/household items? Amazon is usually cheaper.
My employer (here in the UK) forbids us from ordering anything from Amazon. The reason is simple: poor quality. If Amazon is the cheapest option, it's almost certainly because it's an inferior product. For the same product, other sites/stores should be cheaper, because no other middleman takes as big a cut as Amazon.
Like many of my friends here at the DownBallot, I stayed up late last night to watch the Canadian vote count. Perhaps the best election summary comes from satirist Andy Borowitz:
CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER THANKS TRUMP FOR ELECTION VICTORY
. In an emotional victory speech late Monday night, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney thanked Donald J. Trump for his stunning election win.
“I don’t deserve credit for this victory,” Carney, choking back tears, told his supporters. “Donald, I couldn’t have done it without you.”
Carney received congratulatory calls from dozens of other world leaders whose political careers have been boosted by Trump, including Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo and Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
“It’s like I told you, man,” Zelenskyy reportedly told the Canadian. “Trump is magic.”
https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/canadian-prime-minister-thanks-trump
Stunning that four party leaders failed to win their own riding (district):
– Pierre Poilievre, Conservative. Lost by 4.5% margin.
– Jagmeet Singh, NDP. Lost by 24% margin.
– Jonathan Pedneault, Green Party. Lost by 45.3% margin.
– Maxime Bernier, People’s Party. Lost by 54% margin!
Feels like the NDP make a huge mistake sticking with Singh after the last election.
As long as the Liberal Party has strong leadership, it will simply be hard for the NDP to find a relevant voice. They don't have Tommy Douglas or Jack Layton to carry them anymore.
Sure, but after two disappointing election cycles it was obviously time to move on.
And it's hard to think of a worse profile than Singh's to prop up the Trudeau government, his whole stock in trade was being the anti-nepo baby alternative to Trudeau.
And then Singh kept keeping the Liberals alive to the point the Tories rightfully or wrongly said Singh and the NDP were keeping Trudeau way past his expiration date so Singh can qualify for his parliamentary pension.
It's funny, I was going to use the phrase "past his expiration date" because Singh's brand is "fresh". Running in a third election after doing grubby deals with the insiders doesn't make you seem so "fresh" anymore.
If Singh had passed a no confidence motion while Trudeau was still the PM, sure the conservatives would win a supermajority but even his party would have benefited a lot i.e in December before the pension attacks started.
Yes. He was a mistake from the start. As was Mulcair. If they want to bounce back, they are going to need to find a leader who is left-populist to more distinguish themselves from the Liberals.
Also the Liberal Party is going to have to completely collapse a la 2011. As long as Canada keeps FPTP, there will really only be two parties that dominate.
How would that be different from how Mulcair and Singh were?
Mulcair was a former Liberal who praised Margaret Thatcher. Singh never struck that tone and appeared more interested in social issues and nice suits.
MAJORITY OR MINORITY LIBERAL GOVERNMENT?
(I’m quoting this fascinating update in full. Link to election blog at bottom.)
The CBC Decision Desk is watching 11 ridings in particular before making a call on a majority or minority government. They are all ridings where the Liberals are currently in second place. Last night, they went from 163 projected seats to 168 as advance and special ballots were counted, in some cases making up several hundred or even 1,000-vote deficits — so these could flip. The Liberals need four of the following 11 ridings to do that.
– Terrebonne in Quebec: It is the closest race in the country right now, where the Bloc is leading the Liberals by 28 votes. Two polls are left to report, which could be 880 votes.
– Nunavut: There is a 54-vote margin with at least 647 votes to come.
– Vancouver Kingsway: The NDP's Don Davies is leading the Liberals by 308 votes.
– Windsor-Tecumseh-Lakeshore (Ontario): The Liberals are trailing by 359 votes and we are expecting at least 3,500 special ballots there.
– Miramichi Grand Lake (New Brunswick): There is a 394-vote margin here. One of the two special ballot polls has reported, where at least 2,700 special ballots were cast.
– Milton East Halton Hills South (Ontario): Former Ontario Progressive Conservative cabinet minister Parm Gill is leading the Liberal candidate by 556 votes. Again, one of the two special ballot polls reported and at least 2,800 special ballots were cast.
– Shefford (Quebec): Here, there is a 651-vote margin for the Bloc. The Liberals were in the lead for part of last night. Again, one of the two special ballot polls reported and there were at least 1,800 special ballots cast.
– Cloverdale Langley City (B.C.): This is a large margin, at 923 votes. But neither of the special polls have reported and there are at least 5,500 votes in those polls.
– Kitchener South Hespeler (Ontario): Conservatives are leading the Liberals by a little more than 1,100 votes with one of the special polls having reported — and 3,000 special ballots were cast.
– Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge (B.C.): Right now the Liberals are trailing by 1,400 votes, but they were trailing by 2,500 votes last night and there are still eight polls yet to report.
– Hamilton East Stoney Creek (Ontario): The incumbent Liberal is trailing right now by 1,500 votes. At one point last night, the Liberals were trailing by 3,000 votes. They've now cut that in half, and there are still six polls left to report, including a minimum of 4,800 special ballots.
The Liberals also need to hold the two races where they have a close lead — Kelowna and Terra Nova The Peninsulas, in Newfoundland and Labrador.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/livestory/canada-election-vote-counting-resumes-with-some-key-races-still-too-close-to-call-9.6738893
I hope Don Davies hangs on. He’s a good progressive. Unfortunately, long-time BC NDP Peter Julian, who’s even better, lost his seat.
I saw that - unfortunate, Julian could have been the ideal man for a post-Singh rebuild
Yes.
Could he still, from outside of the government?
He could. But they usually try to find a winnable seat to win in a by election. NDP only have 7, 3 in BC. Not sure any of them would want to resign.
Davies hung out to win. Liberals and NDP combined have a majority again. 176 seats.
“Trump is magic”
Outside of the satire, it would be funny if Democrats end up unseating Republicans in the House and Senate and were quoted saying this. Hahaha
I do remember Dems winning back the Senate in 2006 when they were originally predicted not to flip it.
Would be nice if history repeats itself on November 3, 2026.
Polarization way deeper than in 2006. We'll need the equivalent of a triple double grand slam hat trick to win 4 Senate seats.
Yeah. Casey losing was the 2nd worst result in 2024 and made it so we would need that triple double grand slam hat trick.
I could see IA being one of the Senate seats that could be swingy if the hypothetical you are describing would happen.
MT on the other hand would be more challenging in today’s environment vs back in 2006. Senator Steve Daines is running for his third term, not his first or 2nd. If this were an open race and Daines wasn’t in the Senate, I’d say maybe.
However, in 2020 Steve Bullock didn’t cut down the margin enough in his Senate election to make me believe unseating an incumbent GOP Senator in MT would be promising.
Bullock running in a blue wave, open seat, non-presidential year could've been interesting.. more swing voters in MT than, say, TN. But tis not to be..
Last open seat race in MT was back in 2014 when Max Baucus left the Senate to serve as Ambassador to China.
Obama should have never nominated Baucus if it meant to save the Senate seat.
The vote % is closer than I'd have expected. Currently at 43.6% vs 41.4%. Granted I wasn't following this super closely, but the surface level details I got made it seem like Liberals were a bit further ahead on the popular vote.
2 points is on the low end of the final polls which ranged from 2-5.
After Canada successfully fended off Trumpism last night (and kept Carney), I feel good this morning.
Thank you, Canadians, for standing up to FDJT. I wish we had that kind of "rally around the flag" unity on 11/5/2024!
Current standings of the Canadian federal election:
Liberal Party (centre to centre left), 155 seats won, 13 seats leading.
Conservative Party (centre right to right wing), 133 seats won, 14 seats leading.
Bloc Quebecois (Quebec independence), 21 seats won, 2 seats leading.
New Democratic Party (centre left to left wing), 5 seats won, 2 seats leading.
Green Party (left wing, environmentalist) 1 seat won, 0 seats leading.
People's party (right wing to far right populist), 0 seats won, 0 seats leading.
Meanwhile, in 2021 the Liberals won 160 to the Conservatives 119.
I smell a Conservative win in the next election. Five terms is a lot to ask for one party and Trump won't be front and center. All those lefty voters who went for a centrist like Carney are inevitably going to get annoyed with him and the Conservative base is still strong. Ford just won reelection easily as premier of Ontario.
If PP had run on an anti-Trump platform the way Ford did in Ontario, he'd be prime minister.
The federal Conservatives are in such a bind because if they moderate too much the conservative voters in the prairie provinces already demonstrated they will basically secede from the federal party.
Normally, the Liberals have the same problem. Under the right circumstances, the Conservatives could win even with dissatisfaction from the far right.
Yeah, Alberta's premier is very open to teasing secession even after getting checked by Ford.
The knives are already out for Ford.
https://bsky.app/profile/thestar.com/post/3lnxgtm4hwk2h
I mean, Ford made this decision publicly before the election, I'm sure he was anticipating this kind of fallout.
That seems like the stupid approach. I'm sure the Liberals are happy about that.
He just won another Tory government in Ontario. Are they jealous his ability to defy gravity isn't rubbing off?
Ironic, considering Mr Ford was simply acting in the traditional manner of Ontario Progressive Conservative Party leadership. The PC Party of Ontario has traditionally been of the "red Tory" manner. The question is will he face attempts to be ousted by his own intraprovince political enemies?
He did but the people simply didn't buy it.
Of course they didn't buy it. He had a reputation of being to the right of Stephen Harper.
I was going to post over the weekend I had dinner with a high up political friend who said they think Rep. Craig was going to run but it was a smidge too speculative as evidence. (Craig asked people to be in a political ad but wouldn’t tell them for what office.)
Main reasoning I was told is she now has grandkids and if she’s a Senator, she only has to run every six years. Per 2024 results, MN is overall redder than her district so going for a safer constituency isn’t the calculus.
Compared to Lt Gov Flanagan, Craig seems more like a slam dunk candidate where we don’t have to worry about anything. Wins at Amy Klobuchar levels and will be a great fundraiser with her LGBTQ+ connections. The GOP will struggle regardless of who our nominee is, especially in what could be a tough midterm election for them.
The DFL endorsement process is going to be wild this season! It’s almost why I hate participating in it. I feel loyalties to both candidates I’ve mentioned so I’m pretty neutral as of now.
Yeah, MN-Sen is one where I don't have negative feelings about either primary candidate. That said, I would probably vote for Craig if I were a Minnesotan just because of the strong electoral track record.
I just hope the primary isn't too damaging. Unfortunately too many get too attached to individual politicians and can't see the forest from the trees.
I've been disappointed in some of Craig's votes and much prefer Flanagan.
We don't need to worry about anything in Minnesota with any candidate especially in a midterm. I don't even remember when the last time was that Minnesota elected either a Republican President or Senator.
President 1972, Senator 2002.
In a midterm with an already unpopular Republican president and Congress Minnesota Dems should be fine in most races, including holding on to Craig's House seat.
Last time Gov or any statewide office was 2006. NY is the only state that beats us for longest streak at statewide races.
I'm assuming California is tied with Minnesota since Schwarzenegger last won in 2006.
Connecticut is also tied with them - no Republican has won statewide there since then-Gov. Rell in 2006.
Worst-case scenario: She gives up a plum position as chair of the House Ag Committee and then gets beaten by Flanagan in the primary. Not unthinkable.
It would be disastrous if this moment of potential revolution for Dems is harnessed by a conservative (or 'moderate' if you prefer) like Craig to win a Senate seat. Don't let the rhetoric of campaign talk trick you - she is not going to be fighting fascism.
Voted yes on the Laken Riley Act, yes to sanction the ICC, yes on the nonprofit killer bill (HR 9495). Craig is one of the worst House Dems in terms of # of votes with Republicans, just barely a step above Cuellar/Golden/Perez.
Source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gPBdBrqVCbtuy7f1bjOdCDUzEv5RqbbU1yYAr3KoHYE/edit?gid=686052829#gid=686052829
Edit: I mistakenly wrote in an earlier version of this comment that Craig voted to censure Al Green. Craig was a No on that vote.
Can she win the general election and caucus with Democrats? That's the only thing that matters.
Not the only thing that matters when you have a better alternative.
I'm not an MN voter but I am leaning more towards Flanagan but open to Craig.
Just like how Kyrsten Sinema won a general election and caucused with Democrats?
Sinema is the worst example you could give lol. Before her Arizona was voting Republican for Senate majority leader and after they are voting Democrat.
Yeah and Minnesota hasn't been voting that way. So unlike with Sinema, there's no justification for Craig
Harris only won by five points with the sitting governor as her running mate. This complacency about Minnesota being an automatic lock for Democrats seems misguided to me.
It's not a lock, but if they can't win a Senate seat in Minnesota next year, the problems go much deeper than a single state!
What does Sinema have to do with the Senate race in MN? She was awful in her own way.
We don’t need to accept just any Democrat in a state like Minnesota, people to Craig’s left win the general election there all the time.
In Peggy Flanagan’s case, she’s already been building up a decent list of endorsements. She’s even quoted the late Paul Wellstone on her campaign website.
Minnesota isn't really a state where an Ilhan Omar (who is who I'm presuming you want to run) can win statewide.
In my opinion Omar is a great rep, though hypothetically I think it would be fair to question her chances of winning statewide. But that's a moot point because Omar has already announced she's not running for Senate.
MN already has a very solid candidate in Peggy Flanagan, who has actually won statewide! Lopez Franzen would be much preferable to Craig as well.
I don't believe Lieutenant Governor in Minnesota is a standalone office so I wouldn't count that as winning statewide. People weren't really voting for her they were voting for Tim Walz.
Yeah. She just got picked bc then Walz could win over more progressive Dems. It worked fantastically.
Wait, my comment may seem flippant. Complete opposite. We love Flanagan. I was ready to vote for Walz and him picking her made it a no brainer for me back in 2018. And, their primary opponents for Gov/Lt Gov were the first candidate I ever volunteered for and a friend from college. Should’ve been a tough choice but it wasn’t. 2016 was scary af and I wanted Tim Walz as my candidate for Gov. Dude is a safety blanket.
Your previous comment didn't seem flippant to me but this was a great comment.
Objecting to a candidate who's made some bad House votes doesn't mean the alternative is corrupt, no-chance-to-win-a-statewide-race Ilhan Omar!
I am no fan of Omar's and would love for her to get clobbered in a primary, but what's the basis for calling her "corrupt"? I don't like to see that term get thrown around without reason...
Let's put it this way: There's certainly been at least a whiff of corruption around her.
What eventually happened with this?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ilhan-omar-faces-ethics-complaint-over-not-disclosing-husband-s-assets/ar-BB1p1tfj
"The complaint cited a June story in the Minnesota Reformer on how Omar's husband, Tim Mynett, and his business partner, Will Hailer, are being accused of fraud and breach of contract in connection to their marijuana and wine ventures, which collapsed.
Omar, over the last three years, has not disclosed to Congress the value of these troubled business ventures, NLPC said in the complaint, pointing to a reported $300,000 investment from a Washington, D.C., business owner, Naeem Mohd, in the wine business — eStCru."
And there's this:
"Omar marries political consultant, months after affair claim"
https://apnews.com/article/c1a31dbcc7adcf48667f799403873406
"Filings with the Federal Election Commission show Omar’s campaign paid Tim Mynett or his firm nearly $600,000 since July 2018. Though it may raise eyebrows, family members, including spouses, can be on the campaign payroll as long as the family member provides services at a fair market value. "
This seems like a nothingburger and there are MANY other things I'd object to her over before this. That said, perception becomes reality on these things I suppose. Regardless, you and I are aligned that she is unelectable statewide. Good news is that, unlike Republicans, our crazies don't tend to win primaries...
She votes like she has the primary wrapped up and she's pivoting to the general which is not the case. Unwise votes politically in my opinion.
I think it's premature to make that assumption that she has the primary wrapped up. Maybe she thinks she could be a stronger choice in the general than Flanagan. Also, I pointed out that she voted against censuring Al Green. That commentor was wrong and the spreadsheet he provided disproved that she voted Yes for censuring Al Green. Criticizing the party and the nominees is one thing and I don't doubt that Craig has her share of criticisms. But making false claims about the votes they made is a whole different beast.
The guy did make a factual error on the Al Green censure vote, but he may have been mistaken, otherwise he wouldn't have provided the spreadsheet. Let's not start a fight here.
She voted No on censuring Al Green. Even your spreadsheet says that. I know she has taken some shitty votes before because she is in a swing district but I wouldn't go as far as comparing here to Cuellar, Golden or Perez with your analysis or even comparing her to Sinema. She'll have to answer for some of those votes in the primary but if she proves to be a strong campaigner that convinces primary voters she is the strongest candidate in the general election, then so be it. I have a feeling as Senator she would vote more along the lines of the state's blue lean. I know we are all rooting for a Democratic version of a Tea Party movement this cycle but usually a candidate who proves they will do everything to win over Democratic base, despite their voting records, will be come the nominee. I'm not saying there will be successful primary challengers in races this cycle, but if Craig makes the case that she would be a stronger choice for Team Fight, then she can win the nominee. It's now on Peggy Flanagan to decide how she's going to run her primary campaign. I expect it to get heated but if it gets too negative and toxic for either Craig or Flanagan, then that's what might cost either of them their shot. What I am more concerned about is finding a candidate to hold onto Craig's district.
A democratic tea party does need to happen, not based on ideological purity tests but between fighters vs do-nothing Democrats.
They'd have to avoid getting caught up in the next iterations of the culture war to have any chance of pulling it off, and I don't like their chances.
If you mean betraying minority rights, no, that's not something Democrats should consider doing. But they have to be better at using their own strong framing and not parroting Republican framing.
Right. That's the conundrum. FDR held his coalition by appeasing Southern segregationists. If progressives don't make those kinds of cultural bargains, they lose power to those who will. It's why I don't see much hope for any kind of durable progressive governance. The culture is changing too quickly to avoid giving the bad guys the ammunition needed to quickly blow apart coalitions. That and I just don't see where the money's gonna come from to finance durable progressive governance with so much of the population aging out of their taxpaying years.
As long as the U.S. dollar remains the primary world currency, money can be borrowed for that purpose, but once it's dropped, the U.S. is likely to be in deep trouble. And I agree that the capacity of numerous American voters to vote for criminal, incompetent racist extremists shows that expecting durable progressive governance in this country is probably a lost cause. They'll vote for progressives when Republicans preside over economic disasters they don't give them a pass for like Trump's deadly mishandling of COVID, but they won't do so consistently because too many of them are ignorant, stupid, bigoted, or believe in demonstrably false religions (by which I mean they refuse to accept scientific facts in favor of religious fantasies, not things like believing in an eventual apocalypse, Second Coming, etc.) and ministers and therefore are easy prey for conspiracy lies and con men.
Your argument on Angie Craig doesn’t add up as her record is far more liberal than Cuellar, Golden and Perez. For starters, Craig sponsored DC statehood and has been consistent on impeaching Trump from the beginning.
I don’t think Craig is a perfect House Democrat either but if anyone here were to actually call her a conservative, facts wouldn’t back them up.
https://ontheissues.org/House/Angie_Craig.htm
I think it's very cringey when progressives call anyone who isn't as far left as them "conservatives". Criticize their votes, sure, but let's be accurate.
Other than some of the squad, Progressives aren't really far left rather just left-wing Social Democrats. The guy did make a factual error on the Al Green censure vote, but he may have been mistaken, otherwise he wouldn't have provided the spreadsheet. I personally agree with Progressives on some issues and New Democrats on some others.
Sure. I believe in accurately describing a Democrat regardless of how liberal, moderate or conservative they may be compared to others. Being honest with facts is important.
That said, criticizing a House Democrat or Democratic U.S. Senator because of votes is fair game.
Agreed. I’d probably narrowly prefer Flanagan to Craig but Craig is hardly some conservadem
My view is the same.
My take is that Craig would be fine but Flanagan would be good/great. I wouldn't be disappointed to have Craig end up senator ipso facto, but I would be disappointed to see us miss the opportunity to get someone who I'd expect would be great.
Kind of like Porter vs Schiff. It's not that Schiff was inherently awful but that Porter presented the chance to get more of the type of strong communicators and real policy wonks the party could benefit from.
Craig will shift to the left if she is elected as MN's next Senator. Having said that, I personally try to reward ideological consistency over politicking where and when it makes sense (this is MN after all, not WV/MT/OH). In the case of MN, while Craig is a great Democrat and a fantastic rep for her seat and her part of the state, there is no reason to not select a more liberal but still very solid candidate, which in this case is LG Flanagan.
Like Gillibrand shifted to the left? But there are those occasional big votes when she can't be counted on, like the vote for the Republican budget. She's still pretending to fight for all of the things she voted to cut and not reminding her constituents about that vote in her mass emails...
We should never bank on a candidate shifting in any direction when going statewide instead of their district specifically. There's one famous example of someone moving left when becoming senator (Gillibrand) and one equally famous example of someone moving right when becoming senator (Sinema).
Fact is we do not know. Right now it's only an assumption. Craig could move left. She might not.
Putting aside the silliness of calling Craig a "Conservative", don't we think she is likely to be more like Kristen Gillibrand? Holding positions more aligned with her district and then moving to the left (where she probably really is) after winning statewide? For the record, I have no real preference between her and Flanagan. I think they'd both be overwhelming GE favorites and would be perfectly fine senators.
I would think so. The votes referenced above all were going to pass, anyway. It’s not like she stands in the way of progress - she’s just voting like a moderate when it’s convenient for her winning reelection.
Even though the move statewide is actually a redder constituency, the Democrats she’s aiming to win over are heavily based in Minneapolis/St. Paul. If she wants to win and stay a winner, she now has to convince us and keep it that way.
The censure Al Green vote is a good example of why she’s fine. Votes that are going to pass anyway and help her look moderate so she can win by bigger margins are going to happen in a swing district. Shitting on fellow Democrats is a no. Actually standing in our way or being a deciding vote has never happened.
Let’s also remember she’s a lesbian representing some pretty red rural turf. She has a big hill to overcome and she’s done it beautifully in flannel. Her winning by a huge margin in 2024 shows she’s positioned herself to be another Senator the blue team doesn’t have to worry about.
Ugh, how to choose. I’m gay so I’ve got a leaning. But I’m ready for campaigns and will make a careful decision.
Question: are we allowed to talk about the dispute going on between DNC Chair Ken Martin and Vice Chair David Hogg on neutrality in primaries? I wanted to make sure this doesn't violate the presidential primary discussion rule but at the same time it does center on congressional primaries. If it's ok, I have some thoughts and would love folks perspective.
Hogg shouldn't be on the DNC payroll while primarying "DINO" or "establishment" incumbents. I get where Hogg is coming from, but primarying red district Dems mostly leads to Republican wins in those areas.
He said he is focusing on Dems in safe blue districts that are ineffective, not Dems in swing or red districts.
Again, not really his job as a DNC vice chair to decide who's the better candidate. Doesn't really make it better if it's a "safe" district. He's not helping democrats, he's hurting, and he should be removed.
Last interview I heard with Hogg, he said that wasn't the plan. Only primarying Dems in safe Dem seats that don't more progressive or are ineffective. Like Scott in Georgia, for example. Trying to get "better Dems" and also generally younger Dems.
Exactly. The debate here is should he be doing that while serving as a vice chair for the DNC. I agree with what Hogg is going for but I also agree with Martin's call for neutrality in the DNC. But at the same time, it's really the DCCC and DSCC that should be pressured to stay neutral in primaries in open races. Both men are right to degrees in their arguments but it's a matter of technicalities. Now Hogg was the vice chair that didn't sign the pledge to stay neutral and the rules votes are coming up in August so my guess is Hogg is trying to make his case more public and demand the party really put pressure on all of it's members to be on Team Fight. However, I don't know yet what he hopes to achieve when it comes to the rules change votes. Martin also said he doesn't want to push Hogg out but he has to decide if he wants to run the Super PAC or stay on as vice chair. Under the current rules, what Hogg is doing doesn't violate anything as vice chair but that's ahead of any potential rules changes that take place in August. So he has a window of time to use it and he might just be doing that to raise money, field candidates and potentially find someone to run the Super PAC for him if he is faced with the decision to have to choose between one or the other. Personally, I think he should stay with the DNC and put someone in charge he can trust to run the PAC but maybe his PAC is only effective when he is the face of it.
I mean, why don't we have competitive primaries in every safe seat every cycle? I'm absolutely against legislative term limits, but you should have to actually prove yourself at the ballot box.
Yes, absolutely, no one should be guaranteed office, they need to earn it. On the flip side, that faction of the party should stop kicking and screaming and declaring everything "rigged" every time the voters reject them.
I agree. My impression of AOC and Pressley wasn't that they were whining about the establishment (yes, that's always part of running against an incumbent) as much as making a proactive case for themselves. If Hogg is capable of finding candidates like that, I'm ok with it.
I do think AOC and Pressley have handled themselves much better than others. The old man, not so much at times. Hogg needs to step down if he wants to play favorites.
You're leaning into discussing the presidential primaries forbidden in this Substack.
That could also apply to primaries for Congress, or other offices. (And MAGAts of course do that every time voters reject them in the general election.)
Sure, but the argument is that the DNC shouldn't be the organization that tries to primary people out. Do members of Congress pay dues to the DNC or only the DCCC?
I think having a vice chair at war with their own party is kind of dumb. He was an obviously stupid pick from the beginning and a pretty good indicator of how out of touch our party can be. That said, I also expect for his primaries to go more or less nowhere and to just be a waste of money. The only way these primaries work is for three factors to come together - 1) A weak incumbent who barely campaigns against a strong challenger. 2) A very blue district. 3) Low turnout. It's hard to get those three factors working in synch.
I'm unconvinced that's the only way to win a primary. We'll see. But it's definitely not likely for most primaries of incumbents to succeed. That's historically true.
Hogg's literally destroying any chance to remain relevant outside of his gun control operations-that said the rule in question should not exist to begin with.
I'd say Hogg is far more effective as a gun control and social justice advocate. However, I wouldn't consider him to be an effective operative or leader in the Democratic Party to the extent where he should even be in such a role at the DNC.
MOST AMERICANS SEE TRUMP as "DANGEROUS DICTATOR," poll says
A majority of Americans say President Trump is a "dangerous dictator" who poses a threat to democracy and believe he's overstepped his authority by actions such as the mass firing of federal employees, a new survey says.
Why it matters: The wide-ranging poll released Tuesday, on Trump's 100th day in office, is the latest sign of him losing support for his immigration and economic policies — the two issues that largely fueled his election.
Zoom in: Only four in 10 Americans expressed favorable views of Trump after his first 100 days in office, according to the survey by the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI).
https://www.axios.com/2025/04/29/prri-poll-most-americans-trump-dangerous-dictator
In one poll, 45 percent gave him an F grade other than A, B, C ,D.
Oddly-released poll timing-wise that closed in late March. If anything his numbers would be worse now.
Precisely! I would like to see a follow-up poll at the end of April or early May, asking precisely the same questions.
Why Americans never care about Trump’s policy promises until after he’s elected is one of the most frustrating aspects of the 2016 and 2024 campaigns. He told you exactly what he was going to do and you voted for him thinking (regardless of what he said he would do) that he would be better for the economy from some mystery magical illogical thinking not once, but twice. The stupidity hurts and now America will suffer.
One other note on this poll: If (key word) Trump and Republicans get only 51% (those who approve of his actions) of the white vote in 2026 (long way off I know), Democrats need to be thinking again about and planning right now about competing in states that’ve moved away from them since Obama was elected (and in some cases far away): Florida, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Ohio and add in Alaska and Texas as seats moving towards Democrats slowly for good measure. In addition of course to the usual swing states.
It’s also possible these numbers get worse or that they get better. Regardless, best to prep now so if it does actually happen, Democrats can ride the blue wave to not only a House Majority, but a possible Senate Majority as well.
Excellent points, couldn’t agree more. Also really liked your comments on the Canadian election.
On MN-02, I was at a local fundraiser and Sen Matt Klein and former Sen Matt Little were both there. Don't be surprised if both announce for the seat soon.
You can't stop Matt Little 'cause Matt Little don't stop!
Only a small sliver of people from a very narrow age range (younger Gen X) are likely to get that reference.
I don't ask for much, just one midterm cycle when Beto and Stacey don't run!
2026 might just be the perfect storm for us to turn Georgia and Texas blue but they might blow it. They were great candidates, but their time is gone, and Politics is a cruel sport. We could potentially have an unpopular president who has seriously bled support among Independents, Latinos and Gen Z. Texas Republicans also have their own version of Mastriano/Walker/Oz ready i.e the radical right Ken Paxton for Senate.
We already have a decent lineup of potential candidates in Texas like Allred, Nathan Johnson, James Talarico, San Antonio Mayor Nirenberg, Astronaut Virts so I don't really see the need for Beto to join the fray.
Agreed, they need to be behind the scenes helping our candidates where their incredible organization skills work best. Some people just aren’t able to be successful politicians because their messaging/persona doesn’t work on the real world stage, but every elected candidate has a talented team behind them. That’s where they fit best and make the most difference.
If Beto runs, he starts looking like a perennial candidate. I agree with you and would add former Atlanta Mayor Bottoms to the list of people I'd prefer not to run.
I have heard a lot of negative stuff bout Bottoms and many say that they want anyone but her and Abrams. Why is it? I don't know much about her other than that she was considered to be Biden's running mate because Kamala had attacked Biden in a debate.
The Wikipedia article about her paints a mixed picture, but she ended up unpopular, and it's best not to have this kind of baggage when running statewide in a state that usually elects Republicans:
Bottoms was investigated during the mayoral election for several lump payments to campaign staff totaling more than $180,000 that were not reported properly.[17] In October 2017, she voluntarily returned $25,700 in campaign contributions she had received from PRAD Group, an engineering contractor whose office had been raided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation the previous month.[18]
Big city mayors are not always the best candidate statewide since they govern deep blue areas and often are in tension with at least some parts of the coalition. As an example I think Michael Hancock former Denver mayor is the one CO Dem that could lose a statewide race in a stars align wrong year.
At this point, Beto seems to fit more as a professor in political science than he would as a politician.
Serving in the House for just three terms and then having three failed political campaigns isn't a good receipt for another Senate run.
Beto has caught John Edwards disease (believes his own bullshit). Abrams seems to feel she is owed something, and that never sits well.
We owed Garland too.
Forgot to share this here earlier: I wrote a deep dive on the IA-02 matchup between Kevin Techau and Ashley Hinson:
https://www.bleedingheartland.com/2025/04/27/first-take-on-kevin-techaus-chances-against-ashley-hinson-in-ia-02/
Well worth investing in this seat, even though Hinson is strongly favored for 2026. I believe she will likely run for Chuck Grassley's Senate seat in 2028, leaving IA-02 open.
She's strongly favored? Didn't she just barely win last year?
That was Marianette Miller-Meeks. Hinson won by double digits.
You might be thinking of Iowa's 1st, which was decided by 800 votes last fall.
yep my bad was thinking of the first.
Trump threatens Amazon to not give a breakup of the tariff costs while checking out, and the company backs down. Centrally planned MAGA Maoism in full display. "Free speech absolutists".
Trump is a wimp
I wanna be sure, but I think the implication is that they (Amazon storefronts) will raise costs, it just won't be as transparent as they were thinking of being.
Which is very predictable considering the ways these companies bend the knee at the very notion of Dump retaliation. I guess it's up to democrats to remind folks, and i'd adivse using republican tariffs to describe them and not just Trump.
Free speech makes way for money. We know Bezos is in Trump’s pocket.
By that logic, every retailer in America should be including sales taxes on the shelf price instead of tacking it on at the register.
They really should. When you buy things in European countries like Italy and Germany, you never get blindsided by the VAT. It's always included in the tagged price.
I think it would be a good idea if there’s a public database documenting tariff based price increases.
It looks like it's just about a wrap for Canada. Liberals win 169 seats (or 170 if that final seat somehow breaks their way), just short the 172 needed for a majority. Though I don't imagine they'll have trouble governing, as they've had this arrangement for a while now.
Yeah they both flipped Terrebonne and are holding Terra Nova by the thinnest of margins.
12 votes in the latter.
Would they'd rather join with the BQ or NDP?
The BQ won’t join.
Have they ever done a quiet confidence and supply deal?
Not to my knowledge.
https://www.peltolaforgovernor.com/ Peltola is running for Governor, it seems.
Would've liked Sullivan to be a target in Alaska. Democrats need to go on offense in as many states as possible. Alyse Galvin ran twice as an Independent against Don Young in 2018 & 2020 and done quite well, considering. Maybe she could run and caucus with Democrats if she wins. Or Mark Begich comeback bid to avenge 2014?! 💙🇺🇲
Sullivan can still be a target. Long shot, but if things turn really sour for the Republicans, not impossible.
Not so long shot, Alaska politics is quite moderate and bipartisan and is distinct to that of lower 48. They have a united legislature. You'd need a Democrat liberal on social issues, moderate on economics and conservative on guns to be competitive just like Peltola showed us. They have a libertarian leaning culture due to the geography.
All of this is true, but it's been a while since they had a Democratic U.S. senator, although their House members are also at large. But it would help if they have a great Democratic candidate .
Wyden intends to run for re-election. In 2028.
https://www.opb.org/article/2025/04/29/us-sen-ron-wyden-plans-to-run-for-reelection-in-2028/
Long way off, though.
Seems way too early for someone to be giving that answer with 100% sincerity. He's probably leaning towards it but saying it so his fundraising doesn't dry up. Since he'll be 79 on election day I hope he reconsiders and opts to retire then.
If people would try they could find things conveniently for less $$ than on amazon...I do it all the time...it ain't that hard; screw bezos.
Not really. Usually products sold on Amazon are cheaper than name brands sold at stores.
usually but not nearly always...just today I bought a case of a special size water bottles (great for hiking) 65% of the price on AMZN...bought at a chain grocery store...happens all the time if you try...problem is people are too much into "get it on amazon" mind set.
Really important to distinguish what exactly you are buying and comparing from Amazon to in person stores. The categories differ. Groceries are obviously cheaper at grocery stores, but electronics/household items? Amazon is usually cheaper.
My employer (here in the UK) forbids us from ordering anything from Amazon. The reason is simple: poor quality. If Amazon is the cheapest option, it's almost certainly because it's an inferior product. For the same product, other sites/stores should be cheaper, because no other middleman takes as big a cut as Amazon.