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.
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.
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
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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