My favorite type of comment are the ones like these where it's obvious someone got lost and posted their unhinged ramblings on here instead of Facebook
Kind of reminds of Inspiro bot before LLMs were a big thing. If you hate feel good posters at the office/school it's a great place to visit for a quick laugh (google it).
it was quite large, VPAP updates daily but it appears that specific tool on their website hasn't been updated since Sep 22. It's gotten better since then. Also big NOVA counties turn out in force once satellite precincts open.
I think there is a segment of Democratic voters who fear GOP tampering with mail-in ballots - or mail-in voting in general - and will vote on Election Day. Some of my family in swingy Wisconsin is like this.
Republicans may have a billionaire eager to fund their "No" retention campaign for the SCOPA race, but voters are pissed off. This could blow up in their face the way Elon's attempt to buy the SCOWI seat this past April did.
Yass is running into an issue that even he can't control - judicial retention elections almost never fail. Even progressive Yvonne Kauger barely lost in blood red Oklahoma, while her two Democratic judicial colleagues were retained.
I'm hoping that when our state Supreme Court switches back to Democratic control, implements fairer legislative lines and state Rs finally lose their majority -- NC Ds need to turn judicial races from partisan 8-year terms to retention races. And then if the justice(s) loses their retention election, the governor gets to pick their replacement with no stipulations.
Here is a question about the PA Supreme retention campaign. A frequent communicator about the campaign is an organization that calls itself Defend Our Courts. They argue strenuously for retaining the three Democratic Supreme Court justices and see nefarious behavior by Republicans. And they seek donations to support their campaign on behalf of retaining those justices.
However. and But. I cannot find any indication about who is associated with that organizations. What they say on their website (and I cannot find anything other than what they say on their website) is "We are regular citizens active in politics, political strategists and campaign veterans with firsthand experience in judicial races. We know how to win — and we’re ready to fight back."
Are these people real? Who are they? Does anyone know?
Speaker Mike Johnson continues to refuse to swear in newly elected Representative Adelita Grijalva. She would be the 218th - and deciding - name on a discharge petition to force a vote on releasing all the Epstein files.
What stands out is that they will be aware of this. Republican leadership has many negative traits on hand, but they are fully aware of how media cycles work. It's hard to imagine that there isn't something there, with how desperately they're fighting it while taking damage along the way. Maybe it isn't the most obvious name that we all expect, but there has to be something.
Mike Johnson is a racist and sexist POS. He's fine with swearing in a white Democratic guy but stalls when it comes to Dem representatives of color and XX chromosomes due to wanting "certified election results."
Well, at some point, he will have to reconvene the House. Delaying for Epstein and to try to pass their funding of the government bill by telling the Senate "take it or leave it," can only go on so long.
two points here. Adelita Grijalva isn't just "another vote on Epstein" -- she's a progressive, 1st Latina elected to Congress from Arizona, and a strong voice for environmental justice. My org endorsed her and I'm maybe a tad sensitive to people thinking about her as just one vote on one issuue. But second, there does seem to be some cause for concern... MAGA Mike Johnson is getting squirrelly around the phrase "appropriate paperwork." Did he wait for appropriate paperwork/ official records before swearing in Walkinshaw?
Ignoring the GOP pollster part, I'm a little concerned that Pizzo seems to be taking support from us. Unless he's actually taking support from the GOP? Not sure.
I am not sure that he is taking more support from Dems; he was a conservative democrat and advocated anti-gay, anti-trans policies, made racially insensitive remarks against Black people and advocated arming students in colleges with ongoing protests before he left since he was going to be kicked out as minority leader. Ignore the national reporting that followed, local and state news knew the full story.
"Dems’ Messaging Nerds Urged Party Not to Talk About Trump’s Military Takeover
Are Trump’s military campaigns in blue cities a “distraction,” or what matters?"
We have an unelected factionalist pollster, known as David Shor, as the shadow Democratic leader. Another extremely viral and trolled tweet by Hakeem Jeffries. We need more leaders like Newsom, Bernie and Pritzker who can speak their minds without going through 100 rounds of polling sessions with David Shor.
I thought Jeffries should have been primaried months ago after he appeared on a podcast to talk about how he’s getting intense pressure from “far left” constituents to do more and complaining about this.
Like dude, in NY-08 you represent Brooklyn in a deep blue D+24 Congressional District. Hello?
I doubt any primary challenger could actually take him down but man... If someone could... He is absolutely the wrong leader we could have in this moment.
There has been an intense rivalry between NYC's DSA (which is "electoralist" and not as extreme compared to the national DSA) and Jeffries afaik. I think this is the cycle when they finally try to primary him out.
There is no doubt that Reid Hoffman's Mainstream Democrats PAC, AIPAC and DMFI will spend millions, but I think there will be significant anti-establishment energy this cycle.
Some sources:
Commentary: Hakeem Jeffries’ socialist problem
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries can’t defeat the Democratic Socialists of America, and they can’t defeat him, leading to an uncomfortable stasis.
Like are we really going to go into a majority with this guy as leader? How effective is he gonna be at speaker when he needs focus groups to tell him what's popular and what isn't?
I disagreed with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid ideologically, but they were far more effective and forceful imo. Pelosi literally saved us from a 1980s style red landslide.
The one question I would have is if he loses a primary, does that hurt our chances electorally in the general. Don't get me wrong, I want Jeffries to be better and don't like him as leader. But, I'm also thinking about what happens if we're going into the midterm elections and our leader has already lost. I think this would also be a risk even he wins a primary, but not by a large margin and is incredibly damaged. A lot of money that could (and should) be used on other races would end up being spent on Jeffries' primary.
If Jeffries is primaried and loses or just barely wins, I think House Dems would have to immediately replace him as minority leader. I don't think we can go into the 2026 midterms with a leader who either will not be present the following year not of his own choice, or will be there but is incredibly damaged
Good points although perhaps I am missing something here:
If say Jeffries is primaried out next year, does that mean he’s naturally forced out of office as House Minority Leader just from the primary? Wouldn’t he still stay on as leader until closer to the next Congress?
I don’t think an election of a new leader in the House would be ideal before the midterms.
I don't think he'd automatically be forced out of the position of minority leader if he loses the primary (although I'm not sure, maybe there are some obscure Democratic House Caucus bylaws). My question is more if Jeffries loses a primary (or wins but is badly wounded), how are our electoral chances impacted and how should House Dems respond?
House Dems could retain him as leader, but that would risk showing that they've continued to learn nothing about what our base wants, and we'd be fighting with a wounded leader or one who won't be there next year.
Alternatively, House Dems could replace him as leader. This would show a new level of responsiveness to our base voters, but ideological fissures would likely become more apparent in the House caucus (which we don't want leading up to an election) and the new leader would likely end up being another member of leadership and similar to Jeffries
I don't have an answer, but I think its an important thing to consider when people are talking about primarying Jeffries
This isn't a 1:1 example as he wasn't leader yet, but he was second in command and the clear next in line to be leader. That said: Eric Cantor lost his 2014 primary and immediately resigned. Republicans did very, very well that election. I don't think they were hurt at all by Cantor's primary loss. If anything, the forces that caused an electorate that would vote him out in a primary were the same forces that caused a red wave electorate in the general.
If Jeffries lost his primary it would signal a lot of energy from the dem base. He would almost certainly immediately drop out of leadership and there's good chances he would also resign as well (depending on upcoming votes).
Clark would then step into the minority leadership position, at least for the short term. I don't know if she has the support for party leader outright, but I suspect in that kind of scenario she'd be fast tracked into the position. Realistically, if she received a temporary promotion it would quickly become permanent in January.
I liked Clark a lot before this year, but I've been disappointed in her lately. If the disappointment is a result of her toeing the line from Jeffries as leader, then she would presumably be a huge improvement when calling the shots herself. If it's an example of how she would be as leader, then we'd get an upgrade if only because of her reaction to Jeffries' defeat, but not as much as we'd hope to see.
Even if he doesn’t lose himself, if we get a bunch of new anti-establishment Democrats who would block him from the speakership, that’s a big L for him.
I doubt the possibility of that scenario. If he loses, I'm almost positive it would be at the ballot box. Otherwise, the only way I could see him losing the leadership of the Democratic Caucus is if, God forbid, they don't flip the House.
DC dems are far too reliant on first-order data and making conclusions from that. The over reliance on consultants is counterproductive and you'd think after so many bad elections for us that they'd take a hint.
This is the same thinking that leads them to rapidly abandon and shift messaging constantly. I have little doubt in the veracity of the data that voters are not immediately receptive to anti-authoritarian messaging. That ignores that repeating a message and making a case over time yields results. If we only rely on messaging that works immediately and right now, we'll forever be on the backfoot.
This is one things republicans are really, really good at. They pick a message and they stick to it. Often the messaging falls flat early on. It makes no sense, it's vapid conspiracy theories, or something else. They keep at it, though, and after months and months and months, it works.
I largely agree with you, but there are also fundamental things the party always stands for but people don't give them credit for, namely improving life for the non-rich and the general welfare writ large.
Like michaelflutist I largely agree with you, though I'm not sure they want "no more deportations". I think they just want them in a less cruel manner. We went through this in Trump's last term, though it feels more muted now despite the cruelty having been turned up. I think they still want deportations, just not to be as harsh about it. Dems responded to the backlash against deportations in 2017-2020 by being pro immigration in the 2020 primary and that was used heavily against Harris in 2024.
Yeah, the constituency for totally free immigration, which is what no deportations at all would mean, is vanishingly small. I don't even favor that, as it makes sense to me to deport non-citizens who commit felonies with no extenuating circumstances or lied in a damnable way on their immigration application. But due process remains a fundamental right, even if this unconstitutional Supreme Court tries to get rid of it.
They do not want deportations of non-criminal aliens and support for "mass deportations have gone down below 40-45%. Americans want the border shut and mass deportations halted as per the polls.
David Shor is fine as a polling analyst but if it gets to the point where he’s being looked at as a strategist for Democrats like Hakeem Jeffries, then we have a problem.
Polls are supposed to give insight but they don’t always reveal the full picture. If I were to run a business, would I be able to get enough profits simply by looking at surveys?
"While Blue Rose Research isn’t a household name, the firm has enormous sway in the Democratic Party and with the liberal pundit class. Vox has described Blue Rose’s leader, Shor, as perhaps “the most influential data scientist in the Democratic Party.” After the election, New York Times liberal columnist and podcaster Ezra Klein invited Shor to explain why Trump won, characterizing him as “a very skilled interpreter of data” who “has gotten a lot of things right before other people did.”
Klein helpfully noted that Shor “works with campaigns and progressive groups, so he has a perspective from the inside,” without explaining the full significance of Shor and Blue Rose’s work to try to elect Kamala Harris, which failed spectacularly.
As the Times explained elsewhere, Blue Rose handled much of the ad testing for the Super PAC Future Forward as it worked to support Harris’ campaign. Blue Rose’s team was effectively embedded within Future Forward, which served as Harris’ primary outside spender and spent $560 million to boost the Democratic ticket in 2024. It’s worth noting that many of the ads run by Future Forward were completely unwatchable — overstuffed with tidbits about various policies, provided too quickly for a casual viewer to process and often presented by random narrators. "
Thanks for the information but the first paragraph already affirms why I believe David Shor makes a brilliant polling data scientist who is useful in helping Democrats uncover key insights about voters they need to know in order to succeed.
But aside from that but per my 2nd paragraph, again, Shor’s efforts don’t reveal the full picture other than what is explained in a general sense nationally. If Democrats themselves were to make visits to parts of the U.S. where they need to work on winning more voters, would they need Shor as a strategist to write up an exact script Democratic Candidates running for office to ready to each voter?
FYI, months ago in The Downballot I shared the video of Ezra Klein’s discussion with Shor. Very insightful but Democrats need to always look at the situation on the ground, not just the data.
Wikipedia summary: Since the 2024 election, Shor has argued that Gen Z is the most conservative generation in decades, more conservative than even the Baby boomers, and that Democrats must therefore moderate their positions to win elections. Jean M. Twenge has criticized this argument as based on a single year's data, saying that most long-term and other available evidence contradicts it. She further argues that 2024 may been a "one-off event" as a result of Gen Z's anti-establishment attitudes and that they are more liberal than other generations on specific issues and less likely to identify as conservative.[34]
I think it's pretty clear from both polling over multiple cycles and election results both domestically and internationally that GenZ is the most conservative 'youth' cohort since the 1980s.
Dems wishcasting trends as "one-offs" has a pretty shit track record over the past decade+. I've engaged in it too.
They disapprove of Trump and his deportation policies more than any other group, show the strongest support for Democrats in generic ballot polls, and back Mikie Sherrill and Abigail Spanberger the most. This is the most liberal generation in decades, as confirmed by polling crosstabs.
The data I'm seeing disagrees with that. I haven't found a nice source that has all the data collected in a single chart, but we can pull multiple sources together.
Pew has an article up showing the democratic share of the youth vote in presidential elections from 1972-2012. Starting with 1980, it's: 44%, 40%, 47%, 43%, 53%, 48%, 54%, 66%, and 60%.
For comparison, the national dem performance by election is: 41%, 41%, 46%, 43%, 49%, 48%, 48%, 53%, and 51%.
Up until 2004 (oldest millennials and youngest gen X) we were looking at a youth electorate that roughly matched the national vote. Starting then, they shifted to the left, with a big shift in 2008 (millennials). Then in 2012 that reversed to a midpoint between 2004 and 2008, with Obama getting 60% of the youth vote.
Switching pollsters, in 2016 that continued, with young voters going 55D-37R-8I. Notably, this source has the entire decline in dem vote share going to third party candidates: a drop of 5% in support led to a 5% increase in third party support, with no change for republicans. The oldest members of Gen Z would have first started voting in 2016. https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/election-night-2016-24-million-youth-voted-most-rejected-trump
Then in 2020, we see shockingly similar results to 2012-2016: 61% of young voters voted for Biden, 37% for Trump. The youth vote should be about 50-50 Gen Z and millennial here, by age (not necessarily number). https://circle.tufts.edu/2020-election-center
It really is only a single data point towards gen Z being a more conservative voting cohort. From their first two elections, 2016 and 2020, they voted very similarly to how millennials had voted previously. With only 2008 standing out as a once off high water mark in our favor. Millennials and Gen Z each absolutely crush the young voting behavior of Gen X and boomers from the past. Boomers and Gen X voted very similarly to how the whole nation voted, if occasionally slightly to the left generally not by much.
First off, not everything on Wikipedia should by default be treated as completely factual and at face value. For instance, many older gen X liberals like actress and comedian Janeane Garofalo have on Wikipedia been labeled as progressive. Anyone who is doing their research should know that Garofalo has been politically outspoken well before the 2010's and back in the 2000's most Democrats like her would refer to themselves as "liberals" back in that time. Al Franken was never looked at as "progressive" in the 2000's. He was looked at as "liberal." Same with Rachel Maddow who once was apart of Air America like Franken and Garofalo. Even now Wikipedia is shows Air America as a "progressive" radio show but it ended in 2010, well before progressive was a mainstream name.
That said, I'm not sold that Gen Z is more conservative than baby boomers. If we're looking at the 1950's and 1960's, when baby boomers grew up as kids and teenagers, society wise the attitude was that of a more homogenized culture. Civil rights awareness, rock and roll and the Vietnam War did shift things but even then, it's just a much different kind of culture as far as being conservative.
What was conservative in the 1950's and 1960's is just much different now. Even in the 80's, conservatives were considered more Reagan and Bush like but nowadays with Trump, MAGA's got a much distinctive kind of impact, especially with the tariffs and trade wars.
Here's the real breakdown I see of Gen Z:
-Gen Z has entered the workforce primarily with Trump and Biden in office. They've become more jaded, at times cynical but also technologically adept.
-A lot of influencers on YouTube and TikTok are increasingly in Gen Z. This means they are really caught up in this kind of fad but they are also becoming increasingly entrepreneurial early on in their adult years in ways previous generations were not.
-Groups of Gen Z conservatives or voters that have been influenced by the likes of the late Charlie Kirk still have intellectual curiosity but I have observed are more open minded than conservatives decades ago. That doesn't mean they are going to change their views overnight or even become liberal if Democrats try to win them over but Kirk's influence on Gen Z is much different than Rush Limbaugh's influence back in his time.
-Gen Z is drinking less compared to previous generations. The alcohol industry is going through a major shift and non-alcoholic lounges are popping up in cities like NYC and around Europe. With the medical profession increasingly raising the alarm about the impact of moderate or severe drinking, this is only accelerating the trends.
-Cost of living and income inequality are the biggest problem for Gen Z, something Zohran Mamdani has been laser focused as his main campaign issue. We see this with younger NYC voters who have been unanimously supporting Mamdani's mayoral candidacy.
Absolutely no sign Trump and the GOP are doing anything to solve this problem.
-Interracial relationships are becoming more common than they ever were.
-If Luigi Mangione's shooting of former UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson said anything about Gen Z's reaction, it's that they are angry at the healthcare system being seriously broken. Although Mangione is unfortunately radicalized and not being the best spokesperson for raising awareness on healthcare, that isn't stopping the problem from going away for Gen Z.
A lot of rank and file Congressional Democrats seem way more willing to acknowledge Trump as authoritarian or fascist compared to leadership. Look at AOC, Jayapal, Bernie, but also more mainstream Dems like Chris Murphy.
There seems to be a big disconnect between the caucus and its leadership.
State Rep. Ruwa Romman is in as a Dem. (Quick reminder -- please no discussion of the forbidden I-P topic. I know the article mentions it but it's a rule here.)
I hope Duncan doesn't make it through, he was a very conservative Republican through and through and made very conservative statements. It will be a field day for GOP oppo researchers if he wins. Also, running a former Republican in a very Black state is not a good idea.
I know some here think that it would be similar to Democrats switching parties pre-2000 but they easily forget that those Democrats were Southern conservative Democrats and Reagan Democrats not progressives.
But based on what he said in an interview, it was like a religious conversion for him, and converts are often the most zealous adherents of their new religion.
In November 2024, he was a Reagan Republican and so he converted between then and now and not between 2016-2024? He was openly discussing strategies to "take back" the Republican party if Trump lost.
Not speaking to Duncan personally but I have seen this phenomenon in action. Bill Kristol is loudly calling for action against the GOP online and Joe Walsh literally just said he and Mamdani can coexist in the same party. Even on Bluesky people are impressed. Sometimes people do flip over.
I’ll listen to him on Mondays on the Bulwark podcast (only day I can fit bulwark in) more out of fascination how someone moves politically over the years and find him thoughtful there after hating him and still resenting him on some level for his role in the Iraq war.
FWIW I always thought Walsh's Tea Party phase was more performative than substantive (he tried to be an actor at one point, and he had previously sought office twice as a moderate, pro-choice Republican—not far off from where he seems to stand ideologically now), but hey, I'll take it.
Charlie Crist lost thrice, and Black people did not turn out to vote for a former Republican. I don't think anyone is advocating for the ardently liberal and election denying campaign of Stacey Abrams again.
Counter-argument: some conservative Dem nominees can end up either sabotaging our agenda (see: Manchin, Sinema, Gottheimer, Cuellar) or even party switching (Jeff Van Drew, some of the state legislators who flipped recently like Tricia Cotham.) At what point does moderation threaten our agenda?
Granted, this is a governors seat and not a legislature seat, and Romman has little chance of winning a general anyway, but something to consider. (I know little about the other candidates but Esteves sounds interesting.)
But this is an established position at least in strategist circles and news punditry that former Republicans depress Black turnout which we have a real-life example of, in Florida. Why do you think Duncan will be a better candidate in a state with 33% Black population? I think he will be as bad as Ruwa Romman.
I'm just talking specifically about GA. Stacey Abrams 1 was mainstream (not election-denying yet) and just didn't work. I agree black turnout would be a problem, but I don't think any of the other candidates has a shot of winning. Duncan at least has a compelling story to sell to mods in the burbs.
Amusingly enough, Stacey Abrams 1 was backed by progressives — including Nina Turner, if I am remembering correctly. She beat a centrist candidate in that primary.
A consideration - Georgia 2018 was politically different from Georgia 2025, at least as far as I remember. Abrams wasn’t great but it wasn’t only her fault.
It’s genuinely refreshing to see something that breaks from the usual fare in Times opinion columns and reporting — which often amounts to calling for the left to be purged or sidelined while wistfully longing for the return of a Bill Clinton–style figure to "save" the party.
Is it the slogan you dislike, or the policies behind it?
The slogan may not be a wise idea, but the rich are obscenely wealthy in the US and are frankly far too powerful at the direct expense of poorer Americans. Is this a system you’d defend?
I'm not against taxing the rich but they really need to get out of their internet bubble and try to figure out how to appeal to the average person, "eat the rich" just goes right over peoples head.
There's a few reasons that comparison doesn't work.
The simplest reason: the vast majority of voters like police, and the vast majority of voters hate rich people.
Eat the rich is not a policy slogan, while defund the police is. Someone saying "eat the rich" is not, in fact, suggesting we resort to cannibalism for a limited share of the population. They are instead communicating a non-specific message of populist opposition to the wealthiest members of society. Someone saying "defund the police" is seeking to lower police budgets substantially.
Defund the police had its origins in 2020 after the George Floyd protests. Eat the rich dates back to the French Revolution and is a long used phrase used in opposition to economic inequality in society.
Moreover, loads of non-rich people are so stupid and brainwashed that they identify with zillionaires, saying "Cut their taxes! I want my taxes cut when I'm a millionaire, too!"
Of course i don't think AOC is going to attempt to eat Elon Musk but why waste your time on something stupid, "make them pay their fair share" is an oldie but is much more persuasive
Former State Senate Pro Tem Toni Atkins is the 2nd Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate to drop out of the race. First was Lt. Governor Eleni Kounalakis. This is unfortunate as I thought Atkins would have made a great contribution to the gubernatorial primary race.
However, with her and Kounalakis being two of the most influential Democrats in state government now out of the race, this means that Katie Porter's task of becoming a nominee in the general election may be a bit easier now. Now it's Antonio Villaraigosa, Betty Yee, and Xavier Becerra who are the leading Democratic Candidates besides Porter.
Right now, I'm gravitating towards Porter although at this point I don't know what's going to happen with the rest of the candidates.
Toni Atkins, the former legislative leader who sought to leverage her Sacramento experience into a history-making bid for California governor, is ending her campaign.
In a letter to supporters on Monday, Atkins said she is leaving the race because she has “no viable path to victory.”
“With Donald Trump and his allies threatening everything we’ve worked for — gutting health care, cratering our economy, and stripping away fundamental rights and freedoms — we’ve got to make sure California has a Democratic governor leading the fight, and that means uniting as Democrats,” she wrote.
I don't think Atkins had a path unless some zillionaire decided to fund her run. No state legislator since Willie Brown has ever had statewide name rec.
My main reason for considering Atkins was that she had an interesting blue collar background and strong legislative experience working to get things done in the State Capitol. She also did quite well with fundraising early on in her gubernatorial campaign although this was before Katie Porter entered the race.
I had wanted more of a competitive and fierce gubernatorial primary race but with Trump being POTUS, that pretty much overshadows everything leading up to the primary.
That said, Porter already has legislative experience at the federal level so if anything, she's merely transitioning to the state government level. She's also only been out of office since January 5th of this year and moving from running for the Senate primary to leading California is quite leap that could help Porter significantly raise her profile.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is sounding out his members about a spending bill to reopen the government for seven to 10 days — if a shutdown is in fact triggered on Oct. 1, according to people familiar with the matter.
Why it matters: Schumer's Plan B anticipates a government shutdown. He and Senate Democrats are also starting to think about how to get out of one.
everybody is getting into the act; now ESPN analyst Paul Finebaum considering AL-Sen run as a repub. https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/46424607/paul-finebaum-says-considering-running-us-senate...I always knew there was some reason I just didn't like this guy...now I know...he comes across as a smart-ass!!! BTW, if you don't bother to read the article, and I wouldn't blame you one bit, he is currently registered in NC but he know he would get his red ass whipped if he ran there.
Katie porter didn’t raise her hand at a recent debate when candidates were asked if they’d support single payer healthcare in California. Xavier Becerra on the other did raise his hand.
I'm not shocked by that. She's never really been a far left progressive realistically. She's a technocratic center-left populist. An uncommon combination.
Yes, but unfortunately that is the reality of this country. Support for single payer is effectively limited entirely to progressives who occupy an ideology distinctly to the left of everyone else.
We're not the default, even within our own party. It's changed over the past 10 years and I'm sure it will continue to change, but we're still in a spot where "far left" makes the most sense for our support of it.
It's a little broader than that, I think. Support for single payer (maybe more of it is framed as "universal healthcare") goes beyond just a liberal/left wing position.
I maintain that "far left" has to be radical and really means at least Leninist. Democratic socialists are leftists but not far left. But I use an international, ideology-based political spectrum in which fascists are far right, regardless of how many of them there are at any given point in a country's history.
We’ve also got Healthy San Francisco, a citywide universal healthcare system unique to the City of San Francisco that remains to be popular and is in no danger of being ended. It’s financed by a much different system and one where SF residents don’t have to be taxed for it to exist.
Yes, I believe that‘s the case for how the citywide system is mostly financed. This also means the funding at the core of the system is more voluntary (you don’t have to eat out and pay for Healthy SF as eating at home is an option).
But comparatively, it’s an easier sell with this healthcare financing system than what Bernie proposed with how his universal healthcare system would be financed. In his first presidential primary campaign back in 2016, Bernie there would be a small tax per taxpayer would be applied depending on the income. In the general election, this proposal would likely have been a tough sell for centrists, independents, moderates, etc. who prefer a more pragmatic kind of model.
Mind you, i am not necessarily endorsing the Healthy San Francisco system when I am comparing it vs Bernie’s UHC plan. However, if Democrats are able to find creative ways to finance a public healthcare system that improves on Medicare without a straight tax, then that makes it easier to sell change.
Reported for incoherent off-topic rambling.
My favorite type of comment are the ones like these where it's obvious someone got lost and posted their unhinged ramblings on here instead of Facebook
It seemed like weird AI.
AI on LSD
yeah, Michael said AI already xD
I prefer weird Al when he sticks to music parodies. ;-)
That was...quite a read...
Haha, yeah
Kind of reminds of Inspiro bot before LLMs were a big thing. If you hate feel good posters at the office/school it's a great place to visit for a quick laugh (google it).
it was quite large, VPAP updates daily but it appears that specific tool on their website hasn't been updated since Sep 22. It's gotten better since then. Also big NOVA counties turn out in force once satellite precincts open.
There's no point in reading early vote numbers this far out
NOVA has very few locations open right now.
I think there is a segment of Democratic voters who fear GOP tampering with mail-in ballots - or mail-in voting in general - and will vote on Election Day. Some of my family in swingy Wisconsin is like this.
Republicans are just eating into their Election Day turnout. The last 2-3 weeks of early voting should be a better indication.
That alone might say something.. why are Republicans so eager to get out and vote ASAP, but not Dems
Republicans may have a billionaire eager to fund their "No" retention campaign for the SCOPA race, but voters are pissed off. This could blow up in their face the way Elon's attempt to buy the SCOWI seat this past April did.
Yass is running into an issue that even he can't control - judicial retention elections almost never fail. Even progressive Yvonne Kauger barely lost in blood red Oklahoma, while her two Democratic judicial colleagues were retained.
I'm hoping that when our state Supreme Court switches back to Democratic control, implements fairer legislative lines and state Rs finally lose their majority -- NC Ds need to turn judicial races from partisan 8-year terms to retention races. And then if the justice(s) loses their retention election, the governor gets to pick their replacement with no stipulations.
rip I didn't realize Kauger was voted out, I thought she retired.
Here is a question about the PA Supreme retention campaign. A frequent communicator about the campaign is an organization that calls itself Defend Our Courts. They argue strenuously for retaining the three Democratic Supreme Court justices and see nefarious behavior by Republicans. And they seek donations to support their campaign on behalf of retaining those justices.
However. and But. I cannot find any indication about who is associated with that organizations. What they say on their website (and I cannot find anything other than what they say on their website) is "We are regular citizens active in politics, political strategists and campaign veterans with firsthand experience in judicial races. We know how to win — and we’re ready to fight back."
Are these people real? Who are they? Does anyone know?
Speaker Mike Johnson continues to refuse to swear in newly elected Representative Adelita Grijalva. She would be the 218th - and deciding - name on a discharge petition to force a vote on releasing all the Epstein files.
What stands out is that they will be aware of this. Republican leadership has many negative traits on hand, but they are fully aware of how media cycles work. It's hard to imagine that there isn't something there, with how desperately they're fighting it while taking damage along the way. Maybe it isn't the most obvious name that we all expect, but there has to be something.
James Walkinshaw was sworn in the next day!
Mike Johnson is a racist and sexist POS. He's fine with swearing in a white Democratic guy but stalls when it comes to Dem representatives of color and XX chromosomes due to wanting "certified election results."
It's clearly about Epstein.
Absolutely. But I'm sure his racism comes into play too.
Well, at some point, he will have to reconvene the House. Delaying for Epstein and to try to pass their funding of the government bill by telling the Senate "take it or leave it," can only go on so long.
two points here. Adelita Grijalva isn't just "another vote on Epstein" -- she's a progressive, 1st Latina elected to Congress from Arizona, and a strong voice for environmental justice. My org endorsed her and I'm maybe a tad sensitive to people thinking about her as just one vote on one issuue. But second, there does seem to be some cause for concern... MAGA Mike Johnson is getting squirrelly around the phrase "appropriate paperwork." Did he wait for appropriate paperwork/ official records before swearing in Walkinshaw?
FLORIDA POLL - Governor
🟥 Byron Donalds: 36%
🟦 David Jolly: 32%
🟨 Jason Pizzo: 4%
⬜ Not sure: 28%
——
🟥 Paul Renner: 34%
🟦 David Jolly: 33%
🟨 Jason Pizzo: 5%
⬜ Not sure: 28%
•
@JmsMadisonInst
| 9/16-18 | 1,200 RV
• R43/D32/I24 (recalled Trump 55-41)
https://jmipoll.com
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/1972603605237604459
JMI is a Republican pollster
Ignoring the GOP pollster part, I'm a little concerned that Pizzo seems to be taking support from us. Unless he's actually taking support from the GOP? Not sure.
Maybe he's taking support from Not Sure.
Don't sleep on Not Sure- he will be a great president in about 500 years.
I am not sure that he is taking more support from Dems; he was a conservative democrat and advocated anti-gay, anti-trans policies, made racially insensitive remarks against Black people and advocated arming students in colleges with ongoing protests before he left since he was going to be kicked out as minority leader. Ignore the national reporting that followed, local and state news knew the full story.
Ah, got it. Perhaps he’s taking GOP votes then.
Third party bids pretty much always wind up tanking in the end...I suspect he winds up at more like 1% when all is said and done.
What I notice more is that Jolly is only a few points behind.
Which is a very good sign, assuming the polling is accurate.
"Not sure", who are these people kidding?
There are always undecided people, and quite a few of them end up not voting.
No one's thinking about the governor race right now, and at least a large minority don't always vote for the same party.
Hakeem Jeffries
@RepJeffries
The Trump administration’s threat to deploy troops in Portland is unlawful.
Here’s a thought.
Focus on protecting the healthcare of the American people.
18.6M
Views
https://x.com/RepJeffries/status/1972068297723314372
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/dem-strategists-urged-party-trump-military-takeover-1235415635/
"Dems’ Messaging Nerds Urged Party Not to Talk About Trump’s Military Takeover
Are Trump’s military campaigns in blue cities a “distraction,” or what matters?"
We have an unelected factionalist pollster, known as David Shor, as the shadow Democratic leader. Another extremely viral and trolled tweet by Hakeem Jeffries. We need more leaders like Newsom, Bernie and Pritzker who can speak their minds without going through 100 rounds of polling sessions with David Shor.
Yet more reason to primary Jeffries. Can you imagine him doing this as Speaker?
I thought Jeffries should have been primaried months ago after he appeared on a podcast to talk about how he’s getting intense pressure from “far left” constituents to do more and complaining about this.
Like dude, in NY-08 you represent Brooklyn in a deep blue D+24 Congressional District. Hello?
I doubt any primary challenger could actually take him down but man... If someone could... He is absolutely the wrong leader we could have in this moment.
There has been an intense rivalry between NYC's DSA (which is "electoralist" and not as extreme compared to the national DSA) and Jeffries afaik. I think this is the cycle when they finally try to primary him out.
There is no doubt that Reid Hoffman's Mainstream Democrats PAC, AIPAC and DMFI will spend millions, but I think there will be significant anti-establishment energy this cycle.
Some sources:
Commentary: Hakeem Jeffries’ socialist problem
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries can’t defeat the Democratic Socialists of America, and they can’t defeat him, leading to an uncomfortable stasis.
https://www.cityandstateny.com/opinion/2023/10/commentary-hakeem-jeffries-socialist-problem/391233/
https://x.com/andersleehere/status/1893424464248918317
Like are we really going to go into a majority with this guy as leader? How effective is he gonna be at speaker when he needs focus groups to tell him what's popular and what isn't?
I disagreed with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid ideologically, but they were far more effective and forceful imo. Pelosi literally saved us from a 1980s style red landslide.
I don't think someone who might beat him would have to be a socialist.
I don't think someone who would dare to primary him would be anything other than a socialist.
The one question I would have is if he loses a primary, does that hurt our chances electorally in the general. Don't get me wrong, I want Jeffries to be better and don't like him as leader. But, I'm also thinking about what happens if we're going into the midterm elections and our leader has already lost. I think this would also be a risk even he wins a primary, but not by a large margin and is incredibly damaged. A lot of money that could (and should) be used on other races would end up being spent on Jeffries' primary.
If Jeffries is primaried and loses or just barely wins, I think House Dems would have to immediately replace him as minority leader. I don't think we can go into the 2026 midterms with a leader who either will not be present the following year not of his own choice, or will be there but is incredibly damaged
Good points although perhaps I am missing something here:
If say Jeffries is primaried out next year, does that mean he’s naturally forced out of office as House Minority Leader just from the primary? Wouldn’t he still stay on as leader until closer to the next Congress?
I don’t think an election of a new leader in the House would be ideal before the midterms.
I don't think he'd automatically be forced out of the position of minority leader if he loses the primary (although I'm not sure, maybe there are some obscure Democratic House Caucus bylaws). My question is more if Jeffries loses a primary (or wins but is badly wounded), how are our electoral chances impacted and how should House Dems respond?
House Dems could retain him as leader, but that would risk showing that they've continued to learn nothing about what our base wants, and we'd be fighting with a wounded leader or one who won't be there next year.
Alternatively, House Dems could replace him as leader. This would show a new level of responsiveness to our base voters, but ideological fissures would likely become more apparent in the House caucus (which we don't want leading up to an election) and the new leader would likely end up being another member of leadership and similar to Jeffries
I don't have an answer, but I think its an important thing to consider when people are talking about primarying Jeffries
Wouldn't the Whip be likely to step right in?
Whip or assisstant leader or another leadership member would likely replace Jeffries. Would they be better than Jeffries? I don't know
This isn't a 1:1 example as he wasn't leader yet, but he was second in command and the clear next in line to be leader. That said: Eric Cantor lost his 2014 primary and immediately resigned. Republicans did very, very well that election. I don't think they were hurt at all by Cantor's primary loss. If anything, the forces that caused an electorate that would vote him out in a primary were the same forces that caused a red wave electorate in the general.
If Jeffries lost his primary it would signal a lot of energy from the dem base. He would almost certainly immediately drop out of leadership and there's good chances he would also resign as well (depending on upcoming votes).
Clark would then step into the minority leadership position, at least for the short term. I don't know if she has the support for party leader outright, but I suspect in that kind of scenario she'd be fast tracked into the position. Realistically, if she received a temporary promotion it would quickly become permanent in January.
I liked Clark a lot before this year, but I've been disappointed in her lately. If the disappointment is a result of her toeing the line from Jeffries as leader, then she would presumably be a huge improvement when calling the shots herself. If it's an example of how she would be as leader, then we'd get an upgrade if only because of her reaction to Jeffries' defeat, but not as much as we'd hope to see.
Even if he doesn’t lose himself, if we get a bunch of new anti-establishment Democrats who would block him from the speakership, that’s a big L for him.
I doubt the possibility of that scenario. If he loses, I'm almost positive it would be at the ballot box. Otherwise, the only way I could see him losing the leadership of the Democratic Caucus is if, God forbid, they don't flip the House.
DC dems are far too reliant on first-order data and making conclusions from that. The over reliance on consultants is counterproductive and you'd think after so many bad elections for us that they'd take a hint.
This is the same thinking that leads them to rapidly abandon and shift messaging constantly. I have little doubt in the veracity of the data that voters are not immediately receptive to anti-authoritarian messaging. That ignores that repeating a message and making a case over time yields results. If we only rely on messaging that works immediately and right now, we'll forever be on the backfoot.
This is one things republicans are really, really good at. They pick a message and they stick to it. Often the messaging falls flat early on. It makes no sense, it's vapid conspiracy theories, or something else. They keep at it, though, and after months and months and months, it works.
We seriously need to learn this lesson.
I largely agree with you, but there are also fundamental things the party always stands for but people don't give them credit for, namely improving life for the non-rich and the general welfare writ large.
Absolutely.
Like michaelflutist I largely agree with you, though I'm not sure they want "no more deportations". I think they just want them in a less cruel manner. We went through this in Trump's last term, though it feels more muted now despite the cruelty having been turned up. I think they still want deportations, just not to be as harsh about it. Dems responded to the backlash against deportations in 2017-2020 by being pro immigration in the 2020 primary and that was used heavily against Harris in 2024.
Why do you think Gallup is very trustworthy? Aren't they known for unreliability?
Yeah, the constituency for totally free immigration, which is what no deportations at all would mean, is vanishingly small. I don't even favor that, as it makes sense to me to deport non-citizens who commit felonies with no extenuating circumstances or lied in a damnable way on their immigration application. But due process remains a fundamental right, even if this unconstitutional Supreme Court tries to get rid of it.
They do not want deportations of non-criminal aliens and support for "mass deportations have gone down below 40-45%. Americans want the border shut and mass deportations halted as per the polls.
They want the border shut or open? And which border? I'd have to imagine, the constituency for closing the border with Canada is tiny.
Southern border
Exactly, raising issue salience based on real time events.
David Shor is fine as a polling analyst but if it gets to the point where he’s being looked at as a strategist for Democrats like Hakeem Jeffries, then we have a problem.
Polls are supposed to give insight but they don’t always reveal the full picture. If I were to run a business, would I be able to get enough profits simply by looking at surveys?
"While Blue Rose Research isn’t a household name, the firm has enormous sway in the Democratic Party and with the liberal pundit class. Vox has described Blue Rose’s leader, Shor, as perhaps “the most influential data scientist in the Democratic Party.” After the election, New York Times liberal columnist and podcaster Ezra Klein invited Shor to explain why Trump won, characterizing him as “a very skilled interpreter of data” who “has gotten a lot of things right before other people did.”
Klein helpfully noted that Shor “works with campaigns and progressive groups, so he has a perspective from the inside,” without explaining the full significance of Shor and Blue Rose’s work to try to elect Kamala Harris, which failed spectacularly.
As the Times explained elsewhere, Blue Rose handled much of the ad testing for the Super PAC Future Forward as it worked to support Harris’ campaign. Blue Rose’s team was effectively embedded within Future Forward, which served as Harris’ primary outside spender and spent $560 million to boost the Democratic ticket in 2024. It’s worth noting that many of the ads run by Future Forward were completely unwatchable — overstuffed with tidbits about various policies, provided too quickly for a casual viewer to process and often presented by random narrators. "
Thanks for the information but the first paragraph already affirms why I believe David Shor makes a brilliant polling data scientist who is useful in helping Democrats uncover key insights about voters they need to know in order to succeed.
But aside from that but per my 2nd paragraph, again, Shor’s efforts don’t reveal the full picture other than what is explained in a general sense nationally. If Democrats themselves were to make visits to parts of the U.S. where they need to work on winning more voters, would they need Shor as a strategist to write up an exact script Democratic Candidates running for office to ready to each voter?
FYI, months ago in The Downballot I shared the video of Ezra Klein’s discussion with Shor. Very insightful but Democrats need to always look at the situation on the ground, not just the data.
Jean M Twenge wrote a lengthy article rebutting his claims. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/06/gen-z-red-wave/683212/
Wikipedia summary: Since the 2024 election, Shor has argued that Gen Z is the most conservative generation in decades, more conservative than even the Baby boomers, and that Democrats must therefore moderate their positions to win elections. Jean M. Twenge has criticized this argument as based on a single year's data, saying that most long-term and other available evidence contradicts it. She further argues that 2024 may been a "one-off event" as a result of Gen Z's anti-establishment attitudes and that they are more liberal than other generations on specific issues and less likely to identify as conservative.[34]
I think it's pretty clear from both polling over multiple cycles and election results both domestically and internationally that GenZ is the most conservative 'youth' cohort since the 1980s.
Dems wishcasting trends as "one-offs" has a pretty shit track record over the past decade+. I've engaged in it too.
They disapprove of Trump and his deportation policies more than any other group, show the strongest support for Democrats in generic ballot polls, and back Mikie Sherrill and Abigail Spanberger the most. This is the most liberal generation in decades, as confirmed by polling crosstabs.
The data I'm seeing disagrees with that. I haven't found a nice source that has all the data collected in a single chart, but we can pull multiple sources together.
Pew has an article up showing the democratic share of the youth vote in presidential elections from 1972-2012. Starting with 1980, it's: 44%, 40%, 47%, 43%, 53%, 48%, 54%, 66%, and 60%.
For comparison, the national dem performance by election is: 41%, 41%, 46%, 43%, 49%, 48%, 48%, 53%, and 51%.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2012/11/26/young-voters-supported-obama-less-but-may-have-mattered-more/
Up until 2004 (oldest millennials and youngest gen X) we were looking at a youth electorate that roughly matched the national vote. Starting then, they shifted to the left, with a big shift in 2008 (millennials). Then in 2012 that reversed to a midpoint between 2004 and 2008, with Obama getting 60% of the youth vote.
Switching pollsters, in 2016 that continued, with young voters going 55D-37R-8I. Notably, this source has the entire decline in dem vote share going to third party candidates: a drop of 5% in support led to a 5% increase in third party support, with no change for republicans. The oldest members of Gen Z would have first started voting in 2016. https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/election-night-2016-24-million-youth-voted-most-rejected-trump
Then in 2020, we see shockingly similar results to 2012-2016: 61% of young voters voted for Biden, 37% for Trump. The youth vote should be about 50-50 Gen Z and millennial here, by age (not necessarily number). https://circle.tufts.edu/2020-election-center
New pollster again: it's only in 2024 that we see a divergence from this, with young voters going 54D-42R. https://www.thecivicscenter.org/blog/youth-voting-in-2024-election
It really is only a single data point towards gen Z being a more conservative voting cohort. From their first two elections, 2016 and 2020, they voted very similarly to how millennials had voted previously. With only 2008 standing out as a once off high water mark in our favor. Millennials and Gen Z each absolutely crush the young voting behavior of Gen X and boomers from the past. Boomers and Gen X voted very similarly to how the whole nation voted, if occasionally slightly to the left generally not by much.
First off, not everything on Wikipedia should by default be treated as completely factual and at face value. For instance, many older gen X liberals like actress and comedian Janeane Garofalo have on Wikipedia been labeled as progressive. Anyone who is doing their research should know that Garofalo has been politically outspoken well before the 2010's and back in the 2000's most Democrats like her would refer to themselves as "liberals" back in that time. Al Franken was never looked at as "progressive" in the 2000's. He was looked at as "liberal." Same with Rachel Maddow who once was apart of Air America like Franken and Garofalo. Even now Wikipedia is shows Air America as a "progressive" radio show but it ended in 2010, well before progressive was a mainstream name.
That said, I'm not sold that Gen Z is more conservative than baby boomers. If we're looking at the 1950's and 1960's, when baby boomers grew up as kids and teenagers, society wise the attitude was that of a more homogenized culture. Civil rights awareness, rock and roll and the Vietnam War did shift things but even then, it's just a much different kind of culture as far as being conservative.
What was conservative in the 1950's and 1960's is just much different now. Even in the 80's, conservatives were considered more Reagan and Bush like but nowadays with Trump, MAGA's got a much distinctive kind of impact, especially with the tariffs and trade wars.
Here's the real breakdown I see of Gen Z:
-Gen Z has entered the workforce primarily with Trump and Biden in office. They've become more jaded, at times cynical but also technologically adept.
-A lot of influencers on YouTube and TikTok are increasingly in Gen Z. This means they are really caught up in this kind of fad but they are also becoming increasingly entrepreneurial early on in their adult years in ways previous generations were not.
-Groups of Gen Z conservatives or voters that have been influenced by the likes of the late Charlie Kirk still have intellectual curiosity but I have observed are more open minded than conservatives decades ago. That doesn't mean they are going to change their views overnight or even become liberal if Democrats try to win them over but Kirk's influence on Gen Z is much different than Rush Limbaugh's influence back in his time.
-Gen Z is drinking less compared to previous generations. The alcohol industry is going through a major shift and non-alcoholic lounges are popping up in cities like NYC and around Europe. With the medical profession increasingly raising the alarm about the impact of moderate or severe drinking, this is only accelerating the trends.
-Cost of living and income inequality are the biggest problem for Gen Z, something Zohran Mamdani has been laser focused as his main campaign issue. We see this with younger NYC voters who have been unanimously supporting Mamdani's mayoral candidacy.
Absolutely no sign Trump and the GOP are doing anything to solve this problem.
-Interracial relationships are becoming more common than they ever were.
-If Luigi Mangione's shooting of former UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson said anything about Gen Z's reaction, it's that they are angry at the healthcare system being seriously broken. Although Mangione is unfortunately radicalized and not being the best spokesperson for raising awareness on healthcare, that isn't stopping the problem from going away for Gen Z.
There is nothing wrong about the wikipedia summary because I have myself read the article.
The difference between "liberal" and "progressive" is often just semantic, although many progressives are really socialist/social democratic.
A lot of rank and file Congressional Democrats seem way more willing to acknowledge Trump as authoritarian or fascist compared to leadership. Look at AOC, Jayapal, Bernie, but also more mainstream Dems like Chris Murphy.
There seems to be a big disconnect between the caucus and its leadership.
Murphy has put in a lot of effort to position himself away from the mainstream. Newsom and Pritzker can be called mainstream though.
How so on Murphy?
GA-Gov:
https://apnews.com/article/ruwa-romman-democrat-georgia-governor-2026-palestinian-4ff6c758d238d24c57b1919fbf2ad054
State Rep. Ruwa Romman is in as a Dem. (Quick reminder -- please no discussion of the forbidden I-P topic. I know the article mentions it but it's a rule here.)
Big field. The more who enter probably increases Duncan's chances of making it to the runoff.
She has a tough uphill battle in a purple Southern state. If Duncan makes it to the runoff, hopefully she'll endorse him.
I hope Duncan doesn't make it through, he was a very conservative Republican through and through and made very conservative statements. It will be a field day for GOP oppo researchers if he wins. Also, running a former Republican in a very Black state is not a good idea.
I know some here think that it would be similar to Democrats switching parties pre-2000 but they easily forget that those Democrats were Southern conservative Democrats and Reagan Democrats not progressives.
But based on what he said in an interview, it was like a religious conversion for him, and converts are often the most zealous adherents of their new religion.
In November 2024, he was a Reagan Republican and so he converted between then and now and not between 2016-2024? He was openly discussing strategies to "take back" the Republican party if Trump lost.
Yes, he seems to have converted since then.
Not speaking to Duncan personally but I have seen this phenomenon in action. Bill Kristol is loudly calling for action against the GOP online and Joe Walsh literally just said he and Mamdani can coexist in the same party. Even on Bluesky people are impressed. Sometimes people do flip over.
That's quite amazing about Kristol and shows his commitment to democracy.
I’ll listen to him on Mondays on the Bulwark podcast (only day I can fit bulwark in) more out of fascination how someone moves politically over the years and find him thoughtful there after hating him and still resenting him on some level for his role in the Iraq war.
FWIW I always thought Walsh's Tea Party phase was more performative than substantive (he tried to be an actor at one point, and he had previously sought office twice as a moderate, pro-choice Republican—not far off from where he seems to stand ideologically now), but hey, I'll take it.
But we tried the proud liberal route in 2018 (and 2022) and didn't win. Why shouldn't try another approach?
Charlie Crist lost thrice, and Black people did not turn out to vote for a former Republican. I don't think anyone is advocating for the ardently liberal and election denying campaign of Stacey Abrams again.
Counter-argument: some conservative Dem nominees can end up either sabotaging our agenda (see: Manchin, Sinema, Gottheimer, Cuellar) or even party switching (Jeff Van Drew, some of the state legislators who flipped recently like Tricia Cotham.) At what point does moderation threaten our agenda?
Granted, this is a governors seat and not a legislature seat, and Romman has little chance of winning a general anyway, but something to consider. (I know little about the other candidates but Esteves sounds interesting.)
But this is an established position at least in strategist circles and news punditry that former Republicans depress Black turnout which we have a real-life example of, in Florida. Why do you think Duncan will be a better candidate in a state with 33% Black population? I think he will be as bad as Ruwa Romman.
I'm just talking specifically about GA. Stacey Abrams 1 was mainstream (not election-denying yet) and just didn't work. I agree black turnout would be a problem, but I don't think any of the other candidates has a shot of winning. Duncan at least has a compelling story to sell to mods in the burbs.
I don't think winning the Atlanta metro area alone will be enough. And midterms depend a lot on base turnout too. Jason Esteves?
Abrams came incredibly close to winning in 2018. Now we have eight full years of growth and positive trends in Atlanta Metro in our favor.
Why do you think none of the other candidates have a shot?
Amusingly enough, Stacey Abrams 1 was backed by progressives — including Nina Turner, if I am remembering correctly. She beat a centrist candidate in that primary.
A consideration - Georgia 2018 was politically different from Georgia 2025, at least as far as I remember. Abrams wasn’t great but it wasn’t only her fault.
He's the best of the current gunbernatorial hopefuls, which is otherwise an extremely weak bench.,
Don’t agree. Thurmond, at least, has shown statewide strength
Jason Esteves
Fighting over the forbidden issue on the left just helps Donald Trump.
Today’s viral New York Times article:
Democrats Are in Crisis.
Eat-the-Rich Populism
Is the Only Answer.
By Timothy Shenk
Mr. Shenk is a historian of modern American politics and has written extensively about the fight for control of the Democratic Party.
https://archive.ph/4miLl
It’s genuinely refreshing to see something that breaks from the usual fare in Times opinion columns and reporting — which often amounts to calling for the left to be purged or sidelined while wistfully longing for the return of a Bill Clinton–style figure to "save" the party.
"Eat-the-Rich", another banger from the people who gave you "defund the police", they're not really that great at politics IMO.
Is it the slogan you dislike, or the policies behind it?
The slogan may not be a wise idea, but the rich are obscenely wealthy in the US and are frankly far too powerful at the direct expense of poorer Americans. Is this a system you’d defend?
I'm not against taxing the rich but they really need to get out of their internet bubble and try to figure out how to appeal to the average person, "eat the rich" just goes right over peoples head.
There's a few reasons that comparison doesn't work.
The simplest reason: the vast majority of voters like police, and the vast majority of voters hate rich people.
Eat the rich is not a policy slogan, while defund the police is. Someone saying "eat the rich" is not, in fact, suggesting we resort to cannibalism for a limited share of the population. They are instead communicating a non-specific message of populist opposition to the wealthiest members of society. Someone saying "defund the police" is seeking to lower police budgets substantially.
Defund the police had its origins in 2020 after the George Floyd protests. Eat the rich dates back to the French Revolution and is a long used phrase used in opposition to economic inequality in society.
Random interesting fact: the slogan ACAB (another one I’m not fond of) originated with striking workers in the 1940s (and also as a prison tattoo).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACAB
These slogans can have interesting histories behind them, regardless of your stance on them.
Voters don't hate rich people. They just hate it when they get special favors, and think they can afford to pay more.
Moreover, loads of non-rich people are so stupid and brainwashed that they identify with zillionaires, saying "Cut their taxes! I want my taxes cut when I'm a millionaire, too!"
Of course i don't think AOC is going to attempt to eat Elon Musk but why waste your time on something stupid, "make them pay their fair share" is an oldie but is much more persuasive
Uh, the saying’s been around for a while. It’s a play on Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Propisal.
CA-GOV:
Former State Senate Pro Tem Toni Atkins is the 2nd Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate to drop out of the race. First was Lt. Governor Eleni Kounalakis. This is unfortunate as I thought Atkins would have made a great contribution to the gubernatorial primary race.
However, with her and Kounalakis being two of the most influential Democrats in state government now out of the race, this means that Katie Porter's task of becoming a nominee in the general election may be a bit easier now. Now it's Antonio Villaraigosa, Betty Yee, and Xavier Becerra who are the leading Democratic Candidates besides Porter.
Right now, I'm gravitating towards Porter although at this point I don't know what's going to happen with the rest of the candidates.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/29/toni-atkins-drops-out-california-governor-race-00585042
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toni Atkins, the former legislative leader who sought to leverage her Sacramento experience into a history-making bid for California governor, is ending her campaign.
In a letter to supporters on Monday, Atkins said she is leaving the race because she has “no viable path to victory.”
“With Donald Trump and his allies threatening everything we’ve worked for — gutting health care, cratering our economy, and stripping away fundamental rights and freedoms — we’ve got to make sure California has a Democratic governor leading the fight, and that means uniting as Democrats,” she wrote.
I don't think Atkins had a path unless some zillionaire decided to fund her run. No state legislator since Willie Brown has ever had statewide name rec.
My main reason for considering Atkins was that she had an interesting blue collar background and strong legislative experience working to get things done in the State Capitol. She also did quite well with fundraising early on in her gubernatorial campaign although this was before Katie Porter entered the race.
I had wanted more of a competitive and fierce gubernatorial primary race but with Trump being POTUS, that pretty much overshadows everything leading up to the primary.
That said, Porter already has legislative experience at the federal level so if anything, she's merely transitioning to the state government level. She's also only been out of office since January 5th of this year and moving from running for the Senate primary to leading California is quite leap that could help Porter significantly raise her profile.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is sounding out his members about a spending bill to reopen the government for seven to 10 days — if a shutdown is in fact triggered on Oct. 1, according to people familiar with the matter.
Why it matters: Schumer's Plan B anticipates a government shutdown. He and Senate Democrats are also starting to think about how to get out of one.
https://www.axios.com/2025/09/29/schumer-floats-seven-ten-day-cr-shutdown
NH Senate:
Pappas 49 Sununu 43
Pappas 52 Brown 37
Goodlander up 12 in NH 2
https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1887&context=survey_center_polls
everybody is getting into the act; now ESPN analyst Paul Finebaum considering AL-Sen run as a repub. https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/46424607/paul-finebaum-says-considering-running-us-senate...I always knew there was some reason I just didn't like this guy...now I know...he comes across as a smart-ass!!! BTW, if you don't bother to read the article, and I wouldn't blame you one bit, he is currently registered in NC but he know he would get his red ass whipped if he ran there.
Katie porter didn’t raise her hand at a recent debate when candidates were asked if they’d support single payer healthcare in California. Xavier Becerra on the other did raise his hand.
https://www.threads.com/@nationalprogressives/post/DPMb-rJkbH1?xmt=AQF0NXpf4TdoQQc8J7w319huGk6qt_cs7yYsuZUAOGVObg&slof=1
I'm not shocked by that. She's never really been a far left progressive realistically. She's a technocratic center-left populist. An uncommon combination.
You don't have to be "far left" except in the right-wing-skewed minds of Americans to support such a non-radical idea as single-payer.
Yes, but unfortunately that is the reality of this country. Support for single payer is effectively limited entirely to progressives who occupy an ideology distinctly to the left of everyone else.
We're not the default, even within our own party. It's changed over the past 10 years and I'm sure it will continue to change, but we're still in a spot where "far left" makes the most sense for our support of it.
It's a little broader than that, I think. Support for single payer (maybe more of it is framed as "universal healthcare") goes beyond just a liberal/left wing position.
I maintain that "far left" has to be radical and really means at least Leninist. Democratic socialists are leftists but not far left. But I use an international, ideology-based political spectrum in which fascists are far right, regardless of how many of them there are at any given point in a country's history.
We’ve also got Healthy San Francisco, a citywide universal healthcare system unique to the City of San Francisco that remains to be popular and is in no danger of being ended. It’s financed by a much different system and one where SF residents don’t have to be taxed for it to exist.
Is it financed through service charges at restaurants?
Yes, I believe that‘s the case for how the citywide system is mostly financed. This also means the funding at the core of the system is more voluntary (you don’t have to eat out and pay for Healthy SF as eating at home is an option).
But comparatively, it’s an easier sell with this healthcare financing system than what Bernie proposed with how his universal healthcare system would be financed. In his first presidential primary campaign back in 2016, Bernie there would be a small tax per taxpayer would be applied depending on the income. In the general election, this proposal would likely have been a tough sell for centrists, independents, moderates, etc. who prefer a more pragmatic kind of model.
Mind you, i am not necessarily endorsing the Healthy San Francisco system when I am comparing it vs Bernie’s UHC plan. However, if Democrats are able to find creative ways to finance a public healthcare system that improves on Medicare without a straight tax, then that makes it easier to sell change.
For the record, Tony Thurmond and Betty Yee raised their hands, too.
To be honest, I don't know if I believe Becerra. I fear he is a lot of talk like Gavin. But I'm glad he raised his hand confidently.
Dear Downballot guys - Please address the state of the PA Supreme Court races. I keep receiving hysterical emails about this. thanks