Unless we have data to show us what previous elections would have looked like under the current boundaries, this is a pointless exercise. All House districts have been modified post-2020 redistricting, except the statewide seats, with different boundaries, numbering, and/or representatives. You are not comparing the same district if they have even slightly different boundaries.
I believe question one would be OK-02 for Boren? Then flipped in 2012. Cartwright probably for the 2010s question, iirc his seat didn’t change that much in PA redistricting. Excluding that it’s probably Cuellar’s seat now?
Fun kind of off topic test: University of Cambridge came up with a Misinformation Susceptibility Test, along with an alarming on topic article about how young people are unable to tell what is true and what is false because they get their news from social media (why did young voters shift right in 2024? Probably this).
Side note: I believe 2024 was the online election, Democrats need to vastly improve their online presence (and most older Dems have little to nothing, which is why very few people, those who attend town halls, watch cable news, actually hear our party’s messaging).
If you’re concerned about your privacy, select “I do not consent” and you can still find out how good you are. I got 81% on the test, so I can tell fact from fiction better than 81% of Americans. What’s your score?
Judging by the scores shared, I guess I have some catching up to do with the rest of you! ;) But I’m very pleased that Democratic supporters don’t get taken by misinformation even if some of it purports to how we feel. Being able to separate emotions from logic is a skill sadly missing in most of America. Some questions I honestly didn’t have a clue on because I mostly don’t follow the news of the day, so I just went “is it plausible this happened”? That’s probably where I messed up.
The trick is to figure less about the plausibility of the stories and more whether they're inflammatory or conspiratorial, at least for this particular quiz.
I got 20/20 but that was honestly more just a test of how liberal your viewpoint is, not necessarily of your ability to tell real from fake news -though they do go hand in hand.
Remember how I said Trump and Republicans will do everything in their power legal or not to make sure they hold power in 2026? This is only the beginning as Trump targets ActBlue:
Democrats plan $12m investment in rural organizing. The “largest long-term, volunteer-powered organizing initiative aligned with the Democratic Party.” The group is aiming to boost Democrats and recruit candidates for the 100,000 local elections across the country in 2025, while also building a foundation in rural areas that could boost turnout in the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential election.
David Jolly the anti-Trump, former independent, former Republican congressman, registered as a Democrat and is making moves to run for Florida Governor
Jolly as our nominee in FL would basically be keeping to tradition at this point, considering how long we kept Crist around and how he was our candidate for governor twice. I had forgotten but it was also Crist who beat Jolly in 2016 for the house seat.
Sorry, I meant my comment as tongue in cheek. Pointing at the ridiculousness of the FL dem party being stuck with former republicans as a decent chunk of our high profile campaigns.
Realistically I don't have enough hope in Florida for it to matter, but I'd hate to see Jolly be our candidate for anything.
I can see Jolly performing much better than perennial Crist but I'd prefer an authentic Democrat over him. In a Trump midterm with the Desantii Hope Florida fraud, anything could happen, I can definitely see the race being within 5 points though I am sceptical of actually winning. Trump's current unpopularity among Latinos would need to translate to the ballot. Byron Donalds also seems to be very lame in speaking skills. For what it's worth, Jolly has hired Beshear's campaign head Eric Myers.
In light of the challenges Democrats have in FL, I have no problem with Jolly positioning himself as a common sense moderate. It provides a good alternative to batshit crazy nonsense since Ron DeSantis has been Governor.
Crist’s a good man who had an honorable and respectable time as Governor. However, since 2010 he couldn’t adapt well in the polarized environment. Being a House Democrat has been the only success he’s gotten but he used it more as a springboard to being Governor again than actually looking to bring him any stature in the House.
I don’t think it will happen again because of the factors you’ve mentioned, but I don’t think it should be entirely dismissed as nothing to worry about either. Especially since every single expert in the housing market knows Spring is when home sales increase and reaching the lowest level not seen in 15 years during what’s supposed to be a very busy time of year is absolutely a major red flag on the US Economy that deserves noting.
I’d bet a lot that the next economic reports will show how much damage Trump’s tariffs have done to the country (and likely won’t show the entire extent either).
Oh, on the contrary, I am not being dismissive. Your points are valid.
I think though a recession in the future is not out of the ordinary. Economist Mark Zandi had recently given a 40% chance that the U.S. economy could enter a recession but he’s also looking at other factors such as jobs added per month.
The severity of any recession or slowdown is however mitigated by more evidence of economic growth. The housing market may be going through problems but on the flipside the commercial real estate market is picking up (at least with cities like San Francisco).
Stacey Abrams is reportedly mulling another run at the Georgia governor's seat next year, according to Greg Bluestein.
Abrams has done FANTASTIC work with organizing voter rights groups and GOTV efforts in Georgia to flip the two U.S. Senate seats (and flip Georgia in 2020 to Democrats). But if you lose twice in statewide races, there's only so much you can blame voter suppression on.
I'd add: even if the difference is solely on voter suppression, the back to back losses preclude her making another credible run. Voters give a penalty to candidates that have lost high profile elections. Easy example to my mind: Martha Coakley probably would have won the 2014 gubernatorial election if she hadn't lost the 2010 senate special.
Abrams will be tarred with her recent defeats if she runs for something else. It's a problem other candidates face. She put in good efforts and did a lot of great work helping us in Georgia, but I cannot see her as our strongest candidate for statewide office.
Selena Montgomery (Stacy's pen name as a romance author) is amazing as an advocate for voting rights and getting fellow Democrats elected, but, sometimes, those who are good at getting others elected can't get themselves elected.
My district (CA3, Sacramento area east fringe and much of the Nevada border, Kevin Kiley) had the smallest red shift of any district in the state. This isn't surprising, the area is the closest thing the state has to WOW: it consists mostly of outer suburbs and exurbs, mostly white, affluent, slightly old-skewing, ancestrally Republican.
Upon seeing the headline about Durbin: Thank God! Great bio, but his time has passed, not just or even mainly because of his age, but because his brand of Democratic politics is utterly spineless and feckless.
His time passed a long time ago too, I'd argue. By the time 2014 was here his spinelessness was proven to be incompatible with our contemporary politics. He stuck around for two terms too many.
Hopefully whoever we get next year is a big upgrade over him. I don't know much about any of the major potential candidates.
I'm undecided on the NYC mayoral election. There's also an open race for City Council District 2, being vacated by termed-out Carlina Rivera. There has been some aggressive canvassing: I never remember so many canvassers buzzing me to try to get into the building, and one actually knocked on the door. I don't let unexpected strangers into my apartment, and I'm happy to talk to political workers on the street and read literature but consider my apartment private. This morning, the very high-visibility Sarah Batchu herself called my cellphone while I was taking a shit getting ready for work. She was polite and positive, but I said "Don't call me. And anyway, I'm getting ready for work and don't have time to talk." She did get from me that I'm undecided. And I didn't tell her I was taking a shit during her call.
Assuming this Politico Article as accurate about Elissa Slotkin...then I think she earned herself a primary challenge in 2030. Being Woke has to be a litmus test for us-if you aren't woke, you aren't fit to hold office in my opinion.
I just read this article and while I think her actual statement is less inflamatory than the headline suggests (She's referring to the PERCEPTION of voters being woke as a derogatory statement). She just hasn't impressed me at all.
I think we should point out that the term “woke” has been washed out and morphed into craziness like removing statues of Abraham Lincoln and trying to insert social justice brainwashing into kids as opposed to actually being about what it’s original intended purpose is. Same goes for the Defund the Police narrative which has in cities like Oakland translated into less police officers on the street while crime is high.
I am in complete support of being woke as in raising awareness of social injustice, particularly as it relates to police brutality toward black peoples. However, the social justice advocates like AOC are not fighting back hard against the wrong-headed definition and instead letting it be defined. It’s like it’s 1988 all over again with Michael Dukakis.
Elissa Slotkin isn’t the problem. The problem is the Democratic Party and it’s failure to use “woke” properly and immediately with the right counter messaging.
As someone who had ethnic studies in high school in Berkeley back in 1994, when Bill Clinton was POTUS, what matters to me is that the woke agenda is productive and not about purity nonsense.
In the case of the Abraham Lincoln statues being removed, I am referring to the George Floyd situation back in 2020 where rioters ended up pushing to get these statues out without any discourse or government involvement. I get rioters were angry and wanted to take it out on the US and it’s history of racism. However, with this kind of agenda, it's more bent on disruption than it is about actually improving society and raising awareness.
Berkeley has gone through changes name wise in the several decades since I was in elementary school. My 4th and 5th grade years were at Columbus Elementary School, which ended up in the mid 90's being renamed to Rosa Parks Elementary School. In Downtown Berkeley, Shattuck Square was renamed as Kaia Bagai Way, named after a South Asian woman who was driven out of Berkeley because of her race. This agenda is fine and makes sense as it involves a more civil discourse and awareness to try to move the U.S. into being culturally aware and socially conscious.
I do think our general unwillingness to push back, to fight, to support ourselves on whatever shit labels we get is part of why those labels keep being used over and over and over again. Republicans wouldn't go through four year cycle on random insults if they didn't work.
A big part of why they work is that instead of defending ourselves too many democrats run away in fear of those labels. That empowers the attack, both in republicans' willingness to keep using it but also in the mind of voters: as a general rule humans run away from attacks that have truth to them. Thus, running away acts as a psychological flag saying "hey, this attack is not only true, but it's also a bad thing!"
The problem isn't people like AOC for sticking by those labels. The problem is people that run away at the first chance.
I don't know if that does or does not apply to Slotkin in this instance because I don't feel like reading the article and it's not uncommon for headlines to add bullshit for drama purposes.
Could you cite some Democrats in non deep, deep blue districts who "fight back" and win? Just because you "fight" doesn't mean you win. With no offense to you intended, I see virtually everyone saying Democrats just need to fight, without really acknowledging that fighting spirit is great, until you actually go up against a boxer, and they kill you in the ring.
Similarly no offense intended, I think you're disagreeing on seeing the word "fight" and not on the substance of my point, because you've had a disagreement on other topics where the word "fight" was used. Would you have responded the same if my initial sentence omitted the "to fight" part early on?
To provide an answer: I'd point heartily and easily to Harry Reid. Nevada was either a light red state or a swing state for much of his career. He didn't back down from the ACA in 2010. He was always and consistently a fighter. He was a political pugilist if there ever was one in our history and he came out on top even when the odds were solidly against him.
Circling back to the start: I think focusing on the word "fight" resulted in a misunderstanding of the core point of my comment. It wasn't about "fighting republicans" in the sense that I have articulated in the past. It's about not running away from any and every random smear attack they use. If republicans run around eg calling every democrat "woke", that attack becomes more potent if those democrats run away from that attack. Psychologically humans are primed to believe those attacks, and to believe the attacks are merited, when they see the target dodge that attack. People who do not react that way get a better result from third parties assessing the validity of the attack.
AOC and the rest of the commenters on this thread aren't exactly doing their homework on Senator Slotkin. In the Senate, she’s argued against giving tax cuts for the wealthy so that food stamps are cut. Also, Slotkin's only a few months into the Senate so criticizing her time so far with no real hard evidence is at this point semantics.
Point being, Slotkin hasn't shown any indication she's losing it like Fetterman is. She's in line with the majority of Democrats in the Senate who do not believe the GOP should get away with cutting essential programs and pandering to the super wealthy.
Regardless of anything else, primarying a Democrat for words we disagree with in a state Trump won twice even while Trump was on the ballot, is like trying to shoot ourself in the face, missing and shooting ourselves in the face again just to make sure we’re dead.
It’s very simple for Democrats: DON’T talk about this stuff in campaigns, but DO something about it when in power. That’s what Republicans keep doing over and over again. Talk about issues that’re popular with voters, that’s our economic policies. If we insist on being pro-woke and run on that in 2026 elections, we’re screwed plain and simple.
Just in case someone misunderstands what I believe, woke is a bogeyman word the right uses as derogatory that basically (I know the actual definition isn’t exactly this, but paraphrasing) means respect, enforcement and understanding the rights of non-white conservative Americans and I wholeheartedly support being woke in actions taken AFTER Democrats have power).
Do you have any idea how unpopular wokeness is outside of liberal bubbles?
Being anti-woke is possibly the only thing the entire Republican coalition agrees on (other than about Trump himself). I know people personally who agree with Dems on many issues, but vote Republican largely because they hate how woke the Democrats have gotten. They view wokeness as a form of censorship of them, much the same way we view book-banning and attempts to remove minorities, LGBT people, and climate change from school curriculums. Democrats need to stop being performatively woke and start doing things that actually improve people's lives.
Like it or not, those views you want to censor are held by a large majority of Americans. Good luck trying to win elections by telling most of the country that their views should be censored.
And, apparently unlike you, I actually believe that the First Amendment is a good thing.
NYT gonna NYT but these "strategists" really should retire already. It's their policies and strategies that have gotten us into this mess. People WANT New Deal politics, whether they understand it or not.
These are Clintonian shills. I am not some far left guy but we killed the centre-right party of Bill Clinton in 2016 whether these corporate shills like it or not. We haven't lost 5 out of the last 6 elections like 1992 anyways. This election was 90 percent about the economy, inflation and border not the culture or taxing the rich.
David Shor, these guys, James Carville, all of them want to turn 2028 in 1992 and prop up someone like Shapiro or Fetterman.
NYT is playing into their audience. Only 10 percent of democrats identify as conservative and most of them lurk in the NYT comments section with usernames like "Frustrated democrat" and "CentristDem" who keep ranting about woke and trans on all non Trump related posts. They say that both parties have gone insane and Democrats will win 2028 but not because they have something to offer.
Someone should ask these 4 messiah's about what would happen if Ross Perot didn't enter the race. Clinton was literally elected by leftists but governed like Republican lite.
The only poll I remember seeing showed that Perot voters were split 38-38 between Bush and Clinton. There's an argument that Perot scrambling the race by getting in and dropping out helped Clinton, but I have to think that Clinton likely would have won anyway even if Perot had never gotten in.
Jerry Brown was and is a bitter rival of Clinton and opposed him from the left in the primaries.
Raised Taxes, deregulated various sectors, media and banking too, and made deep cuts to welfare and child support programs (austerity "end welfare as we know it") only to see the surplus blown away in the Iraq war and birth rates fall.
Before the 1995 midterms, Clinton governed from the left. Hillary Clinton pushed a universal healthcare agenda that got to be unpopular thanks to Bill Kristol’s agenda. After this, yes, Clinton moved away from the left with welfare reform, Glass Steagall Repeal, etc.
Point being is that both Brown and Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and balanced the budget, resulting in a significant budget surplus. Neither Biden nor Obama were able to do this at any point in their presidency.
These were the guys due to whose lobbying we got a small and ineffective stimulus leading to the Team party and who got all elite bankers get away! Enough of them.
Fine. Then expect some "punching down" of minorities. Left populism is NEVER successful electorally in the USA unless at minimum "social norms" are upheld.
Obama is the most successful presidential candidate of this century and while he wasn't a Sanders or Warren style populist he definitely relied on populism to get in — it was a lot of his counter to the establishment of HRC in the 2008 primary. And it should go without saying that his campaign was the antithesis of "punching down of minorities."
A lot of things come down to how you package them. Obama was a left but not far left populist and while I wish there was more demand for far left populism I agree that it's not necessarily a winning pathway nationally. But more center-left populist options are definitely plausible and have lots of stuff that could work well. Things like the free school lunches, legalizing weed, raising the minimum wage, anti-corporate language (electorally I doubt it even matters what the policy is, just something that enables constantly stated hate on corporations)...
I'm personally in favor of messaging that attacks Big Business. Republicans constantly want to "run government like a business" but what business is that? ask people if they've ever been let go by an employer while they gave themselves raises and stock buybacks. Republicans love to give people a minority to hate so let's do the same with one deserving of it: Billionaires and their businesses.
Messaging faux pas imo, because if we say we’re anti big business, Republicans can easily turn that around to attack us. Corporations, no one likes, so voters would be far more receptive to that messaging and the GOP can’t attack us without sounding out of touch or admitting to the reality that the party is bought and paid for by billionaires and corporations.
Otherwise I can imagine any average small business owner going “wait, if I achieve success and make my business grow, you’re going to be against me?”. You’ve gotta create separation, no small business owner thinks they’re a corporation and they also don’t like the big guys kicking the little guys. Win-win.
Don’t mention being anti-business in anyway, that’s terrible even with stipulations, because voters will only hear “anti-business”. Keep it simple: We’re fighting against the corporations who make your life harder and more expensive. KISS, voters are not smart or tuned to politics.
Indeed. Lest we forget that "small businesses" go beyond just "mom and pop" changes. By legal definition, a "small business" has fewer than 500 employees. Technically the nonprofit that I work for qualifies as a "small business" under said definition.
It's especially easy to make as an attack line. Even people that are content to use services of major corporations generally dislike them. Everyone hates Amazon or Walmart even if they keep shopping at both. Major health insurance companies and banks might be less popular than the plague. I have never, in my entire life, heard anyone say something even remotely positive about Comcast.
A smart candidate can phrase this stuff better than I ever could but the needle can be threaded on attacking the businesses in a broadly populist way while also being on the side of most of the workers at them.
Wrong. He won because the War in Iraq and George W Bush were both grossly unpopular in 2008. And while he did run on "change", his candidacy was never as left wing as so called "progressives" claim it was. Lest we forget he ran to the RIGHT of Clinton on health care and immigration reform. He also opposed marriage equality, so yes he was indeed "punching down." He was for upholding "social norms."
BTW most Democrats are in fact running on those issues that you claim to be populist. Heck, here in Virginia Abigail Spanberger who is a center left to centrist Democrat is running for Governor on raising the minimum wage to at least $15 per hour. Not to mention very strong union support, which says a lot in this so called "right to work" state.
It's like you didn't really read my comment at all.
I specifically pointed out that Obama was not a far left populist, pointing towards the goal being center-left. Saying I must be wrong because he wasn't as far left as some people say is completely missing the point.
Likewise, on policies I started off the whole thing by saying "A lot of things come down to how you package them" — that means it isn't just down to the policies but how it's pitched to voters.
It also depends on timing. FDR runs for President in 1928 using the same campaign he ran in 1932, he gets crushed electorally. It took the 1929 Wall Street Crash for the majority of Americans to be willing to go for basic federal social programs. Presuming Orange Slob is grossly unpopular in 2028 and/or we are in at minimum a recession, we have a MAJOR edge that year. Presuming of course that our nominee is not too far ahead of public option.
Might be one of the few cases where we could benefit from a republican senator leaving to be replaced by another republican. Even in a party as consistently dumb, uncooperative, and just all around awful as republicans are, Tuberville consistently is one of the worst.
Granted that will be horrible for the people of Alabama for governance.
Can he wait till the last second to take the governorship and appoint someone? That feels like something Tuberville would try to do and maybe fuck it up somehow along the way. Edit: Nevermind his seat is up in 26 I forgot.
Predictable, was shitting a lot on Florida Dems on social media recently and also criticized Democrats for the resistance that we are seeing rn instead of compromising.
Trivia question inspired by yesterday's data release:
What's the Trumpiest (2024 margin) district to have survived the 2010 wave?
What's the Trumpiest district to be held by the Dems for the whole 2010 decade?
Some districts changed substantially in redistricting, so I'm not considering any of the PA districts or IL-12.
Unless we have data to show us what previous elections would have looked like under the current boundaries, this is a pointless exercise. All House districts have been modified post-2020 redistricting, except the statewide seats, with different boundaries, numbering, and/or representatives. You are not comparing the same district if they have even slightly different boundaries.
While that's technically true, the second place district in both cases is substantially less Trumpy.
I believe question one would be OK-02 for Boren? Then flipped in 2012. Cartwright probably for the 2010s question, iirc his seat didn’t change that much in PA redistricting. Excluding that it’s probably Cuellar’s seat now?
Correct for OK-02. There's a far redder seat for the second question.
Oh I guess MN-07 didn’t flip until 2020 which is not part of the 2010s I suppose
Yep!
#2 is an easy one: MN-07.
Fun kind of off topic test: University of Cambridge came up with a Misinformation Susceptibility Test, along with an alarming on topic article about how young people are unable to tell what is true and what is false because they get their news from social media (why did young voters shift right in 2024? Probably this).
Side note: I believe 2024 was the online election, Democrats need to vastly improve their online presence (and most older Dems have little to nothing, which is why very few people, those who attend town halls, watch cable news, actually hear our party’s messaging).
If you’re concerned about your privacy, select “I do not consent” and you can still find out how good you are. I got 81% on the test, so I can tell fact from fiction better than 81% of Americans. What’s your score?
https://archive.ph/Kw6sw
https://yourmist.streamlit.app/
I got a 20/20 which it said was better than 96% of Americans.
I'm curious how to the data breaks down by various demographics.
19/20, with 100% on fake news detection.
Thanks for the link. I also got 20/20.
I also got 20/20.
Judging by the scores shared, I guess I have some catching up to do with the rest of you! ;) But I’m very pleased that Democratic supporters don’t get taken by misinformation even if some of it purports to how we feel. Being able to separate emotions from logic is a skill sadly missing in most of America. Some questions I honestly didn’t have a clue on because I mostly don’t follow the news of the day, so I just went “is it plausible this happened”? That’s probably where I messed up.
The trick is to figure less about the plausibility of the stories and more whether they're inflammatory or conspiratorial, at least for this particular quiz.
20/20, but I had to think about a few of them. A lot of the plausibility has to do with the phrasing.
I got 20/20 but that was honestly more just a test of how liberal your viewpoint is, not necessarily of your ability to tell real from fake news -though they do go hand in hand.
A lot of news today:
Remember how I said Trump and Republicans will do everything in their power legal or not to make sure they hold power in 2026? This is only the beginning as Trump targets ActBlue:
https://archive.ph/3fQkv
The 2008 economic crash was precipitated by a massive drop in homes sales. We just hit that mark again.
https://archive.ph/X8eHP
Democrats plan $12m investment in rural organizing. The “largest long-term, volunteer-powered organizing initiative aligned with the Democratic Party.” The group is aiming to boost Democrats and recruit candidates for the 100,000 local elections across the country in 2025, while also building a foundation in rural areas that could boost turnout in the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential election.
https://archive.ph/9xTFN
David Jolly the anti-Trump, former independent, former Republican congressman, registered as a Democrat and is making moves to run for Florida Governor
https://archive.ph/HUTcc
Jolly as our nominee in FL would basically be keeping to tradition at this point, considering how long we kept Crist around and how he was our candidate for governor twice. I had forgotten but it was also Crist who beat Jolly in 2016 for the house seat.
Problem is, David Jolly only served roughly three years in the House and hasn’t held elected office since 2017.
If Democrats want a real alternative to Charlie Crist as the gubernatorial nominee,
I don’t see Jolly being the solution.
Sorry, I meant my comment as tongue in cheek. Pointing at the ridiculousness of the FL dem party being stuck with former republicans as a decent chunk of our high profile campaigns.
Realistically I don't have enough hope in Florida for it to matter, but I'd hate to see Jolly be our candidate for anything.
I can see Jolly performing much better than perennial Crist but I'd prefer an authentic Democrat over him. In a Trump midterm with the Desantii Hope Florida fraud, anything could happen, I can definitely see the race being within 5 points though I am sceptical of actually winning. Trump's current unpopularity among Latinos would need to translate to the ballot. Byron Donalds also seems to be very lame in speaking skills. For what it's worth, Jolly has hired Beshear's campaign head Eric Myers.
What is Jolly’s appeal though statewide?
More like he is not as unpopular as Crist and fairly well known. Maybe he can position himself as a common sense moderate.
In light of the challenges Democrats have in FL, I have no problem with Jolly positioning himself as a common sense moderate. It provides a good alternative to batshit crazy nonsense since Ron DeSantis has been Governor.
Crist’s a good man who had an honorable and respectable time as Governor. However, since 2010 he couldn’t adapt well in the polarized environment. Being a House Democrat has been the only success he’s gotten but he used it more as a springboard to being Governor again than actually looking to bring him any stature in the House.
Ok. I was mainly throwing out the question on Jolly’s viability as a candidate who could fire up the base.
If Jolly has to run for something, I'd rather he run against Anna Paulina Luna.
Yeah he’d actually have a chance there. Statewide he likely doesn’t.
Even with the economic information you’re providing, we aren’t in another 2008 situation. Business activity still is more robust compared to 2008.
2008 had progressive contraction before the financial crisis. That’s not the situation we’re in today.
I don’t think it will happen again because of the factors you’ve mentioned, but I don’t think it should be entirely dismissed as nothing to worry about either. Especially since every single expert in the housing market knows Spring is when home sales increase and reaching the lowest level not seen in 15 years during what’s supposed to be a very busy time of year is absolutely a major red flag on the US Economy that deserves noting.
I’d bet a lot that the next economic reports will show how much damage Trump’s tariffs have done to the country (and likely won’t show the entire extent either).
Oh, on the contrary, I am not being dismissive. Your points are valid.
I think though a recession in the future is not out of the ordinary. Economist Mark Zandi had recently given a 40% chance that the U.S. economy could enter a recession but he’s also looking at other factors such as jobs added per month.
The severity of any recession or slowdown is however mitigated by more evidence of economic growth. The housing market may be going through problems but on the flipside the commercial real estate market is picking up (at least with cities like San Francisco).
I’m not sure what the executive order hopes to accomplish. It’s already illegal for foreigners to contribute to campaigns.
Flanagan endorsed by state senators and representatives from Angie Craig’s district.
https://x.com/peggyflanagan/status/1915422323462557808?s=46
Good, we don't need squishy moderates from a blue state.
Does anyone know if the fifty shades of blue discord is still a thing? I left on election night and kinda regretting it.
As a fellow user of FSOB Discord, it is still very much a thing.
Do you have an invite link by chance?
A U.S. judge Thursday blocked federal agencies from carrying out key parts of President Donald Trump’s sweeping executive order on elections.
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/judge-halts-trumps-anti-voting-executive-order/
Trump thinks he can throw out executive orders like he’s somehow thinking like a CEO who sends out memos.
Apparently there’s an executive order for everything! /s
Stacey Abrams is reportedly mulling another run at the Georgia governor's seat next year, according to Greg Bluestein.
Abrams has done FANTASTIC work with organizing voter rights groups and GOTV efforts in Georgia to flip the two U.S. Senate seats (and flip Georgia in 2020 to Democrats). But if you lose twice in statewide races, there's only so much you can blame voter suppression on.
You summed it up nicely. It's time to move on. She belongs to the Star Trek universe now.
I'd add: even if the difference is solely on voter suppression, the back to back losses preclude her making another credible run. Voters give a penalty to candidates that have lost high profile elections. Easy example to my mind: Martha Coakley probably would have won the 2014 gubernatorial election if she hadn't lost the 2010 senate special.
Abrams will be tarred with her recent defeats if she runs for something else. It's a problem other candidates face. She put in good efforts and did a lot of great work helping us in Georgia, but I cannot see her as our strongest candidate for statewide office.
I think there were quite a few Kemp-Warnock votes in 2022.
https://georgiarecorder.com/2025/01/23/bookman-stacey-abramss-political-career-bookended-by-bad-timing/
A really good piece on Abrams, why she lost and why she shouldn't run again.
Selena Montgomery (Stacy's pen name as a romance author) is amazing as an advocate for voting rights and getting fellow Democrats elected, but, sometimes, those who are good at getting others elected can't get themselves elected.
Ugggggggggggh.
Nuff said!
My district (CA3, Sacramento area east fringe and much of the Nevada border, Kevin Kiley) had the smallest red shift of any district in the state. This isn't surprising, the area is the closest thing the state has to WOW: it consists mostly of outer suburbs and exurbs, mostly white, affluent, slightly old-skewing, ancestrally Republican.
Upon seeing the headline about Durbin: Thank God! Great bio, but his time has passed, not just or even mainly because of his age, but because his brand of Democratic politics is utterly spineless and feckless.
His time passed a long time ago too, I'd argue. By the time 2014 was here his spinelessness was proven to be incompatible with our contemporary politics. He stuck around for two terms too many.
Hopefully whoever we get next year is a big upgrade over him. I don't know much about any of the major potential candidates.
I couldn't agree more.
I'm undecided on the NYC mayoral election. There's also an open race for City Council District 2, being vacated by termed-out Carlina Rivera. There has been some aggressive canvassing: I never remember so many canvassers buzzing me to try to get into the building, and one actually knocked on the door. I don't let unexpected strangers into my apartment, and I'm happy to talk to political workers on the street and read literature but consider my apartment private. This morning, the very high-visibility Sarah Batchu herself called my cellphone while I was taking a shit getting ready for work. She was polite and positive, but I said "Don't call me. And anyway, I'm getting ready for work and don't have time to talk." She did get from me that I'm undecided. And I didn't tell her I was taking a shit during her call.
https://www.gzeromedia.com/news/watching/democratic-outsider-moonshot-texas-senate
57 yro former Nasa astronaut Terry Virts is launching a run for Texas Senate 2026.
Weisz (the author of the piece) is delusional if he thinks Thom Tillis will coast to re-election next year. He and Susan Collins are very vulnerable.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/24/slotkin-has-a-war-plan-to-beat-trump-dont-be-weak-and-woke-00308176
Assuming this Politico Article as accurate about Elissa Slotkin...then I think she earned herself a primary challenge in 2030. Being Woke has to be a litmus test for us-if you aren't woke, you aren't fit to hold office in my opinion.
I just read this article and while I think her actual statement is less inflamatory than the headline suggests (She's referring to the PERCEPTION of voters being woke as a derogatory statement). She just hasn't impressed me at all.
She is just an establishment liberal not some Fetterman, Emanuel or Maher.
Please we don't need these purity tests especially in a purple state.
She's not Fetterman neither is she Sinema.
What’s wrong with what she said?
She implied being woke is bad-the exact opposite is the reality-no matter how hard Republicans make us believe being woke is bad.
I think we should point out that the term “woke” has been washed out and morphed into craziness like removing statues of Abraham Lincoln and trying to insert social justice brainwashing into kids as opposed to actually being about what it’s original intended purpose is. Same goes for the Defund the Police narrative which has in cities like Oakland translated into less police officers on the street while crime is high.
I am in complete support of being woke as in raising awareness of social injustice, particularly as it relates to police brutality toward black peoples. However, the social justice advocates like AOC are not fighting back hard against the wrong-headed definition and instead letting it be defined. It’s like it’s 1988 all over again with Michael Dukakis.
Elissa Slotkin isn’t the problem. The problem is the Democratic Party and it’s failure to use “woke” properly and immediately with the right counter messaging.
None of that is craziness in my opinion.
As someone who had ethnic studies in high school in Berkeley back in 1994, when Bill Clinton was POTUS, what matters to me is that the woke agenda is productive and not about purity nonsense.
In the case of the Abraham Lincoln statues being removed, I am referring to the George Floyd situation back in 2020 where rioters ended up pushing to get these statues out without any discourse or government involvement. I get rioters were angry and wanted to take it out on the US and it’s history of racism. However, with this kind of agenda, it's more bent on disruption than it is about actually improving society and raising awareness.
Berkeley has gone through changes name wise in the several decades since I was in elementary school. My 4th and 5th grade years were at Columbus Elementary School, which ended up in the mid 90's being renamed to Rosa Parks Elementary School. In Downtown Berkeley, Shattuck Square was renamed as Kaia Bagai Way, named after a South Asian woman who was driven out of Berkeley because of her race. This agenda is fine and makes sense as it involves a more civil discourse and awareness to try to move the U.S. into being culturally aware and socially conscious.
Point being, make progress, not riot or troll.
https://www.berkeleyside.org/2020/03/12/opinion-berkeley-might-name-a-street-after-kala-bagai-this-is-her-story
I do think our general unwillingness to push back, to fight, to support ourselves on whatever shit labels we get is part of why those labels keep being used over and over and over again. Republicans wouldn't go through four year cycle on random insults if they didn't work.
A big part of why they work is that instead of defending ourselves too many democrats run away in fear of those labels. That empowers the attack, both in republicans' willingness to keep using it but also in the mind of voters: as a general rule humans run away from attacks that have truth to them. Thus, running away acts as a psychological flag saying "hey, this attack is not only true, but it's also a bad thing!"
The problem isn't people like AOC for sticking by those labels. The problem is people that run away at the first chance.
I don't know if that does or does not apply to Slotkin in this instance because I don't feel like reading the article and it's not uncommon for headlines to add bullshit for drama purposes.
Could you cite some Democrats in non deep, deep blue districts who "fight back" and win? Just because you "fight" doesn't mean you win. With no offense to you intended, I see virtually everyone saying Democrats just need to fight, without really acknowledging that fighting spirit is great, until you actually go up against a boxer, and they kill you in the ring.
Similarly no offense intended, I think you're disagreeing on seeing the word "fight" and not on the substance of my point, because you've had a disagreement on other topics where the word "fight" was used. Would you have responded the same if my initial sentence omitted the "to fight" part early on?
To provide an answer: I'd point heartily and easily to Harry Reid. Nevada was either a light red state or a swing state for much of his career. He didn't back down from the ACA in 2010. He was always and consistently a fighter. He was a political pugilist if there ever was one in our history and he came out on top even when the odds were solidly against him.
Circling back to the start: I think focusing on the word "fight" resulted in a misunderstanding of the core point of my comment. It wasn't about "fighting republicans" in the sense that I have articulated in the past. It's about not running away from any and every random smear attack they use. If republicans run around eg calling every democrat "woke", that attack becomes more potent if those democrats run away from that attack. Psychologically humans are primed to believe those attacks, and to believe the attacks are merited, when they see the target dodge that attack. People who do not react that way get a better result from third parties assessing the validity of the attack.
Slotkin tells me Democrats should stop using the term "oligarchy"—no one knows what it means.
The average voter absolutely doesn't know what it means.
You can attack the excesses of the super, powerful and corrupted wealthy without having to use "oligarchy."
"We don't want the super wealthy to make it harder for the little guy to get ahead."
Simple, right?
https://bsky.app/profile/thetnholler.bsky.social/post/3lnmbixdvsk2v
AOC and the rest of the commenters on this thread aren't exactly doing their homework on Senator Slotkin. In the Senate, she’s argued against giving tax cuts for the wealthy so that food stamps are cut. Also, Slotkin's only a few months into the Senate so criticizing her time so far with no real hard evidence is at this point semantics.
Point being, Slotkin hasn't shown any indication she's losing it like Fetterman is. She's in line with the majority of Democrats in the Senate who do not believe the GOP should get away with cutting essential programs and pandering to the super wealthy.
https://www.slotkin.senate.gov/press-releases/slotkin-colleagues-warn-about-raising-food-costs-to-give-tax-breaks-to-billionaires/
File this under facts that sound stupid at first but are true: Kamala Harris got more votes than Elissa Slotkin in Michigan last year.
That's not a shock-it's relatively normal for Presidential candidates to get more total votes than Senate candidates.
For what it’s worth, Kamala Harris also didn’t face Mike Rogers or John James in the presidential election.
Regardless of anything else, primarying a Democrat for words we disagree with in a state Trump won twice even while Trump was on the ballot, is like trying to shoot ourself in the face, missing and shooting ourselves in the face again just to make sure we’re dead.
It’s very simple for Democrats: DON’T talk about this stuff in campaigns, but DO something about it when in power. That’s what Republicans keep doing over and over again. Talk about issues that’re popular with voters, that’s our economic policies. If we insist on being pro-woke and run on that in 2026 elections, we’re screwed plain and simple.
Just in case someone misunderstands what I believe, woke is a bogeyman word the right uses as derogatory that basically (I know the actual definition isn’t exactly this, but paraphrasing) means respect, enforcement and understanding the rights of non-white conservative Americans and I wholeheartedly support being woke in actions taken AFTER Democrats have power).
Democrats really have to stop engaging with Republicans on their rhetorical battleground.
Slotkin’s no bargain. Stevens will be worse. Both are a step down from their predecessors.
WTF?
Do you have any idea how unpopular wokeness is outside of liberal bubbles?
Being anti-woke is possibly the only thing the entire Republican coalition agrees on (other than about Trump himself). I know people personally who agree with Dems on many issues, but vote Republican largely because they hate how woke the Democrats have gotten. They view wokeness as a form of censorship of them, much the same way we view book-banning and attempts to remove minorities, LGBT people, and climate change from school curriculums. Democrats need to stop being performatively woke and start doing things that actually improve people's lives.
Have you considered that the views Republicans hold SHOULD be censored?
Seriously, most functioning democracies ban hate speech.
Like it or not, those views you want to censor are held by a large majority of Americans. Good luck trying to win elections by telling most of the country that their views should be censored.
And, apparently unlike you, I actually believe that the First Amendment is a good thing.
NYT gonna NYT but these "strategists" really should retire already. It's their policies and strategies that have gotten us into this mess. People WANT New Deal politics, whether they understand it or not.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/24/opinion/democratic-party-future.html
These are Clintonian shills. I am not some far left guy but we killed the centre-right party of Bill Clinton in 2016 whether these corporate shills like it or not. We haven't lost 5 out of the last 6 elections like 1992 anyways. This election was 90 percent about the economy, inflation and border not the culture or taxing the rich.
David Shor, these guys, James Carville, all of them want to turn 2028 in 1992 and prop up someone like Shapiro or Fetterman.
NYT is playing into their audience. Only 10 percent of democrats identify as conservative and most of them lurk in the NYT comments section with usernames like "Frustrated democrat" and "CentristDem" who keep ranting about woke and trans on all non Trump related posts. They say that both parties have gone insane and Democrats will win 2028 but not because they have something to offer.
Someone should ask these 4 messiah's about what would happen if Ross Perot didn't enter the race. Clinton was literally elected by leftists but governed like Republican lite.
Someone should ask them who had solid control of congress in 1992 and who had control in 1995.
Clinton would have lost to Bush.
Your basis for that claim?
Hogwash, Clinton had that in the bag with or without Perot
If Perot hadn't run, Clinton would have won a majority. That's what would have happened. Bush would not have won.
Yeah, I'm tired of the "Perot elected Clinton" canard. Strong third-party candidacies are a sign of dissatisfaction *with the incumbent!*
I think Clinton would have won narrowly.
You could argue Perot cost Bush a Montana or a Colorado but that's about it, Clinton would have won easily.
Georgia & Nevada maybe too but yeah don't see Bush digging all the way out.
The only poll I remember seeing showed that Perot voters were split 38-38 between Bush and Clinton. There's an argument that Perot scrambling the race by getting in and dropping out helped Clinton, but I have to think that Clinton likely would have won anyway even if Perot had never gotten in.
Correct. Perot voters would've split roughly evenly between Clinton and Bush, meaning that Clinton would still have won easily.
I don't agree that Clinton governed Republican lite.
Clinton as POTUS seemed to me to be similar to how Jerry Brown governed California in the eight years before Newsom took office.
And both Clinton and Brown raised taxes on the super wealthy.
Jerry Brown was and is a bitter rival of Clinton and opposed him from the left in the primaries.
Raised Taxes, deregulated various sectors, media and banking too, and made deep cuts to welfare and child support programs (austerity "end welfare as we know it") only to see the surplus blown away in the Iraq war and birth rates fall.
Before the 1995 midterms, Clinton governed from the left. Hillary Clinton pushed a universal healthcare agenda that got to be unpopular thanks to Bill Kristol’s agenda. After this, yes, Clinton moved away from the left with welfare reform, Glass Steagall Repeal, etc.
Point being is that both Brown and Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and balanced the budget, resulting in a significant budget surplus. Neither Biden nor Obama were able to do this at any point in their presidency.
“The era of ‘big government’ is over.”
Oh Christ. I don’t even want read it. The folks who brought you a Republican congress and Trump say, let’s do it again.
These were the guys due to whose lobbying we got a small and ineffective stimulus leading to the Team party and who got all elite bankers get away! Enough of them.
Fine. Then expect some "punching down" of minorities. Left populism is NEVER successful electorally in the USA unless at minimum "social norms" are upheld.
Obama is the most successful presidential candidate of this century and while he wasn't a Sanders or Warren style populist he definitely relied on populism to get in — it was a lot of his counter to the establishment of HRC in the 2008 primary. And it should go without saying that his campaign was the antithesis of "punching down of minorities."
A lot of things come down to how you package them. Obama was a left but not far left populist and while I wish there was more demand for far left populism I agree that it's not necessarily a winning pathway nationally. But more center-left populist options are definitely plausible and have lots of stuff that could work well. Things like the free school lunches, legalizing weed, raising the minimum wage, anti-corporate language (electorally I doubt it even matters what the policy is, just something that enables constantly stated hate on corporations)...
I'm personally in favor of messaging that attacks Big Business. Republicans constantly want to "run government like a business" but what business is that? ask people if they've ever been let go by an employer while they gave themselves raises and stock buybacks. Republicans love to give people a minority to hate so let's do the same with one deserving of it: Billionaires and their businesses.
Messaging faux pas imo, because if we say we’re anti big business, Republicans can easily turn that around to attack us. Corporations, no one likes, so voters would be far more receptive to that messaging and the GOP can’t attack us without sounding out of touch or admitting to the reality that the party is bought and paid for by billionaires and corporations.
Otherwise I can imagine any average small business owner going “wait, if I achieve success and make my business grow, you’re going to be against me?”. You’ve gotta create separation, no small business owner thinks they’re a corporation and they also don’t like the big guys kicking the little guys. Win-win.
Don’t mention being anti-business in anyway, that’s terrible even with stipulations, because voters will only hear “anti-business”. Keep it simple: We’re fighting against the corporations who make your life harder and more expensive. KISS, voters are not smart or tuned to politics.
Indeed. Lest we forget that "small businesses" go beyond just "mom and pop" changes. By legal definition, a "small business" has fewer than 500 employees. Technically the nonprofit that I work for qualifies as a "small business" under said definition.
It's especially easy to make as an attack line. Even people that are content to use services of major corporations generally dislike them. Everyone hates Amazon or Walmart even if they keep shopping at both. Major health insurance companies and banks might be less popular than the plague. I have never, in my entire life, heard anyone say something even remotely positive about Comcast.
A smart candidate can phrase this stuff better than I ever could but the needle can be threaded on attacking the businesses in a broadly populist way while also being on the side of most of the workers at them.
Wrong. He won because the War in Iraq and George W Bush were both grossly unpopular in 2008. And while he did run on "change", his candidacy was never as left wing as so called "progressives" claim it was. Lest we forget he ran to the RIGHT of Clinton on health care and immigration reform. He also opposed marriage equality, so yes he was indeed "punching down." He was for upholding "social norms."
BTW most Democrats are in fact running on those issues that you claim to be populist. Heck, here in Virginia Abigail Spanberger who is a center left to centrist Democrat is running for Governor on raising the minimum wage to at least $15 per hour. Not to mention very strong union support, which says a lot in this so called "right to work" state.
It's like you didn't really read my comment at all.
I specifically pointed out that Obama was not a far left populist, pointing towards the goal being center-left. Saying I must be wrong because he wasn't as far left as some people say is completely missing the point.
Likewise, on policies I started off the whole thing by saying "A lot of things come down to how you package them" — that means it isn't just down to the policies but how it's pitched to voters.
It also depends on timing. FDR runs for President in 1928 using the same campaign he ran in 1932, he gets crushed electorally. It took the 1929 Wall Street Crash for the majority of Americans to be willing to go for basic federal social programs. Presuming Orange Slob is grossly unpopular in 2028 and/or we are in at minimum a recession, we have a MAJOR edge that year. Presuming of course that our nominee is not too far ahead of public option.
The NYT is trash now. I don't give them the time of day. They love getting hate-clicks from the left. Their thumb is too blatantly on the scale.
There's a reason there's so much ammo for the NYT Pitch Bot to run with... https://bsky.app/profile/nytpitchbot.bsky.social
Meanwhile in the Heart of Dixie: https://www.wsfa.com/2025/04/24/us-sen-tommy-tuberville-preparing-announce-run-alabama-governor/
Alabama will almost certainly crown him the new governor next year. It is deep red with no early voting.
Perfect candidate for Alabama, they want em nice and dumb.
Might be one of the few cases where we could benefit from a republican senator leaving to be replaced by another republican. Even in a party as consistently dumb, uncooperative, and just all around awful as republicans are, Tuberville consistently is one of the worst.
Granted that will be horrible for the people of Alabama for governance.
Can he wait till the last second to take the governorship and appoint someone? That feels like something Tuberville would try to do and maybe fuck it up somehow along the way. Edit: Nevermind his seat is up in 26 I forgot.
Florida Senate Democratic Leader Jason Pizzo quits FDP resigns leadership post and goes NPA. Says the “Democratic Party in Florida is dead”.
That's a terrible blow.
That’s at least 3 Democrats who’ve left the party this year.
Florida Democrats
In Florida, you mean?
Yes
Predictable, was shitting a lot on Florida Dems on social media recently and also criticized Democrats for the resistance that we are seeing rn instead of compromising.